Juardis

Welllll, it was forwards when I wrote it, then Moon got involved, and now it's backwards.

So are we now talking CM:SF in the ToW forum? Talk about confusing.... and M Hofbauer, (or is it M Hofbauer?), do you know Peng and his legion of kniggets? edit: It's been years since I've dipped my tootsies into the cesspool, so I'm outta touch.

So are we now talking CM:SF in the ToW forum? Talk about confusing.... and M Hofbauer, (or is it M Hofbauer?), do you know Peng and his legion of kniggets? edit: It's been years since I've dipped my tootsies into the cesspool, so I'm outta touch.

At which point one might wonder why one doesn't simply play an FPS. </font>

Correction RMC. I'll still have those moments IF the game allows me to have those moments without totally screwing up my situational awareness of the battlefield. I'm gathering from other threads that the AI is good enough to allow me to "experience the war" in small doses, but only a demo will let me know to what extent. Hell, I can see a situation where I play as much of a scenario as I can from the perspective of one unit just to get the immersion. Forget God like status, play as a grunt and see what happens.

Well, if I'm too busy trying to keep track of the units and what they're doing and giving orders, then presumably I'll be too busy to sit back, watch, and enjoy the show. On the flip side, if I get immersed in the details of the experience (e.g., zooming in on a gun crew as they take fire), then I may lose track of the rest of the battlefield and end up losing command of the situation. Or at least that's my concern. Ideally, I would like to have both though and that is my question, is it possible.

Hofbaur, I would assume that in order to use the scavenged weapon one must have access to the ammunition used in said weapon, so I wouldn't think that you could keep a scavenged weapon from one mission to the next. Of course, I could be wrong too.

Bummer. Even at "CM like" speed, sometimes there was just too much happening to keep track of it all, especially when you got above company size engagements where you were commanding 25+ entities. So can I assume from this that ToW will be like Squad Leader in real-time? I'm commanding individual soldiers? Which can be grouped (e.g., gun crews)? As I understand from other threads, individual soldiers will pick up weapons and attempt to use them. Will it be obvious to me that PFC Juardis dropped his M1 and now has a BAR? I could see where that would change how I would want to use him. Or is the AI smart enough to know how to use him?

One of the things that I really really enjoyed with CM was replaying the previous 60 sec in all it's glorious detail. From different perspectives, from different units, riding shotgun on my uber-tank, watching a Brumbar take out an entire platoon with one shell, etc. Of course I could do that because the game was paused awaiting me to give further instruction. Now I realize ToW is built on a RTS platform and, while you can pause to give orders, you really can't playback anything (at least, I'm not aware that you can). I understand you can change your perspective to anywhere you want in the game while it's running, but I'm afraid I'll lose control of what's going on where if I do that. So how do I enjoy all the eye candy, 3-d positional sounds (will there be positional sounds?), explosions, the AI execution of my brilliant orders, etc.? Will there be a movie playback feature where I can, at the conclusion of the game, replay it and enjoy the graphics? Or will I have to put the game on slug speed and zoom around the battlefield to get my fill of eye candy? That's the problem I had with AoE (Age of Empires). Beautiful graphics/atmospherics that I rarely got to enjoy because I was too busy clicking and dragging and pointing and pulling my hair out and cussing. I mean, by all the screenies I've seen, this looks to be a gorgeous game but what good is gorgeous if you cannot enjoy it?

Just finished scanning all the threads here and, after my first pass through and reading the more interesting/promising thread titles, I have some questions. 1. I assume you can choose the speed at which your real time forces move? By that, I mean how fast do your troops move? I hope I can make it real slow (like what I remember CC was, not like AoE). 2. I'm struggling to determine how this RTS will work. I've read it'll be like CC, but in CC did we give each squad a command/order, or was it each individual? I can see where if there are 100+ units on the battlefield to command that I'll be quickly overwhelmed if I have to give orders to each unit, so I guess there's some way to group them? And an easy way to figure out who to give the order to? 3. And finally, for now, is there a delay for giving an order? 4. I lied, one more. Can you issue multiple waypoints? If so, I gather the AI will override those commands if the situation warrants it, in which case, are the previous commands then forgotten and you have to issue them again? 5. When do I send my money in? [ August 15, 2006, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: Juardis ]

So I can order and download CMSF at a 30% discount?

Excellent stuff. I thought that might be the case. Thanks Steve. Looking forward to the "all sorts of possibilities" this allows

Will there be a Z component to the ground? By that, I mean, if a 150mm shell impacts it, will there be a crater 5m diameter x 3m deep (for example)? I know it's abstracted now, but if the terrain is going to 1m 1 1m, then I presume the Z component is also in 1m high increments, meaning you can now represent craters better (and more realistically).

