Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Battlefront.com

Normandy Bone

Recommended Posts

As promised, after some thinking I decided this would be a good bone for the moment...

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Normandy-abridged.html&Itemid=213

As a reminder to you guys, a dedicated WW2 Forum will be set up when we are ready to focus attention on Normandy. Until then this Forum will serve double duty for both Modern and WW2.

Enjoy!

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens, when I try to move a vehicle over a bridge not allowed for?

Or I have a big map divided with a river running through and say 5 different bridges. I have a mech battalion on one side and give just a combined hunt order to the other edge of the map to all my forces at once?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If CM:Normandy is anything like CMSF then I suspect you'd be able to do that. Try building a wall with one opening or a stretch of marsh with one gap. Then give your Battalion a single move waypoint to the far side. By and large the units are able to figure out how to get from point A to point B... mostly ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MikeyD is correct. There is no special AI coding necessary for the new behavior. What we are going to have to do is make it clear which bridges can not take the weight of specific vehicles. The default way, which is in the game now, is to select a Movement Command and put the cursor over the bridge. If you get the dreaded "can't move here" cursor, then that tells you there's no way you can cross it. However, I would like to find a better way to communicate this information to the user if possible without it being a lot of work for little gain OR a nasty interference with the map graphics. I suspect the way it is now will be the way we ship Normandy, but nothing is for certain at this point.

What is needed, within the code, are different Pathfinding Maps for each of the unit classes. Currently in CM:SF we basically only have two such maps, each of which takes significant computing resources to maintain. That's been the big reason we haven't had such types of terrain in the past. Now we have four types of Pathfinding Maps. In theory this allows us to have other types of terrain which are passible to some types of units and not to others. There's some overhead for such things, as well as user interface issues, but in theory we have the basics needed for other things.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the player always know what the weight classification of a bridge is? Or can it be unknown and you just have to try? So is it possible that you have to try if a bridge is strong enough for some unit and then the bridge collapses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, something to get us excited over, thank you very much. :)

Lets see, I spot a M3 HT, M4 Sherman, M4A1, Priest, Wolverine, and a Stuart. Did I leave anything out?

Ok, so now that you broke the ice sorta speak, any chance you can give us a list of vehicles that are confirmed?

How about just one more screenshot? I'll buy ya case of beer. ;)

Come on now, you know you wanna bust out a screenshot of that Panther.

Do it! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What happens, when I try to move a vehicle over a bridge not allowed for?

I see a potential use for the IED code. Instead of just disallowing a vehicle to move on to the bridge, every bridge could have an IED-like device under it that could be detonated by any vehicle exceeding the weight limit.

Ideally there'd be some chance of a bridge not detonating/collapsing, to really spice things up. Perhaps a modifier for the weigt by which the vehicle exceeds the structural capacity.

Then again, maybe it's too much work for one such feature. But it'd be cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be cool to have the bridges be "questionable", but I don't think that's something we're going to do. For starters the AI would be at a disadvantage because we'd likely have to tell it to not risk things. But that's only a part of the issue. The main one is that if a bridge can be variable then we'd have a lot harder time trying to portray the "fuzziness" of that. Is a Tiger more or less likely to fall through Bridge Type D compared to a Jagdpanther? Is a Sherman with extra armor on it more at risk of going through than a Sherman with stock armor? Etc.

By and large bridge collapsing did not happen in a tactical environment. Sure, like just about everything possible in war it definitely did happen. Of that I have no doubts. But I don't think it happen enough to focus attention on it.

What did happen, routinely, was a tank unit getting up to a bridge, someone climbing down and looking at it, then cursing loudly as he looked at his map and found that some cartographer noted the wrong bridge weight class on his map. Then a long and colorful description of the family lineage of the engineer and/or cartographer would follow, complete with some references which Charles Darwin would object to as physically impossible :D

The player, obviously, will not have such doubts. You'll be able to look at the Bridges and instantly know "That's Bridge Type B... no go for my heavy stuff, but everything else will be fine". Well, at least with the manual and/or some mouse pointing. Common sense, however, will tell you that a narrow wooden footbridge isn't going to be a way of getting your tanks to the other side.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for release we've decided we're not going to rush things to get it out by Christmas as originally planned. We would rather enjoy the Holidays :D Our goal, however, is to have it mostly done before taking some time off at the end of the year. That is still our plan and we're still thinking it is possible. We'll know much better in a month.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting! And the screen is quite nice! Sadly the wait is starting to be unbearable...

Re bridges: the ability to pass under bridges seems to allow for very intriguing tactics such as ambushes.

I suppose that with the commonwealth module, one of the scenarios will be about pegasus bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our goal, however, is to have it mostly done before taking some time off at the end of the year. That is still our plan and we're still thinking it is possible. We'll know much better in a month.

+6 months :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets see, I spot a M3 HT, M4 Sherman, M4A1, Priest, Wolverine, and a Stuart. Did I leave anything out?

New road and ground textures, building with pitched roof, temperate trees, and it looks like there is squad in the rear HT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt a Priest so close to the action as to be on map would be capable of indirect fire.

Speaking of Priests, notice that the front Priest has an open drivers hatch, while the second seems to have it closed. Nice little detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...