Noiseman

I'm glad to hear there will be a Mac version as well. I'm also glad to read that QB's are being prioritized, they were the secret of CMx1's success. I agree this thread should be stickied, I don't stop by much anymore (according to the 'last visit' thingy it's been over a year! Hard to believe...) and it was a treat to find all the info on Normandy in one place. I was only vaguely aware that CM: Normandy was even in the works for the relatively near future.

Wow! What a train wreck of a thread but - I - just - can't - look - away... :eek: Michael man, take some well intentioned advice and do yourself a favor, just take a break from posting. You're a good guy and your heart is in the right place, but you're definitely suffering from Gen. Frank Savage Syndrome (overidentification with the team or product [a little bone for fans of the movie Twelve O' Clock High ]). I haven't bought CMSF (I'm on Mac), and I offer it neither criticism or praise. As a neutral party let me just advise that you find yourself a Happy Place and go there because you're not doing anyone here any good. You're flailing. Let Lt. Col. Gately take the mission (I loved that film).

I must admit I've been dreading the first bad/lukewarm reviews because I figured many of the villagers (members) here would have pre-ordered their pitchforks and torches for the reviewers well before they pre-ordered the game... Looks like the old crystal ball was spot on again. With a game as complicated as CM, in a setting many are unfamiliar with, there are bound to be uncomplimentary reviews. Remember the 'broken infantry in CMBB' hysteria from within our own community? Unfamiliar things aren't always accepted right away, and it's a bit unrealistic to expect reviewers new to the series to soak it all in immediately. So let's not get our panties in a bunch, and remember that these reviews aren't personal. And this too shall pass. [ July 26, 2007, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Noiseman ]

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. Perhaps throw in the horse**** random map generator. Better than nuthin if you can just dust off some old code. </font>

I've downloaded many maps over the years, but I've actually only bothered to play a handful. They always ended up being too big or too small, and that's if I could remember what type of terrain they were of (the file names tend to be cryptic, a nice feature for CMx2 might be a map previewer). I liked making maps for a while, but I certainly wouldn't want to have to create one for every single battle. And while there will certainly be many excellent stock and user made maps, it just doesn't have the same longterm appeal. Inevitably there will be popular and unpopular maps as often occurs in FPS's... I'm sure the new editor will be much easier to use than the one now, but no way do I want to be putting in every fold in the ground, on this small a scale, for every battle. The old random map generator certainly wasn't perfect, and I wouldn't expect the new one to be perfect either, but I don't think it's value should be underestimated. That element of randomness fires the imagination. Once the scope of a game becomes more limited, so does its appeal. Of course the new campaign system may make this all a moot point, but does a campaign have the same sales appeal as being able to open-endedly make your own battles? The fact that one could easily generate a map and type of battle was what got me to buy CM in the first place...

The map generator was what gave CMx1 its' longevity and replayability for me. I never cared much for scenarios and played almost exclusively QB's on random terrain. I made some of my own maps, but this quickly becomes 'work' and that was with using the map generator to make the 'base' map. Even if the new editor is far easier to use, it's a bit of a wash at best because every map will have to be made from scratch. Not to mention that there will always be the lingering doubt that a multiplayer opponent 'just knows the map better' for now on. I always felt that the random map generator was CM's strongest feature, and it's disappearance in CMx2 is a big disappointment.

A red on red QB option is something I would very much like to see in SF. A military coup/civil war scenario against the Assad government with some forces remaining loyal is a plausible scenario to me. This would also allow for easily balanced and entertaining QBs. The nice thing about a WWII setting is that while there are differences in the tactical makeup of the forces, they are more or less fairly equal in terms of ability, and thus are well disposed for QBs. The story driven aspect of SF will probably mean that QBs will not be quite as important in SF as in CMx1, but I still feel that the QB function will be a key component for the long term success of the Cmx2 engine. When I first heard about CMBO on gaming newsgroups, the big theme besides the realistic tactics was all the cool things you could do with it because of the open ended nature of scenario building. It really fired the imagination, and this is the key thing in generating sales IMO. The biggest shortcoming of CMx1 was the lack of consequences for casualties, and I think that the story driven campaign is the proper solution for this. But I do think that it is important for BFC to emphasize the potential for user made scenarios via a very open ended scenario editor (i.e. red on red, blue on blue etc.). Especially as SF is a fictional scenario. This could allow for a bit more freedom of action for scenario building than a strict historical setting. Hey, the glass is half full... SF is definately 'not your father's CM' and I'd be a liar if I said that this wasn't unsettling at first. But I'm not going to close my eyes, stick my fingers in my ears, and sing kum-by-ah. This old dog has still got a few new tricks in him... At least I hope so

