HarryB Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 This was originally posted in another thread, but that thread concerned multiple issues and the spotting issue never really got addressed. I wanted to start a new thread specifically about this issue because I think we get too much information about units when they are spotted in game. The fact that once a vehicle is spotted you know exactly what it is just isn't realistic. If you listen to some of the old veterans talk, they seem to think every German tank is a Tiger. I think it would be great if there were different levels of awareness about what kind of vehicle you were facing; starting with a generic 'vehicle', proceeding to 'halftrack', 'armored car', 'assault gun' or 'tank', and then on to the exact type of vehicle. I would think this could be based on how long the vehicle is in the line of sight as well as how many men can see it. This could be modified by the experience level of the men seeing the vehicle as well as a certain level of randomness to factor in knowledge differences between individual soldiers. I'm also a little surprised that you get to see exactly what type of infantry you are facing. Do you really think our soldiers would be able to tell the difference between a fusilier and a panzergrenadier? I don't think so. I play on the Iron setting and still get the full level of information. I think it would be more realistic if you would just get a generic 'infantry' indicator, and if your troops get a good look, possibly what type of weapon he is carrying. Obviously, if he fires you should be able to tell if he has a rifle, a machine pistol, an mg42 or a panzerschreck, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 That is odd considering CM1 handled FOW better in that respect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 CM1 also handled units as having no real size or shape in the 3D game world. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowMotion Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Would it help any if the 3d model stayed the way it is now, but its text description was replaced with some generic text? So instead of PzIVG it could be tank. Or instead of exact type of halftrack it would be just "halftrack". And things like weapon details wouldn't be shown in the UI until the unit has been properly spotted. Most players can't identify exact tank/etc models based on 3d model alone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuirassier Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Would it help any if the 3d model stayed the way it is now, but its text description was replaced with some generic text? So instead of PzIVG it could be tank. Or instead of exact type of halftrack it would be just "halftrack". And things like weapon details wouldn't be shown in the UI until the unit has been properly spotted. Most players can't identify exact tank/etc models based on 3d model alone. But everyone can tell a Tiger from a Stug from a Jagdpanther etc. The game would have to "lie" with the 3D models as well, like CM1, for it to work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogust Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I would be happy if the game wouldn't tell me that the tank I am seeing is indeed the 4th Tank or that the guy with the Garand is part of 2nd Squad and that 2nd Squad is not split up at the moment. Things like that should be easy to implement, just hide the unit names (2nd Squad, 1st Platoon, 3rd Tank and so on) for the enemy. Unit descriptions (Rifle, Scout Team, Panzer IVG and so on) are enough information and I think that at least Iron Mode is better without those as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Yes, since Day One, I've also been advocating "simply don't put the information in the GUI" as a relative solution to the All-Knowing-Effect. "Tank" and "Infantryman" could replace any and all descriptions and would prevent gamey targetting of HQ's and such. Leave it up to us the players to decide if he looks "HQ-ish". At least on Elite and Iron modes, lower levels could be left as they are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryB Posted January 26, 2012 Author Share Posted January 26, 2012 Until a tank or other vehicle is properly identified they could just use a common vehicle model to represent the not fully identified vehicle, such as a PzIV for the Germans and in the description you would just see something like 'unidentified tank'. Exact identification that comes too easy just gives you too much information. You obviously will respond differently if the tank you are facing is a Tiger as opposed to a PzIV. To a lesser extent that also applies to infantry. If you see that a soldier is a fusilier you will know that his unit doesn't come with panzerschreck teams. Granted, they can be purchased separately, but the likelyhood of facing them is less with fusiliers than it is with grenadiers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 These are all good ideas. I'm sure they've been mentioned before. Better FOW would be great, with regards to unit information. The difficulty with "unknown" vehicles would be more complex to deal with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowMotion Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 But everyone can tell a Tiger from a Stug from a Jagdpanther etc. The game would have to "lie" with the 3D models as well, like CM1, for it to work. I think someone from BF wrote that the problem with a general tank 3d model is that things like detecting bullet hits etc. are done using the 3d-model. So if you want that to work differently for different tanks, they currently need to use a different 3d model. What I suggested (hide detailed text) is of course not as good as the general 3d model, but I think it would be easy to do and even if players can tell a Tiger from Stug, can you tell a 75mm Sherman from 76mm Sherman? Or whether a HT has just MG or a 37mm cannon? I think most players can't, especially in hurry. So it would give us MORE FOW, if this CMx1 style FOW cannot be done without huge effort. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xian Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Is it not possible to display a generic model of a vehicle but base the 'hit' calculations on the dimensions of the actual vehicle? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowMotion Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I guess we need someone from Battlefront to answer that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Is it not possible to display a generic model of a vehicle but base the 'hit' calculations on the dimensions of the actual vehicle? Steve made some comments on this a while back. Best I can recall, the gist of what he said is that this is theoretically possible, but unfortunately it's not a trivial thing to code. I think BFC recognizes this as something that would be a desirable feature to have in the game engine, at some point. It's all a matter of available coding resources, and what other desired game features are ahead of it on "The List." (which, unfortunately, is probably quite a few) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wreck Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Steve made some comments on this a while back. Best I can recall, the gist of what he said is that this is theoretically possible, but unfortunately it's not a trivial thing to code.Yes. As I recall, the problem was that CMx2 uses the vehicle model for multiple purposes. Among those are display (duh) and hit-testing for enemy fire. Anyway, you can't have a vehicle that looks like A but gets hit like B, and changing the code to support this is a bit involved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 In my dream world, contacts are made either visually or aurally. Either way, there is a difference between man and machines. A "people" contact should show a person. A "vehicle" contact could show one of several icons, depending on how it is spotted and what clues are available. Vehicles: - Idling, not moving, and heard: generic engine icon - Moving and heard: Wheels or tracks (linked tracks are distinctive sounding. Halftracks would be interesting. Tracks for them?) - Seen: generic icons of, as appropriate, truck, armored car, half-track, tank - Seen with more detail: turret vs. non-turreted (or other distinguishing characteristic) - Next step up in detail: actual model of vehicle, but the UI won't display anything. Panther D, A, or G? You don't know, it just looks like a Panther. (Maybe it isn't?) - More detail: the UI identifies it. Now there is no doubt. It was a PzIVH. Personnel: Heard: rough number based on sound? Seen: just personnel Seen w/more: actual guys, but no UI Next: Type of unit, e.g., .50 cal machinegun, but UI does not identify it by name. Final: when friendlies are amongst enemy dead, wounded or POW, then full UI id. Thoughts? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Your dream world matches my dream world, c3k. Sadly, doubt we'll see any of that in CMBN. But I'd still settle for "infantry" instead of "3rd Squad/B Team". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.