Operation Market Garden announced!

[Buzz]

I hear you...but I still want to burn you once we have flamethrowers...cue Buzz.

Mord.

Folks in the Black Sea & SF2 "I Love the Smell of Flamethrowers in the Morning, Smells like, Victory!"

[Battlefront.com]

Quick responses:

1. No, trenches, foxholes, and craters will continue to be shown on top of the ground (it is called a "mesh" in technical terms). There are many, many, many threads talking about this here on the Normandy Forum. The short answer is it absolutely must be this way to have Fog of War. To compare, CMSF and CMA had "deformed mesh" for such things and it had no FoW for the terrain. If you want to see why we changed that, go back and play one of those two games. Those are the two choices and players overwhelmingly want Fog of War instead of prettier graphics.

2. No to having the AI do "recon by fire" tactics. In real life such tactics were only used selectively, otherwise the units would run out of ammo before engaging in a fight. The situations for this are too subtle to code AI to use realistically. So it is not on our list of things to do in the future.

3. Flamethrowers are fun in the game, but they suck to use in real life. Besides being the subject of concentrated enemy attention, those things are damned hot. I used one years ago and lost all the hair on my arm just from the residual heat. It was fun for about 15 seconds, but the remaining 15 seconds of fuel I had paid for almost went unused. Though I am dumb enough to want to do it again

Steve

[James Crowley]

Quick responses:

3. Flamethrowers are fun in the game, but they suck to use in real life.

Steve

'The' game or 'a' game?

A game could refer to any game but 'the' game; now that could be something different entirely

But, then again, probably not

[James Crowley]

Previously introduced modules have all announced the inclusion of QB maps. Not in this one, as far as I can see. Will we be getting any?

[Battlefront.com]

Previously introduced modules have all announced the inclusion of QB maps. Not in this one, as far as I can see. Will we be getting any?

Yes, there are some under construction. I don't know how many and so that's probably why no mention of it so far.

As for flamethrowers... no, they are not in Market Garden or Normandy yet. But we've already promised that they're coming soon and that's still the plan.

Steve

[GJR144]

1. No, trenches, foxholes, and craters will continue to be shown on top of the ground (it is called a "mesh" in technical terms).

I think this was a huge step forward, but the last time I checked that, my impression was that trenches and bunkers still deform the terrain (foxholes not). Most noteable when they are placed on slopes.

This makes it quite easy to identify fortifications and the defensive centres on hilly terrain.

[Battlefront.com]

Bunkers do break FoW the more extreme the slope is, that's true. Somewhere we have on our list trying to deal with that. But it's really not an easy thing to tackle. The current thought is we just let them cut into the slope and deal with the graphical ugliness that follows. We'd also have to special code something for crews to "warp" in and out to somewhere logical because the door will most likely be "encased" in the hill.

In many respect Combat Mission, as a game engine, has hit a state where the remaining straight forward problems don't have straight forward solutions. Fortunately not many of them are what player consider to be big issues. That's because over the years we've taken care of the "easier" and/or super important stuff.

Which is to say where we're at now is overall great, but it does mean that some of the remaining issues are not so easily solved.

Note that I'm talking about technical/gameplay issues with what you've already got in your hands. Improving or extending technical/gameplay is a completely different thing. No shortage of great stuff to do over the coming years.

Steve

[Baneman]

Can I ask if you're looking into the problem of bunkers (maybe even ATG's if I recall a couple of posts correctly ) "settling" between setup and start, causing LoS issues ?

ie. you place it, it has LoS, the game starts, it doesn't.

[James Crowley]

Really looking forward to this module, as much from the fact that it represents another step along the evolutionary path of CM, as for all the positives that have already been mentioned.

I know that there aren't any major engine changes in MG but even the little ones add up over time with each new release and present a platform for the next iteration to be launched from.

It genuinely puzzles me why some people bitch and moan over the price. If they were contemplating buying a new car, PC or TV, then I can understand. But $35; that's about 20 quid in my money. Two cinema tickets; five pints of beer; a barely decent meal out or half of a theatre ticket. If things are really that tight, then I do sympathise. On the other hand if, like me, you are passionate about WW2 ground combat and CM's take on it, it is small potatoes. Keep them coming, base games, modules and packs, as quick as you please and I'll keep buying them.

