CMBN vs. APOS, and the future of CMx2(?).

[flamingknives]

The big problem I have with judging distance on any computer game is the lack of resolution. The human eye is just so much better at discerning detail than almost any current monitor can display unless it is portraying a very narrow field of view.

As a result, practical visual range (at unity magnification) on a computer screen is going to be a few hundred metres at most. In real life I can see people-sized objects at kilometres distant. Even if the monitor could handle this detail, the graphics card cannot. This is why so many computer games fight on foggy mornings or during dust storms whilst outside.

Stereoscopic rangefinding is not an issue that should be significant at CM scales. The distance at which binocular vision works is what, 50m tops?

[DaveyJJ]

I can't find the OSX version of APOS ... someone provide a link?

*ducks with flame-proof suit on*

Happy holidays, everyone.

[Mord]

Sorry Phil, just Steiner's got a history of throwing the fanboy accusation around anytime someone disagrees with him...that, and his attitude, gets old.

Maybe it's a language barrier?

Mord.

[Guest]

Sorry Phil, just Steiner's got a history of throwing the fanboy accusation around anytime someone disagrees with him...that, and his attitude, gets old.

Maybe it's a language barrier?

Given his other posts I very much doubt he's not saying exactly what he means, so no. Probably not a language barrier. I understand. But it's better to keep things above board. Like polar bears, discourse falls off cliffs a lot faster than it climbs them.

To me, using "fanboy", just like any other thing that tears down your opponent instead of engaging, is the sign of a very weak argument.

[Mord]

LOL...it's no different than calling me a brown nosing sycophant...yet, I've brought up plenty of issues throughout the years.

Anyway, I'll extend the olive branch and apologize for losing my cool...so, if you read this Steiner, sorry for the cut down.

Mord.

[LJFHutch]

I played RO2 briefly (used to play #1 a lot though) and couldn't really get into it, it's in an awkward position between a standard "arcade" FPS and a realistic one and I couldn't enjoy either side of it.

Also yeah, despite their claims of good damage modeling I definitely got the feeling it was primarily hitpoints, in both RO2 and 1, location/angle/weapon/armour didn't seem to matter all all.

[Destraex1]

Actually on their forums most agree that ro2 is too realistic for them.

They want to artificially slow the pace down by nerfing the weapons away from realism.

[Battlefront.com]

Actually on their forums most agree that ro2 is too realistic for them.

They want to artificially slow the pace down by nerfing the weapons away from realism.

This is the inherent conflict we wargamers have with the "masses" out there. We (wargamers) want the game's systems to be reasonably realistic and deal with the consequences, general games care more about the end result. If they find it too difficult to do x then they suggest something to make it easier rather than trying to learn how to do better.

The very first time I experienced this was eons ago when a Harrier jet simulator came out. It was almost impossible for most people to get the damned thing up in the air. The developer's response to that was "yeah, well, that's exactly what the real pilots say is the case". In other words, most guys trying to play the game wanted to get into the air and shoot stuff down, but the sim portrayed how difficult this is to do.

Inherent conflict ensued

Combat Mission tries VERY hard to be very realistic without being unappealing to all but a couple hundred guys. Part of the way we do that is having really good 3D graphics. If this were a 2D game we'd automatically not appeal to a huge segment of the market. Which is why having good 3D graphics is important. It gives a large number of people enough motivation to stick with the game's realism and become a better player. Motivation that a 2D game, or a really ugly 3D game, would not likely provide.

Which is why CM's graphics will improve over time.

Steve

[Franko]

For the record, I'm a total fanboy.

[Flanker15]

I played the APOS demo, didn't like it that much, more of a ToW fan for that kind of game really. Probably would've liked it more if it had more tanks in the demo since I like their tank sims allot, apparently there's a new one coming out soon.

Battlefront should open up CMBN to more modding so people could add in particle effects, model tweaks, animations and decals that they want without any work from the devs. It's worked well for other games.

[Flanker15]

Yes, it would be great to have some delay before crew members exit and some randomness. All crew members are not necessarily in same shape, so it might take longer for some to exit.

Yeah what's the deal with this, it was great in CM:SF now it's all magic crew ejector seats as soon as the tank dies.

[flamingknives]

Battlefront should open up CMBN to more modding so people could add in particle effects, model tweaks, animations and decals that they want without any work from the devs. It's worked well for other games.

Other games with a different business models, perhaps. BFC have repeatedly affirmed that opening up the game engine would doom them.

