Forgotten Hope Public Forum
Forgotten Hope 2 => General Discussion => Topic started by: Ahonen on 19-09-2010, 23:09:29
-
The M4A3 (75) W was featured in a news update prior to the last patch, but wasn't included in it.
Was it because it wasn't present on any of the current maps?
Any chance to see it in 2.3?
Thanks in advance.
-
That tank was made for post normandy maps.
-
That tank was made for post normandy maps.
Ah, I guessed right then.
Thanks for the fast answer too.
-
the M4 and the M4A1 found in normandy with americans, and the M4, M4A1, and M4A4 were with the british/ canadians
-
That tank was made for post normandy maps.
Post-normandy maps? ???
-
That tank was made for post normandy maps.
Post-normandy maps? ???
Probably Buldge or some post AUG 44 map
-
Half the shermans of the amis where M4A1's
SURELY zie other ones are the M4A3
-
They make models when need be, right? So wich chipper-head joker demanded a post-Normandy sherman, and one not painted for the Bulge, no less?
OMG, anyone
-
Existing ones can be just reskinned.
-
They make models when need be, right? So wich chipper-head joker demanded a post-Normandy sherman, and one not painted for the Bulge, no less?
OMG, anyone
Pfft, Toddel makes 15 skins in one evening while having sex....
-
They make models when need be, right? So wich chipper-head joker demanded a post-Normandy sherman, and one not painted for the Bulge, no less?
OMG, anyone
Pfft, Toddel makes 15 skins in one evening while having sex....
TODDEL DESIGNED THE M4A1 IN A CAVE! USING AN IBM 486 !
I think i just have a new meme
-
Toddel make the M4A1 two times faster than chuck norris :)
-
Toddel make the M4A1 two times faster than chuck norris :)
now you are talking bull****
-
... Jack Bauer?
-
i think it would be cool to see the M4 sherman not just the M4A1 as it did fight in normandy and in the african campaigns. just saying. the brits have two tanks the M4A1 and the M4A4.. i mean yea they were already there and made considering the M4A1 could be reused for normandy reskined for americans. but i thik seeing the M4 woudl be cool.. not too much of a difference though.. lets go look at pictures.. http://www.gizmology.net/images/m4.gif this is the M4 regular no A and a number it had the same engine as the M4A1 the R975. same gun. probably difference in the gun sights pending the years such as early and late M4A1. but taking this and throwing it into the desert with the sand skirts on the tracks in front and perhaps keeping them for the normandy front and have some spawn with out them perhaps would be cool too variation like the random spawning tank in Fh1. thats what Fh can do once they have all shermans in,. if they go with the pacific they can have the M4A2 if they make that and the M4A3 random spawn.. if they go with other maps for american then can have the M4, the M4A1, and the M4A3 random spawn.. they can also have the M4A1 76 and the M4A3 76( not the E8) random spawn and like wise could go for the M4A1 E8 and M4A3E8.. just thoughts.. it would add to Fh.. as it always does. but throwing the original M4 for desert and normandy, and ardennes front and beyond would be cool.
http://www.jtrhobby.ca/store/images/tm35190.jpg the peice above the tracks that cove them is what i was calling track skirts.. or sand thingie mabobers.. the desert M4A1 has them so i was see this one having them both for normandy beyond and back in africa. or italy if that ever pops up.
-
as well as 105mm shermans ;)
Or Sherman jumbo's
Do want
-
After reading Neighbor Kid's message, I must say that american vehicle and weapon naming system stinks.
-
Aye.....
British and germans had far more simple names..
Well the germans sometimes
-
Is random spawning possible in FH2?
-
i actually think it aint.. iirc they didnt bring that from 1942
-
We decided to use the M4a3 in Bulge maps at first. You have to be patiend people. We are working hard and doing more process as you imagine. :-X
-
i actually think it aint.. iirc they didnt bring that from 1942
Mmm, that makes neighbor kid´s suggestion kind of obsolete, then.
