aka_tom_w

bump

Old bones to chew on (not new) Battlefront Administrator Member # 35 posted January 03, 2005 04:38 PM 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 ] Battlefront Administrator Member # 35 posted January 06, 2005 02:30 AM 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 Battlefront Administrator Member # 35 posted January 06, 2005 04:23 PM I need to wipe 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 Fan Art by Gpig: (not an employee of BFC) [ June 24, 2005, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Old bones to chew on (not new) Battlefront Administrator Member # 35 posted January 03, 2005 04:38 PM 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 ] Battlefront Administrator Member # 35 posted January 06, 2005 02:30 AM 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 Battlefront Administrator Member # 35 posted January 06, 2005 04:23 PM I need to wipe 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 Fan Art by Gpig: (not an employee of BFC) [ June 24, 2005, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Posted in the CMx2 casualties thread.... re-post here as this is where some folks may be looking for all the latest news: Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 23, 2005 04:17 PM This is all very tough stuff for us, as you all (thankfully) seem to understand. Which is why so few games have even superficially dealt with these issues. It's kinda like asking why nobody has brought a flying car to the marketplace... great idea, but there are a "few" practical issues associated with this As I said earlier, we aren't interested in making a medic/evac simulation, but we are hopefull we can make some improvements to the way things worked in CMx1. What are we going to be able to do? I honestly don't know. We've pushed all the designs (and there are several) off our plates for now because there are more important things to focus on. After we get a bunch of those things done we'll dust off the designs and see what we have time/energy to do and (most importantly) what will fit in best with the rest of the game. One thing to remember from earlier conversations... the CMx2 engine will be a work in progress for as long as we are using it before moving onto CMx3. We would have liked CMx1 to have been a work in progress, but unfortunately we found that it was too difficult to work on and therefore little progress was possible without inordinate investments of time and resources. What this means is that for the first release of CMx2 there will be lots of stuff that can be improved upon for future releases. Some things will never be fully fleshed out (it is impossible to simulate EVERYTHING in minute detail, obviously), but the more important stuff will be improved upon as we move from product to product. I'm going to guess that WIA/KIA issues will be one of these features that's improved over time. It's something that would be nice to do to the 10th degree in the first game, but based on the utter lack of it in wargames in general, it's clear it isn't something we MUST do for the game to be successful in everybody's eyes. Steve

Posted in the CMx2 casualties thread.... re-post here as this is where some folks may be looking for all the latest news: Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 23, 2005 04:17 PM This is all very tough stuff for us, as you all (thankfully) seem to understand. Which is why so few games have even superficially dealt with these issues. It's kinda like asking why nobody has brought a flying car to the marketplace... great idea, but there are a "few" practical issues associated with this As I said earlier, we aren't interested in making a medic/evac simulation, but we are hopefull we can make some improvements to the way things worked in CMx1. What are we going to be able to do? I honestly don't know. We've pushed all the designs (and there are several) off our plates for now because there are more important things to focus on. After we get a bunch of those things done we'll dust off the designs and see what we have time/energy to do and (most importantly) what will fit in best with the rest of the game. One thing to remember from earlier conversations... the CMx2 engine will be a work in progress for as long as we are using it before moving onto CMx3. We would have liked CMx1 to have been a work in progress, but unfortunately we found that it was too difficult to work on and therefore little progress was possible without inordinate investments of time and resources. What this means is that for the first release of CMx2 there will be lots of stuff that can be improved upon for future releases. Some things will never be fully fleshed out (it is impossible to simulate EVERYTHING in minute detail, obviously), but the more important stuff will be improved upon as we move from product to product. I'm going to guess that WIA/KIA issues will be one of these features that's improved over time. It's something that would be nice to do to the 10th degree in the first game, but based on the utter lack of it in wargames in general, it's clear it isn't something we MUST do for the game to be successful in everybody's eyes. Steve

