Lt Bull

More Visible Unit Base Markers

I have a few feature/mod requests. 1. I would rather be able to toggle on the highlighted unit bases like in CMx1 than rely on the CM:BN icons that hover high over each unit. Really not a fan of the icons. Is there some way to activate these highlighted bases on all units (at least on your own friendly units) so you can get a better idea for where and in what terrain your units are in without having to click on the floating unit icon first? In top down view, yes, the icons are OK, but with the camera at ground level, the icons are kinda useless for knowing exactly where and in what terrain your units are in. I have already seen that a mod already is out to increase the brightness of the stock unit base colours. This is a step in the right direction, I just want the option to have these bases permanently on like in CMx1. Another remedy might be to reduce the floating height of the icons. 2. It is more difficult in CM:BN to determine just how many casualties (if any) any unit has taken than it was in CMx1. The only place you can look is on the left side of the screen because all icons belonging to dead soldiers are removed from the unit info screen. It would be good if at least the list of soldiers you see on the left of the screen was COLOUR CODED, with dead/casualties coloured red (rather than remain green). Even better, why not just leave the dead units soldier/weapon icon in the unit screen but change it to a RED colour?

Hi Marco. Long time since I heard your name, back in the glory days of CMBO, one of the best modders there was! When I first titled and started this thread, I guess I wasn't exactly able to put my finger on exactly what it is about the CMBN graphics that kind of annoyed me. I did use the phrase "clean" looking graphics, and yes some of the textures do look a bit too clean (as in not dusty/dirty). I also used the word "clean" to refer to the clean sharp edges to everything, in particular the shadows. But I realise now that any "clean" looking textures aren't really at the core of what gives CMBN a look and feel that is really not to far removed from what we had in CMx1 (and far removed from other modern games). The core of the issue (and what really causes the "clean" look I originally referred to) has to do with the LIGHTING in the game and the way it makes everything look sharp, less featured and whitewashed. This is what makes even dirty textures look "clean" or even highly detailed 3D models look simple and flat and their edges and shadows razor sharp, because that is what basic simple direct lighting does. It's like an infinitely large halogen floodlight drenching the battlefield, whitewashing textures on detailed 3D objects so that both subtle colour and shade differences in the textures and fine detailed shapes in the 3D model become indistinguishable, all the time casting harsh sharp shadows. It essentially makes the environment look overexposed, flat and clean, less 3D and more 2D. The bottom line is that had more effort gone in to the lighting/rendering system employed in CMBN (at the expense of highly detailed 3D models and even fancy textures (modders would attack the textures anyway)), I am sure the whole look and feel of the game would be completely different, in a better way. Regardless of what 3D models you use or what textures you put on them, the most critical element to how a 3D game/environment/scene looks ultimately is the lighting/rendering system used.

Great example! Yes I think ToW2 looks more appealing despite lower grade 3D models (btw: the screenshot of the Humber on page 2 is from ToW2).

Exactly! It's amazing just how good low level/detailed 3D models can look in the right environment as per my examples (and how ordinary highly detailed 3D models can look in the wrong environment :/ )

