hoolaman

Oops, a more thorough read of this thread reveals the tree question has been partially answered, but not the others I think.

What I like the most about this image is the lightning bolts to represent C&C. I had the very same image (in my head) of a little "zap" line representing a radio order being given under an expanded C&C system. Maybe a "sound wave" zap for a sound based order/alert. It would have excellent practical applications, rather than being eye candy: explaining which end command delays come from, tracking who knows what and when. Nice one Gpig, and I hope Steve and co. are listening.

Good idea, even better if it is rendered in grainy black & white!

Steve, I would like to know what is planned with regards to different types of cover and concealment that the new terrain will provide. This is a factor of cmx1 I ended up finding depressingly restrictive to the type of play that would occur. What I mean by this is, there are really only three types of trees: scattered, woods, and forest/tall pines. The terrain in cmx1 was so abstracted that you couldn't really have ditches and gullies and so on to take cover in. All this made each CMx1 battle "samey" for my tastes. (only after a year or so of hard playing of course!) So an infantry advance would more or less go through the squares of woods, making the game a little too chess-like. [Questions] Will CMx2 have more variation in tree density maybe something like "% thickness", or are you expecting the 8x8 terrain to take care of this by itself? Will open terrain still be similarly abstracted for cover or will elevations have more practical effect? Is the elevation grid 8x8 too, or will smaller "game-grid" elevations (1mx1m?) be possible to build ditches and gullies? Can terrain be combined eg. "light trees and rocky ground" or "woods and brush" to give more game variation? [/Questions] I personally think if the above features would be great in game terms as each new bit of terrain would be a new tactical surprise, just like it must have been IRL. In CMx1 you see the brown square of whatever treebase mod you have on and you know exactly what to expect, and I know you guys have said in the past you want to add uncertainty for the commander. [ August 31, 2005, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

This is something that is of interest to me as well. I am pretty sure BFC's business model for future releases has been well and truly decided by now, but I second the hope that all releases will be back update-able. I seem to recall Steve saying some releases will be "modules" and some will be "games". From that I understand that maybe the first game would be a WW2 engine, and each module released for that game would be something like a patch, with new units, some new game features, and a new "story" set of battles. The next "game" might have significantly different game mechanics like cavalry, guided missiles, catapults etc. BFC said they will announce the first TWO games, which might be a clue. I suspect we may end up being spoiled for choice, and maybe that is what BFC is going for. Of course I amlmost entirely making this up, but we won't have long to find out what's going on, as the subject and game releases will be one of the first real details amnounced.

That is an excellent idea. I sometimes go to set up a CM game, and by the time I find and organise and place all my troops I am so sick of it before the first turn that I go and watch TV! I would also like to second a DRAG/CUT/PASTE function in the map editor so you can copy that perfect farmhouse or village to several different maps. [ August 25, 2005, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

Unfortunately I posted before I read this, but this is exactly what I mean with my point above. [ August 25, 2005, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

WANTS FOR CMX2: 1. I don't want to feel like a vital part of a larger battle is "missing" because of the narrower focus of the initial release described by Steve in the "module" discussion. This concept is fine, but not if it restricts players to less than historical battles. Strictly for the sake of an obvious example, I would rather have an initial release game that simulates the entire Normandy campaign, then have a sequel that simulates all of the Battle of the Bulge, rather than having a game that takes the 101st airborne from D-Day to Dusseldorf, then have a sequel that takes a British division on the same trip. So in essence I want to play any part of a whole theatre, even if it's a small one, not follow a single company "Band of Brothers" style. 2. A realistic 3C model specific for each level of command. 3. A more coherent and consistent operation model where lulls in fighting only happen realistically, such as after an attack is pushed back, or when night falls. 4. Atmosphere! Weather, smoke and fire, dynamic lighting. 5. Some depiction of rear areas including some concessions to logistics. Ammo resupply? Trucks that may be shown as carrying a particular cargo to give them tactical value. In real warfare a large objective was to get back amongst his artillery. I would love to see artillery on map as well as rear command posts, tents etc. DON'T CHANGE FROM CMX1: 1. I agree with this for the most part. Up to and including batallion level should still be an integral part of the C&C design. Even if you are playing a single company, I think the batallion CO level of command should still be "in play" in some form. 2. Fully user made battles, maps and "operations" whatever they may be. That's all I can think of, there is so much in CMX1 that could be better, I hope CMX2 isn't so similar that I am already sick of playing it like what happened when I went from CMBO to CMAK. [MAJOR EDIT TO INCLUDE MORE POINTS] [ August 25, 2005, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

Hehe the rare triple post!

Hi Kalibri, All I can suggest is to read the manual, and play a few hotseat games playing both sides against yourself. This will allow you to see the effect your moves have against an opposing player.

