Vinnart
-
Posts
2,568 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Vinnart
-
-
Photoshop CS is free for download. I use it. Just google it and you will find it.
-
ASL I think like Ken you may not be seeing It the way I am in actual workings. You are absolutely correct in that the spacings spoken of in the field manual do not translate into the game environment for playability. What works in reality, and the the game environment will always be different because there is no substitute for reality except reality. You can try yo mimic, but the two will always remain unique. For example troops in reality do space out more than they do in the 8m sq, but the 8m sqr works for a playable game. As far as formations, and spacing in reality it is not rigid, but "organic controlled". A squad will start out in an organized wedge placement like described in the field manual with everyone in their perspective positions in the formation, but as terrain and circumstance dictate it remains organic to change in flexibility. An example is the squad in the wedge makes contact. At that point both A and B team will come on line to maximize firepower. The wedge morphs into a line. If the same wedge comes under arty attack the formation will likely break up with a scramble to move to the closest cover. Another example of how duplicating reality may not work in a game environment is how CM models arty. Because the troops are spaced close together there is a bit of abstraction to make arty work with the game. When CMBN first came out one arty shell was killing entire squads/platoons. It just did not work in the game. So realistic spacing that far as the manual says would not work either to have good player control.
Again, i am not saying the current system is bad, and suggesting it MUST be what i am talking about.
-
Excellent idea Lacroix. I don't expect a full house especially right out the door, but it is a step in a direction to make real time game opponent matching easier for those who want to play. One will have to use this external program to link up, but there really is no other alternative on BF's site or in the game. I do understand why they are leery about having a live chat room as it would need to be moderated because unfortunately grown men don't always act like it, but hopefully those who enter the unmanaged chat can remain gentlemen. You should post this in the opponent finder forum too. I think you may be jumping ahead with real time tournaments though. I'd try to get people more interested in casual play first with less pressure. For anyone who wants to play at a particular time when you have some time to spare I would suggest just keeping this chat program on in the background to see if anyone else joins within a period of time. Personal messaging someone to go to the chat should work too to get a game.
I'll download later after work and check it out.
-
Okay... Give me Team B. I like orange squares. If I move Team B (with your proposal), I'll get 4 squares somewhere. Say, for argument's sake, next to a stone wall.
Only 3 of the 4 squares are adjacent to the wall. Darn. One is too far back. Now I have to "grab" that one man and move him. That's micromanagement. Right now, 8x8 squares put the team pretty much up along the wall. I can use the face command to tweak it as needed. Will one man not be up on the wall? Maybe. (Usually not. The face command gets them all up. Etc., with different terrain. If I put a team in light woods, they self-position around cover.)
There is no way to command a 4 man team using 1x1 (or 2x2) squares...unless you're just doing the same thing CM is doing now. The only thing 1x1 or 2x2 squares would give you is the ability and the NECESSITY of commanding individuals. If the little squares are autonomous, then why have them? If they are, then that means I need to command individual locations. With a battalion, that would be...onerous.
There are no modern military forces, of which I'm aware, which countenance having individuals going anywhere. It's always the buddy system.
As mentioned way upstream, there is some stringing out of the men into tight columns...when movement waypoints are too far away. If I keep the waypoints close, there is NO columnizing.
If I use the FACE command, at the team level, I can get the facing I want.
Are there some cases where the ability to move a single man would make a difference? Sure. Like ATG gunners and bocage. For the MOST part, these instances are rare and don't affect gameplay.
The drawbacks seem quite large. Micromanagement at the individual level would greatly reduce the scope of the game. A company would induce headaches. (Sure, a magic algorithm could manage the little squares so you don't have to, but that's just how the game works now. But then, when would you step in? And how?) The processing would be so much higher... 2m squares would require 16^2 more LOS checks pre-game. 1m squares would require 64^2 more.
Perhaps drawing up examples of when the proposed little squares would improve the game would help me see what you're thinking it would bring?
Ken, I still don't think you are seeing how it works. You can still get close spacing like you have now in that just as there is range of AI placement for the current squad there is variation and movement within the 2mx2m square for the individual soldier. Just as the squad is not always centered in the 8m sq. so the individual is not either. This keeps things more organic looking, and allows for more flexibility of placement by the AI in the sq. In the scenario with the wall lets say it is 3 squares long. The dudes are not going to set up at the wall 4 abreast with one not being covered by the wall. He would move behind the wall in a square behind the 3 guys in front just like now. They conform to the cover. We are not taking away anything in how close the troops can be, we are only expanding to not being limited to a 8mx8m square shape. If I did a pic with the models you would see it would look no different on the surface, but underneath the grid would look different.
