1:1 Representation in CMx2

[Halberdiers]

Today other games try an representation 1:1.

why not Combat Mission ?.

In fact I read that the BF developers promise a huge improvements in the infantry graphics.

Crew (from Wartime command,squad assault)

[ January 20, 2005, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Tarkus]

Le Tondu, you're right, CM is a game, and there are many ways to enjoy it. Speaking for myself, I know I sometime sound like realism is above all other considerations in my book, but it really isn't. I enjoy CMx1 tremendously and really think it's lightyears beyond anything I ever experienced, both as a game and a tacsim. I wish BFC keep it as good as it is, and enhance it as best as they can. Sure I think realism is important, it is a fundamental paradigm of CM, but it is not the only one, as you rightly point out, fun being the other.

I know, because I read it in the bone thread, that keeping this balance between the real thing and a fun game is on BFC's mind constantly. I also understand that they are the challenging type that will not settle with an excellent formula but rather try to expand, enhance, change and move things upside down to get them better done, at the risk of unsetting us freaking crown that always lurk around here to see what they are up to. I am sure, as such, that they are in fact closely concerned with your call: that the game should be, first and foremost, fun, yet they want to move on and try new ideas based on their experience along the aformentionned paradigm of realism that, I'm sure you'll agree with me, is part of the trademark.

That being said, I really like those threads where we suggest ideas and think about what features we feel might be interesting or not (although Steve did tell us to calm down since the time to share and think hasn't come yet). Some have very interesting ideas, some less, and I think both have the merit of at least pushing the thinking ahead. Knowing why an idea suck is almost as interesting as knowing why it doesn't.

All this to say that I am not lobbying for anything. Just toying with ideas. Whatever happens with these aren't me to tell.

In all good fun, cheers.

Tarkus

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Gpig:

I've done up a couple of sketches just to tinker around. aka_tom_w is going to post them for me here, in this thread. Just for fun. (I'm just visualizing out loud, here.)

Boy oh boy, I can't wait. I think when CMx comes out, I'm going to buy two of them.

Thanks,

Gpig

P.S. Look for aka_tom_w's post later today.

Gpig's sketches:

So how do those look?

(you should always START with sketches and story boards )

-tom w

[hoolaman]

Very Nice! If it looks like that I'll buy it thrice.

(I also like the incredibles sheet they were done on)

[Salkin]

Now that's just plain cool .

Nice sketches Gpig !

Now make Steve an offer he can't refuse .

//Salkin

More please

[Tarkus]

Whoa. Neat. Got any more of these Tom ? These are great. Gpig's obviously a tried hand at this.

Cheers

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

SNIP These are great. Gpig's obviously a tried hand at this. SNIP

Take a look at Gpig's e-mail address

that may explain a few things

[Battlefront.com]

1:1 representation sure does open up a big can of worms. It's one of the reasons why we did not attempt it for CMx1 (though hardware wouldn't have allowed it anyway). However, as has already been pointed out one should not confuse 1:1 graphical represenation with 1:1 modeling or 1:1 control. Three different concepts.

From a GAME standpoint, 1:1 graphical representation is the most important. If I were to make a Top Ten list of complaints from general gamers about CMx1, this would probably be the #2 complaint (#1 is the lack of ridiculously detailed and textured models) constant throughout all three games.

From a REALISM standpoint the most important thing is the 1:1 modeling. Though it is very difficult to do this without the 1:1 graphical represenation, it is certainly possible to do. We could have had individuals run away from generic 3 man squads or more detailed soldier stats. But without 1:1 representation this all seemed kinda hollow so we kept the level of modeling in line with the degree of visual representation. Now that we are increasing the latter, we will also be increasing the modeling to stay in balance. There will still be abstractions, just not nearly as many as there are now.

The interesting thing is that most "gamers" and "grognards" is that they probably pretty much agree that 1:1 control is undesirable. There is already enough to pay attention to without having to get Pvt. Pyle to move 0.5 meters to the left of the tree he is behind so he can get a shot off. It also turns the focus to individual soldiers instead of units and the formations they belong to.