-
unfortunatly i think so :-\
-
i actually think it aint.. iirc they didnt bring that from 1942
Mmm, that makes neighbor kid´s suggestion kind of obsolete, then.
This has been known of for years now guys :P
-
Random spawning of vehicles works, it's how the AA Brens on Mersa Matruh keep changing positions.
-
he means 1 spawn 2 diff type of tanks
-
he means 1 spawn 2 diff type of tanks
Easy, just set up two dummy flags with fast cap time and small cap radius. Set the cap zones under two different spawnpoints. When one dummy flag is capped, the other becomes uncappable. Each of the flags has a different vehicle attached to it. Then it is only a question of where the first people spawn :D
-
but then its not random anymore
-
yea i slightly agree the naming system of american stuff is rtarded but what can you do.... i dont understand what part of my suggestion is obsolete? the random spawning? i think it would work well considering the americans and british used a tremendous amount of shermans.. and all there variations
-
i am quite sure no one here disagrees with you, except bf2 engine, wich dosnt support 1 objectspawner to spawn 2 different tanks
-
random spawning is not possible, and not needed. A flag spawns a tank and there is no need for that tank to sometimes be another tank. If the mapper wanted the other tank to spawn, he would place that. :-\
-
random spawning is not possible, and not needed. A flag spawns a tank and there is no need for that tank to sometimes be another tank. If the mapper wanted the other tank to spawn, he would place that. :-\
Sorry I can´t follow you here. Randomness in the sense of a human perceiving it as random is quite possible and already used in this mod like Ts4EVER explained.
What if the mapper wanted no fixed vehicle positions ? How can you speak for all mappers that they don´t want this?
These are exactly the things I would try to realize.
Like it is now it gets boring to see always exactly the same routes players take at round start. Everyone is running for the position he knows the best vehicles to spawn instead of looking around a bit first to check out the situation.
I mean this is not a E-Sports game like CS its important to always start with the same situation, but rather it already is and should be even more a new experience each time you play it because the huge amount of vehicles and large maps and players always lead to new situations. Only the round start is always the same and I think a bit of "randomness" could help to make each round even more unique.
-
we are not talking about random spawn positions? :P
-
Ok let me explain what we have and don't have.
Situation #1: There are two vehicle spawn points. Python code will dictate whether tank A spawns at position A or B. This is entirely possible and used in the mod.
Situation #2: Python code dictates whether tank A or tank B should spawn at only one position. This isn't possible to date.
-
Everyone is running for the position he knows the best vehicles to spawn instead of looking around a bit first to check out the situation.
I mean this is not a E-Sports game like CS its important to always start with the same situation, but rather it already is and should be even more a new experience each time you play it (??) because the huge amount of vehicles and large maps and players always lead to new situations. Only the round start is always the same and I think a bit of "randomness" could help to make each round even more unique.
"look around a bit"? ;D no.. I dont understand the comparison to "e-sports" games either. Do you really think that players want to walk around on the map and just "hang out"?... Battlefield is all about knowing where to spawn, with what kit and when. Just having randomly spawning assets makes no sense at all.
If I spawn in the mainbase in a map, I do it because I want a certain vehicle there, if I want an armoured car but I get there and there is a truck, I would think the mapper was a moron.
64 players in these maps always create new situations, this is a static game, the dynamics come from player behaviour, not faked and badly implemented simulations of "reality".
-
Do you really think that players want to walk around on the map and just "hang out"?...
Where did I say something like that ?
Battlefield is all about knowing where to spawn, with what kit and when.
..and it always depends on whats happening around you on the battlefield. Sure you know the basic routes the enemy must take but still you always have to adapt to the current situation. So nothing static there.
That´s just what I ment by my E-sports comparison. It´s actually the people who play E-Sports who do not want anything that changes because each and every round must be exact the same (and with mirrored balance).
If I spawn in the mainbase in a map, I do it because I want a certain vehicle there, if I want an armoured car but I get there and there is a truck, I would think the mapper was a moron.
