Easyer way to control game mechanics

[Zeke Wolff]

Then you really must hit the exact same spot all the time. My statement both stands correct and I may ask you to re-read it precisely in the case your post is meant as a response to mine.

And that is exactly what I wrote - IF you manage to hit the same spot all the time and that´s why Vic Smecheru is theoretically correct in his post. However, practically he is very far from being correct.

~Zeke.

[Inuki]

I think what you want is better squad-based movement/interaction with environment. Not a zoom out key. If you get a bloody zoom all the way out key in MoW then your going to spend your time sacrificing squads to players who use direct control, or tell the designers that direct control is overpowered and should be removed from the game making this RTS title lose a huge unique point to the game, or spend 5 minutes trying to select one soldier and place him in a specific place.

-

The controls are easy. But the lag due to the amount of data online games have to pass can create an unresponsive time zone. Click a soldier and .5seconds passes till you can actually move him. That is pretty much all the game is. It's much easier than Starcraft or Company of heroes. Those games will punish you for forgetting to do something back at base. In men of war you only have to worry about the actual battle. There is no hyper-muscle-memory-click to go back to bass and hit R on all your squads or build a marine as soon as one is about to finish.

-

Changing the game to a more zoomed out full-on squad based game would just make the game look awful. Men of War is a detail game. Picking up weapons that have fallen on the ground. Penetration values, angles and slopes of armor, wacking sturmtiger rounds on mines. Like I mentioned in the first paragraph. I think what you would prefer has been recommended elsewhere. Like better AI pathing, better squad movement/interaction.

[Vic Smecheru]

I know my ideeas are good, dull or call it how you like but I saw this picture


It said it was penetrated by Shermans. So I cant think of any Sherman penetrating this tank with his small gun, It wasn't a sherman firefly it was a 75mm gun. I also saw Biggest tank battles of history and there they say that shermans could penetrate a King tiger, I don't know how but the relates were told by actual soldiers which fought in those battles so I can't figure out how they did that.

[Blub0r2k]

theese hits are probaply made by APDS / APCR Ammo , not by simple shermans , and to destroy your theory , i don't see any deformation on the front glacier ...

the sherman (only the 76mm) could penetrate a King by side or back , not on front Amor.


as you can see here in relation the the women standing next by the Tank , the penetration holes are pretty small , and we dont know if they actually penetrated or if they are stuck in the front amor.

[Vic Smecheru]

But how did in real life small calibre weapons penetrate tick armor. Like the battle of kursk. I don't understand how in real life 5 T34 with 76 mm guns wouldve penetrated king tigers? Shouldn't there be any metal fatigue or something. Because I have seen many relates on history channels that small calibre guns couldve penetrated a huge tank How wouldve they destroyed with Shermans a Maus tank? something needs to have happened in order to destory a tank with such a tick armor.

[Blub0r2k]

the maus you see here is blown up by its own crew in Kummerdorf , it was never used in Comat against anyone.

in teh Battle of Kursk there were no King Tigers and most Killmesages of russian crews were totally nonsense , they reported aprox 200 kills of Ferdinands on the Ostfront and theese kills where mostly stugs and Marders.

[rossBurglar]

That tank was either destroyed by aircraft or by its own crew after being disabled. When tanks lost tracks, had engine/gearbox failure, the turret jammed etc on the battlefield the crew would bail out and run away

In real life they didn't penetrate thick armour, they shot the side or rear, or hoped for a hit that would put it out of action without having to penetrate its armour.

The Soviets and the British used howitzers to fight heavy German armour when they didn't have AT guns capable of penetrating them. The shock wave passing through armour from the HE shell exploding on the outside could knock chunks off the inside of the armour (spalling) and the British even invented a shell designed to exploit this effect (High Explosive Squash Head) but this wasn't effective against some armour and could be stopped by fitting so called spall liners to stop the fragments injuring the crew.

Big HE shells could damage armour (already in the game), as could massive AP shells (ISU 152, IS2 etc) but there isn't enough kinetic energy in a 75mm AP shell to break the armour on a King Tiger

[Table]

I think what you want is better squad-based movement/interaction with environment. Not a zoom out key. If you get a bloody zoom all the way out key in MoW then your going to spend your time sacrificing squads to players who use direct control, or tell the designers that direct control is overpowered and should be removed from the game making this RTS title lose a huge unique point to the game, or spend 5 minutes trying to select one soldier and place him in a specific place.

Better squad base movement, aka what has been standard rts control, rather than showw2 controls would be nice, though probably impossible to change within the game engine. But there is no reason for not being able to zoom out more. Your argument against zooming out makes no sense. Why would you sacrifice squads just because you can zoom out? Why would zooming out functionality make direct control more effective? Why would the designers of the game delete direct control because you can zoom out more?

Often I wish I could zoom out more. Not as an added functional key but as simple mouse wheel scrolling, as I find the current height restriction rather restrictive. I remember reading a thread on changing the zoom height, but I didn't save the thread. If someone could point me to that thread I would be most grateful.

[Retia Adolf]

How wouldve they destroyed with Shermans a Maus tank? something needs to have happened in order to destory a tank with such a tick armor.

TNT explosion on the inside happened. Maus tanks did not partake in combat and they were located at a testing range that got overrun by Russians rather than Americans.

There is another thing, I don't think the Maus prototypes were ever made out of armour steel although I am not 100% sure about that.