hoolaman

Perhaps first we should "decide" on a working definition of "expect".

To solve the "unit runs behind house but I can't fire at it" problem, maybe you could have each well spotted unit that goes out of LOS turn into an extrapolated TRP of some sort. So perhaps an area within 10m of the "last seen" unit marker can be targetted for a turn or two regardless of LOS. Steve has mentioned a targetting memory for the TacAI, and the above could be an addition to this for the player and an aid for the AI. If the AI can treat the area around the marker as a "live" target, it may help both issues. Perhaps unrestricted area fire could also be added simply as an option. The AI would not really be smart enough to use it, but for a gentlemanly multiplayer game, it may open a world of tactical possibilities. Another issue would be to target sound contacts and partial contacts directly. I'm not entirely sure why you can't do this now, especially knowing that the position may be unreliable. The problem of course is not the BORG but the GOD. Even relative spotting with full C&C simulated can not stop the player seeing what unit A spots and fraudulently targetting it with unit B. I agree its not really that big of a impediment to gameplay, but it does get into issues of realism in the simulation especially with indirect fire weapons.

Join up, they said. See the world, they said....

Your username is most appropriate for this topic. LOS, LOF, units, and you!

We do already have a method of measuring the complexity of moves and expectation of enemy fire. The player uses MOVE, CONTACT, ASSAULT, based on whether contact is expected. It may be a more transparent sytem if delays for extra waypoints are based on the type of movement order, or more specifically, changes from one to the other. So a series of MOVE points may attract less delay than a MOVE, a CONTACT, and an ASSAULT all plotted in series. Another design concept I was thinkin of that may be applicable is to make a plotted movement path into a "progress bar". So when the movie starts, the path gradually fills in to symbolise how far ahead the orders have been explained. If the squad catches up with the progress bar, they may halt or slow down. The progress may be slower over rough terrain, but faster for simple move orders like running across a field. The unit might not set out on the next leg of their move unless the subsequent waypoint has been reached by the moving "progress bar". Not sure if any of this is truly realistic, it's just an idea!

Thanks Steve for the detailed response. Dorosh, I wasn't too sure about your grass mod, but I do like the stick man with the stick bipod on his stick MG. Stick art is all about attention to detail after all.

Yeah, thats kind of what I was getting at too. For certain kinds of movement, there should be basically no command delay, as the sarge says "Lets walk around this rock lads".

It may well effect his ability to turn around in a confined space!

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. For example, movement ordered by the company commander may take the form of Dalem's "Go There". It may take 45 seconds of command delay or more for even this simple order to be delivered, understood and put into motion. On the other hand, this order may have formed part of the pre-battle briefing and the unit may already understand its destination. Coordinated movement down the gully or through a town would however be done by the squad/NCO without any further input from higher command levels. They will see the path open up in front of them, and take it. This could be averaged out as slower movement through rough terrain. I also think that low level movement should be conditional on LOS. If a squad can see down the gully, the delay should be less, but when the squad reaches a waypoint that is plotted out of LOS, perhaps they will slow down or even halt and take 10 seconds to look at the situation. The unrealistic situations in CMX1 arise when a unit should clearly be making up its own mind where to move, but still attracts a command delay as if the order had been run in from HQ. It was with this in mind that I was once suggesting command level based waypoints. One HQ level plots "Go there" type orders using a flag or some other UI system, and the squad level waypoints are more concerned with fine movement in pursuit of these orders, from house to house, or down a winding gully. The HQ waypoints attract the big command delays associated with reigning in a unit which is already doing its thing, and the squad movement attracts minimal delay. How to implement all this in a way that satisfies everyone is, as usual, the hard part.

I recently read a real life veteran account of a Panther getting nailed after getting its gun stuck against a tree. That proves it happened for real at least once, but maybe not enough to code in the game. Also collision detection with each individual tree would be a bit of a nightmare.

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

Dale I was going to post a similar thing in my above post but I lost what I originally typed. I would suggest that pathfinding, especially using terrain to keep undercover in relation to possible enemy units, is a bit too much to program and process. Other than that I agree replacing micromanagement with SOPs for movement and targetting would be a good thing.