I was merely suggesting to mix the spawn locations of these vehicles, not to exchange vehicles with other ones.
All you had to do eg. would be too look around to find out on which of the 10 spawn locations in main your APC spawns.
64 players in these maps always create new situations, this is a static game, the dynamics come from player behaviour, not faked and badly implemented simulations of "reality".
I don´t know what you mean by static game when you say yourself that the players always create new situations and there is dynamic coming from players (and from the number of vehicles and multiple routes you an take). I think the same and that´s why I wrote "new experience everytime you play it"..
And thanks to azreal for the clarification. I thought if one is possible the other should be too.
-
This has been known of for years now guys :P
Well, I was sure about no random kit spawning, but I wasn't so sure about vehicles. Besides, I'm not learnng every game asset by heart, I have better stuff to do ;)
All you had to do eg. would be too look around to find out on which of the 10 spawn locations in main your APC spawns.
Don't you think this would be incredibly annoying? Wasting time for such trivia while your army is out in the field needing that APC badly?
-
Don't you think this would be incredibly annoying? Wasting time for such trivia while your army is out in the field needing that APC badly?
That´s what the game is all about when a map is running. Adapting to changing situations.
You realize there is some need somewhere for attack or defense, so you check the situation and then figure out the best way as a tradeof between the time you have, to still be of any help, and the risk you think you can take.
At least for me, in most such situations I am far away from main base and you can´t count on the APC being at the spawn when you need it anyway. So I take whatever is closest (empty enemy jeep could be closer) or I walk if nothing is near.
Well, what I want to say is that during the whole duration of a map you can only deploy such fixed tactics in the first spawn wave. Then you need to be flexible anyway.
That´s just the way I see it and it´s something I would not mind if it changed. I always found games with "random" generated content to be a cool thing, like the Dungeons in Diablo I and II.
-
random generated RPG levels can not be compared to a multiplayer FPS games levels.
What does it add to the game, you running around the mainbase playing "find the tank"?
Players dont want to hop in the nearest vehicle, they want to get the vehicle they get at the flag they clicked on to spawn at. A bunch of dudes running around searching for vehicles would just make it more annoying to get in to the real game, which is the action on the battlefield.
What is next, being forced to drink water, or freeze to death?
-
Being in the desert you are suddedly feeling weird and your vision starts to get blurry...You take out your water can drink once and you are back on your feet XD
Or
Normandy,Before going to battle eating a meal.
-
Grinding anti-tank levels!
-
Natty is right. If you apply this concept to everything, it not only makes more work for the mapper, but is just annoying. He's right in that, when I spawn at the airfield, I wanna know exactly where the plane is each time.
However...you'll get better results when you apply the random spawning to static guns. A pak40 that spawns in a different location between 5 possible spots keeps attacks/defense extremely dynamic and can be fun.
-
Yes, or mobile guns, which is even better since then the players can move them to a position he likes.
-
Players dont want to hop in the nearest vehicle, they want to get the vehicle they get at the flag they clicked on to spawn at. A bunch of dudes running around searching for vehicles would just make it more annoying to get in to the real game, which is the action on the battlefield.
Ok, we seem to have a different understanding about what people want when they play FH2. Aren´t you involved in BF:Heroes development ? This sounds more like what I would expect from those players. Maybe you are mixing things up a bit.
Natty is right. If you apply this concept to everything, it not only makes more work for the mapper, but is just annoying. He's right in that, when I spawn at the airfield, I wanna know exactly where the plane is each time.
However...you'll get better results when you apply the random spawning to static guns. A pak40 that spawns in a different location between 5 possible spots keeps attacks/defense extremely dynamic and can be fun.
Of course I didn´t mean to realize this for everything. the planes need to stay at airport of course and not appear on a spot intended for a jeep.
What I tried to achieve was to make the Devs move FH2 more and more away from the games we had the last years by experimenting more with such things.
The random positions for defensive weapons are something that just adds to the game and increases the replay value. You surely don´t want to remove that because people might complain that they are running around and playing "search the MG" because its not where he used it last time.
