Posted: 08 May 2006, 14:00
are you referring to GRAW??? ;)
Page 1 of 1
Posted: 08 May 2006, 14:23
GRAW should be able to have its problems patched, they don't seem to be design flaws. Whether or not they all will or not is unknown...
Posted: 08 May 2006, 15:37
not so sure... should be fixable, but a couple things are part of the concept and may be difficult to change:
leader dies=mission over
only 4 players coop
leader dies=mission over
only 4 players coop
Posted: 08 May 2006, 16:49
And those flaws are HUGE IMHO, Steel. I bought the game knowing that it would be limited to four ppl and was willing to gamble on that. But the leader dying thing is just plain ridiculous. Not only is it unrealistic, but it makes the game next to impossible to play, which is too bad because I must confess that I like the game a lot. Ah well. I'll definitely be keeping my eye on this one though :-)
Posted: 09 May 2006, 10:00
I don't see why it would be so hard to change the mission over thing.
Posted: 09 May 2006, 10:20
It's quite simple really. Whoever is the leader during the mission can just stay back a safe distance and give orders via the tactical map to the other 3 guys.
That command method worked just fine for generals during World War I.
That command method worked just fine for generals during World War I.
Posted: 09 May 2006, 13:05
Except that since the bad guys can attack from the rear at times, you need to really split into two groups, with the leader in the rear group yet with a guy for cover.
Posted: 09 May 2006, 14:02
Yep. and who really wants to sit back and coordinate anyway? Would that be the way it goes down in real life? I assume if you're in a firefight, you don't have that luxury. I dunno. Makes no sense to me. If I was leading troops, I'd expect to be up front or close thereto. I sure wouldn't be in the back saying,"gee, war is dangerous...you go first." Ah well.
Posted: 09 May 2006, 14:03
well first if you think it is simple to change you have probably not ever coded a software program as complex as this. i said it might be difficult to change...the only folks that know are the product manager and the folks working on the application. it depends upon the requirements and the coding methodology.
Panzer it is not that simple or easy, the leader in this case is NOT a general. the leader is a fire team leader. guess what? fire team leader are as much part of a fire teams firepower as any other member. they actively participate in combat. period. you can't hang back. there should be a full squad or team (if it is spec ops). that is minimum six for a spec ops team vs. 10-12 for a infantry squad.
Grif is right - it is called lead by example. you can't do that from the back. there are times when it is prudent for a leader to not risk their life for the greater need, but that is not until squad leader or higher. and squad leaders are not that far back. at operation lion claws this year i will have a personal security detachment...(not my choice, part of the scenario). most good leaders have a difficult time staying back.
Panzer it is not that simple or easy, the leader in this case is NOT a general. the leader is a fire team leader. guess what? fire team leader are as much part of a fire teams firepower as any other member. they actively participate in combat. period. you can't hang back. there should be a full squad or team (if it is spec ops). that is minimum six for a spec ops team vs. 10-12 for a infantry squad.
Grif is right - it is called lead by example. you can't do that from the back. there are times when it is prudent for a leader to not risk their life for the greater need, but that is not until squad leader or higher. and squad leaders are not that far back. at operation lion claws this year i will have a personal security detachment...(not my choice, part of the scenario). most good leaders have a difficult time staying back.
Posted: 09 May 2006, 15:41
Yep. Over here we operate in sections of eight men, made up of two 4-man fireteams:
Charlie fireteam usually consists of section commander, team scout, rad op + 1 other (possibly being team sniper pairing-up with team scout for sighting).
Delta fireteam will usually be section 2i/c, gun group (gunner + gunner support) + 1 other.
There is the potential to place sniper and sighter in Delta and two standard infantry soldiers in Charlie - but that sort of alteration is usually more mission dictated than personal commander's choice IMHO.
Sometimes a pairing will operate in an anti-tank role (Milan, Carl Gustav{Charlie-G} "84" or "96", Javelin, etc.,) but usually additional rounds will be split amongst the section. It's also quite common for each soldier to carry a "66" too.
