View Full Version : armor v. infantry
I am playing MikeSinn's tutorial 1. I have engaged the Iraqi's in the village, but cannot dislodge them from some buildings. I have taken casualties with my troops on foot. I have moved up my armor, but they will only engage with the 7.62 machineguns. We are in a stalemate and I want the armor to use their cannons and .50 cals on the infantry hunkered in the buildings. I have given direct orders repeatedly, but they won't fire the big guns. Is there a reason armor won't fire on infantry with anything more than 7.62?? Doesn't seem right....
Choowee,
I might be worth directing your question to Scott Hamilton at HPS. If it is a bug the report would be useful, if it is not he will explain the reason why they don't use main guns.
cheers
Gary
I am playing MikeSinn's tutorial 1. I have engaged the Iraqi's in the village, but cannot dislodge them from some buildings. I have taken casualties with my troops on foot. I have moved up my armor, but they will only engage with the 7.62 machineguns. We are in a stalemate and I want the armor to use their cannons and .50 cals on the infantry hunkered in the buildings. I have given direct orders repeatedly, but they won't fire the big guns. Is there a reason armor won't fire on infantry with anything more than 7.62?? Doesn't seem right....
Hi Choowee,
Which build version are you using? When playtesting this scenario, I was using Build 201 and did not encounter this problem. In fact, I thought that the Bradely's 25mm chaingun was a little too effective. I will try to play this scenario again under the latest build and see if I can recreate this situation.
As Gary mentioned, please send an email to Scott with this issue and include the saved game.
Thanks,
Mike
On a somewhat related note...has anyone had problems with getting tanks to fire their main guns at other tanks. I have built a test scenario with M1A2's moving up on some T-90's just to get used to the mechanics. The 90's insist on firing MG's from 3000m out. I have directly ordered 125mm fire only to have it sometimes not fire at all or fire one round and then switch back to MG. This seems to hold true right up to close range. Every now and then both sides lob a main gun round, but on the whole its trading MG fire throughout. (build 215)
On a somewhat related note...has anyone had problems with getting tanks to fire their main guns at other tanks. I have built a test scenario with M1A2's moving up on some T-90's just to get used to the mechanics. The 90's insist on firing MG's from 3000m out. I have directly ordered 125mm fire only to have it sometimes not fire at all or fire one round and then switch back to MG. This seems to hold true right up to close range. Every now and then both sides lob a main gun round, but on the whole its trading MG fire throughout. (build 215)
This is a problem that is still needing addressed. Check the facing of the tanks. I have found that to be the problem. Tanks are not rotating their facing to bring their main gun to bear on the opposing AFV/tanks. You can order them to fire, but if their main gun is pointing in the wrong direction, they will not fire. Once I manually set their facing, they seem to fire as they should. I have reported this to Scott/Jeff and I am in the process of putting an example or two together to show to them.
Another problem still needing fixed is ATGM. AFV appear to be firing them in the latest build, but the missiles are not hitting anything. Have anyone else had any success with ATGMs?
Does it seem like every time we move forward, we quickly hit another item like what I just mentioned. I don't see how we can ever use this as a simulation if we keep taking these little baby steps. I believe it has been a year since POA2 was released. I can now at least run it, but every time I do I find something else that doesn't work right. That is just my frustration talking.
Related to ATGM: I also noticed that the weapon data chart shows an unmodified hit% as close to 100%, but have never hit anything after 12 missle salvoes wasted.
HercMighty
09 Mar 05, 22:23
[QUOTE=thewood]Does it seem like every time we move forward, we quickly hit another item like what I just mentioned. I don't see how we can ever use this as a simulation if we keep taking these little baby steps. I believe it has been a year since POA2 was released. I can now at least run it, but every time I do I find something else that doesn't work right. That is just my frustration talking.[QUOTE]
To tell you the truth I took it off my hard drive again. This "May" work as a simulation for the government but as a "Game" for the civillian public it lacks miserably.
I have erased three times now 4 paragraphs worth of rant. The problems I am seeing here and supposebly fixed, plus new problems has finally gotten my wits end. And to think Scott wants to take another $50ish dollars for POA3.
No thank you, there are a lot better titles out there that actually work and give some enjoyment. Take Harpoon 3, I see that as a hardcore simulation that works and gives you the tools to play the game. Take "Missions" for example.
I am just tired of wasting my time for the last year and having nothing to show for it. It still only has the original scenarios and the Map making process is a nightmare, and user made scenarios is impossible.
I best just sign off now.
Herc,
I certainly understand the frustration you and others have expressed in this thread. It was that same frustration that caused me to put aside this game nearly 10 months ago. When looking at the incremental changes with each patch it is hard to see that any real progress is being made. However, to truely judge how far the game has come, one only needs to install and attempt to play a vanilla version of POA2.
I continue to enjoy experimenting (one couldn't call it playing) with the engine. Nothing on the market today offers the level of depth that POA2 has. I do have my doubts as to whether POA2 will ever evolve into a true game. And to be honest, I will have a hard time bringing myself to plunk down another $50 for POA3. But for now, I continue to enjoy "wasting" a few minutes a night to this "experiment". I enjoy seeing some small suggestions made by myself or other actually integrated into the game. And I enjoy the fact that Scott is continuing work on this title.
Thanks
Mike
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.