Author Topic: Camo and digging in  (Read 3278 times)

Offline 321BAR

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6140
Re: Camo and digging in
« Reply #30 on: March 27, 2011, 08:23:21 PM »
:neener:  only when fortifying fixed positions...like a base, not on open battlefields
Okay so how is it inaccurate if you are defending your base and you dig in?
This

Enemy gv's are already hard enough to spot if the background is dark enough and/or similar enough to their camouflage.  Also, their ability to hide behind hills and be totally protected yet get their turret traversed enough and the sight and barrel through the hill to fire is camo net enough for me.  No cloaking device needed, imo.
yes but some of these battlefields are almost completely flat. digging in or putting netting over a low profile GV would instantly make it more dangerous
Quote
I still maintain that reducing the icon range for plane to gv identification be less than 1000 yards would increase "realism" and make it more of a challenge for the dive bombers.
agreed
I am in need of a new epic quote
Happy Jack's Go Buggy

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Camo and digging in
« Reply #31 on: March 27, 2011, 08:48:07 PM »
Camouflage skins can't be relied on when so many people don't use them or have them disabled. 
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline 321BAR

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6140
Re: Camo and digging in
« Reply #32 on: March 27, 2011, 11:30:59 PM »
Camouflage skins can't be relied on when so many people don't use them or have them disabled. 
yes but HTC can separate skins from objects. the skin may be the same but the netting would be an object. not a skin
I am in need of a new epic quote
Happy Jack's Go Buggy

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Camo and digging in
« Reply #33 on: March 27, 2011, 11:58:40 PM »
I mean the skins we have now can't be relied on to assess anything.. There's no guarantee anyone doesn't have em disabled, that you aren't showing up as a bright orange spot to them.
Quote
Enemy gv's are already hard enough to spot if the background is dark enough and/or similar enough to their camouflage. [...] No cloaking device needed, imo.

Camo netting would ideally be separate, yep.  Make the shape and then texture it using recycled bits of texture from the terrain. Just like the real deal.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline tmetal

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2279
Re: Camo and digging in
« Reply #34 on: March 28, 2011, 03:36:37 PM »
With the rework HTC is doing to the way GV's are driven and used, this is leading towards inclusion of tank destroyers that where commonly dug in or camouflaged in some way or another in real life. A big +1 for both abilities from me.  Also a shortened icon range for GV's viewed from the air is a great idea, but personally I can normally spot a GV in my stuka way before the current icon pops up, especially if it is on the move or firing. So a camo net would be great for hiding from prowling jabo planes.

The only thing that I would add to the discussion so far is that if camo netting is implemented and GV icon range is shortened or removed. Then add some kind of smoke marker that certain planes can drop from the air. All that combined would add a new fun way to play the game IMHO.
The real problem is anyone should feel like they can come to this forum and make a wish without being treated in a derogatory manner.  The only discussion should be centered around whether it would work, or how it would work and so on always in a respectful manner.

-Skuzzy 5/18/17

Offline Oddball-CAF

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Camo and digging in
« Reply #35 on: March 28, 2011, 04:18:44 PM »
  I gotta give this the "thumbs down".  Both "digging in" and "camo" are two features of a
static battlefield. Given that movement to contact and/or spawning to a battle area would not
allow for either, I'm against it.

Offline Oddball-CAF

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Camo and digging in
« Reply #36 on: March 28, 2011, 04:21:15 PM »
 I'd like to see more immersion added to this sim-game <snip>

  If by "more immersion" you mean, more realism, I'm all for that. So let's start by having tanks tear up any field
they go across, leaving big, easily identifiable trails on the ground, let's model cross country speeds, too as opposed
to it all being modeled as if they were on roads, get rid of the magical field repairs with "supplies" as well. Oh,
the spawn points, too. If planes can't "spawn" to another sector, why let the GVs?
  Be careful what you wish for, you just might get more realism than you think you want. ;)
« Last Edit: March 28, 2011, 04:29:05 PM by Oddball-CAF »

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Camo and digging in
« Reply #37 on: March 28, 2011, 04:43:04 PM »
Wouldn't digging in mean immobilization?  Wouldn't that make getting smoked out particularily bad news?  We already have embankments at the vbases and those don't really make the tanks indestructible nor really stimy battlefield flux, and there aren't too many other valuable pieces of territory in the game where ground vehicles would gain from digging in:
Town defense: you could either set up plain defense at the town, or set up an ambush somewhere between spawn and town.  Either way, esp at the town, town capture objective would make you a target similar to the Tiger today: people point it out in particular and it goes right up everyone's priority bombing list.
Fields: you're set up under even denser air traffic, with consequent odds of getting bombed.  The only advantage there would be vulching or camping just out of auto ack range before starting to shell the field.  Either way you end up with the same vulnerability in immobilization: marked for A2G.
Anything else?  There could be more added to the ground war.. E.G random urban areas instead of nothing but open country outside of towns, fields, and strats... offroading made as rocky (maybe randomly vary it from slightly worse than it is now (definitely no long range mobile gunnery) to as bad as it used to be (you couldn't go full speed from rocking) ) as it used to be so that roads (have a handful of path choices linking any two random urban areas or towns/fields/strats so that there's some fog of war involved) regain value, and focus battles more than it is now: no concerns other than the ultimate target - fields or towns or strats.

