Jump to content
Wodin

What I'd like to see in CM3...

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, IanL said:

I don't see running additional processes on a different computer over some kind of network connection as being worth the effort though.

To say nothing of the cost involved. :o I'd wager that not many of us have a spare computer lying around.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2019 at 3:44 PM, IanL said:

Roger that.

Clearly some people pay way more attention to the sounds than I do - and that's a good thing. I do not have much of an ear. I have tried a few sound mods and so far have always removed them because I didn't like them better than the stock sounds.

same here. Beside some more special small gun sound replacements, there´s quite a lot of ugly sound stuff mods around like with bass to the fu.., distortions and heavy clipping, particularly on more heavy gun and explosion sounds. Sound modding is NOT pulling ones favorite sounds from other games and then dumping as mod for use in CM. So in that regard, I´m also pretty fine with the stock sounds generally with mentioned exceptions. But as said also matter of taste and what one considers as immersive, annoying or of no concern at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2019 at 3:09 PM, IanL said:

Agreed that a new engine that was able to take advantage of multiple cores would be useful and desirable. I don't see running additional processes on a different computer over some kind of network connection as being worth the effort though. Supporting multi threading and making good use of other cores does make sense for many things in newly designed game.

What with the military contracts and the need to evolve the business into the future, developing a multicore architecture would be the way forward.

 

I can just see the adverts on PC Gamer now...

 

 

Do you like good food?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

combat mission: 64bit multicore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A small improvement idea:
It would be nice if scenario designer could freely set when reinforcements arrive. Instead of current 5 minutes steps.

Now if you know how the game engine works you can use this information while playing.
for example: If the game clock shows there's 52 minutes left, I know that I have at least 2 minutes before my opponent may get reinforcements, so during that time no new units will appear to the map.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2019 at 11:56 AM, landser said:

Are campaigns so time-absorbing and difficult to make that few even attempt it?

That's about it.  Like you I prefer Campaigns, and there are a few really good ones.  But, have always said that we should be prepared to pay for modules that consist solely of professionally made campaigns due to the enormous amount of work required to make a good campaign. ie: A campaign that features branching storylines as well as requiring resource conservation of men and ammo.  Recently it seems that campaign have been made in which every mission starts with a full complement of troops and ammo.  Much easier to make, but it's like playing a bunch of disconnected scenarios one after the other and much less satisfying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Erwin said:

and there are a few really good ones. 

Indeed. Devil's Descent and Kampfgruppe Engle for CMBN are two that come to mind that I really liked. There are plenty more when you consider all of the Combat Mission titles. And frankly, my issue stems more from quantity than quality, which, combined with limited replayability and the fact that not all campaigns appeal to me ( regardless of quality ), leaves me with little to actually play.

Some are simply too big for me, some too urban, some may lack appeal for others reasons, such as weather or night battles, etc etc. These things don't make the campaign bad, but perhaps make it unsuitable for my tastes. As I said, I feel my tastes are fairly broad, but certain things are in my wheelhouse. For example I like what I call reinforced company sized campaigns. A force centered around an infantry company with an appropriate amount of support, perhaps a platoon of tanks, a battery or two of off-map artillery and some heavy weapons teams. I like rural type maps with elevation changes. I like good weather :)

These aren't requirements per se, but just the sort of stuff that appeals to me the most. If I then filter available campaigns by these type of things, the list grows rather short doesn't it? So instead of playing the sort of things I like, I also play campaigns which are not my style, simply because they exist. I'm thankful for that. I'm grateful that community members take the time to do it, and more than that, make them available for us to play ourselves. But as I plod through another battalion + sized campaign I can only wish for ones that are more suitable or more my style.

But, have always said that we should be prepared to pay for modules that consist solely of

professionally made campaigns due to the enormous amount of work required to make a good campaign

I made a post here last year pledging to put my money where my mouth is. I am willing to pay for it. But a handful of eager players doesn't make it profitable necessarily. Paper Tiger spent, if I recall, around 800 hours making Road to Montebourg. This is a good one. But 800 hours is a massive time investment for just a single campaign. So one issue is that the tools don't exist for streamlining the process. What if in 800 hours 10 campaigns could be made? 20? 40? Time is money.