For anyone still doubting what I am referring to, perhaps these examples will highlight what I am talking about. Here are a few in game screenshots form other games (similar in theme and scale to CMBN) that have what I refer to as "soft" shadows and lighting. The overall effect gives a realistic natural look much more pleasant to the eye. In fact, it allows lower quality 3D models to actually look quite good just because of the way the lighting/shadows/shading works. Now here is s screenshot from CMBN that I found that best matches the scenes above. Note how sharp the shadows are like a floodlight/halogen light shadow and how whitewashed it looks. Even though the 3D models are much more detailed/more polygons than those in the screenshots above, the inferior lighting effects arguably make that distinction irrelevant, and in my opinion, inferior. I have also got one from CMAK for comparison. Notice that even though the CMBN models are actually fully 3D models (including the boogies), if you look at the boogies of the Stuart, you will see that in this lighting environment, they actually almost don't look as real as the superficial "decal" BMP boogies on the CMAK Stuart. The lighting simply just does not do the high grade models used in CMBN any justice. The point I am trying to make I suppose is that high grade 3D models don't by themselves make graphics in a game look any more realistic or pleasant to look at. Without the right lighting/rendering effects, no amount of improved 3D model detail will make things look overall any better. It seems to me that BTS took a very narrow and simplistic approach/strategy when considering HOW to improve the graphical look of the game from CMx1 to CMx2/ CM:BN -> lets just increase the detail in our 3D models. This focus on maxing out the 3D detail seems to have come at the expense (ignorance?) of any real improvement/consideration of the quality of the lighting/rendering/shadow/shading effects in the game. As a result there seems to be a very obvious imbalance between the high quality/detail of the 3D models and the way they end up looking in the game based on the lighting effects employed. I really can't think of any other modern game that uses the same basic lighting/rendering effects employed in CMBN. If I were to consider rating the improvements in a) 3D model detail and rendering/lighting/shadows/shading effects (two completely independent graphical elements) between CMx1 (CMAK) and CMx2 (CM:BN), from 1 (no improvement) to 10 (massive improvement) I would rate them as follows: a) 3D model detail: 9 rendering/lighting/shadows/shading effects: 2.5 OVERALL LOOK: 5 Personally I think that had more effort been made to improve the lighting/rendering effects in the game, at the expense of overly detailed 3D models like we see currently, then I believe a following could have been achieved. a) 3D model detail: 6 rendering/lighting/shadows/shading effects: 6 OVERALL LOOK: 8.5 As a matter of fact, it is probably true that in general HIGH quality rendering/lighting + LOW level 3D models will ALWAYS trump LOW quality rendering/lighting + HIGH level 3D models. A great example is this small game I recently discovered: Tricky Trucks. Not only is it a great little game (brilliant imho), but the 3D game graphics are just so pleasant and fantastic to look at DESPITE the fact very simple 3D models are used. Why? Because it has a well developed lighting/shading/rendering engine. Here is a screen shot (play it or look for more screenies to get a better idea): Now tell me if you think, overall, that the much higher 3D model detail in CMBN makes it a better looking game than this low polygon, high lighting/rendered quality game? Bull

OK. But there is something peculiar about the 3D graphics engine being used (also with CMSF) that contributes to the "clean", flat, sharp, washout look you see in the screenshots. It is very noticeable in the shadows that get cast for example. The shadows look very "harsh" as opposed to being soft around the edges. Is it because the graphics engine only uses basic "flat shading" rather than true ray tracing with all the fancy trimmings (like ambient occlusion. etc) that you might see in other games? The 3D models themselves look great and have lots of detail. It's just that when they are placed in that 3D world, the limitations on the lighting effects don't really do the models full justice. I am quite sure there is no "distance falloff" effect in the game so depth perception is limited. For example look at this screen shot: The lighting on the grass is essentially flat and constant and does not give any depth effect. Here is an example of two scenes, one without distance falloff and another with distance fall off. Note how the illusion of depth can be achieved by just using shaders. Would be good if some kind of "filter" effect could be activated to maybe break the harshness of the graphics. A few links of interest related to what I am talking about: 3D Graphics Shading

Hi I essentially switched off CM since CMSF (though continued to play CMAK) and it's good to see CM:BN is nearly complete. I want to understand why the graphics in the screenshots all have that "clean" un-textured look about them? It's that same thing you see with CMSF. It essentially makes scenes look flat and washed out with little depth of field. I understand that the 3D light/shadow effects/shaders used seem to be generated by a very low level basic 3D graphics engine which doesn't help. Is it a coding limitation, or is it just that all the graphics textures are "vanilla" clean. You could also argue that maybe CMx1 also had that same clean look about it but a few good mods kind of made things better. How can we expect modders to improve the visuals in CM:BN? Cheers Bull

My mistake then. Even though I did refer to the manual I must've just misread it and based it on intuition (yes the choice of colours is definitely confusing and not very intuitive). I would edit and remove the examples referencing the Stuart in my original posts but seems like I can not edit it. I believe my other examples still require some explanation though.

