aka_tom_w

thats the "player as God" problem which does impact this discussion, however Steve likes to tell us (more than a few times) that area fire is next to useless when the firing unit cannot see the target, so "in theory" they should not prevent area fire without or beyond LOS in CMx2. (maybe) I wonder if Steve would care to comment on this issue one more time? -tom w [ October 04, 2005, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

bump and again Great post! Using tanks to lob HE in the woods is a good point you can't area fire or targe past your LOS. Same problem for smoke or fog or just plan night time darkness. In the night you can only target or area fire within your LOS even if it just restricted by darkness, you should be able to Area fire HE with your tanks down range into the darkness farther than your LOS due to darkness limitations. IMO -tom w [ October 03, 2005, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OK! Now we are talking Ted wants Bezier Curves (say: "bezEEay" curve) Notes from this web site if you want more info... bezier curve infor web page "A Bezier curve in its most common form is a simple cubic equation that can be used in any number of useful ways. Originally developed by Pierre Bézier in the 1970's for CAD/CAM operations, it became the underpinnings of the entire Adobe PostScript drawing model. If you're a regular user of Adobe Illustrator, Macromedia Freehand or Fontographer, any number of spline-based 3D programs, etc., you've probably used Bézier curves. It can also be used for animation. These pages are a simple introduction to how to implement Béziers for motion control: how to choose curves and control points, and how to calculate movement along the curve. I've provided a sample Shockwave movie you can try out, download, and grub around in the code of." NOW.... Do we need this in the game? Sure it would be COOL and it could have an impact as Ted says in how command delays are calculated... BUT I would say it might not be entirely "natural" to have units running all over the map in perfect curve patterns. I could be wrong but I guess I always figured most moves of most units were in small straight line segments (like in between way points in the game) from one place in a straight line to the next place... But what do I know? :confused: If you are new to the concept or just want to see how a Bezier curve works just try this page: Bezier curve page where you can play with curves and sliders and curve handles to make the curve in on a web page thanks to Shockwave code. THe small blue and green dots at the end of the "handle" arms are what you move to change the curve then you can see the red ball move along the curve. In other places in the diagram the red balls just moves along a fixed curve or line. and yes this might be VERY difficult to put into the game for EVERY path for every unit..... -tom w [ October 03, 2005, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

And by "generously low" you mean the delays over all are unrealistically short and the game moves forward at a slightly unrealistically fast pace, "so quit your moaning" . I would agree the command delays are unrealistic in that in real life it takes any group of people of any size a lot longer to get moving to do something together in any form or co-ordinated fashion. Now supposedly training and military "conditions" encourage speed or swiftness and following orders and all that stuff, but it might still take longer that 30 -45 seconds to get any group of 8-12 soldiers moving with a common goal in a combat setting. IMHO Lets see what they do about this in CMx2. I would like to see a small %10 - %20 random delay factor added or subtracted (+/ -) to any command delay so that the delay would not be "robot like" predictable as it is now. -tom w

Good point -tom w

What about a variable or random delay system that the player can't see. So the idea is this: Use the current command delay structure as it has been tweaked for CMAK and then take away from the player the little clock that shows how long the delay is for each unit, so the player cannot plan all actions and and moves down to the last second (I know some players like to try to co-ordinate moves and attacks down to the second within a one minute turn) AND.. AND then add some random variability, to the command delay say somewhere inbetween + or - %50 on the outside. Maybe most random increases or decreases in the delay would be in the %10 - %20 range up or down. Again the game would not show this to the player. This would for sure make all the units possibility somewhat less responsive to the players comands. (If you would like to throw in the odd chance that a units could actually get lost on the way and not show up at all at the player's desired destination, that could add a whole NEW twist to this whole concept! With of course an added chance the a unit would be more likely to get lost at night in the woods and so on...) This suggestion might not need to use the number of waypoints as part of the calculation of the delay. I understand some folks here are dead set against a lenghty command delay based somehow on the number of waypoints in the move. Perhaps the new system for CMx2 will slow the game down and add some form of variable command delay (with the EMPHASIS on unit experience as a largely determining factor) for any move order that would result in an approximately similiar length of command delay as what might be expected in CMAK (but with the added variable of random time added or substracted to the delay) that would NOT be dependent on the number of way points in the order? (maybe) I agree completely that all units should not be so instanteanously responsive to whim of the player. But lets not go overboard with that thought. -tom w [ October 01, 2005, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I sincerely hope that Steve and Charles are considering this: "What you are asking for is unrealistic responsiveness to the player's whim. We feel there is already way, way too much of that as is, so there has to be some attempt to reign it in. " There should be no concession to making the game MORE responsive to the whim of the player. BUT going too far the other way could make the game perhaps too frustrating to play and enjoy. I have EVERY confidence they will find a reasonable compromise that suits their gaming interest and desire, because they say they like to make games that they them selves like to play. So I think we should not worry to much about this issue. I think they are moving in the best possible direction for CMx2 on this one! I LIKE the sound of the direction they are heading in!!! "Except to do a far more detailed simulation of the command structure in terms of defining the levels of decision making quite explicitly. Since that is the obvious answer to this perplexing issue, that is the direction we are headed." Thats sounds like the most appropriate way to try to deal with the issue in the future as the code evolves as a "simulation" of combat . (over a period of releases I would assume) Thanks -tom w [ October 01, 2005, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I like this part: " The difference is that CMx2 solves some of the major reasons for the TacAI's plotting issues found in CMx1. Road behavior first and foremost. So with or without a runtime path calculation feature many of the CMx1 problems won't be found in CMx2." -Steve [ September 30, 2005, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I REALLY hope the second game for the new engine is ETO after D-Day. By that time they "should" have tweaked the engine enough to give us a really great CMBO sequal in the ETO on the new CMx2 engine. For CMx2 Round one I am thinking Korea 50-53 or the Arab-Isreali wars in the 48- 49 or the Six day war or something else from the 60's. Korea 50-53 would be a good guess for the CMx2 first title. (maybe) -tom w

