Tarkus
-
Posts
586 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tarkus
-
-
You mean no editor ? I doubt it, sinceOriginally posted by Sirocco:Hmm. If we're going to have QB's, scenarios and only pre-defined campaigns that sounds like a step back.
Now this:Originally posted by Battlefront.com:The only way to avoid [the generic feel] is to eliminate Quick Battles and the Editor, which I am sure you guys don't want
is quite a remarkable possibility. It would be a great way for scenario designer to customize their offerings.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:We are looking into ways of allowing people to add customized skins for objects on a scenario by scenairo basis.
All right then, you gave us good stuff to ponder though.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:[...] I can't allow myself to get sucked into a general CMx2 discussion quite yet. [...]
But, ahem, * whistling innocently * what about the basics ? As it is now, it seems all so revolutionnary that I still wonder if the "we go", 60 secs turn phase, waypoint system and all these are still in. I'm curious as to what is on your "keeping this for sure" list, so to speak.
Guess that's the kind of stuff you'll be posting on the coming CMx2 gen board... Boy, can't wait to see that one poppin'.
Best
-
I can't wait to see what the maps and terrains will look like. Round edges or other shapes ? dynamic terrain and lightning effects ? Overlays ? Civilians wrecks & rumbles ? Can you tell us a little more about this Steve ? The first official release dealing with these topics was quite promising...
And what about the sounds ? anything new on this count ? Doppler effect, compression and such ? Like when you hear a rifle being fired a miles away, it's more like a low *thump* as opposed to the crisp *bang* when you are next to it, especially when there are obstacles in the way. Would it be possible to allow some sort of dynamic filtering/treatment relative to the position of the viewer/listener from the sound source ? Just wondering of course, but that would add a lot to the feeling of "being there".
One thing about this feature is that it could take the great art of AARs to new heights.Originally posted by Bonxa:[...] Full Movie Playback [...]
Thanks for all these infos Steve. Mighty encouraging I say.
Cheers
-
Well well well. What do we got here ? You just could not resist couldn't you ? Glad to see your are still modding Aris. Gives me the drive to finish my own CMAK interface project...
Cheers.
-
I think the whole point is to somewhat "connect" AI with scenario designer so to benefit from human intelligence in some aspect of the COA the AI uses, which is not always impressive. It is still the best around that I know, but it will strangely rotate a Panther on top of a crest under the mount of spotted IS-2s every now and then...
"Invisible flags" isn't bad at all IMO, since it would be a workable interface for scenario designers. I mean you can have the best AI there is, if suggesting COAs to it is too complicated, we wont be able maximize the "benefits" (read: having our butt handed to us real good, as the saying goes) from such a good AI.
And it need not being "flags". Like MikeyD put it, you could paint areas, buildings, structures, draw arcs, whatever fits, so long as the designer can assign more accurate objectives, course of actions, deployments and moves.
That being said, now that BFC has clearly stated they are on it, I feel like shuting it up tight and wait for what *they* think about these things. Bones will come our way eventually, the sooner the better.
Best.
-
Haven't tried to be honest. I tend to play less against AI these days.
Since you can always import your troops within QBs one after the other, I suppose there is something to be tried to enhance AI behavior with a more elaborate map and flag placement, but then that would be a question for our fellows scenario designer that know how to best channel AI good vibes.
Apart from that, I don't see. Is that what you meant ?
-
Let's give credit where credit is due. Command zones are Hoolaman's idea.Originally posted by MikeyD:[...]'invisible flags' during initial scenario design, a concept pretty close to Tarkus's command zones.
Cheers
-
Dook,
There is no need to look at the map to know at least about the score. As for the holding of a flag within the rules, the good faith of your opponent OR different sets of rules, like having ten or more units within opponent "X" zone, will have to do,
There are some cross check possibilities that I can think of from the top of my head.
- I for one will want to look at the final map of each QB after the whole set is over, just like a regular QB. I'll be able then to verify the claim of my opponent and learn about how he went about his business and vice versa.
- Refering the matter to a third person. In the example above, there isn't much flag in the "X" zone, and since these are obvious approaches and exits from my primary setup zone, I really think I'll be aware of the presence of ennemy forces around... But refering the matter to a referee of some sort can be useful if you infiltrate units your opponent's zone.
Ah, and lastly, the rules can be changed at every QB, for example battle one can be set on "X number of enemy units behind the line", battle two on "at least two flags in ennemy's hands", etc. And even if no rules are activated at all during the whole QB set, importating units is really cool.
