Jump to content

In game unit encyclopedia


Destynova

Recommended Posts

IIRC, BFC has stated that they'd like to get some sort of more detailed unit information into game. For the record, I'd love to see it too. Problem is, as others have intimated, that other things are considered higher priority by BFC (and me too, for the record :D).

Doing a "Unit Info" panel in CMx1 was an easier programming task because most unit attributes were inherently matrix-based in CMx1. For example, somewhere in the CMBO game data, there was literally a matrix representing the Tiger I's armor protection that contained values like "Side Upper Hull = 80mm @ 0 deg", etc. So it was a relatively easy task to program a routine that accessed this data, and spit it out to the player as a readable table.

Similarly, small arms in CMx1 had abstract "firepower values" -- a point system that could be calculated and spit out the the player in table form. A Kar98 = 1 "firepower point" @ 500m and the like.

Not so in CMx2. In CMx2, armor protection for an AFV is literally recorded on the 3D model. Every plate, every angle, every weak point. So there is no simple "side upper hull armor = x" value anywhere in the game data, but rather data points mapped onto a complex 3D shape that would have to be distilled into something that could actually be read by a player. Similarly, rather than small arms "firepower points", CMx2 contains fuzzy logic routines that model the typical shooter's accuracy and rate of fire, typical weapon dispersion, etc., and then a routine that puts it all together and literally tracks the bullet flight through 3D space to see if it hits anything.

So presenting the CMx2 in-game data in a form that could be easily understood and used by the player would take a significant amount more programming work than it took with CMx1. Could it be done? I'm sure it could. But release date(s) would have to be pushed back, and/or implementation of other features delayed.

What might actually be more feasible would to modify the existing digital game manual, so that there was a way for the player to quickly access it without having to shell out of the game to the desktop. Add hotlinks so that e.g., clicking on a unit would let you jump to the relevant page of the manual, and you'd have something relatively close to CMx1's "unit info" panel. Still not a trivial amount of work to program, but probably less time & effort than a routine that actually distilled the in-game data and spit it out the the player in readable form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh man, I disagree here. How does encyclopedic information that you have to wade through help with ease or efficiency? It might be interesting, or even valuable the odd time but efficient or easy - I think not.

For the record I personally am looking forward to hit decals and would gladly go another release without the encyclopedia that I never read. :D

I think a lot of folks will change their view on hit decals once they see them in play. I was in the "meh" camp originally. I am most definitely not there now. They are not just pretty graphics. Seeing that shell blast through a tank turret and then noting the holes on opposite facings will suck your breath away. Reviewing a Panther turret after it has been under sustained fire from a PAK front and seeing all the dings makes you really appreciate why your optics and spotting ability are now s**t. They are both extremely immersive and informative without having to click on the vehicle to actually check how it's optics might be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of folks will change their view on hit decals once they see them in play. I was in the "meh" camp originally. I am most definitely not there now. They are not just pretty graphics. Seeing that shell blast through a tank turret and then noting the holes on opposite facings will suck your breath away. Reviewing a Panther turret after it has been under sustained fire from a PAK front and seeing all the dings makes you really appreciate why your optics and spotting ability are now s**t. They are both extremely immersive and informative without having to click on the vehicle to actually check how it's optics might be.

giggity giggity :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC, BFC has stated that they'd like to get some sort of more detailed unit information into game. For the record, I'd love to see it too. Problem is, as others have intimated, that other things are considered higher priority by BFC (and me too, for the record :D).

-snipp-

You do raise some valid points about how the calculations of small arms fire and armor is different in this new generation of games. Naturally trying to describe the armor thickness and angle of every single part of a tank would be rather cumbersome to do. However for the layman a unit description as presented in the first combat mission games is more than good enough even though the actual calculations of armor penetrations are now more complex.

I have attached a picture of the unit card from the CM beta. This information is basically what non grogs need in order to actually know what kind of unit they have and what they can expect of it. It gives armor for Front, side and rear and information about what the gun penetration is at different ranges and against different angles.

As it is a more casual gamer given the option to select between several different Pz IV models from A's to F2's would have no idea what kind of armor the tank would have as well as the penetrating power of the main gun. Grogs would know easily, but I'm trying to convey how the lack of a unit encyclopedia makes thing more difficult for newer gamers therefor less fun.

YankeeDog, I can fully understand why you would want BFC to implement features that would add more value to the game from your viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with that as BFC has limited resources and can only do so much in a given time frame.

