Battlefront

Note that if there are spotted soldiers in any of those locations you will be able to fire at them. The restriction you see is intentional and applies only to area fire. It's there because you can't see "enough" of the building to fire at a reasonably large portion of its "area". If we were to change area fire to be micro-targeted, it would open up gamey issues because it would allow units that don't actually see an enemy to be able to fire precisely at its exact location, and that's not realistic.

I emailed with Lorrin many times about armor subjects and he was always forthcoming and willing to help share knowledge so we could improve the simulation aspect of CM1. We sure never banned him!

The Enhanced LOS feature (the first section) takes care of the low wall bug (and does a lot more).

I sure picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue. (Honorary Tactical Victory awarded to those who get the reference)

"Cornering" - meaning when to break off from the "exact" path near a waypoint in order to avoid breaking the laws of physics while retaining (as much as possible) the following of the ordered waypoints, but also not grinding the vehicle to a near halt - at higher speeds is actually a tremendously difficult AI problem, especially when there is blocking terrain nearby. However it's easier at low speeds, and (nearly) following an "exact" path is not so hard when moving slowly, and move-stop-pivot-move (if that is needed) is also less jarring and unrealistic if the idea was to move slowly in the first place anyway. So I will explore this idea more, as well as more "exact" movement if there is only one waypoint. I think we can get something into v1.06.

I think you'll find that the pathfinding usually does the right thing. But here's a suggestion. The trouble with exact path following is that it only works properly at slower speeds. You can't have a Stryker rolling across the desert at 40 MPH and then at every (even slight-turn) waypoint pretty much stop cold, rotate in place, then continue. That would be frustrating and unrealistic. But here's an idea... what if we programmed vehicles to use "exact" path following (assuming there is no blocking terrain) if you're using one of the slower speeds, like Slow or Hunt? Would that be acceptable?

Ali-Baba, Thanks! Glad you like the patch. The low wall issue is part of what Steve was talking about earlier, the problem that crept into our code just days before releasing the patch and we didn't catch it in time. We will address the problem in the next update.

Seems like an issue of just needing to draw the LOS line from a more "sensible choice" of team, when the teams of a squad are separated. The underlying simulation is working correctly here, so this is just a user interface issue that could be clearer. I will fix it in v1.06.

Hawk66, Yes the Paradox version should be available early next week.

fireship4, On your ATI machine, have you tried going into CMSF's "Options" screen (accessible from the game's intro screen) and turning the "ATI Fix" option to "On"? There's a known bug in certain ATI drivers that fouls up CMSF's mouse pointing, and CMSF's "ATI Fix" option works around it.

Card - are you sure the squad isn't pinned or shaken or panicked? Those conditions will (intentionally) make a squad unresponsive to your movement orders.

Do you have an ATI graphics card in your Mac? If yes, then try turning on the "ATI Compatibility" option inside CMSF. That should fix the problem where it quits when placing waypoints.

Originally posted by John Catsack: "This isn't the jar you're looking for", I say to the security drones through my mind-to-voice modulator. It's an old trick but it works every time.

CMSF simulates the body armor the soldiers wear, including the ability of various different bullets to penetrate it effectively. So all else being equal, you'll see US Soldiers suffer less damage from hits than "regular" Syrian soldiers (who do not have body armor) do.

Two quick points, guys: 1. I can't say for certain, but I think that much of what is being attributed to LOS/LOF problems (e.g. he can see me but I can't see him) was really due to some bugs in the TacAI where your soldiers could shoot back but chose not to. For example I recently fixed a bug where soldiers would try too hard to conserve ammo when they really shouldn't. That sort of thing. You'll see an improvement in v1.04. 2. v1.04 is coming very soon. :cool:

No worries guys, these issues are on our list. We will look into it.

