Thomm

Dear Big Time Software Team ! Please tell me that your little tanks and little soldiers, and the little planes look as cute as the little ones in Panzer General 3D Assault ! Mom, do I want to play !! God, how great must Combat Mission look in reality ! If the difference is a huge as it was for me between the stills of PG3D and the demo then Lord have mercy ! Wet-Eye-Thomm

Well, it is good, straight fun ! For now, the problem is: We cannot flame them (nothing to flame them for, anyway), because it is a BETA and things will be fixed. After all, there a no flaws that would make a good game impossible. I am really curious how this public beta philosophy will work out. In my opinion it has strong potential to improve the product ... if Wings is listening. My personal judgement is influenced by the fact that I am more attracted to "God-like" strategy games than to sims. Much more overview and tactical options make for a far more interesting game, in my opinion. But I think that Panzer Elite will be a good reference when it comes to judge the performance of WW II tanks. After all, the terrain and the vegetation are pretty close to reality. The obviously scripted sequence of events is very much reminding of a First Person Shooter, as are the DOOM like infantry graphics. The platoon abstraction becomes a problem when you aim at a particular soldier with your MG and another drops dead. On the other hand the vanishing bodies are not a big problem as the animations tell the story. This should work fine with CM, too. On the other hand it is not reasonable to have a soldier fully in view and get "Infantry hit: nothing" after several MG salvos (The soldier was obviously hiding in building rubble which was not visible). Besides this, the First Person approach produces the usual problems like low-res textures which look blurry up close. This, too, will be avoided in CM, because one just will not zoom in that much for the sake of overview. Their building model with the various stages of desctruction is remarkable and adds a lot to the atmosphere ! Fog is divine (and annoying, thus obviously working well) ! On the other hand the explosions are not that spectacular. The particle system has too much of a cotton swab look to it. The AI's performs nice outflanking manouvers, whereas the infantry behaves rather odd. When it gets really close and personal I believe that they should break up the platoons and control the soldiers individually, but this is of course non-trivial. But apart from details, Panzer Elite is a rock-solid state-of-the-art product which does not leave a lot of room for truly fundamental improvements, at least for this kind of simulation games and in the present hardware environment.

An addition: If you represented the shock wave with a hemisphere instead of a sphere in case of a shell hitting an armoured surface then the observer would have additional information like where the shell has come from, whether it was a direct hit or area fire and such. Unfortunately this would involve calculating the surface normal. But, what the heck, just keep going !

I just see a dilemma with the visual size of the explosion. There is no problem with air or ground bursts. But when I think about a penetrating round of the same size I can imagine that the hit object catches most of the energy and practically contains the blast within itself. That is, if a bunker is penetrated by a big shell all life ceases to exist therein, but objects nearby might escape unharmed. If you determine the visual size of the blast e.g. by the mass of the shell then you face the discrepancy that the surrounding is rolled over by the shock wave (always visually speaking !) of the big shell whereas most of it would be contained within the bunker (which I am sure BTS takes into account) but the surrounding would remained untouched. Observers will ask themselfes, why . On the other hand, if you represent the reduced blast with a smaller visual explosion, the observer might ask himself why that little puff killed his mighty bunker ! Still I would opt for the second option although the first promises more visual action, because I think that the graphics should really be meaningful with respect to the damage potential of the explosion. But I am sure that you who see it working already will make the proper decision.

This is interesting ! Thanks, Harold ! Say, is there a visible difference between the explostions of this two different kinds of ordnance ? I assume that a penetrating round kicks up a lot of earth, but is otherwise "relatively" harmless (unless you sit right under it). To BTS: Will these differences be taken into account ? If yes, also visually ? Do shells which hit buildings or hedges explode on contact or after penetration ? Thanks for additional comments, Thomm

Looking at shells impacting and exploding on the ground I got the impression that they enter the ground prior to exploding. Thus most of the released energy is directed where it meets the least resistance: skywards. Does that imply that ground explosions do not produce a lot of shrapnel and pressure ? Or is it a misconception of mine and the truth is that the shell explodes the moment the tip touches the ground thus the whole shell is above the ground and all the metal flies away nearly horizontally ? Does the impact angle influence the shrapnel effect ? What is the "blast radius" defined for weapons in CM ? Ready to learn something new, Thomas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't think they could have advanced further than Arnhem<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, we are going to find out with Combat Mission, aren't we

