What do you want to see in Men of War: Assault Squad?

[Mylen]

Spyderslicer, that is way outside of the scope of the game. Even if all this could be modeled, it's not going to happen unless a bored modder finds a way to implement it. Gameplay wise it really adds very little.
The way I see it, it's basically a more micro intensive but less reliable way of taking out a tank compared to an AT grenade. You basically have to go through the same kind of motions to get your SMG guy close but instead of just throwing his grenade and booking it, he has to mount the vehicle like a trained monkey for a while.

Guy protecting his tank isn't going to add much gameplay wise either, basically it will make it easy to decrew disabled tanks but that's about it.

[spyderslicer]

I was suggesting the tank mount as a bit of realism and you don't always have an AT grenade handy. And you are aware that engines do evolve right? IE the Frostbite engine for BF3 and the BF:BC games. The devs will improve the engine, make it better to allow bigger, better things from the engine. That's how it works. That's how COD manages to use the same engine for what 8 years? They keep improving it, allowing for better graphics and more content. Look at the difference between Silent Heroes and Assault Squad. (Silent Heroes using the GEM engine and AS using GEM2)

You keep pointing out the same few ones you really dislike, I'll accept that, but for the love of the maker, can we drop it?

I mean the thread is "What do you want to see in Men of War: Assault Squad?" And I really don't understand why someone would -1 rep me for an opinion. I said stuff I would love to see and someone says my opinion is wrong or bad? Someone is really uptight, as if I'm their lead designer and what I say goes. I highly doubt they'll add even one thing my dumb-ass has suggested. (Although I hope they at least take the better models and animations into account, that will make me a happy gamer) So lets not go getting our panties in a twist people.

[Retia Adolf]

CoD? You mean the game where every next iteration is a more primitive version of the previous? I remember the days where CoD engine was capable of rendering a field of view bigger than 60 degrees and had dedicated server support. Although that is off topic.

You got your -1 from one of the trigger happy forum users of which there are many for expressing unpopular/ridiculous ideas. You should get used to that sort of thing - bad ideas exist and you may be the one having them. I mean yeah sure, express your opinions and all that but you can't expect people to completely ignore what you say on a discussion board.

We are here to discuss and argue about ideas.

[Zeke Wolff]

So your tank crew has two choices, go blind (with the exceptions of periscopes) or remove the bullet proof sheet in their view ports.

Not quite correct (at least for many of the German tanks). These tanks had episcope for both driver, hull mg gunner, commander, loader and gunner. The driver were also equipped with a viewing slit which, when entering combat, were protected by a moving armored "shield". When this shield were in the closed position, the driver used his episcope to see where he were going. Tanks earlier than Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf. G (Late), had instead of the episcope (driver), two round viewing slot (protected by bullet proof glass) which were located just above the armored shield.

These bullet proof glasses were easily replaced, from the inside of the tank, in less than ten seconds.

~Zeke.

[spyderslicer]

CoD? You mean the game where every next iteration is a more primitive version of the previous? I remember the days where CoD engine was capable of rendering a field of view bigger than 60 degrees and had dedicated server support. Although that is off topic.

You got your -1 from one of the trigger happy forum users of which there are many for expressing unpopular/ridiculous ideas. You should get used to that sort of thing - bad ideas exist and you may be the one having them. I mean yeah sure, express your opinions and all that but you can't expect people to completely ignore what you say on a discussion board.

We are here to discuss and argue about ideas.

Hold your horses lol. I despise COD, I thinks its the bane of our lovely gaming industry (I could rant for hours on why, but I won't bother you with my hatred of COD)

I was using it as an example that although it hasn't improve a huge amount, if you were to show people back when COD 2 was just released, what the game would look like now, they wouldn't believe you. I was saying that game engines are constantly being updated and improved by their devs. That what might seem impossible for GEM2 might be easy for GEM3.

