Misidentified Units Back In?

[vincere]

Personally, If I had to pick one, the unexpected new feature I'm happiest to see is the addition indirect fire capability for ALL on-map mortars and guns, including the ability to call in indirect fire from on-map assets via radio (assuming you have the C2 link). I bet it took quite a lot of coding and playtesting over this past year to get this one right...

This didn't sink in with me when I first skimmed the page. A very welcome leap from cmbb.

Also I've been getting the feeling lately that the Tac AI has really come a very long way. Steve made the point not so long ago that this can be easily taken for granted. I used to use target command quite a lot, now I rarely touch it because the guys do a better job against multiple threats themselves. Similarly, it's moving them is less 'hail mary' as they'll stop to engage targets as they appear.

[silverstars]

Let's not forget with relative spotting in CMX2 games, How would you do misidentification anyway? The first unit sees the tank, thinks its a tiger. it starts reporting up the C2 chain; and its fellow units start seeing the Tiger. But then the orginal unit gets a closer look, and realizes, "hey, its just a stinking PzIVJ." And then it sees the PzIV. But the other units still see a Tiger. so depending on which unit you have clicked on, you have two completely different tanks.

I am not a computer programmer, but tat sounds like more then a little work for what amounts to a really small feature. Not to mention all the soft factors involved (like exactly how long DOES it take for a squad to figure out what type of tank it is, and how long afterward till they let thier buddies know, etc.) that ultimately boils down to just guessing arbitrarily and hoping for the best.

[BFCElvis]

This didn't sink in with me when I first skimmed the page. A very welcome leap from cmbb.

Also I've been getting the feeling lately that the Tac AI has really come a very long way. Steve made the point not so long ago that this can be easily taken for granted. I used to use target command quite a lot, now I rarely touch it because the guys do a better job against multiple threats themselves. Similarly, it's moving them is less 'hail mary' as they'll stop to engage targets as they appear.

I'm with you. Unless there are some particular targets I need to focus on. It is great hoe squads and vehicles fire on multiple targets at the same time.

[Battlefront.com]

Makes me wonder what still made it in, with more than a year over schedule you'd expect them to throw in some easter eggs at least. Instead, everything seems cut because it takes too long to implement.

How about the obvious answer? That everything takes too long to get implemented because the stuff takes too long to get implemented?

Honestly, you glass 9/10ths empty guys are really trying on the patience. Anybody can focus on what isn't in something and completely overlook what is in. We haven't been busting our butts for 2 solid years on CM:BN to make a mild makeover of CM:SF. Give us some credit.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I appreciate your point; there's certainly some stuff I was hoping for in CMBN that sounds like it's not going to make it in, at least for a while.

Trust me, our list of things we wanted to get in and didn't is a lot longer than any of our customers' lists

What I think gets missed in all of this complaining about what got cut is the fact that we tried to do too much. The alternative is to not reach and instead plan on not doing much and then shipping when that limited set of features was reached. Thankfully, for you guys at least, we can't help but try to get in way more than we possibly can get in.

But you are understating of the amount of new features in CMBN and frankly this isn't helping your argument.

Most glass near empty people kinda have to ignore the facts or they would undermine their own argument even more. So if someone is going to complain about there not being enough in a game they kinda have to ignore what's being added.

Personally, If I had to pick one, the unexpected new feature I'm happiest to see is the addition indirect fire capability for ALL on-map mortars and guns, including the ability to call in indirect fire from on-map assets via radio (assuming you have the C2 link). I bet it took quite a lot of coding and playtesting over this past year to get this one right, and I'll take this over Mis-IDed vehicles any day of the week.

Good pick, good point, and you're correct. Though I think a proper mis-identification system would probably have been more work than on-map mortars with on-map indirect fire capabilities hooked into the C2 system. Which is another point to remember. If we put in X Feature and it takes Y Weeks, then that time is not available for Z Feature. Having a second programmer doesn't fundamentally change that equation.

And there's other new stuff in CMBN was never in CMBO (or CMSF).

Why bring up the blatantly obvious just because it's so frequently taken for granted or otherwise not acknowledged? You're just showboating here

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Let's not forget with relative spotting in CMX2 games, How would you do misidentification anyway?

This is one of the many complicating factors. The other is that CMx2's game engine is pretty damned literal. If we swapped in a Tiger 1E for a Kübelwagen, then as far as the game is concerned it's a Tiger 1E.

Just imagine how much fun you guys would have if you saw a Kübelwagen coming your way, shot at it with everything you had and the thing still kept coming for you. Then how confused would you be when there was a big fireball above the Kübel and your best Sherman tank went up in flames. Without significant coding work this is exactly what would happen.

