1:1 Representation in CMx2

[Bil Hardenberger]

Just having a little fun with GPIG's run cycles:

Hope he doesn't mind.

Bil

[ January 21, 2005, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Bil Hardenberger ]

[Tarkus]

Cool. Gpig's a talented guy, no doubt about that. Looking at his very inspiring "doodles" (my personnal favorite is the one with the PzIV), I thought about the same point raised by Steve McClaire, that is:

Originally posted by Steve McClaire:

[...]

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.

[...]

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.

[...]

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?

[...]

Many interesting points to consider here. Unit spotting/hiding ability, unit dispersion and the effect on opponent estimate, etc. Very interesting indeed.

It also raise the question (just a little OT though) about vehicles' relation to terrain. In CMx1, IIRC, a vehicle is either hull down or it's not. But maybe a fuller modelization of this could allow a more detailed rendering of its relative position to the ground and the cover it gets from it.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Bil Hardenberger:

Just having a little fun with GPIG's run cycles:

Hope he doesn't mind.

Bil

there's some animation at its VERY finest!

VERY nice

Hey Steve

HIRE us ALL!

we will work for a copy of the up coming CMx2 and be HAPPY!

There are some VERY talents fans of this game out there.

I am dissapointed that the only "talent" I can offer is that I "yap" and bitch too much on the forum, (I rather doubt that qualifies for a free game, But I think Gpig should get ONE!

(Just having a little fun!)

Those run cycles REALLY look good!

-tom w

[wamphyri]

I'm not a huge poster on the forum but I've recently been playing another game that would actually add a little to the ideas here. The game is Rome:TotalWar. During the battle that I just took part in I had over 600 men in my army(all idividually modeled - very perdy) .. I had an ally army of over 800 coming up on my rear .. and the enemy army was at 700 .. That's around 2100 models to idividually render and there's no slowdown.

It's not the same I know but if this game can put sooo many troops on the field at one time then cmx2 should have no problem.

Even if it graphically shows 1:1 that everyones going on about .. but does it's numbers how cmx1 did I'd be happy ... even if my guys died .,. I'd see them all die in a perdy way!

Wamphyri

[Gpig]

Hee hee. Cool, Bill.

Looks like I need a few more poses in there . . .

I like your ideas, Steve McClaire. And I'd love to see CMx come to pass as you describe it (as far as 1:1 rep of squads go's.) But I'm very curious as to wether BF will implement that kind of detail for squad behaviour.

I mean, I wonder if it's just going to be a squad with a central point (like it is now), just with 1:1 modelling and representation for a whole squad.

Well, let's hope it comes to pass as you envision it.

Later,

Gpig

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I am dissapointed that the only "talent" I can offer is that I "yap" and bitch too much on the forum

Quite the contrary Tom, I think you keep the ball rolling all right. This think tank would long be over with and down the virtual drain I suppose if it wasn't from your obvious (and constant I might add) interest in this.

So thanks Tom. As for the free game, my guess is that you'd buy it anyway just to be fully supportive.

Cheers

[c3k]

Gents,

Allow me to expand on the WIA/KIA theme. I DON'T think there needs to be a difference. Settle down, I'll explain. A KIA is out of the fight. I don't think there's any debate on that. Where he falls gives a clue as to the beaten zone of an enemy weapon. So, I'd like to see the KIA positioned there.

As for WIA, there are many levels of wounding. For simplicity, I'll break it down to non-combat effective and combat effective. If a man is still combat effective, I don't care about his wound. A round leaving a furrow in a chunk of meat and then bandaged? Great. Shut up and press on. Oooh - an 88 through your gut and you're still conscious? You count as a KIA. I still want to see WHERE, on the battlefield, the casualty took his hit.

The final (omitted) case is someone who is WIA, but not incapacitated, but is also not able to keep up with the squad. I'm fine ignoring that case. Chalk him up as a KIA type casualty.

Now, all I mean by chalking WIA's up as KIA's is ONLY for laying bodies on the battlefield. At the end of the battle, I want the KIA's and WIA's broken out. (For ops, I'd assume that the lightly WIA'd - the one's still combat capable during the game and able to keep up with the squad - would heal in time for the next battle. No need to track different categories of wounds.)

Thanks,

Ken

[aka_tom_w]

I would agree....

I just want to know where the KIA or WIA occured. BOTH KIA and WIA could be bodies lieing flat on the ground.

c3k makes some very good points about how wounded are the wounded?

Wounded that are out of the fight and can't keep up with the squad could just be bodies lieing flat on the ground, that way it is easier and black and white, combat effective (everybody still in the fight) and combat ineffective (ALL KIA and WIA just lieing flat out on the ground. Maybe the wounded that can keep up with the squad just tag along and don't fire their weapons(?). I think that would just keep it simple. KISS is better in this case for sure.

-tom w

Originally posted by c3k:

Gents,

Allow me to expand on the WIA/KIA theme. I DON'T think there needs to be a difference. Settle down, I'll explain. A KIA is out of the fight. I don't think there's any debate on that. Where he falls gives a clue as to the beaten zone of an enemy weapon. So, I'd like to see the KIA positioned there.

