Infantry Sprites

[Dar]

BTS:

I'm sure you have many justifiable and good reasons for using the three-man polygon-based graphics for depicting infantry squads, but I hope in future releases that there will be the hardware to depict all squad members man-for-man with polygonal figures or that you will use sprites.

In looking at the AARs posted by Fionn and Martin, I love seeing the blazing wrecks littering the landscape and showing the progress and hotspots of the battle. However, I also miss seeing the bodies strewn about depicting where an MG opened up or a mortar caught the squad in the open.

Even though infantry sprites would lose the 3-D effect you are grandly depicting with the vehicles, buildings, and terrain in general, I would gladly exchange the infantry polygonal figures to see a platoon of 30+ man-sized sprites crossing a field with the occasional figure dropping still to the ground for the rendered 3-4 units of 3 men each that may be suddenly reduced to 1 or 2 men as casualties mount, despite the ability to view those latter units in correct perspective from any angle.

While the wrecks and shellholes are a terrific touch, the absence of dead and dying men strewn across the landscape makes the battlefield look sanitized. This depiction of showing where the heavy fighting took place with scores of motionless figures is one of the features I greatly enjoy from Sid Meier's Gettysburg.

Anyhoo, I know I'm going to love this game as is. I just have to put in my two cents time and again.

Dar Steckelberg

[Guest Big Time Software]

First of all, SPRITES SUCK ASS The look horrible in 3D compared to a 3D figure. Go back and play Doom II and then play Quake for a fantastic display of why this is true. Doom II is flat and featureless compared to Quake. I know I never, ever, want to see another 2D sprite in a 3D world. It is such a distraction. And since CM's camera angles are not restricted, the sprite illusion would quickly fall apart and you would be screaming for us to yank them out. Trust me on that

The other problems with sprites is that they are VERY expensive to produce. This means that you will see far less variety of motion than with polygonal figures. And because each sprite frame takes up VRAM we would also have to have only one set of infantry graphics per side. No Volkssturm, SS, FJ, WH, and tank crews all in play at once even if we could afford to make all the sprite sets (which we can't).

As for the 1:1 man representation, I don't think it will happen for any of the next 3 games we are doing. Here is a brief list of reasons why:

1. Polygon Count - hardware won't be capable of a true 1:1 man head count in even the next 3-4 years. As a hint, to get a good frame rate I have been told you have to keep the onscreen polygon count down to about 5000 polygons on today's hardware. There can be up to about 3000 men in a scenario, and at 200+ polygons per man... well... do the math

2. Detail - when we get more horsepower to play with we would MUCH rather improve the detail of the figures rather than to make more of them. We would also like to make a finer terrain mesh and even more detailed vehicles. These are much higher priorities to us and are practical improvements for even next year.

3. UI and Visual problems - Since you HAVE to play the game with the graphics larger than 1:1, two squads fairly close together would be a visual jumble of intersecting and merging polygons. Yuck And even if you could swallow this horrid reality, you would have to contend with clicking and reclicking to see who was who and to find the right place to click so you get the squad you want. In short, it would look like crap and play like crap.

4. Soldier Behavior - If we have a 1:1 representation we will be faced with two choices; have each unit's men behave like they do now (largely in sync) or have each figure possess its own behavior (like CC). The former would look stupid and the latter would consume LARGE quantities of programming and testing time. That means we would have to NOT do other things, like improve the AI or put in cool game features.

In short, I think this is one of those things that gamers simply don't understand the implications of. Sure, it is really easy to visualize it in your head, but to make it happen is a whole nother thing I remember wanting stuff like this since my Atari 800, and it STILL isn't going to happen. The pace of change in technology is moving fast, but it still has a VERY long way to go. And even when it is here, we will probably still be faced with crappy 72dpi monitors most likely, which means 1:1 scale is out as an option, making lots of other problems persist.

As far as the portrayal of dead goes, we feel this is a non-issue when playing the game. All the information you need is there. None of us have any problem identifying where such and such happened and were so and so got its butt kicked. As for the battlefield looking too clean, it doesn't. There are things burning, wrecks strewn all over the place, shell craters, etc. No, the bodies are piled up like cordwood, but it really isn't necessary for gameplay or ambiance. Would the bodies add something if we could do it up right? A little for sure, but not nearly as much as people seem convinced they would. Just remember that CM's battlefield is unlike any you have ever played on before, so we ask people to keep their minds open and withhold judgment until they see it for themselves.

