Questions about WWII infantry for CMx2

[Redwolf]

I rather think, Mr. Redwolf, that Steve answered the question as given, and now you have another one. There is nothing wrong with that unless you wish to be unpleasant about it.

I certainly would never have guessed that you also wished to know about independently placed foxholes until your recent post. It's a good thought though.

It is a different question, but it was new in the post Steve replied to without answering it.

[flamingknives]

I would say that one could have been answered either way.

[Lanzfeld]

Steve,

Thanks for explaining. I get it. Sounds like it may be a HUGE coding investment. Your point about trenches being seen in the first few minutes of CMx1 is pretty much spot on. Foxholes were a different story, however, as you probably know. You had to get really close before seeing them and by then the trap was usually sprug.

Finding a balance is your burden. Good luck. I will buy a few copies.

[Battlefront.com]

So, Redwolf... since I took the time to answer your questions directly, can you please answer mine directly?

Are you man enough to apologize for attacking my credibility (waffling, refusing to answer simple questions, etc.) when the facts quite clearly that I have answered this question directly for at least a year (that's as far back as I bothered to check) and have also done so directly in this thread once the question was actually asked? A simple yes or no is all I'm looking for, not a heart felt retraction of your accusations. Which, unfortunately, I was just told extend to another Forum.

Oh, and for the record... the reason I didn't respond within seconds of your first post is that my Internet was knocked out for most of the morning thanks to a snowstorm. If you have an WiFi tower 5 miles away that you get your Internet access through, remember that Mother Nature is ultimately in control about when you are able to answer posts. Of course, this could be just another one of my many lies to avoid talking about stuff that I obviously have no problem talking about.

Steve

[McIvan]

McIvan,

True.

No because there is nothing to mull over. Here's a quote from me from November of last year in the first thread I linked to above:

The issues surrounding FoW treatment of trenches and foxholes (and to some extent bunkers and other things, but far less so) are technical ones, not conceptual. Conceptually there is no disagreement, therefore there is no reason to rethink things. The technical reasons that have nixed this from happening are as true now as they were in 2003 when we consciously decided to abandon 2D overlays on 3D environments. In other words, we knew what we were getting into before we started and felt then, as we do now, that we made the right choice. Not a perfect one, but we usually have to make compromises so we're used to it.

Steve

Have you ever considered having the engine, when the attacker (for example) is viewing the battlefield, deliberately put a seamless 3-D "lid" over foxholes/trenches until spotted under FOW rules?

So you're not trying to hide something that for technical reasons you can't hide specifically ....but rather you are placing something on top that has the practical effect of concealing what is underneath it until removed. No decals for foxhoes/trenches....but maybe they can be of use for concealment.

[Battlefront.com]

Lanzfeld,

Thanks! Yes, it is such a large coding effort that we ruled it out years ago and still do. Unfortunately, game design and code design are two entirely different things. Even more unfortunately, code issues generally win

Overall the sacrifice of ingame FoW on trenches and foxholes is worth it. Obviously that's something people can debate, but we are forced to look at all of the pros and all of the cons when we make a design decision. Gamers don't have to do that. Instead, they can fixate on something and dismiss or ignore the other issues. It's why there are so few game designers out there... once you have to start making a real game you quickly find out that mindset doesn't work

Steve

[GSX]

Very interesting discussion on Foxholes here.

Although it isnt necessarily a game breaker for me I do have some observations.

In SF I can believe that in a modern battlefield arena, with all the hi tech gadgetery available to the US that Syrian defensive positions can and will be spotted by various things; RPVs, aircraft, helicopters, vehicle sights and even the increased infantry sights of a modern army.

However, in 1944 we didnt have any of that. We have the man on the ground and possibly the spotter aircraft in the air. The only problem being that theres a lot more greenery in Normandy. So realisticly with all that shrubbery around, big hedges, sunken roads etc, I wouldnt expect to see a foxhole on turn one. However you put it, it does give an advantage to an attacker and is unrealistic.

Its not a gamebreaker if I can place more foxholes than I have units, but its far from an ideal situation. However, it will make for some very interesting tactics.

[McIvan]

Steve,

Thanks for explaining. I get it. Sounds like it may be a HUGE coding investment. Your point about trenches being seen in the first few minutes of CMx1 is pretty much spot on. Foxholes were a different story, however, as you probably know. You had to get really close before seeing them and by then the trap was usually sprug.

Finding a balance is your burden. Good luck. I will buy a few copies.

Slight correction....trenches were not visible until within 200 metres, and depending on how far back they were they often took a long time to become visible.....well after you had committed to a plan.

[Lurker765]

Lurker765,

Heh... nah, I saw it but was answering the "trampling" one first.

Are soldiers in shell scrapes treated as being underneath the ground?

As stated above, like CMBB/AK it will be conditional on the exact kind of battle you're playing.

