aka_tom_w

I like the idea of CMx2 Tactics II ! I mean for a module in a future release or something NOT a title but a module because in this case the "whole generic" concept is JUST about units and numbers and specs in and equal database of units for each side. As a module it could be offered for those who might enjoy that sort of thing. And yes I agree it might not be their best selling module. -tom w

Steve's post in this thread says its a BIG deal to fix and get right LOS and LOF and you and friendly fire the last page has some good posts by Steve see the link above

The Board game Tactics II was much like this. , , Both sides identical Red vs Blue similiar Map terrain for both. Nothing fancy just some inf units and a few armoured units IIRC It might not be a bad idea for a CMx2 module... (or not...) -tom w [ September 19, 2005, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Yeah But .... Will the game model the map? and will the map be visually reprented in an animation with an Officer of an HQ unit looking over the map? If not looking at maps? What do HQ units do the rest of the time? (and can there be animations for those activities?) (I say in jest BUT, I would like to see the map represented by generic animation of a map IN the game...) -tom w

Simple But Effective -tom w

if I am not mistaken Mapping Mission is only available for PCs Is there a Mac version? That aside maybe Steve and Charles should take a look at the Mapping Mission program code. it sounds like this one is doable in the game. Especially if it has already been done as a third party app for CMx1. -tom w You already can do that with Mapping Mission since more than 2 or 3 years. Shouldn´t require rocket-science to implement something handy like that in a new build of the game. It´s the best invention since sliced bread if you want to create maps basing on 1:25000 topos. I never touched the CM editor for map design after the Mapping Mission release. Here is huge potential for imrovement. Contact Leland if you haven´t already. I guess he will be more than happy to see his idea implemeted in the new CMx2. cheers [/QB]</font>

GOOD! -tom w

worth repeating Yes. Individuals are generally writeoffs. If the bulk of a unit flakes out there might be some hope of being brought back into line. But individuals in that state have already moved well beyond simple cowardly behavior. They are likely psychologically toasted. This is a serious concern of ours. Not only the hardware hit to have potentially more guys as individual panicked "units" as regular combat units. Remember, whether talking about a tank, a Squad of 8 men, a Squad of 12 men, or a single guy in Panic mode... there is a certain amount of overhead that is identical. Same basic book keeping hit, same implication for spotting, identical needs in terms of LOF calculations, and probably even MORE need of TacAI and pathfinding. The latter all on their own could be devistating to hardware performance because the little panicked guys will be constantly hitting that stuff whereas the player controlled stuff only needs it periodically. On top of that, lots of CPU cycles and RAM will be needed to manage the behavior of all those fleeing guys. So... we are still toying with some concepts, but there are some serious limitations as to what we can realistically do right now. As time goes on, and hardware gets better, the choices increase. Steve </font>

Any body know on what day or in What thread Steve said this? I have lost the reference to where he said it... thanks -tom w

It sure would be GREAT if they could find a way to realistically simulate this in CMx2. Steve says: but I think we might not be seeing anything like that in CMx2 -tom w [ September 16, 2005, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