Steve

[Dar]

Ah, well... While I am a professional developer, I do client/server development, which is typically not that graphics-intensive, so I assumed sprites were not nearly as taxing as polygons. What do I know?

I can understand your point about depicting unit behavior vs. individual behavior, but that's not a concern of mine. Even if all 8-12 men in a squad are doing the exact same motions and look exactly the same, it would be fine with me.

My point is, I would find 3 12-man squads crossing a field under fire, losing and leaving individual bodies across that field as casualties are incurred, and arriving at the objective as 3 6- to 8-man squads, more intensive psychologically than 3 squads, depicted as 3 3-man units, moving across that same field and arriving as 3 2-man units, with that 3rd man mysteriously vanishing along the way.

You have had my pre-order for at least two weeks already; I am very excited to get this game; and I'm sure it will be just as intense and visually appealing as the screenshots and movie clips I've seen suggest. I understand you have to make design decisions based on existing technology, time and budget constraints, and other factors. However, there's just no satisfying everybody completely--as I'm sure you well know!

Dar Steckelberg

[Fionn]

BTW The term " SPRITES SUCK ASS", for those of you who don't know, is a very specific technical term.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ah, well... While I am a professional developer, I do client/server development, which is typically not that graphics-intensive, so I assumed sprites were not nearly as taxing as polygons. What do I know? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... don't feel too bad. Charles and I have been doing nothing BUT game development for the last 6 years and we are STILL learning what can and can not be done each and every day. If you asked us this question before we started making Combat Mission we could only have given you a hunch that it wasn't possible. Now we are painfully aware how inadequate computer technology is for 3D. Better than it was even last year, and several times better than when we started, but it is so far below what is needed to do a 1:1 depection.

Even with sprites you would still have the problem of User Interface. You will HAVE to play the game scaled up so you can see what the heck is going on. And I am telling you, your 3 squads, realistically deployed spacially, would look like a mix between a Russian mob infantry formation and something out of John Carpenter's remake of "The Thing" It would look horrible, and this is true for either sprites or polygons. It would ruin the look of the game so totally that you would probably wind up using whatever options we gave you to cut the figure count down. I also think that a 12 man automatron look to a squad would also be somewhat of a distraction.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, there's just no satisfying everybody completely--as I'm sure you well know!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, if you only knew... All we can hope for is that the majority express themselves like you do, instead of like 5 year old spoiled brats (especially because they are most likely 25-40yrs old ).

Steve

[Thomm]

Dear Dar !

For the sprite look of WW II, check out the Panzer Elite Public Beta. You will have to agree that the sprite approach has its disadvantages, especially close-ups and the limited number of facings of the objects (like eight or such).

Sprites in Myth look nice, though, but the price you have to pay is an almost fixed camera position.

As a side note: To check out the possibility to move freely in space, even with the action paused, check out the Homeworld Demo ! It is very impressive to zoom and pan at 1280 x 1024 resolution with 10 "frozen" explosions on screen at the same time. Very, *very* nice. I expect similar effects in terms of spatial depth from Combat Mission.

Another side note: The B17-II demo uses very clever textures to get an incredible spatial effect with an flat texture. Check out http://www.combatsim.com/htm/sept99/jpg2/17-bombs.jpg . I have never seen anything that comes close to this ! Ingenious !

Great to see creativity at work !!

Regards,

Thomm

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks Thomm for that shot. It looks like they are using extreme shaddows and highlights to simulate depth. Certianly is the best ground texture I have seen in a flight sim to date. I also wonder if they are using bump mapping (I think that is what it is called), or are in some way making the treetops higher than the ground. It is impossible to tell from this screenshot, but if so, it will look fantastic in motion. We use similar "rising" techniques on our vehicles in places, and it really does add a whole lot to the model's depth.

