Tarkus

Really ? I don't recall this. I do remember some hints given about outsourcing the engine for eras that are of no interest for the BFC team per see, under what I suppose will be a close supervision from them, but I don't remember reading anything even remotely related to a global strategy for the engine. Any pointers?

Clever idea, especially in large scenarios. Cheers

I feel we're close from the delicate border of offtopicness but... Have you seen the price of this thing? 125 USD's the last I heard of it... No matter how good, it's out of my reach. Here's another pic from this website. Gotta admitt it, these guys are good! Cheers [ May 01, 2005, 07:26 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Interface? Interface? :eek: Vedric concerns are quite relevant, I wonder if the camera control will change. As for me, I could use a bit more fluidity, but even though I'm playing all sorts of games, I cannot say current CM's are bad at all, at least for the way I use them. Certainly not a reason for dismay or not wanting to get into the game... I look at the ground from static position to read its tactical potential. As such, what matters to me is stability and accuracy and that is what I expect from the next engine. The current one, I'm so use to it, I've developped shortcuts to jump from one place to another in no time, so I really am confortable with the way it is right now. 180 deg instant rotate key and the vehicle rotating chase cam are excellent things to me, too. I guess what I'm saying is put as much fluidity and smoothness as you want in there but make sure it's easy and clear to get to the exact position you want without having to float your way there. Since that goes from bird-eye to over-your-shoulder views, it can be tricky. As it is now, I agree it's not fluid, but it really fills the bill. Cheers

Yay! These are good news indeed! Speedy recovery and happy times ahead. Cheers

Interesting post John. I was wondering a bit about this game, although I honestly confess I am not very surprised by your observations. I'll probably play the game (I'll buy it cheap in a year or two) at some point for its immersive side, but what you are saying do sounds like the main critics Medal of Honor received. About the CMx2 relevance, from what we have been reading recently, I think we can safely assume BFC is definitely geared toward quality AND realistic modelling of building and terrain. What I am beginning to wonder is whether or not the scope will be narrower to allow more variety in any given theater. What I mean is that perhaps with the capacity to release more games more rapidely, they will stick to specific campaign and/or Battle, like, say, Normandy, The Bulge, Ruhr Pocket or whatever, so to provide with more accurate terrain feature for each and get away from the generic feel CMx1 currently has. Cheers

Thanks Mikey. Looks like a mighty good job as usual. Cheers

Careful there. Don't close a can of worm to open another.

Ok ok my idea suck. The game designer wannabe in me takes note. But modelling the whole damn front could be fun. That's right. The problem isn't always present due to clever scenario design. And now that I read Steve's post, I'm not sure if it's worth going through all the problems to address this issue. Maybe this is really better left as is. It's not realistic, but it's seems to be the least problematic approach. For a start, playing on much larger maps for a given battle size is a big part of the solution. Playing a reinforced company on a tiny map will most likely result in issues with the edge. But get the same OB on a larger map and you tend to get away from the edge while still keeping options for flanking movements. And as Blutzeit point out, you don't want to waste no time where your objectives aren't. Cheers [ March 11, 2005, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

This problem was brought up in a CMx2 thread somewhere, but not for very long, and without much results. Although I agree that the map edge is indeed a thing to look at and to fix, I'm not 100% convinced by YD proposal, althought I find it better that what is in right now. I mean, I totally understand the aim, which is to keep the player from sneaking up the edge and getting a 100% worry-free flank, but I'm not sure I'd be too happy to loose my troops to an automatic thing to which I cannot respond. It would be "woosh!" and that's it? If only for the sake of debating the whole concept, I would suggest an alternate way to look at the problem. I do not think it is necessary better than the previous proposal, but looking at two solutions may help to consider the problem from different angles. I know Steve told us not to get into too specific features, but I have to to make my case. Anyway, by allowing the designer to extend the map, and designate part of it, beyond the dreaded "edges", as some sort of secondary terrain, he could gets more control on this restricting factor of "edges". Then he could place adjacent units that would receive some SOPs and stance factors, orders, cover arcs or whatever. These would not be under player control but only on his side. They could also be out of the "spoting" and C&C systems we still don't know too much about. By not allowing the player to place waypoints on this "secondary" terrain features (that could be drawn with varying surfaces, not necessarily straight), we could avoid the problem of this feature being a false limitation. Units receiving fire from secondary terrain could respond but not move into this terrain, except, say, from AI moving to cover. Of course, it is still unrealistic to restrict movement, but less so than having an absolute void. I'm pretty sure I'm looking at this a bit to hastily, but still, I hope it can feed the debate somehow. Cheers.

