Steiner14

WOW! What a wonderful achievement in software design and maximization of revenue. Probably best for developers and customers. Congratulations to this achievement. From what i know, CMBN was NOT planned with that development strategy in mind. I'm wondering what made this incredible achievement possible? Fresh input from the second programmer? But how good is fresh input, if a finished product already exists?

Let's face it. ATGs simply don't work. Their behaviour can't even be called a bad model. :mad:

Did you read the quote? Did they announce CM Touch? It would be not a good decision to bring out a new WW2 CM-game while still several modules for the old engine are in the pipeline. But modern and WW2 are much less cannibalizing each.

One can only applaude to this genius decision. :eek: The cross-marketing effect on the big releases should be HUGE!

From the announcement that CM Touch is storming the App-store-charts: Since we have seen the fact of not so good models in the CW-module, i think this shwos that the main efforts are not on the next WWII Bulge release. Therefore I guess the next release will be modern again. Which would fit quite nicely with the planned modules, too. CMSF2 (summer) next. Market Garden module (autumn). BULGE game.

If this is not the big thing then it must be really big.

:eek: So if you have found a solution for the iPad a solution for the "bigger" versions should not be impossible any longer, should it?

"Share battle replays" How long are the replays?

Would USrael have been able to invade Afghanistan or Iraq without 9/11?

Make her a child.

Under the hood of the displayed 2D-abstraction for the player, the effect could be calculated in 3D: The shown 2D-visualizations of foxholes/trenches/pits could be represented for the calculation with a normal cylinder or cube or any other ground deforming object. Since the vector of the explosion torwards any unit is known anyway, the "only" mechanism that is needed, is to activate an invisble 3D-calculation as soon as the vector of the explosion/trajectory could affect a unit within a 2D-foxhole/trench/pit. Probably even very simple abstractions without 3D-calcs would be sufficient for a perfect gaming experience anyway: Just determine the maximum angle of the explosion vector downwards into the hole/trench/pit. This gives the true exposed height of the unit to the explosion (or projectile), without the need to show it visually. Example 1: If a grenade explodes exactly above a foxhole, and a unit is within the theoretical radius, the explosion vector aims downwards on the unit. The unit is in a 2D hole, so the abstracted calc for these objects is activated. The vector aims almost vertically into the hole -> the exposition factor is at maximum and the whole unit is exposed to the explosive effect. Example 2: A grenade explodes on the ground before a hole. A unit is within the theoretical radius and wihthin the 2D-object. Maybe raising it's head above ground. The explosion vector "hits" it. The lowest possible angle of the vector is horizontal, so only the parts of the unit above the 2D-plate are exposed. Example 3: Explosion/shooting from an inclined position into a 2D-hole. The trajectory/explosion vector aims at a unit in the 2D-hole. The angle of the trajectory determines how much down into the hole the exposition reaches (depending on the orientation of the trench/pit). This determines how much of the unit is additionally exposed and the exposition factor is raised accordingly.

How comes you know that? Not necessarily. If the engine could properly display units below surface and the hitting calculations are indeed "engineered", then a hit is calculated by intersecting with the model. If 2/3 of the model are below surface, the hit probability will be reduced. Ofcourse additional functions and methods would be necessary as soon as a unit is "in" such a trench/foxhole/pit, but this should be also true for units in houses or trenches right now. The current implementation of foxholes does not look that good, either. But the current implementation has the big disadvantage, that ATGs cannot be used correctly at all. One of the most important weapons. And with the distance of only a few meters, the graphical representation of cut off units becomes irrelevant anyway, because the very dark vertical walls and the shadow make a hole or trench appear as flat area anyway.

That's too complicated to understand for JonS. Me too. If the engine would allow it, we would not only have a much better spotting/camouflage behaviour, but finally dug in ATGs and "pits" for TDs/tanks would become possible.

Rocky, i don't understand this. If units can be placed below surface, why are terrain deformations needed? The idea about placing below surface instead on surface is to leave the terrain untouched -> FOW.

I'm wondering if the engine allows to place units below surface without changing the terrain? I would prefer trenches, foxholes or pits painted as a flat dark areas on the surface instead of a 3D-model if would allow to model dug in units.

My problem is, i don't know where to take the time. I'm glad if i can play a scenario from time to time. For months i don't even have time to play PBEMs. And now spring is coming and the additional labour begins. So the only thing i can do is to make suggestions. But you are correct, if nobody wants to hear them, i will have to do it on my own and try to convince with hard facts somehow someday.

I'm asking myself, if you have even read my suggestions, because what you are writing about reinforcements is what i was writing about. The additional features i suggested, are aimed to turn reinforcements from a massive hammer into a mighty surgery tool for designers to deal with force balance and/or time pressure during a battle in a semi-intelligent way. If i imagine that a mighty reinforcement-system would be combined with various kinds of triggers, designers should be able to do marvelous things and boost CM-scenarios to a whole new level.

ASL, because we players are not logical machines. Therefore CM shows fire or explosions instead of text messages. The complaints about time limits are a fact. Using a victory-timer is an abstraction, but not a simulation of the window of opportunity closing. What do you think would feel more natural: To know to run out of a displayed time and rush units forwards in the last minutes, or to get informed in the briefing about a timeframe but experience a battle that becomes tougher because of time constraints?