There is a game that I think does exactly that. Made by one guy and it's free. Armored Brigade, Google it, download it for free (only 20mb) and check out the LOS tool. It would be great is a similar tool could exist in a bunch of other games. Yes it's a top down view game but the concept of how the LOS tool works and it's implementation is simply fantastic (imagine if CC or SP had this). Note that the game differentiates what potentially is in LOS and what is actually spotted of course. Units can remain hidden despite being in LOS. Here is a short video I made of it so you can get the idea. File here. Awful? Serious? :confused: As a matter of fact, I categorically place the LOS modelling in a game like CMAK (which I still play PBEM today) way ahead of what you get in ToW2. I certainly would not have continued to play CMAK for as long as I have if I felt that something so critical to gameplay such as LOS mechanics was less than acceptable, reliable and consistent. I believe CMAK uses a very different LOS system/mechanic (more abstract yet functional, the use of discreet terrain tiles being the obvious one) than what is used in ToW2, and thus removes itself from the burden associated with trying to live up to the expectations of a game world where it seems every last detailed is being modelled and represented 1:1. I kind of feel that the LOS CMAK mechanics work almost like they do in a game like SL/ASL, where there is discrete terrain and discrete things that can block/hinder LOS in a mechanistic clear cut kind of way, mixed in with a bit of randoness to account for the random nature of some of the abstracted terrain tiles. Ultimately, the LOS modelling just feels right and predictable. Sure there are times where the CMAK LOS/lack of LOS might shock you but never in a way that seems so out of place or inconsistent like the ToW2 examples above I have shown. Graphics is all about communicating information. In the case of a game like ToW2, there is a virtual world that needs to be communicated the player so he can intelligently operate within it as you say. If this visual communication is misleading or ineffective or deficient compared to what the game mechanics actually sees and calculates things on, then the player literally may as well be in another world. Funny you mention this because that is what I have found myself doing anyway and is related to this discussion on the LOS/spotting mechanics. I have found that even still, the ability of the AI to see a single sniper crawling in grass several hundred metres away through intervening rows of vegetation seems somewhat unreal. I might post an example up.

I don't know about you, but based on what is reprepresented/shown on the map itslef (I mean does a player have anything else to go on?), it apepars that all LOS should be blocked THROUGH that vegetation. But what do we find? !!! The tank apparently can find LOS to an area some 320m away not only through the immediate intervening vegetation but through some other addition intervenning vegetation (looks like an orchard)!!! Here is the approximate view looking back at the tank from that same area 320m distant. What is more disturbing is that I believe the LOS mechanics is symmetrical, so a unit at this location could see back along the LOS line through the orchard and through the brush/tree and spot the Achilles. How is anyone supposed to play this game and intelligently be able to use the terrain when you have things like this happeneing? And these are just one of MANY examples I could demonstrate. Just one more example, here is a rough short video I made to show a similar case with a Churchill looking through what you could only say is dense thick tree/scrub too thick to see through. Yet again the game proves the player must be an idiot becasue the LOS tool shows that the Chuchill can see through the intervening folliage. http://www.mediafire.com/?98a1juzcvttuddx I can not tell you how disappointing these findings are. The otherwise awesome looking battlefield representation in the game seems to come at the price of essentially an independantly working broken LOS mechanic that varies considerably from what the player might expect/from what is actually graphically reprsented in game. It is very unfortunate that there is such a huge disparity between the LOS engine and what is shown on the battlefield. Players almost seem better of ignoring all the pretty graphics on the map because they are just so misleading. I would prefer an ugly honest map than a pretty map that lies. I have read the post by developer Sneaksie explaining some of the LOS mechanics: This doesn't give make me feel any better about the LOS system for the reasons I have exemplified. We may as well be talking about two separate maps/games here. One is the map/3D world that the player sees on the screen, and the other is the one the LOS engine sees, and as far as I am concerned, the LOS mechanics might be absolutely FANTASTIC at calculating precise LOS in the world IT SEES, but it is all for nothing if the world as seen by the LOS engine is vastly different top the world seen by the player. I actually do even question exactly how the LOS mechanics/modelling does it's ray tracing calculations as I can certainly point out how it can result in very unrealistic results if handled in a certain way, even though based simply on the Stuart LOS example it just seems fundamentally broken. Is it based on a single point ray or a bunch or rays? Are those rays parallel or a cone? Have the fundamental implications of using what seems to be a symmetrical/bi-directional LOS modelling system really be thought through properly? I will leave it here for the moment and see feedback this thread gets.

