Installer Steam
Logg inn
|
språk
简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
繁體中文 (tradisjonell kinesisk)
日本語 (japansk)
한국어 (koreansk)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bulgarsk)
Čeština (tsjekkisk)
Dansk (dansk)
Deutsch (tysk)
English (engelsk)
Español – España (spansk – Spania)
Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latin-Amerika)
Ελληνικά (gresk)
Français (fransk)
Italiano (italiensk)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesisk)
Magyar (ungarsk)
Nederlands (nederlandsk)
Polski (polsk)
Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasil)
Română (rumensk)
Русский (russisk)
Suomi (finsk)
Svenska (svensk)
Türkçe (tyrkisk)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamesisk)
Українська (ukrainsk)
Rapporter et problem med oversettelse
Dette emnet er festet, så det er nok viktig 
Diskusjonsregler og retningslinjer
121 
Rapporter dette innlegget
It'd help with debugging mods tremendously; crashing out because of a weapon name typo for example is a PITA.
1. Tell us how much resources (AP) we will have available in the next match. I want to plan according to how many units I can put into play at the very beginning of the match.
2. Allow us to automatically capture enemy vehicles that are unmanned. I hate having to "strategically" run to the unmanned and immobile vehicles the enemy lost when I am close to winning. If I forget to do this before 90 or so progress I end up losing valuable vehicles.
If you want to place a restriction on it, I suggest testing each unmanned vehicle for whether or not it is within a certain radius (originating from vehicle) of an allied vehicle or soldier. If there is also an enemy soldier/vehicle within the radius then it cannot be captured automatically. This would happen as the round ended and displayed the score.
Also I think your idea of having a radius for capturing damaged vehicles could defeat the challenge of conquest because it would make it too easy for future battles. It's fair enough to have someone in the vehicle and if you forget then that's your problem. All you have to do is make it a habit but of course there are moments that you will have a difficult time trying to capture it. The devs will strongly disagree on your idea on that and many of us already find the AIs as "stupid" as they are because their movements are predictable.
If we use those ideas it would make the game so simple that in the third or fifth game we would be completely bored.
The fun is that the difficulty grows as we go, so your ideas would make it impossible for this to happen.
When playing a long conquest, when you start to have vehicles it becomes very easy as you go, reaching the point where the difficulty decreases a lot. Now imagine if every time we win we keep your vehicles without any effort or risk. This as an example than what you mentioned in your point 2.
In my opinion the developers were completely right on that point.
At your point one, I can't find a reason to carry out that idea, that is, in a game you will have lost either a vehicle or squad or everything, there is no way to calculate that.
a greeting
I have used a translator sorry if there is any error.
I think the fundamental issue with Call to Arms is that the skirmish maps focus too much on being balanced. Despite the almost total superiority of the GEM 2 engine, CTA hasn't really captured as much of the MOWAS 2 community as I feel it should be able to. Some people put it down to the smaller modding scene, but i think it's the other way around. Developing a big mod for a game that itself is in development is obviously going to be a bit of a pain, but when I look at the MOWAS 2 mods that are popular and the Youtube videos about MOWAS 2 and it's mods that still gets tens of thousands of views 6 years later, they all have a quality that the MOWAS 2 base game has, but the CTA base game doesn't.
When I'm playing MOWAS 2 and start a skirmish, especially true if I'm playing a mod like #valour2 with more units, weapons and ammo types, I always spend a lot of time thinking about which faction i want to play, who i want to play against and on what map. Playing as Ger vs USA on a dense city map plays extremely differently to playing ♥♥♥ vs USSR on a more open field map.
In CTA, by contrast, Playing GRM vs USA in a desert plays extremely similarly to Ger vs Rus in an urban map. Now that Russia's in the game, there's a more symmetrical option for the resistance faction. The GRM and Rebels have some asymmetry, in the use of technicals instead of dedicated military recon, leading to them being vulnerable to small arms fire, though they're faster and more responsive. As a result, the most fun i've had in the game so far has been in destroying enemy tanks with the spg technical. Beyond that, all the other units across every faction almost totally mirrors each other in quality and role.
In previous games, the choice of faction you played as and against and the map you played on created such a variety in tactical approaches that it was almost like playing a totally different game, where as in Call To Arms, it's basically about whether I like the NATO military aesthetic or the Soviet style.
If, for example, the GRM was based around the use of converted civilian and older military vehicles, such as the famous techinicals in Syria, that have very little versitility but are extrememly potent at very specific tasks. Such as armoured battle buses that can carry massive amounts of troops but can't withstand any sort of anti-tank weapon, or technicals with the turret of an older APC mounted on an armoured structure in the bed, which likewise can be used to deliver a lot of fire power to the battle expediantly but doesnt stand any chance against even lighter anti tank weapons. This sort of faction would be almost useless in the hands of an inexperienced player, but players with better tactical planning and awareness can ensure that all the vehicles are used in a way that avoids exploitation of their weakness.
I feel that, if each faction offered a different approach to the game, rather than essentially a different aesthetic, the game would be far more appealing to myself and many of the MOWAS 2 players who haven't really been interested in picking up CTA, and in turn creating a larger audience.
The mechanical depth of the MOWS series really insulates the game against balancing issues leading to unfun gameplay, the opposite really appears to be true. Online games in CTA get boring fast due to the lack of inter faction variablility. There is always a unit in my arsenal that is "supposed" to deal with any particular issue, and all these counters are mirrored across all factions, so almost the same thing happens every game, which has never been an issue for me in MOWAS 2. If, for example, I'm playing as Japan vs Germany, and germany fields a Tiger II, Japan has no direct answer to it. However, if i can seperate the tank from it's support, i can out flank it and target it's weaker side armour, or target it's tracks, then barrage it with smoke shells, then use the smoke cover to approach it with kamikaze troops.
