CMX2, 1:1 Representation and Soldier Attributes

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Denwad:

i think what we all want is a turn based Close Combat III in 3d, with maybe a bit bigger scale ( instead of 2 platoons with support a full company with support elements )

You are wrong, that's not what 'we all' want.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Currently the only displayed attributes for an indvidual soldier are weapon, specialty, and physical condition (tracks wounds).

Steve

You have me a bit worried now. Why do you track specialty and wounds? Maybe define 'specialty'?

Thanks.

[Sergei]

'Specialty' probably means what their duty in a squad is - officer, LMGunner, rifleman, the whining guy who gets killed in the first engagement, etc.

Physical condition might have more meaning if the game will have a campaign mode, as indicated.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

I would code it so there is a list of say 100 first names and 100 second names for each nation

What would the first names be for? When I was in the Army, I only knew the mates in my platoon by their family names, if even that, apart from those whom I knew more closely.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Sergei:

'Specialty' probably means what their duty in a squad is - officer, LMGunner, rifleman,

That would only make sense if e.g. once the lMG gunner dies for his parental country, the proficiency of his replacement is assumed to be lower, and this affects the FP of the squad?

I can see why it is necessary for officers.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

I would code it so there is a list of say 100 first names and 100 second names for each nation

What would the first names be for? When I was in the Army, I only knew the mates in my platoon by their family names, if even that, apart from those whom I knew more closely. </font>

[Cpl Steiner]

Sergei, you have a good point.

Right now CM shows a squad of 9 men as 3 figures on a square base. The graphical representation is therefore 1:3, but the game sees them as a single unit.

You could increase the graphical representation to 1:1, so you now see 9 men, but game could treat them as three separate units of 3 men each. In effect, it's just like CM but with the size of the average unit scaled down by a factor of 3.

Now, when you see 3 men hiding in some woods, it doesn't matter if they are actually physically behind a tree trunk. The precise location of each man would be abstract, just as it is now. However, with smaller groups of men (3 instead of an entire squad) it would now be possible to have them "take cover" behind nearby terrain features more realistically. If one of the men is too far away from the terrain feature he could be shown as prone, even though he effectively benefits from the same cover as the other 2 men.

Would this be an improvement? It's hard to say. Personally, I'm in favour of 1:1 and will live with the odd abstraction that carries over from CM. However, I would like to see larger battles than company versus company, possibly using some sort of compromise like I've just described.

[Battlefront.com]

Quick definitions of what is displayed about each Soldier:

Weapon - the primary personal weapon of that Soldier.

Speciality - designation of special position within the unit, if any. For example, someone who is trained on an AT weapon will be identified as such. Squad Leader and Team Leader are obvious designations. Radio Man, Assistant MG Gunner, etc. These things are important to show because it tells you what the unit is inherently capable of. If a mortar round comes and takes out your AT specialist, you'll still be able to have that Squad go after a tank, but it will do so without the optimal choice. So you might want to have another unit do it.

Condition - This is simply a state of being. Right now we have 4 states, but that could change. The states are Healthy (including superficial wounds), Minor Wound (still functional, though less so), Major Wound (out of action), and KIA (completely out of action). This status has an effect on combat capabilities within the game, but it also has meaning for scoring and campaign play. Guys who end up with Minor Wounds might come back for the next battle, might not. Guys with Major Wounds will not, and could possibly be tallied up as KIA. KIA is obvious.

Onto other things...

The 1:1 representation is the way to go. We do not think there is any viable in between for a game of this scale. If the soldiers are moving around and looking like they are portraying individuals, people will be confused and pretty upset if that isn't the case. In CMx1 the soldier figures were obviously abstracted and even then we had tons of criticism for not showing every soldier (which was technically impossible at the time in any case). So there is no use whining and complaining about it... the decision was made 3 years ago, it is the right decision, and it isn't changing.

We don't know what the upper size of a CMx2 battle will be so we don't want to overpromise. Over time it can certainly go larger thanks to hardware improvements. But for the first game we are focusing on a "task force" type of organization of roughly 1-2 companies in strength. Less than a company should be viable, more than 2 companies... we aren't sure. For those of you who remember CMBO's early days we were saying the same thing, though by the time we were finished battalion sized games were possible for those with decent hardware.

The amount of animations our little guys will have comes down to time. We've got all the basics in there already, but we're not sure what more we'll put in. We could spend months putting in stuff. Unfortunately, we hit the point of diminishing returns on development effort pretty quickly since we don't have multi-million dollar budgets and a huge development team.

Steve

[ August 23, 2005, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The amount of animations our little guys will have comes down to time. We've got all the basics in there already

= translated, this means "bones are on the way!!!"

[Andreas]

A good. No need for me to hit the bottle tonight then to drown my sorrows.

Although I may do it anyway just because I can.

Thanks a lot Steve.

All the best

Andreas

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

snip...but it also has meaning for scoring and campaign play. Guys who end up with Minor Wounds might come back for the next battle, might not. ...snip

Steve

Did anyone else note the mention of "Campaign Play"

(for those of you lobbying for it)

NEVER MIND

[ August 23, 2005, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: jeffsmith ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by jeffsmith:

Did anyone else note the mention of "Campaign Play"

(for those of you lobbying for it)

Old news.

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We don't know what the upper size of a CMx2 battle will be so we don't want to overpromise. Over time it can certainly go larger thanks to hardware improvements. But for the first game we are focusing on a "task force" type of organization of roughly 1-2 companies in strength. Less than a company should be viable, more than 2 companies... we aren't sure. For those of you who remember CMBO's early days we were saying the same thing, though by the time we were finished battalion sized games were possible for those with decent hardware.