Again, we are not moving individuals unless it happens to be one guy like you could get now. We are still moving squads/teams. One of the things I hated about Sudden Strike is you had to control only individuals, no squads. We definitely do not want that. Here we remain moving squads. They are connected, but not all bound to the same 8m square and its shape. That is really the only difference, beyond a more flexible grid system to program to.
Facing works the same way except you could rotate a line like and pic 2. The troops still conform to cover. In many instances I could see the grouping of soldiers very much like now, but adding flexibility to spread out in shapes not limited to 8m sq. That would be different.
There would be some more micro management to this system in that a player COULD override the AI to set a formation for example like in pic 2 of the spread out line if they wanted to. For spacing lets figure two AI settings tight, and spread out to keep it simple which the AI can control with the player being able to over ride, AND the AI being able to override. An example of this would be for what I said about the wall with the guy with no cover moving to another square for cover. Another example is in my 3rd pic. The squad that was in the spread out line was ordered to the tree line. When there the AI changes from the spread out line to a closer formation to conform to the cover, much like we have now.
I am not suggesting CM needs to adapt the 2x sq action system. It is only talking about the "what ifs" of such a system in its pros and cons. I am not seeing the problems you are talking about because it has already been done in Sudden Strike, which I have experienced. I am adapting that games concepts to see how it could possibly work in CM. No one is saying it MUST be like this. Its imagination time
. I think the current system is good albeit a bit limited. Like I said all systems have pros and cons. -
So about those intervals. According to FM 21-75 the proper spacing between individual soldiers within a squad is 10 Meters. That's about one man per current in game action spot. The fire teams are split such that the lead team is the one commanded by the assistant squad leader with two men ten meters apart in a V formation behind him on each side. The MG man is on the right and the GL man is on the left. The second fire team is led by the squad leader and follows behind the lead fire team, also in a V formation. The intervals between men is 10 meters. The AT man is on the left with another GL man and then another MG man is on the right. According to FM 7-7 there is a twenty meter interval between squads in a platoon so if you are moving in a column of squads each squad would have a lead team and a follow team as described above followed by the next squad twenty meters behind the last man of the team in front of it. The interval between the lead fire team and the following fire team within a squad is not given so I assumed a ten meter interval between the two fire teams.
So a squad might have a width of approximately forty meters and a depth of perhaps fifty meters. A platoon formation would then have twenty meter intervals between squads so a platoon walking along in column with each squad split up by fire team with each fire team in a V then the platoon might take up an area something like forty meters wide by perhaps 190 meters with approximately one man per 8 meter action spot. I think it even recommends that the lead element be 100 meters ahead of the rest of the platoon which makes the depth of the formation even greater.
I don't know about you guys but having a squad spread out like that in the game at all times would be unwieldy if you can't control the individual soldiers of each squad. You would end up with a lot of guys sitting in open fields because where the cover is located doesn't match where the soldiers are located if they are forced to maintain their intervals and formations. It's unworkable in my opinion.
I should probably add that - while Vinnart's suggestion is interesting, according to the various Field Manuals I've just checked his spacing suggestion is not based on any sort of actual training - at least as recommended by the US military. In fact, modern infantry formations could be done within the context of the current 8 meter action spot system without any adjustment to the maps at all. It is just a matter of whether it would be practical or not.
ASL I agree that much spacing would not play well. In light of that research, which is what I recall being taught about basic squad formations and spacing when I went through training in the Army, you contradict yourself in that you quote the manual in its spacing then say it is not based on any training. I don't think we are talking spacing more than a few 2m action squares for game play puposes. My thoughts are that the terrain and circumstances warrant how the sqaud sets up in that it should be organic. Here in the pic below we have moved the sqaud that was in the line to the tree line. The sqaud conforms to the cover, and is something the AI could control. On the other hand being able to spread out, which real troops do too, would be a benefit if under artillery attack. What if under artillery attack the AI has free movement of squares within a certain radius. The squad is there in a pretty line then the arty starts coming in. The squad disperses moving to the nearest cover. In the pic below a some guys run to the tree close by, and other run to the clump or rocks. Again all controlled by the AI and the grid. This is how it was in Sudden Strike in that the troops when taking incoming would seek cover on their own within a so many action squares. Like I said i have no real qualms in the current system, but this is about exploring possibilities pros and cons using Sudden Strike concepts adapted to CM.
-
why U mad brah
Womble is just being womble. Don't mind him.