Most peoples' first reaction on discussion boards isn't to think, "How can I say something constructive," it's, "How can I get what I want." Personally, I would have prefered a WWII setting, but I'm not going to strap Steve to a chair and force him to listen to my William Shatner Sings Motown CD (I've got SUNshine on a CLOUDY day) because of it. Heck, I bought and enjoyed Full Spectrum Warrior, and CM:SF looks to be far superior to that game. I am worried that it will be hard to make balanced QBs in CM:SF, and to me, the QBs were heart of CMx1. On the other hand, the CM:SF campaign scenarios should be more compelling than the unrelated scenarios of CMx1. By the way, I can't wait for the first 13 year old to boast how he's 'beaten' the game (and it's too short ) Difficult to balance QBs could also make multiplayer less appealing, though this is not a big issue to me as the vast majority of my games are against the AI. I can see the logic writing the new engine to the most complicated setting, and I can take heart that the WWII setting should be releasable only several months after CM:SF. Now if I were to find out that it will take over a year or two to create the WWII setting, I would be forced to subject Steve to something so horrible that even the Bush Administration has strictly forbidden its use in interogations as a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions: William Shatner & Suzy Kolber: Duets* *By the way, is it just me, or does it always sound like Suzy Kolber has the dry heaves when she talks? [ October 08, 2005, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Noiseman ]

Well, Steve has been preaching for months that CMx2 is not going to be a dressed up version of CMx1, and from the brief description of what Shock Force is, I'd have to say he wasn't kidding! I'm very surprised BFC went 'modern' and I'm surprised how story driven CM:SF appears to be. In all honesty, modern warfare isn't my cup of tea, and I am/was a little dissappointed... But I am going to give it a chance. I'm glad Steve made a special point to say that this is not going to be a US turkey shoot game. In a small way, maybe it's good that the new engine isn't WWII, the game will have to win me over - I can't go straight to petty bitching like I could with a WWII setting To sum up, I'm slightly disappointed in the setting, but I'm not howling at the moon either. The story driven aspect can be unsettling, but I'm sure I'll get over that. My main concern is setting up QBs (The biggest strength of CM, IMHO), pitting a first world army against a third world army just doesn't have much appeal...

Most immediate 'casualties' at the CM level were simply guys running away. IIRC the casualty numbers generated at the end of a CM battle are an abstraction, only showing KIA/WIA. If you were to include in this number the 'live to fight another day-ers' rather than just classifying them as KIA/WIA the numbers make more sense.

I'd like to pick up on DrD's idea of limited movie playbacks for a moment. Maybe it would be an interesting option to allow a player only something on the order of ten minutes of movie playback. By this I DON'T mean that the player has only ten minutes of real-life time to watch the movies. There would be two clocks. One counting from 0 to 60 seconds like we have now, and one that would count down from ten minutes to zero as movies from different perspectives play. For example, a player could watch the full one minute turn from unit A, 30 seconds from unit B's turn (from any point in its turn), and forty seconds of unit C's turn. Total elapsed time two minutes and ten seconds (60sec+30sec+40sec=2:10) which would be subtracted from the ten minute clock which would leave 7:50 left to watch movies from other units perspectives. The interesting facet to this is that the time coming off the 10m clock could be made relative to the command level of the unit the player is watching. For example, time could move at a 1:1 pace for a squad, but at 3:1 for the god like-view of the overall commander (even if this is just a notional unit). What this means is, if you view the full minute turn from the god-view of height level 5 (which only a senior unit commander would be allowed to do), you burn off 3 minutes from the ten minute movie viewing total. A full turn from a squad's point of view only takes a minute off the clock. All spotting would be relative to the unit the movie is 'watching' for. The beauty of this concept is that the god-like perspective is elegantly balanced by the fact that the player is limiting the amount of information he can receive because time will be burning away faster from this higher perspective. But it does not effect his planning time or move plots. This is a difficult concept to explain briefly, but I hope most of you can follow it, despite me poor communication skills I don't want to get into minutia, but let me make a few comments for the inevitable flat-earthers. Of course you will be able to click on each unit during the orders phase and see it's perspective. No, ten minutes is not absolute (I picked it out of thin air), and of course would have to be adjusted for point values of forces etc. The time ratios and allowable view levels of command units would of course have to be well playtested to get the right balance. Yada yada yada. The important thing here is the concept. Whether this idea would actually be practical in CMx2 or is simply pie in the sky, who knows? But its fun to dream up.

