Good day again, fellow soldiers and generals. It is me, your No.1 Critic for the mod, Sgt. Dzanic, today to announce a few recommendations for improvement and desire from a large quantity of soldiers that have fought in the fields of FH2 but also my fellow teammates from my platoon. I have sought to implement footage and proves but failed due to various complications with Youtube, so that is on hold. Adressing the ironic "realism" or historical accuracy: 1. The airforce Well, to say the airplanes are very well detailed and it is neat to see and hear how bullets sound when they hit the various surfaces of the plane, however, you are not able to inspect the hits when you land since they dissapear. The introduction of cockpit only planes, and possible no ability for a server to choose whether cockpits should only be allowed or not is a negative point. Trying to bring more realism by introducing this feature but forgetting to introduce the requirement of working instruments has made flying planes very hard. It is recommended to introduce at least the 3 most important instruments, the altimeter, speedometer and attitude indicator. I, and possibly many others have even with experience lost control of planes in an attempt to land and then stall or by diving with a divebomber from high altitude and then suddenly see the ground coming towards you and not beeing able to pull up in time has happened often. This will be very helpfull later when you are forced to land on carriers to reammo torpedoplanes. The other problem that has been seen or better said that I have heard ingame complaints about is the spotterplane beeing able to detect infantry, hidden in underground networks and 12 feet thick bunkers. It is recommended to give the spotterplane only the ability to spot larger objects like tanks or trucks or cars. Of course.. even here it would be recommended to implement individualism into vehicles so that no plane looks exactly the same with various indentification numbers or rustspots and bulletsholes in different locations on the plane. That is a modern, state-of-the art feature that is beeing implemented into modern war games. However, I still have to say and to award for the great detail of vehicles even if many will not see it beeing busy in battle. 2. Mines and shakings I have only played Battlefield 2 twice and I have never read any manual since I never got any with my game, beeing forced to experiment in Forgotten Hope 2. I am not sure if the manual has been modified but in time of writing it has not so having to ask soldiers ingame about various behaviouristics of object but I have come to the conclusion that pretty many of them work unexpectedly, most likely because of gamepurposes. One of them is, that I completely do not understand how mines work. I am entirely confused and avoid usage of them for good. I have been told that you cannot place more than 3 mines even after reammoing at a truck, which I did not know, but okay that is for gamepurposes I guess. The other is that I was shocked that even light vehicles blow up after driving over AT mines, which I also though was confusing. And obviously thinking that firing HE shells into the ground to dissable known minelocations was not true, learining it the hard way. It is recommended that you write a extensive manual on how stuff works and differs from reality in FH2. The mines are one unexpectedly behaviourising objects, the other main issue is the constant and far to annoying shaking and moving of vehicles on slopes. 18 out of 24 players see this as an issue but the majority knowing that it cannot be helped yet. This is of course dragging down the aiming for tanks. I do not remember that tanks did shake and move in BF2, so why are they doing it in FH2? 3. Terrain and maps Analyzing the victory status in FH2, it is usually so that one team wins the other looses with no draws. The problem here is that the german team wins very often compared to the british (In this case comparing and recording HSLAN). The reason might be that the german team has better players for most of the time you might think and that is partly true. But of course I am not satisfied with that explanation and then began to seek what might be the cause. I have personally come to the conclusion (Note: experience may vary), that the terrain is frequently often in favor for german teams. I will soon try to upload a recording of the Battle of El Alamein showing that 2 Shermans, 2 Crusaders and 1 Stuart were attacking Malereiya Ridge from the north, beeing succesfull in captruing it with the loss of the Stuart one Crusader and one Sherman. The flag was hold for less than 2 minutes and recaptured by a Panzer IV F2 and a PZ III without any loss. This is simply to be explained that the germans have a very better entrance to the ridge than the allies, so not requiring to fight in difficult terrain. I have also observed Mareth Line and noticed that the germans usually place their tanks at well known and hidden defensive positions making it impossible for the allied to see or engage them even with the availability of a spotter plane. The germans, employ almost all tanks around the bridge, with the defensive guns and mines. However, having almost no chance to cross the bridge the designer of the map has forced the allied team to use a very uncommon strategy by simply overflying the bridge and landing in the rear to take the rearflags and so engaging from an absurd location wich almost always has proved more succefull than an attack head on. However, the balance of maps according to terrain and force like Gazala, Sfakia, Sidi Rezegh among the ones tested is very good.
Dzanic;4607344Good day again FH2 roxx
We know, the terrain, planes and mines are just a few of the things that are perfect.
Full list of things that are perfect will follow.
Natty Wallo;4607355We know, the terrain, planes and mines are just a few of the things that are perfect.
Full list of things that are perfect will follow.
I just made a list of things that are not perfect:
Well I do have to add .. to that list.
