Ghostly footsteps in the water

[Toblakai]

And my wish is that BFC doesn't follow such nonsensical advice. Whether people like it or not, graphics do matter, and they are part of the overall experience. It's not 2001 and the age of 1024x768 monitors and low-end integrated graphics cards any more. I'll happily take any graphics enhancements BFC offers.

Hi Luke,

I don’t really understand the message of your post. For me it sounds like that you prefer graphical features than the gameplay. Package beats content 3:1. Is it like that?

[Baneman]

Hi Luke,

I don’t really understand the message of your post. For me it sounds like that you prefer graphical features than the gameplay. Package beats content 3:1. Is it like that?

Don't worry. BFC have often stated that they keep careful note of what might impact gameplay ( in terms of PC power ). If they thought this enhancement would affect the gameplay adversely, they would not have done it.

They are always trying to keep a balance between fps, gameplay and graphical goodness.

[Felix_45]

And my wish is that BFC doesn't follow such nonsensical advice. Whether people like it or not, graphics do matter, and they are part of the overall experience. It's not 2001 and the age of 1024x768 monitors and low-end integrated graphics cards any more. I'll happily take any graphics enhancements BFC offers.

Luke, I think you may be missing the point of the entire thread. The point is what is more important, the graphics of foot splashes in water or fog of war. "Graphics" that magically appear (like splashing water, broken walls etc.) far away from any hope of your men having LOS to it is really bad when you are playing against a human in PBEM. Someone said (I forget who) on this thread that it is not a "game killer' like seeing tank tracks but it is still not good. For example, how does one make a sneaky flank attack on the enemy when they can see crossing water and whatnot?

It's not about the graphics its about FOW. What Toblakai is saying is that he would rather see FOW preserved than fancy shmancy graphics (that are not that good anyway)

:):)

[Childress]

Someone said (I forget who) on this thread that it is not a "game killer' like seeing tank tracks but it is still not good. For example, how does one make a sneaky flank attack on the enemy when they can see crossing water and whatnot?

That was yours truly. You're asking the game to draw a separate map for each player. One suspects this is beyond the power of the fastest personal computers. This will certainly change for the better in the future. If Moore's Law is still in effect.

[Felix_45]

@Childress:

I don't really understand the technical stuff but I do understand the problem more now that you mention about drawing separate maps.

[Toblakai]

That was yours truly. You're asking the game to draw a separate map for each player. One suspects this is beyond the power of the fastest personal computers. This will certainly change for the better in the future. If Moore's Law is still in effect.

Nobody spoke about a second map and this is not a discussion about technical possibilities. My message to BFC was: if a graphical feature (in this example insignificant water animates) has a negative impact to the gameplay, let it and spend the resources to other important things.

[Childress]

Felix: in the meantime try to think of that fordable stream as under surveillance by your extra-official eyes. Like the local peasants.

[Nidan1]

I dont imagine that every player will now minutely scan bodies of water on the far side of a map each turn, looking for telltale splashes.

I guess some players could be that gamey.

[Childress]

Why is everyone up in arms over this water splashing thing? Collapsing walls, fences and blown bocage tiles have been providing the same (minor) FOW cheats since Day 1. Why the Jacquerie now?

[Toblakai]

Why is everyone up in arms over this water splashing thing? Collapsing walls, fences and blown bocage tiles have been providing the same (minor) FOW cheats since Day 1. Why the Jacquerie now?

Don’t ask me, maybe it has emotional reasons

[Baneman]

I dont imagine that every player will now minutely scan bodies of water on the far side of a map each turn, looking for telltale splashes.

I guess some players could be that gamey.

Hehe, another use for 2IC squads ! Water-misinformation !

[Michael Emrys]

Hehe, another use for 2IC squads ! Water-misinformation !

Cool! A ruse of war.

Michael

[LukeFF]

Hi Luke,

I don’t really understand the message of your post. For me it sounds like that you prefer graphical features than the gameplay. Package beats content 3:1. Is it like that?

No, of course I want gameplay improvements, but I also want improvements to the visual presentation of the game. We're not in the era of CMx1 and low-end computers any more, where skimping on graphics was an acceptable thing. Although BFC can be slow at times with graphics improvements (look at how long it took them to implement normal mapping), I applaud any efforts they make to enhance the look of the game.

[LukeFF]

Luke, I think you may be missing the point of the entire thread. The point is what is more important, the graphics of foot splashes in water or fog of war. "Graphics" that magically appear (like splashing water, broken walls etc.) far away from any hope of your men having LOS to it is really bad when you are playing against a human in PBEM. Someone said (I forget who) on this thread that it is not a "game killer' like seeing tank tracks but it is still not good. For example, how does one make a sneaky flank attack on the enemy when they can see crossing water and whatnot?

It's not about the graphics its about FOW. What Toblakai is saying is that he would rather see FOW preserved than fancy shmancy graphics (that are not that good anyway)

And in that respect the water splashes are no different than being able to see a wall or hedge knocked over / blown through a kilometer away, even though no one on your side was even close to having LOS to said wall or hedge. Somehow we've made it through that just fine.

[Toblakai]

No, of course I want gameplay improvements, but I also want improvements to the visual presentation of the game. We're not in the era of CMx1 and low-end computers any more, where skimping on graphics was an acceptable thing. Although BFC can be slow at times with graphics improvements (look at how long it took them to implement normal mapping), I applaud any efforts they make to enhance the look of the game.

