Battlefront Forum

CriticalMass · Post by **CriticalMass** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 12:11 pm

It looks like Battlefront have taken down the archived AA:RDOA forum.

Such a shame, as it was the best resource of tips and tactics. I don't suppose one of you resourceful chaps compiled there own snippets from the forum, that they would like to share with us all. I was always intending to compile an FAQ/Guide (for personal use: I don't profess to be a writer) but I didn't realise there was a time frame

Critical

Golf33 · Post by **Golf33** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 1:01 pm

I'm sure we'll get enough questions from new players once HTTR comes out, the useful stuff will reconstruct itself pretty quickly

Bil already posted a brief playguide on TDZ but there's certainly room for additions - I'm sure JeF would welcome any submissions.

Cheers
33

CriticalMass · Post by **CriticalMass** » Fri Apr 11, 2003 12:37 pm

I guess that is what I was trying to say: Once HTTR does come out, it would be such a shame that all that was learnt was lost...unless of course HTTR is so radically different to RDOA - which I doubt.

I understand the interface is being overhauled (nice to get a screenshot or two, Dave?). but I would guess the underlying engine won't change so much - and of course tactics is tactics (that's what makes this game so great). This, I guess makes all those once answered questions still pretty valid.

Several of you guys have posted some excellent tactical tips (nothing gamey here) and I'm sure you will answer them again, but if there was just a central repository, you could spend that time on the excellent AARs and new scenarios

Critical

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Fri Apr 11, 2003 9:09 pm

Hmm I can further add to the first posts actually.

Battlefront is now now longer able to give any evidence AA ever even existed.

I find that kind of sad really.

I enjoy the SC forum (which has slowed t a real crawl in the last month actually). They have some nice guys there.

But I am wondering about policy decisions from the Battlefront people themselves.

They are looking increasingly insular today. I still like the games they support. But ditching a forum that was well known there, almost seems like saying it never existed.

I recently parted ways with the Battlefront community. The owners are only interested in their own little world. They really don't seem to want to acknowledge the rest of the wargaming world.

At Battlefront, there are no other games out there but there own.

TMO · Post by **TMO** » Sat Apr 12, 2003 7:32 pm

Originally posted by Golf33
I'm sure we'll get enough questions from new players once HTTR comes out, the useful stuff will reconstruct itself pretty quickly

I'd like to ask a question: let's say I detach a coy from its btn headquarters and put it under command of, say, another detached but senior coy, is its combat effectiveness changed in any way now that it is under the command of a captain rather than a major?

TMO

Grouchy · Post by **Grouchy** » Sun Apr 13, 2003 3:17 am

Originally posted by TMO
I'd like to ask a question: let's say I detach a coy from its btn headquarters and put it under command of, say, another detached but senior coy, is its combat effectiveness changed in any way now that it is under the command of a captain rather than a major?

TMO

You probally overload the command ability of that particular unit, when you do it will result in some additional delay in the order processing.
The other factor is of course the skill level of the new commanding officer.

TMO · Post by **TMO** » Sun Apr 13, 2003 2:47 pm

Originally posted by Grouchy
You probally overload the command ability of that particular unit, when you do it will result in some additional delay in the order processing.
The other factor is of course the skill level of the new commanding officer.

Thanks for the reply Grouchy, I aggree with you. The reason I asked the question was that I was playing a game recently and needed some firepower elsewhere on the battlefield but still needed to occupy an objective. I (foolishly?) detached three coys from a btn headquarters unit, leaving the headquarters unit (with its low combat power) to occupy the objective. Thinking about my decision the next day, would I have done better by leaving one coy at the objective and sending the other two off under the command of their own headquarters unit? Maybe the guys at Panther can give me the definitive answer.

I seem to remember on the Battlefront forum that someone asked whether it would be possible to break units down into their constituent sub-units. Is this going to be possible in HTTR? If so then I could detach a platoon from a coy and use it to occupy an objective and utilise the remaining combat power elsewhere.

TMO

Golf33 · Post by **Golf33** » Sun Apr 13, 2003 3:37 pm

Yep, if you need to use that bn as a reserve you are best off to leave a single coy behind and use the bn(-) under its own HQ.

Using the coys grouped without the HQ will cause severe orders delays and usually they will not act in coordination.

Using each of the coys individually will reduce the orders delays a bit (unless you overwhelm your own HQ which gets an increased load from each unit you command directly) but will remove the ability to use those coys in coordination.

Leaving a single coy and using the HQ in charge of the remainder of the Bn will reduce orders delays, minimize the load on your own HQ, and allow you to use this group in coordinated actions.

Regards
33

MarkShot · Post by **MarkShot** » Sun Apr 13, 2003 5:49 pm

Try this:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ ... forum;f=17

As it turns out, they took it off the forum display, but the pages are still out there and accessible.

Technical support is:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ ... forum;f=19

Beta forum is, for any of you who had access:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ ... forum&f=14

Arjuna · Post by **Arjuna** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 4:01 am

TMO,

Steve's ( Golf33 ) reply is correct.

We won't be providing in-game unit breakdowns in AA:HTTR. To provide this capability would take months of work. It's a very big job. You have to work out ways to get the AI to do it sensibly and not only to breakdown but to reform as well. In fact I don't believe this is even on our wish list. I could see some use for it but the work required v benefit to be gained ratio is too low compared to other features. So I doubt if it will even make Game 3. Sorry,

TMO · Post by **TMO** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 1:48 pm

Arjuna

TMO · Post by **TMO** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 1:50 pm

Arjuna

Thanks for the reply, it's not a problem. Glad to see you're thinking about Game 3 though.

TMO

Arjuna · Post by **Arjuna** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 1:58 pm

And Game 4 and Game 5 ...

JeF · Post by **JeF** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:58 pm

Dave,

Originally posted by Arjuna
And Game 4 and Game 5 ...

Can you stop dreaming and ship sumfink ?
We are waiting here

Well not really as far as I'm concerned, ... but other might.

BTW, to fuel the original discussion. I would like the game *without* the additional complexity of splitting and reforming units. Unit scale down to the company is perfect for me.

Markshot,

Old forums are still there. I noticed it also. I won't be for long I'm afraid. Time to save some threads I believe...

Cheers,

JeF.

Jane Doe · Post by **Jane Doe** » Wed Apr 16, 2003 10:46 am

That really sucks.
Everything was there and they just dumped it all.

I hope somebody archived the tips and eveything about AA that Markshot had searched for all of us here.
Anyway, glad to see you all back

Jane Doe (aka TH);)

Battlefront Forum

Battlefront Forum

battlefront aardoa down