To give realistic C&C, as I stated above, it is neccesary to determine which level of command, and which actual HQ unit gives a particular order. Of course playing one side of a CM battle, every single order comes from us sitting on our comfy chairs in front of the PC. The challenge is restricting what we can make our pixel men do but not restricting (too much)what we can see on our screens. Doing this properly would result in command delay for some types of orders if they come from Major Bloggs, and little or no command delay on orders from Sgt. Smith. Changing certain types of SOPs would certainly have to be passed along from higher levels of command, as would making significant changes to some sort of AO/phase line/command-zone. So cancelling a "avoid engagement with the enemy" SOP might have a 70 sec command delay, as would an order to move across/change a phase line. These orders would probably come from a higher officer. But a short dash into a better position, or a change of formation might have only a 3 second command delay as this would be an order from an NCO or platoon CO. This goes some way to fixing "borg" issues. Borg spotting in the sense of one unit spots and all units can instantly engage a given unit is fairly easy to fix via relative spotting. 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. Obviously there would be a long list of problems actually getting this to work in a realistic manner, but I still think it has some potential.

I was promoting a similar "command-zone" idea last year in the "pre-bone" cmx2 era. I think a unit should never be restricted from spotting or firing upon a unit that they should realistically be able to spot and fire upon. The extent of such restrictions based on an AO concept should be to make misidentification of friendly/hostile units more frequent. The command-zone concept could be more realistically applied to restricting movement orders as I once was advocating. Unfortunately, to do this realistically, there would be a mess of variables such as: where an order comes from (company, batallion, NCO initiative etc.), realistic communications including radio nets and sound/hand signals (shouts, whistles, frantically waving arms) I expect BFC will make extensive use of SOPs to take such intimate control away from the player, but still have units react in realistic ways with a "fun" level of player interaction.

I have no idea about CMAK, but in CMBO they definitely did. I distinctly recall my Nahverteidigungswaffe firing in the Wittman operation. Also, in CMBB, I know the Sturmtiger has one so I don't doubt the other Tiger varients carry it as well. They almost always use them in infantry assault situations, but they aren't really effective and have very limited ammo(from what I remember). </font>

Their chief weapons are surprise, concealment, AP shot and... Sorry.

This is the most nonsensical sentence I have seen in a while.

This is the most nonsensical sentence I have seen in a while.

What are you supposed to do with that giant doll if you should ever find yourself a real woman. Her: "What's this in the cupboard sweetie?" Him: "Oh that's just my $5000 lifesize sex doll and turkey baster cleaning kit"

I agree with Lord Peter's post above. I stated before, there will probably be two categories of wounded-ness, one that drops the man out of the game and player control completely, and one that leaves him in the squad (healthy or lightly wounded). For KIA/WIA that drop out of the game, I think it would be sufficient to have them generically animated simply as being hit and dropping to the ground. The bodies could remain there during the turn, but perhaps when the movie is over, or after one turn, they fade out or disappear. I think this would be enough to suspend disbelief for me. For any other category of "walking wounded" you could treat them in game terms exactly like an exhausted/routed man who goes to ground or falls behind. However, judging from Steve's post, I expect the treatment will in fact be a lot like CM1, where your men are either casualties or not. As long as the 1:1 animations provide suspension of disbelief then I think most people will be satisfied (I would be anyway).

Your points are all valid, and of course I was just speculating. I kind of got my arguments the wrong way around, and in fact I said there would be more than two wounded states, although I was trying to distinguish the fact that there will be two categories from the point of view of what is useful for the player to worry about. Men that are dead or as good-as obviously can be pretty much written off in game terms. They will lay where they fell. Men who, for example, can't walk, can still spot enemy units. A man who can't weild a gun is probably more useful as a messenger or something than a panicked man. Every man has some value IRL and should probably have the same in a game of CM's scope, to encourage realistic play. Militarily a Russian conscript infantryman is surely worth less than a tank crew. Whether they reach the aid station (or equivalent) is of significance to the war effort and later battles in a single campaign. How much of this should be modelled? I dunno. We all hope BFC gets it spot on.

I don't think this will occur other than the end game tally. Combat troops are not going to divert from their mission to deal with the various wounded enemy strewn about the battlefield. They aren't going to waste time trying to separate the wounded from the dead when they are still in combat. The most I expect to see is something similar to Close Combat in that there is some scoring adjustment for the gain/loss of WIA based on control of the battlespace. If CMx2 gets a workable operation or campaign mode then this rises in importance IMO. The concept extends to vehicle recovery etc. </font>

Moon, could you maybe provide (or direct me to) a screenshot of smoke generators/grenades in action??

Nice screenshot there! I can see how it would already be difficult enough to spot enemy tanks. Unlike real life, you only have so much screen resolution before a tank in the trees at 500m looks like a couple of green pixels.

There are a few cool ones in there, but it looks like the large majority (~90%) are either of the channel islands or of copenhagen, which is pretty boring.

I agree the more interesting issue is the graphical representation of wounded in game. With 1:1 representation and enhanced 3d character animation, I am thinking that a wounded man simply disappearing into the ether would seem to reduce the immersion factor (unless of course there are particle disruptor cannons or sumfink). On the other hand, littering the battlefield with writhing bodies is probably not ideal either, as they would be attended by stretcher men or crawl out of danger. Cpl Steiner's little description above sounds pretty cool, but like all 1:1 representation issues, you have to get it so that it gives realistic results in every situation, in animation terms and in game calculation terms. As I have said before, I'm glad it's not me trying to nut out the 1:1 issues.

This was discussed at length in the 1:1 representation thread, and generally deemed to be more trouble than it's worth. HERE