I need to wope off some of the campaign drool that is hitting the keyboards. CMx2 will not, at least at first, have some sort of "meta-campaign" system. By that I meean something that would allow multiple people to do campaigns and have their results somehow matter. I am also not talking about campaigns where larger issues, which take place outside of the battle, somehow have an affect on the next tactical battle. Maybe someday, but not with the first release and perhaps not even with the second. Instead the campaign will be somewhere inbetween a meta-campaign and CMx1's Operations. It will also be more focused and far more "story" oriented (i.e. giving meaning to the battles you fight instead of just fighting). More on this at a later date. Just didn't want you guys having your imagining going wild and then being disapointed when we outline how it works. Yes we can do pre-gunpowder type environments. Might take a little more work in some respects, but in other ways it will be easier (no vehicles ). Graphics will be as good if not better than the best of the 1st Person Shooters out there. We don't know of any likely wargame that can match even what CMAK looked like One game was mentioned in this thread, but we too aren't sure when (or if) it will be released. It also appears to be less of a wargame, as you guys would define it, and more RTS. As for WeGo systems... don't forget TacOps Early Grigsby games also had WeGo. But like Jon said, there have been few and far inbetween since then. I can guess why this is for more mass market type wargames, but never understood it for ones which are designed to be realistic. Steve

Some more quick thoughts... I'm not surprised nobody has risen to the challenge of toppling CM's standing. The teams that have more resources and good talent are run by big companies that have long ago written off our niche. The others tend to be focused on easier things to do. No slight on those guys, just a reflection that we're a hard act to follow. Kip, there will be a much more involved campaign system. I won't say more than that, but the focus of the game is far more campaign oriented than Quick Battle or stand alone scenario (those options are of course still available). This is part of the evolution aspect of CM. We spent so much time getting the battle stuff right in CMx1 that we had to economize the campaign design. This time 'round we don't have to. ASHBERY76 , those models are WAY more detailed than they need to be for a game. Having said that, CMx2's models will look far closer to those than to CMx1 models. In theory we COULD put in something that huge, but I don't think anybody would be too happy with the results. GPIG, hehe... Finding Nemo 3 - Nemo Goes To War! I love it Seriously, the graphics capabilities of CMx2's engine are on a par with the best we've seen from games in development these days. We feel it beats games already released. So yeah, it will be pretty darn good. And when we start to expand our titles post CMx2's first release, perhaps we'll need to talk. I mean, if you aren't too busy making the underware renders for The Incredibles 2, perhaps we can use your services We are also mindful of hardware demands. Current systems should be able to handle it OK. Stuff from before might have problems. Anything as old as my creaky G4 400GH or a 1GH Pentium will likely be in trouble. The good news is that with Game #2 following Game #1 so quickly one system upgrade should be good for at least 2 games, if not 3, since the core game technology won't be changing within that timeframe. Steve

Er... oops Thanks for the pointer! Steve

Hi guys, I'll toss out a few more things for you. First, the CMx2 engine is not some sort of universal simulator. Each game that comes from it will require coding, fresh designs, customized UI, etc. We are not doing the sort of "change the data and call it a new game" system that so many other wargame developers have done in the past. Instead, the CMx2 engine is more like a developer's toolbox that will allow us to create games quicker and with less reliance upon Charles than CMx1 ever could. We are still shooting for a release about this time next year with another to follow about 6-8 months later. When we announce the first title we will also announce the second, but nothing beyond that. While it is true that we don't have any direct competition, we do have competition. We also can not assume that there isn't someone we don't know about looking to copy us. That is one reason we're keeping tight lipped. The other reason is that it doesn't do anybody any good to talk about stuff that may or may not happen three years from now. That's a long time away and much can change between now and then. All you guys should care about is that in three years time there will be more stuff to play with, and if you aren't crazy about it that something more will be coming soon after. Oh, and the new graphics capabilities of CMx2 is on par, if not superior to, anything you guys have played thus far or are likely to in the next year. It's amazing what can be done with a fresh slate, radically more powerful hardware, and years of experience Steve [ January 03, 2005, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront ]

Not to worry about the "trying to please all people results in pleasing none" danger. We're well aware of it. The fortunate thing is we took this into consideration before we started coding the CMx2 engine. The great thing about the new engine is that we can "outsource" development to others. For example, one team could be working on Space Lobsters of Doom (love that title ) while I work on CMOWW2B Part XI - Combat Mission Obscure WWII Battle Part 11. And if we find that some subject matter simply won't work with the engine... we can skip it. Tons of other good ideas in the pile so no point in messing around with something that is bound to disapoint everybody (including us). Charles would simply be there to incorporate specifics to make each have the features it needs. Because the engine is being written with very few assumptions, the code for Space Lobsters might only take a month instead and yet yield a game that feels completely different than CMOWW2B. In other words... we can delivery many cakes that can all be eaten The tradeoff is that it will still take at least 8-10 months to produce each, though this is partly compensated by the ability to do parallel development. Something completely and utterly impossible with CMx1's engine. Steve