As for WIA, there are many levels of wounding. For simplicity, I'll break it down to non-combat effective and combat effective. If a man is still combat effective, I don't care about his wound. A round leaving a furrow in a chunk of meat and then bandaged? Great. Shut up and press on. Oooh - an 88 through your gut and you're still conscious? You count as a KIA. I still want to see WHERE, on the battlefield, the casualty took his hit.

The final (omitted) case is someone who is WIA, but not incapacitated, but is also not able to keep up with the squad. I'm fine ignoring that case. Chalk him up as a KIA type casualty.

Now, all I mean by chalking WIA's up as KIA's is ONLY for laying bodies on the battlefield. At the end of the battle, I want the KIA's and WIA's broken out. (For ops, I'd assume that the lightly WIA'd - the one's still combat capable during the game and able to keep up with the squad - would heal in time for the next battle. No need to track different categories of wounds.)

Thanks,

Ken

[ January 22, 2005, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Wicky]

If wounded are still alive and they remain 'fixed' where they've fallen then what happens if the enemy overun this area, do they ALL get captured . At present in CM what happens remains mainly under the hood (i.e. points calculation) except for squad graphic diminishing according to casualties.

If the wounded in 1-1 depiction are capable of evasion and returning back to friendly lines would this be best done under player control and possible over micromangement or left to the AI with them possibly doing 'silly' things.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wicky:

If wounded are still alive and they remain 'fixed' where they've fallen then what happens if the enemy overun this area, do they ALL get captured . At present in CM what happens remains mainly under the hood (i.e. points calculation) except for squad graphic diminishing according to casualties.

If the wounded in 1-1 depiction are capable of evasion and returning back to friendly lines would this be best done under player control and possible over micromangement or left to the AI with them possibly doing 'silly' things.

I would say this whole issue is a VERY big can of worms.

Please Please I hope BFC will keep it SIMPLE. I don't want to have to micromanage all the WIA on the ground. That in itself could be a WHOLE NEW game (or their NEXT game "MedicEvac Mission" "Save as many as you can before they end up KIA").

Oh no put me down to let the Tac AI deal with my WIA and keep it simple. They are combat effective or they aren't. If they are KIA they are lieing on the ground, if they are WIA then they stay with the squad at all times and don't fire their weapon, whatever, JUST KEEP it simple and don't add the tedious frustration of having to micromanage the WIA to the game. I amd pretty confident in BFC that this is really a non issue, I am guessing Steve has a plan for this one and it will completely eliminate the possibility of having to make the player micromanage the WIA.

(I hope)

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by wamphyri:

I'm not a huge poster on the forum but I've recently been playing another game that would actually add a little to the ideas here. The game is Rome:TotalWar. During the battle that I just took part in I had over 600 men in my army(all idividually modeled - very perdy) .. I had an ally army of over 800 coming up on my rear .. and the enemy army was at 700 .. That's around 2100 models to idividually render and there's no slowdown.

It's not the same I know but if this game can put sooo many troops on the field at one time then cmx2 should have no problem.

Even if it graphically shows 1:1 that everyones going on about .. but does it's numbers how cmx1 did I'd be happy ... even if my guys died .,. I'd see them all die in a perdy way!

Wamphyri

does it look like this:

that is one heck of a lot of little individual soldier units!!

LOOK Horses and cavalry

nice detail:

WOW.

Is that game fun to play?

-tom w

[dalem]

Rome: Total War is a lot of fun and looks beautiful, and has lots of individual soldiers. They cough, they sneeze, they scratch themselves in ranks. It's fun. But the game limits the number of actual units in each battle to something like 16 or 20 on a side, which is fine for a ranked infantry game. Plus the terrain is fairly uncomplicated.

Without knowing anything about what is under either hood, it's probably not a good idea to judge CMx2s capabilities based on Rome: Total War.

Sure does look and play cool though.

-dale

[Tarkus]

The character animation look all right from here, especially the third screeny showing a running formation. I'd be more that happy for something like that in CMx2. I wonder what is considered feasible and/or hard on graphics in relation to current average hardware.

[ January 22, 2005, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[stikkypixie]

Are the soldiers modelled individually in Total War?

[aka_tom_w]

My guess is we are not going to see something this detailed:

.

.

Close Combat First to Fight

.

there are more here and they are Very detailed

its Close Combat's First to Fight about Modern day USMC

First to Fight for Mac OS X Screen shots

but there game companies making games that LOOK this good.

(but for the most part these are all FPS which is whole different kettle of fish)

-tom w

Originally posted by Tarkus:

The character animation look all right from here, especially the third screeny showing a running formation. I'd be more that happy for something like that in CMx2. I wonder what is considered feasible and/or hard on graphics in relation to current average hardware.

[ January 22, 2005, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Denwad]

First to Fight is an FPS anyway

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Denwad:

First to Fight is an FPS anyway

Well

Some of us are just wondering...

"Seriously, the graphics capabilities of CMx2's engine are on a par with the best we've seen from games in development these days. We feel it beats games already released. So yeah, it will be pretty darn good.

Steve"

When Steve says that if he means as good as current FPS games because some of them look visually stunning in their promo screen shots?