We tend to fight only in webbing, dropping our backpacks. Easy to see why when you look at what is carried into the battle itself.
Charlie fireteam usually consists of section commander, team scout, rad op + 1 other (possibly being team sniper pairing-up with team scout for sighting).
Delta fireteam will usually be section 2i/c, gun group (gunner + gunner support) + 1 other.
There is the potential to place sniper and sighter in Delta and two standard infantry soldiers in Charlie - but that sort of alteration is usually more mission dictated than personal commander's choice IMHO.
Sometimes a pairing will operate in an anti-tank role (Milan, Carl Gustav{Charlie-G} "84" or "96", Javelin, etc.,) but usually additional rounds will be split amongst the section. It's also quite common for each soldier to carry a "66" too.
We tend to fight only in webbing, dropping our backpacks. Easy to see why when you look at what is carried into the battle itself.
Posted: 10 May 2006, 15:28
Which, of course, raises a real point with GRAW. You would think that they would've consulted military organizations before coding this game. Or at the very least, fall back on the paradigm in GR1, which is more true to life quite frankly, than try and reinvent the wheel here. I just can't imagine what they were thinking when they decided that if the leader dies the mission is over. :shock: Stupid and unrealistic. So, here we are stuck ion the mobile with the blues again. I'm guessing they won't ever fix that particular problem and it will be something, for those of us who choose to play the game, will have to deal with.
Posted: 10 May 2006, 16:11
*ALERT! ALERT!* Thread derailment!!!
If they gave all team members the opportunity to heal in some manner, I could deal with the leader dying = mission over thing. *shrug* Hopefully they will listen to the community feedback and come up with a solution.
If they gave all team members the opportunity to heal in some manner, I could deal with the leader dying = mission over thing. *shrug* Hopefully they will listen to the community feedback and come up with a solution.
Posted: 10 May 2006, 18:58
i fixed the thread hijack i started... 
these posts are now their own thread.
these posts are now their own thread.
Posted: 11 May 2006, 12:56
Okay, WHO hi-jacked the thread . . . . . . ?!
Posted: 15 May 2006, 08:08
Everyone sit down! We are taking this thread to Cuba!!!
Posted: 15 May 2006, 09:46
[quote="Softball
If they gave all team members the opportunity to heal in some manner, I could deal with the leader dying = mission over thing. *shrug* Hopefully they will listen to the community feedback and come up with a solution.[/quote]
Interestingly (or maybe not) this is actually a feature in the XBox version of the game. Whilst you can't return them to full health, you can patch them up. I understand you also get the opportunity to re-equip/rearm during missions at munitions caches etc, as well as a more sensible implmentation of AT-4 than i've seen so far (only on mission 2 atm, after spending ages stuck trying to get round a tank that pulls up next to the gas station, with me having no at-4 or airtstrikes or anything capable of taking it out).
If they gave all team members the opportunity to heal in some manner, I could deal with the leader dying = mission over thing. *shrug* Hopefully they will listen to the community feedback and come up with a solution.[/quote]
Interestingly (or maybe not) this is actually a feature in the XBox version of the game. Whilst you can't return them to full health, you can patch them up. I understand you also get the opportunity to re-equip/rearm during missions at munitions caches etc, as well as a more sensible implmentation of AT-4 than i've seen so far (only on mission 2 atm, after spending ages stuck trying to get round a tank that pulls up next to the gas station, with me having no at-4 or airtstrikes or anything capable of taking it out).
Posted: 07 Jun 2006, 21:46
Moose armed with any form of Anti-tank is not a pretty sight or event.
"Incoming"
"Incoming"
Posted: 08 Jun 2006, 05:37
I just avoid the tank at the gas station. You don't have to kill it, and it doesn't block your escape. The one at the parking garage you HAVE to kill, but you can grab a Zeus rocket from the UH60 on the roof to nail it.