-
Here are some graphics using the Sudden Strike 3 engine to illustrate 1:1 action squares. Below is our current system of 8mx8m action squares. If the sqaud were to line up as they do at times they would fill the first row of 8 little squares. 4 for A team, and 4 for B team. True they can set up any way within the 8mx8m square, but they are still limited to the confines of the 8mx8m square.
Below is what I have in mind in 1:1 action squares. Instead of seeing one big square highlighted the player would see smaller ones in line for example shown here. Each man of the 8 man squad would occupy one square. Shown they are spaced 2m apart. Just as the 8mx8m squares shift position with different facing so also you can rotate the line, "V", wedge. The sqaud/team stays together as a unit with its highlighted color, but they can assume any number of formations/placments. Like there is variation in placement in the 8mx8m square so too it is in the 2mx2m square. In this way the troops can huddle close as they do now if warranted depending on cover, or they can be spaced grid squares, or no squares as if they were lining up in the current 8m square. All of it is controlled using the grid as a guide. We can imagine either the AI controlling the formation it thinks best for situation or terrain, and an override where the player can control formation and interval. The interval would work similar to the PAUSE command being incremental. This INTERVAL command could have other uses as in how I imagined a FOLLOW command working to set spacing. Anyway just imagining things.
-
Yes Ian, I was referring to rejoining squads. I still want to do some graphical mock ups to make notes, but as I said earlier both a 2mx2m and 8mx8m action square models have their pros and cons. When it is all said and done the action squares as they are now keeps things simplest, and as Ken said they can arrange freely in that space. Improvements in how the AI arranges according to terrain would be a good thing to pursue in improving infantry control. Perhaps if there were just a way the player could force them into line formation would be enough to fine tune squad placements for players. If I could have one formation option it would be line.
-
One other possibility is to stay with 8m X 8m but change it so that a team can be in any two adjacent AS - that would double the possible placements for soldiers without us having to direct each solider. That would mean a three team squad would be able to occupy more then three AS. Still a bunch of dev work but will not increase the CPU requirements by the same factor as moving to 2m X 2m squares.
The problem with that is; How would they rejoin as being in adjacent squares triggers that? Again with what I am talking about one is not moving individuals like in "Sudden Strike". You are still moving squads and teams in a 1:1 action square model. As far as CPU requirements we, as layman can only assume that it is any higher CPU requirement however SS series used that system. Grant it SS series is not as complex as CM. CPU requirements or developmental budgets are something my imagination doesn't need deal with. Remember "Thinking is the Best Way to Travel"
(any other Moody Blues Fans?) So, setting CPU requirements aside lets think of the possibilities. -
Bind the common used, and use the space bar for order not given as often like administrative, and some specials. What I reccomend is get a Nostomo speedpad, and mouse with lots of programmable buttons. Really makes it possible to make any stock game control set optimized for efficiency. I control all games easily we these.
-
Kieme, what I am talking about is something not new. All of this is in a game series i used to play called "Sudden Strike", which had tanks which take up more than one action square. As far understanding all of the under the hood of how they made it work I do not know, just as I do not know all under the hood of CM. My under the hood knowledge lies in the extent of understanding and working with editors in both games, which are remarkable similar just as all cars have a steering wheel and tires. Both games have grids that control the game much like squares on board game do. I will be using the Sudden Strike3 editor for my illustrations since I have screens from earlier concept notes of mine., but Sudden Strike 2 was their best in many regards. Both 1 and 2 had similar grid systems. Both games had very detailed landscapes offering cover. I haven't had either game on my PC for years as they are dated, so I haven't looked at the editors in a long time. Of the "Sudden Strike" series #2 was their most realized and most popular. #3 was much nicer graphics, but the game was short lived because of a new very poor multiplayer support system. The series is older, but they had some good features to learn from that worked very well.
-
Yeah, I think those keys are locked. I use "F" for fast, and "Q" for quick, but lays out for me similar to this on a keyboard like I have it on a speedpad. If you are trying to make hotkeys better for real time play I recommend you make "Q" fast. and quick "W" and so on for top row fast to slow, left to right.
-
The action spots do not limit individual soldier placement. They are a "window of possible" locations for any member of a team. If that makes sense...
You are absolutely right. My thoughts are to expand the possibility of that window by expanding the window so it is not limited to 8m x8m square. Again this is all talk of possibilities. For all we know 1:1 just may not work for this game. Still I do like to imagine concepts based on my experiences with "Sudden Strike" in seeing how these things could work in CM. I need to make some graphics I think to show what i am talking about and its practices.
-
Also, if I had to place each man, the game would not be playable. It is a very well done balance of detail vs. playablility right now.