Steve

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We don't know what the upper size of a CMx2 battle will be so we don't want to overpromise. Over time it can certainly go larger thanks to hardware improvements. But for the first game we are focusing on a "task force" type of organization of roughly 1-2 companies in strength. Less than a company should be viable, more than 2 companies... we aren't sure. For those of you who remember CMBO's early days we were saying the same thing, though by the time we were finished battalion sized games were possible for those with decent hardware.

Steve

Oops. Hit the wrong button.

In the current CM, C&C is pretty much set at the platoon level but does, at least, have company and battalion HQ's. While the latter do not have very much practical significance (to the extent that they should, IMO), you do have the makings of a battalion level command structure.

If CMX2 is to have a more robust C&C system in place, will this be limited, at the upper end, to the "task-force" level? If so, even with faster PC's, you will still only be able to produce battles with multiple task forces, rather than an integrated battalion level formation, which would seem to be a bit of a backwards step. Or will higher echelon command be programmed from the go-get but only be usuable on higher-end machines?

[aka_tom_w]

"The amount of animations our little guys will have comes down to time. We've got all the basics in there already, but we're not sure what more we'll put in. We could spend months putting in stuff. Unfortunately, we hit the point of diminishing returns on development effort pretty quickly since we don't have multi-million dollar budgets and a huge development team.

-Steve"

If you need more cash, would opening up the opportunity for pre-orders help? (OK its not like real income but it might help a little or something )

Some of us might be thinking "What more can I do? I have already faithfully purchased your last three GREAT games AND all the guide books and Companions? What else is there?"

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

But for the first game we are focusing on a "task force" type of organization of roughly 1-2 companies in strength. Less than a company should be viable, more than 2 companies... we aren't sure. For those of you who remember CMBO's early days we were saying the same thing, though by the time we were finished battalion sized games were possible for those with decent hardware.

One thing they don't talk about is if this new game is ANYTHING like CMx1 then you "could" play the REALLY large battles if you are simply willing to wait a REALLY long time for the "crunch"

Now this is presuming of course that CMx2 has a "crunch"

In the past the deal has always been the guys that REALLY want to play the REALLY big Massive battles JUST have to wait a little longer for each turn to process the combat result, but sooner or later (even on mediocre or slow hardware) the game will do the math and show you the combat result. In the past the game has not really limited the amount of units you want under your command or the size of the battle you would like to fight. (other than the obvious and usually GENEROUS map size limitation.)

But thats JUST my take on it. :confused:

-tom w

[ August 23, 2005, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

If you need more cash, would opening up the opportunity for pre-orders help?

I made an inquiry about something like this a few months back (actually the way I worded it was for BFC to offer subscriptions), and was told no that wouldn't be happening.

Michael

[RMC]

Can we get Max Payne style bullet time slow mo deaths for our little named troopies? Those that haven't run off to get bandages, water, ammo or whatnot?

That would be so cool.

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by RMC:

Can we get Max Payne style bullet time slow mo deaths for our little named troopies? Those that haven't run off to get bandages, water, ammo or whatnot?

That would be so cool.

Only if John Woo gets to direct the animations. Then, as your infantry does the slow-mo charge on the enemy, the white dove of righteous vengeance glides through the flames of a torched Pz III.

[Delyn]

With 1:1 representation will we be able to see each soldier lay where he dies?

Seen this discussed before but didnt see answer.

I would assume yes but looking for confirmation.

[Bamse]

I don't belive my eyes. Campaign mentioned twice....BY STEVE! Absolutly fantastic. The one and only thing that made me stop playing all the CM games after some months each. I win a battle against all odds. I press the "look at map" buttom. Wathing one of my italian infantry units scoring 37 kills. That brave unit held of a horde of mean inbread britts. Amazed that some of my armoured cars with 20mm "can't penetrate a beercan" canon survived. Those bastards realy suck. The only thing worse than the armourpenetration is the HE blast value. Can't kill anything with those.

Opps! Im ranting...

Anyway, after klicking the go buttom you go back to the AAR and then nothing. Absolutly nothing more. What happend to my little brave unit? Did the rest of the platton run like chickens again? Did the Armour car platoon(whats left of it) actually manage to kill something before the campaign was over? I rarly played more than one scenario a day. It was boring to start again with new units and a new mission.

The total war series single battles get pretty tiresome after a short while, but i have played it for a long time in campaignmode because of the strategic map.

I have got rid of all my addictions....im afraid that i will regain one.

/BjörnE

[KG_Panzerschreck]

I think the ability to scrounge ammo/weapons off of your dead comrades and dead enemy soldiers when your ammo runs out is a realistic and viable option for CMx2. in stead of having limited "low ammo" the unit in question should be out of ammo intil it can move onto a dead unit/soldier/soldiers and scrounge up a weapon or ammo. look at all the german units in CMBB that already have russian ppsh's in them for example.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by KG_Panzerschreck:

I think the ability to scrounge ammo/weapons off of your dead comrades and dead enemy soldiers when your ammo runs out is a realistic and viable option for CMx2.

Sounds like bothersome micromanagement to me.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Sounds like bothersome micromanagement to me.

Not if the AI does it for you.

[Cpl Steiner]

Not if the AI does it for you.

I second the above.

So many ideas suggest themselves when thinking about what features CMX2 might have.

I think, rather than soldiers being told to do A, then B, then C, you could use an "event driven" approach (to borrow a programming term).

You could have an "SOP" dialog window that you could call up for a man (or several men, using group selection). This would have lots of entries with check boxes against them. One such entry would be "Scrounge Equipment". If checked, the man would periodically retrieve spare ammo from wounded/dead colleagues or swap his primary weapon for a better one if it was nearby.