[buuface]

In my opinion there just three main issues which need to be fixed for good

Vehicle pathing - In LSA this is diabolically poor. I remember playing TLD and thinking how much the vehicle pathing had improvded (was i just imagining this?) But in LSA the vehicle pathing is the WORST i have ever seen it in any CC game. It desperately needs to be addressed

AT Gun vunerability to mortars - I really dont know why this hasnt been fixed after all the complaints which have been made since WaR was released. AT guns,  as in WaR and TLD are made almost obolete by the fact that mortars can knock them out so easily.
Medium mortars are generally considered to be overpowered i believe so why was this not considered to be the case in the original CC5 and most of its mods? Another step backward. Why change somthing that isnt broken.  Mortars should mainly surpress AT guns, will a possibilty of doing real damage, but for the most part it should be left to infantry to have take them out using real tactics.

Units cancelling orders when they come under fire. This feature was brought in to stop the AI "crawl of death" but adding it has really retracted from the ability to co-ordinate and maintain effective attacking strategies. Having to re-issue order to your troops every few seconds is a pain in the ass.  The feature caters for what surely is a minority of people who insist on defending agaisnt the AI. an AI which is well known to completely incompetent in attack anyway! If you must play against the AI, then as was mentioned previously, Attacking is the only way you will get any kind of challange from the game. So therefore this "feature" is not required. It ruins the game for everyone else.



Apart from these issues LSA is a really great game. The gameplay is solid with every tactical element of the game working as it should.
Lots of old bugs and crashes have been removed.

Infantry tactics are the best of any CC game to date. Smoke, Coverfire, Indirect firing on enemy positions, Support elements.  All of these things work perfectly and combined with the huge improvment to the strategy map and the potential for modding this game make LSA potentially the BEST CC yet.

RD_Overkenshin

[squadleader_id]

Ahh...GS AI!!  My fave subject!
The Girlie Soldiers AI (TM) has been discussed in depth many times in these forums...the cons and pros (is there any?)...
The Devs seem intent to stick to their guns though
Girlie behaviour was toned down a notch though (at least in TLD's patches)...where assaults/move fast orders can now be completed for short distances without "cancellation when fired upon"...not really back to CC5 standards but a workable compromise.

IMHO, the Girlie Soldiers are making a comeback in LSA due to the decreased cover/protection data values in the new elements file.

[schrecken]

Actually the behaviour models very well the British in OMG

[squadleader_id]

[schrecken]

I think basically yes... from all eyewitness accounts no one wanted to die... strange as that may seem.

[Hoogley]

I'm currently on the first turn of day two in the GC.

Vehicle Pathing - Yup.  Experienced that one in the first battle on the first map.  I think it was, as somebody else has said, multi-waypoint pathing that caused the issue.  I just ended up issuing single move commands.  I can't comment on the degree of this issue, as I've not used vehicles enough to know.  It does need to be fixed if it's as bad as everyone says.

motars vs AT guns - Yet to experience this.  Not saying it's not there.

Girly Soldiers AI...  I like it.    I called it "Don't Shoot Me!" AI.  This one I don't consider a problem.  It's actually retrained me to lay down an area with a shit load of suppression fire and use two teams to assault, which has turned out to be a much more successful tactic than what I was doing before: that being one team giving sporadic suppression whilst the other charges the enemy and gets shot to pieces.  I do agree that it's a pain having to re-issue orders.  But, bosses are often dissatisfied with the performance of their employees.  

[buuface]

If there is no cover available at hand why would a soldier drop on his belly instead of (keep) running towards safety (most likely the place he was ordered to go in the first place)..?  

[Priapus]

[salhexe]

[mooxe]

Units should not cancel thier orders and head back. The setting for this is just too touchy. One missed bullet and two teams go to ground 5m away from thier objective, which could be a bunker, and crawl back over the field.

Units should take cover, and then seek the safest way to thier objective. Isnt this how the "Move" command works? ...the unit takes the safest route possible.

Maybe a move fast and a move order should be switch automatically to a sneak order if they come under fire.