"I'm going to guess that WIA/KIA issues will be one of these features that's improved over time. It's something that would be nice to do to the 10th degree in the first game, but based on the utter lack of it in wargames in general, it's clear it isn't something we MUST do for the game to be successful in everybody's eyes. Steve" Why do I hear the theme from Saturday Night Live's "Lowered Expectations" (it has a nice jingle to it if you have never heard it) ringing in my head now I guess we won't have to worry too much about the WIA problem as it seems as though it is not such burning issue for the folks at BFC at this time. oh well.... I guess we can assume WIA/KIA situation may be slightly more detailed than CMx1 so I guess we are left wondering how much more detailed or improved upon then the situation in CMx1 in light of the fact CMx2 will have 1:1 representation for all troops. :confused: (at least I think that is what he just said ) -tom w [ June 23, 2005, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

One possible approach to this problem/issue (and I agree it could get VERY messy) would be to start out with a clear idea of which states or catagories for health or level of "woundedness" the game will support. To be clear the obvious first two states are %100 healthy, NOT wounded and KIA, %100 dead. Now in between those two extremes, we could ask what states, conditions or catagories will be modeled or represented in the game. it could be simple and it could be JUST WIA (same as CMxx) Wounded in Action for all others that are not %100 healthy or KIA. But as we know they sort of did that in a very abstract way for CMxx (CMBO CMBB and CMAK) So perhaps some of us are wondering if there will be a little more detail or fidelity in the way the game models the various states of WIA. My guess would be they will have two inbetween states for WIA (in between %100 healthy and KIA) 1) Lightly wounded (imparied performance, slows down the squad but can still walk, tires quicker, less accurate, AND in a very high fidelity game model the lightly wounded (bleeding) could become the Critically wounded) 2) Critically wounded (cannot walk and must be left behind or attended to or moved by other units, over time the Critically Wounded could become KIA?) I do agree with this: "The whole situation is horribly messy, I agree, but the 1:1 modelling makes it unavoidable that these things are looked at. " I sure would like to know what they have in mind to deal with this one? -tom w [ June 23, 2005, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

It could be simple As Cpl Steiner says.... Why not just have one order, just select SHIFT and "drag a box around the soldiers you want to move" and all the WIA's (only) will be given a "med evac" order which just means move to the rear (or away from the action) or to the direction the local HQ or whatever. It could be that simple. (or not?) -tom w

RMC those are great questions! Add to that a few more... 7) how are immobile WIA's moved or transported? 8) what happens when WIA's are captured? (Can they be captured?) 9) if captured, how does the player move/transport WIA's? Answers or comments from Steve sure would be timely right about now (One can always hope ) -tom w [ June 22, 2005, 06:23 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

"The distinction between incapacitated and KIA was apparently made for the end of battle results. Incapacitated soldiers were left where they were when the squad moved on, but could be considered recovered if they were still in territory controlled by that player when the battle ended. If a player elected to flee the battle, leaving the field to the enemy, those soldiers would be lost. " OK That sounds good to me healthy hurt (wounded but able to walk) incapacitated (critically wounded and immobile) KIA That list looks like a good start to me. -tom w

"The abstraction of wounded soldiers disappearing from the battlefield denies the other side an opportunity to capture them, as well as relieving one or both sides of the obligation of policing them. That is hardly realistic. I think BFC recognizes this and will find a method that addresses it better than the CMx1 system." Agreed "I think BFC recognizes this and will find a method that addresses it better than the CMx1 system." I think so too. I wonder what Steve's thought's are on this issue, (in addition to what has been posted already that I am aware of.) -tom w

OK I understand your point and maybe it can't be that simple My suggestion was an attempt to allow captured WIA to move under their own power so that WIA could be captured, without all the problems associated with medics and stretcher bearers and what have you, to move the captured WIA's. Granted it was a massive abstraction. Lets see what Steve has to say on this one. the point was you should be able to capture WIA's BUT then What??? (how do they move?) :confused: -tom w But it can't be that simple, since this solution potentially entails giving orders to a single man (if only one man is wounded in a unit). And I understood Steve to say that a 1:1 level of control would probably not be present in CMx2. Earlier, it was pointed out that depicting wounded should be no harder computationally since all men in the squad are depicted before any casualties are taken. However, before any casualties are taken, there is only a single unit for control purposes (two if we assume the squad can be split into two teams). If CMx2 gives us control over wounded, this could potentially turn a single 10-man squad into 10 wounded units, each awaiting the orders of the player. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would increase the computational power needed. As I don't think BFC intends to go down this path of 1:1 control, I expect they will come up with another solution. </font>

