Graphical improvements in the future?

[LukeFF]

Vehicle damage is definitely high on my wish list. Seeing knocked out tanks that had been hit by multiple AT rounds but displaying no external damage looks...odd.

[Placebo]

Fire, hand held flamethrowers, flame tanks - would not only be great eye-candy but a great game feature as well.

[LongLeftFlank]

Vehicle damage is definitely high on my wish list. Seeing knocked out tanks that had been hit by multiple AT rounds but displaying no external damage looks...odd.

Yeah!

[umlaut]

Now, let's just say someone gave us that amount of money, free and clear with no need to repay it. Do you think our customers would be happier if we put most of it towards gameplay improvements or most of it towards graphics? I'm very sure we all know the answer!

Steve

Well, I for one would definitely hope that you´d use 1/4 on gameplay and 3/4 on graphics improvements. But I may be part of the minority here.

I´m pretty much satisfied with the gameplay - and in many ways in line with Macisle here - with minor priority differences:

1) More realistic building damage

At the moment damage is limited to "one hole in the wall of each floor".

My 9 year old son plays a lot of "World of Tanks" (wonder what inspired him?) and even though the tank "evolution tree" is ridiculous, I really find myself looking enviously at the damaged cities and their graphics. Yes, I know, I know: Multi million dollar budgets and so on - but one can dream, can´t one? (until the great benefactor actually shows up )

2) More realistic vehicle damage

Macisle said it

3) Better/more varied infantry animations.

My pet aversion is troops moving with the "move" command. They always move in perfect unison.

4) curved or "22 1/2 degree" road sections.

Right now roads are either 0, 45 or 90 degree angles. 22 1/2 degree sections would add a lot more options for the scenario designer (but I suspect it would be hell trying to create all those little pieces that would have to fit together).

5) More flavor objects.

My personal pet wish is trains: Boxcars, passenger cars and locomotives in damaged and undamaged states. Railroads and stations look rather empty without them.

6) And again:

These improvements would in my view change the best game around from fantastic to perfect

[wadepm]

Naturally curved roads would impact the way you play? Why?

I meant visual impact...

[Battlefront.com]

Well, I for one would definitely hope that you´d use 1/4 on gameplay and 3/4 on graphics improvements. But I may be part of the minority here.

I think if we listened to you're prioritization you'd have to hope nobody found out your real name and where you lived

My sense of our customer base is the exact opposite. 3/4 on gameplay, 1/4 on graphics. I personally think it should be more 50/50 from now only simply because we've spent so much of the previous 7 years (or 14 years in some ways) on the gameplay stuff. But it's not like we have hard and fast rules so I actually have no idea how things will actually play out. Or in fact how they have played out in the past few releases! We don't keep track of things that way.

Steve

[Ithikial_AU]

More realistic building damage.

- More a gameplay element then a graphical improvement but houses half/quarter collapsing based on the direction of the incoming fire rather than completely collapsing after a certain point would be a great addition especially for urban combat improvements. Modular buildings sort of touches on this but still feels a little off.

Circular Roads

- Or possibly a 30 degree and 60 degree angled road tiles in the editor. This could possibly help historical map makers better match the twists and turns of European roads. The limit to 45 degree intervals causes some problems in my (granted limited) experience.

Fire

- Enough said.

I'm not in the camp of wanting a major graphical enhancement so CM can look like Crysis, but variety and options is one of it's biggest strengths as a wargame IMO. I hope the variety keeps improving as upgrades/modules/packs roll off the factory floor. These of course have graphics involved. *Cough* Terrain packs *Cough*

[Macisle]

I personally think it should be more 50/50 from now only simply because we've spent so much of the previous 7 years (or 14 years in some ways) on the gameplay stuff.

Whoot! That's great to hear, Steve. You guys have done such an ace job on gameplay, CM really deserves some TLC on the eye candy (icing to match the cake, as it were).

As far as examples of what I consider great vehicle damage graphics, Iron Front Liberation 1944 really does an excellent job on tanks (their art team was superb!). Regular Arma 2 and Invasion 44 aren't that pleasing to me on vehicle damage--and can be downright cheesy (ala shiny new to generic burnt-out hulk in an instant).

Whoever works on this for BF should really review what IFL1944 does in this department. They also use flame in a similar way to Vein in his excellent (my main must-have mod) "Vein's Flames" mod for CM.

If it's kosher, I might post some pics and/or vids to show what I'm talking about.

[Buzz]

Fire

- Enough said.

Fire? Show Smoky some love

http://blogs.usda.gov/2013/07/16/smokey-bear-gives-bear-hugs-in-new-wildfire-prevention-campaign/

[AstroCat]

I think if we listened to you're prioritization you'd have to hope nobody found out your real name and where you lived

My sense of our customer base is the exact opposite. 3/4 on gameplay, 1/4 on graphics. I personally think it should be more 50/50 from now only simply because we've spent so much of the previous 7 years (or 14 years in some ways) on the gameplay stuff. But it's not like we have hard and fast rules so I actually have no idea how things will actually play out. Or in fact how they have played out in the past few releases! We don't keep track of things that way.

Steve

At this point 50/50 or more sounds awesome to me. I'll take it, can't wait to see the graphics end try and catch up with the under the hood mechanics side.