Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?

[[SYN] hydraSlav]

Originally Posted by Anlushac11

I believe these are your words are they not?

Doesnt sound like a person interested in combined arms action. Sounds like a infantry person tired of having to deal with tanks. So you want to make the tanks go away so we can concentrate on the infantry battles where it should be.

Wow! Thanks once again for taking my words out of context Really appreciate it . Shows a lot too

I was arguing directly against BoW's complaints. BoW got problem with the way it is now, i don't. BoW is the one that wants to nerf infantry and increase tank's superiority. I don't, cause i like the way it is right now, the "combined arms" as you said.

And since i like the way it is now, how can you possible say, in the right state of mind, that i am trying to make it more infantry oriented? I am the one that want's to keep it the way it is. Think again please

You want to remove the element that makes BF1942 still alive even as old as it is.

Some people play FH to be tankers, some want to be infantry, some want to be pilots, some want to be naval commanders.

With FH as it is now people can be what they want. With your way people will be forced to play what you think they should play.

My way will force people? OMG ROFL! I am the one that's against pushmaps cause they "force people" to go into a dead-zone. I am the one that's against classlimits, cause they will "force people" to play a certain class. And how can you say that my ways people will be forced anything? Jeez... after this.... i really think you are spending too much time going through all forums posts... not actually reading them.

So, why don't you take a break and start from beginning.

I am not the one having problems with AT and that wants to limit AT class
I am not the one that's lazy to defend/suicide-respawn at back flags and that wants to force people into a 2-meter kill zone
I am not the one that's having problems with unmanned tanks. If my tank is unmanned, i will take more caution, if it is manned, then i get more bonus.

I am not the one that want's to change the way things are, so don't tell me i am trying to make it an "infantry sim" (and just for the record, FPS is the closest to "infantry sim")

[Anlushac11]

FH has not implimented class limits as of this time.

I am for pushmaps since it does tend to concentrate people more into a comabt area instead of having Rambos running jeeps to the back flag. Your remarks of people to lazy to guard the back flag is all fine and dandy in clan play where people know better. But you shouldnt expect pubbies to play with the same skill level of clanners.

And you did suggest that FH should remove tanks from the maps to make it more infantry oriented. Everyone can see what you posted so dont try to deny it.

[[SYN] hydraSlav]

Originally Posted by Anlushac11

And you did suggest that FH should remove tanks from the maps to make it more infantry oriented. Everyone can see what you posted so dont try to deny it.

As i said, read the post (and read it, not just skip over it). That "suggestion" (which is not a suggestion) is a direct counter argument to BoW's "suggestions".

The best way to show how bad or stupid (IMO) a suggestion is, is to come up with a "reverse" "suggestion", so that the author of the original suggestion will see how others see his.

The fact that you see my statements about "having 'realisticly' less tanks to enforce more positions manned" as something degrative(sp?) means that i was successful in pointing out how stupid his suggestion about "having 'realistic' AT infantry numbers and/or fully-powered tanks without teamsupport" is. Thank you very much for proving my point

Once again, i did not make any suggestions in this thread. All my statements are counter arguments against BoW's suggestion(s). Some of them in the form of direct objections, some of them in the form or "reversed suggestions". But as far as any of this issues are concerned, i am happy with the way it is now

[Abearikishiswisscheese]

Disregarding my own opinion of the matter- I do see a problem with implementing this into the BF engine. Namely, AFAIK conquest mode does not support bots (hence the creation of coop mode). The problem there is: to use this system would mean sacrificing the standard coop mode for a complimented conquest mode. This may not be a big deal for many FHers, but there are those that play solely singleplayer. On the other hand, the good side of this is that servers could choose whether or not to use the bot-filling system.
The only work-around for this I can think of is if HDN programs coop mode to just fill positions (which he probably won't like, considering how much work he must have put into the FH ai already) and then anyone who wants to play true singleplayer downloads Legion's Ballistic mini-mod (which can have a coop mode seperate of FH's). -then to appease HDN, he could work with Legion to make the mini-mod so his work is not wasted (but that will still require both of them agreeing to it).

Hmmm, actually, I like that idea , everyone could be happy. (And Ballistic would probably be all the more popular)

[Anlushac11]

Originally Posted by [SYN] hydraSlav

As i said, read the post (and read it, not just skip over it). That "suggestion" (which is not a suggestion) is a direct counter argument to BoW's "suggestions".

The best way to show how bad or stupid (IMO) a suggestion is, is to come up with a "reverse" "suggestion", so that the author of the original suggestion will see how others see his.

The fact that you see my statements about "having 'realisticly' less tanks to enforce more positions manned" as something degrative(sp?) means that i was successful in pointing out how stupid his suggestion about "having 'realistic' AT infantry numbers and/or fully-powered tanks without teamsupport" is. Thank you very much for proving my point

Once again, i did not make any suggestions in this thread. All my statements are counter arguments against BoW's suggestion(s). Some of them in the form of direct objections, some of them in the form or "reversed suggestions". But as far as any of this issues are concerned, i am happy with the way it is now

Riiiiight. Whatever you have to tell yourself I guess.

[Frederf]

Originally Posted by Anlushac11

Im not the one complaining about how the game plays. I have no problem with it as is.

I don't see how not having any issues with how the game plays insulates you from logic.

List all FH's maps and pick out which are "tank heavy" you'll find a few of infantry maps and a the vast majority are tanker's paradices. The minority are the maps which combine tanks, infantry, naval, and air forces in equal quality.

The proposed feature to FH would allow for such combined maps to be played without gobbling up players into the roles of hull gunners and tailgunners, allowing combined maps to work while still having a multitude of armor. As it stands botless, we have to narrow it down to 3-4 tanks a game to have combined force maps.

[Anlushac11]

Originally Posted by Frederf

I don't see how not having any issues with how the game plays insulates you from logic.

List all FH's maps and pick out which are "tank heavy" you'll find a few of infantry maps and a the vast majority are tanker's paradices. The minority are the maps which combine tanks, infantry, naval, and air forces in equal quality.

The proposed feature to FH would allow for such combined maps to be played without gobbling up players into the roles of hull gunners and tailgunners, allowing combined maps to work while still having a multitude of armor. As it stands botless, we have to narrow it down to 3-4 tanks a game to have combined force maps.

Thats why I suggested linked bomber guns.

There is also historical precedent for Soviet and Allied tanks to operate without hull gunners due to a shortage of personnel. The game imitates history as far as hull gunners go.

[Frederf]

Linked bombers would indeed be nice.

I was not privy to that historical tidbit, I thought the majority of tanks were fielded with 100% crew.

[Anlushac11]

Well they were at first. But in bocage and on Russian front Germans were killing them so fast they ran out of trained crews

Belton Coopers book "Deathtraps talks about it and there is a interview on "The Russian Battlefield.com" with a Soviet tank commander and he tells of the same thing.