What would you people want in next patch?

[ExtracTioN 0]

The topic says it

I want multiple animations and that they make swimming possible to soldiers + it would be nice if they make wheeled vehicles fire missiles

[PuNkErS 0]

i want a middle join

[hovmand 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ExtracTioN @ Jan. 08 2003,12:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The topic says it  

I want multiple animations and that they make swimming possible to soldiers + it would be nice if they make wheeled vehicles fire missiles<span id='postcolor'>

One word: OFP2

I would like to see some more scripting functions, so the beautiful mission makers have more to play with

[VXR 9]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ExtracTioN @ Jan. 08 2003,12:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The topic says it  

I want multiple animations and that they make swimming possible to soldiers + it would be nice if they make wheeled vehicles fire missiles<span id='postcolor'>

i think its too hard coded to cheage it in a patch

[-A-V-Trekkie 0]

The same about Ingame-Join, they would have to change full MP-Code

[nyles 11]

Hehe, I can tell you what I want in the next patch...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Behold!

This is the second installment of the Constructive Criticism thread, now compiled to the improved second edition. I hope you enjoy reading it.

1. G3 and FAL: They both use the same sound in-game. Dunno if this was done on purpose or like with the images something was mixed up. Perhaps there was simply not enough time to do another sound file until release.

I hope to see (hear actually) another sound for one of the two in an upcoming patch. In general, there are quiet a number of sounds which either lack what you are expecting from the weapon (because of its strong power in RL) or are just too low on volume.

2. The pistols are a very nice and handsome addition. I really love to have a tokarev as sidearm, just in case. It saved my life once in a while during the campaign. There is one thing though, which I really don't like on the pistols: It is possible to fire them at targets way too far away. Currently, when you are shot in the arm, you have a bit more trouble in aiming, making fighting less effective on longer ranges. Because of this, it's way too easy to abuse pistols as sniper weapons, even though, the sights have been thankfully fixed: Pistol rounds no longer hop-up, but the target vanishes below the weapon sight instead, making it a tad harder to aim at far away targets. What I am suggesting is the addition of a little wobble effect when aiming, making it harder to keep the weapon on the target, especially if he is further away. This effect should be implemented for EVERY weapon, with varying effects. Rifle type weapons for example, should be wobbling as much as you currently do when shot in the arm, as long you are standing upright with the rifle. The wobbling should decrease the closer you come to the ground. MGs should have a little more wobble while standing, but on the otherside, should be very precise when being prone, to at least simulate a yet non existent bipod-feature. Even launchers should have a little wobble, however it is extremely easy to balance a tube-shaped weapon on your shoulder and aim with that, so it should be only a very light wobble, still noticeable though. Maybe this would compensate for the current way too far range of most launchers. When fighting armour from the ground, scoring a hit with a range of more than 400 metres is very unlikely, even for stationary targets.

In general, I'd rather go for stronger but inaccurate weapons instead of the accurate light weapons we have right now. I will deal with damage later on.

3. With Resistance, I noticed an excessive amount of tracers. I haven't really checked every weapon, but it seems that every one of them is firing tracers. For me at least, this kinda destroys the atmosphere to a certain degree. I would love to see tracers on Autocannons and MG's (handheld, crew-served and vehicle mounted), but not at the current amount. I know that you can disable tracers via the difficulty settings, but I don't want to miss them completly (see MGs). Making every 5th round a tracer on the above mentioned weapons could be enough already. Especially on night missions, the muzzle flash is strong enough to give away positions, there is no need for GREEN laser all over the place. Maybe implementing an improved tracer effect (one of the few interesting things in DF:Black Hawk Down) instead would be great. I'd prefer few but better than the current many but ugly kind of tracers.