Well its an excellent question, and it would be super if fire did behave realistically like that, but none of us lay-folk can really answer your questions. I don't think there has been any bones about this since Steve started throwing them.

One aspect of Medieval Total war that would be nice for CM is the way camera views are restricted to the vicinity of friendly units. It also restricts the height of the camera. Imagine having to plot the path through a forest on view level 1/2. It would be just as easy to get disoriented as "IRL". If this was done only during the orders phase, leaving us free to watch our explosions from any camera view during the movie playback, it would be cool. Imagine a tactical map in the top corner of the screen, and being down in the dirt the rest of the time. The only problem with this in CM is you must plot at least 60 seconds of movement at the start of the turn, meaning you must be able to see the terrain a unit ends up on in 60 seconds time as well as where they are now.

I completely agree with the response to my earlier post that it would be realistic for a commander to forget a unit. My point was that in CM often the orders the player gives would represent more what a unit has done on its own initiative. So a squad that had orders from an officer to "take that house" would not suddenly have an attack of amnesia over the few turns of manouvring required to get there. That is also why I suggested SOPs would be very useful to lay out more complex orders over a few turns to let units be a little more autonomous like they obviously were "IRL".

While I can see the reasoning for not giving the player an OOB list, I disagree with it in some ways. The reason you want an OOB as a player is simply so you don't forget anyone. IRL the individuals would not forget themselves, they would be doing something, not just sitting there for 60 seconds like some kind of canadian mannequin. I suppose SOPs would help. More complex orders could be given so units keep doing their thing for several turns. Perhaps a little popup message window could alert the player to units that have finished their player directed orders. If you remember UFO: Enemy unknown they had two buttons to cycle through your units. One skipped through all units, and one removed the current unit from the cycle (after its orders were complete) and then moved to the next. Something like this would work well I think.

C'mon, I'm sure it wasn't that bad for them having you around.

I think also the fact that it was a pretty fair matchup. If you watched a football game the followed the ebb and flow of WW2 it would be a pretty amazing game. Germany was the underdog, but was only beaten down by overwhelming odds. We can also wonder about the many events and battles that may have gone either way, and what the world would look like if they had. Also the fact that WWII is simply near enough in history that we can relate to it, and it's personal enough that our parents or parents were lived it. And its legacy shaped and continues to shape the world we live in. I mean Germany was only reunified 15 years ago or so! Some of the popularity for the war in our culture may also be from the fact that the whole thing was so heavily and successfully propagandized.

Assuming (ground attack) aircraft have been invented in the time-frame in question, then I can say yes with nearly 100% certainty.

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, but I suspect that unrestricted (or less restricted) area fire would be open to serious abuse. However, who knows what different game mechanics relative spotting will bring to the table? I think what you could use is a combination with the "FIRE" command that controls elevation. This would allow area fire at second story buildings, and flighting shells over the LOS point.

Hey Tom, why don't you just say "BUMP!!" I for one am still interested in this topic. Most things Steve says are very difficult are probably not worth persuing. However to quote Steve from another post: I think it could be argued that realistic lines of fire, with offensive grazing fire hopefully as a bonus side-effect, meets all these criteria, except of course "how difficult is it to code up?". I am sure the good folks at BF.C are already well aware of all this, but a chorus of support may make them prioritize it on the list of things to include.

Also if you remember, the old article (the one feature stars and clouds), they are looking at maybe designating victory areas using multi layered textures or something. This will mean a whole zone could be contested and not just one house.

Yeah I found those links a little useless too. One reference I did find of relevance was using tanks to crush japanese wooden bunkers and revetted emplacements.

I second the call for camo. Why do you need fancy fictional chameleon camo. How about some good old paint schemes! Also, on another graphical matter, I would like to see the buildings much larger and kind of more useful looking than they are now. The buildings look like they were built to look futuristing rather than realistic. Failing a redesign, I think they should be at least twice as large!

I don't really understand the implications of what Steve is saying, (is it me or is last post extremely confusing?) Anyway I agree with the above quote, and I hope that friendly LOF considerations can be implemented. I think it is not really an "icing on the cake" issue but one fundamental to a good war sim game engine, especially, as someone said, if the engine is expanded into ranked combat. I think this quote sums up what shouldn't be in the new game! [ September 21, 2005, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]