Good idea I thought the current way it works in CMAK was somewhat like that. I have given ONE way point for a move order from one side of the map ALL the way across the OTHER side of the map (down the road around the bend across the bridge and through the woods) and then just let it go. Then in the Next Move phase one minute later you get a WHOLE bunch of AI generated way points you can tweak without any command delay. so in turn one I set ONE way point, (one straight line across whatever terrritory I want) VERY little command delay Turn two I then tweak the AI generated way points a bit and IIRC there is no further command delay, BUT you can't tweak the way points very far away from where they are. This system works FINE for me and it is somewhat akin to what BDW is suggesting, its just that his idea, saves you the first one minute crunch and turn to get to the AI generated path. Sounds good to me -tom w

if the setting is WWII then sure, I REALLY like this idea! -tom w

yes thank-you for bringing forth the core of the problem or the heart of the issue..... it is a good point "The problem with movement of a unit in CM is the dichotomy between movement ordered by a higher command, and movement executed by the unit itself." I agree However I would also suggest there is NO way for the game system or the game code or the game designers to "fix" this or make it work better. I see the problem, I understand the issue and I agree that it is a problem. BUT after all of that I am satisfied with the present command delay system as we see it in CMBB and CMAK. While the command delay system is not perfect it is a VERY reasonable compromise. -tom w

so after you have selected unit A its JUST a click fest and the faster you can send them on their way and go to the next unit the shorter the command delay is. So I select unit A and give it ONE way point and set it on a straight line somewhere (takeing all of 2 secs to do it) and therefore is may be a lousy waypoint or path but the delay to get them moving was only 2 seconds. (you could probably get it down to 1 sec with some practice.) this suggestion would have to mean if after I plotted unit C and Unit B and I came back to replot the move for unit A the time to plot that would end up being the actual command delay would have to be a cumulative effect of all of the repeated times I tried to re-issue new waypoints or replot the move. I'm not so sure it would be good for the game or the game play. (sorry) -tom w

The present system of command and way point delays as in CMBB and CMAK is as good a system as any. I would say in CMBB and CMAK this aspect of the simulation works as well as can be expected and is acceptable if not better than acceptable for wargame, (even if it is a combat simulator, it is still just a $45.00 video game.) I am left to wonder what the problem is here and if there are truly any better suggestions than the method and system of command delays we already see in CMBB and CMAK?? :confused: seriously -tom w [ September 29, 2005, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted September 28, 2005 01:49 AM I'll give you some timeframe on when you'll here more than just crickets. There is a sneak preview article coming out in Computer Gaming World very shortly (late October in mailboxes, early November on stands). Lots of things are explained in there and screenshots are part of it. Since there are screenshots, the setting is obviosly also plain to see. However, by the time it is in print you'll already know the basics before then and will have some screenshots of your own. Yes, the end of the suspense is near Steve LOS and the God and Borg Problem quote [ October 04, 2005, 07:28 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

YES I totally agree.... As an optional feature or aspect of some form of CMx2 Extreme FOW setting I would agree that something like that would be GREAT.

Does that concept have any place in the FOW options or scheme of things in CMx2?? -tom w

bump

Korea (50's) one more time -tom w

yes AND to be honest YES I hope one of the intial demo scenario's features a PRE -dawn sneak attack that turns into a really good battle with a nice counter attack by the now "hinted" and "cleaver" AI, just after dawn as the the day light starts to make a difference in favour of the defending AI player. he he -tom w

You could say that -tom w

Wow Frenchy that is personal My father severed with the British Army in Singapore near the very end of the war. He was a Mechanic and builder of truck and bus bodies in what most here would know as " the motor pool". he served most of his time in the British Army just as the war was ending for the "good guys". Fortunatly for me (and him) he never saw any combat action. My uncle (Dad's brother) was offered a spot as a trail gunner in the RAF but he said "no thanks" and ended up washing and cleaning fighters and bombers (or something) if I have that right. Technically that sort of makes me a baby boomer (BUT I was late in the curve). -tom w [ September 25, 2005, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Please let us use our 3-6-8 (whatever) button mouse and let use key the buttons and controls of the mouse to the interface. Mac and PC users alike LOVE their scroll wheel mice!! Elevation of the camera and/or camera level are a PERFECT function to assign to the scroll wheel. This is NOT rocket science and ALMOST ALL other games let the player take advantage of the multifunction mouse and the scroll wheel. Please.... -tom w By the way.... JUST as a note the title of this thread should be called "Scroll Wheel Mice and CMx2" IMHO!

There was a time early on when it looked like the Axis forces might win if unstopped. [ September 25, 2005, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

That is one very well thought out post! I think that the new "tiles" are 8 m x 8m BUT they aren't tiles the way the old 20m by 20 m tiles were tiles that could be modded so I doubt that a grid of modded 8x 8 m "tiles" will be possible in the game. I FULLY and unequivocally support the request for contuour lines on the map and SURE they should be able to be toggled off and on. BUT I think Steve et. al. have been somewhat resistant to this request for some time now. The game interface deserves to be looked at for sure! -tom w