Pulling off these sorts of eleborate, nonstandard tactics are the exact sort of thing that makes MOW games so memorable and unique, but CTA very rarely necessitates or even encourages this sort of thinking. However on the rare occasion it does, CTA stops feeling like a MOW spin off and starts feeling like it's successor.
I do believe however that it needs quite a bit more polishing up.
The main part that I believes needs the most polishing it the "Direct Control" of infantry units.
I have played over 5K hours in CSGO(combined over several accounts) this is a very simple not realistic shooter. I have also played many hours in ARMA 2 and ARMA 3 aswell as Escape From Tarkov these are very realistic shooters. this direct control mode was very unspectacular and did not meet my expectations. in its current state its some weird mixed of the 2 types and is not enjoyable. that being said it very well has the potential to be absolutely amazing in giving someone like me that may lack in rts unit control management skills to compensate with formidable FPS skill to excel in first person combat. Devs in case your still wondering what the issue is movement feels very choppy and not fluid for quick peeks or bullet avoidance. the graphics are also very odd and I feel with the proper shaders and some well placed shadows and ambient occlusion it could really be nice.
add a "semi realistic" option for fog of war :
where it functions just the same as realistic only there is a slightly noticeable fog over areas that you do not have vision for reminding you that you don't know what is there.
add a version of gameplay called "control point" or similar:
very similar to evacuation but there is no time limit and no CP limit with the objective being to survive as many waves as you can. to balance gameplay have an option to have an additional AI (with a difficulty preset by the user ) join the enemy team every x (also have this set by the user(5,10,15,20) number of waves.
for helicopters with the landing operation when the user hovers over the land button have the game simulate a landing in the back end and if there is a collision that will result in death of the unit turn the button yellow or give a " LANDING AT THIS POSITION IS NOT RECOMMENDED" message on the tool tip.
A mode in between normal and hardcore realism, rather than 60 bullets or 2 bullets make a 10 bullet to kill mode and maybe call it realisticish?
Thank you for taking the time to read :)
**I give you full permission to use my intellectual property for free**
Also please give us an overhead tactical map so I can see what my units are doing. I can't identify any of my units on the mini map. It's trash and hard to use. I can only tell that I have a vehicle somewhere. Other than that it's completely useless.
Also, let us shift click (or something..) to put the unit into the current stage in conquest.
Please make the vehicles engage targets whenever possible (even from highest range) no matter how slow fast they are moving. It's just annoying to see it do nothing!
Also, can we make up our own squads with our own infantry?
MP Conquest with official servers please. (idk about our own infantry in MP conquest though.)
I was just playing a Conquest earlier and the AI were absolutely spamming vehicles at me, of which id say 10 were MBTs, with no end in sight. There were atleast 1-2 more on the field with tons more on the way im sure. I lost one Abrams and then had to baby sit the other one during every engagement, because if I didnt, my tank would just get absolutely hammered. My 2nd Abrams had like a sliver of health left on its turret before I took over.
The Ai just swarmed all over the place while i had to DC all my vehicles, because they cant handle anything on their own. These are just the ♥♥♥♥♥♥ T-72s of the GRM as well, that and T-80BVs of the GRM, those are only 500 armor tanks, yet the M1A2 TUSK gets completely wrecked by them, when left to their own devices. Like, the Abrams will not even scratch the T- series and just be dead.....Ya cant win a raging, multi front battle, when every tank engagement has to be baby sat......that is at least 24-36s spent, and ALOT happens in that time.
Then I was in the battle JUST before this one and almost losing my Abrams to BMP 2 ATGM spam right through the front. WTH....
Also, can you guys add track health? Im about sick and tired of every engagement being an instantaneous detrack. So you think your going to wiggle around, hill hump shoot and maneuver? NOPE, first shot fired blows the track off, and then its just a DPM war.....
Hulldown you might say? YEt the Abrams turret in game is just as bad as its hull, at 600.
M1A2 and M1A2 TUSK: Turret: Front: 860, Hull Front: 650
Well I'm trying to make the devs answer the same question for days...
I asked when the story takes place, but so far no answer :(
I think the problem is that they are using armor values of the M1IP and M1A1 (without DU armor).
These are late Cold War and 90s era variants.
I think they originally planned to create an alternate post cold war game (so the story takes place in the 90s, but with a different history) because up until the russians, every tank in the game is from this era.
And it makes perfect sense: we have more info about armor and weapon stats from that era.
Also, this is a perfect way to stay impartial regarding who has the best tanks now.
And trust me, you don't want to go down into that rubbit hole.
Think about it M1A2 (1992), Leopard 2A4 (1985) , Leopard 2A5 (1995). The same era.
Their enemies were T-80BV (1985) and T-80U (1995).
And this makes sense until you look at the Russians.
Because:
T-80UM from the german campaign (1995) - that's ok (however I don't understand the better stats compared to T-80U - their armor is the same...)
T-72B3 (2011 !!!!!!!)
T-90M (entered service only a FEW WEEKS ago)
So that's why the russian tanks are so OP. They are somehow using time travel :)
And that's why the Abrams is so week. Because the armor values used are essentially the M1A1's values (not even the standard A2). Any later varint has thicker armor on the turret than the frontal hull, because until relatively recently only the turret had DU plates.
So I think the problem comes from some kind of conceptional change they made regarding the story and the overall vision.
And that's OK. I don't blame them.
But I think they should answer this question, because I paid for this product.
And if the answer is what I suspect, then they should either buff the rest of the MBTs or nerf the russian ones.
But until then we have to face time traveling russian tanks with cold war relics.