Tarkus

I made a portrait pack for CMBB and am doing one for CMAK as we speak. Do you have any idea how hard it is to find a clean good shot of rumanian troops in combat ? Yet in CMBB you can have up to 40 different portraits for them. In CMAK, there are 312 generic portraits, and trust me, replacing them all with *nice and realistic* pics is a very tedious process. Making it fully customizable via the editor, for example, would be nice, but I am not sure if many people would make use of this. Cheers

Slightly OT but, at the very least, MGs with rear trigger groups (maxim, M1919, vickers, etc) yield some advantages. My two cents.

Positively brilliant. Can't wait to see and use that feature. Good luck. Best

I assume it means they won't be closed, scripted scenarios like levels are in your average FPS. Rather, at least from what I understand, these will be made out of the editor just like CMx1, (remember the old CMBO pitch "the game comes with the exact same editor that was used to design scenarios ?) only with tons of improvments and new features, and perhaps some simple scripting tools and so on <--- but that's the part they wont let us know about. Again, FWIW

I really don't want to be the one that cut the fun short, but it seems these guys are having big troubles with their product. No updates, scant comments about how things are going. It sure looks good, but it really is what may be done. FWIW

Just a little quote from the first "bone a plenty" thread. Hope it helps. Sounds like it is rather obvious to them people that the editor is there to stay. HTH

It's good to hear you are working on that. Mighty useful tool there. I suppose you want to keep those killer features secret up to release point ? Care to tell us when that would be ? I guess this almost qualify as a bone . Cheers

Make sense to me. I'm happy to see your idea put in such a clear way. It got foggy at some point in the long thread dealing with this. Anyway, although we haven't got a clue as to how BFC will tackle the thing, your idea's logic is pretty easy to comprehend, not *too* far from current implementation in CMx1, and putting some order in the higher echelon HQs. No more coy HQs commanding inf guns at the other end of the map because it's the only available HQ. Any comment on this people ?

These are outstanding ! Keep 'em coming GpiG. I really like your sketches. The bailing out crew rocks !

Don't know, but it sure is interesting reading.

Right. But the animation remains the basis for order and situationnal awareness. I mean the player must base his estimates, observations, and contingencies for action on his perception of these animations. So the visual must be quite in line with the abstracted values within the game in order to get the player to decide along valid parameters. Cheers

While I agree with your reasonning in general, I should point out that MW logic also apply to platoon HQs. I think his point refers mainly with the process of giving/transmitting orders during the game. Cheers

Maybe for all-out fans like you and me, but I doubt it would be a successful way to expand the fan base. Beside, and you can mark my word, when BFC announce they have things ready, I'm sure we'll all be lurking around like crazy to get a glimpse of where this thing is going. Cheers

Just to clear things out, you mean "squad" right Tom ? I ask because there is always some confusion with the usage of "platoon" vs "squads" in various language/army. Now we are controlling squads and half-squad as the smallest organic unit short of weapon teams. From what I understand, as far as control is concerned, it will remain so, no ? Cheers

I'm not sure I'd be for the inclusion of everything in Midnight Warrior's proposal, but I'm impressed with the elaborate proposal. Seem's were not alone toying with ideas to increase realism. Sounds good. Were back with the SOPs. This part I think could be abstracted somehow by a dynamic order menu. I cannot argue the logic. But I really think it might not be everybody's cup of tea. I know quite a few players who really dig spending all day thinking about what to do and tentatively experiment, or look at every noch and crannies on the ground to carefully plan an approach. Two additionnal thoughts about this. First, a system like this might make the game harder to learn and perhaps a bit depressing. One would need to learn an additionnal rope of the art of war by focusing more not only on contingency thinking, but on priority assignation. Not a bad thing as far as I am concerned, but again, not to everyone's taste. Second is that it might make the setup/planning phase all the more important, maybe even require some sort of imbeded planning tool to communicate infos in advance to your command (phase line, objectives, RV points, etc). Agreed. As an option, this idea is full of potential IMO. What remains to be seen is how BFC plan to deal with all these options, and whether they're ready to implements many realism levels that might fragment the players community into subgroups of hardcore realism fans and quick players, so to speak. I think it becomes almost a commercial decision. Cheers

Good question. I guess a dynamic order menu could work. Up there somewhere I was suggesting that a unit could receive so much orders and waypoints depending on the distance it is from its HQ, suggesting a "partial contact" status to simulate hand signals (with nifty little leds on the UI ). One move- one waypoint order for very distant unit (hand signal) and current unlimited waypoint for unit within command radius. I suppose MW's idea could be implemented along the same principle.