Now lets look at another example. Here is an Achilles I have placed behind what seems to be thick, dense foliage that is approximately twice a deep as the length of the tank. First a top down view, a side on view, and a view directly opposite the foiage lookign back at the tank: Now here is what the game shows you as the view from the tank:

I was going to post a general review of the game, but I think I might just narrow things down as I have seen some other people have picked up on and questioned some fundamental mechanics of the game that I too have an issue with, so maybe I get this "deal breaker" sorted first. Just some background, I originally played the first ToW demo, was disappointed (the LOS system was one item) and never bothered looking at it again, but a recent cheap Steam sale, some disposable income and curiosity made me buy the full ToW/ToW2 pack with all the DLC incl Caen. How far has the game come since that first demo? I read this recent user review post and this post in another thread that both question the LOS mechanics in ToW2 Caen the same way I do. I have highlighted the key parts of what they are saying. and this one: and this So it isn't just me who thinks something (STILL) just isn't right with the LOS mechanics. Here are just a few examples that in my honest opinion, demonstrates the clear discrepant between what is represented graphically to the user and what the game actually sees. Here is a Stuart tank in the middle of a long straight flat stretch of dirt road. How could ANYONE expect that there would be anything but an unobstructed clear LOS along that road from the Stuart tank? The green line should indicate a clear area with unobstructed line of sight where the flora does not hinder fire. But as you can see this green line does not extend any further than 30m before it turns red indicating that LOS exists but it is "obstructed" What the? What flora could possibly be obstructing the LOS here in any way? In fact, for some reason, no matter how hard I try I have yet to find a case which allows the green "unobstructed" LOS line to extend further than 30m from it's source. Here are more screenshots at different angles of the same "obstructed" view clearly showing this odd behaviour:

Thank you dieseltaylor for posting that extraordinary equation. I have been playing around with it and I have found that the following variation of it results in much more accurate results: (M-1)(S+1)/S + 0.05*(M-1)(S+1)/S I can't believe how accurate this equation is at predicting the maximum number in the series. Of course it is assumed that the numbers in the sample are randomly chosen.

Awesome Stoffel! Im interested in both. I am guessing the CMAK one is based on Market-Garden. Sent you a PM.

Hello I am looking for another MEGA operation (CMAK, or CMBB) to play PBEM. I am in the process of playing through the final third operation of Emar's great Normandy Pack of huge scaled sceanrio/operations and I am looking for something of simlar scope....basically as big as CMAK/CMBB can handle. I did go searching at the Scenario Depot but found just 15 CMAK operations to choose from. I was expecting to see more than that. Do all CMx1 scenarios/operations get submitted there or are there other little collections of scenarios/operation hidden on other websites that might feature quality mega operations? Any suggestions?

Hello I am looking for another MEGA operation (CMAK, or CMBB) to play PBEM. I am in the process of playing through the final third operation of Emar's great Normandy Pack of huge scaled sceanrio/operations and I am looking for something of simlar scope....basically as big as CMAK/CMBB can handle. I did go searching at the Scenario Depot but found just 15 CMAK operations to choose from. I was expecting to see more than that. Do all CMx1 scenarios/operations get submitted there or are there other little collections of scenarios/operation hidden on other websites that might feature quality mega operations? Any suggestions?