[Erwin]

Here.... you can get this and develop your own games:

http://www.ternion.com/#news/releases/FLAMES_10.0_Released.htm?utm_source=FollowUpNotSeenAtIITSEC-FLAMESRelease-269-1&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=2011-IITSEC

[Destraex1]

This is the inherent conflict we wargamers have with the "masses" out there. We (wargamers) want the game's systems to be reasonably realistic and deal with the consequences, general games care more about the end result. If they find it too difficult to do x then they suggest something to make it easier rather than trying to learn how to do better.

The very first time I experienced this was eons ago when a Harrier jet simulator came out. It was almost impossible for most people to get the damned thing up in the air. The developer's response to that was "yeah, well, that's exactly what the real pilots say is the case". In other words, most guys trying to play the game wanted to get into the air and shoot stuff down, but the sim portrayed how difficult this is to do.

Inherent conflict ensued

Combat Mission tries VERY hard to be very realistic without being unappealing to all but a couple hundred guys. Part of the way we do that is having really good 3D graphics. If this were a 2D game we'd automatically not appeal to a huge segment of the market. Which is why having good 3D graphics is important. It gives a large number of people enough motivation to stick with the game's realism and become a better player. Motivation that a 2D game, or a really ugly 3D game, would not likely provide.

Which is why CM's graphics will improve over time.

Steve

Exactly. I fall into the category you speak of. I do not think I would be playing CMBN without something nice to look at ... a reward if you will.

But yeah most games go too far to nerf realism as a compromise to all of the internet wanna be heroes out there.

In RO2's case its all the RO1 vets that want rifles in particular to miss most of the time at only a 100 or 200m because it makes firefights longer and allows time for tactics.

The real problem is the way people play computer games. They are all heroes with no fear of consequences... when you do give them consequences as you say they just don't want to play. It must be all rewards and no penalties for gamers to stay.

There is a mode in ro2 where once your dead you stay dead until your team captures the next objective. Nobody plays that mode but everybody whinges about wanting weapons to be less realistic.

the other problem for RO2 is that the game only supports 32 playes vs 32 players. Thats just a platoon a side. Not really large enough numbers to survive long enough to use real tactics without constant respawns. RO2 fixed this somewhat by having a gameplay mode that only respawned in waves. So every body spawned and worked together. Another feature was a timer to encourage the attacking team to actually take objectives instead of sniping as individuals.

Its a constant love hate relationship. The fans think its too realistic but want more realism. For instance the next tanks are the t70 and pzIII. Realistic yes? These after the t34 and mkIV were the most common tanks at the time of stalingrad. The fan base is whinging about balance now.... you can never please them.

Rifles work like they do at a real range, they can hit stuff. No we don't want that because we cannot have firefights for five minutes while we flank..... I understand but I do not want a rifle that was zeroed by a blind man because of it. What you want instead is to firefight at range which is not going to happen in the stalingrad city where ranges are close or to use more suppressing fire to keep heads down instead of going in the the fully fledged assault like heroes... of course you will out strip your own flankers. etc etc

most players would rather die than being bored for a few minutes being suppressed. They will charge out of cover and take insane risks rather than be static. Thus the community wants the game nerfed so you run like your life does "not" depend on it and your weapon is a BB gun to put it nicely.

But yeah RO2 has many similarities to the CMx2 development and the original fan base being lost some what or having trouble learning new "tricks".

Another similarity is that the loudest "few" are the nay sayers while a strong community forms from the primarily silent majority when the smoke of game release clears.

[Broadsword56]

I gave up on RTS games like RO2 and Arma2 over a year ago -- at first I was thrilled by the realism these games made possible, then increasingly disillusioned as I realized the human "software" (idiotic run-and-gun hth players with no interest in realistic tactics or teamwork) made the experience depressingly repetitive. The only way around it is to join some unit or "clan" -- but then you're looking at being intensely screened for suitability, making a time commitment for drills and events, and possibly even being required to complete a virtual "basic training" and endure being screamed at via Ventrilo by some 16 -year-old who thinks he's the reincarnation of George Patton.

[LJFHutch]

I gave up on RTS games like RO2 and Arma2 over a year ago -- at first I was thrilled by the realism these games made possible, then increasingly disillusioned as I realized the human "software" (idiotic run-and-gun hth players with no interest in realistic tactics or teamwork) made the experience depressingly repetitive. The only way around it is to join some unit or "clan" -- but then you're looking at being intensely screened for suitability, making a time commitment for drills and events, and possibly even being required to complete a virtual "basic training" and endure being screamed at via Ventrilo by some 16 -year-old who thinks he's the reincarnation of George Patton.

