aka_tom_w

One thing they don't talk about is if this new game is ANYTHING like CMx1 then you "could" play the REALLY large battles if you are simply willing to wait a REALLY long time for the "crunch" Now this is presuming of course that CMx2 has a "crunch" In the past the deal has always been the guys that REALLY want to play the REALLY big Massive battles JUST have to wait a little longer for each turn to process the combat result, but sooner or later (even on mediocre or slow hardware) the game will do the math and show you the combat result. In the past the game has not really limited the amount of units you want under your command or the size of the battle you would like to fight. (other than the obvious and usually GENEROUS map size limitation.) But thats JUST my take on it. :confused: -tom w [ August 23, 2005, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

One thing they don't talk about is if this new game is ANYTHING like CMx1 then you "could" play the REALLY large battles if you are simply willing to wait a REALLY long time for the "crunch" Now this is presuming of course that CMx2 has a "crunch" In the past the deal has always been the guys that REALLY want to play the REALLY big Massive battles JUST have to wait a little longer for each turn to process the combat result, but sooner or later (even on mediocre or slow hardware) the game will do the math and show you the combat result. In the past the game has not really limited the amount of units you want under your command or the size of the battle you would like to fight. (other than the obvious and usually GENEROUS map size limitation.) But thats JUST my take on it. :confused: -tom w [ August 23, 2005, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

If you need more cash, would opening up the opportunity for pre-orders help? (OK its not like real income but it might help a little or something ) Some of us might be thinking "What more can I do? I have already faithfully purchased your last three GREAT games AND all the guide books and Companions? What else is there?" -tom w

If you need more cash, would opening up the opportunity for pre-orders help? (OK its not like real income but it might help a little or something ) Some of us might be thinking "What more can I do? I have already faithfully purchased your last three GREAT games AND all the guide books and Companions? What else is there?" -tom w

Sounds GREAT! In CMx2 we will see each man NOW it would be great if a the appropriate "ratio" or number of these types of "lolly gagging" activities could be modeled! I would fully support EVERY effort to model such acitivity and behaviour. It should be a little more random and more unpredictable then you have suggested but some form of game mechanism should be in the game to make some men do everything except actually break and run to "avoid" the fight or actually "engage" the enemy (or risk their necks!). I like it! I hope we can see something like that on an individual basis in CMx2 BUT to be honest I think that might perhaps be a degree of fidelity one notch beyond what they might want to, (or plan to) "give" us in CMx2. (A little like Spinal Tap, you would have to turn the realism and fidelity meter up to 11 when CMx2 might only go up to 9.0- 9.5 in its first release.... BUT I could be wrong. -tom w [ August 22, 2005, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

"I don't understand what harm it can possibly do to tell us, if nothing else, what the first release is going to be; unless, of course, that hasn't been decided on either In which case, allied to the above statement, a release in six or seven months seems massively unlikely." TOTALLY! -tom w

"I don't understand what harm it can possibly do to tell us, if nothing else, what the first release is going to be; unless, of course, that hasn't been decided on either In which case, allied to the above statement, a release in six or seven months seems massively unlikely." TOTALLY! -tom w

he KNOWS we are ALL watching and waiting... What else can we do :confused: ?? -tom w

he KNOWS we are ALL watching and waiting... What else can we do :confused: ?? -tom w

That issue (I would guess) is a really BIG can of worms, (kettle of fish, pick one). The relationship between the new Relative Spotting paradigm and the 1:1 relationship of showing individual soldiers modeled on the battlefield will be an interesting "thing" to see how they work all that out! I am not sure if Steve has commented at all about the relationship between how spotting will work and how the game will show player's their soldiers with 1:1 representation?? :confused: BUT I am pretty sure we are all curious to see how it all works out in the end! -tom w

That issue (I would guess) is a really BIG can of worms, (kettle of fish, pick one). The relationship between the new Relative Spotting paradigm and the 1:1 relationship of showing individual soldiers modeled on the battlefield will be an interesting "thing" to see how they work all that out! I am not sure if Steve has commented at all about the relationship between how spotting will work and how the game will show player's their soldiers with 1:1 representation?? :confused: BUT I am pretty sure we are all curious to see how it all works out in the end! -tom w

