Page 1 of 1
Indirect Arty Fire
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 9:55 pm
by jamespcrowley
Jason, just noticed your very interesting artillery article:
http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/campaig ... llery.html
You state in it:
"All of the combatants during the war were capable of firing Artillery by coordinates on a map and by the use of a forward observer. Unfortunately, it appears that everyone and their dog is a forward observer in the Campaign Series".
Presumably there has been no change to this in the Matrix re-release. Material for a patch - FOO's ?
RE: Indirect Arty Fire
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:09 pm
by Jason Petho
ORIGINAL: James Crowley
Jason, just noticed your very interesting artillery article:
http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/campaig ... llery.html
You state in it:
"All of the combatants during the war were capable of firing Artillery by coordinates on a map and by the use of a forward observer. Unfortunately, it appears that everyone and their dog is a forward observer in the Campaign Series".
Presumably there has been no change to this in the Matrix re-release.
Material for a patch - FOO's ?
Bingo, once Wyatt can figure out the code. Another one of my dreams!
Take care and good luck
Jason Petho
RE: Indirect Arty Fire
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:21 am
by jamespcrowley
ORIGINAL: Jason Petho
ORIGINAL: James Crowley
Jason, just noticed your very interesting artillery article:
http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/campaig ... llery.html
You state in it:
"All of the combatants during the war were capable of firing Artillery by coordinates on a map and by the use of a forward observer. Unfortunately, it appears that everyone and their dog is a forward observer in the Campaign Series".
Presumably there has been no change to this in the Matrix re-release.
Material for a patch - FOO's ?
Bingo, once Wyatt can figure out the code. Another one of my dreams!
Take care and good luck
Jason Petho
Jason, as someone who has no clue about programming, I wonder how realistic is it to expect fairly major changes to the code? And even if theoretically possible is there the time and resource to carry them through?
My dream would be to see a conversion to WE-GO format but I suspect that would be a dream too far.
RE: Indirect Arty Fire
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:12 am
by JudgeDredd
On the subject of code, what is this written in?
RE: Indirect Arty Fire
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:18 pm
by Jason Petho
ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
On the subject of code, what is this written in?
Good question, Wyatt would know.
Jason Petho
RE: Indirect Arty Fire
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:12 pm
by Chris Bisson
What type of unit would constitute an FO? Would it be a new unit or maybe an HQ unit? Personally I try to keep the HQ out of enemy LOS. If you're planning on a "new unit" for FO's then would they not be very difficult to be spotted by the enemy? Considdering they are very small units and are trying to be stealthy. The current game allows any unit that moves to lose it's concealment.... period. I like the concept if it can be done.
RE: Indirect Arty Fire
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:14 pm
by Jason Petho
ORIGINAL: Platoon Crusher
What type of unit would constitute an FO? Would it be a new unit or maybe an HQ unit? Personally I try to keep the HQ out of enemy LOS. If you're planning on a "new unit" for FO's then would they not be very difficult to be spotted by the enemy? Considdering they are very small units and are trying to be stealthy. The current game allows any unit that moves to lose it's concealment.... period. I like the concept if it can be done.
Yes, it would be a whole new unit, I am imagining anyway.
I agree with the FOO being a small unit and hard to spot.
Jason Petho