Fire in the future?

[rocketman]

Can we have this in CM

Maybe one day - who knows 

Take a look at it very impressive modelling of trees on fire:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lNHuTQV4EY

 

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Shiny!

[weapon2010]

Fire was in CM1, not pretty but well modeled , realistically spread based on conditions. Should it be in CMX2? absolutely as it is an essential calamity of war and destruction, will it ever be?I don't know, there has never been a clear answer from Steve.

[Bulletpoint]

Maybe some of you remember this old game, featuring turn based combat and plenty of fire.

 

 

[JoMac]

Yes, Bulletpoint, I still remember that 'Armor Battle' Game Cartridge from the 'Intellivision' Game Console.

 

Edited January 26, 2018 by JoMc67

[J Bennett]

 Kindling, persistent fires with spreading fire possibilities is one of the most needed elements the game still needs imo.

  There should also of course be modifiers to these effects, from wind, damp, wet or dry conditions etc.

[Glubokii Boy]

I would like to see spreading, long lasting fire added to the game... but if i'm perfectly honest i don't really miss it all that much..

Burning Buildings...yeah...that would be nice  ! but seeing large areas of Woods or fields burning...That would be kind of cool from time to time maybe...

but not really a game changer imo...I'm not sure how often it would make a significant impact on CM-scale gameplay...

 

 

 

[MikeyD]

There are certain 'nice to have' features that might get used a couple times for novelty sake then largely ignored afterward. Like battleship artillery, minefield belts, marauding aircraft and corps-level artillery rocket barrages. And Sturmtigers. Everyone wanted Sturmtigers in the game but the novelty wore off pretty quickly.

Imagine the framerate hit if half the map in CM was billowing flames and black smoke. The BFC guys have been bending over backward to increase framerate, not slow it.

[IICptMillerII]

7 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

There are certain 'nice to have' features that might get used a couple times for novelty sake then largely ignored afterward. Like battleship artillery, minefield belts, marauding aircraft and corps-level artillery rocket barrages. And Sturmtigers. Everyone wanted Sturmtigers in the game but the novelty wore off pretty quickly.

Imagine the framerate hit if half the map in CM was billowing flames and black smoke. The BFC guys have been bending over backward to increase framerate, not slow it.

This. Fire is a feature that would take an absurd amount of time to code and get right, especially when you consider all the dynamics that would have to be applied. At the end of the day it just isn't worth all the time and effort it would require. Besides, there are better features that can be worked on than fire.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Some more dramatic looking burning buildings would be welcome, especially now that we have flame-throwers and flame-thrower tanks.....A Croc on the rampage will get an entire block going most toastily in mere moments! 

 

Edited January 27, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Bulletpoint]

13 hours ago, MikeyD said:

And Sturmtigers. Everyone wanted Sturmtigers in the game but the novelty wore off pretty quickly.

Nah, not everyone. While fascinating, they were used so rarely in the real war that using them in CM goes into fantasy territory unless we're talking scenarios about very specific battles.

And then there's the gameplay issue that they don't really have any purpose in a game where even 75mm Shermans readily bust concrete bunkers at 500m distance in less than 2 minutes,. Yes, I just tested this out

 

[rocketman]

46 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

And then there's the gameplay issue that they don't really have any purpose in a game where even 75mm Shermans readily bust concrete bunkers at 500m distance in less than 2 minutes,. Yes, I just tested this out

 

Not on topic really, but I will say this: my impression is that bunkers are much easier to take out post engine 4 upgrade. Especially tank main guns are much more effective in taking out the entire crew. I have posted a long thread where I tested a lot with bunkers and the conclusion was that the easiest way to take them out was with MG fire, plus the problem that the crew never cowers (no matter level of suppression) so they can return fire. No official word on changes in engine 4, but it does seem too easy. Which is a pity as I'm working on a Juno Beach scenario which I will create a seperate thread for in time.

[Bulletpoint]

20 minutes ago, rocketman said:

Not on topic really, but I will say this: my impression is that bunkers are much easier to take out post engine 4 upgrade. Especially tank main guns are much more effective in taking out the entire crew. I have posted a long thread where I tested a lot with bunkers and the conclusion was that the easiest way to take them out was with MG fire, plus the problem that the crew never cowers (no matter level of suppression) so they can return fire. No official word on changes in engine 4, but it does seem too easy. Which is a pity as I'm working on a Juno Beach scenario which I will create a seperate thread for in time.

In my test (using 3.12), it's the 75mm HE from the Sherman that destroys and/or kills the bunker and its crew. No casualties from the MG fire.

I remember bunkers being tough to deal with, but I have a hunch that they were made weak around the time AT-bunkers were introduced. Maybe to give the AI a chance against those, but then again, what's the point having bunkers at all?

I did an extra test that showed concrete bunkers now give comparable protection levels to small, 1-story modular buildings.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Bulletpoint

[rocketman]

Which game did you do the tests in - BN? What type of bunkers? I wonder if bunkers have been dealt with differently in the various games? Care to post in a new thread how your test was made - it is of interest to the community I think.

