Awsome, ironically now I know how to upload the saved games the game has saved over the one I would have uploaded! BUT if i see it again i will for sure upload it (sorry)
Tanks "falling back"
- Thread starter faxx2
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Check if they had their tracks broken, engine destroyed, or any other mobility-kill effect on them.
As a rather nice anecdote, I once had a StuG get it's engine destroyed, but it was facing in the direction of the enemy and despite not being able to turn, destroyed just about every that came down that road. It sat there for 10 minutes soaking up fire from M1 76mm AT guns, Command Stuarts, and M8s that were out of it's arc of fire until the crew finally bailed after taking an airstrike.
They did not, because after about 5 minutes of constant artillery and rocket planes they finally started moving after one blew up. Then the rest surrendered.
Please, try to be realistic!
The feature didnt work out in your previous games and it will not work out in the current game.
Actually it didnt work out in any game ever in that timeline or later era.
Its not only that units fall back in a buggy way, they also fall back in the most stupid ways possible.
Sometimes even when tanks reverse they will show their side armor.
Plus, they will reverse stupidly straight back even when there is cover nearby.
The only way I see how to stop "Falling back" to be a big downside of Steel Dragon is to allow the player to MOVE the units falling back with his own commands.
SUGGESTION:
Units flagged with "falling back" will not move anymore towards the enemy nor will they fire at targets.
You have to move them back manually until they got far enough to recover.
Unit AI is just too stupid and frustrating to watch to be ever usefull in such a delicate game where u have 1 card Befehlspanzer units...
Worked in RUSE.
That they sometimes show their side armor with no good reason should be fixed, but that they reverse straight backwards is only there, to don't show the side armor...
I don't know, what's your problem with them falling back straight backwards. They get out of range of their ennemys and in order to drive in cover nearby, they would have to show their sides, to drive into side cover. So you don't want them to show their side armor, but you want them, to drive into cover, in which case they would have to show their side armor, because they would haveto drive to the side? That contradicts itself.
Disagree. You have the possibility, to make your tanks reverse, when the stress bar isn't filled. When they wouldn't fall back on their own, in the case that they are completely stressed the whole game-mechanic would be useless, you would have to micro much more and would have tanks, that are stunned and killed, when you can't concentrate on every single tank, that would have to fall back in order to don't get killed.
Imo,the bugs with this mechanic should be fixed, but the mechanic itself should stay, as it is.
I have an aggressive playstyle which often leads to
situations where every inch a unit moves is important.
I dont say the "falling back" thing is totally bad, its just that the frustrating part is huge and that it doesent suit the selected game style (micro intensive unicorn unit game with limited numbers of all kind of units).
I can only hope that it can be "fixed" but given the complexity of a battlefield, I highly doubt that any Unit AI can ever be usefull in that regard.
PLUS, there are events that immediatly put ur tanks from "calm" to "falling back". And its not possible to dodge these events due to the slow tank movement speed
situations where every inch a unit moves is important.
I dont say the "falling back" thing is totally bad, its just that the frustrating part is huge and that it doesent suit the selected game style (micro intensive unicorn unit game with limited numbers of all kind of units).
I can only hope that it can be "fixed" but given the complexity of a battlefield, I highly doubt that any Unit AI can ever be usefull in that regard.
PLUS, there are events that immediatly put ur tanks from "calm" to "falling back". And its not possible to dodge these events due to the slow tank movement speed
I'm sorry, that this mechanic don't fit your playstyle, but you will have to adapt to it. Your soldiers will fall back, when they get to much stress from your ennemy.
We will see, but given, how good medium ai performs in skirmish, it souldn't be impossible.
PLUS, there are events that immediatly put ur tanks from "calm" to "falling back". And its not possible to dodge these events due to the slow tank movement speed
It would be to easy, if you could evade bombing or Missile runs of planes, simply by driving away. And in other cases (for example superior firepower of ennemy tanks, everyone has to know, where he drives his tanks into.
My playstyle fits everything I read about World War II. What doesent fit is how this game currently seems to work.
That is a joke right?
I play with this setup:
Allies:
2x medium AI
2x easy AI
Axis:
Me
3x medium AI
Outcome is, in 9 out of 10 games my side AI is crushed with no units left at all, overun even by easy allies lol
While I spend 20 mins fighting back the onslaught and then try to single handedly conquer the map haha.