OK, let's all take a collective breath, and try to keep things in perspective. A common trap in considering CMx2 (I know I've often fallen into it) is to think of it as just being CMx1 with major enhancements. In other words, most of us probably conceive it to be nearly the exact same game but better looking. Most of us are probably thinking arithmetical rather than geometrical progression. My impression from reading Steve's comments, is that though it will be similar in concept, it will, in fact, be a new game. Another way to put it is that BFC are not trying to teach an old dog (CMx1) new tricks, they are working with a new puppy (CMx2), having learned lessons in teaching the first dog. It is important to note that the discussions we have been having on CMx2 in these threads are mainly philosophical/conceptual. Steve's comments on PBEM are that technically they don't know yet how feasible PBEM will be. In other words, there's still a lot of work to be done, CMx2 is far from finalized philosophically or technically. They've got to housetrain this puppy before teaching it to shake hands and roll over... We should not be treating the end of PBEM as a fait accompli. That being said, the value of PBEM should not be underestimated. It is an important and legitimate concern, and BFC should understand this. I would say PBEM is far more important than TCP/IP, but that is putting the cart before the horse considering how little I actually know about how CMx2 looks or works. To sum up; until most of us finally get to move to the front of the cart we shouldn't panic, and BFC should incorporate the fact that PBEM is hugely important into their future considerations. In any case, some here (including myself) are going to have to prepare themselves for the fact that CMx2 probably will NOT be the same exact game. It will be difficult for some here to accept, but given the track record, I personally am very optimistic. [ February 10, 2005, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Noiseman ]

I did them in Poser 4. I was pleasantly surprised that this older program worked on my OSX mac in 'classic' mode. Believe me, I couldn't draw a straight line otherwise...

Dale, I share your concerns :cool: But I think, on balance, that 1:1 is well worth it. I honestly don't think that hitting the 'O' button and orienting your troops (About as much trouble as setting a waypoint) at the end of a unit's movement is a great deal of micromanagement. After all, don't you plan the orientation of your AFV's in the same way now in CMx1? Basically, squads will be more hetzer-like; their fire power and protection are to the front, and they are more vulnerable to the flanks and rear. This strikes me as much more realistic with little trade-off in playability. Edit: This also has the added benefit of subtletly (and more realistically) making the player more aware of the importance of protecting his infantry's flanks and rear with other units. It's these kinds of subtlties that make CM such a great gaming experience. [ January 27, 2005, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Noiseman ]

See, this is the danger point. I will go a little bat**** if I see a guy on the wrong side of the wall, if you are bothering me by showing all the guys in the squad. I generally don't want to see it if me seeing it is giving me false information - in this hypothetical, a pixel-trooper shown in a ridiculous place but yet not really "there" or "relevant". I wouldn't accept the argument "oh, yeah, your tank LOOKS like it's facing the wrong way, but it's really not, so don't sweat it." None of us would. Why would I accept the same wrt an infantry squad? -dale </font>

Inspired by Gpig, I've made a few sketches to try and illustrate some points on this subject, as much for myself as anyone else. For starters here's the present squad graphic we've all come to know and love . My understanding is that CMx1 represents a squad "under the hood" as a point for LOS, taking fire, etc. Perhaps something like this; Now with a squad in CMx2 being represented by more figures, there is bound to be more of a 'shape' to a squad, which is difficult to represent with a single point. One solution could be to represent a squad with three points like this and take the average of cover/firepower etc. as the final modifiers; This would allow for some articulation of a unit, but still leave a comforting layer of abstraction. For example, the same unit as above in echelon; This system works fine in the open, but let'e move the wall in the background forward; Whoa Nelly, there's a lot more going on now than meets the eye! Some men are out un the open lying down, some men are crouching behind cover, some are only partially covered, and one hero is leaping from cover to glory... Now comes decision time for the ambitious game designer; do you model this situation as a single point, an average of three points, or each soldier as an individual as shown below (Note that height is a factor in this, and all the other cases as well.)? A wall that that only partially covers a squad is a relatively simple situation, but think of the problems involved modeling it. If a squad's location is determined by a single point, the whole squad is either totally under cover or out in the open. Modeling individuals 1:1 is most accurate, but opens a pandora's box of programing and hardware issues. Averaging a few points of a unit is a compromise position that leaves some abstractions. Personally, I think a little abstraction is a good thing, so I won't have a meltdown when one member of a field kitchen unit appears to be (graphically) on the 'wrong' side of a wall. Of course most people playing the game, especially newcomers, won't realize that some things are abstracted and will meltdown all the same... And think of the myriad other situations more complicated than the wall scenario that can occur... This is obviously a much more complicated subject than it appears at first glance, hopefully I haven't muddied the water too much with this post...