I stopped playing them after playing CM Shock Force, that's what made me realize all these "realistic" first person shooters weren't realistic at all - though I enjoy just shooting stuff in BF3.

The main thing they get wrong however, especially true of RO2 (stats and unlockable weapons certainly don't help, to say nothing of the lowered realism/authenticity compared to the first), is that although they've got a bit of realism the game doesn't do anything to promote authenticity in how people play the game. There's no teamwork, no tactics, nothing, even when I played with an ArmA2 clan there weren't really any tactics. You can have realistic weapons but that doesn't mean anything if the game is being played like Call of Duty.

It's not the fault of the people playing it either (well, to a certain extent it is), take Project Reality (BF2 mod): it's not exceptionally realistic but the game is designed to promote teamwork, moving in squads/teams, following orders etc and it works, incredibly well I might say.

That's one of the huge strengths of CM as I see it: the equipment is realistic but what's also realistic is how everything interacts, as a result the effective way to do things is more often than not the same as what was effective in '44 and so it does a good job of promoting authentic behavior from players.

[Destraex1]

I can agree with that assessment LJFHutch. But there are clans out their that do things correctly without being to hard with entry and training requirments. Like in real life good friends are hard to find.

I actually find more fault with the players than the game designers. Players simply don't care if they die doing rambo. Funnelling people into the right tactics is a really horrible thing to "have to do". Its like running police on every game to make sure people are not being silly.

I have been in and seen RO2 assaults that were properly managed. It is an awesome sight and just steam rolls the enemy hands down. The key is not to play with a bunch of randoms. Even if your not in a clan if you play the same server you will get to know the guys.

An incentive to play correctly should not be needed when if people play properly they really do take all comers.

The other way to do things is to make each person a squad commander and give him 10 AI to control like you could in operation flashpoint. The AI will not go gung ho unless given the command so for the most part attacks take time to position and carry out. In RO2 everybody is their own commander due to lack of proper military discipline. Its a game and people just want to have fun turkey shooting.

I do find in RO2 things happen a lot more co-operatively than any FPS I have played except the flashpoint\ARMA series. The flashpoint ARMA series takes too long to play for a casual game. The RO2 game has good wholesome quick battle scenarios.

But yeah CMBN comes out near the top of what I describe here except its not FPS. You control the squads and they do not go gung ho on you like individualistic human FPS soldiers.

[nik mond]

Re lighting: At least on my computer there´s some odd ambient lighting effects, particularly in the hours before 9 AM (game time ). It indicates that ambient lighting amount remains constant during night and day hours, leading to the effect shown in the screenies. Watch shadows and lit areas:

Do anybody else than me ever noticed this? :confused:

There´s no full moon involved btw.

It always bugged me that the dynamic shadows are not correct. Based on the length of the tree shadow in your example the raised ground should also be casting a shadow on the same side well onto the flat ground behind it. Maybe the ground dynamics will get better in the next engine. But still the best contender. I applaud APOS for at least developing a tic tac toe style operational layer.

[LJFHutch]

You can do it multiple ways though, PR has the whole "you no play team we kick" but it also has the game world pushing you toward teamwork: you really can't do anything on your own (whereas in RO and ArmA even more you can, I found going solo in the hills with an M16 and Acog worked well even against a trained clan), you can't even be a guerrilla fighter. It's certainly not for everybody though, I don't really play it all that often because of that, even though the teamwork is astounding (10x more teamwork than literally any game I've ever played).

Killing people isn't all that easy and if you're up against a squad you're not going to do much more than slow them down, you kill one but then the remaining 5 guys drown you in bullets and revive their teammate and then it's you 0 them 1. You also can't do all tasks so you need to be in a squad just to do anything in the first place. There's also the general atmosphere produced by the "teamwork or kick" and the "go solo and die" which promotes teamwork even further.

[Destraex1]

Forgive me, but what is PR?

[Flanker15]

Project Reality, good Battlefield 2 mod.

[Destraex1]

ahhh of course. Have not played that since BF2 died. I hated BF2 in its original form but back then it was really the "closest" thing around that was actually populated.

[Erwin]

Ai is the hardest thing to program well. The online games are basically cheap and lazy as they don't have AI, and if they do have a solitaire version the AI is lousy.

Have to hand it to BFC as they are about the only company left who puts real effort into making good AI.

[Destraex1]

I prefer online games a lot of the time simply because humans are more intelligent than any AI. But yeah you do not get a really good experience with people sometimes.

[BadgerDog]

Achtung Panzer: Operation Star does not have an Apple Mac version, whereas Combat Mission games do ... a big plus for me ...

Regards,

Doug