So what happens when they cancel their orders on me? Well I just tell them over and over to get up and go, and this flipflopping around in some machine guns area of fire usually results in the same or more casualties.

[Priapus]

[salhexe]

[vonB]

In real life, assaulting troops (with reasonable moral) will try and evade incoming fires by dodging among available obstacles and whatever cover is available, not drop prone and crawl back the way they came, so this manifestation is regressive.  Unless they are 'broken', the objective is still the objective, and having to repeatedly issue the command is a defect when looking at CC as a combat simulator.  I hope something is done to moderate this.

I can imagine this behaviour would make a WWI mod bloody impossible?  Over the top, enemy MG's open up, hit the deck, and crawl back to the trench...  Hmmmm....

I also agree about the homing Mortars.  Ok, a direct hit on a field gun would likely wipe it out, but any near misses would merely compromise the crew, and what are the odds on a direct hit, especially from indirect fire without focused spotting.  This I have also always felt to be a deficiency with regard to armoured vehicles.  I would have thought that any near miss, no matter how near could only disable, or injure (maybe kill) crew, but not destroy it, and what are the odds of dropping a round INTO a vehicle by indreict fire?  However, you find you can use Mortars to take out open topped armoured vehicles far too easily.  No Way should a Mortar round be able to penetrate or find its way into a concrete bunker!  Again, the best that you could hope for is a bit of shrapnel injuring or killing an occupant (and a low chance at that), but taking out a piece of serious hardware inside the bunker?  I think not.

While we are bitching   , tanks kill infantry far too much.  WAY OTT.  Have you ever sat inside a tank and tried to see anything?   For the MG's they should suppress more than kill.  The bow MG has only a limited traverse towards the front, and the turret MG is co-ax with the main gun, so you can't just wave it about!  Suitably trained and equipped infantry can decimate tanks in close quarters where there is no infantry support!  The main gun should be less effective in open country, but deadlly against infantry holed up in buildings if the room they happen to be in get a direct hit, and they probably won't be too happy if they are in the next room...

Vehicle pathing sucks.  Not always, but in certain situations it is dramatically bad.  I rarely use the Move Command as it seems worse with that, and use the Move Fast (or sometime the Sneak Command).  Always check them at the end of their manouevre, as you don't know which way they are going to end up facing!  I tend to use several short waypoints on Move Fast as a means to try and keep a better path, though some seem to comment that multiple waypoints causes stupid behaviour too.  Any confined or awkward space is a potential nightmare for vehicle manouevering it seems.

Anything else?  Oh yes, it's still a bloody good game!  It is frustrating that we know how good it really could be... maybe one day?

[buuface]

The initial game is comprised of a number of skirmishes between the allied airbourne and the static german BGs.

Often both BGs are only allowed to field a limited number of teams. This focus on infantry tactics and having to coordinate attack and defence often using only one or two of each type of unit is fun and challanging and will remind a lot of players of CC2 where I seem to remember it was quite rare to have a full roster of teams on both sides, eccpecially in the early game.

The only issue with this is that the maps are often much much larger than they were in CC2 which means a BG with even just 1 or 2 more units can quite easily exploit gaps in the enemy lines, flank and encircle the enemy and take all the exit VLs if not completely rout or destroy the enemy within 20 minutes.

As such, in H2H (where both players usually know what thier doing) the starting smaller german BGs have a really tough time holding ground for more 1 battle against the airbourne who are usually numerically superior.

This is not neccersarily a design fault it may well have been the intention of the developers. Just thought i'd mention it. Still waiting to see how the rest of the GC pans out...

Great fun so far

[papa_whisky]

During the D-Day campaign a bitter lesson was learnt, if you assault in the open and come under fire you are more likely to survive by keeping going rather than going prone and crawling. Experienced units adopted this strategy. It would be good to have the girlie soldiers effect being dependant on cover, leadership available, moral, and experience, perhaps it already is?

[Antony_nz]

girly soldiers.

[Troger]

[Troger]