The same for the mobile guns, I bet they won´t be changed to static ones because a few might not like the randomness ? I mean seeing that players like them, why not expand this concept ?
Somehow I think we are on the same level with this, it´s just that Natty seems to like exaggerating and bashing suggestions sometimes ;D
-
Ooh, I'd lo-ove dynamic spawning At guns!
-
PEB used to have random static mgs IIRC.
-
Yer, that would be cool in most maps: bipod mgs on windows randomly placed to cover the same axis of advance.
Would make up for not being able to window-deploy bipod mgs.
But we are going OT.
A question about the m4a3. How was that tank an advancement over the round edged m4a1, especially in a side hit?
-
PEB used to have random static mgs IIRC.
Yes, and you were f***ed when it spawned in a location with a (very) limited field of fire.
-
He-ey! The beauty of the draw. Don't be h8ing.
I personally am all for diversity in FH2's gameplay: random positioning 'tracers work both ways' - you surprise the enemy, but you get spots with varying degrees of advantage, binoc airstrike and auto-planes.
These are good for variety. With an already solid gameplay, these things give the game uber replayability, to know the game doesnt just follow a single technique. But lets leave this for a thread I will make soon
About my question on the ?Sherman III?
-
imo somewhat random flag locations could be interesting in changing the gameplay. A map where the flags are in different locations can seem like a completely different map.
ex if you changed the Goodwood.Cagny flags from East/West to Church/Train station, it would play differently. Moar variety. more surprise. You would have less things like players memorizing flag zones. "Oh it went gray, the guy must be hiding over in that corner" Even if the flags zones just move marginally it could make the maps a little different.
-
Somehow I think we are on the same level with this, it´s just that Natty seems to like exaggerating and bashing suggestions sometimes ;D
argueing, not bashing :) I am almost certain that there isnt another FPS game that offers the same variety of vehicles, weapons and maps that FH2 does. If you know of one, please tell me which it is.
We offer an armada of vehicles, wide selection of kits each packed with toys, pickup kits, stationary weapons. You say you are "bored" to find all these hundreds of items in the same place each time you play? :-\ That we should scramble around them just for the fun of searching for them, like you would look for the egg on easter.
Most players like that the conditions are as they expect when playing a game, because playing is about winning over the enemy. This is not a simulation, it is not a RPG, it is not an MMO, it is not a reenactment. It is a shooter. You grab the gear and head for the enemy, nothing more, nothing less.
Im always argueing against suggestions that are based on how the game is being visualized. How you imagine it would be cool with hundreds of allies storming omaha beach, or sneaking around behind enemy lines, or setting up ambushes, or being out of ammo as the mortar shells rain down, or being frozen in a fox-hole, or hiding in a bush as a german patrol passes you, or looking for a tank in an abandoned barn.
This is dreaming, movie-stuff, it is not how a game is made. The "live roleplaying game" is not a factor added by design. You can add that yourself by playing in a tournament, or a squad that does that. You can bring that to the game yourself, but it will not be added by us.
We supply the tools, you experience it as you wish. you are doing the exact same thing in fh2 as in BFH: spawn, run, shoot, cap, fly, drive. that's it. That's the core mechanics of all battlefield games.
-
Agreed. Though i loved playing the seemlimgly useless attack map Omaha beach (a). 8)
-
He-ey! The beauty of the draw. Don't be h8ing.
I personally am all for diversity in FH2's gameplay: random positioning 'tracers work both ways' - you surprise the enemy, but you get spots with varying degrees of advantage, binoc airstrike and auto-planes.
These are good for variety. With an already solid gameplay, these things give the game uber replayability, to know the game doesnt just follow a single technique. But lets leave this for a thread I will make soon
About my question on the ?Sherman III?
The Sherman III is the M4A2
M4 -Sherman I
M4A1 -Sherman II
M4A2 -Sherman III
M4A3 -Sheman IV
M4A4 -Sherman V
and to me the only difference between the M4A1 and the M4A3 is the engine and hull design. the A1 is rounded and the A3 is a flat angled surface.