4. Weapon damage: I really hoped that one of the last patches would eventually, at least partly, adjust some weapon data, but unfortunatly I was wrong every time. Still, I want to present my view of the weapon damage on how it should be. The major point for me is scale here. No matter how the damage values are, be it that you need 10 shots to kill a soldier or one single hit, the calibre of any weapon in the game should be taken into account for the calculation of it's damage compared to other weapons. I was really upset that the G3 rifle was given such a low damage level. You sometimes need 3 hits to the chest to kill a person. I mean, this weapon has 7.62 calibre ammo, yet it is very weak compared to other 5.56 weapons like the AK74 or the MGs. Regardless of what will be done to weapon data in the future, BIS should always try to maintain scale. All weapons firing the same calibre should do the same damage. Even though it would be a big change in gameplay, this should be considered for any upcoming patch. The basic weapons, the M16 and the AK47, are pretty fair in-game at the moment, but especially new implemented weapons and the PK and M60 machineguns need some tweaking. When playing online only few people actually want to play as machinegunner. It's already hard enough to score some aimed hits with them, but even if you hit, the damage is very low for 7.62 calibre weapons. On the other side, the G36, while using standard 5.56 ammo, is a total overkill, being able to kill with a glance to the upper body most of the time. My philosophy is that weapons should be balanced not by damage alone, but also by tweaking accuracy (which would make the G36 perform extremly good already) and other values like rate of fire and reload time. I really hope that if someone of BIS is reading this, they take a minute and think about what I suggest here. In the end it will add to the Flashpoint experience a lot.

5. This is my personal view on how I would like to see the damage system in flashpoint. I'm trying to not use precise damage values but more roughly the shots needed on certain locations to kill. In my opinion, a headshot should always be fatal, no matter what weapon used. I'm excluding other hit locations than chest and legs here, because I'm not familiar with how many different locations there are in total. Its pretty obvious though, that a hit to arm should not take minimal damage only, because of them blocking the chest very often and thus creating the illusion of players surviving tons of chest shots. If possible to check wether a strong bullet would hit multiple locations (i.e. arm+chest), this should be implemented, might be complicated though or even already in the game, dunno.

Furthermore, I'm limiting this to infantry weapons and co-axial mgs only. I will not mention different types of the same weapon in the 'weapons' section, as I assume it's pretty obvious that an ak74 should do the same damage like an ak74su, that an ak47 should do the same like an ak47cz and that an m16 should do the same like a xms.

Anyways, here is the list, note that it is mainly to show which weapons should belong into the same damage category and not differ in-game:

(calibre / hits to chest / hits to legs / using weapons)

.50cal + 12.7x109 / 1 / 1 / m2, m2east, m2 co-axial + nsv co-axial

7.62x51 + 7.62x54 / 1 / 1-2 / g3, fal, m60, m21, m240 co-axial + svd, pk, r700

7.62x39 / 1 / 2-3 / ak47

5.56x45 / 1-2 / 2-3 / m16, steyr aug, g36

5.45x39 / 1-3 / 2-3 / ak74

7,62x25 + .45 / 2-3 / 2-4 / tt33 + colt1911 (not done yet)

9x19 + 7.65x17/ 2-4 / 2-4 / mp5, bizon, cz75, 92fs, glock17 + skorpion

There are some other nice ideas, which i want to adress together with this list: Someday, I had a nice experience when i rammed a vehicle. The ai driver disembarked the moment I did, too, but he was faster and shot me in the legs. I was forced prone and shot him in the chest, killing him, with my trusty beretta. The experience of the auto prone was great and added a lot of atmosphere. My idea about this is that there should be a 70% chance for any hit and not only certain leg hits to knock you off your feet. Unlike some leg shots which won't let you stand up again, you are free to do so with those regular hits though. It just should knock you off your feet. Maybe some modifiers on how high the chance is, could be given according to the type of weapon. A 9mm pistol for example would be less likely to knock you off compared to a chest shot with a m16. Furthermore any hit, should cause a little red flickering on the screen. Very often you fall on the floor face down, only to realize a second or two later that you were shot due to the lack of hit effects. Those suggested new hit effects, combined with the above mentioned chance for any hit to knock you off your feet, would be very nice additions.