Infantry units which are in certain type of defensive battles automatically have foxholes. This is in CM:SF already. I know there are debates about if they are effective enough or not, but they are indeed in the game now. However, they are difficult to see because we deliberately removed the graphic so that there would be a sort of fog of war. With earlier CM:SF releases they were colored dark brown so they were easily spotted. Feedback convinced us to remove the coloring, thus increasing FoW, but I think it was a mistake.

To answer another earlier question... trajectory applies to infantry as well as vehicles. Not as exactly, but it still applies.

Steve

Thanks for the quick reply. I'm not sure if I understand correctly. Are soldiers in CMSF treated as being under the ground when in the foxhole/shell scrape? Does the ballistic path of the bullet get modified somehow to give them further protection or is what I see exactly the protection level they get from the dirt around where they are laying? They appear to be on top of the ground in a shallow depression, not dug into a deep hole that covers the entire lower body. If I can't tell if they are in without a different color it doesn't seem like it is a deep enough hole.

Will these type of foxholes/shell scrapes be the same kind as we see in the Normandy release?

Thanks

[Battlefront.com]

McIvan,

Have you ever considered having the engine, when the attacker (for example) is viewing the battlefield, deliberately put a seamless 3-D "lid" over foxholes/trenches until spotted under FOW rules?

Yes, and it's been covered many times here on this Forum in the past. I'm pretty sure it's covered, in detail, in one of the two threads I linked to above since it almost always comes up. The short answer is that this runs into three problems:

1. The foxhole or trench has to be treated as a distinct entity which can be spotted or not. That means the spotting system has a lot more things to cope with. Potentially 100% or even 200% more, depending of course on circumstances.

2. Dynamically changing the terrain mesh is computationally expensive. Small, limited changes like the occasional shell crater, are OK because they don't alter the mesh much and because they don't alter it in a very complex way. It just depresses it a bit in a way that is unique to that one shell hit. So to change the terrain mesh on the fly is not viable. Even having a "lid" isn't viable because it means the system has to track potentially dozens of points to remove when the "object" is spotted.

3. Pathfinding, LOS, and other massively expensive computational elements are precomputed prior to the start of the battle. The precomputations make it possible to have the level of sophistication we have with terrain and its interaction because doing this stuff on the fly simply isn't within the computer's capabilities. Having to create a conditional set of precomputed tables, which conditionally mixed together depending on circumstances, isn't viable. Which means, we either have the pathing know, for sure, there is a trench somewhere or we have it ignore it. Selectively having it know about a piece of a particular trench based on some sort of knowledge of it isn't viable.

Steve

[McIvan]

Steve,

Thanks for the answer. I'll have a read of the other threads to see what ideas have already been canvassed.

[Redwolf]

Gawd.

So do teams get individual foxholes where they are placed in setup automatically or are all foxholes individually given by the scenario designer (or bought)?

I don't get why this is such a difficult question.

And yes, FoW on CMBB/CMAK trenches worked and the visibility limit was 200 meters in good weather. They were not spotted within the first minutes.

[Battlefront.com]

GSX,

Its not a gamebreaker if I can place more foxholes than I have units, but its far from an ideal situation.

Agreed. Believe me, Charles and I had a detailed conversation about the pros/cons (when looking at ALL of the implications) about this when we first started discussing the new environment for CMx2. In fact, I think this came up in our very first conversation. I suggested the "lid" solution back then since it was, to me a layperson, an obvious answer to the problem. Which is why I am not surprised every time I see it pop up here

Lurker765,

Thanks for the quick reply. I'm not sure if I understand correctly. Are soldiers in CMSF treated as being under the ground when in the foxhole/shell scrape? Does the ballistic path of the bullet get modified somehow to give them further protection or is what I see exactly the protection level they get from the dirt around where they are laying? They appear to be on top of the ground in a shallow depression, not dug into a deep hole that covers the entire lower body. If I can't tell if they are in without a different color it doesn't seem like it is a deep enough hole.

We don't track ballistics for soldiers like we do vehicles. When it comes to cover there is some "generosity" shown depending on the cover and the stance the soldier is in. For example, a soldier behind a vehicle might have his buttocks sticking a few pixels out from behind some form of cover. If there happens to be an intersection with his buttocks the system might not consider him hit (depends). This is because the amount of computational and TacAI stuff necessary to get down to that low level of detail isn't worth the cost.

What this means is the ballistics matter in the sense that where the round goes the round does in fact go. So if a round lands in the middle of a foxhole then it's in the foxhole. If it hits the edge then it isn't. If a soldier is prone within the foxhole, and the round hits the edge, then there is a low chance of getting hit. If the soldier is kneeling and shooting, then of course there is only partial cover available for the soldier.