To say that I like what I'm reading here is an understatement So far my wish list for CMx2 has been almost completely fulfilled. 1). Campaign mode (context) - check. 2). 1:1 graphical representation - check. 3). Dynamic lighting (with associated improvement of reading terrain and LOS) - check. These were really the big three improvements I wanted. Most other new features are gravy. As for borg spotting/god's eye view issues, my eyes tend to glaze over at some of the more detailed and nuanced discussions, though I appreciate their importance. My understanding from reading this thread is (and I could very well be wrong about this) that it will primarily be handled by including more uncertainty about what a spotted object is depending on how it is spotted (Example: a bailed out crew could more easily mis-identify a truck as a Tiger, which would affect how a player and the TAC AI react to it). I think this is what Steve was driving at. That seems like a reasonable solution I could live with. Very extreme fog of war. (Of course, at this very moment, Steve is probably rolling his eyes and thinking, "That's not what I meant at all. Why do I bother..." ) As for the other big issues on my wish list; 1). Full movie playback; it will probably be there, which is about what it deserves - this is more a want than a need (Though I really want it). 2). Export of troops from either (or both) sides in a completed QB for use in another QB or scenario. This is a really important issue for me, as it is a way for the individual player to make his own campaign, pseudo-operation, or participate in a third party campaign.

My top ten list: 1). Individual infantry figures. 2). Contour lines/drawable features for the scenario builder. 3). Ability to save surviving troops for another battle. 4). Shadow/light contrast to show LOS for units. 5). Terrain grid toggle. 6). Mousewheel scroll height adjustment for camera. 7). Adjustable graphics scale separate for vehicles and soldiers. 8). AFV's as cover 9). Better city/town maps/buildings for QBs. 10). Dynamic lighting, flares etc. I'd be surprised if most of these features didn't make it into CM 2. The most important for me are improved infantry graphics (naturally probably the hardest thing to do). I am not particularly bothered if the animations are tiny and hard to see, highlight them with triangles like Rome: TW.

I'll give it a try, many thanks.

I seem to vaguely recall the solution to this problem being mentioned before the Great Wipe so I'm not panicked, but I'll ask for advice before tinkering. I seem to recall that the solution has something to do with Windows XP firewalls. They have to be turned off or there is a way to get around it. As far as I know, I have no other firewall type protection active, which is why I turned on the XP firewall on in the first place. Any advice would be appreciated as I'd like to host a game tonight. Edit to add: I can connect to another computer hosting with a dial up connection no problem.

If maps already have flags and setup areas, the QB will use them. So if you change the roads, add those, too, and no gentleman's agreement is needed (even better, you don't need to check that 300m rule manually while setting up). </font>

I downloaded them a week or so ago, but the one I tried to open didn't work, I got the message 'made with a newer version' or something like that. It struck me as odd as I'm running the latest version of CMAK... EDIT: D'OH, my bad, I was using it on my mac copy of CMAK which I now recall I didn't patch. Basically I came up with the idea because I wanted to play a scenario with a really deep map so that transport would have to be bought for infantry, as well as recon vehicles. The decision on when and where to dismount the infantry would be intersting because we all know how vulnerable trucks that wander too close to the front are. I didn't want to design a full blown scenario, because I like not knowing what the enemy has. The one modification one has to make to randomly generated maps of this size is to make sure both sides have road access to the central victory flag area. Also both sides have to be on the honor system to start within a preset distance (say 300m) of their map ends because CM will set huge setup areas on imported QB maps. I'll actually get around to playing a scenario of this type one of these days... [ April 05, 2004, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Noiseman ]

Most of us have been here. A QB meeting engagement with pick-your-own forces. After patiently and painstakingly picking your force the email comes back from your opponent (Who painstakingly picked also) and the map is something even a mother couldn't love (for either side). All that trouble and several emails, and it's time to start over, or play a pity-date game. How do most of you pick a mutually acceptable map for QBs? What I've done with a couple opponents recently is randomly generate maps in the scenario builder with the victory flags preset (Like a centered baseball diamond) before generating the map. If the map looks fair to both sides to me, I send it on to my opponent for his approval, and let him pick which side to play - with casualties set to random for both sides to prevent excessive cherrypicking of forces to 'match' the map. As the mapmaker doesn't know which side he's going to play, he's motivated to send 'neutral' maps for import into a QB. This usually ensures a good game on an appropriate sized map (At least for ME's, haven't made a victory flag template for other battle types yet). As most competent comanders would have a potential battleground reconned or at least look at a map, it seems fair to let both sides look at the cybermap instead of buying forces 'blind'. Does anybody else use this method?

Well I'm glad I'm not the only madman who's tried to combine games for a campaign! I've used the Eastfront/Westfront boardgames from Columbia games. The step loss system in the 'front' games works surprisingly well with CM. I've also got a copy of Aide de Camp, one of these days I'm going to have to get over the learning curve and utilize it, it could be a great resource.

If you want to make a 'personal' appearence on the battlefield create a random map in the scenario generator, import a battalion, delete all the troops except the battalion commander, then hit the 'edit' button and change his name to yours. Then create a QB and import the map with the hq. Voila, there is a HQ unit representing you, but with random QB forces (And/or your worst enemy as the named opposing commander). I'll sometimes do this against the AI and only watch the movie locked on the HQ. When issuing orders, one can look at the whole battlefield, imagining it is the result of runners coming in, but you have additional FOW as to how units got in their predicaments.