Obviously, if you are smart you'll see that we're not going to implement 1:1 control, but are going to do 1:1 visual and 1:1 modeling. The results should make the game more fun to play and also far more realistic. There will be issues we need to work through to make sure it all works happily together, but that's the sort of thing you guys pay us for when you buy the game

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Gpig... now we know who to contact if we ever need storyboards done! Heck, those sketches of yours are better looking than some wargames I can think of

Steve

[Gpig]

Thanks guys. It's fun to doodle out ideas.

The animation possibilites really make me drool.

I was trying to work out a run cycle of a soldier. We've all seen WWII footage of troopers dashing, doubled over, for the nearest cover. And imagine watching as one man in your squad gets up from a prone position and lobs a grenade. Then htis the dirt, flat on his stomach.

Or zoom in behind your hidden Shrek team as they load their last rocket. The Sherman tank rolling toward them.

As far as the squad of men behind the wall . . .

I was just trying to picture the scene where a squad of 12 U.S. troopers fill up a yard. It's tough to cram 'em all in there.

But it will sure look cool "in-game."

I'm dazzled by the tech know-how required to get all them little models to line up correctly. I can animate/move a 3-D model, but it only does so because I direct it to.

Getting 12 individual units (all part of a single unit/squad) to work together, follow SOP's, fire and return fire - is the real trick. You guys at BFC will really have a feather for your cap once you've added this candy.

Seeing men fall wounded would be nice for the realism.

Currently, the game doesn't handle wounded. Well, it lumps them together with the dead. They just vanish from the squad.

Would one of the worms out of the can become the treatment of wounded? Or will CMx handle casualties the same way as CM? (Where casualites just vanish.)

I feel that would still be perfectly fine for the game scope. As the game/simulation is about combat/tactics and not about the myriad activities surrounding the action.

But, I for one can imagine the heartache as I watch a lone soldier dragging himself back across no-mans land. Towards friendly troops. He's too wounded to walk, so the Enemy A.I. won't shoot him. (he's no threat.)

It's still too dangerous to go out in the street to help him. (and he's under control of the TacA.I. anyway), so you just have to watch him crawl towards his lines. Hoping all the way that he makes it.

Can you picture that? It would give you an emotional response, no doubt. I'm sure game designers (like movie makers) LOVE to have their products produce emotional responses.

1:1 representation/modelling is the way to go alright. I don't think anybody could hack more than 3 turns of 1:1 control of more than a platoon's worth of men. (At least, I'd soon grow tired of it.)

I'm really looking forward to it all. Thanks for sharing, Steve, and all you guys at Battlefront.

Gpig

[Thomm]

Might as well ask straight away: will you treat soldiers as true individuals with own AI and individual behavior or will you just track the status of soldiers individually, but have them behave like a group with only a squad AI at work?

Now that I think of it, the latter could also be represented quite nicely graphically, just by making sure that the soldier sprites behave somehow reasonably, that is, for example, if the squad is supposed to be inside a building you arrange them as closely as possible to the movement point, but with the constraint that nobody stays on the street (a problem in the original EYSA, much better with the patches). The animation of entering a building could be done by choosing a "bottleneck" where the squad squeezes through like in a sand-watch. Kind of scripted.

Best regards,

Thomm

Gpig: your artwork rocks!

[Mord]

Yep! Great Sketches GPig. That's exactly how I pictured a squad looking in a yard. It looks much more realistic than three men squatting.

I am hoping for individual animations among the squad members like firing and ducking while another throws a grenade. Little things to add flavor instead of every single man acting exactly alike. I gotta good feeling that'll happen.

Add me to the list for not wanting to be able to control every single guy in a squad. That would drive me nuts. I'd be happier than hell just for the visual of 12 men!

So I am guessing 1:1 will also equal gun crews, mg teams, and vehicle crews? Man that would rock watching a soldier feeding ammo while his comrade fires a burst. Or a crew loading a 88 and then firing!

After that all I wanna know is if there will be a casualty toggle for 1:1 and I think all my pet peeves will have pretty much been taken care of.

Well that and more destructible terrain!

Mord.

[aka_tom_w]

more later

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

OK then! can we hold you to that?

because that is the kind of suggestion that makes our collective expectations go WAY UP!

Now my sig line is FULL and I don't want to change but this part:

" There will be issues we need to work through to make sure it all works happily together, but that's the sort of thing you guys pay us for when you buy the game "

Should really be in someone's sig line so we don't soon forget it!