-
Yer, that would be cool in most maps: bipod mgs on windows randomly placed to cover the same axis of advance.
Would make up for not being able to window-deploy bipod mgs.
But we are going OT.
A question about the m4a3. How was that tank an advancement over the round edged m4a1, especially in a side hit?
It was a simplification of manufacturing, the round edges were harder to make ;)
-
Yer, that would be cool in most maps: bipod mgs on windows randomly placed to cover the same axis of advance.
Would make up for not being able to window-deploy bipod mgs.
But we are going OT.
A question about the m4a3. How was that tank an advancement over the round edged m4a1, especially in a side hit?
It was a simplification of manufacturing, the round edges were harder to make ;)
Not really, casting the hull is would be as difficult as welding it, plus it's will be stronger structurally.
-
Yer, that would be cool in most maps: bipod mgs on windows randomly placed to cover the same axis of advance.
Would make up for not being able to window-deploy bipod mgs.
But we are going OT.
A question about the m4a3. How was that tank an advancement over the round edged m4a1, especially in a side hit?
It was a simplification of manufacturing, the round edges were harder to make ;)
Not really, casting the hull is would be as difficult as welding it, plus it's will be stronger structurally.
Actually IIRC a welded hull is stronger.
Plus repairing a welded hull is easier then a casted one
-
M4A3 Sherman
Armament: 1 - 76.2mm long gun
1 - 0.3" coaxial MG
1 -0.3" MG in hull
1 - 0.5" MG AA
Engine: Ford GAAIII, V-8 gas, 500 hp
Speed: 29 mph
Range: 100 miles
Crew; 5
Weight: 32 tons
This was the most developed of all the Sherman variants.
It had a long 76mm main gun and HVSS (horizontal volute
spring suspension). The numerical superiority of the M4
made it a war winner even though it had many drawbacks
in armor and firepower. Although mechanically reliable,
it had a high silhouette and the gasoline engines were
dangerously flammable.
-
we see the M4A 75mm and the jumbos what about the M4A3 76 or E8's?
-
M4A3 Sherman
Armament: 1 - 76.2mm long gun
1 - 0.3" coaxial MG
1 -0.3" MG in hull
1 - 0.5" MG AA
Engine: Ford GAAIII, V-8 gas, 500 hp
Speed: 29 mph
Range: 100 miles
Crew; 5
Weight: 32 tons
This was the most developed of all the Sherman variants.
It had a long 76mm main gun and HVSS (horizontal volute
spring suspension). The numerical superiority of the M4
made it a war winner even though it had many drawbacks
in armor and firepower. Although mechanically reliable,
it had a high silhouette and the gasoline engines were
dangerously flammable.
That would be the M4a3E8(76). And really REALLY dont worth reviving this thread.
-
we see the M4A 75mm and the jumbos what about the M4A3 76 or E8's?
Easy eigths can come in a late war map. Remagen and such, along with pershings
-
we see the M4A 75mm and the jumbos what about the M4A3 76 or E8's?
Easy eigths can come in a late war map. Remagen and such, along with pershings
um im sure they made the fight by buldge.. didnt they?
-
Yes they did make it for the bulge.
-
At last 8th and 37th battalions of 4th Armored Division was equipped with early M4A3 Easy Eight . So i still wait to see that beautiful tank on some maps from BoB ... like "Patton to the rescue for Bastogne" ? ;D
(http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/1691/easyeight.jpg)
-
you guys are right!
Sherman E8 please!
-
Yeah that is something I would like to see.
-
Would they be all that different from the M4A3 in gameplay terms? The armor doesn't seem to be much thicker or anything.
-
Would they be all that different from the M4A3 in gameplay terms? The armor doesn't seem to be much thicker or anything.
