aka_tom_w

they were BIG on Bugdom for a while to show off all the wonders of the Quartz 3D code... -tom w

New macs "could" however ship with the CMx2 DEMO on the hard drive? Anyone think of that?? Apple being Apple might not go for the deal of course :-( Doh! -tom w

Hey..... BDW Member Member # 30 posted September 07, 2005 04:52 AM BDW came up with this one! I just populatized in the CMx2 forum. I like the idea of the unpredictable nature of that troop quality. Call them "untried in combat" I don't care, but the idea of an unpredictable combat performance that might include heroism sounds like it might make the game more fun and entertaining Again credit BWD (Member #30!) with the idea. -tom w

This is interesting BDW Member Member # 30 posted September 07, 2005 04:52 AM 5 top things I'd like to see added: "3. "Green" should NOT always translate to "slow, wimpy and a bad shot". "Green" should instead translate to "performance during combat will be unpredictable". I'd like the purchasing of green units to be more of a gamble. They might suck or they might kick ass. " That is sort of interesting is there any historical precedent for Green units doing the impossible or performing heroically in battle? I don't know. Sorry for the new topic on this one but it looked like an interesting new suggestion buried in the "Name 5 things" thread that deserved a closer look. I like the idea that Green troops might be MORE unpredictable and might be somehow brave and heroic on occassion. Your thoughts? -tom w

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted September 07, 2005 12:35 PM Squad formation will be done automatically depending on the Command, terrain, unit factors (especially Experienec), and ultimately how much we can cram into the TacAI itself. There will be limitations on what we can acheive, though the basics will certainly be there. Remember my correction about splitting Squads. You can split Squads, you can't split Teams. Well, not in the tactical sense anyway. There are certain specific exceptions but I don't want to get into that yet Steve

We are all hoping you sell MANY new copies of CMx2 to new wargames fans that never played or owned any CMx1 generation games as well! All of us who love GREAT wargames hope you are wildly successful at attracting new fans and making lots of NEW sales to folks who have never heard of CMBO-CMBB or CMAK! -tom w

Wow I guess you won't buy the game then? Will you at least give the demo a try? -tom w

Did you say Water falls??? Will CMx2 have Waterfalls??? What about Rainbows?? Nice sunny sparkling ones? (I guess Unicorns, Dwarfs and Elves would be stretching it?) -tom w

It might be possible to do a special LOF check for heavy stuff, but I doubt it. It isn't like this adds a wee bit to each heavy shot fired... it adds a TON of checks. -Steve Thanks Steve I think that is what most of us are concerned about "the heavy stuff". and the potential for "gamey" exploitaion of the system if that is possible. I was thinking the discussion might also include some idea of the length of "wait time" on the crunch "the general gaming public" would endure. We know the grogs amongst would prefer the more accurate and longer wait time for the crunch if all collision detections of all heavy (tank to tank or anti tank) rounds could be tracked. BUT how long with the crunch really be a few extra minutes or are we talking about hours? or the reality of a 30-45 min crunch time for ONE TURN.?? Who knows? I don't have any clue. My only experience with the Long crunch time was that MASSIVE CMBB Volga monstrosity that took FOREVER to crunch. So guess what??? I never played that scenario. You KNOW what we REALLY want is the OPTION to turn on "High Fidelity Collision Detection" (for the Heavy stuff ) in the fog of war settings with a warning that it would doube or triple or quadruple the wait time on the crunch. (I know I know ... "Don't expect it in the first game engine!" ) thanks -tom w [ September 06, 2005, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

AND this should be talking about A LOT MORE! How long is the player willing to wait???? If you want a REALLY big battle with lots of units you have to wait longer for the crunch. If you have a slower computer you have to WAIT longer for the crunch if you want TRUE LOS and LOF collision detection you have to wait longer for the crunch Steve did not talk about balancing in the wait time. Given enough time and money you can have almost anything you want. Given enough wait time on the crunch I would guess even the very highest fidelity of collision detection would be possible, (any computer can do it, it just takes longer NO??) Wait time for the crunch should be mentioned in the balancing act Steve is talking about. -tom w