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Obviously, if you are smart you'll see that we're not going to implement 1:1 control, but are going to do 1:1 visual and 1:1 modeling. The results should make the game more fun to play and also far more realistic. There will be issues we need to work through to make sure it all works happily together, but that's the sort of thing you guys pay us for when you buy the game

Steve

[c3k]

Guys,

First, to Gpig, you have a flair for this kind of thing. I think you should pursue a career in the direction of animated artwork. (Nice films - my kids and I enjoy them all!)

Okay, onto CMx2 and 1:1.

I DO NOT want to have 1:1 control issues. I like the idea of 1:1 representation so I can tell, at a glance, the relative strength of a squad or how hard it's been hit since the start of the scenario. I don't want any kind of wounded, but hors de combat, graphics. Either they can fight or they're casualties.

I DO want to see WIA/KIA on the ground where they were hit. Why? So, again, at a glance, I can tell where the "hot" zones are. "Wow! I've got stacks of dead over in that wheatfield. I think I'll go through the woods instead." No graphic, emotional animations with gore and blood. A simple increase to the power of the graphical representation of the battlefied which allows the PLAYER an increase in situational awareness which would've been readily available to any observer actually present. (This is similar to having vehicle wrecks staying in sight. You can tell what happened and where.)

Thanks,

Ken

[aka_tom_w]

"I don't want any kind of wounded, but hors de combat, graphics. Either they can fight or they're casualties. "

Exactly!

And how about something SIMPLE....

First I agree with no blood and no gore. (I am guessing the blood on the uniforms may indeed be modded in later after official release).

WIA are sitting holding their knee up or ankle or something

(I wish I could illustrate it like Gpig!)

KIA are lying on the ground flat on their back like bodies (one knee bent) left over KIA now in CMxx. (That works JUST fine!)

I would like to see maybe 2-3 wounded states at the most, something EASY, weapon NOT in hand, and the soldier holding a a knee or upper leg while sitting. Some form of sitting upright on the ground posture should indicate wounded.

I guess, wounded and KIA have the same impact on the battle, mostly they are JUST out of the fight and no longer combat effective, so really WIA and KIA could ALL be just bodies lieing on the ground to keep it simple.

your thougts and suggestions?

-tom w

Originally posted by c3k:

I DO want to see WIA/KIA on the ground where they were hit. Why? So, again, at a glance, I can tell where the "hot" zones are. "Wow! I've got stacks of dead over in that wheatfield. I think I'll go through the woods instead." No graphic, emotional animations with gore and blood. A simple increase to the power of the graphical representation of the battlefied which allows the PLAYER an increase in situational awareness which would've been readily available to any observer actually present. (This is similar to having vehicle wrecks staying in sight. You can tell what happened and where.)

Thanks,

Ken

[ January 21, 2005, 07:48 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Mord]

As far as the wounded state goes it doesn't matter to me. I'd just like the casualty bar raised. At the end of the battles I usually spend a good amount of time surveying the map seeing where the most intense fighting took place and checking kill statistics for the units. Atleast a toggle to turn up or down the amount of markers on the screen would be nice. That way people that don't want it could keep the 1:12 ratio they are use to or not have them on screen at all.

EDITED: But hey, anything extra in the way of new animations and models BFC wants to throw in there is fine by me!

Mord.

[Mord]

First time for everything...stinkin' double post!

[aka_tom_w]

More Sketchs by Gpig.

Gpig and I have been chatting and working on ideas

and what those idea's would look like.

Gpig learned to animate at the place where I now work

so we have been chatting

(we talk about an idea, he makes a sketch or two, sends them to me I post them on a webserver (easy for me, no hassle) and then we post them to this forum and chat about them !!! )

I LOVE it when a plan comes together he he !!!!

He is REALLY good at making idea's into pictures you can look at!!

Steve should REALLY start to use his talents and sketchs !!

check this out!..

WIA sitting... KIA flat on the ground:

.

.

Tank Support idea and sketch:

.

.

Machine Gun support idea and sketch:

.

.

your comments gentlemen....

Art work (Fan Art and idea's ) sketched by Gpig!

[ January 21, 2005, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Conscript Bagger]

Well, the "wounded" troops in the first drawing look more like they're taking a smoke break to me...

[David Chapuis]

If BFC can make the game look THAT good, then ... WOW!!!