With 1:1 action squares one would not be placing each man themselves. Squads/ teams are will still connected but would be more flexibility in the way they arrange which for the most part would still be handled by the AI. The AI would simply have more to work with in choices using the grid to create formation patterns. Of course giving some control to the player to override what the AI chooses for the squad to form in a line, wedge, whatever would be a good thing, but incorporating that ability would mean some type of way of issuing formation orders. One thing always affects another. In a perfect world though, for sure I would love the AI depending on its leadership modifier give the orders for how the squad should form moving automatically from column to line for example according to level of threat and terrain.
What i envision is instead of having one or two big squares highlighted one would see a bunch of highlighted smaller squares in pattern showing where, and how the infantry will go to. Picture a bunch of smaller squares in a line with one square space between them for example. Now picture patterns like, wedges ect. To keep from looking robotic I imagine the models having variation on the square in that they are not all centered exactly in the square.
-
But you too think it a issue that needs to be fixed ?
I wouldn't say it needs to be fixed, but this is not to say a more improved flexible system couldn't be used in future engine builds. What we are talking about in regard to 1:1action squares is just brain storming the "what ifs" possibilities
-
I minimize this issue by watching how my teams will deploy at each waypoint. (You do know that the teams will go to different actions spots?) If that doesn't work, I erase the squad's movement order, split it as needed, then give individual commands to each team.
My level of management increases as the range to the enemy decreases.
Edited to add: 2m x 2m action spots. Right now it's 64m^2. If it were 4m^2, that'd be a 16x increase in action spots. That means a 16 x 16 increase in action spot checking... That pre-game load screen? If it takes 2 minutes now, it'd take 32 minutes (AERTS). Ditto turns. Etc.
Not to say I wouldn't like some improved positioning, but right now, it's pretty darn good. The exceptions are notable only because they are exceptions. IMO.
Yes, more computing time could be a possible disadvantage of smaller action squares however, even within the current action square there is this micro computing going on for each squad member with in the action square. "Sudden Strike" used the 1:1 action square, but CM certainly is a more complex game so only one who programs CM could say if current PC's could handle it in a timely manner..
-
Always fun following along Bil. Funny, when i open this map up in game it has hardly any trees on it compared to this version. Someone must have added more after release which is a good thing especially for you. My version is particular bare on the BLUE side of any tree cover.
-
No, I wouldn't ever want to go back to abstracted infantry. It would make the game go back instead forward.
I would also like to see some improvement to infantry Handling, but I guess that it will take a rework of the grid system that is in place now.
Vin, interesting. But is there a reason to keep the squares? What about exagons?
I'm sure hexagons would work too, but most games use squares no different than most board games, but more complex. Basically a computer game is nothing more than an animated interactive board game where being on a tile usually has an effect on the piece that is on it. The grid is something to program to to control the game. It is how there is differences in terrain and how they interact with the unit on it for example.
Using a 2mx2m grid one could program spacing for example no square, one square, 2 square space ectt.. between each man for just one example. For spacing "Sudden Strike" had a "Spread Out" Command. Each time you hit it the infantry would spread out more using the underlying grid to control it. Another cool command in "Sudden Strike" was "Take Cover". When the command given infantry,which were single men on a 2mx2m action square would move toward any cover within a curtain radius. So, if there were a house, or tree say within 10 action square the unit would move into the house or to the tree.
-
Glad to see the movie threads staying alive. Thanks to all the contributors. One of these days I want to make one, but to do a really good movie will be time consuming in how I want to do it. I have it all in my head, but finding spare time to dedicate is another thing.
If I can make one critique to improve anyone's movie. If you look at the movies made here compared to any Hollywood movie you will notice a big difference in shot length. Most shots are being held too long compared to any Hollywood action movie which most have shots lasting only a few seconds, with scenes being made of many shots. Here is where much work is done editing connecting all the smaller shots to keep the action moving, and the reason it is time consuming.
-
Yes they can set up less than desirable sometimes with current Action Square system. The best way currently to deal with it is to split your squads although it does take more micro managing.
As for this subject, I have been wanting to put my thoughts on "paper", which is 1:1 action squares of 2mx2m vs. the current 8mx8m action square system. Both systems have advantages, but 2mx2m is much more flexible especially than 8mx8m square. How many organized/ or organic shapes can you make with one 8mx8m square? Really only one. Yes the squads do have variation of placement with in the square, but there is no order to it as to how they will set up. Now take an 8mx8m square and divide it into 2mx2m squares. Filling in squares to represent each squad member how many shapes can now be made? Lots more. Now how many more shapes can you make if you remove the confines of the 8mx8m square? Infinite amounts.This is taking a more "Sudden Strike" games approach, but fitting it to Combat Mission. Like I said both systems of a larger, or smaller action square do have advantages. I am just looking at the possibilities, again applying "Sudden Strike" to CM. I'll have to get some illustrations together to better show my thoughts when i get some time.