It might be that the foxholes aren't deep enough. We've heard complaints before about this, but honestly we haven't looked into it ourselves and I don't think anybody has, as of yet, produced a "scientific" example to indicate if there is a problem or not.

One thing we do know is a problem is that angle matters to the system, but angle isn't necessarily something players think of. In other words, players sometimes think "I'm in a foxhole, therefore I am invincible" instead of thinking that if there is a shooter a few meters higher up then the foxhole isn't worth a damned. In CMx1 we didn't track angle like that so it is what people are used to.

Will these type of foxholes/shell scrapes be the same kind as we see in the Normandy release?

Foxholes will be colored again, so that much will definitely be different. Should they be deeper than they are now? Well, it's something we can change if we feel there is a reason for doing so.

Steve

[Lurker765]

thanks for the detailed reply

[Runaway!!!]

Since everyone is on the topic of fortification, what about infantry bunkers, for some seriously fortified German positions "Like the beaches of Normandy"?

And NO, I'm not talking about MG bunkers or AT bunkers, I'm talking about a small structure that acts like a building and has the strenggth of steal reinforced concrete for housing a platoon or so untill the Arti stops.

Yes?

No?

Not on my life?

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

So do teams get individual foxholes where they are placed in setup automatically or are all foxholes individually given by the scenario designer (or bought)?

I already answered that... it's like CMx1... automatic. Alternate (fallback) foxholes will also likely work the same way they did in CMx1, which is that each unit is allowed to designate a second foxhole position.

I don't get why this is such a difficult question.

It isn't.

And yes, FoW on CMBB/CMAK trenches worked and the visibility limit was 200 meters in good weather. They were not spotted within the first minutes.

I don't recall there being some sort of magical 200m number used, but I do remember getting to see my enemy's defenses long before it mattered if the conditions were right.

So... I've answered all of your questions politely and directly. Can't you answer the one question I posed to you? If you can't answer a simple yes or no question directly, then perhaps you should consider who you label as "waffler" and "dodger" more carefully in the future. In turn, I will consider whether I wish to answer any of your questions since I don't see why this should be a one way street.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Runaway,

And NO, I'm not talking about MG bunkers or AT bunkers, I'm talking about a small structure that acts like a building and has the strenggth of steal reinforced concrete for housing a platoon or so untill the Arti stops.

CMx2 already has, and supports, bunkers that can be optionally occupied. Currently we limit a Bunker to holding no more than a single Squad. We're not planning on changing that since it would be more difficult than it's worth to do. If you're making a scenario that is supposed to shield x number of units, then simply provide them with enough bunkers to hide in.

Note also that we don't intend on supporting special case stuff found on the beaches of Normandy. That was our philosophy with CMBO and it continues to be with CM: Normandy. Simulating the action on the beaches is almost a simulation in and of itself.

Steve

[Dietrich]

players sometimes think "I'm in a foxhole, therefore I am invincible"

With all this talk about foxholes, I recall Bill Cosby's words about foxholes.

(listen from about two minutes in)

And speaking of bunkers, my experience (in CMSF, that is, playing as Blue 80% of the time) has been that bunkers are not very hard to take out (or at least "depopulate"), even with weapons that don't necessarily penetrate the bunkers' walls (50-cal MGs and/or copious amounts of 5.56mm). I will do some testing, though, to more clearly see how readily pixeltruppen in bunkers suffer casualties from attackers' fire.

[McIvan]

I don't recall there being some sort of magical 200m number used, but I do remember getting to see my enemy's defenses long before it mattered if the conditions were right.

Just by the by it was indeed exactly 200 metres. Inquiring minds with not enough to do tested it thoroughly a long, long time ago.

Given the size of maps in CMx1, if you saw enemy defences long before it mattered then your opponent was doing something wrong.

But given that no-one actually disagrees that FOW would be a good thing, this is all rather moot.

[Runaway!!!]

Thank you Steve. I'm well aware of your intended designs and their limitations, but that didn't stop me back in the good ole day's of CM:BO. I still made the beach landing with wheat fields to simulate the sand. The boats were a bust though "Nobody made it to shore" So I started them off on the beach instead. Ah, good times.

[bassplayer192837]

i dont know alot about the CM:SF Normandy title and its features but how many different variations of vehicles (tiger,panzer,panther,sherman,m4a1 halftracks ect.) will there be?

and will there be a d-day kind of scenario or included with a campaign

[GSX]

Note also that we don't intend on supporting special case stuff found on the beaches of Normandy. That was our philosophy with CMBO and it continues to be with CM: Normandy. Simulating the action on the beaches is almost a simulation in and of itself.

Agree with this, it would be a very boring game indeed to include a Dday assault, the scenarios would have to last 6 hours and be frustrating in the extreme. I think its a good idea to avoid the Saving private Ryan scenario.