OK Dealing with wounded prisoners makes for "messy" situation to model or simulate in the game as well. "In reality, they would now have a large bag of wounded prisoners to deal with. What happens to these men, and how does this affect the flow of the battle? " :confused: that is a good question one over simplfied answer/suggestion: Maybe the game engine works like this: maybe all WIA are capable of walking (walking wounded?) otherwise the soldier is KIA, in which case all captured WIA could be given MOVE orders and they would just walk away from the battle like all other captured men. (Once again surely some form of abstraction would be required here so the game is still fun and playable without turning into Combat Med-Evac Mission ) It could be that simple IMHO -tom w [ June 21, 2005, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Yes... It will likely be abstracted and Gpig's suggestion sounds fine to me. "I'd like to see the wounded depicted on the battlefield. In the minimum possible way." me too -tom w

If the bunker is anywhere near a flag the flag you will not receive the points for that flag until the bunker is eliminated. Otherwise the bypass and isolate trick might be a good idea if there are no flags involved. -tom w

I would like to suggest re: this statement: Dorosh writes: "For one example, would you be using wounded men to garrison strongpoints?" I suspect that they will employ a good old fashioned abstraction here. Some abstracted Black and white line in the game engine would differentiate between WIA in the fight and WIA that are combat ineffective. Black and White, the game would determine when a WIA soldier is out of the battle, once determined by the game to be WIA (#2 or #3) I would hope that soldier would be useless and become a burden or be left behind for the rest of the game. So I say this because Steve tells us: " we are not going to do "Combat Mission Field Medic - A WIA/KIA Simulator", but we are going to do our best to have some realistic ramfications for suffering WIA/KIAs" meaning that WIA's would have some "realistic ramification" on the battlefield. I would humbly suggest it is the intention of BFC to model WIA's somehow, and I would bet there will be an abstraction involved that will fit them into maybe 2-3 catagories. (Maybe just 2 WIA catagories: 1) WIA Wounded AND Combat ineffective and 2) NOT WIA (%100 healthy) and still in the fight? and of course there would be the KIA catagory) or maybe 3 catagories (a little more complex abstraction): 1) Wounded AND combat Effective (very light wound, unit moral takes a hit, the soldier keeps fighting doing his combat "job" a little slower, tires more quickly etc.) 2) Critically Wounded and combat Ineffective (sitting, must be left behind or evacuated or attended to ? or something? ) 3) Very critically wounded and dieing or unconscious (lieing down) As Steve said this could ALL get very messy and hard to do so I suspect they will use abstractions and try to make a reasonable go of it and try to represent 1:1 WIA with men in a sitting (#2) or lieing down (#3) posture. One thing I think we can all count on is that they won't use "health bars" to depict the health "state" of each man. At least I hope not! But of course I have no idea what they really have in mind. -tom w [ June 21, 2005, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

YES if the decision is to for sure go with 1:1 representation of ALL men on the battlefield, then simply having one lie down on the ground in a "dead" posture for KIA should have NO effect on the cpu requirements (less in fact when not moving) or the gameplay because now it is just one less man to account for or keep track of for ammo and moral etc. Now admitedly the WIA status of the soldier that is not KIA is a little more tricky to account for BUT if that man was already represented in the original 1:1 scale of the game, then making him WIA and sitting down should not be all that challenging. . . . . -tom w If you consider that a moment ago the game had to model these chaps moving and shooting, it shouldn't cause a difference. </font>

In Cmbo there were bodies left behind to represent KIA I am hoping both WIA and KIA bodies will be represented in CMX2 If I understand Dorosh's suggestion correctly he would have each soldier that is KIA or WIA just simple vanish? (like magic? Just dissappear??) My guess is that this dissapearing soldier feature would not help sell this game in any way. If we have 1:1 representation then I think it is not unrealistic to expect some form or 1:1 representation for WIA and KIA that would represent KIA bodies and WIA soldiers incapcitated in action. Sorry, but the vanishing soldier trick (KIA or WIA) just doesn't cut it for me. -tom w

attlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 24, 2005 01:01 AM Never confuse an implementation of something with what is possible or not. Meaning, just because you play Game X with Feature Y does not mean that Game Z will play exactly the same. If you want a dose of reality in that sense, pick up the other 3D tactical WWII game out there and see how closely it compares to CMBO What I mean by this is that nobody should judge what we can do, or not do, based on what some other group of guys did 10 years ago in a 2D enviroment that worked on a 486 (or a Mac IIci in my case ). Now, as it so happens you guys that were painfully hoping to rearranging your CC men probably were wasting your time. While CC was certainly 1:1 Graphically, it was not 1:1 Modeled. Unless my memory is playing big tricks on me, much to the contrary of sycophant ramblings a CC unit was no different than a CMx1 unit in that all LOS, LOF, and location calcs were based on a single spot. That means 3 guys of a CC squad on the wrong side of the wall were likely in no danger if the system though of the center of the unit as being on the correct side of the wall. If the system thought the unit was on the incorrect side of the way, the 3 guys on the "protected" side were vulnerable even though they looked protected. I don't remember exactly how the CC system worked, but like I said... unless my memory is getting bad it worked pretty much like this and not like you guys think it did. Having said that, it isn't as hard to control individual guys within a single unit as it is to control multiple units. The reason is that telling something like a rifle team (to use CC scale) to move to location X effectively defines where the 3, 4, or 6 guys should go to. Now, think of telling a platoon to "take x objective". The AI now has to move several pieces, which are inherently separate from each other, in a way that makes sense. In real life this could mean leaving one Squad (of two teams) behind, moving one Squad (of two teams) down a road 30m to the left, and telling the other Squad (of two teams) to do a zig-zag assault over an open field, but only after the second team arrives on target. See the difference? If not, read this The less variation there is in general location, type, and expected behavior, the easier it is for an AI to get it right. The more varried the locations, types, and behaviors the more complicated. Telling the AI to move 6 or 12 guys to "go to this wall and lay down suppressive fire" is a lot easier for the AI than "move these 34 guys in any one of a million ways to take that farmhouse". Git it now? Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 26, 2005 03:21 PM As you guys have all fully grasped, the 1:1 representation is not as simple as blitting a few extra sprites onto the screen. This has been the most frustrating thing to explain to more general gamers. They think that if it appears, visually, in the game then everything is taken care of and we'll all live happily ever after. NOT! One thing to keep in mind is the general philosophy we use when designing stuff. And that is, the closer we make the basic model relate to the real world, the easier it is to solve problems with making the simulation act realistically. In CMx2 terms this means simulating each individual soldier and their function within the unit. We need to do this because each unit has some sort of unique mix of tasks for its individual members. For example, a mortar team might have the same number of men as a heavy MG team, but their "jobs" are totally different. A squad with a LMG and 10 riflemen behaves differently than a 6 man recon squad armed with SMGs. So on and so forth. Once we have the guys individually pegged to different spots, then we can assign more individualized behaviors for the TacAI to use. For example, having a LMG team stay put while the rifle section moves forward on an assault. This is inherently possible because CMx2 already knows what a LMG team is and what a rilfeman is, if for no other reason than to get the animations correct. Now comes the realism benefit. We have soldiers with individual tasks and individual animations. We also have a range of realistic orders to cover various types of functions. Terrain is also laid out in great detail, as are all the combat modeling that goes along with it (weather, LOS effects, etc.). Weapons and other things are obviously modeled in detail as well. This is a rich pallet of stuff to draw from. What we need to do is make a TacAI that understands which soldiers should be doing what in one situation vs. another. While this is certainly no small task, it isn't as bad as it might appear to you guys. One reason is that we have all the realism elements to implement standardized military "drills" without much in the way of compromise. For example, let us say that a Squad has two internal Teams, one of which is a LMG and the other is armed with rifle type weapons. The drill for that nation might state that the LMG team, on the assault, sets up and provides covering fire for the rifle team as it moves to its objective. This is fairly easy to code into the TacAI. The problems come, as they often do, with fleshing this system out to cover "all" circumstances "all" the time "everytime". That's a challenge. We are confident enough that we can do this. In fact there is only one design for CMx2 and that design involves 1:1 representation. It will happen and we expect the results will be better than average Steve

attlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 24, 2005 01:01 AM Never confuse an implementation of something with what is possible or not. Meaning, just because you play Game X with Feature Y does not mean that Game Z will play exactly the same. If you want a dose of reality in that sense, pick up the other 3D tactical WWII game out there and see how closely it compares to CMBO What I mean by this is that nobody should judge what we can do, or not do, based on what some other group of guys did 10 years ago in a 2D enviroment that worked on a 486 (or a Mac IIci in my case ). Now, as it so happens you guys that were painfully hoping to rearranging your CC men probably were wasting your time. While CC was certainly 1:1 Graphically, it was not 1:1 Modeled. Unless my memory is playing big tricks on me, much to the contrary of sycophant ramblings a CC unit was no different than a CMx1 unit in that all LOS, LOF, and location calcs were based on a single spot. That means 3 guys of a CC squad on the wrong side of the wall were likely in no danger if the system though of the center of the unit as being on the correct side of the wall. If the system thought the unit was on the incorrect side of the way, the 3 guys on the "protected" side were vulnerable even though they looked protected. I don't remember exactly how the CC system worked, but like I said... unless my memory is getting bad it worked pretty much like this and not like you guys think it did. Having said that, it isn't as hard to control individual guys within a single unit as it is to control multiple units. The reason is that telling something like a rifle team (to use CC scale) to move to location X effectively defines where the 3, 4, or 6 guys should go to. Now, think of telling a platoon to "take x objective". The AI now has to move several pieces, which are inherently separate from each other, in a way that makes sense. In real life this could mean leaving one Squad (of two teams) behind, moving one Squad (of two teams) down a road 30m to the left, and telling the other Squad (of two teams) to do a zig-zag assault over an open field, but only after the second team arrives on target. See the difference? If not, read this The less variation there is in general location, type, and expected behavior, the easier it is for an AI to get it right. The more varried the locations, types, and behaviors the more complicated. Telling the AI to move 6 or 12 guys to "go to this wall and lay down suppressive fire" is a lot easier for the AI than "move these 34 guys in any one of a million ways to take that farmhouse". Git it now? Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 26, 2005 03:21 PM As you guys have all fully grasped, the 1:1 representation is not as simple as blitting a few extra sprites onto the screen. This has been the most frustrating thing to explain to more general gamers. They think that if it appears, visually, in the game then everything is taken care of and we'll all live happily ever after. NOT! One thing to keep in mind is the general philosophy we use when designing stuff. And that is, the closer we make the basic model relate to the real world, the easier it is to solve problems with making the simulation act realistically. In CMx2 terms this means simulating each individual soldier and their function within the unit. We need to do this because each unit has some sort of unique mix of tasks for its individual members. For example, a mortar team might have the same number of men as a heavy MG team, but their "jobs" are totally different. A squad with a LMG and 10 riflemen behaves differently than a 6 man recon squad armed with SMGs. So on and so forth. Once we have the guys individually pegged to different spots, then we can assign more individualized behaviors for the TacAI to use. For example, having a LMG team stay put while the rifle section moves forward on an assault. This is inherently possible because CMx2 already knows what a LMG team is and what a rilfeman is, if for no other reason than to get the animations correct. Now comes the realism benefit. We have soldiers with individual tasks and individual animations. We also have a range of realistic orders to cover various types of functions. Terrain is also laid out in great detail, as are all the combat modeling that goes along with it (weather, LOS effects, etc.). Weapons and other things are obviously modeled in detail as well. This is a rich pallet of stuff to draw from. What we need to do is make a TacAI that understands which soldiers should be doing what in one situation vs. another. While this is certainly no small task, it isn't as bad as it might appear to you guys. One reason is that we have all the realism elements to implement standardized military "drills" without much in the way of compromise. For example, let us say that a Squad has two internal Teams, one of which is a LMG and the other is armed with rifle type weapons. The drill for that nation might state that the LMG team, on the assault, sets up and provides covering fire for the rifle team as it moves to its objective. This is fairly easy to code into the TacAI. The problems come, as they often do, with fleshing this system out to cover "all" circumstances "all" the time "everytime". That's a challenge. We are confident enough that we can do this. In fact there is only one design for CMx2 and that design involves 1:1 representation. It will happen and we expect the results will be better than average Steve