Also, I'm sure more work on the AI in dealing with how infantry set up within the confines of the current 8mx8m can be improved, but the 1:1 action square creates a more flexible grid for units to interact with. From a programming perspective it may give the AI more to work with which could take micromanaging out of it. That probably is asking too much though for the AI to choose the best formation for the circumstance, but advances in AI are made every day so I do not dream the impossible.
-
Erwin
I am experimenting with infantry company sized QBs and that size seems right for me so far with the battle length at 45 mins. These are meeting engagements (WW2 - I posted here since the OP deals with any CB title). The action gets really hot 1/2 way through and the "endgame" slows down into a recollection of forces and holding gains. I only need to stop the clock to rest my eyes grab a drink etc. The middle game, due to the amount of lead being tossed around, is still manageable since you can't maneuver into the hail of bullets. You can pull squads out of fire and maneuver for an end run which is fun. I am not a first person shooter guy so company sized works.
Kevin
Kevin, That is basically what I play real time too. The points are better in ww2 which usually gives each player approx a Coy each for a tiny battle. For CMBS the points are set too high for tiny which usually gives USA a Coy, but RUS gets a Bat. + which is more units than most want to play with real time.
Jersey boy huh, Same time zone so I will put you on the list of possible opponents for those trying to get HvH multiplayer real time QB. There is no real time chat to make it easier to get a real time game going, so PM and threads will have to do.
-
ASL
I agree with that assessment re: scenario length. The RT player needs a bit more to coordinate things given the faster mouse clicking needed. There is no golden rule but I find a 30 min wego plays comfortably at 40 min RT where quick decisions need to be made with time for a bit on thought.
This begs the age old question: releasing specific files of the same battle eg. best played as allied vs AI
best played as axis vs AI, one for RT, one for H2H etc. All optimized for balance. I hate to see great maps and historical battles not reach their potential if released without thought given to all forms of gameplay. Not saying today we have a problem with current scenarios - more of a alternate design approach. Having different files might alleviate some time consuming balancing and compromises. I would be surprised if this is new, I been away for many years.
Kevin
Spot on with time. My comment is almost identical above.
As far as releasing different versions optimized for different types of play that is up to the scenario designer. One can always take a scenario into the editor and make variations of made scenarios suited to ones own taste. Most of the time the time in testing it is enough work for the designer/map makers to get a scenario to work best either from RED, BLUE or both sides with WEGO in mind as it is more popular. As far as what is going to be something to play in real time I go by the size of the force involved. Company, or less is my preference, but I usually play QB's real time instead of scenarios.
-
The only difference I've noticed is that real time players seem to need more time to complete a scenario as opposed to We Go players. By time I mean the overall length of time for the scenario within the game not the actual time the player spends playing the scenario. However, adding too much time can make a scenario too easy for a We Go player so you probably don't want to get too crazy with it. Keeping your scenario time lengths crazy short though will probably cause problems for real time players more so than with We Go players.
This is very true since the clock is ticking while issuing orders, and thinking unlike WEGO where the time is paused to do this. Of course the real time player can pause when ever they want, but I think most real time players pause sparingly, otherwise it kind of defeats the purpose of playing real time IMO. I seem to take one or two pauses a game to access things mostly in the middle game, if I'm really getting hammered, or if I got to take a leak, answer phone, or whatever.
-
No bobo. There really isn't good support in place for HvH real time. Without having any real time chat lobby, and the different time zones it an be challenging to link up for real time games. Back in my Sudden Strike days we had a chat lobby, and would post the IP to join if a game was up, which worked pretty good. I guess all we can do in the meantime is to create a thread when you want to play, and hope someone who wants to play that time too responds, or send PM and hope they see the message when you want to play. We'll get game sooner or later I am sure. If your interested in giving it a try we'll put you on the list of possible real time opponents.
. I think the current system is good albeit a bit limited. Like I said all systems have pros and cons.
(any other Moody Blues Fans?) So, setting CPU requirements aside lets think of the possibilities.
ALLIED Battle Report - The Gamey SOB Challenge
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted · Edited by Vinnart
Love Holst, Mars, the Bringer of War. Gives me goose pimples, and gets me fired up to listen to when I work out.! It helped inspire the title of a painting of mine too "The Bringing of Mars" that I have on my profile page. Good war movie music.
For Bil's sake lets hope it inspires his boys to kill more pixel Germans.