Bruce70

Well it is based on the milliradian, and apparently the only reason for using it is that it is easily divided into parts. I still think it's lazy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_mil

So why not use radians or milli-radians (which I believe mils are supposed to approximate)? Then you get your adjustements exactly right. (BTW, I am being facetious)

But then it would have to be in mils for realism. IMHO mils are stupid, I have never once heard a good argument for using them.

I have to agree with the policy of only having the weapon loaded when necessary, but nevertheless treating it as though it is always loaded. I grew up with firearms and that is what we were always told. If I had pointed a weapon at someone my dad would have kicked my ass even if it wasn't loaded. If I had pulled the trigger I doubt I would have lived to tell the tale (again even if it wasn't loaded). The value of this lesson was hammered home to me one day when I was messing around with a shotgun to impress my friends and shot a hole in the floor. I didn't get in much trouble because I at least had the good sense not to point it at someone. My brother OTOH did not get off so lightly for leaving it loaded. I know that hunting is a bit different to being hunted, but I would hope that the soldier who shot his friend would have been severely disciplined even if it turned out that the weapon wasn't loaded.

Sounds like an excellent system, can't wait to try it out. A question about the StratAI (for QBs and no plans). Will it work by creating a "plan" and then letting the TacAI follow it? or will it work the same way as in CMx1? I can see enormous advantages of the former, but of course the big advantage of the latter is that it would be less work given your current code base. On the organisation of groups: Will a group need to have a designated HQ unit? Will there be any other C&C implications for these groups?

I say let the BF staff play, at least then we'll know what their best guess is.

The lightbulb isn't changed, it is replaced.

This leads to another point I was going to make. As in RL the attacker has certian advantages. One of those is that, to a large extent, he controls the pace of the battle. So if the attacker wants to take the time to do some careful recon, then reposition his forces for a feint, he can (time limit allowing of course). Steve has already said that RT will play slower than WeGo. So I really don't see the defender being able to exploit the RT system, maybe it will be rare that the attacker will be able to as well. Just thought I'd toss it out there. Incidently will this this mean that the turn limit for WeGo, will be different to the time limit for RT?

Are you forgetting recon? FoW does help though.

Before I start, this is not an attacke on RT since it is also possible to exploit the WeGo system, just thought it might be good to brainstorm some possible exploits in the hope that they can be easily remedied. Steve has stated (roughly) that the types of exploits commonly found in RTS games will not be possible in CMx2. The added complexity of the game and the soundness of the simulation will make such things as "tank rushes" impossible or ineffective, instead the player that uses sound tactics will likely win out over a player that uses click speed in an attempt to overwhelm their opponent. To a large extent I think I agree with him (especially since he is in a far better position to know than I am), but I am still a little bit concerned about gamey tactics designed to exploit the fact that the opponent can only concentrate on one part of the map at a time. The problem is that the AI can only execute the most basic of orders (rotate, fire, take cover) autonomously. For example: You have prepared a strong dfensive position, but your tank destroyer is positioned just a little too far back and dosen't quite cover one possible overwatch position. The attacker sees this and feigns an attack on another part of the line and then positions some armour in that position, knowing that he will be quite safe until you realise the problem and come back to move the TD forward a few feet. In the meantime, your HMGs were pinned and his infantry was able to advance. What other exploits might be possible, and are there any simple counter measures that could be incorporated in the game?

One thing still worries me about RT. Someone said earlier (can't be bothered checking who) that the restrictions imposed by no-orders-when-paused and the order delay in WeGo simulate two different things - or something like that. I have to say that I tend to agree. The proposed RT system introduces delays to orders that should have no delay and removes the delay from orders that should have it. There are two opposing situations: 1) The player is busy issuing orders in one part of the map when another unit comes under fire. It will take some time for the player to find the unit, assess the situation and issues appropriate orders, introducing a delay that would not occur IRL (the CO on the spot would issue orders immediately and would not need as much time to assess the situation). 2) The player is issuing orders to a unit, when that unit spots the enemy they can immediately switch to other units and give appropriate orders with less delay that would normally be required (IRL the CO would have to radio up the chain of command). The first situation can be improved through good interface design (or good AI ). I am thinking something along the lines of a graphical representation of radio messages that, when clicked, take you to the location of the sender - but I am sure there are other ways (pausing for example). OTOH I can't think of any better way to deal with the second situation other than order delays. I have to admit that, now I have written this, both systems are *potentially* good at one of these two situations and poor at the other. WeGo with delays handles the second situation fairly well, but not the first. RT with no delays *may* handle the first situation well but not the second. So I guess they will be two different games in a way, and as Steve says, for small scale battles (more of the first situation) RT may be the better simulation, whereas for larger battles (more of the second) WeGo may have the advantage. I think I understand the design decision now, or at least this aspect of it. Thanks Steve for patiently explaining things. I will still have to see for myself which system I prefer, but thankfully I will have that choice. P.S. Steve, I'll send you another email about the AI research.