Of course, all this is not very pratical but one must realize the whole system is based on trust. Sure you can bypass it, but getting caught ain't good for keeping opponents. Beside, this sort of project I would rather keep for your closest CM friends. (In other words, those with which you share enough crushing victories and humiliating defeats to care much about ego).
HTH
-
I certainly don't mind. All ideas about this are most welcome.
Cheers
-
This is the follow up response to MD inquirery about an idea for a more complex and IMO more interesting way for using the import troops feature within the QB engine. I am staring a new thread for fear of hijacking the other and to bring this to the attention of people who might want to try it out.
I also paste here my first pitch for this system so you see the point of the post:
Originally posted by myself:Try a QB on a large map with lots of flags on most key features, with the express intention of playing, say, a 5 battles serie with the import map/troops feature and an opponent of roughly your level of experience. I think you will agree with me that the way you approach such a program tends to be a bit different and encompass a larger line of thinking. While not being "campaign" per see, it really enlarge the scope with those details that are missing in a single QB, like counter-attacks, establishing defensive positions, protecting reinforcement routes, etc, but without the limitations of a CM operation. You can buy additionnal units at the beginning of a new battle, and cleverly designed setup zone can add some further interest, along with extra rules you may add. We, for an example, use the "landmark" tool within the editor to add some conditional lines that limits the opponent available area for reinforcement setup once crossed.
I am in one such a setup these days, and I assure you, it really add something. Big CM fun.
Well the idea is under test right now, and is quite simple, but let me explain it fully for the sake of accuracy.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:Do you have a codified list of how you redraw start lines between the battles?
There are two considerations to bear in mind with this system. First, the way the import feature is made, you cannot edit anything on the map in following battles. That is why clever planning is called for...
Second, the rules I explain below are based on one thing no all CM players enjoy: both players agree on certain rules and restrictions, and both players MUST follow them. Failure to do so remove any remote interest in this idea. So it is best played with people enjoying enough mutual confidence to respect the rules. But the reward is a better CM experience for both as well. That, to me, means a little more realistic.
So it goes like this:
1.- A map is picked.
The larger the better. We went CMBB for ours, and the map is as big as the editor allows. About 9 square KM IIRC. The map, expertly designed by Breizhstorm, the guy I am testing this stuff with, is densely wooded with many roads, inspired by a Western European landscape. It is edited with the following considerations:
Flags: 20 larges and 20 smalls, i.e. as many as permitted within the editor. The placement of them is made on most key features: bridges, high grounds, road net and hubs, and in depth. The idea behind the placement is to encourage the full occupation of the map as the main goal for each side. Destroying ennemy forces will help, of course, but depth flags means that you have to force your way through certain area to enable later (by that I mean in following battles) offensive operation toward farther flags. It also means that you must protect your gains, and that a lost battle on flag points does not mean you will loose the overall score if by better placement you can surprise you opponent in later battles by careful planning, conservation of forces and the like.
Deployement zone: Three zones of the same color are drawn for each side, named zone 1, zone 2 and bonus zone. Zone one is the only available zone for battle #1 and is placed on opposite corners of the map (Axis: North-Western, Allies South-Eastern). Zone 2 is smaller and on the same side/edge, but on the opposite corner. Bonus zone is a stripe of about 20x1000 meters in the middle of the map, not allowed for deployement except in certain case (see below). The point in having the setup zone near the edge of the map is to avoid what we sometimes see in operation: sudden appearance of powerful units out of nowhere. One must bring fresh troops forward, and lines behind the immediate frontline can be under observation, which in turn can call for interdiction and/or harassing artillery fire.
Landmarks: A line marked with "X" is marked on the map through the landmarking tool within the editor. It roughly follows the area of zone 1, but about two times larger.
Here's a screenie for all this:
2.- Player 1 launch a QB with this map. Our own parameters were a 5000pts ME, combined arms. I think it is best to start with a meeting for equal points and initial forward movements on the map.
3.- Game end. The score is looked at, BUT NOT THE MAP. This is crucial (hence the confidence stuff), since every attempt to sneak some forces on the ennemy's flank and keeping reserves for following battles is utterly pointless if your opponent can see them between battle. There is no workaround for this AFAIK.
This is where the landmark line come to play. You can use it for a variety of rules. Ours is that if the ennemy succeed at occupying a flag within my side "X" zone, all my reinforcments in battle 2 must be deployed in zone 2, and the ennemy is granted the permission to deploy in his side's bonus zone.