Um ok... you do raise an interesting point. But Does that "really" happen in the code? "I mean, this sort of thing happens every fraction of a second in a FPS. You just have to check each object against every other in the game to see if they intersect." one thing for sure DOES NOT happen in any FPS or RTS game is the detailed armour pentration calculation. BUT that does not really have anything to do with our current LoF/LoS discussion. I would suspect that the collision detection and intersect model in the FPS games you refer to are somehow "cheated" or guessitmated? OR it does actually work but the fact is there is NOT that much to detect maybe 5 -20 units (FPS players) firing laser blasts or plasma bursts or rockets or missiles at each other now and then, so there is really not all the much to track. (?) BUT yes I have seen Unreal Tournment and Doom and Marathon and all those FPS games do collision detection on the fly on ALL kinds of units and weapons and ordinance that is ALL flying all around all at the same time in REAL time. And NO, I have no idea how the game handles the collision detection in real time, but somehow I figure it must fudge, cheat or guesstimate how all that happens. :confused: One thing I know for sure there is NO armour penetration code/model/calculation'simulation like the CM model, that I have ever seen happen in any game in real time. But I welcome your insight and comment as to how the code works in the whacky world of the FPS. (Cpl Steiner ) -tom w [ September 05, 2005, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Ok, Thanks This thread might reasonably be expected to be "stickied" to the top of the page because it is such a critical and crucial concept and so integeral to the understanding of the inner workings of the new game. Thanks -tom w [ September 05, 2005, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

oh OK Thanks ..... -tom w [ September 05, 2005, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

While the whole concept is still sounds good the details are still fuzzy to me, but this might help answer your question: Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted September 05, 2005 01:07 AM Tom, No. When a unit doesn't have LOF it doesn't fire. So if a vehicle comes inbetween target and shooter, the shooting stops. Steve I am still not sure how you can get LOS through AFV's BUT NOT fire through them. Your question was about a situation where you own tanks have LOS through friendly tanks to enemy tanks, BUT Steve says the game won't let the tank shoot if there is a unit inbetween the shooter and the target. My question is what if that unit inbetween is an enemy unit crossing in front of the target? I can get LOS straight through the enemy unit to the target. Will the game let me take the shot? How does the game know when to not shoot due to lack of LOF? Simple rule? NO Line of Fire = No Shot? dunno? :confused: -tom w

OK thanks Steve But.... If the shooter has LOF and the target is 1-2 km down range and the round leaves the shooter THEN the "stay" AFV gets between the shooter and the target (during the 1 minute action) before the round hits the target does the round impact the stray AFV instead of the target.? Thanks -tom w

The first one is vehicles blocking LOS and/or LOF. The word is final (for now) that they can indeed block LOF but they can not block LOS. This has to do with computation and RAM costs for tracking moving, variable sized objects. LOF is a lot easier and therefore we can do that. Out of the two, LOF is the more important one. LOS would be hard for most vehicles to block effectively for any length of time anyway, so from a simulation standpoint it really isn't a big deal to leave it out. Leaving out LOF would be, as you CMx1 guys know full well since CMx1 didn't support LOF blocking. OK .... I hope, if I read that correctly that that means that if a tank or AFV moves (during the one minute turn) INTO the LOF of the round inbetween the shooter and the target the "stray" AFV friendly or otherwise will intercept the round and "feel" the impact of the friendly fire or whatever. Is that correct? So while you can get LOS through AFV's, if you have a friendly AFV in front of you and you attempt to fire through it you will shoot your own AFV in the rear? Yes? Sorry Just looking for clarification.... Other than that the rest of the retractions and limitations are no problem. So Squads can split and that is still a good thing. Thanks for the update. -tom w

Normandy would be My guess -tom w

I dunno? I was just wondering what it would look like? -tom w

The first one is vehicles blocking LOS and/or LOF. The word is final (for now) that they can indeed block LOF but they can not block LOS. This has to do with computation and RAM costs for tracking moving, variable sized objects. LOF is a lot easier and therefore we can do that. Out of the two, LOF is the more important one. LOS would be hard for most vehicles to block effectively for any length of time anyway, so from a simulation standpoint it really isn't a big deal to leave it out. Leaving out LOF would be, as you CMx1 guys know full well since CMx1 didn't support LOF blocking. OK I hope if I read that correctly that that means that if a tank or AFV moves (during the one minute turn) INTO the LOF of the round inbetween the shooter and the target the "stray" AFV friendly or otherwise will intercept the round and "feel" the impact of the friendly fire or whatever. Is that correct? So while you can get LOS through AFV's, if you have a friendly AFV in front of you and you attempt to fire through it you will shoot your own AFV in the rear? Yes? Sorry Just looking for clarification.... Other than that the rest of the retractions and limitations are no problem Thanks for the update. -tom w