Dear Fionn ! Thanks for your response ! The "Mister" is just so common in a German speaking country, especially when adressing a "celebrity" like you are (no, I am not ironic). It is more a sign of respect, but I have to accept finally that this is perceived differently in English speaking countries (or just the States ?!). Actually I tried a compromise with Mr. Fionn, the Mr. underlining the respect. As for the game, after a few minutes I have switched to the 2D map ! In the end the sea is just a plane (well, a sphere) and it was somehow disappointing how irrelevant the 3D environment is in this game ! I am curious how CM will feel in this respect (to make the connection finally). And said water-columns (=misses at point-blank range) reminded me sooo much of one of your editorials, Fionn, because the moment I saw them I just thought to myself: "Okay, lets forget it !". Not good for the game. By the way, the Panzer Elite Public Beta Phase was announced today ... Regards, Thomm

Sorry for being TOTALLY off-topic, but what is your opinion about fighting steel, now that the demo is out ? The first thing I have noticed is that it is virtually impossible to take out ships at point blank range. Your gunners even seem to have difficulties hitting from 500 meters distance considering the water columns ! Mr. Fionn, wouldn't you say that this ruins immersion ? By the way, sorry for interfering with this thread, but I did not want to start a new one about FS on a CM forum !

Rhet, if you mean "battle of material" then it is "Materialschlacht" in German ! Regards, Thomm

... Not to be mistaken for "(der) Schütze" or "(die) Schützen" which means rifleman/men or private(s)

Study history or watch the evening news: you will not get around the fact that a certain percentage of the human race are maniacs, independent of nation, race or religion. Well, give them weapons and let them fight in a war and see what you will get. Pessimistic ? Yes, but hard to disprove.

Since it is "just" a game, the most important thing is that the human player and the computer opponent play by the SAME rules, however realistic they are. So if there is no fog of war for the human player there should not be any for the computer commander either. The only true and possibly satisfying solution for this dilemma would be multi-player campaigns (with restricted communications). And even this would mainly make for an empty screen most of the time. Last but not least you could possibly give all your orders in the first turn and then just let the game play it out, so that your troops act only on their own initiative. Also a delay in distributing commands (like it is implemented for buttoned-up tanks, if I remember correctly) might add to realism. Regards, Thomm

Pssssssst: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4602/

Wineyards and trenches would be an example of <font size=5 color=#FFFFFF>Anisotropic Terrain</font> with direction-depending influence on l.o.s. and movement. This type of terrain would need an additional variable to store its orientation. Well, I do not really know what to conclude now ! Hope you do not mind ! [This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 06-22-99).]

A remark on infantry: If they are enlarged then their animation will not correspond to their spatial movement, will it ? I do not think that this is a problem though, because the information that they are e. g. running is what has to be transported. Regards, Thomm

Yeah, you are right. The clipping problem is really nasty. I thought about it myself (WOW ) when I was painting black shadow rectangles on the pic with the many halftracks. They looked pretty, although the contrast to the landscape was pretty high ! About the "paper" problem: actually it occurs only on one of the halftracks, so forget about it (I bet you already have, anyway *hehe*). Personally I think that the filled suspension of your tanks looks better than the paper wheels of Panzer Elite (what blasphemy !). I really seem to be too sensitive in this respect ! Keep going, Thomm

No, no, <font size=5 color=#FFFFFF>just ONE more black rectangular polygon</font> right beneath the vehicle, as if the sun comes directly from above ! Please consider it, I am sure that it would add enough depth to the vehicles to be well worth the effort ! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The M3 half track actually looks like the one in the game. The suspension system in real life is such that you can see right through from one side to the other, unlike something like a German HT. So filling that area in would not only be wrong, but it would look wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You know, people like me do not know what that thing looked like in reality , but I KNOW that it was not made out of paper, as it appears in one shot ! (of course this problem would be solved with the black shadow I suggested ! You know what: I am going to try out the black shadow with a paint program and tell you if it is worth it ... hold on ! [This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 06-17-99).]