Variation on this could be that if the ennemy succeed in occupying this zone (or X number of flags), then I would be forced on defensive and the next QB would be set-up as a probe/attack/assault against me. There are other possibilities, but you get the picture. Since the condition lines are marked in the editor with the landmark tool, you can mark as many line as you want using various letters and symbols, although the more suff you add, the more visually clogged it becomes, and at one point you can only see and read these line from view #9...
As a note for newer players, all landmark can be toggled off with shift-L.
4.- Next battle is launched within the QB engine. Unit purchase are made according to QB #1 results and rules. All units from previous battles appears on the right hand screen @ a cost of zero points. You will also see "crews" of knocked out vehicles. One rule we have is that all crews must be removed from the purchase screen. Map is loaded.
If you haven't tried yet to import troops on a QB map, you ought to know that imported troops will appear at the exact same spot you left them on the previous battle, with the same amount of casualties (including vehicles), but fully resupplied with ammo. Crews and wrecks are still on the map if you haven't removed them in the purchase phase.
Another important point: all units that aren't in a setup zone appears with a neutral base that isn't padlocked. What this means (again for newer player) is that you can deploy these units in ANY setup zone, but you cannot move them anywhere in a non-setup zone.
AFAIK, the only file that allows troop importing is the final autosave, that is, the file you get when you click "Back to main menu" on the final score screen. You can generate this file at will by saving the last turn and loading it when needed.Do you save the end game file and use it as the start to the next battle, allowing purchases of new units?* * *
I am testing this thing out as I write, so most probably there might be some shortcomings I don't see. If you come up with something else, by all mean share with us, I'll be glad to try it out.
All I can say for now is this: This idea does not change many things in the way CM works or feels, but there are certain areas in the playing process where I noticed a subtle and, IMHO, most interesting change.
There is much fuss about CM "scope" and such. My opinion is that the importing troops feature enlarge the scope of the game somewhat, and in the best possible way at that. You have to think ahead because your opponent wil try to exploit your weaknesses, recon becomes a really important part of the game, and defensive positions must be carefully laid out to sustain later pressure from the ennemy, to name but a few.
It isn't perfect, of course, but I found it is a most interesting way to push the CM engine a little further. Plus, since it was discussed recently in the other post, I believe it can serve as an interesting, tryable, clear basis for design work as to what CMx2 could offer.
There you go. I hope this looong expose is somewhat clear. Feel free to ask if anything is unclear.
My good friend Breizhstorm deserve a big kudo for this. Actually, the idea evolved from our discussions and the condition line and the above map (one of the best I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot) are results of his most excellent work and patience.
Enjoy !
[ January 10, 2005, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]
-
Nothing in particular. CM is the one game I really play since 2001. Almost daily, and any version. Of course I think CM can be better that it is now, and as it happens, the guys that made CM are now geared on making all the experience gathered so far bear its fruits. To me, this is good reasons for confidence. When Rush release an album, I buy it because they are Rush. If they ever switch to reggea I may reconsider this though.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:Based on what?
Starting a new thread for this one.Do you have a codified list of how you redraw start lines between the battles? -
I tend to agree with you, but here's a simple suggestion for you and any one else interested in campaign stuff while we are waiting for more bones:Originally posted by Directive#21:[...]In the CM Quick Battle format, both sides commit relatively equal resources, with the goal to achieve some arbitrary locations on a map. CM becomes a game of “capture the flag” in a WWII environment. [...]
Try a QB on a large map with lots of flags on most key features, with the express intention of playing, say, a 5 battles serie with the import map/troops feature and an opponent of roughly your level of experience. I think you will agree with me that the way you approach such a program tends to be a bit different and encompass a larger line of thinking. While not being "campaign" per see, it really enlarge the scope with those details that are missing in a single QB, like counter-attacks, establishing defensive positions, protecting reinforcement routes, etc, but without the limitations of a CM operation. You can buy additionnal units at the beginning of a new battle, and cleverly designed setup zone can add some further interest, along with extra rules you may add. We, for an example, use the "landmark" tool within the editor to add some conditional lines that limits the opponent available area for reinforcement setup once crossed.
I am in one such a setup these days, and I assure you, it really add something. Big CM fun.
As for suggestions, well, IMO a simple, yet cool feature in CMx2 for campaign would be units that would be available only in the scenario editors (regiment, corps, army level HQ, supply trucks, supply dumps, communication hubs, wreckages and so on) and that could be assigned as [primary of secondary] objectives.
That being said, I am most confident in any campaign-like concept BFC will assemble.