Which means we have to program an "alternate reality" within the game so that when you think you see a turreted tank and it turns out to be a StuG that the game is clear on the rules for both players. It's not impossible to do, of course, but it is quite a bit of work none-the-less.

I also agree that the CMx1 implementation of mis-identified units wasn't very good. Fun? Most of the time, but frustrating other times. And it wasn't all that realistic fairly often.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

But can't we have a stop gap measure for the infantry until *cough* you cook up something more sophisticated for everything else?

At the moment we are just about told name, rank and serial number of whomever we spot, the second we spot them. From a mile away. CMx1 ID-ing might have had it's flaws, but the current system ain't exactly wowing me.

[Sequoia]

For the impatient however, I would hazard to guess development will speed up as:

1. Afghanistan is done.

2. NATO/CMSF is done.

3. Second programer.

Now I'm sure that work has already begun on the Commonwealth module by team Cassio and maybe even already on CMSF II and Ostfront but I'm inclined to believe things will start happening at a faster pace and we customers will actually have the dilemma of WHICH Battlefront product we will buy.

[Battlefront.com]

Half measures take time. We don't like half measures because time is limited and we don't ever get time back once it is spent. So no, nothing being done with this before CM:BN ships. Our ToDo List for the first version is already long enough.

Steve

[gibsonm]

2. NATO/CMSF is done.

Don't tell that to the folks holding out for a 1.32 patch.

Now I'm sure that work has already begun on the Commonwealth module by team Cassio and maybe even already on CMSF II and Ostfront but I'm inclined to believe things will start happening at a faster pace and we customers will actually have the dilemma of WHICH Battlefront product we will buy.

Sorry mate I know its the "Festive Season" and all but I think you need to re-assess what you are "sure" of as opposed to "having wildly optimistic hopes about".

[Sequoia]

Sorry mate I know its the "Festive Season" and all but I think you need to re-assess what you are "sure" of as opposed to "having wildly optimistic hopes about".

You're right, I should not have said "sure" as it was a supposition. I base my reading of the tea leaves however on this quote from Steve. I presumed that since it took this long to do CM:BN models that preliminary work must have started on the Commonwealth vehicles by now. Or perhaps I'm just misinformed on what Cassio does . Either way you're right in that I'm optimistic in that I believe the pace of things will pick up. Happy New Year. I hope you're not near the floods.

Quick reality check... we started making models and textures for CM:BN in early 2008. Here it is 3 years later and we're still not fully finished with the list of stuff we've confirmed is in the game. I don't think you guys really understand how time consuming this work is.

Steve

[gibsonm]

I hope you're not near the floods.

No, but have a bunch of soldiers on standby just in case we get asked to help.

[Wicky]

Turn it on its head - Surely every tank was a Tigger, every gun was an 88 and every other vehicle was a half-track cum truck ... then work backwards from there

If you can slot in whatever you had for CM1 as a starting point for CM-N that'll be better than nothing *prepared to wait till June 2011*

This is one of the many complicating factors. The other is that CMx2's game engine is pretty damned literal. If we swapped in a Tiger 1E for a Kübelwagen, then as far as the game is concerned it's a Tiger 1E.

Just imagine how much fun you guys would have if you saw a Kübelwagen coming your way, shot at it with everything you had and the thing still kept coming for you. Then how confused would you be when there was a big fireball above the Kübel and your best Sherman tank went up in flames. Without significant coding work this is exactly what would happen.

Which means we have to program an "alternate reality" within the game so that when you think you see a turreted tank and it turns out to be a StuG that the game is clear on the rules for both players. It's not impossible to do, of course, but it is quite a bit of work none-the-less.

I also agree that the CMx1 implementation of mis-identified units wasn't very good. Fun? Most of the time, but frustrating other times. And it wasn't all that realistic fairly often.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Honestly, you glass 9/10ths empty guys are really trying on the patience. Anybody can focus on what isn't in something and completely overlook what is in. We haven't been busting our butts for 2 solid years on CM:BN to make a mild makeover of CM:SF. Give us some credit.

Don't let it get to you, Steve. You guys just do your thing and get the game to us and then it will be blatantly obvious what's in and what isn't. You only have a limited amount of control over pre-release speculation—which regrettably includes an amount of irrational whining as well as wildly optimistic fantasizing. But as always, the proof is in the pudding...although that always struck me as an odd place to keep your proofsheets (for old timey shutterbugs).