oops

Old bone from Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 23, 2005 12:37 AM Don't worry... we're not going to do Combat Medic Mission However, dropping wounded in the spots where they were wounded is not realistic. You, the player, should not be able to spot a guy who should not be there. In other words, a lightly wounded or evacuated seriously wounded soldier would be moved SOMEWHERE other than out in an empty street, hanging out a window, in a wrecked vehicle, etc. So why should the player see such a soldier where he realistically wouldn't be? Repetition of visuals is not a concern for us. It isn't like we are planning on having a 12 man squad stick to a static formation. Look at Gpig's drawings as they are pretty much spot on how things will look in CMx2. Even the very old (by computer standards) Close Combat had guys individually positioned, so it can obviously be done. Steve from Old 1:1 Representation thread now closed.

another old bone from the old 1:1 Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 21, 2005 12:15 AM 1:1 representation sure does open up a big can of worms. It's one of the reasons why we did not attempt it for CMx1 (though hardware wouldn't have allowed it anyway). However, as has already been pointed out one should not confuse 1:1 graphical represenation with 1:1 modeling or 1:1 control. Three different concepts. From a GAME standpoint, 1:1 graphical representation is the most important. If I were to make a Top Ten list of complaints from general gamers about CMx1, this would probably be the #2 complaint (#1 is the lack of ridiculously detailed and textured models) constant throughout all three games. From a REALISM standpoint the most important thing is the 1:1 modeling. Though it is very difficult to do this without the 1:1 graphical represenation, it is certainly possible to do. We could have had individuals run away from generic 3 man squads or more detailed soldier stats. But without 1:1 representation this all seemed kinda hollow so we kept the level of modeling in line with the degree of visual representation. Now that we are increasing the latter, we will also be increasing the modeling to stay in balance. There will still be abstractions, just not nearly as many as there are now. The interesting thing is that most "gamers" and "grognards" is that they probably pretty much agree that 1:1 control is undesirable. There is already enough to pay attention to without having to get Pvt. Pyle to move 0.5 meters to the left of the tree he is behind so he can get a shot off. It also turns the focus to individual soldiers instead of units and the formations they belong to. Obviously, if you are smart you'll see that we're not going to implement 1:1 control, but are going to do 1:1 visual and 1:1 modeling. The results should make the game more fun to play and also far more realistic. There will be issues we need to work through to make sure it all works happily together, but that's the sort of thing you guys pay us for when you buy the game Steve

another old bone from the old 1:1 Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 21, 2005 12:15 AM 1:1 representation sure does open up a big can of worms. It's one of the reasons why we did not attempt it for CMx1 (though hardware wouldn't have allowed it anyway). However, as has already been pointed out one should not confuse 1:1 graphical represenation with 1:1 modeling or 1:1 control. Three different concepts. From a GAME standpoint, 1:1 graphical representation is the most important. If I were to make a Top Ten list of complaints from general gamers about CMx1, this would probably be the #2 complaint (#1 is the lack of ridiculously detailed and textured models) constant throughout all three games. From a REALISM standpoint the most important thing is the 1:1 modeling. Though it is very difficult to do this without the 1:1 graphical represenation, it is certainly possible to do. We could have had individuals run away from generic 3 man squads or more detailed soldier stats. But without 1:1 representation this all seemed kinda hollow so we kept the level of modeling in line with the degree of visual representation. Now that we are increasing the latter, we will also be increasing the modeling to stay in balance. There will still be abstractions, just not nearly as many as there are now. The interesting thing is that most "gamers" and "grognards" is that they probably pretty much agree that 1:1 control is undesirable. There is already enough to pay attention to without having to get Pvt. Pyle to move 0.5 meters to the left of the tree he is behind so he can get a shot off. It also turns the focus to individual soldiers instead of units and the formations they belong to. Obviously, if you are smart you'll see that we're not going to implement 1:1 control, but are going to do 1:1 visual and 1:1 modeling. The results should make the game more fun to play and also far more realistic. There will be issues we need to work through to make sure it all works happily together, but that's the sort of thing you guys pay us for when you buy the game Steve

thanks for posting that old 1:1 thread it had some great bones and comments from Steve in it -tom w