Now some comments on the weapon list on top of this point, especially in terms of balance. As stated above the exact values for the damage were avoided and instead only displayed with the average amount of hits to certain locations that will kill you. The Russian weapons might seem a little underpowered, compared to other weapons, but in reality they were a tad less effective due to calibre size. However, I still chose hit counts that are very close to each other and only noticeable that you will sometimes need one hit more with the russian weapons. Most of the time, the needed count will be the same though. To compare this, at least in terms of the standard weapons m16 and ak74, the ak offers full auto mode for human players, which should already even things out. However, AI does not benefit from this, what I would like to change. At close ranges, AI should more likely use full auto or longer random burts with aks. This alone would balance things out already.

6. AI machinegunning: In general I would like to see AI use machineguns only in small bursts or full auto and never on single fire. Even on very long ranges they should at least fire in 2-4 shot burts. Especially on tanks, there is often the case where the gunner picks out infantry with single shots from the co-axial machinegun. Currently it seems that high skilled AI are more likely capable of using mgs in auto mode while low skilled units often seem to exclusively use single fire. This strikes me as wrong, as there is no skill in keeping the trigger squeezed while on the other side it is extremely hard to fire off single shots from an machinegun. I would suggest to switch this so that low skilled ai is using more automatic fire, while skilled machinegunners use small burts (but still no single fire). This has another nice effect: The mg fire sound pretty ugly when used in single shots. Only in an continous fire, the sound is acceptable and does not hurt one's ears due to the harsh and unexpected ending.

7. In addition to the above point, I would like to see full auto modes being reworked completly, not just properly simulated for AI units.. Back then, I suggested to have AI shoot more in random full auto bursts (maybe 3-5 shots at a time). Currently, there is no real difference for human players wether they fire in full-auto or semi-auto. Players can still place single shots while on full-auto mode. The idea I had, which might work out nicely, is to have full auto fire a minimum, random number of shots, depended on the rate of fire of the real counterpart of that weapon. That way, there would at least be an amount of 3-5 shots, even though I clicked the fire button for a brief moment only. The trick now would be, that after this random amount of initial shots, there would only be single shots following to gurantee that you can immediate stop firing any time. This random amount would indeed only affect the first rounds to leave the weapon.

I think a feature like this would really help to simulate the effect of firing a weapon in full auto. Even though, a very skilled player could indeed manage to fire single shots from a machinegun, the shots mostly will follow in such a rapid succession that you have fired off quiet a number of rounds even with just short squeezing of the trigger. The machinegun atmosphere would be greatly enhanced in OFP that way and would force these weapons more into their respectiv role. When addressing this, I also suggest to check the available fire modes for all weapons. Neither AK47 nor AK74 have a burst mode, for example.

8. Another weapon related issue: Even when a rifle has only one or two remaining bullets and you shoot in burst mode, the 3-burst sample ist still being played. Furthermore if you have ammo left and reload weapon you should get a fresh clip plus the chambered round making 30+1 (31 rounds total) in case of M16 or AK74 as an example. Of course one bullet should be taken away from the ejected clip, as it remained in the chamber. If the chambered round was the last of the clip, it should be discarded as there is no ammo left. I hope you get what i mean. Basically it's about realistic ammo management.

9. Buildings: The improved clipping for map models works kinda inconsistent, even after 1.85. There are many buildings on which you can move around flawlessly, without any clipping, but on some buildings there is still a lot of 'model shaking' once you touch the surface. Some farm houses for example are almost useless because of this. I don't know if this depends on the model itself where you have to define weather it's stable to walk on or not, or if it's some sort of engine related programming, however something should really be done about this. Afterall you got it working flawlessly on many buildings.

Furthermore there is a very nasty clipping bug on the docks on nogova, where you are hovering a feet over the ground without touching the model. This looks kinda silly and makes the docks being avoided for missions and cutszenes a lot.

10. Free head movement in vehicles: I don't know if this is really possible with the engine, but if yes, I would really like to see players in vehicles be able to turn their heads like you can do normally. Sure you can look around while being in a vehicle, but the model does not turn the head, too. I think this would drastically add to the atmosphere as this static straightforward view gives the models a puppet like feeling.