I ve never seen an AI losing so many high end tanks in that short time.
So no, the AI is crap when it comes to unicorn unit micro, sorry.
Since I prefer axis I didnt have the problem with superior tanks yet. But air craft is annoying in that regard, since you cannot effectivly cover them.
Ok, there are no AGM missiles which is a big plus...
What I see as a problem with airstrikes is, how units tend to come so close to each other all the time. Half my micro is wasted on keeping individual units spacing to the next unit....
That is what i said. This game isn't a simulator and you have have to adapt to the game mechanics.
That is a joke right?
I play with this setup:
Allies:
2x medium AI
2x easy AI
Axis:
Me
3x medium AI
Outcome is, in 9 out of 10 games my side AI is crushed with no units left at all, overun even by easy allies lol
While I spend 20 mins fighting back the onslaught and then try to single handedly conquer the map haha.
I ve never seen an AI losing so many high end tanks in that short time.
So no, the AI is crap when it comes to unicorn unit micro, sorry.
No, this isn't a joke. I' ve only played 1v1 against ai so far, and they can surprise me every time at least a bit. Every game feels different. It is a significant improvement to Wargames ai.
Yes, you have to shot them down, with fighter plane, but maybe they Balance the AA diffrent in the Futur, We'll see.
I dont need a simulator. I just get the feeling that the game mechanics would allow for more than what we have now.
I know what you mean. In 1vs1 situations you are right, that is true. But on a bigger scale it just fails. Especially flank protection, infantry protection and heavy tank managment.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, true.
What I can say is, that Airplanes are like 10 times less annoying than in Red Dragon, while some mechanics still need some work.
But yes, lets see what future brings.
A lot of things.
For example: I get the impression that on Map Artillery ranges are artificially low to prevent the "support player" problem Red Dragon had. But on the other hand it makes the "professional" support role difficult or impossible. I like to switch from front brawler to support from time to time, but that playstyle seems to be strongly discouraging at the moment if not impossible. But maybe that changes with new divisions (while they still will have the same range problem for arty I guess).
Another thing is woods. Dense, Medium and open woods would be nice. Destructable woods too.
Ranges could be more dynamic and less static. I get the idea of "average engagement ranges" beeing modelled into the game in an abstract way. But when there is an open area, there should be ways around that.
I think an AT-Gun vs. a Tank is a good example.
the HE shells should have a bigger range than the effective range of the AT shells. So in theoriy the tank should have an advantage in the open, when the AT-gun is visible.
Just in theory of course.
Well, to play support only, it takes a significant amount of communication with your teammates, because the you have to have troops at the front because of the frontline mechanics. When only 3 of 4 Players cover the frontline and one mostly supports, that could get difficult. Otherwise, with much off- map arty, heavier on- map arty, like 25 pounder and a significat amount of planes, youcould fill the supporting role quiet nicely.
Would be the question, how this would be implimented exactly in the current mechanics...
I have to disagree, hedgerows and woods are to essential for LOS and gameplay with tanks, to hve the Option to destruct them.
That would be an idea, if AT-guns wren't so vulnerable already. When tanks had this Advantage too, AT- guns would be probably almost useless.
I have a new replay that had an extremely major (new type) of panic behavior bug going on.
- Behavior starts 00:35:45
- The_Monkeykings two Panthers and 1 Panzer IV in the middle of the map
- They panic and reverse to the enemy positions and 1 Panther even surrenders to them
Attachments
AT guns seem to be rock hard compared to any tank (except Jumbo frontal lol!!)
It takes several salvos to actually kill any AT-gun, no matter which gun I use. While the AT-gun can one shot anything I bring up against it, making it a big risk all the time.
EDIT: the biggest annoiance with AT-guns is there overmodelled "on foot" mobility... they are almost as fast as Pz IV offroad
Problem is, that At- guns mostly don't hit the first shot and are supressed (and killed) very quickly. And when you are for example an 3rd AD Player, you simply put a Thunderbolt- Missile run on it and ist gone.
Planes are powerful to the point where I almost feel they shouldn't be in the game. They're not too overpowered exactly, but they don't seem like a division-level asset.