Cheers
-
Back in the what do we want thread part II, when we discussed Hoolaman idea of command zones, there were talks about having a feature to let scenario designers plan certain moves for the computer, a feature that could be disabled by the player. It could work in a number of ways, from assigning certain priority/threat/objectives zones within some sort of AI on-map graphic interface to actually giving orders to units. While this option is obviously less than perfect and not exactly related to AI core improvment, IMO it does provide some alternate approaches to this problem.
First it would provide far more elaborate plans for the computer, at least in the initial stages of a battle. The replayability would not be much reduced since this particular feature is but an enhancement of the "stick to scenario default" setup setting. Supposing that this "plan" feature is imbeded in a scenario in a modular way, there could be several "plans" for a given scenario, adding the fun of comparing different views on a specific problem and replayability.
It could also let historical scenario designers implement realistic plans and tactics based on accounts, reports and various archives, as it would be for people sharing ideas about various doctrine topics.
Since no one knows for sure were CMx2 is going, this is more than probably irrelevant, but still, I though the idea worth exploring.
Cheers
-
Originally posted by Battlefront:
[...] 6 years of CMx2 should yield about 8 games with no boundaries on subject matter and fewer limitations on improving the visual/audio elements. The new engine will allow us to do WWII, sci-fi, current, fantasy, Civil War, whatever... and do it without it taking years to release.
*Gasp* *drool* and such. I see what Moon meant by "totally new engine" when we were forking all those suggestions out. The game is apparently leaping foward on a grand scale. Can't wait to see it. Or THEMOriginally posted by Battlefront:[...] 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. [...] Anything as old as my creaky G4 400GH or a 1GH Pentium will likely be in trouble. [...]
. Cheers, and a very, very good year to all.
-
Right. I take Thanks a Lot or Panzertruppen buildings anytime. (To say nothing of the roads...) The vehicles models are exquisite though.
I absolutely and definitely concur.Originally posted by MikeyD:[...] I think it shows that CMx2 doesn't have to drastically improve its vehicle polygons (how pretty does a PzIII have to be?), but more complex (modular?) building designs would go a LONG way towards creating a believable combat environment.
Cheers
-
Yay ! Nice job. Merry Christmas Patboy and Jorge.
-
I'm fond of these suggestion threads. I share the views of mprwase here. Whatever happens with the next iteration of Combat Mission, I will be on it the day it is out, yet I feel expressing ideas about improvments can't hurt, and while I certainly do not expect any of this to be taken into account specifically, if it fires an idea in the high circle, all the better.
</font>
- Allowing scenario designer to actually mark some ennemy units, namely fortifications, minefields and other fixed assets to be known to the player to simulate recce patrols and intelligence could add more flexibility while staying out of the FoW setting.</font>
- Realizing that a 3D import feature or 3D building tool is no small undertaking (But a worthy addition IMO), perhaps a huge enhancements of buildings available in the editor would suffice ? I really feel this would enhance the game tremendeously. See also this thread.</font>
Cheers
-
Yep. The cheapest I don't know, but the longest for sure. Merry Christmas to you all at BFC, and thanks for your dedidaction and skills. Health, wealth and [EDIT: removed the love part. God knows what it may lead this thread to
]. Cheers, Best and such.
Jean-Vincent Roy
a.k.a. Tarkus
[ December 24, 2004, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]
-
Hey John,
That is one interesting post. I guess it goes a long way in showing that going post-WWII in CM would no doubt fire up some rather noisy debate on known/perceived facts about involved gear. I wonder how the available datas compare to WWII stuff, quantity-wise.
Cheers
-
I've been thinking about this lately. One problem certainly is consistency with the 3D environment and damage computation and user-end readability. As it is now, we know of what, three kind of building ? (shacks, light, heavy) plus some form of fortification. An editor within the game could simply work on some variations of these, yet allow for assemblage of components to make complex shapes and textures.Originally posted by Sequoia:[snipps]I'd be happy to see a building editor which includes settings for the hardness of walls-wood, stone, even fabric so one can make tents.[snipps]
The obvious question is: is it worth the coding/testing time ?
If it is only eye-candy, then it does not. Period.
But if the new engine takes building structure into account for damages, concealment and cover, the question become more relevant. Imagine if location of doors and windows are important, scenarios would get a lot more unique. And those expert designer out there would be provided additional tool to produce real gems. Advantages of a 3D objects editor would be twofold: player would have to consider [yet] another factor while planning and playing, and designer would get more flexibility to depict their projects.
Just ideas. Cheers guys. And take care during the holidays.
-
Which BFC already did anyway.Originally posted by WindyCity:Just polish the graphics and animation forget trying to reinvent the wheel.