11. Parachutes should not smoke when destroyed. Period.

12. Seat management: OFP currently has four types of places for players in vehicles. driver, gunner, commander and ride in back. The first three are pretty clear as they only allow for one player but the ride in back positions could need some improvement. Let's take the 5-ton truck for example: When you want to ride in back, the first 2 persons are automatically placed in the drivers cabine, regardless of where they tried to enter the vehicle. I would like to see it work that way, that there is a division of ride in back positions and not that ride in back pool like we have right now. Basically this means that when I want to ride in back and enter the vehicle at the back, I can only be placed on the back area of the vehicle and not in the cabine. Furthermore, when I enter at the front door, I can't be placed on the back. It might be difficult to achieve this, especially making all this clear to the AI, but it certainly would add a lot to the game. There are a lot of vehicles which could need several adjustments here. For example the jeeps, trucks and basically every vehicle with a seperated crew compartment.

Another thing which I would like to see is how and when crew members can take over stations from other persons. I wouldn't limit the possibility to exchange places to stationary units only, for example. That way, the co-pilot or even a passenger could take over the pilot seat if he gets shot down, or a better pilot riding in back could be asked to take over controls in-flight. There are a lot of nice possibilities which arise from the sheer fact that is would be possible. In tanks for example, the commander could easily take over the gunner station or vice versa. Note though, that currently the commander and gunner can take over the driver station in tanks where the driver is seperated from the rest of the crew like in the abrams or the t-80. This should not be the case. Neither while standing nor while moving. You should have to disembark and enter the vehicle as driver again. This would not only be realistic but makes the handling of a whole tank by a single player more difficult and more fair to other players who try to team up. Furthermore there are some vehicles that could need some more spare ride in back seats like the m113, where there is still a lot of space in the back, even when fully loaded. You did something like this already with the Hind helicopter by increasing passenger capacity from 6 to 8 in one of the last patches if I recall correctly, thus it shouldn't be a big problem. When considering changes regarding seat management, you should always think in a logical way if it would be possible to change from seat A to seat B or not. The option to order AI to switch to accessable positions without having to disembark would be nice, too. The current system might work, too, but a rework could add a lot the game as a whole, as it would make it more realistic and for many people more fun to play, too. Another advantage would be that when moving around with a tank platoon there is often the case that one of your tanks gets shot down leaving a few of the crew injured but alive. In such cases the whole movement speed of the platoon is crippled as the infantry moves very slow and if injured mostly can only crawl. I would suggest to give all of the MBTs another spare seat inside. This seat could simply be the position of the loader which most tanks lack as a crew member anyways in op:fp. I'm not suggesting to give the tanks 4 crew members by default as this would most likely screw up a lot of missions where the max. squadlimit would be exceeded. Just allow personal to use this spare seats (1 per tank) as a "ride in back" option. Maybe, if all of this would lead to problems like being forced to seperate ride in back to let's say ride in back 1 (for the driver cabin in the truck) and ride in back 2 (for the cargo plate on the back, and thus a rework of all models in the game, this could be combined with some sort of high definition pack, a program improvement package, like done for Half-Life after a couple of years, where we would get improved and updated models. You could even charge some money for this and implement it with a new gold edition. Just call it the diamond edition.

13. Staying with vehicles: One feature I suggested a while back and which I really hoped might find its way into Resistance was the ability for tank commanders to tell their gunners on where to point the turret. You can tell infantry where to look at, while clicking at that direction plus holding ALT key (or whatever key you bound for that). Why not make the same thing be possible for tank commanders. When you designate a position to look up, the AI gunner will rotate the turret to that direction, making the Bradley commander spot useable, at last. Currently, this vehicle is almost useless when commanding a otherwise AI crewed one. The same way, human gunners should get the compass on the left bottom, indicating the direction. This would really be a very useful feature and shouldn't be too hard to implement.

While we are with designating directions: It would also be very much appreciated, when vehicles as a whole would not face a designated position, but the turret only. It looks a little weird, when ordering an AI tank to "scan horizon".