Michael

[Berlichtingen]

Honestly, you glass 9/10ths empty guys are really trying on the patience.

Yes, but they provide the target of mockery necessary to ensure the continuation of the MBT until long after the second coming of Christ.

[Boo Radley]

But as always, the proof is in the pudding...although that always struck me as an odd place to keep your proofsheets (for old timey shutterbugs).

Michael

I hate you for that.

[Lanzfeld]

You only have a limited amount of control over pre-release speculation—which regrettably includes an amount of irrational whining as well as wildly optimistic fantasizing.

Michael

Removed original.

Steve said there was an ID overhaul for Normandy so "speculation" and "irrational whining" is way out of place here. Please stop that.

[ChrisND]

Well kisser, Steve did say a while ago that there was an overhaul of the ID system for Normandy. You have a big dollop of spooge on yer lip there.

GEEEZ.

Well it's good to know that we can discuss this like adults without having to resort to sophomoric insults.

[Lanzfeld]

Sorry.....I felt attacked. "Speculation" and "irrational whining" got to me.

Sorry.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Yes, but they provide the target of mockery necessary to ensure the continuation of the MBT until long after the second coming of Christ.

Are you trying to get us whingers banned? Blaming us for the continued excistence of the MBT... low blow, man, low blow.

Curiously, whatever mis-behaviour I get up to around here I justify it with at least not stooping to the level of the Miserable Bastiche Thread.

[GreenAsJade]

In this case CMx1's capabilities might be overrated from selective memory.

Actually this isn't the case, at least as far as I'm concerned.

I think it's more likely that those who used to enjoy it and have moved on to games without it have forgotten just how good that feature is, and the added "immersion realism" that it gives.

Sure, it has some imperfections like the direction facing thing. But having to wonder "gee, I wonder what that thing really is, I need to find out" is a significant and very good piece of the CMx1 gameplay.

I think BFC would be doing themselves a disservice to play it down.

My experience comes from having played CMx1 right up till now very regularly, then trying another WWII game that doesn't have mid-id. It's like OMG, this sucks!! A whole aspect of recon and tension is removed from the game.

While "how should it work with relative spotting?" is a legitimate question, there are perfectly tractable answers.

The more fundamental issue of "it wasn't allowed in the designin beginning and now has to be patched in" is the real killer. Darn shame to hear that really, but c'est la vie.

My main point here is "don't underestimate the power of this feature: it really really affects gameplay in a positive way".

GaJ

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Don't let it get to you, Steve. You guys just do your thing and get the game to us and then it will be blatantly obvious what's in and what isn't. You only have a limited amount of control over pre-release speculation—which regrettably includes an amount of irrational whining as well as wildly optimistic fantasizing.

I don't think it's entirely fair of you to say that.

Considering how often we are told that old features are not on the menu now but are on the mythical 'to do' list (that must now be large enough to cause a slight wobble in the earth's rotation) I don't it is entirely irrational. It's not wildly optimistic to expect features that were in the series 10 years back to be included. Especially not given the spectacular delays that inevitable do raise expectations.

Also, Kubelwagens mistaken for Tigers, it's hard not to laugh at that charaterization of the ID system of CMx1. It was nowhere that bad. Roses tinted glasses is preferring the current instant identification of a squads type and organization immediately at any distance over the minor quibbles that plagued the CMx1 system.

I do agree with you on the pudding. But until we get to the pudding can we get through the rest of the meal without us sniping at each other?

[GreenAsJade]

Also, Kubelwagens mistaken for Tigers, it's hard not to laugh at that charaterization of the ID system of CMx1

It kind of goes to prove my point doesn't it: maybe those who left behind the game with this great feature have become accustomed to not having it, and have forgotten what it really was.

It's also possibly the case that it is devalued now because it means less in the modern warfare arena? In CMSF, there appears to be less variety of "things out there that look similar", and less criticality on what it is: most AFVs can kill you

Wheras in the WWII arena, it very much matters what kind of AFV that thing might be, and there is a wide range of things it might be, and the same with units that identify ambiguously as "crew".

The funny thing is that it's not even BFC that are devaluing the feature, only some commentators in this thread. Steve didn't say "I don't think this is a worthwhile feature", he said "this is a hard feature for us to implement right now, so you won't be seeing it for a while".

GaJ

[Michael Emrys]

...until we get to the pudding can we get through the rest of the meal without us sniping at each other?

Since that was the whole point of my post, yes, we are agreed on that.

Michael

[stikkypixie]

I guess an alternative would be to have a <?> before positive ID is made.