Dzanic;4607344Good day again, fellow soldiers and generals.[/QUOTE] Hey, thanks for putting your criticism and suggestions into such a well organised and properly supported post. :)
Dzanic;46073441. The airforce[/QUOTE] The decision to remove the so called nosecam from planes was in part because of planes in Forgotten Hope 0.7 being far too powerful and completely dominating all the maps they were on. I feel that in Forgotten Hope 2 planes are much more realistic in terms of their effect on the battlefield. In the early beta versions of FH2 we did have an altimeter and virtual horizon, but we generally felt that they didn't really fit. They obscured a lot of the cockpit, which Toddel spent a great many hours on, and the speed of the gameplay was generally too fast for them to be very useful.
As for the spotter planes, it would be ideal if we could code them not to detect infantry in bunkers or underground complexes, but unfortunately that is not possible. It comes down to chosing either no infantry at all, like you suggested, or all infantry, like it is currently in game. Personally, I feel the latter option is more practical.
[QUOTE=Dzanic;4607344]2. Mines and shakings
Forgotten Hope 2 actually does have a manual and also a wiki (I can't find the manual at the moment). However, it is still a game and as a game we do our best to model reality, but it is unavoidable, especially on an engine we cannot modify, that some aspects will differ from reality. I do think it is possible to lay down more than three mines, but you are correct that there is a limit (I thought it was 5). As for your suggestions that HE shells can blow up mines, I like it. If it is possible I do think we should add this.
The tanks shaking an sliding is a problem we have been having since the start of the first beta. I think the problem occurs in battlefield 2 as well, but since your sights aren't zoomed in as they are in FH2 and you generally only shoot at enemy tanks when they are next to you, you do not notice it. We've really tried everything to fix this problem, but what you've got in game now is the best we could do. [QUOTE=Dzanic;4607344]3. Terrain and maps
You are right that some maps are inbalanced when it comes to positioning and we do try to fix that. For example, in 2.15 Mareth Line there will be another bridge across the wadi, where British tanks can go straight to Toujane. There is also a new spawnpoint for British infantry closer to the wadi, so it isn't as easy for the Germans to mine the bridges. Generally though I feel that most maps are balanced in that both teams have about an equal chance at winning.
As for the people who's posts were deleted; if you have nothing to contribute to this thread, don't post anything.
please... now there is one guy who writes a grammatically correct text with valid points he tries to back up with facts and you start flaming him for no reason. the player numbers show that not everything is right with FH2 and I think he at least deserves some mature and serious answers.
1.airforce: can´t disscuss this one since I don´t fly, but airplanes seem reasonably deadly as of 2.1 and quite balanced, at least from a ground pounder perspective.
2. I´m pretty sure you can place more than three mines, but I think the first you placed will disappear when you place the eleventh. I don´t know how much pressure was necessary to set of AT-mines, so I have no idea if jeeps or comparable vehicles would have set them of. About the shakinf: I tried it out and it is present in BF2, nut it might be true that the higher balance points of the old tanks actually worsen the problem.
3.Terrain and maps: I never felt that the german team wins more often in general. the only maps that I think are imbalaced are Invasion of Crete, Mareth and Sidi Rezegh, and to a certain extent Tobruk.
edit: this was aimed at the posters above lightning.
Good to hear there is a new bridge in Mareth. I allways thoght you could only place 3 mines at a time. Except for once on Tobruk as Brits when I could only place 1 mine at a time for some reason.
My only gripe with the planes is the crosshair on the tin-opener. Even though this is the only plane I fly (and thus needs to be on more maps), I can never get the hang of the aiming on the AT guns. Moving the crosshair down would not only make tankbusting easier, but would make dogfigting harder.
Indeed good to hear Mareth got another bridge. I sincerely hope it stops what happens now where brits fly over and cap backflags and ruin the great map. IMO it should be a push map.
The tank sliding thing is really annoying in FH2 much to thank is those zoomed sights that make it seems more drastic. However I've noticed that if you bail out of vehicle that is sliding it stops doing it. And when you enter it starts to do it again. Then I played some BGF and noticed that their tanks do not suffer from this nowhere near as badly as FH2 ones do. In that mod they do slide a little but they stop doing it in few seconds unlike in FH2 where uneven terrain can cause your tank to endlessly slide. They may have found something to remedy this annoying problem so devs could maybe ask them about it.
@Dzanic You are meaning by that shaking that tanks slide to the sides OR that they shake all the time? The former is a state when your vehicle is heavily damaged and is intentional feature by devs.
Boys, all tanks in the BF2 games slide, but the FH2 zoom make it more noticeable. In the first alphas was insane, we have fixed it all we could.
I do know vanilla tanks slide and its similar to that what we suffer in FH2 but the thing is that in BGF tanks are not doing it the way we see in BF2 and FH2. Just check it out Lobo and you'll see what I mean.