This is interesting. I think quite similar results can be achieved with the troops & map importation feature, except you get to "buy" your reinforcments, which may not be to the taste of everyone, and it does require some map editing. Look here also for some details. Cheers

* cought * Thread's title * cought *

The very first CM scenario I ever played, in the demo. Your AAR brings tons of cool memories. I think I fared about the same as your friend there. Those where the days. Thanks Tom. Cheers

Here again I most definitely agree. This IS the way to go. I remember talking about this a lot in the Hoolaman thread but I'll repeat it here: these "plans" or "hints" (I hope for the former, but since I'm not sure of the implication of the later, I'll refrain from speculating) could be changed by people in the community. Say you have the default "Valley of Trouble" with plan X. Someone could upload his own version with plan Y. Think about it: - AI would get pretty smart. I assume this based on the fact that even now experienced designers do have some way to make it not bad just by careful placement of flags and units. I'm sure that giving them more tool and a sharp interface to deal with the AI would do wonders. - The replayability could expand tremendeously at not cost for BFC. Not only could players d/l different versions, but they could simply disable the feature just like he current "stick to scenario default" in CMx1. - It would be a very interesting feature to illustrate some doctrinal points, perhaps results in even more ways to design a really historical scenario: you could implement events with very specific details about enemy deployment and advance. - This would get even more interesting both for BFC and for us people if PBEM is out (which we all hope will not, but...) Cheers

I concur here. I know quite a few people who are wrestling with the AI and get it bad every now and then. Not to say things cannot be better, but certainly to put this in perspective. Cheers.

Phew! I thought it was ready. Hope this thing is going to happen. It really looks good.

Well said, that. The good news is: CMx1 will remain on my hard drive anyway! I can still play it even after CMx2 is released. I'll devote all my CMx1 time to PBEM while enjoying the new and improved CMx2. A win/win case, no? Cheers

A

Darn! I missed too much of this post to really jump in but I offer this: - Would it be possible to produce "unit video"? [Edit: idea already in the thread, up there somewhere...] - One of the problems that relative spotting, combined with C&C issues, seems to be is that it can cut a good margin of the fun for the player since he sees nothing. A RL commander, on the other hand, while seing very little, constantly receive informations. So I'm just submitting the idea that some sort of "commander interface" with spotting and comm options could form part of the answer. A report window with premade written report of various quality could be shown; A led system could show that contact occured; A noise indicator could hint about the direction of a fight; I am not saying all this is practical, but mainly that it could be a way to merge the conflicting problems of realistic spotting with communication and control in the game. FWIW. Cheers. [ March 01, 2005, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

And probably very few companies can claim the same. Now I see why you want to publish a game every eight months. Clever people these guys. Cheers

If I may add: Vehicles on the move, artillery, cannon blast and falling shells raise dust, which in turn impair vision for various periods of time. This can influence C&C contact and can make anti-tank guns a more tricky affair to deal with, among other thing. A nice addition IMO. HTH.

Don't you think your being a bit harsh here Sanok? BFC said time and again that obviously they want PBEM to be in, yet not to the cost of making the game less then they intend just for the sake of it. To me it isn't like they're giving up on us. FWIW. Cheers.

Indeed. Just finished a small QB (assault against AI). He managed to take out both of my M4A1 TCs. When under command of a HQ with bonuses in combat and stealth, they get very deadly.

You were awfully lucky. Good for you, but I'd still put my money on the M10 at this close a range. Cheers

I concur. I was thinking about the same book. Time and again tankers were rather anxious to keep a low profile. Often they would simply stay behind and refuse to expose their vehicles. In CMx2 terms, it's not exaclty the reassignment that was evoked earlier. Rather a reluctance to advance. This get us back to C&C concerns.