14. All of the missing .paa files should be added. It is so annoying to hastly pick up a strela to fight an incoming helicopter, just to get delayed by the info field which says that the image is missing. BIS should know by now...

15. tanks again: On tanks where the gunner is able to turn out, AI gunners will still be able to rotate the turret and engage targets. I think they should turn in for that like humans. On the other side I would like to see the gunner be able to rotate the turret on most tanks even when the driver is turned out. Tanks like the m1a1 abrams could still rotate the turret as the hatch is not blocking anything. However, the m2a2 bradley should still NOT be able to rotate the turret because of the huge driver hatch. Like usual one should always look on these things in a logical way to decide what is possible and what not.

This would also help in speeding the game up a little bit. For infantry, things like being able to move while holding binocs, being able to move at the normal speed with a ready launcher weapon (but longer time to regain accuracy/decrease wobble when stopping again) and being able to reload while moving (however having it take much longer, and still need to stop when prone) would also be very appreciated. This are all things possible in real life and do in no way bring the game to a more arcade type of gameplay. In fact, it would increase atmosphere.

16. Radio: Please improve the radio system by implementing a more efficient usage. Example is a shorter calling of the squad members like: "all except 2 and 3, move to blablabla". There should also be some sort of hierarchy within the radio to allow quicker response for the immediate surrounding. Starting from the bottom and then going upwards seem the most logical way, thus group commands like attack orders, movement orders or smimilar should have prority to generel announcements.

1. crew commands, yellow

V

V

2. squad commands, green

V

v

3. side commands, light blue

All other channels like direct speaking and generel messages are of no importance as there are no radio transmissions made with them.

However even within squads - or lets say on the same communication channel - there should be some sort of priority for orders unlike sightings of enemies or general statements like injuries, fuel status or else.

Also, the player's own radio should have more options to be interupted by himself. It is simply wrong, that you have to wait for a couple of messages about spotted enemies to end, before being able to order to open fire. Make it a tad more dynamic.

Another radio improvement would be, when AI exit transports, every single member yells when he is out. This kinda slows down any actions/orders you want to give your squad like attacking enemies or moving in a nearby wood. I would suggest to only have the last AI orderd to exit, give a response, not all. Maybe something like "All waiting" or another combination of already existing radio commands would be okay. There is simply no need that all members spam the radio channel.

17. Weapon animations: I recently noticed that the motorcycle has a stand that turns by 90° when you stop, and moves back up again, once you drive forward again.....kinda lika a bipod. If it is possible with vehicle models, it for sure would also be possible for weapon models. The above mentioned 'deploy bipod' option for machineguns could indeed be possible then. If it would furthermore be possible to turn the player model not on itself but on the bipod axis kinda like with all those inofficial stationary machinegun addons, we would at last have well designed light machineguns in the game. Many games like Day of Defeat for the HL engine or the recently released AmericasArmy offer such functionality for machineguns, which IMHO gives those weapons a very own role in both combat and experience. The option to deploy bipods should really be considered, and if combined with better accuracy while deployed would make the mg fans like myself cry out in joy.

One of the main things I always disliked on OFP was the lack of animations regarding proper reload and weapon handling in general. Even before CS, reload animations for example (not saying they were realistic, but they added to the acceptance and atmoshphere of firearms) were a common sight in most 1st person shooters. I'm not asking to add proper animations for every weapon in an upcomming patch, as this is very unlikely to happen due to the simple shitload of work caused by this demand. However, there are quiet a number of weapons in game that could need some spicing up like a rotating vulcan gatling gun (rotating should be possible, already done with grenade launchers), the above mentioned bipod idea and a law launcher which auto expands and thus is only half the size when carried on the back.

18. Some sort of AI awareness on when to use which weapon would be very nice. Let AI soldiers check if there are any other wepons in the squad or even alive in a certain radius who could do the job as well. For example, if there are any LAWs alive and within a certain proximity, the AA soldiers won't use their weapons against armored targets. or if there are LAW soldiers present, AT soldiers won't use their weapons against less armoured units like BMPs. Maybe this awareness could switch with the average skill of the units, making higher skilled units use their equipment more efficient. AI Officers should also know better which soldiers to order to engage certain targets.