[Bulletpoint]

6 minutes ago, rocketman said:

Which game did you do the tests in - BN? What type of bunkers? I wonder if bunkers have been dealt with differently in the various games? Care to post in a new thread how your test was made - it is of interest to the community I think.

Didn't make a separate post, because I'm still on 3.12 and didn't want to make a fuss if it's something that has been fixed in 4.0.

But in short:

 

CMBN

3 lanes

3 concrete bunkers: 1xshelter, 1xbunker(mg42) 1xbunker(Mg34)

1 German team in each (5 guys)

3x Sherman 75mm at 444m

 

Shermans spot, fire, and destroy the bunkers within 2 minutes.

The seem to start firing AP until they get the range, then HE until bunker destroyed or empty.

 

Second test: added 3 more lanes with 3x 1-storey modular buildings, 1 German team in each, for a control group.

After 1 minute, 5 Germans out of 15 were alive in the bunkers. 2 out of 15 were alive in the buildings. I only ran this test once.

[rocketman]

If you have the time, can you do the bunker test with an elevation difference between the tank and the bunkers, like 5m?

Not an expert on Shermans, but were their main gun more accurate/higher velocity/flatter trajectory in the BN era (not including Firefly), than in FI in which I made my tests?

[Bulletpoint]

17 minutes ago, rocketman said:

If you have the time, can you do the bunker test with an elevation difference between the tank and the bunkers, like 5m?

Not an expert on Shermans, but were their main gun more accurate/higher velocity/flatter trajectory in the BN era (not including Firefly), than in FI in which I made my tests?

I think the gun was exactly the same, but in any case, it doesn't matter, because it's usually the HE that kills the bunker. In a couple of cases, the Sherman scored a penetration with AP shot though.

In my test, the tanks and bunkers were exactly level, but in my current PBEM, there's been a bit of elevation difference, and it doesn't seem to make any difference.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

2 hours ago, rocketman said:

Not an expert on Shermans, but were their main gun more accurate/higher velocity/flatter trajectory in the BN era (not including Firefly), than in FI in which I made my tests?

The guns & ammo should be identical.

[Badger73]

On 1/26/2018 at 3:34 PM, J Bennett said:

 Kindling, persistent fires with spreading fire possibilities is one of the most needed elements the game still needs imo.

  There should also of course be modifiers to these effects, from wind, damp, wet or dry conditions etc.

I disagree.  It is not needful for me.

As @MikeyD and @IICptMillerII suggest, I think there are other areas where coding efforts can much better enhance the game.

[weapon2010]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 4:34 PM, J Bennett said:

 Kindling, persistent fires with spreading fire possibilities is one of the most needed elements the game still needs imo.

  There should also of course be modifiers to these effects, from wind, damp, wet or dry conditions etc.

 I am for any element that enhances the tacticl depth, realism,and immersion of the game, fire does that(BF also thought the same as they had it in CM1).Is it essential? no. Google any WW2 footage of combat. Fire is pretty common.

[sburke]

4 minutes ago, weapon2010 said:

 I am for any element that enhances the tacticl depth, realism,and immersion of the game, fire does that(BF also thought the same as they had it in CM1).Is it essential? no. Google any WW2 footage of combat. Fire is pretty common.

mmmm I am not so sure about that one.  Yeah fire can be fairly common, but any footage?  Nah.  Would I like it.. maybe.  But if I take a frame rate hit that limits map sizes and density (forests are already an issue, forests on fire will likely cause a lot more crashes) I think you'd have folks wondering quickly what the toggle key is to turn it off.  Yeah they had in CM1, but that honestly really means nothing.  Different engine, different requirements.  I am with MikeyD on this that odds are I would want it shut off pretty quickly and be using it very very sparingly.

But yeah, it would look cool.  

[Sequoia]

I too was once of the opinion that if CM1 had it CM2 should too. Now I consider fire a lower priority than say, expanded fortification/trench/machine gun nest types, and of course having everything tweaked right to have as realistic combat as possible as mentioned above.  Also just having more scenarios with unusual weapons such as the Sturmtigers and flame tanks and mine-flail tanks would be a priority over fire.

 

 

[J Bennett]

2 hours ago, Sequoia said:

 Now I consider fire a lower priority than say, expanded fortification/trench/machine gun nest types, and of course having everything tweaked right to have as realistic combat as possible as mentioned above.  Also just having more scenarios with unusual weapons such as the Sturmtigers and flame tanks and mine-flail tanks would be a priority over fire.

 

 

    Well I would agree that better looking fortifications are probably something easier to do with less frame rate hits. Something needs to be done about the "foxhole sandbags"   I think. To me they look like big life rafts aka inflatable rubber boats. I understand there are limitations because of game engines and computer horsepower that are going to keep 'realistic features" like  fires, horses,  hand to hand combat, naval gunfire etc out of the game.

Edited January 29, 2018 by J Bennett
tidy up

[Aragorn2002]

Fire, smoke, better foxholes and better trenches.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Aragorn2002

[Aragorn2002]

Oh, and fog.