What happens in reality, AFTER the available time is up and a CM-battle ends? What is the reason, to make the attacker move under time pressure? Because after the given timespan, the surprise effect is gone and it becomes harder for the attacker to achieve his goal. Why does it become harder? Because the defender is becoming better prepared. Either by rebalancing his available forces (the AI can't do that), or company, battalion, regimental or divisional reserves are beginning to arrive. Even whole tank regiments of army groups or Panzerabteilungen could theoretically arrive within 30 minutes, if they are close by chance. But in CM nothing of this is simulated by the designers, everything is abstracted by the artificial clock. I'm convinced this could be changed. I would suggest that scenario designers try to get rid of this unrealism and instead try to SIMULATE DURING THE BATTLE THE CLOSING WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FOR THE ATTACKER. If a player wants to advance more slowly, let him! But if the designer wants so, he will have to pay a certain price for it. Trade slowlyness against a stronger enemy. From a slightly stronger enemy up to missions that could turn into impossible ones. The current capabilities of the engine should allow quite a lot in that regard. But ofcourse with a NEW FEATURE like scripted messages in an update of CM, the designer could determine even the amount of information that is given to the other side, i.e. about the reinforcements about to arrive or which have arrived. Another positive aspect would be, instead of putting all info into the briefing, more info could be given during the battle. Another NEW FEATURE that would help to substitute for the unrealistic victory-timer would be, that the highest HQ can not only call in arty or air support, but also request reinforcements. In combination with optional conditions for these reinforcements (i.e. tank losses must be > x for availability), optional victory point-reductions, optional time-delays, this would not only give the defending AI a more flexible appearance, but could be even more thrilling for H2H battles. The briefing tells you, you must be quick and decisive within 30 minutes but you prefer to ignore it, because you see 2 hours battle time? Fine! And suddenly after 30 minutes you receive the first message, that reinforcements for the enemy were on their way... This would get avery attacker moving. But instead of the unrealistcal timer, everything would happen on the field and the consequences are not abstracted, but played out.

Ok, now they are discounting the PC version, too. CMSF 2.5 around the corner?

I think one of the problems of time constraints is, that they somehow do feel unnatural. They simulate something that takes place on the battlefield after the time is up for the player. But we want to know why things were not sufficient. A stopping timer is not really an adequate answer to that question. Can't be one solution to get rid of time-limits the simulation of arriving reserves after a certain time? Are there conditions available, if reserves should arrive? Why not making a company of infantry, a platoon of Tigers arrive, if the objective hasn't been reached? If in the briefing the player is informed, that a surprising, fast an decisive taking of the objective within a certain time is necessary, because the enemy is expected to have reserves near, why not raising the battle time to 90 mins but let reserves arrive, that will wipe his forces away? With this method the feeling of the artificial time pressure of a countdown-clock goes away AND the player can see the consequences on the battlefield, of his too slow progress. And as i have stated earlier: Another reason, why the clock is so important, because 95% of all battles are trimmed torwards balance. This a priori-knowledge is counter productive to realistic tactics. It would be much more exciting, if the battles would offer much more uncertainty. You get a briefing, but can you be sure, that the briefing is really correct about the enemy's strenght? The game time is 90 mins, but the briefing says you have 30 mins? Hm, how do you deal with that? What will happen after your time is up? Will even happen anything? If scenarios would represent a more realistic range of balanced, unbalanced and impossible missions, then this should also have a big impact on the used tactics. More courage for unbalanced and frustrating results and unconventional solutions to deal with time constraints, please.

As someone who has never designed a scenario, i'm wondering why there are no scenarios with many victory locations with smaller point-values simulating single real world VLs? For example if a crossroads or a bridge must be taken. Now this is usually one VL or an area. But in reality it would be necessary to control the tactical key locations surrounding it (i.e. a height, a wood, certain parts of a village,...). Is this not possible with the editor's capabilities or why is this, that this method is not used by designers?

Since there is already the Maret Garden module confirmed, i don't think that they will bring the Bulge game parallel or anytime close to it, because that would cannibalize the module's sales (who buys the old game, if the new one has so many cool new features)? But if they would bring something like CMSF 2.5 by year end (US-Iran + modules with intervening China and Russian forces), it would increase the sales of the customers interested in modern warfare without cannibalizing the sales of the MG-module. Therefore my tip: something like CMSF 2.5.

In the Wehrmacht maybe the most important principle was the "leadership of the best". It lead to the unwritten law that subordinates were not ordered for potentially suicidal tasks. This principle was the real backbone of morale and strenght of the german forces. Especially the bounds between the NCO-corps (Feldwebel) and the soldiers were extremely good because of this. This principle means, that a good leader never demands from subordinates, what he is not willing to do on his own (not only valid in military!!!). And it also forbids, that leaders lead, only because of their rank. Instead the rank was seen more as the result of proven qualities in the field and the character. Leadership by example. Who maybe has ever served in a unit with the spirit of such true leadership, will have experienced on his own the huge impact of that principle on cohesion, comradeship and discipline compared to units with bad leaders (those that only demand from others). In reality this principle worked that good, that always enough volunteers were available. Exceptions to this principle were made in the case of backstabbers (Kameradenschweine) or if a soldier was to blame for something and that way he could get rid of his "debt".

Hide dust from vehicles for the oponent if he has no LOS.