Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
It also changes the accuracy of the enemy soldiers when firing their weapon.
On hardcore your soldiers get no buffs at all, on all other levels your soldiers get buffs.
On hardcore the enemy soldiers have slightly less health (80% I think) and the same accuracy with their weapons as your soldiers have.
I'm not sure how playing on 'normal' made the battle last longer. The battle should be over more quickly as the enemy soldiers have fewer HP and your soldiers are just as accurate as they ever were if not even more accurate.
AI repairing their own vehicles or capturing yours is base game for quite some time now, it isn't the mod's doing.
on hardcore crazy
i play mostly on hard with configurator
I imagine it was because the AI was more inclined to miss, thus allowing me to fight it out longer. I can't micromanage my men nearly as fast as the CPU, and it often gets its guys into the best coverage reasonably available and switch control to individual men orders of magnitude faster than I can. Also, AI guys may die faster, but they also have a lot more reinforcements. So I can kill all I want, they'll spawn more.
It would only end sooner if my accuracy was the limiting factor. It was not. It was the AIs accuracy that tended to limit firefight time. And the more shots the AI misses, the longer the battle lasts.
It makes perfect sense.
I'm sure it's highly map-dependent. Based on what you're saying, it sounds like I'll have a big advantage on open fields.
Normal did feel much more realistic, but my sample size is small. Soldiers on the battlefield just aren't that accurate. At least from what I understand. I've never been there myself, but I did have a pillow fight once, and I'm pretty sure it's more or less the same thing.
Snapshot I can agree with - enemy units are just as accurate as your own on hardcore.
The seeing through a wall part would use the same logic no matter if you are playing on easy or norrmal or hardcore/heroic.
A unit can't be 'stealth' inside a building. There are no bushes inside any building so how can you possibly be in "stealth" mode?
I'd agree with this. Once you've gotten use to fighting hardcore/heroic it's rather boring and meaningless to try and play a lower setting.
Recently someone asked about the MP settings for a "normal" Conquest game so I ran the first one or two days of a Conquest on normal.
I setup elaborate defences waited and waited for the onslaught
The AI spawned 3 squads of infantry. They died almost instantly within the first 10 minutes of the match.
I was still waiting for "the rest" to attack at 30 minutes but they never came.
The MP spent on those 3 squads was all the MP the AI had so I was sitting around waiting for enemy forces that only existed in my imagination.
The AI did also have 2 MGs and an infantry gun but they were all sitting at on defence flags and were easily dealt with by sneaking up behind them with grenades.