Camo - couldn't it be made only an extension of the skin-camo functionality we already have?  Meaning that it would be crafted so as to improve on the visual (literally better camo against terrain and nothing else, no icon or other gameplay mechanics powerups etc) camo we have now.


  If by "more immersion" you mean, more realism, I'm all for that. So let's start by having tanks tear up any field
they go across, leaving big, easily identifiable trails on the ground, let's model cross country speeds, too as opposed
to it all being modeled as if they were on roads, get rid of the magical field repairs with "supplies" as well. Oh,
the spawn points, too. If planes can't "spawn" to another sector, why let the GVs?
  Be careful what you wish for, you just might get more realism than you think you want. ;)
The right way about it is to pick and choose those parts of reality that make for fun gameplay.  Roads, spawns, trails but not rooster trails you can see across the map, field supplies with a limited delay like planes have on hotpad rather than something burdensomely realistic, etc.  Wheat and chaff.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2011, 04:56:26 PM by moot »
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Camo and digging in
« Reply #38 on: March 28, 2011, 04:46:48 PM »
Original post was thinking of trees and bushes in AH. By requesting to put them on tanks for "camo" the real effect is that they instantly stop all incoming shells of any shape/size. Knowing how they work in AH, it would be the ultimate power-up!

Effectively asking for super sheilds (TM, patent pending)!!!!











 :noid :noid :noid

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Camo and digging in
« Reply #39 on: March 28, 2011, 04:57:33 PM »
You would be that much bigger a moving volume.. That's not as stealthy when moving as going without camo.  Just the kind of tradeoff that usually makes for fun gameplay.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline 321BAR

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6140
Re: Camo and digging in
« Reply #40 on: March 28, 2011, 07:03:53 PM »
You would be that much bigger a moving volume.. That's not as stealthy when moving as going without camo.  Just the kind of tradeoff that usually makes for fun gameplay.
shoot and scoot tactics would be great with camo. and great for me and my tiger (or M-18 :noid ) :D
I am in need of a new epic quote
Happy Jack's Go Buggy

Offline colmbo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
      • Photos
Re: Camo and digging in
« Reply #41 on: March 28, 2011, 10:25:56 PM »
I mean the skins we have now can't be relied on to assess anything.. There's no guarantee anyone doesn't have em disabled, that you aren't showing up as a bright orange spot to them.

Really?  That would explain some things.  Bummer.
Columbo

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."

Fate whispers to the warrior "You cannot withstand the storm" and the warrior whispers back "I AM THE STORM"

Offline BaldEagl

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10791
Re: Camo and digging in
« Reply #42 on: March 28, 2011, 10:44:17 PM »
Original post was thinking of trees and bushes in AH.

It was?  Actually I was thinking more along the lines of a loose camo cover that took on some of the terrain coloration so that the size, shape and color didn't scream out tank but could still be discerned as such on close observation.
I edit a lot of my posts.  Get used to it.

Offline Shiva

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
      • http://members.cox.net/srmalloy/
Re: Camo and digging in
« Reply #43 on: March 30, 2011, 09:20:33 PM »
fyi, camo netting only shielded guns from being spotted by aircraft...ground units could still spot them by various methods.
Then put that effect to use -- Any GV has the abiility to camouflage itself. Camouflaging a vehicle takes X number of minutes to set up or take down, and the vehicle must be stationary. Once camouflaged, the vehicle does not show an icon to hostiles. If the vehicle moves while camouflaged, or while setting up or taking down the camouflage, it immediately becomes uncamouflaged and cannot use camouflage again until resupplied.

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Camo and digging in
« Reply #44 on: March 30, 2011, 10:45:03 PM »
It'd be better to have to press some key or button (like the supply button) to enable moving/breaking up camo/dig in.  Or a bad key stroke (with new wasd system) will cost you those minutes/supplies/camo/cover.

Both "digging in" and "camo" are two features of a
static battlefield. Given that movement to contact and/or spawning to a battle area would not
allow for either, I'm against it.
Not sure how/why movement to contact/spawning to battle wouldn't allow digging in or camo props, but you could destroy dug-in embankment with enough HE.   
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you