While I do not really care for the tracks, I think debris around wrecks would add to the atmosphere. As with vehicle shadows I presume that only one additional polygon as a base plate with some junk painted on it would be sufficient. The problem, as you might be about to point out, is the magnifying factor: The debris radius would increase with the vehicle certainly leading to strange effects. But consider it nevertheless for destroyed objects, please. Regards, Thomm

<font size=7 color=#FFFFFF> Excellent work, BTS !</font> I appreciate very much the clear distinction between open ground and wood ! It also emphasizes the 3D nature of the terrain ! Very well done ! Vehicles are outstanding ! I still do not really like the bearded faces of the soldier, which makes them look like mice in my opinion, but do not be bothered, you have done a great job ! Just one question: Have you considered to put a black rectangle under the vehicles to simulate shadow ? I can understand that houses throwing shadows on the surrounding are a problem, but for vehicles just one additional polygon should work fine at miminal computational cost ! Also, you might consider to fill the gap between the track of the half-tracks and the structure with black pixels, because at this point it is too obvious that the model is hollow. I hope that you enjoy making screenshots as much as I like looking at them, because there will never be enough of them ! Regards, Thomm [This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 06-17-99).]

BTS, my working weekend companion <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If the attacker goes off the far end of the map then the next map will be further back, based on how many defending forces managed to escape. This is fantastic for the defender because meaningful fighting retreats are poorly simulated in most games. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> (a) Why does this depend on the number of defending units ? Could you not simply center the border of the old map on the new map ? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Here you have to really think if you should try taking out another tank or if it is time to call it quits and get your AT gun out of there before it is run over.Best part is that if you get your AT gun out, it is there for you next time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> (Where exactly is the gun ? Can I redeploy it on the shifted map whereever I want ? You know, theoretically you could store the position and time the gun left the map and then apply rules for deployment based on this data. So a unit which has left battle 1 at minute 0:39 cannot be 1000 meters away at the beginning of battle 2 (0:40 campaign time, 0:00 battle2 time). © Where are the attackers ? At the positions were they were when the previous battle ended ?

Hey, lets got back to technology ! How was that you mentioned about the moving map ! IMHO this is MUCH more interesting that the strange (religious) discussion evolving here ! PLEASE refer to my post above ...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I don't know about you, but I have never played a computer wargame that allows you to dynamically advance the map based on your real game progress, including maintaining your units in their last held positions. All I have ever seen is the "warping" type thing like in Close Combat. Not the same AT ALL. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, that's a new one ! Do you mean that you can create a terrain model of e.g. the whole "Market Garden" operation area with all houses, rivers, bridges and with ALL troops ? And that you then take out your magnifying glass (Combat Mission) and watch the same detail (="map") of the "world" for, say, 40 minutes (=one "battle") ? And then you determine how the "front" has moved and you move your magnifying glass accordingly for the next battle ? If yes, what happens if troops leave the border of the map (can they) ? Will they reappear at the other battle map at this very time ? What happens in the rest of the "world" while you play the battle ? Does it wait "to be played" ? What happens to units which cannot follow the "magnifying glass", for example infantry who cannot keep up with a tank spearhead ? How do you handle the tons of data you must have if you manage a game world like "The Battle for Aachen" ? Tell me more, please ! Thomm [This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 06-12-99).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Since the actual shell trajectories are tracked, the shell-hitting-dirt-instead-of-tank bit will automatically happen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, IF they track the shell trajectories in this fashion (I personally doubt it, because I think they track the shells only AFTER they missed their primary target). But even if the probability of a hit is reduced in this fashion the whole tank still enters the kill probability equation because the program would still not be aware of the fact that the tank is hull down ! Lets see how BTS handles this ...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The only thing we haven't put in quite yet is Hull Down <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hehe, must be a tricky one ! I wonder if you can avoid all the geometry calculations involved ! Puhh, I really cannot imagine how you could abstract THIS one ! On the other hand, if you already calculate LOS between two points in space then you could define two points on the tank (top of turret, top of hull) to check if the hull is visible or not. Same goes for the inverse problem: If the tank commander can see the enemy, but the driver cannot, then your tank is obviously hull down. Poor AI programmer ! Regards, Thomm !