This is a good point "Hitting enter gives a list of data that is poorly laid out and meaningless to someone who does not already know what it means. The data is important once someone reaches an 'advanced' level in the game," I am not sure it will be changed in a big way I agree with the point and the observation made by DarthJames, his post is very well documented and communicated. All his points are largely correct and do make sense from the POV of someone new to the CM way of presenting and designing games. That's all well and fine.... BUT, I totally agree with Steve when he says, "Some things in the game won't be or can't be changed if we are to keep the game system and the simulation intact." (or words like that?) Steve says: The entire philosophical concept that the game SHOULD be, best mastered and learned "by the EXPERIENCE of continued playing and replaying of the game" ought NOT be abandoned! What does this mean to the new player? You need to play the SNOT out of the game to learn BY EXPERIENCE (in the game) what works and what does not. Many new players may not entirely welcome this "fly by the seat of your pants" approach to learning or "beating the game". But for the die hard CM and BFC faithful this really is the way the game should be learned. BFC motto: "Learn by doing" This means you have to play the game A LOT to get a good "feel" for it, and, for most folks here this may not have been something they were comfortable with at first back in the CMBO release days either, BUT the games are SO great you just want to keep playing them and playing them to get better which is the way they were designed. Why do I say this ??? (because many war gamers are JUST MinMax math quizs that think somehow combat is all about odds and numbers and superior math skills. GUESS WHAT???!!!! This game LIES to you sometimes! If every time you wanted your tanks to take a shot a another tank you looked up the armour on the other tank and the penetration value on the tank you are shooting with, you might see there are many times when the game TELLS you, there will be no penetration BUT BUT BUT the interface DOES NOT tell you there is a small chance of a penetration at WEAK POINT!!! (on every shot) This feature SHOULD never be abandoned because it gives some lucky player a "hole in one" shot when there is no other way if they DON"T look at all the stats and just take the DAMN shot! Hence its NOT all about stats EVEN the ones the game "gives" you if you really think you need them. Some folks may feel different about this but if you play the game enough you can really get a "good feel" for ranges and armour penetrations, AND yes sure I look at the armour thickness of the other tank and I look at the range a penetration values of the tank I am shooting with BUT then I usually just take the shot anyway and hope for the best, M-Kill or G-Kill (gun kill or mobility kill) Most of us would not want it any other way! Cheers, -tom w [ September 16, 2005, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Depending on how they count point for casualties yes perhaps that is true.. BUT is that such a BAD thing? (in the grand scheme of the things?) I wonder... -tom w

one good way to make the game more favourable to newbies might be some form of "handicap" system in the way of wait for it . . . . . . . . . Asynchronous Fog of War settings for the AI and the player. This could make the AI seem like it was smarter or dumber (or more "hinted" or LESS hinted") depending on which way you want the AI to go. Realism Grogs may prefer to give the AI a FOW advantage by letting it use (say) Partial FOW while the human player uses the HARDEST or most challenging FOW Relative spotting settings available to him. OR .... conversely the newer player may choose a more forgiving FOW setting for himself BUT restrict the AI to the HARDEST FOW setting. (sound good? I think so!) Or something like that.... Bring on the Asynchronous FOW optional settings !!! and please make one of the FOW settings Super UBER Extreme Extra Spicy HARD CORE "realsim" for the diehards and folks that think one day it might actually be fun to use the mythical "Ironman" or Francko's Rules spotting Paradigm. (yeah like that would somehow be fun :confused: or something??) -tom w [ September 16, 2005, 05:49 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

as per this post? It still looks like he is either bragging or complaing about working on WW II constantly for the Past 7 years up until now INCLUDING the past years of WW II CMx2 developement IMHO

YES!! Woo HOO! Good going Other means! I support your concept completely! Chalk one up for the GOOD guys! -tom w

No on screen digital soldier would do anything to the wounded at all. the idea is just that depending on the battlefield circumstances the wounded might "auto med evac" and fade away to the rear of the friendly side or "auto heal" and get up and walk away as a WIA POW to the NOT so friendly side ONLY the proximity of other units (friendly or enemy) would matter, but NONE of the other friendly or enemy units would actually DO anything to the WIA. AND in this suggestion the player cannot move the WIA in any way, BUT keeping them in command radius and keeping the enemy off them or least X meters away for (say) 3 minutes will see them just fade away as they are then "theoretically auto med evac'd" to presumed safety in some virutal medical aid station, (Just use your imagination a little , OR think of M*A*S*H as their destination if you like OK? ) get it? I think it might work -tom w [ September 15, 2005, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

look as good as the T72 shots here???: T72 glamour shots nice?

Many many, NEW players would agree with ALL your points James! Thanks for posting! -tom w