[YankeeDog]

OMFG, somebody should make use of that boy's talents!

Oh, wait a minute. . . someone already is.

I think the sketches are great, but something think about:

Based on my limited understanding of how these things work, it would be a lot harder to program it so the graphical representation for wounded/KIA soldiers actually interfaced with surroundding terrain features -- for example, the way the soldiers are sitting up against the wall in the sketch above.

It would probably be easier to establish 3-4 "generic" wounded poses, perhaps each with a small, repeating animation (such as an arm being temporarily raised, then lowered), that would look resonably realistic on any relatively flat patch of ground. Then, all you'd have to do is code it so that the wounded soldiers didn't actually end up on top of a wall or something.

But then again, maybe I'm underestimating what can be done to assimilate the graphic animations of soldiers with the graphics of surrounding terrain. I've read something of the computer animation software (called "Massive" or somefink, I think) they developed for LOTR, and while I imagine that kind of capability is still a little ways off on a home computer, it's probably only a matter of time. . .

Anyway, thank for the eye candy, Gpig!

Cheers,

YD

[Gpig]

My pleasure.

I myself am still not sold on the idea that we even need wounded lying around. It doesn't really add to the overall game. They'll just be sitting/lying around. (Taking up processing power.)

Now seeing KIA's lying around I think would add to the game. No gore or anything. Just a motionless body. No animation needed.

But you can't really have just KIA's and no WIA's. (I mean you could, but it wouldn't feel as complete to me. I mean, if you have one, why not the other.

I agree with you, YankeeDog. Maybe we could just have 3 or 4 generic poses for "casualties." They wouldn't be animated, but they would represent KIA and WIA. Then they could just lie there or whatever.

These are those worms outta the can, we're talking about.

KIA's visible on the battlefield?

WIA's visible on the battlefield? (controlled by the A.I.?)

All casualites just vanish? (Wounded and/or Killed in Action.)

Or casualties represented by prone bodies. WIA and KIA.

It'd be cool, but would it distract from the game?

I'm very interested how Battlefront will resolve these issues. My gut tells me they'll make casualties part of the "background." Like it is now in CM. Thereby allowing the player to concentrate on the tactics/simulation of combat.

Thanks for posting those doodles, tom.

[ January 21, 2005, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Gpig ]

[Salkin]

Like I said before Gpig, nice looking doodles.

A few thoughts :

I'm a little carefull about discussing these issues because I don't know the power/limitations of the new graphics engine so I'm not sure what's reasonable to ask from the programmers .

But as long as we're just daydreaming I think it would be nice to see all the KIA:s and see soldiers affected by wounds .

This "wound"-question brings up the questions :

1. Will wounded soldiers slow down a squad (like in real life)

2. Will this element add or subtract from the fun of the game if implemented ?

Oh , and I really like the machine gun squad doodle, Gpig. I'm fairly certain it will look something like that in game.

An alternative however would be to have them sitting while sort of crouching over the MG. Both would be fine though.

More doodles please .

//Salkin

[Steve McClaire]

I don't think anyone has really mentioned what I think the most important benefit of 1:1 modelling is: Getting rid of the current abstraction of an entire unit's position down into a single point.

Right now in CM a unit is present at a single point in the game world, regardless of how many men are in it or how much ground they would really occupy with proper spacing. If an enemy unit can see that one point of ground it can (potentially) hit every member of the target unit.

Granted, the current engine abstracts by only causing 1-2 casualties per 'hit', but it still leads to some gamey tactics. You can area target near a unit from out of LOS and kill every man in the unit, even if they wouldn't have been within 50m of the point you're targeting.

Abstracted movement commands / situations will also benefit greatly. If half a squad 'Advances' into the open and comes under fire, the other half won't be exposed in the open too. If one guy in a squad is going to assault an AFV with a grenade bundle he actually has to run across the 30m to the target rather than being able to safely 'lob' it from cover.

Only being able to 'see' part of a unit will also increase player uncertainty - and so far this sounds like the mantra of CMx2. If you see one enemy soldier behind a wall you don't know if he's by himself or if the rest of a squad is lying down out of sight. If you fire on the one man and see him go down, have you destroyed the whole unit, or not?

I am optimistic. I think it will really bring a new level of realism to the infantry part of the game ... which I've always felt came up a little short in the current engine.