I guess I was expecting a little more civility with the rep thing. If I was being a jackass and mud slinging or trolling, you know, stuff of that nature, I could see people saying I'm an ass and giving me a bad rep. But someone just stating their opinion isn't something I would -1 rep someone for (unless of course they are trolling and/or trying to incite a flame war. Which wasn't my intent at all. Hell, at the time everything on my list seemed bucking brilliant to my sleep addled mind) That's being an ass IMO. But thanks for your opinion on the matter.

[Mylen]

You keep pointing out the same few ones you really dislike, I'll accept that, but for the love of the maker, can we drop it?

Yo, if you don't want to discuss it, I ain't forcing you. I just pointed out some problems with your ideas. I wasn't the one who gave you negative rep, nor do I know why it was given, so there is no need for you to think I want to press you against your will to defend them. They don't bother me more than the other thousand ideas I find bad for reason x y or z that are posted round these parts.

Just expressing my opinion.

By the way engine evolution is somewhat irrelevant in context because this thread, by name, is about assault squad which is an already existing game with an already existing (less than stellar) engine that ain't going anywhere...
As for picking only a couple of your ideas to rag on, they just happened to be the ones that particularly stuck out to me as offensive.

[spyderslicer]

Yo, if you don't want to discuss it, I ain't forcing you. I just pointed out some problems with your ideas. I wasn't the one who gave you negative rep, nor do I know why it was given, so there is no need for you to think I want to press you against your will to defend them. They don't bother me more than the other thousand ideas I find bad for reason x y or z that are posted round these parts.

Just expressing my opinion.

By the way engine evolution is somewhat irrelevant in context because this thread, by name, is about assault squad which is an already existing game with an already existing (less than stellar) engine that ain't going anywhere...
As for picking only a couple of your ideas to rag on, they just happened to be the ones that particularly stuck out to me as offensive.

I guess I really shouldn't come to a forum and A. not expect to have people disagree, B. tell them to drop it. I was being a bit of a git, you have your right to say if you thought my ideas are bad or inaccurate (Especially if they are...) That and I did ask you guys what you thought...

I wasn't accusing you of neg repping me (although I do admit I did think it was you )

And if you read the first part of the thread, its about idea for a stand alone expansion. Meaning if they had a GEM3 engine ready right now, they could easily use it for MOW:AS expansion. Your argument is invalid XD. Although I doubt they have a GEM3 engine yet, I doubt they could keep that under wraps for to long before something was leaked. Especially if allowed them to shrug of a bunch of the restrictions that have held them back with GEM2.

[Mylen]

MoW AS itself IS the standalone expansion. It's an expansion to MoW. That's what is being implied in the first post.
Expansion to an expansion sounds kinda unreasonable.

GEM3 is around and has been for a while in fact. I think even before MoW AS was released? Majesty 2 uses it but from what I heard, nobody including Instinct want anything to do with that. Can't say I am a big fan of GEM engines either.

And yo, I wasn't accusing you of accusing me. I just thought you were kinda pissed off at me with undue cause and that's not really what I want. I only give positive rep. To sexy people, like Zeke Wolff.

[Table]

It's a good thing that nobody has ever negative repped me for disagreeing with them. Otherwise I'll be at something ridiculous like -30 rep. That's not what negative rep is for.

[spyderslicer]

MoW AS itself IS the standalone expansion. It's an expansion to MoW. That's what is being implied in the first post.
Expansion to an expansion sounds kinda unreasonable.

GEM3 is around and has been for a while in fact. I think even before MoW AS was released? Majesty 2 uses it but from what I heard, nobody including Instinct want anything to do with that. Can't say I am a big fan of GEM engines either.

And yo, I wasn't accusing you of accusing me. I just thought you were kinda pissed off at me with undue cause and that's not really what I want. I only give positive rep. To sexy people, like Zeke Wolff.

That awkward moment where you've been caught not double and triple checking your facts before talking big. My bad........