I like this because it looks like it is still an abstraction and maybe its doable. Lets put some numbers in for X- Y and Z so Dorosh will have something to argue with us about Proposal: State 1) When a soldier is wounded, they become immobile & broken. They are still targetable etc but cannot be moved or controlled by the player. They are in this state for 3 mins (Wounded posture graphic seperate and different then KIA) . If they are still within command radius after this 3 minutes they become an "evac'ed" icon and are treated as recovered. (sounds good!) Recovered will mean they have %10 chance of death vs WIA in the AAR/next battle. State 2) If after 5 mins they are still outside of command radius but within 25m of enemies, they become captured and are treated as now, i.e. able to move to the enemies rear as captured walking wounded POW. Or possibly change them to a captured icon. (sounds good) Proposal: There should be another state for captured at ANY time if the WIA are not in command radius AND within 25 meters of an enemy unit at any time. State 3) If after 6 minutes they are out of command radius but are not within 25m of enemies, they are treated as recovered, i.e. turn to an "evac'ed" icon, but now have a much greater chance of death (% 25 chance) vs recovery in the AAR/next battle. ISTM that that will simulate as closely as possible the correct behaviour without over complicating it. This does not take into account the possible state where a WIA and solider are trying to occupy the same space, but I was thinking the live soldier would automatically displace the wounded in the terrain feature. I LIKE IT! -tom w [ September 15, 2005, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

perforation may JUST be partial penetration... or "spalling" maybe on the interior of the armoured plate penetration is obvious to any male -tom w

I agree it was an interesting hint by Steve and a Brilliant deduction by Barrold WWII looks like a GOOD bet for the first release.... (I hope) there was a hint (a small one) a LONG long time ago that they wanted to do the "early WW II" in the ETO next (or something) Now the down side of that is there are no American's in the Early WW II and mostly it was just a matter of the German Panzers and Blitzkrieg tactics rolling over EVERYONE in there way on Continental Europe so as a setting for a war game (one that might want some balance in the two sides) this period "might" be a questionable choice.... :confused: And there are no American speaking units -tom w [ September 15, 2005, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted September 15, 2005 02:48 AM Emrys is correct: quote: From the accounts I have read, guys who broke individually as is being discussed here, were usually gone for the day. Yes. Individuals are generally writeoffs. If the bulk of a unit flakes out there might be some hope of being brought back into line. But individuals in that state have already moved well beyond simple cowardly behavior. They are likely psychologically toasted. quote: And in any event, we need to be leery of bogging the game down in too many fine details. You can't put everything from WW II into it and still have it playable, either by the player or his machine. This is a serious concern of ours. Not only the hardware hit to have potentially more guys as individual panicked "units" as regular combat units. Remember, whether talking about a tank, a Squad of 8 men, a Squad of 12 men, or a single guy in Panic mode... there is a certain amount of overhead that is identical. Same basic book keeping hit, same implication for spotting, identical needs in terms of LOF calculations, and probably even MORE need of TacAI and pathfinding. The latter all on their own could be devistating to hardware performance because the little panicked guys will be constantly hitting that stuff whereas the player controlled stuff only needs it periodically. On top of that, lots of CPU cycles and RAM will be needed to manage the behavior of all those fleeing guys. So... we are still toying with some concepts, but there are some serious limitations as to what we can realistically do right now. As time goes on, and hardware gets better, the choices increase. Steve [ September 16, 2005, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

can you quote the source or the post that says: where is that? just curious? Thanks -tom w

OK So far none of us know how this is going to play out in the game when we actually get to play it. BUT I would like to suggest the seriously wounded (WIA that are immobile) should be treated by the player JUST like the KIA they are done and out of the fight. SO That means (if I understand this correctly) if you have a squad or a platoon that is taking "lightly wounded" casualties or maybe 1-2 severely wounded and immobile WIA casualties, the player will want to do something about this ASAP ( "IF" big if here) the player knows that (thru the game GUI) as he is taking casualties and will want to try to improve the situation or move the "lightly wounded", while he still can, members of the squad with the WHOLE squad or with a team to the rear or out of the action. BUT the seriously wounded will need to be immediatly determined to be largely, or likely to be KIA by the player as there is NO way to move them or help them in any way, so they must now abandon them as nothing can be done (by the palyer) for them in the game. (is that correct?) Such is life! (oh well!) Such is the reality of the "seriously WIA can't be moved" decision which almost certainly commits them to KIA status since there is apparently nothing the player can do to help them. Is this correct? -tom w [ September 14, 2005, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Is that all given the "man hours" of the whole team it MUST be more than that that number sounds like Steve for CMBB alone but I could be mistaken because I REALLY suck at Math! he he -tom w