19. Player animations: Like with weapon animations, there is quiet some space for improvements. Especially missing animations for people that don't use weapons should be added. Currently, even civilians sit down, stand up and enter vehicles as if they were using invisible weapons. Furthermore players that only wear a pistol, still walk as if they were holding the strap of a rifle on their back, when the pistol is in the holster. Animations are not model based, but changes seem to automatically affect every model. Therefore the additions shouldn't be that hard to implement. Lastly, I want to point out that it would be great for modmakers to have a bunch of different animations at their disposal, even though they do not appear in the original game. Call it a gift to the mod community. Maybe some sort of poll on which additional animations are wanted the most by modders, would be a nice idea.

20. Sights: I would like to see a rework of some of the featured sight and scope views, currently in the game. Mainly the law launcher scope view should be replaced with an appropriate sight view as this weapon simply does not come with a scope (at least not by default). Weapons with attached grenade launchers lack a decent sight for grenade launching. Even with the pure grenade launchers, which do have a sight, the aiming is based on experience and guessing only. Another view I want to criticize is the Nato tank view. The Russians have lots of info on the scope like target range indicator and other stuff. Even if this is not relevant of the game, I think the lack of such eyecandy on the Nato scopes is a little sad. I have never actually looked through the scopes of an Abrams, so maybe there are simply no such bars and numbers all of over the place, but I kinda doubt that. Anyways, it's not that important but would still be a nice addition to eyecandy.

21. Weapon model attachment on player models. Unlike many other games, Flashpoint has a very nice optical aspect on who carries what weapon. Having my weapons, currently not in hand, be worn on the back is a feature I don't want to miss in any game. It's not only realisic, it also adds to target identification and atmosphere in general. There is one point though, which I disliked on the whole feature since the first appearance of the Flashpoint demo: The alignment of the weapon models on the player models. In most cases, the weapons are several inches away from the player, hovering somewhere in the air. With launchers and other secondary equipment there is yet another downside effect. They all are carried way to high up the shoulder, making them pop up behind the player model. My solution for this would be to lower the attachement points for the weapon models on the left shoulder (launchers), so that they are less likely to be seen by the enemy. Large weapons like stinger or strela launchers would still be very easy to spot. Regaring, the distance of the weapon model to the player models, it a simple realignment of the attachment points could do as well. The problem I see with all this however is related to the question wether you have to change all player models or if you have to change only the weapon models. If only weapon models need to be recompiled, this should not be that hard to do, as you only have to change the attachment point on certain weapon models. However if player models need to be remodelled, the whole work arising from this would most likely not be worth the effort, as this would result in most player fan-made reskins to be ported to the new skeleton as well.

22. Movement on hills: If your AI squad wants to climb hills, you may have noticed that they always manage to get up faster than human players. Currently, you are forced to slow movement even on not so steep hills. My suggestion is to change the whole hill climb code that way that you basically are slowed down like right now, but with the option to run upwards when pressing the run key. This running however is only a bit faster than the allowed normal speed. For example, if you can only walk normally up that hill with no running allowed, like on medium steep hills, you should be able to still use running with the way I suggest. If you are only allowed to walk slowly (the same speed when you are zoomed in) with no normal and no running allowed, you should instead be able choose running, but the running would only be in normal speed then but still causing heavy breathing. Basically running should ALWAYS be allowed but running would only be allowed at one movement level faster.

The list below shows the steepness of the hills (1 being very steep and 4 being even ground) and the allowed way of movement on this type of hill, the first movement indicator shows what type of movement is possible without holding the run key, the second shows what is possible when holding the run key. The text behind the '***' are just explanations.

#/normal/running *** replacing

1/crawl/fast crawl *** is already simulated that way currently

2/slow/normal *** replaces where slow only walking is allowed

3/normal/running *** replaces where normal walking only is allowed

4/normal/running *** stays like the current walking on horizontal ground

Of course all this should also apply to AI controlled units.