[Battlefront.com]

Dietrich,

I think I still have that Bill Cosby record in vinyl

And speaking of bunkers, my experience (in CMSF, that is, playing as Blue 80% of the time) has been that bunkers are not very hard to take out (or at least "depopulate"), even with weapons that don't necessarily penetrate the bunkers' walls (50-cal MGs and/or copious amounts of 5.56mm). I will do some testing, though, to more clearly see how readily pixeltruppen in bunkers suffer casualties from attackers' fire.

This is probably a result of the type of weapons that the Blue force has available to it. The problem with bunkers is that for them to be effective the guys inside need to be able to shoot outside. That means the guys outside get the chance to shoot inside In WW2 the typical weapons available in the typical situations where bunkers were found weren't very good for taking out bunkers. Tanks were the best bet, but due to tactical considerations they couldn't always be brought into position.

Contrast this with modern warfare where each Blue squad has a number of fairly accurate HEAT weapons that are powerful enough to destroy a main battle tank. Even the smaller of these weapons, like the ILAW, are enough to "depopulate" a bunker from a fairly long range. Put something like a Javelin or a TOW from a vehicle platform into the mix and things get even less favorable for the bunker.

In short, I expect bunkers in CM: Normandy to last a LOT longer than they do in CM:SF without a single line of code relating to them being changed.

McIvan,

Just by the by it was indeed exactly 200 metres. Inquiring minds with not enough to do tested it thoroughly a long, long time ago.

I'll take your word for it I haven't played a CMx1 game in about 4 years, so my memory of actual gameplay is quite rusty.

Given the size of maps in CMx1, if you saw enemy defences long before it mattered then your opponent was doing something wrong.

Or I was thinking about defenses other than trenches.

But given that no-one actually disagrees that FOW would be a good thing, this is all rather moot.

Correct. If it were technically possible to do it would have been done long ago. If it were even moderately difficult to do, we would probably do it for CM: Normandy. But that's not the case so it's not going to happen despite the desire for it.

Steve

[bassplayer192837]

would paratroopers be included in the game or are they considered SF cause they are an extension of the Army and have special training?

[Dietrich]

I think I still have that Bill Cosby record in vinyl

I have it too, vinyl as well as CD.

The problem with bunkers is that for them to be effective the guys inside need to be able to shoot outside. That means the guys outside get the chance to shoot inside In WW2 the typical weapons available in the typical situations where bunkers were found weren't very good for taking out bunkers. Tanks were the best bet, but due to tactical considerations they couldn't always be brought into position.

Contrast this with modern warfare where each Blue squad has a number of fairly accurate HEAT weapons that are powerful enough to destroy a main battle tank. Even the smaller of these weapons, like the ILAW, are enough to "depopulate" a bunker from a fairly long range. Put something like a Javelin or a TOW from a vehicle platform into the mix and things get even less favorable for the bunker.

In short, I expect bunkers in CM: Normandy to last a LOT longer than they do in CM:SF without a single line of code relating to them being changed.

Understood. :salute:

What I meant to say was that in CM:SF, when facing the front of a bunker at small-arms range, assuming that I have about two squads against one MMG bunker, my guys can "depopulate" it without using a Javelin or even an AT4 -- just firing their M4s/M16s and M249s (with a fair amount of help from any M32s present) for long enough does the job. (Of course, most of the bunker-busting I do in CM:SF is thanks to Bushmasters, 120mm cannon, Hellfires, etc.)

That said, the rear and sides of a bunker are much less pregnable (as distinct from simply impregable), such as in the second mission of the Marines campaign, when that first platoon from Fox Co (Helo) arrives on the northern edge of the map -- they don't necessarily let fly with any of their available M72s or AT4s, and a flurry of rifle grenades doesn't necessarily do the job. In such an instance (I've played the Marines campaign's second mission several times), I have a squad hustle to within handgrenade range; of course, they don't always throw right on target, but it seems more like the barrage of grenades makes the bunker's crew bug out, so that they come running out the back door and then get mown down.

In the WW2 era, bunkers were of pretty stern stuff compared to what infantry generally had available. (Obviously, flamethrowers and satchel charges and the like were great for clearing bunkers, but those were carried pretty much only by actual combat engineers.) Bunkers' firing ports (I forget the more accurate term) were rather narrow, so it was hard to shoot inside. (The firings ports of CM:SF bunkers seem rather un-narrow, so I suppose it would be easier to shoot through them.)

Speaking of bunkers in CM:Normandy, will there be reasonably accurate simulation of engineerly work in such situations, such as fitting shaped charges at key points? I know animations are among the hardest things to come by, but will we be able to see the engineers doing their thing, or will seeing a guy hurl a satchel charge inside have to suffice?

I, for one, very much look forward to CM:Normandy in all of its aspects, and "What?! No functioning wristwatches?!" is not something you'll be hearing from me.