The logic of Midnight Warrior is sound IMO. Giving orders takes time. Somebody suggested something along these lines on the what we want II thread. Or was it Hoolaman's thread ? Anyway, I would bring three things to your attention about this idea. 1.- We still have no idea how the next C & C structure will be implemented. So it's hard to figure out how it could be made to work. (Could it be abstracted somehow ?) 2.- It's something that affect gameplay directly. Do I want to be limited in my options ? I don't know. Do I want to spent more time *thinking* about my moves instead of actually implementing them and watching what is going on ? In a tiny scenario, I really don't mind. It could actually be pretty cool. But I currently play a 5000 point ME. Let me tell ya, it ain't easy ordering people. If the command process gets too tricky, I'll have to split one order phase over two days ! 3.- We were talking about the pace of an average battle slowing down a bit due to uncertainty. Now this additionnal feature would slow down the whole process even more if you need two turn just to get a company on the move. So I guess it would make the game more realistic but maybe at the expense of playing time. Maybe as an option ? Someone mentionned that putting too many options like this was not a good idea. This subject alone would easily justify a whole new thread IMO. Maybe 4 or 5 "realism presets" would be called for ? Steve, would you care give us your view on this question ? Cheers

The character animation look all right from here, especially the third screeny showing a running formation. I'd be more that happy for something like that in CMx2. I wonder what is considered feasible and/or hard on graphics in relation to current average hardware. [ January 22, 2005, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Quite the contrary Tom, I think you keep the ball rolling all right. This think tank would long be over with and down the virtual drain I suppose if it wasn't from your obvious (and constant I might add) interest in this. So thanks Tom. As for the free game, my guess is that you'd buy it anyway just to be fully supportive. Cheers

Ok. Now that I've slept a little and had a coffee, I can actually *think* about what this thing implies instead of just being happy. Modelling this varying tempo of a battlefield could yield some interesting results and is something I was wishing for ever since playing my first big CMBO operation. Now that I am playing this QB serie I was talking about the other day, I really feel going just a little broader on the scope could be both realistic and fun. Why ? because I play this serie with the intention of gaining ground, keeping it, investing a place, improving my positions and getting ready for what's in store. It's the closest we could get to this peculiar tempo Steve's refers to. It is not a QB, it is not a scenario (althought you could use one as the basis of a QB serie I think), and it is not an operation. I still strongly invite anyone to try a QB serie like the one I decribe in the thread I refer to above. You will see what I mean. I recall playing many operations in the Ardennes. These were quite fun to play, and I got many times on the edge of my seat. But if, for example, I was given the chance to improve my position (in any sort of turn phase or abstraced way) it would add a lot to the already fun challenge of being on the receiving end of Panthers and KT's main guns for a longer period of time. The sense of climax, lull, and fragmented tension would get even better IMO. There are many example of this: I'm having an ATG in a nice secondary line position that is unlikely to see any real action soon. I'd like to get the servants to start dig in right now. Perhaps they wont accomplish nothing useful for this battle but when the next start, if (hey, here's an idea) the map can remember human action on it, the foxhole could be halfway through already. Hacking its way through a densely wooded area. If I could task someone to prepare a track so to allow faster infantry movement (especially those slow Maxim HMG), I'd do so. Having a neat little path deep in a wood would be quite useful sometimes. Not to mention thier usefullness in the editor. Expanding on engineers role. Preparing a field telephone net and its hub (spotting/C & C issue), fortifying a house, preparing foxholes, slit trenches and so on. Getting ammo to isolated parts of your command could be a nerve wracking (and therefore fun ) process, where the success of this would mean the survival or the annihilation of your troops. Now of course, this is far from the usual fast-paced, jump-right-in action that makes a QB what it is, but just as those players who never play an operation because it's too long, adding the possibility to fully invest the map, so to speak, is full of possibilities and, again, optionnal I suppose. No one knows what's on your mind Steve, and most probably it is not quite what I suggest here, but you sure are openning the door to some nice ideas. Cheers [ January 22, 2005, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Sorry. Gotta quote that too. It just sounds too good.

Eheh. I won't ask. But I'll quote. A REAL, FAT, BIG BONE ! Cheers

Very good questions. I felt this time increase too from BO to BB. And we all remember the critics voiced about the realism leap in BB making it too hard to play. [ January 21, 2005, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Very well said. That's a thing I should do as well I think. I tend to forget that I have been playing this game for soooo long and that many things, moves and informations that are now second nature were learned, sometime quite the hard way. This is one big design challenge for sure. [ January 21, 2005, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Cool. Gpig's a talented guy, no doubt about that. Looking at his very inspiring "doodles" (my personnal favorite is the one with the PzIV), I thought about the same point raised by Steve McClaire, that is: Many interesting points to consider here. Unit spotting/hiding ability, unit dispersion and the effect on opponent estimate, etc. Very interesting indeed. It also raise the question (just a little OT though) about vehicles' relation to terrain. In CMx1, IIRC, a vehicle is either hull down or it's not. But maybe a fuller modelization of this could allow a more detailed rendering of its relative position to the ground and the cover it gets from it.