[GJR144]

Bunkers do break FoW the more extreme the slope is, that's true. Somewhere we have on our list trying to deal with that. But it's really not an easy thing to tackle. The current thought is we just let them cut into the slope and deal with the graphical ugliness that follows.

For me this sounds fantastic if the FOW and pre-setup/after-setup LOS problems become solved that way.

[Battlefront.com]

It's on the list, including the sometimes frustrating "settling" problem with LOS/LOF changing. That's been reported as a "bug" internally, which means a higher priority to fix than other things.

Steve

[A Canadian Cat]

2. Unfortunately the wider market of millions of gamers haven't heard about CM because we don't have the millions of Dollars needed to reach them. Fortunately almost none of them would care even if they did see an add or promo, so at least we know that we're not missing many sales opportunities. For sure we could sell more if more people knew about CM, but the costs of trying to reach them far exceeds whatever sales we could get. We have to rely upon mostly word of mouth, reviews, Blogs, etc. and be satisfied with that because that's the only viable course of action for us.

As a teenager I tried miniature table top war gaming (I even worked on my own rules for a while) and various board games but they never were satisfying. Eventually I gave up and never really looked into it again. I discovered CM when two friends of mine were talking about a remake of a game they had enjoyed before they met me. I overheard them - they were talking about CMBN. I could not believe the CM 1x games they were talking about - it was amazing. I was excited enough for them to re buy them and the three of us played CMBB and AK while we waited for CMBN. Now two of us have been playing CMBN and CMFI and the third is trying to get into it for a third time - wish me luck getting in over the learning curve.

Words cannot express how much I wish I had known about CMBO when it first came out. I have been paying CM close to every day, sometimes more sometimes less, since I first heard about the games. I feel sure I would have been doing that for the last 10 years if I had only known.

So, there is at least one of us that could have been a customer earlier

Note I am not saying your thinking is wrong just telling you we are out there - and yes word of mouth did get me in just 10 years to late - for my liking

5. CM's map tile size of 8x8m is likely to stay around for a lot longer than we thought. First, computers have kinda leveled out in terms of performance. But more significantly we would have to do a LOT to the Editor to make it viable to make even finer resolution maps. JonS is quite right... without that we'd be in trouble. On the plus side, larger maps are being looked into for the near future. No promises as we're still pushing average hardware pretty hard.

Interesting discussion about 8x8 Action Squares. I think the look works out pretty well now - with the terrain feathering (or merging). The issues with area firing into part of an AS and the fact that an infantry team cannot be placed in a quarter of an AS (dead zones in some of the wall tiles) are problems that could possibly be addressed without going to smaller AS. I am not sure how practical that is or which would be easier. I realize there is a desire for smaller AS and the greater flexibility of placement for roads and walls that would allow. For me you could get a lot of improvements without changing the size of the AS - if that were practical - I have no idea.

[A Canadian Cat]

It's on the list, including the sometimes frustrating "settling" problem with LOS/LOF changing. That's been reported as a "bug" internally, which means a higher priority to fix than other things.

Oh, that is good to hear.

[womble]

Bunkers do break FoW the more extreme the slope is, that's true. Somewhere we have on our list trying to deal with that.

Just a quick reminder that trenches also break the FoW on more distant views. Pan out to height 6 or 7 and you'll be able to see "shadows" of where any fortifications are. Is that being addressed too? Or is it no longer a problem in later iterations?

[Lt Belenko]

....

Ouch that will be an organisational nightmare for die hard PBEMers.

Not with H2HH

[sburke]

Ouch that will be an organisational nightmare for die hard PBEMers.

Not with H2HH

+1 on that. I have PBEMs going right now on 3 different installs (2 of the CMBN) and HTHH handles it effortlessly.

[Ithikial_AU]

+1 on that. I have PBEMs going right now on 3 different installs (2 of the CMBN) and HTHH handles it effortlessly.

Don't worry I know about HTHH but the idea was for something official to be made that linked directly into the individual applications, perhaps with more functionality or something.