No specific mention of order delay in WeGo, did I miss it somewhere else? [EDIT] OK I found where Steve said that there will be command delays in WeGo. Sorry for the misunderstanding. So obviously the command delays in WeGo are built on top of the new C&C system. I am still a bit confused about the new C&C model and RT, but since I wont be playing RT I don't really care. [ October 05, 2006, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

Hi Steve, One little question (I hope). You stated (and I'm paraphrasing): - RT with orders during pause would be just like a variable turn WeGo - No order delay in RT This implies that there will be no order delay in WeGo! Is this a correct conclusion? I'm also a bit confused about how 'no order delays' fits in with earlier bones about realistic C&C modelling, can you clear this up for me? Does the new C&C system only apply to off-map support?

Steve Well I did send you guys an email a while back about possible research collaboration on AI that wasn't going to cost you much at all, but I didn't get a reply. As for the RT/WeGo situation, if RT has added to the WeGo experience then I will be very happy, thanks.

Other Means: I think the idea is that with no pause during RT you can only give the *direct* orders of one officer. Obviously when you give an order in RL there is no command delay. In a multiplayer team game there where there is a player for each significant officer, no command delay is needed as this will be a fact of RL (i.e. imperfect communication between players on the same team). However, in a single player game (or 1-on-1) the "no pause / no delay" argument is just plain ludicrous. The player is expected to play the part of on officer for a short time, giving orders in RT, then flit across the battlefield to another officer and give their orders. The problem is that while you are issuing orders for one officer, all the others are doing nothing! To make this work you either need 16 players per team, or a VERY good AI that can handle things when you are not in direct command. Battlefront do not seem to be especially interested in improving the AI, and AIUI it will be a while before the game supports 16 players.

From the beginning I thought that moving to a RT engine was the wrong move for a number of reasons. However, bit by bit Steve and others convinced me that RT was the way to go and I was really looking forward to it and even thought that it was unlikely I would play WeGo even if it was included. Now in the space of one thread my opinion has once again completely reversed, and I believe that my initial opinion was correct. At least WeGo is in so hopefully the compromises that have been made for RT wont impact too much on the WeGo game.

Steve, I certainly wasn't implying that you said it was more realistic - I am sure you can see that it plainly isn't. What I wanted to know is why this decision has been made (since it clearly wasn't for realism). I agree that it blurs the line between RT and WeGo, but I don't see that as a bad thing - can you elaborate? If you intend the game to be played as WeGo for those wanting a realistic amount of time to issue orders, and RT for those wanting a click-fest (order-fest might be more appropriate), I can live with that... I just don't understand it.

I don't understand the 'no orders when paused' decision. AIUI BFC have always been about realism, even when this was to their detriment IMO (I am refering to the 'no campaigns' argument - which thankfully has been dropped, at least partially). So why make the decision to not allow orders while paused?! If you were only issuing the orders that would be given by one officer then this would obviously be realistic. But do you really think it is realistic to give the orders of every officer in real time??!!! I was planning to play in RT even if there was a WeGo option, now I fell very relieved that RT isn't going to be the only way to play the game.

CC2 (yeah I know it wasn't in your list). I was so disappointed with 3 I didn't play the rest. In 2 there was more point to the campaign and you had some ability to make strategic decisions. 3 was little more than a series of battles. The smaller campaign also felt more realisitic than the grand campaigns of the rest of the series.

"And so the mass market developers get richer..." Sound like a good candidate for differentiation then.

A Pentium M 1.6GHz is roughly equivalent to a Pentium IV 2.6GHz, so your system should handle it at minimum settings.

You shouldn't make such wishes, it will only lead to disappointment.

It may be that the damage model includes more detail than is made available to the player. I can imagine that in the future every variation in armour thickness and quality over the entire vehicle will be modelled, but would you really want all that info in the short description of the vehicle?

6800 is the recommended v/c, yours is well above the 4600 minimum, although I think that must be a typo 'cos it is far below the ATI equivalent.

Your AMD CPU is probably even better than that for games. Those PR ratings are based on overall performance, but games are one of the Athlon processors main strengths. So I will be extremely surprised if you have any problems - it's not as though it wont run if it's a couple 100 MHz below anyway.