I would expect that each individual data base for each soldier might also (for sure ) track that soldier's morale, perhaps with some "critical mass" scenario in mind that would tip the balance and send the whole unit into a shocked or paniced or broken state. -tom w [ August 21, 2005, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I would expect that each individual data base for each soldier might also (for sure ) track that soldier's morale, perhaps with some "critical mass" scenario in mind that would tip the balance and send the whole unit into a shocked or paniced or broken state. -tom w [ August 21, 2005, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

very interesting post Midnight warrior.. That last post could probably have its own new thread because at the bottom of this thread it might get missed by most folks. Maybe I will make a new thread for it tomorrow? -tom w

Steve's recent bone thread has been bumped if you care to check it out... Does this help: "OLD bone update from Jan 2005 Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 31, 2005 04:05 PM (from HUGE old 1:1 Representation thread) I have to close up this thread due to its size. Feel free to start up another one. However, keep in mind that we (Battlefront) need to design something that is pleasing to both the eye and the grog. We'll be torn to pieces if the 1:1 representation looks silly or woefully incomplete, even if eveything is neato mosquito under the hood. Likewise, grogs will tear us a new one if the important 1:1 simulation aspects aren't done well enough. In other words... there is no one right answer to this debate you guys are having. We need to have a balance between the two, and that balance is in part determined by how easy/hard it is to program and/or how well it functions from a performance standpoint (eye candy and underlying sim stuff BOTH!). Not even we have the answers to all these questions at this point, so I might suggest that both sides of this debate keep that in mind. NOTHING is decided except for the fact that we are seeking a balance, which inherently means some grog stuff and some eye candy wish list items won't be happening. Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 30, 2005 08:48 PM The 3D environment of CM does offer us some challenges in terms of where to draw the line between a simulation of the individual soldier and larger groups of soldiers (i.e. units). It's something we've all be struggling with since the early days of CMBO's design. Back in the old days of wargaming you'd have a cardboard chit with some numbers and a shape on it. Nobody called for more than that simply because the system was so abstract probably nobody thought of it (at least not thinking it possibly practical). The first couple of generations of computerized wargames fell into the same category. As time went on and technology improved wargamers wanted better looking maps, more attractive looking units, and of course more under the hood. But again, for anything but the smallest scale wargames nobody thought about simulating the individual soldier to any significant degree. Until, that is, Close Combat came out. CC was the first commercial wargame to model the individual soldier in detail and in substantial numbers. And for all its flaws, the game worked very well and people saw the value in having the 1:1 soldier simulation. Then CMBO came around... Our problem, from the beginning, is our chosen scale. MUCH larger than CC's, yet not so much that individuals ceased to matter. But due to technical limiations we never once thought about doing 1:1 because it simply wasn't possible. However, the desire has always been there, at least to some extent. Now comes CMx2... What we are doing now is giving the individual soldier a place on a larger scale battlefield (larger than FPS, CC, etc). That is the right thing to do. However, there are limits. We must make sure to not lose sight of the fact that this is a larger scale wargame and not a FPS of even Close Combat scale game. Therefore, when push comes to shove, decisions are made which favor the larger scale wargaming environment. Clutter, unnecessary development distractions, big hits to the CPU for little simulation gain, etc. are all bad things for CMx2. In short... we know what CMx2 is supposed to be and what it isn't. We have this vision very clearly laid out and will not waiver from it. There will be no mission creep. Steve"

