Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Ace Pilot

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    565

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Ace Pilot

    Can't confirm. Will the U.S. have trucks?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    Yes, the American forces will have *some* trucks available to them. This is a time suck that has a rather low payoff since the number of scenarios that would use trucks responsibly is pretty low proportional to scenarios on the whole.

    Whoa, whoa, WHOA! Low payoff? The ability to recreate DeanCo's "Monster Army Truck Race" scenario alone is worth the effort! See this thread for additional details.

    You game designers just never get it, do you? :D

    0

    Small Bone

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Lars:

    Oh sure, I understand why you're going the way your going.

    Campaigns = Sales.

    But,

    Random Maps = Longevity

    Which, at some point, has to translate into sales after the initial buzz of the release wears off.

    Don't most game companies want to avoid longevity? If you are still happy playing the game 12 months later, you have less desire to buy the company's next game version that was cranked out 6 months ago. I thought this was one of the fundamental business problems of the CMx1 series - the long-lasting popularity of the early versions cut into sales of later versions.
    0

    Penetration, Accuracy and Armour Protection

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by cassh:

    As a former employee of NRI who managed the publication www.army-technology.com for four years I can tell you the info there is only as good as the manufacturers supplied us, or our journalists could come up with from what ever their sources they had - i.e. it is not 100% accurate by any means. For more accurate data try Janes info group.

    Just curious - what makes you say the people at Janes could get their hands on more accurate information than your people could?
    0

    Infantry tactics and CMSF

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

    Are you sure Steve has said this?

    Yes - see what I quoted above. Steve posted it way back in February 2005.

    I think he has said that LOS is not 1:1 but LOF is. In other words, if only 1 man in a squad has spotted the enemy, they all have, but only the man with a clear LOF will actually shoot at the target.

    Just to be clear, I'm talking about LOS (can the target be seen?), not spotting (has the target been seen?).

    I may have missed it if Steve posted a LOS/LOF modeling explanation since February 2005. But, based on this post from Steve (also from February 2005), I would have thought there would have been an easily found thread on it:

    Don't worry guys... you won't have to wait a year to see how we tackle LOS/LOF. It is not the sort of thing we can throw in at the last minute, so it will be done well ahead of the relase date. When we have a system worked out, we'll let you know.

    From this, it sounds like the LOS/LOF model should be complete at this point. I'm just interested in hearing how they integrated the LOS/LOF model with the graphical depiction and what abstractions, if any, they used.

    0

    Infantry tactics and CMSF

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by lizardman743:

    I don't think that 1:1 spotting is a big problem for the most part. For example, if half the squad was shooting at an enemy unit, wouldn't the other half of that squad move to get into firing position?

    But this illustrates the conundrum. Steve has already said that the hardware can't handle 1:1 LOS/LOF, so, without 1:1 LOF, what determines which individuals (i.e., which half of the squad) have LOS/LOF?

    Even if the actual soldier isn't moving to prepare to shoot in the game that is basically what is happening, no?
    If that is the case, then aren't you saying that the graphical depiction of individual soldiers isn't really conveying their actual position? That it is just an abstraction? That could be how it is handled, but I thought Steve had said that the graphical depiction of individual soldiers would be more than just eye candy.

    These types of situations are why I think it would be interesting to hear from Steve how they decided to handle the LOS/LOF problem, given the use of 1:1 graphical depiction.

    0

    Some questions ...

    in Theatre of War

    Posted

    Originally posted by Moon:

    howardb - there is no specific hull-down command in the game. Of course this doesn't mean that you cannot find good spots yourself. I have yet to see if the AI is making use of them on its own, though.

    In CM, hull-down was a binary function - you either were or were not hull-down to a specific point. Will this be the case in ToW or will it be a more linear function? Will tanks have the option to go hull-down, or turret-down? Will a vehicle peaking around a building corner expose only a small part of itself to fire?
    0

    Infantry tactics and CMSF

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Steve posted the following here about modeling LOS/LOF.

    Yes, LOS and LOF are a major concern, but they are not a major concern until we start programming. The ideal state (1:1 LOS/LOF) is the obvious goal for us to acheive. Since we can't acheive it, we will implement the next best possible solution. And that solution will be, more than anything else, hardware dependent.
    He later indicated that he would share the solution that they ultimately implemented. Maybe we can pester him into posting it. I think it will be one of the more interesting aspects of CMx2 - reconcilling 1:1 graphical representation of units with LOS/LOF that is not 1:1.
    0
×
×
  • Create New...