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 Battle Scope …the CMx2 scope is just about the same as CMx1 was designed for. Cripes, when we were first testing the game even a Company sized battle was a strain on the hardware! Hardware capability increased and allowed for bigger battles. But officially, we have never sanctioned anything beyond Bn vs. Bn. And even then we did so knowing that there were inherent problems with this since the game design was never meant to handle such large engagements. CMx2 is being written with the limitations of hardware in mind, but with future hardware capabilities (and settings) also in mind. The system is scalable. The first release will focus on sub-battalion engagements and we think people will find it a much more challenging environment. Three reasons: 1. The C&C system is totally different. Keeping units organized is going to be a rather big part of battles. That means the free flowing, helter skelter, BN battles people play now would not be possible. At least not without the frustrations of C&C real commanders would face. 2. Relative Spotting. This should prove to be a huge factor in the way games play out. All on its own it should people to have to think a lot more about what they do, when they do it, and how they do it. That means more thinking will go into doing things, which in turn means that you'll be equally challenged with fewer units. 3. Immersion. The 1:1 system will make you a lot more interested in what's going on down at the soldier level. And because of that, less attention available for handling massive numbers of units. All I can say is people are picturing CMx1 played out on a smaller (and I stress ORIGINAL) scale and thinking it will suck. Well, we disagree. Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted September 03, 2005 02:35 AM There is nothing under "threat" here. CMx1 was designed for a particular method of play, some people went beyond that. CMx2 is being designed for the same level of play as CMx2, and doubtless people will want to take it beyond that. We don't see why not, though we are not going to do things to specifically support that. For example, we aren not including Battalion level and higher Formations. I'm not even sure we'll have a Battalion HQ available onmap for the first release. Why not? Because unlike CMx1 there are a lot of ramifications to the C&C system with that BN HQ in there. For CMx1 we threw it in late in the development because it was no different than a Platoon or Company HQ. The reason that was the case is we never intended on having BN HQs and therefore didn't have a C&C system setup to make it behave differently. Not the same for CMx2. Now HQs matter. A lot. So we can't just toss in stuff willy nilly. We might get one in there, we might not. It isn't a priority for us since that isn't the game we are focused on making. For the first release hardware is going to be the big enemy of massive unit games, not us. Plus there are all the other things I mentioned in this thread and others about the core changes. I'm not sure people will find that many units fun this time around. Certainly not in some modes of play (actually impossible I'd say). When Co-Play comes around, and hardware increases in capabilities, things will change. But that time isn't for CMx1's first release. Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted September 03, 2005 02:25 PM quote: If you have more than one company to control would you not need a higher HQ of some sort above that of a single Co. HQ? BN HQ is currently slated to be represented offmap. That means the highest onmap HQ possible is Company. You can have two Companies, and they will communicate with the offmap BN HQ. Support units, organically attached to BN, BGD, RGT, DIV, or even higher can be simulated no problem. You just don't get all the other crap that is tagged to those levels. Steve [ September 04, 2005, 06:05 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Has anyone given this any thought? What will the game look like when HE or Arty explodes in the middle of the a squad? In CMx1 we only saw three (rather static) incons represent the whole squad and no real visual effects of the blast. OK a crater but no impact on the 3 little men other then sometimes it went from 3 down to 2 or 3 down to 1 OR the three men just turned into a body on the ground. (rare) Now in CMx2 we have full-on 1:1 unit representation and we should be seeing "something" happen when the arty or HE goes off in the middle of the Squad. I am not talking about blood, but it looks like Steve has described the various health states of each man. I am really wondering what this will look like in the game ??? Steve says: "Condition - This is simply a state of being. Right now we have 4 states, but that could change. The states are Healthy (including superficial wounds), Minor Wound (still functional, though less so), Major Wound (out of action), and KIA (completely out of action). This status has an effect on combat capabilities within the game, but it also has meaning for scoring and campaign play. Guys who end up with Minor Wounds might come back for the next battle, might not. Guys with Major Wounds will not, and could possibly be tallied up as KIA. KIA is obvious." -tom w [ September 04, 2005, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

WOW! nice work puts my "recent bones" thread completely to shame and its FAR more current and up to date! Thanks!! Great work! -tom w [ September 03, 2005, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I did that simulated para drop in a scenario (fictional) I made for CMBO a LONG time ago. (Works like a charm) But I don't think I released it to everybody just a few friends. I have not seen of or heard of any CMAK scenario with this feature BU, the mechanism in the game with sporatic reinforcements (scattered para drops of that kind of para unit) works JUST fine, but you don't get so see 'chutes falling out of the sky like in the intro to Battlefield 1942, which does looks pretty. -tom w [ September 02, 2005, 06:32 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

BMP info if you are interested BMP -1 page -tom w

OK thanks BUT can you still "band box" or group select a bunch of units and send them ALL in one direction to like CMx1? That is a VERY handy feature for the lazier amongst us ! -tom w