E8 shermans had much faster and smoother terrain crossing capacity. So look upon it as a faster Sherman M4A3
Also the Grand majority of E8 shermans came with 76mm guns. A few came with 75mm guns, but like 80% of them had the 76mm
-
Yeah but still, the difference in gameplay would be minor.
-
And the fact is we already have a lot of different shermans that are not even being used...
-
And the fact is we already have a lot of different shermans that are not even being used...
MOAR SHERMANS!
MOAR panzer IVS!
;D
a huge advantage of the E8 was the shock dampening effects. This allowed for much more accurate firing on the move
but i doubt that can be implented in FH2
-
Sure I wouldnt mind an Easy Eight, 105mm Sherman and so on, but I hope to see as many variants of the T-34 as we have variants of the Sherman. ;D
-
Sure I wouldnt mind an Easy Eight, 105mm Sherman and so on, but I hope to see as many variants of the T-34 as we have variants of the Sherman. ;D
Seconded!
-
ive been asking to get an E8 since way back in the day of FH1... you have the A3E8 and the A1E8.. to give it a purpose besides the fact that it did show up in the bulge and in numbers.. is to make it slightly faster or maybe not as bouncy when going over bumpy land? the suspension was vastly improved with wider tracks for less ground pressure.
-
The most important part was indeed that the E8 had serious shock reducing capabilities. Also a SHerman E8 could pretty much attain speeds on rough terrains simular to on Roads.
-
Just another means of roasting allied tankers if you ask me. ;)
-
About the cast hull Shermans...
The cast hull Shermans came about because the Army approached some of the locomotive manufacturers such as Alco who had the experience and equipment to cast large heavy one piece steel objects.
The only Country that had the skill to cast steel with the same quality as rolled homogenous armor plate was the British. The cast hull Shermans had roughly same thickness armor but not as high a quality of armor.
-
Anlushac where have you been I havent seen you in forever!
-
About the cast hull Shermans...
The cast hull Shermans came about because the Army approached some of the locomotive manufacturers such as Alco who had the experience and equipment to cast large heavy one piece steel objects.
The only Country that had the skill to cast steel with the same quality as rolled homogenous armor plate was the British. The cast hull Shermans had roughly same thickness armor but not as high a quality of armor.
The early M4 types had this, but this was something fixed gradually
-
Sure I wouldnt mind an Easy Eight, 105mm Sherman and so on, but I hope to see as many variants of the T-34 as we have variants of the Sherman. ;D
Seconded!
Want!! +1 for MOAR T-34
-
The only Country that had the skill to cast steel with the same quality as rolled homogenous armor plate was the British.
Weird then that all their WWII tanks look bolted together. :)
-
i always wondered why the brits didnt use sloped armour. and especially on the cromwell you see vertical bolted steel plates. however, the cromwell was a design made in 1942/43 and by then even the germans started to copy the concept of sloped armour form the russians (in their new designs).
if you look at the turret of a crusader Mark III you see that it is sloped - so that aspect of tank design must have been pretty well known for the brits.
yet churchill and cromwell remained unsloped. - the churchill however was designed in 1940 (where german tanks also used unsloped armour), but what about the cromwell?
on topic: i am all for that "easy eight" sherman but i think a sherman 105 should have priority because it would affect gameplay more imo.
-
The Cromwell design is actually largely from 1941.
-
The Cromwell design is actually largely from 1941.
^this
The Cromwell came from the Centaur wich in turn came from the cavalier. All of these tanks used an armor layout like the KV, PZIV and such.
Actually, the lower hull plate should be able to withstand a shot from PZIV and stug gun. as this is 70mm sloped armour. But the above hull and turret is a diffrent story
-
Yeah, the Cromwell was designed during the early Africa campaign but didn't enter service until 1944.
-
Ye the problem was the engine always. Wich was fixed with the cromwell. The cromwell was very fast and had great terrain crossing capability though.However the switching to the 75mm gun proved to be later a mistake.
Just like with the churchill in italy, 50% 6PDR and 50% 75mm was a great combination.
-
This aint no Cromwell thread. Buzz off.