However speaking of myself, I think that if the original CM:BO and CM:BB did not have an in game unit encyclopedia and that finding out what the units did was a hassle that required me to use out of game resources I may have given up on the series. It would have been my loss no doubt, but as it was CM:BO was my entry point into strategy (and tactical) games. I therefor believe that it would make sense financially for BFC to make the game a bit more accessible for newer or not so hardcore strategy gamers as that would help "recruit" the next generation of BFC fans that will buy their games and ensure that they will enjoy economic security so that they may continue to produce more games

I believe that an in game encyclopedia can be a good step in that direction while still being of use and value for grogs. :)

post-31375-141867625134_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a tangent, but relevant to this discussion - have you seen this tool ?

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=113489

Not sure exactly how it works and so forth, but from the beta video linked it seems like it is already addressing some of the requested info ... :)

This look very interesting. Its basically what I would like to see in the game. While this is something I would use I would argue that new players might not know of this mod and therefor it would have been nice if this was something that was implemented by BFC. Basically first impressions are important and if a new player gets frustrated by lack of information or that getting it is difficult they may not stick around for long and in the end that may cost BFC sales.

I love the CM franchise and I would like see even more games from BFC. Also I would be happy if more players found the CM series and started to play it, but in todays world of easy access for everything a bad first impression or some cumbersome interface choices can turn away people who would otherwise have played the game and matured into hardcore CM grogs with time :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. Does it change if there are literally only TWO dev's?

The Brain and Phil are it, as far as I know, for BFC.

Ken, who'd love to have an in-game encyclopedia

So basically what we need to do is to recruit more wargames for BFC so they can afford to hire more progamers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...fuzzy logic routines that model the typical shooter's accuracy and rate of fire, typical weapon dispersion, etc., and then a routine that puts it all together and literally tracks the bullet flight through 3D space to see if it hits anything."

This must be an engineer talking lol. I don't want that detail of info. I was thinking of just some simple in-game easily accessible data that can briefly explain to newbies the relative strengths of a Tiger vs a Sherman etc. You know, a crayon-level match-up. Those of us raised on CM1 don't need a database. But, have been assuming that BF is interested in new customers who may not have had the benefit of CM1 experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was explained to me awhile ago that Google makes in-game encyclopedias redundant. You want to know about Mosin Nagant rifles? Or WWII wooden bridges, or GAZ-MM trucks, or the floran and fauna of Poland? jump to desktop, Google it and you will instantly find more info than BFC could possibly compile into a single reference. The Game manual does come with a 'mini-encyclopedia', a brief description of every vehicle and weapon in the game.

Does no one have cognitive dissonance when arguing :in game information superfluous due to the internet. [Then notes] Relevant information comes in the paper/pdf manual.

The internet and search engines were around when Battlefront first started selling the games. Games sold from this website on the internet . . .

Stuff like Game PIV early with bolt FH on FH on plates more likely to be penetrated by US 3inch guns than PIVJ with once piece RHA plate is not glaringly obvious on the first page of google but the different armour configurations are noted in the manual.

One should also note that CIV 5 still has a civopedia and paradox games are riddled with mouse over tooltips, Total war games still have in game unit cards and one page briefs and stats not people arguing: "learn to wikia/google/bing noob."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't know all this stuff in your sleep? :D

Well I guess that's one of the advantages of being what the younger generations calls "old"...

Back in the day before personal computers were common and the internet was the play thing of universities and the DoD, the rest of us had to make due with plastic model kits from the likes of Revell, Momogram, Tayimya.

Then there were the boardgames from AH and SPI.

I can still remember the days when I dreamed all of the above could be done on something like a computer.

Those days are here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically what we need to do is to recruit more wargames for BFC so they can afford to hire more progamers.

Or use Kickstarter. Too bad BF couldn't be classified as a non-profit entity. Donations could then be charitable deductions and tax write-offs.

If I'm not mistaken fans of IL-2 have kicked in more than what is needed to fund an upgrade for that classic. I still have Il-2 1946 on my hard disk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth I think hit decals (and WEGO TCP/IP) could easily have been forgone. :)

In a game like CM gameplay ease/efficiency is more important than more pretty graphics.

And I can counter that by saying that WEGO TCP/IP will be a very enjoyable feature, and finally dispensing with having to see knocked-out vehicles with nary a shell hole in them is a very good thing. Graphics do matter in this age of computer technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not for BFC, it doesn't.

What features are you prepared to forgo in order to get this encyclopedia? Flamethrowers? Tank riders? Hit decals? WeGo TCP/IP? All four?

I wouldn't be willing to give up any of those. -Not by a mile.

I remember the CMx1 system. Yes, it was nice. I enjoyed referencing it perhaps once every battle or two--mainly for infantry firepower vs range. I never needed it for armor and ballistics. You learn that pretty quick by experience.

Hey, how about this quick fix:

When you run a Target line from your gun to an AFV, an elderly Jewish man chimes in ala the old TV commercial to declare either, Not smart! or Smart!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't know all this stuff in your sleep? :D

Well I guess that's one of the advantages of being what the younger generations calls "old"...