I think Rune did a good job, but I'll add 2 bits Why no announcements thus far, especially considering how we've done things in the past? Because we start talking about it you guys will (rightly so) expect a constant dialog and updates from us. We're simply not ready for this yet since CMx2 (i.e. the new engine) is in a state that doesn't offer much for us to show or discuss just yet. That will change shortly, but for now we're keeping quiet. As for a "Big Announcement"... we're closer to that each day, but we'd really like to get a few more things ready before we do. However, do not confuse a lack of an announcement with a lack of a plan. The plan we've been following, in fact, was nailed down as CMBB development was finishing up. Yup... we've known what CMx2 and its first release would look like before you guys even played CMBB or CMAK. We think very far ahead! In fact, we have plans for the next 3 years of releases. And no, we're not going to tell you what those plans are either Now, why aren't we spilling the beans? Partly because this sort of thing SHOULD be on a "need to know" basis. We are, after all, a company and it does us no favors to announce stuff to our potential rivals years before we do it. It also gets you guys wound up way too early. Especially if we should switch something around after expectations have been prematurely set. So what you don't know can't hurt! We understand you guys are all anxious to know, and better yet SEE, what we are doing. The core engine itself is nearly complete and the game design is almost completely hammered out. Things should move rather quickly in the coming months. And when the time is right, you'll be the first people to hear what we have to say and see what we have to show. For now you'll just have to sit and wait a bit longer. As for a bone... here's a small one: Rune reminded you guys that we're making the new game code flexible (for us) so we can give you guys more games in a shorter period of time. 6 years of CMx1 development yielded 3 games that were largely the same as each other (same time period, same general theater, same core graphics engine, etc.). 6 years of CMx2 should yield about 8 games with no boundaries on subject matter and fewer limitations on improving the visual/audio elements. The new engine will allow us to do WWII, sci-fi, current, fantasy, Civil War, whatever... and do it without it taking years to release. If one of our releases doesn't float your boat, it is likely that a few months later you'll get something that will. More importantly, for you guys in particular, is the fact we can do this without compromising game quality. CMx1 gave us 6 years of lessons to incorporate into CMx2... you'd be a fool to think we haven't fully taken advantage of this great opportunity to make CMx2 able to do what CMx1 wasn't. We're very excited about what CMx2 will do for gaming. Soon we'll be able to show you why. That's it for now Steve

What Moon said is correct. A few additions though: Last I heard, this is not true. Apple did this for last winter's new machines, realized it was a mistake, and changed the ROMs back to being able to boot in OS9. You bought the game/s with the full knowledge that CM is not compatiable with OSX. That was made very clear on the ordering page. Never, and I mean never, have we every said it would be any different. Therefore, you have nothing to complain about. If you upgraded your Mac and can no longer play CM, that isn't our problem. Just like it isn't the problem of hundreds of other software makers whose software stopped working with various system upgrades. I had to use OS 8.6 until last year because a key piece of software used to develop CM wouldn't run on anything higher. Did I complain? No, because there is nothing to complain about. That is just the way it goes. Same reason why I don't complain about games I own which stopped working when System 6 or System 7 broke them. Having said all that, we would really like to have an OS X version for CM. The lack of one is hurting our sales. The problem is that devoting resources to making one comes at the expense of the new CMx2 engine. And so far the equation of pros/cons favors sticking with CMx2 development. If we spent our time working backwards or we'd be out of business. Steve

Hi Jeanne, Thanks a lot for covering CMBB. The report looked great. And I especially appreciate your taking care to describe CMBB's emphasis on simulation and historical accuracy. It means a lot to us to help stand out in a world full of shootem-ups. :cool: Charles

Thanks Uhu, I've made changes for v1.02. Charles