Steve

[Dan]

I think what us who have not played CM yet is that after that 60sec. of combat you get to watch the turn over and over agian. In real time games it's hard to keep a eye on things that's why you cant abstract things like casuilties. When you can review your turn I think this is a non issue. just my two cents on the issue.

[Dar]

Cool! Thanks, Thomm! I posted a thread a few months ago on one of the Usenet gaming groups about wanting a B-17 sequel. I'm glad to see it will be a reality!

Dar Steckelberg

[Thorsten]

There's something really odd about that B-17 picture. From the positioning of the elevator and ailerons, it looks like it's about to do a snap roll.

[sage]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I have one more thing to add about sprites. I've been reading this board for several months, and I finally feel like piping up on the poly vs. sprites issues.

One of the things that I like war gaming is the "cluttered, wrecked battlefield" syndrome. This gratifies the three year old in me. Close Combat was good like this -- my only gripe is that the dead bodies didn't stay from battle to battle.

Now, while I agree that the AAR battlefield does look pretty good, I would still like to see bodies, or something along those lines. I feel strongly that this should not be missing. Why? Because I really do feel that this detracts from the immersion on at least some level.

Here is an idea: sprites can be used for bodies, in a similar way that sprites (i.e. flat textures) are used for shell holes. In otherwords, a sprite flat on the ground to represent a dead or wounded guy. If the powers that be decide that looks like crap, another possibility would be to not use bodies, but to use debris, such as a splatter of blood, a backpack, a broken rifle, a discarded helmet.

Why do I feel strongly about this? One of the things that really sticks with me about my grandpa's accounts of WW2 (higgins boat driver, pacific) was the immense quantity of trash that was left over once the battle moved inland. I have read other accounts that emphasize this as well, and you can get a sense of it in some of the photos. Combat Mission seems to be a game of details -- i.e. the rock of a tank as it is struck from the side, and so forth -- but it seems odd to dismiss off-handedly what is (or I at least consider to be) an important detail.

Sage

[Guest Battlefront]

I wouldn't classify our keeping bodies out as "off-handedly". This has been a heated issue for over a year now (predating this BBS forum as well), and we have consistantly stuck to our PoV that it isn't necessary. There are some REAL game issues that we, as the designers, see that some gamers don't. This is understandable since a) we are far more experienced at what makes a game work, we know what can and can not be done with today's hardware, and c) we actually have the game in front of us. So we ask people to keep in mind that we aren't being stubborn for the Hell of it. We only stick to our guns when we feel that we are right. We still reserve the right to change our minds in the future (we aren't pigheaded), but so far nobody has convinced us that the gratuitious display of death on the battlefield is worth the numberous technical and UI issues we would have to deal with. As a side note, and not a primary factor, it would also make Combat Mission illegal in Germany, one of our largest market segments...

As for your idea of "billbording" the bodies, trust me, it would both hit the frame rate, especially when rotating the camera, and actually detract from the immersion. I have seen games with such bodies and they look really silly when you move the camera around. They just spin right along with you. I call it the Breakdance of the Dead

Steve

[sage]

Errr... point taken, but I should say that I wasn't thinking the "billboard approach" (ala Wolfenstein). More of the 'decal' approach, like your craters.

I would play and enjoy this game if it looked like TacOps, but I also just wanted to add my opinion.

s

[sage]

Ummm... how about an option to have the only every 3rd body represented. (i.e. when a poly figure from a squad goes away, i.e. the third guys dies, he ends up spread eagled on the ground). Shouldn't increase the poly count, but would keep me happy... Maybe just a registry value -- i.e. doesn't even have to be exposed in the interface?

Sage "really trying to not make an ass of himself" Schreiner

[Fionn]

But then as Steve said before what happens when two guys die in 1 house and your unit advances 1 km further forward and 1 guy is killed there?

Would you like the dead guy to appear where the last man died OR where the first two were or somewhere in between? Even still it wouldn't be realistic or accurate.

As Steve said, its a big problematic issue

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Ken Talley]

Hi Fionn,

Actually I suspect that the majority case will result in most casualties falling where the fighting is most intense. From time to time, a casualty would fall well away from the major area of fighting. The minority case of the one guy falling after leaving the scene of battle doesn't really hold water as an argument against the casualty idea. I would definitely like to see a casualty placed as a figure is removed to provide battlefield continuity and immersion. But I don't think that is going to happen and I can unhappily live with it < >.