[waclaw]

Quick responses:

1. No, trenches, foxholes, and craters will continue to be shown on top of the ground (it is called a "mesh" in technical terms). There are many, many, many threads talking about this here on the Normandy Forum. The short answer is it absolutely must be this way to have Fog of War. To compare, CMSF and CMA had "deformed mesh" for such things and it had no FoW for the terrain. If you want to see why we changed that, go back and play one of those two games. Those are the two choices and players overwhelmingly want Fog of War instead of prettier graphics.

Steve

and last question is whether they will separate sounds for traction vehicles, such as panther, tiger, sherman? - As it was in "shock force" because there, "Abrams", "leo2" have their own sound

I made the sounds for most popular vehicles, and just waiting to be used in the game;)

for example,

PZIII

http://w479.wrzuta.pl/audio/3DKgDDkmBRE/pz3

Sherman

http://w479.wrzuta.pl/audio/0IPsvLF13HA/m4

Cromwell

http://w479.wrzuta.pl/audio/1i6TvpG9z8e/cromwell

and as I said before, you do not need to create new sounds - we will do it

[Oddball_E8]

and last question is whether they will separate sounds for traction vehicles, such as panther, tiger, sherman? - As it was in "shock force" because there, "Abrams", "leo2" have their own sound

I made the sounds for most popular vehicles, and just waiting to be used in the game;)

for example,

PZIII

http://w479.wrzuta.pl/audio/3DKgDDkmBRE/pz3

Sherman

http://w479.wrzuta.pl/audio/0IPsvLF13HA/m4

Cromwell

http://w479.wrzuta.pl/audio/1i6TvpG9z8e/cromwell

and as I said before, you do not need to create new sounds - we will do it

I wish we would get more sounds in general. It really bothers me that i cannot put bolt action sounds on the italian bolt action rifles because the same sound is used for italian machineguns.

[Fizou]

I wish we would get more sounds in general. It really bothers me that i cannot put bolt action sounds on the italian bolt action rifles because the same sound is used for italian machineguns.

Thats not good . I also hope BF will give us more options even if they just put the same sound for severeal functions. Then it will be possible to mod and we have so many tallented sound moders out there (the two posters above mine for example).

[jakla1027]

Originally Posted by Macisle

Having said the above, I will add myself to the group that is looking for more emphasis on game engine jumps than content with regards to the Bagration and Bulge families (I'm not talking about the MG module here). Specifically, I'd really like a focus on urban infantry combat and fortifications.

Originally Posted by Battlefront.com

]Not to worry, there are some urban centric improvements on the way for you guys very soon. Some will be in Market Garden, others will be in the not-too-distant-future Upgrade v3.0.

Steve,

Can you go into any details at this time on what improvements will be coming to Urban Combat in the MG Module, or further down the road in version 3.0?

Thanks

[Oddball_E8]

Thats not good . I also hope BF will give us more options even if they just put the same sound for severeal functions. Then it will be possible to mod and we have so many tallented sound moders out there (the two posters above mine for example).

Yeah, i wouldn't mind if they just repeated the same sound on different names just so we could change them at a later date.

In the old CMBN release the sound options were severely limited, but they became a bit better when they released v2.0 (or was it the CW module), but its still not as varied as i would like it to be.

[Bradley]

I wish we would get more sounds in general. It really bothers me that i cannot put bolt action sounds on the italian bolt action rifles because the same sound is used for italian machineguns.

A sweet addition it would be to have (or at least able to mod) their destinctive sounds to separate AFVs and all small arms.

[Battlefront.com]

Unfortunately sounds tax the computing resources pretty hard. The more varied they are within a battle, the bigger the hit. I'm sure we will add more weapon specific sounds over time, but it will also depend on access to good quality samples. Generally speaking that is an even bigger problem than the performance issues.

No specifics about improvements to urban fighting yet. But I can tell you that the proposed list of changes for v3.0 has about a half dozen on it. Which ones actually make it into v3.0 won't be known for some time yet. That's why we don't talk about the details ahead of time.

Steve

[agusto]

Unfortunately sounds tax the computing resources pretty hard. The more varied they are within a battle, the bigger the hit.

That is true. I have a low end PC and if i use high quality sound mods for CM, it oftens leads to no sounds beeing played at all during large firefights.