Back in the day before personal computers were common and the internet was the play thing of universities and the DoD, the rest of us had to make due with plastic model kits from the likes of Revell, Momogram, Tayimya.

Then there were the boardgames from AH and SPI.

I can still remember the days when I dreamed all of the above could be done on something like a computer.

Those days are here...

Did you know much of the Soviet Heavy Armor in Panzerblitz was given overrated armor protection because there was no hard data available in the West when the game was created in 1971?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't know the Soviet Armor was overrated...remember the Russian SMG units had some impressive attack strengths.

Was hard to find opponents. Back in those days you could play by snail mail, but I never did. I actually got Panzerblitz, Panzer Leader, Luftwaffe, Tobruk, Italy and some other AH games I can't really recall in a trade.

I gave someone some Playboy, Penthouse and some Hustler mags and I got the games.

If I still had the games I would say I got the better end of that deal, but after moving a round a bit the games got lost in the shuffle.

I do remember a few years later when we moved to Saudi Arabia in 1979-when it was still a backwards medieval place and I had to live without TV or many of the things we take for granted in the west I was allowed to bring a few games and Tobruk was a life saver-cause there was NOTHING to do and being in the middle of nowhere really sucked. Venturing into the cities was facinating for a while, but that too got old. I also spent a lot of time reading books like Foxes of the Desert and Scorched Earth, but playing AH Tobruk was most of my entertainment.

I also shipped Squad Leader, but that somehow never made it :(

Speaking of Squad Leader a few years later I saw some reference to the effect it was evil and the work of the devil because the American units had the value of the devil.

Someone in some review also railed on the fact that units that failed morale were flipped over with the words "Broke" and said leaders would rally the men by paying them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I alone in not wanting an encyclopedia? I think it is so much more realistic the way it is now, as you have to make educated guesses and takes risks the way a real commander would. Can that Panzer penetrate my armor at this distance? Will those walls protect my HMG from incoming fire? Questions like those, to me, are the heart of CM. You place yourself in the shoes of a commander and try to lead as he would. Now, I research, and nothing stops me from using what I've learned about guns and tanks to formulate a good decision. But to me, bringing up a handy encyclopedia with a few clicks just kills some of the "magic" of CM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I alone in not wanting an encyclopedia?

No, MikeyD has your back. You two against the world.

But to me, bringing up a handy encyclopedia with a few clicks just kills some of the "magic" of CM.

Fortunately, you will probably always have the option of not clicking. ;)

From what it sounds like, the decision has already been made. It's a matter of when, not if.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All joking aside. I would love to see an encylopedia, more reference material, historical background and how it all works myself. I'd also like to see it exportable or in PDF format to so I could download to phone to look at from time to time.

While we're at it what I would really like to see is a replay feature that is not only viewable on your PC, but also in a format I could view on my smartphone.

The ultimate would be a replay feature where you could save and view an entire battle against the AI or H2H on your PC and smartphone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The ultimate would be a replay feature where you could save and view an entire battle against the AI or H2H on your PC and smartphone."

I dont see how this could be implemented without a lot of complications:

If you were to watch replays in true 3D where you would still be able to view the actions from every desirable angle then you would also need to have some version of the CM engine on your phone.

And if you only wanted to watch 2D replays, how would the game decide which angle to choose out of the infinite number of possible angles?

And lastly: Personally, I would never try watch CM replays on my smartphone - I ve had a hard time enough trying to write this on the thing ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, MikeyD has your back. You two against the world.

Fortunately, you will probably always have the option of not clicking. ;)

From what it sounds like, the decision has already been made. It's a matter of when, not if.

Three! Count me in too!

Though of course, you are right I can always choose not to use it ... :)

Also, for me it depends WHAT is in the "encyclopedia". If it is a way of more easily accessing the specs of vehicles and units (remind me, what gun does that AFV have? How many rounds of ammo is it likely to have? etc) without having to go outside the game, either to the manual or to Wiki or whatever, then for me that is fine, and presumably relatively easily accomplished.

But if - as seems sometimes to be the case - people want it to bring up e.g. hit and penetration probability %s for a specific, current, in game vehicle match up - then no thanks, I don't WANT even to look at it; and if I'm honest I guess I don't want my opponents to be able to either, but part of my objection is that I don't think it would - should! - do them much good anyway, because of all of the variables involved.

In another post I'm fairly certain that Steve recommended playing the game intuitively, and I like that approach: we do need information to be able to do that (and also, in my case, as my results so amply demonstrate, better intuition ...:D), but some proposals for the encyclopedia are a step too far for me away from the way I like the game to work.

And as always, it will likely come at a (perhaps modest) cost of something else being put back because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...