Ken

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 09-16-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Sage, the problem with treating bodies like craters is that bodies are 3D objects with height. At anything other than overhead view it would look like a smear of color not identifiable as a body. From directly overhead (and posibly the highest angled position) it would look fine, but most people the majority of the time will be playing from lower angles. So I would say no go on this option too.

Ken, your point is valid. The more static a battle the more the chance that the figure would fall in the spot where the casualties took place. However, the more mobile the battle (not to mention if you are playing with 2 figures instead of 3 option), the less true this is. Martin's wall positions would be pretty much on the ball, but Fionn's troops would not be nearly as on the mark. Casualties are USUALLY caused one or two at a time, not in threes and fours. I can easily point to several of Fionn's units that would have dropped a body in pretty much non-combat areas but not dropped one in a tough firelane.

Steve

[Ken Talley]

Hi Steve,

Does polygon count increase substantially due to the addition of smoke, fires, and shellholes as a game progresses? Does the removal of casualties polygons balance out the addition of new polygons of smoke, etc?

This question is a little off subject but are there any restrictions to the type of terrain that can be placed on slopes. I am assuming buildings may not be allowed on slopes but any other type of terrain such as fields or my favorite-brush? By the way, I was really impressed by those Tigers but I searched high and low and didn't spot any brush...

Thanks,

Ken

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 09-16-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Ken,

No science here, but I am sure that infantry losses exceed the additional polygons coming from smoke, craters, and fire. One of the good things about not having dead figures is that your framerate increases during the course of the game instead of decreases. So you can start out with something that is a bit of a pig graphically, but then mid game it is just fine (we are talking slower systems here).

Terrain is not restricted by slopes (cliffs might do something, haven't tried), but some extremes will look pretty silly

You didn't see brush because Charles did the graphics and they look, uhm, like a programmer made 'em

Steve

[sage]

Beating the crap out of a dead horse now. Feel free to ignore.

"No science here, but I am sure that infantry losses exceed the additional polygons coming from smoke, craters, and fire. One of the good things about not having dead figures is that your framerate increases during the course of the game instead of decreases. So you can start out with something that is a bit of a pig graphically, but then mid game it is just fine (we are talking slower systems here)."

Well... so for those of who are running the new state of the art AMD K-10 1200mhz beast (or whatever is 'in' next year, or the next, or the next), could that dead guy be left on (a reg value, default off, that flags the game and says, "when they fall down, leave 'em"). This way we at least have the chose as to whether if the scattering from a moving battle looks bad or not... Users don't have to enable it if they don't want to (and it might even take some work to find), and so people who are running with 2 men per squad (i.e. slow systems) don't need to use it. Ditto for anyone who thinks that it 'just doesn't look right.'

Being a software PM I know how painful adding features towards the end of a project can be (and freeing it is to Cut! Cut! Cut!), but... well... I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.

Sage "Won't let it die gracefully" Schreiner

[Dar]

Thank you, Sage, for backing me up on this!

I was beginning to think I was a lone voice in the wilderness after this and the Beta testing threads! I *knew* there had to be someone else out there as demented as me.

Dar Steckelberg

[CoolColJ]

There must be room for polygon Blood somehwere

CCJ

[Thomm]

Especially for you, CoolColJ: Body littered battlefield from "Shogun, Total War":

5000 infantry with individual AI in real-time ? I don't know ...

Regards, Thomm

[Fionn]

Thomm,

The screenshot is from Shogun.. otherwise known as "the game they've recently announced won't be released due to issues they need to clear uP"...

Guess what those issues were? Come on, just guess?

Yep, you're right.

1. Piss poor AI.

2. All those little infantry figures led to some difficulties that seemingly weren't expected.

I've followed Shogun and it has been delayed recently for up to (and possibly more than) one ENTIRE year. Interesting to see what all those sprites (and other things admittedly) have done to it eh?

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[CoolColJ]

Well the snow texture looks really nice anyway

CCJ