Then everything is fine, because no one claims otherwise :cool:

And in that respect the water splashes are no different than being able to see a wall or hedge knocked over / blown through a kilometer away, even though no one on your side was even close to having LOS to said wall or hedge. Somehow we've made it through that just fine.

Walls, hedges, fences are old bugs. We are talking now about the reinstruction of already known bugs. Maybe you should read the whole thread before you post

[Felix_45]

And in that respect the water splashes are no different than being able to see a wall or hedge knocked over / blown through a kilometer away, even though no one on your side was even close to having LOS to said wall or hedge. Somehow we've made it through that just fine.

Agreed about the walls and hedges and I'll say again that although they are not gamebreakers they do give away FOW. Splashy footy prints are a bit different though.....for example. You are defending across a river that divides the map in two. You are understrength and cannot put eyes on all the different crossing areas but wait! you don't need to worry all you have to do is look at the river each and every PBEM turn to see where your opponent chooses to cross.

Can we live with it? I suppose but why introduce more graphics that go against FOW?

Walls and hedges can often (not always) be avoided....but rivers, streams....oh my! Sometimes you have to cross them. So the same but different I think.

[LukeFF]

Walls, hedges, fences are old bugs. We are talking now about the reconstruction of already known bugs. Maybe you should read the whole thread before you post

Show me where BF has called them bugs, because AFAIK they have said this is a design limitation and not an error in programming.

[Peregrine]

It is a matter of opinion.

The walls, hedges etc MUST disappear for the battlefield to look in it's correct state and provide the correct LOS / concealment etc. But they can't do this subtly. Hence the FOW killer.

All he is saying that the footsteps don't necessarily need to be there at all and do kill FOW. And if you were to watch a battle and start criticising graphical deficiencies then the lack of splashing from people fording would be a long way down the list. If it wasn't included we probably wouldn't be talking about it all.

[Toblakai]

Show me where BF has called them bugs, because AFAIK they have said this is a design limitation and not an error in programming.

It's definitely a gameplay bug, but that's splitting hairs now and how BFC called something does not matter. It does not change the facts that I have described.

We are now at post #44 and I have the feeling that it’s not really a technical discussion. The most posts are off-topic or spam and the counter-arguments written here missed the opening thread. Does somebody feel personally attack or hurt because I wrote my constructive criticism to BFC? Feedback is the way to make a product better

[76mm]

And in that respect the water splashes are no different than being able to see a wall or hedge knocked over / blown through a kilometer away, even though no one on your side was even close to having LOS to said wall or hedge.

I don't agree, for at least two reasons:

1) with a wall or hedge, once its down, its down, and you can't tell too much about it. with a river, you can count tracks and actually know how many squads, vehicles, etc., passed that way.

2) For better or for worse, we need to have the walls/hedges go down for the battlefield to be "correct". Not so with water splashes...

Thus, showing the splashes seems to have serious FoW downside, with little upside.

[c3k]

Terrain Fog of War is important and non-existant.

- When a fence falls down, I can hear it and see it. Now I know a vehicle is over there.

- When a wall falls down, now I know a tracked vehicle is near it.

- Splashes: already discussed.

- Entrenchments and bunkers also fall into Terrain FoW.

Having one, true, representation of the terrain in the game produces these issues which break FoW.

A solution would be to create 3 maps. One, the "true" map. The other two would be FoW maps visisble to each respective player.

Given this setup, perhaps the designer could then introduce MORE Fog of War by limiting the player's knowledge of the terrain. A defender could, say, have a 100% knowledge: he would see all the map at setup (subject to FoW due to the other player's actions.)

The attacker would only have 25% knowledge: He would only see the first 1/4 of the map. The rest would be greyed out until he gains LOS to it.

This setting would reflect the lack of maps or terrain information.

Recon would become very important. And perhaps tedious?

Just some thoughts...

Ken

[PanzerMike]

Terrain Fog of War is important and non-existant.

A solution would be to create 3 maps. One, the "true" map. The other two would be FoW maps visisble to each respective player.

Given this setup, perhaps the designer could then introduce MORE Fog of War by limiting the player's knowledge of the terrain. A defender could, say, have a 100% knowledge: he would see all the map at setup (subject to FoW due to the other player's actions.)

The attacker would only have 25% knowledge: He would only see the first 1/4 of the map. The rest would be greyed out until he gains LOS to it.

This setting would reflect the lack of maps or terrain information.

Recon would become very important. And perhaps tedious?

Just some thoughts...

Ken

This 3 map system might just do the trick. Only a portion of the map is visible depending on the situation at the start of the scenario. An attacker can only see a limited part of the map.

But, the attacker probably has a "real" map of the area (a simulated paper map), just like his historical counterpart. Perhaps even project this image of the "paper" map on the part of the map that has not been explored yet. This way you get a mix of views. Or sumfink.

[Guest]

Water splashes' lack of FOW is a bug, guys. It'll be fixed in the patch.

[Fizou]

Water splashes' lack of FOW is a bug, guys. It'll be fixed in the patch.

Cool, thats great news Phil! New graphics is great, and if FOW can be maintained its a win win

[Toblakai]

Water splashes' lack of FOW is a bug, guys. It'll be fixed in the patch.

That was now "Much Ado About Nothing"

Thanks BFC!