Damaged/Destroyed vehicle models?

[Oddball_E8]

Doesn't TOW have something like this?

I recall seeing "bulletholes" in my tanks in TOW yeah...

[Michael Emrys]

There lies the critical diff between a wargamer that plays computer games and a computer gamer that plays wargames: Our philosophy - realism is found in the gameplay first and foremost, and secondly to that, in the effects, art and visuals.

Amen to that!

Michael

[agusto]

Doesn't TOW have something like this?

Yeah, it does. Entrance and exit holes are showen on tanks and other vehicles.

[Childress]

How is it not necessary? Knocked out vehicles adds to the confusion of combat adds spice to the game. Killed/damaged vehicle would also add immersion to the game.

Sure about that? You, as the player, want absolute graphical assurance that the enemy Stug at 800m distance which has sustained a hit is out of action? Because it's stopped moving? The amount of time before it is recognized as killed is random and is called the Death Clock (introduced in CMBB, iirc). It's part of the Fog of War. You want realism, right? Hint: if it's smoking, it's dead.

[agusto]

Hint: if it's smoking, it's dead.

I ve always wondered if smoking marihuana in a tank with the hatches closed improves the high.

[John Kettler]

In the Western Desert, standard British practice was to keep firing on a tank until it either brewed up or the crew was seen to bail out. Mind, this was for 2-pdr firing AP Shot, so there wasn't much to see absent such visuals. To me, the Death Clock in CMBB was a great innovation and added greatly to realism. As for the dead tank in Bosnia, under any sort of reduced visibility conditions, I have no doubt it would be perceived as a target and treated accordingly. Indeed, there are plenty of instances where a tank carcass got shot again because it wasn't obviously destroyed and the newly arrived tank crew wasn't taking any chances.

I'd love to see damage depicted (decals better than nothing), but to do it right would not only be an enormous amount of work but would greatly add to the CPU load. As it is, any battle with lots of burning tanks starts to affect the speed of the game turns. This is to be expected, because the display workload has been drastically increased. The effect is particularly pronounced on rigs which lack high power video chips/cards. For example, I'm running a 3.06 GHz iMac with Intel Core Duo, 4 GB of VRAM and 256 MB VRAM. As the carnage mounted in Barkmann's Corner, it took considerably longer for my iMac to process the turns, this with the settings at default.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Bloody Bill]

Sure about that? You, as the player, want absolute graphical assurance that the enemy Stug at 800m distance which has sustained a hit is out of action? Because it's stopped moving? The amount of time before it is recognized as killed is random and is called the Death Clock (introduced in CMBB, iirc). It's part of the Fog of War. You want realism, right? Hint: if it's smoking, it's dead.

Not sure exactly what this comment is about as its nothing that was talked about. Nobody said they wanted "absolute graphical assurance". I asked if there was a mod or something that had a damaged/destroyed vehicle model. That is it nothing more. I do believe going back to your Stug story that at 800m it would be hard to tell for sure, at 100m with a panzer IV shooting a jeep you would tell for sure. Has nothing to do with gameplay just adds to the game. A lot of people seem very against adding anything more than vanilla, seems strange to me for this era of pc games.

I am an old board game warrior myself so being able to go from cut out counters to what we can have now is wonderful. So no disrespect meant to the traditional vanilla fans.

[Childress]

Not sure exactly what this comment is about as its nothing that was talked about. Nobody said they wanted "absolute graphical assurance". I asked if there was a mod or something that had a damaged/destroyed vehicle model.

I think my post was relevant. If you're requesting damage decals on enemy tanks as well as your own. John K summed it up well.

[The Steppenwulf]

Damage decals are not going to add significantly to either processing or memory. Full model damage would be more significant. However, I don't think the drag on computational power weighs in either of these considerations, as I will illustrate further on. However the real issue, above any other, will be in the time and effort to create such additional effects.

1) There has to be some correlation with the physics and shot direction otherwise it really is effects for effects sake.

2) 3d damage modelling - compare a jeep taking a direct artillery hit compared to a tank losing a track. The variations and 3d modelling work to carry it off are no light undertakings.

What interests me more (and is relevant to this debate) is that in the editor, German armour has the various camo options active (although the actual textures have yet to be added). I figure that at some point they will be added (a feature intro in MG perhaps or is it to be implemented in the add on packs?), giving us the option of selecting different camouflage textures for vehicles as well as infantry. This feature excites me more than damage because, IMO, it permits more customisation possibilites - beating damage in terms of game immersiveness.

Nevertheless, the relevance to the point about memory is that, by liberally applying all these additional textures (as they continue to enhance your visuals) is potentially much more demanding on your machine than a mere damage decal.

But what would we rather have?

[para]

Seems to me that there is a section that always seem dead set against certain ideas and wants. We are not all grognards that inhabit these boards and some of us actually love the games as much as the grogs, but we also like to see lovely visuals too.

Also can anyone tell me what the difference is between the TOW series and the CMBN series? Tow seems (i aint played it) to have several things that CM does not. is it made by the BF team or someone else?

[Wodin]

Decals have been on my wish list since CMSF...one day I hope.

[YankeeDog]

Also can anyone tell me what the difference is between the TOW series and the CMBN series? Tow seems (i aint played it) to have several things that CM does not. is it made by the BF team or someone else?

ToW is published by BFC but produced by another Company (1C, IIRC). So none of the BFC team do any of the coding on it or anything like that; they just market and sell it.

It's fundamentally similar to CM in that it is a 3D, tactical wargame. Very generally, I'd say ToW is more towards the "Mainstream" end of the spectrum -- Real-Time only, incorporates fun but not so realistic features like soldiers being able to pick up and use enemy weapons on the fly, allows crews jump into and drive abandoned enemy vehicles on the battlefield, etc.

Never really played it other than the a couple of times just to give it a try. From what little I've played it, it doesn't look like a bad game, but my wargame tastes are definitely more towards the "grognard" end of the spectrum, so I'll stick with CM. I see little reason to own both -- either one of the other is going to be more to your liking.

[para]

I don't fancy it myself either. Just saw that it had a few features in it that a few CM's have also requested

cheers

[Wodin]

Para, I'd go for Graviteam Tactics over ToW.

[John Kettler]

Wodin,

Back when I looked into it, I was pretty impressed with what they could do in the game and the very nice visuals, not to mention all the wonderful toys and scenarios. Can't speak to gameplay. But the whole thing was moot for me, since it was PC only. That, sadly, seems to be the case for outside developer BFC games.

Regards,

John Kettler

[para]

Para, I'd go for Graviteam Tactics over ToW.

I wont be getting either Wodin. I'm a CM man and MG is round the corner

[Wodin]

Shame..it's always going on sale at GG..and it's a damn fine game. Depending on mood depends on which I fire up..though I expect once CM East front arrives it will get less play.