WWII, I'll never get tired of. But hey, I'm open to new stuff. Worst case scenario for me: BFC gets on some other era, I buy it and love it, and still play CM for the WWII settings. Its a win-win situation. My only real hope, although I understand those who like napoleonic wars, would be to keep mechanized warfare in. That's what made it for me in the first place.
-
I like maps where you get many tactical options in QBs, but I generally prefer realistic maps for historical scenarios. Sounds obvious but still...
Back then I was quite impressed by Manstein maps for CMBB he made for QBs. Dunno if he did some for CMAK ? Look for his packs at cmmods.com.
Best
-
Sure, bring it on.
-
Hi guys,
There will be a CMAK interface ready soon, the brand new "Dirty Olive" interface.
My original plan was to have it ready for Christmas but university (semester ending today) and other stuff have slowed me down. Actually I have two projects on the workbench as of now. The Dirty Olive one will be a variation (with some nice improvements I may add) on the Dark Steel theme. I'd say it's 90% complete. I will resist the temptation to post screenies since I am so close to completion.
The other one will be an ingame only interface. Junk, you remember having suggested a vintage look interface? Well I did fiddle around with this idea and I think I have got something that might suit your needs. :cool: But it is too early to talk about that one. Target beta release is March...
Eheh, you are right on. It is bitterly cold today. -36 in the wind.Originally posted by junk2drive:Yeah, I second that. You can't go outside, might as well do some mods, eh?
Cheers
-
I suggest you try Panzerman's CSDT Hilly Graveyard (get it at the scenario depot). A nice little canadian battle that you'll be quickly done with but is a good one to get you in the mood. Man, I feel happy for you. I think you are in for some quality time, Enjoy !Originally posted by Canuckgd:Looking forward to getting into this one.
Glenn
.
QB map/troops import: here's one idea.
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
The game is going on and it is every bit up to our expectations. We are still in the first battle, but we both agree that thinking ahead for later battles/reinforcements really spice things up, but it also feed our think tank big time, so I throw in some more ideas since CMx2 is in the boiler. If any of this can help and inspire new ideas and further discussion about what should or should not be, all the better.
So I'm taking some stuff from the bones thread and keeping this thread up for people to suggest ideas along these line.
I was discussing this very topic with some people these days. Even without considering the experience gathering process, if only to keep names, casualties and kills along various battles, this would yield some great possibilities, which in turn could be seen as some sort of "on the fly" operation/campaign tool.Another related topic has to do with what kind of unit might be available for purchase and part the game format. I believe this question was raised recently.
For example, as it is now, starting a QB means that you choose between meeting, probe, attack and assault, which in turn imply how points are distributed between players and unit categories. (i.e. no fortification units in a meeting).
Yet with the troops import feature,you can now simulate a battle that rages for days on the same spot by playing its multiple engagements. That means that even though you generally are on the offense on the larger intent of winning the QB serie, yet at some point/place in the game, you may decide to act rather defensively ("right flank dig in, prepare for defensive battle, shifting some ressources to my left flank for assault on village X"). As it is now, either your are wholly defensive (purchase points wise), or you are not.
What would be great is to imagine a way to enable people to buy digging points and second-line material that IMO would have their place in this longer, deeper battle. If players could choose by mutual consent how much time separate one QB to the next (from "immediatly" to "X minutes" to "Y days"), this could have effects on certain aspects of the material available to the players. For example, if the players decide by mutual consent that the second battle of a QB import serie occurs 24 hours after the first one, that could "unlock" some equipment that simply would not be available immediately after the first battle. Example of this could be "digging points". One would import troops, and instead of spending his point assests solely in troops (assuming the second QB is still set on ME), he could spend it in digging points, or field telephone wiring, or mines, or forward area supply dump, etc.
All this certainly sounds complicated, but it is rather my poor syntax that is to blame, since it really all boils down to this: the guy who lauches the first QB have two additionnal options:
- First, a check box "QB serie" that, if checked, would toggle on a data field ("how many battles?"). This would lock the final map screen of the first four (keeping them along the fifth for a full review of the evolution of the serie in the last battle with some per-battle stats). And from there, a whole new purchase configuration along the above lines could be devised.
- Then, upon launching the next battle of the serie, a data field or drop down or whatever would allow player to determine how long this battle occurs after the preceding one, with impact on units available and supply of forward troops ("immediately" would results in forward troops NOT being resupplied with ammo, for example.)
I don't know if any of this make sense to you, but I really feel there is a simple way to enhance the QB engine.
Cheers