So while I would support such an idea, it misses the mark slightly in my view. Players are still tethered to the supply chain, getting their playable content from others, relying on their productivity, enthusiasm and skill. On one hand I'll take what I can get. Beggars/choosers. On the other, I still feel the way forward is a way for the players to generate it themselves. And I have two axes of advance on this matter....

I'm not a programmer, and as a result cannot know of the technical requirements of the things I propose. And partly I hesitate to write it at all, as by definition it is critical of the fine work done by Battlefront, or maybe more accurately, what they have not done. But this is a wishlist type thread after all, and I want to see the series evolve. And I want more suitable campaigns to play.

The first one is have something akin to the QMB interface that generates something akin to Operations from CMx1. Since the post I made a few days ago about this matter I decided to go back to operations. I bought both CMBB and CMAK, as I built a new PC without the foresight of knowing an optical drive might come in handy, rendering the disks I've held on to all these years impractical :)

Imagine we could generate these ourselves, by setting each parameter. Number of battles, force type and troop quality, map details, weather, reinforcement probability, resupply and so on. I envision an endless supply of focused suitable content to play. A huge map, persistent forces, dynamic front line.

The second one is more ambitious, and I think like CMC was supposed to be. At it's core, it would be an operational level map not unlike what we had in several of the Close Combat games. The player has a number of battlegroups (selectable scale) as does the enemy. These units are moved on the map. When two forces enter a sector on the same turn a meeting engagement occurs. If occupied for one previous turn, an attack. And if the enemy had been there longer, an assault.  Tactical battles fought in concert with a larger operational goal.

It should include resupply and logistics, reinforcements, a support pool and so on. Lines of communication can be cut.

These ideas aren't new, but it's two possible ways forward. As I said earlier, it would all require a new AI which is another matter entirely. I know it's easy to throw fairy dust and wishes around, and that it would require hard work and time and money, none of which are mine. But it sure would make me happy :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like CM3 with the option to have the ingame floating icons automatically switch themselves off when the player has the camera at ground level (1) and then switch themselves back on automatically when the camera is above ground level (2 and above).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2019 at 4:19 PM, Michael Emrys said:

To say nothing of the cost involved. :o I'd wager that not many of us have a spare computer lying around.

Michael

A headless client can run on the same PC, but on a different core.  It is NOT the same as multi threading.  Multi threading is much more difficult.  The principle is to have the AI running as a virtual opponent, on one of your spare cores, reacting to the information coming from your main program (which contains a server element, and the client that you use yourself).

 

Edited by Jock Tamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A server/ client architecture allows a few creative ways to get more out of the CPU, without the complexities of multi threading.  For example, in Arma 2, I used to launch my missions as multiplayer missions on a headless server, which used one core on my CPU and was responsible for the opponent AI, hit calculations, mission scripts, etc.  I would then join that mission as the only player, from my Arma client.  This ran on different cores and was responsible for rendering and friendly AI.

Whereas that mission running as a single player mission might run at 40 FPS in my client, with a lot of dips when the CPU was busy, when played as a multiplayer mission which my client was connected to, I would get a steady 60FPS in my client, due to the offloading of AI etc to the server running on the other cores.

Edited by Jock Tamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just going to add that you do not need to create a separate process to get this same benefit. So, you could design a game such that the single process uses separate threads, which would be run on separate cores, from within the same process. You can design the inter thread communication the same way you would for inter process communication (which can make multi threading easier to deal with - just because it forces you to separate tasks more and not have as much interdependence).

In the hypothetical design discussed above, a single process (launch the game = one process) would behave as @Jock Tamson describes his two process Arma scenario. The Arma design needs that because they have many clients connecting to a server. Also note that they could have designed their single player mission to have the same benefits if they so desired. There must be a good reason they didn't.

All of which is to say that there is nothing inherently better having a separate process it's just a choice that can make sense. If BFC wants to move to a server with clients architecture then it would be a requirement but if they don't they can still design things in a single process that gain the same benefits as having multiple processors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...