I would also consider making some extremly steep cliffs like those near the river on nogova impassable with maybe even one more movement level before where you can only crawl normal. Should be very seldom, though.

The movement downhill should behave exactly like the movement upwards with rare possibilites to hurt the legs or even die like it is possible right now.

23. SpecOps: Both, blackops and spetznaz do not appear as the super elite units (the best of the best of the best of the...) they are praised during the campaign cutscenes. I don't want them to turn supernatural however some slight advantages over normal infantry apart from equipment and them being less likely spotted by AI, I would suggest maybe have them move without sound unless they are running and maybe even take much longer until they start to breath heavily. Even though, you can fool AI enemies pretty easy, it's really tough to sneak upon human enemies. Small things like the above mentioned would already make a difference.

24. If you (accidentally) dismount as Tank Commander, the AI keeps going round in circles, and won't stop, meaning you get run over trying to remount. This is due to them trying to maintain formation. IMHO the option to order the AI to 'STOP' is not the best way to solve this, as they still move around a bit until this happens. I think, it Would be smarter to have to order AI again to "keep formation" instead of them automatically continuing once you disembark? I mean, if there is a reason for you as the unit leader to disembark, you most likely don't want your men to spread out in formation immediatly. Another thing is that if you order all of your men to stop before you disembark, your very own tank does not automatically accepts this order. you have to order your tank driver seperatly to stop, causing an even longer delay. Furthermore it is simply way easier to radio 1-1 instead of 1-6.

Another problem apart from the danger that your own driver kills you while moving over you due to formationing is the following: Imagine a situation where you as the leader of a 5-ton truck convoy are moving in colomn formation along a road and suddenly want to stop because you though you'd see some infantry ahead who try to ambush your convoy. In this case you disembark to check the situation with binoculars or even by shooting at the enemy. However, once you have disembarked, the second truck in line will try to maintain formation and moves beside your truck which is now empty. The other trucks themselves, will try to maintaing formation as well and all of a sudden the nice looking convoy line is scattered. If you due to whatever reason want to quickly enter your truck again, it would be a pain in the ass to get all your trucks back in formation. Not seldom this will take several minutes until the convoy is back in formation and ready to move on.

So, to summarize, that's why I request that units moving in formation should automatically stop and wait for further orders once the leader they try to maintain formation to, disembarks, instead of staying in formation.

Related changes should also affect AI responding properly to this feature. Lastly, I want to note that if you as a commander (or any other crew member), but not as squad leader eject/disembark from a vehicle, the AI automatically orders you to enter again. However the remaining squad except for your vehicle will continue with their movement. The problem with this is kinda similar to the above mentioned request and should be changed so that the AI automatically waits for you to enter again (of course still with accompanied orders) and does only continue to move once you have entered.

25. One thing, which has been mentioned by various players over a very long time, is that AI soldiers should be a little more independend, like automatically ignoring squad formations to a certain degree if it allows them to reach better cover. Taking ammo from dead soldiers or resupply sites should also be done without or at least with a minimum amount of orders. Maybe one soltion would be, if you could toggle the Ai behaviour in your own squad between a freestyle mode, where they of course follow your orders and stuff but do more things on their own, and a mode which basically works like the current one where the units strictly obey your orders. Of course this should come with a number of tweaks like that the ai really looks at the direction where you want them to look, etc.. The advantage of this would be that the AI improvements would not interfere with current game and mission settings, as the default would be of them acting like they do right now.

That is all for now. I hope you enjoyed reading. Feedback is very welcome of course.

Thanks.

BTW: While looking at this sheer amount of text, I have no admit that there is no real excuss if someone of you accusses me to spam. Sorry!

-[uTw]-Nyles

<span id='postcolor'>

[bn880 5]

Trailers and vehicle towing points. So we can hook up a howitzer, move it into place, disconnect, then use.

EDIT: Oops, I didn't realize this was for a patch... I was thinking OFP2

[Guest]

Dupe thread