And furthermore, if my suggestion is implemented, then you have new units (scouts) that carry radios/walkie talkies and replace the function served now by half squads. No longer will you be able to use knocked out crews as spotters (you know who you are ). It places a premium on keeping your HQ units alive and it places a premium on keeping your units within C&C. No more placing that LMG team at the map edge providing a picket for early detection. No more sending out lone units for picket duty (unless they have radios/walkie talkies that is). Plus, just because a unit is out of C&C does not mean it cannot do good. Imagine a squad out of C&C because their leader just got killed. Your last orders are to run to a copse of trees, rotate to face the enemy, and fight. The AI will attempt to carry out that order. By the time you can get that unit back in C&C, it may have just knocked out 3 HTs and repelled a probe. Or it may be dead

I will propose, once again, the C&C solution. Only those units that are in C&C, or within LOS of a unit of C&C (say, within 50m for example, but definitely not 2 km) can be issued commands. Radios or walkie talkies can increase the number of units in C&C. LOS allows hand signals/voice commands to be passed along. Any unit in C&C or within LOS of a unit in C&C (w/in 50m for example) can be issued orders. On the FIRST TURN, and FIRST TURN ONLY, after falling out of C&C, the human can issue commands that that unit. The AI then takes over command of that unit attempting to carry out the last known commands of that unit. But after the first turn, the unit that is no longer in C&C turns to a star indicating to you the human that you know it's there, but you cannot issue orders to it. Eventually, it disappears altogther unless and until it gets back into C&C (whereupon you can give new orders) or LOS (whereupon, it turns back to a star indicating you can see it but not give orders to it). To me, this solution goes a long way in solving the God problem. Simply because if it's not in C&C, then you the human have no way to know what that unit sees or how that unit is doing or acting or getting orders to that unit and hence you have no omnipotent view of the battlefield. Only those units that you can give commands to can give feedback to you the human. Now you can get clues as to what is happening, for example smoke appears or battle sounds appear in the area your units are supposed to be in, but until someone or something with C&C can get there to observe, you the human are left to imagine the horrors around the bend. I get the feeling no one takes this suggestion seriously, but I swear, it'll solve a lot of the problems.

Thanks Tankist,,,I was wondering about CMAK since I've never played it, but these bullet items are what I'm remembering from CMBB. Seems like it hasn't changed.

I am not so sure that is what Steve said or meant. I have been following that discussion as well and if they could in fact hint or program the AI to use/abuse the God like player uberinfo I do not think that would be a bad thing, it should in fact make the AI somewhat more challenging and IMO more level the playing field between the "clever" human and the "clunky" AI. I don't think that is what they are intending to do however. -tom w </font>

And yes, I understand well designed scenarios can make the AI seem smarter than poorly designed scenarios. A good scenario designer is worth his weight in Tungsten rounds. So it could be my unsatisfactory experience with the AI is a direct function of which scenarios I've played solo. The question that BTS has yet to answer though, is there increased attention to the AI part of the game or is there really nothing more that can be done in that area?

Well, I don't know about good enough, but like JonS, I define it as something that is challenging and unpredictable. I mean, how many times do I have to defend against an all out full scale rush along a single aoa to figure out how to stop an attack? Answer...not many. You play against one attack, you've played against them all (or so has been my experience). I can give the computer a bonus, but that just makes the odds tougher, not the AI smarter. As an example, people who played the AI learned how to play the game a certain way. However, once they started playing against humans, a lot of what they learned was quickly exposed as being poor tactics or poor setups. Humans are unpredictable. The AI is (or was shall I say) not. My fear is that with all the CPU power being sucked up by the LOS checks and other overhead that there will not be enough time spent on the tactical/strategic AI parts of the game. I mean, if, IF, PBEM is unworkable, then the AI has to improve vs. what it was. Perhaps there will be some "smart" AI, or several different aggression levels for the AI so that each game is uniquely and distinctly different? I don't know, I'm not a programmer. You guys are. I'm just asking before it's too late.

Sooooo....will CMx2 have better AI or not?!?! That is the answer that might assuage the PBEM fanatics. (plus, I want to know )

Well, I don't have a problem with no PBEM (if indeed it is unworkable) IF they beef up the AI. Soooo...on my wish list for CMx2 I'll add... 10. Better AI. More/better coordinated attacks. Maybe with 1x1 representation attacks will be better coordinated? I mean, the AI on attack is pretty easy. AI on defense is credible at least. I've noticed that the AI does a fine job of setting up units in proper cover with decent kill zones and covering arcs....but attacks are truly bugged up. just my opinion though.

HAVERMEYER!!!! good to see you again mate.

presumably, this means units within C&C or LOS are able to share their intel with other units within C&C or LOS, thereby allowing every unit within C&C or LOS to have the same knowledge.

IMHO, fog of war and relative spotting are one and the same. How is this platoon one click away and below a ridgeline to know that there is 1 PZ-IV, 2 PZ-IIIs, 1 squad of Fallshirmjaegers bunkered in 3 houses at the x-y cross roads if they can't see them? Answer - they know if they have radio communication with someone that does know. Otherwise, they don't know. And yes, it should be optional.

Ahhhhh, Relative spotting, a topic near and dear to me, even after 4 years. The problem with the video card clicking is that you still know where the enemy is regardless of whether you can target it or not. I'll post what I did a few years ago and its basis is that you the human can only see what is spotted by a unit that can communicate with you the human somehow. This presupposes that you are the battlefield commander and can accurately recreate on a map (the CM battlefield) what has been reported to you via radio signals or hand signals (reguires los to your units). Take for example a sniper...one with a radio. Say the sniper is order to go over the ridge, top a church tower, and report on enemy movement. He is out of LOS from all friendly units. Regardless of where he is though, you the human will always know what he sees because he has the radio. If he loses the radio, all you the human know is where the sniper is initially, then he fades to a star, then disappears altogether until he a) fixes his radio (impractical) or finds another radio or gets within LOS of a friendly. The AI will attempt to have him carryout his last given orders, whatever they were. Your sniper may die and you not know it, or he may repel and entire invasion and you not know it (other than the sounds of battle emanating from that area). However, once you reacquire LOS to that sniper, then whatever he sees, you the human sees. This makes radios and LOS extremely important to the human player directing the battle. You want realism? That, I think, is realism. The question is, will it be fun?