Just wondering?

-tom w

[Halberdiers]

Aspects:

1:1 Graphical

1:1 Modeling

1:1 Control

"gamers" and "grognards" is that they probably pretty much agree that 1:1 control is undesirable

that’s totally right. Yes sir.

Developers, we see only words in the Main bar actually:

1-Experience:(conscript,elite,etc)

2-Movement orders:(advance,assault,fast,etc)

3-Morale:(broken,panic,etc)

4-Fatigue:(tired carrying heavy weapons,etc)

5-Casualties/number of soldiers

6-Special ammunition (Flamethrowers,Bazooka,demo charges,grenades,etc)

7-specific conditions:(Fanatic,etc)

And that is the graphical/modeling improvement what personally I expect in CMX2:

1-the representation of the status of the unit.

2-the moment of change of the status of the unit !!!.

I think that a form of help in most of the graphical/modeling problems could be that in the "action phase" the soldier(s) who have the main role could have their specific animation.

Then , could be possible to explain whatever status or change in the status in the Squad that you want to explain.

EXAMPLE 1: "order advance":

-Soldier animation:hand signal of the squad leader

-Soldier animation:machinegun support as "base fire"

-Squad animation: specific movement

EXAMPLE 2: change status to "Pinned"

-Soldier animation:wounded

-Soldier animation:help the wounded

-Squad animation:specific movement

why we need the wounded soldier after the action in the terrain?. I think it is not necessary . Maybe the last soldier of the squad or the bazooka or Flamethrower as today.

Developers you could add little animations in the "Orders phase". When the player select movements and targets. The "squad leaders" and animation of the "experience" of the troops could take the main role here.

Finally ,a good guideline of where is needed animations are the sounds and voices in the game.

[ January 22, 2005, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Denwad]

with 1:1 this can happen

random squad member is selected and that member goes and get the HHL, PWM1, Faust, Satchel etc whatever and runs up to the tank and blows it up

there would be a small chance that that man could be gunned down on the way, right now it's abstracted as a 30m range and a long delay to "fire" the HHL, satchel etc.

or

a squad advancing, you'd be able to see the individual fireteams leapfrogging each other

think

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

1:1 representation sure does open up a big can of worms.............

.............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

Wouldn't one issue be repetition of the visual?

I'm thinking of the arrangement of the individual men while on the map. Say you look at a squad from overhead. Might not the arrangement of the individuals look the same as another squad a short distance away? Is it possible to have enough variety? Lastly will it be scalable like the current representation of a squad with 3 men or 2? If we like the current 3 man squad, can we still have it?

I wish you all the very best. I know that you'll kick ass.

[Agent-006]

Hey thanks Gpig, I needed a new desktop wallpaper

[Battlefront.com]

Don't worry... we're not going to do Combat Medic Mission However, dropping wounded in the spots where they were wounded is not realistic. You, the player, should not be able to spot a guy who should not be there. In other words, a lightly wounded or evacuated seriously wounded soldier would be moved SOMEWHERE other than out in an empty street, hanging out a window, in a wrecked vehicle, etc. So why should the player see such a soldier where he realistically wouldn't be?

Repetition of visuals is not a concern for us. It isn't like we are planning on having a 12 man squad stick to a static formation. Look at Gpig's drawings as they are pretty much spot on how things will look in CMx2. Even the very old (by computer standards) Close Combat had guys individually positioned, so it can obviously be done.

Steve

[Denwad]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

1:1 representation sure does open up a big can of worms.............

.............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

Wouldn't one issue be repetition of the visual?

I'm thinking of the arrangement of the individual men while on the map. Say you look at a squad from overhead. Might not the arrangement of the individuals look the same as another squad a short distance away? Is it possible to have enough variety? Lastly will it be scalable like the current representation of a squad with 3 men or 2? If we like the current 3 man squad, can we still have it?

I wish you all the very best. I know that you'll kick ass. </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Denwad:

when a squad in Close Combat reaches it's destination, each individual will look for cover, if they're fired upon they will dive and crawl to cover etc. if one man runs out of ammunition he may pick up a weapon from a downed man, be he friendly or hostile.

And that really sucked in CC - you had to hold all your men from hand to make sure that they were properly positioned, giving the squads micro-move commands in hope that they'd arrange themselves to a form that would make some SENSE (like, not all occupying the rear-most room when you want them to take places at the window, or not all of them bunching up like boy scouts at camp fire when a Panzer is closing in).

Think of it this way: would you be happy if the TacAI controlled the squads in CM and you could only move them as platoons? I most certainly wouldn't, because the AI has no understanding of tactics.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Think of it this way: would you be happy if the TacAI controlled the squads in CM and you could only move them as platoons? I most certainly wouldn't, because the AI has no understanding of tactics.

Um

I am pretty sure this is the way Steve said it would be.

There would not/will not be individual control and a 1:1 basis of individual men.

My sense is that the split platoon or 5-6 man squad may be the smallest controlable element other than snipers.

That is what Steve said right?

So that means that the Tac AI will taking care of where each man positions himself and the player can just sit back and watch I guess.

-tom w