Steve's recent bone thread has been bumped if you care to check it out... Does this help: "OLD bone update from Jan 2005 Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 31, 2005 04:05 PM (from HUGE old 1:1 Representation thread) I have to close up this thread due to its size. Feel free to start up another one. However, keep in mind that we (Battlefront) need to design something that is pleasing to both the eye and the grog. We'll be torn to pieces if the 1:1 representation looks silly or woefully incomplete, even if eveything is neato mosquito under the hood. Likewise, grogs will tear us a new one if the important 1:1 simulation aspects aren't done well enough. In other words... there is no one right answer to this debate you guys are having. We need to have a balance between the two, and that balance is in part determined by how easy/hard it is to program and/or how well it functions from a performance standpoint (eye candy and underlying sim stuff BOTH!). Not even we have the answers to all these questions at this point, so I might suggest that both sides of this debate keep that in mind. NOTHING is decided except for the fact that we are seeking a balance, which inherently means some grog stuff and some eye candy wish list items won't be happening. Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 30, 2005 08:48 PM The 3D environment of CM does offer us some challenges in terms of where to draw the line between a simulation of the individual soldier and larger groups of soldiers (i.e. units). It's something we've all be struggling with since the early days of CMBO's design. Back in the old days of wargaming you'd have a cardboard chit with some numbers and a shape on it. Nobody called for more than that simply because the system was so abstract probably nobody thought of it (at least not thinking it possibly practical). The first couple of generations of computerized wargames fell into the same category. As time went on and technology improved wargamers wanted better looking maps, more attractive looking units, and of course more under the hood. But again, for anything but the smallest scale wargames nobody thought about simulating the individual soldier to any significant degree. Until, that is, Close Combat came out. CC was the first commercial wargame to model the individual soldier in detail and in substantial numbers. And for all its flaws, the game worked very well and people saw the value in having the 1:1 soldier simulation. Then CMBO came around... Our problem, from the beginning, is our chosen scale. MUCH larger than CC's, yet not so much that individuals ceased to matter. But due to technical limiations we never once thought about doing 1:1 because it simply wasn't possible. However, the desire has always been there, at least to some extent. Now comes CMx2... What we are doing now is giving the individual soldier a place on a larger scale battlefield (larger than FPS, CC, etc). That is the right thing to do. However, there are limits. We must make sure to not lose sight of the fact that this is a larger scale wargame and not a FPS of even Close Combat scale game. Therefore, when push comes to shove, decisions are made which favor the larger scale wargaming environment. Clutter, unnecessary development distractions, big hits to the CPU for little simulation gain, etc. are all bad things for CMx2. In short... we know what CMx2 is supposed to be and what it isn't. We have this vision very clearly laid out and will not waiver from it. There will be no mission creep. Steve"

any NEW news? -tom w [ August 21, 2005, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

any NEW news? -tom w [ August 21, 2005, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

bump

"By reinforcing this in CM we don't deliniate AO's but rather people become less effective as they wander away from their CO, and you simulate AO's by where you put your HQ's." In the old CMxx game the line of out of C&C was either Black or Red Maybe (this might not really be realistic but I will suggest it anyway) ..... Maybe the line could be black or white with various shades of grey in between such as..... "but rather people become less effective as they wander away from their CO" I still favour the command line mechanism as the solution to this issue. Maybe these line of C&C could be more "elastic" or more flexible than just ON or OFF? With degrading performance and delay the farther the units are away from the commander? I would like to think Steve et. al. have considered or are considering this problem: "What is more difficult to fix is the God-like omniscience of us watching our computer screens which allows units to react tactically to a threat they should not know about (borg like swarm). Tracking which level of command gives which order would force us to work through our pixel soldiers instead of moving them like chess pieces." The borg like swarm (response) is one of the REAL challenges to deal with IMO. -tom w

I guess I was somehow thinking that mid-summer would like translate into mid-September in "my" reality.... BUT we'll see (maybe later rather than sooner) -tom w

I guess I was somehow thinking that mid-summer would like translate into mid-September in "my" reality.... BUT we'll see (maybe later rather than sooner) -tom w

Area of operation. In other posts they call it "command zone". In real life it is the area, zone defined by the boundaries assigned to subordinate units. </font>

Please don't. "So I dunno what we'll do for CMx2 yet. It would be nice to simulate this, but I am not really sure we'll want to put the energy into it at the expense of other stuff. Steve" Please don't put ANY time or energy into ready rack simulation at the expense of ANY other stuff. :eek: Ready rack simulation should not even be on "the list" NEVER mind at the bottom of it. (just my personal opinion) (maybe it could be in a patch or some later version of CMx2....) or something -tom w

Please don't. "So I dunno what we'll do for CMx2 yet. It would be nice to simulate this, but I am not really sure we'll want to put the energy into it at the expense of other stuff. Steve" Please don't put ANY time or energy into ready rack simulation at the expense of ANY other stuff. :eek: Ready rack simulation should not even be on "the list" NEVER mind at the bottom of it. (just my personal opinion) (maybe it could be in a patch or some later version of CMx2....) or something -tom w