This double posting is really $#%!ing me off. I originally log in ("Remember me" is unchecked). I write my reply in the edit window. I press "Submit Reply". It takes me back to the log in screen, so I log in again. It takes me back to the edit screen. I press "Submit Reply" again. It now takes me to the thread where I see my reply posted twice. WTF?

delete this post!

I don't think you are even answering the question I had addressed. Once CMBB was made, the CMx1 engine, the core game, was basically "perfected", finished, done. Resources were no longer needed to develop CMx1 any more. All that CMAK brought were new units/theatre but it basically was still the same CMx1 that was in CMBB (maybe a few very minor tweaks). It is concievable that had things been planned differently (more ambitiously) from the very begining, or if BFC had at least left themsleves open to possibility, it was at this point that perhaps BFC could have attempted to develop an operational/strategic game to marry to the CMx1 tactical game (instead of say releasing CMAK). It could have been as simple as expanding on the "operations" concept that was already in CMx1, but certainly something which allowed the player to fight individual tactical battles as part of a much bigger operational/strategic battle. CMBO, CMBB and CMAK are of course all stand alone games, but that does not mean that they become LESS of a game if they were actually integrated in to a larger more ambitious game which had a campiagn/operational layer to it. I too was aware of Road to Moscow at the time but it is a poor example for what we are discussing. Unlike CMx1 /CMC, Road to Moscow was always an "all or nothing" game. I was ultra ambitious and wasn't based on anything already proven, unlike CMC.

CM as it is, would've been a kickass tactical game whether or not a strategic game layer existed. It was basically "perfected" when CMBB was released. How could integrating a CMx1 tactical game concept in to a strategic game make the tactical game any worse? Unfortunately, BFC designed CMx1 in a way that really made integrating it in to a strategic game (or intergrating a strategic game in to CMx1) basically impossible/impractical, so we never will ever really know exactly how it may have turned out or how it would have been recieved.

delete double post

The will and effort to get this project up and running in the first place was commendable, considering BFC was always totally against such a project. I was totally interested in seeing the CMx1 engine integrated in to a bigger campaign battle game. In hindsight, who knows how (if at all) BFC could have done things differently from the start by desinging the CMx1 engine in a way that lent itself better to being integrated in to a expanded gaming concept such as CMC. Why BFC showed little interest in ever intergrating a stratgeic layer to the CMx1 concept still baffles me. I think they just undersetimated its potential and success of the CMx1 concept and its customers.

My monitior is a Viewsonic VX2240w. There is a setting called "Manual Image Adjust". Inside it there is a setting for "Aspect Ratio". By defualt it is set to "Full Screen". Left like this, it will force any driver control preferences to fit the full screen regardless. Left like this it is impossible to have CM fit the screen without distortion (with the black side bands). I have to toggle this setting to "4:3".

First off....I have just realised that all along I had been incorrectly thinking that my 19" monitor and it's native 1280x1024 resolution was a 4:3 ratio!!!! I can't believe I had been getting that wrong for so long. :eek: It is actually a 5:4 ratio! Well I got my new gfx card and 22" 16:10 monitor (native resolution 1680x1050). Out of the box, loading up CMAK resulted in the game graphics being stretched across the screen at whichever resolutions I chose. It seems the only worthwhile resolutions that CM offer are 1400x1050 (4:3) or the 1280x1024 (5:4) that I had been using with my 19" monitor. To achive a decent resolution and to avoid stretching/distortion of the game view, I have had to: 1. accept the 1400x1050 (4:3) CM resolution 2. change a setting on my monitor to prevent it from strecthing images. 3. ensure I tick the "use my monitors inbuilt scaling" option under "When using a resolution lower than my display's natove resolution" in NVIDIA Control Panel. If this was different, the images actually get blurry. I now get a clear, undistorted 4:3 CMAK fitting on my screen (with the black bands left and right of course).