Non-gameplay improvements to CM

[Fredrik Wallin]

Brilliant thread!

As a part time designer and map designer for my own sake (never having time to write briefings etc), I would love to see several map related features added.

These would include but not be limited to:

-More textures for appearances of buildings and walls in order to increase the possibilty of variation.

-The possibility of destroying one side only of a building (using the direction arrows to choose what side of the building in question).

-Add civilian vehicles such as cars, trucks, railroad cars, locomotives, trams, etc... (no need for these to be operatng but more used to create the right ambiance in a map).

-To be able to place rubble and other details on floors above ground level.

-Burning buildings.

-Foxholes not looking like chocolate donuts!

-The "old" possibility to move/nudge craters when designing scenario maps.

-Show the area covered by a minefield when designing a scenario as well as during setup.

Thank you.

[JonS]

-More textures for appearances of buildings and walls in order to increase the possibilty of variation.

You can do this already, I believe. IIRC it's 'just' a matter of adding new textures with higher numbers.

-The possibility of destroying one side only of a building (using the direction arrows to choose what side of the building in question).

You can do this already. CTRL+click (or SHIFT+click? Which is the one that changes the windows?) to cycle through to the end and you get the destroyed wall option. That's for Modular Buildings. Independent buildings are handled somewhat differently.

-Add civilian vehicles such as cars [and] trucks

You can - sort of - do this already. I use destroyed or immobilised trucks and jeeps of various flavours, including switching sides and nationalities to get more variety.

[Fredrik Wallin]

You can do this already, I believe. IIRC it's 'just' a matter of adding new textures with higher numbers.

-I have no idea what that means... I was more suggesting different types/kinds of walls/building facades.

You can do this already. CTRL+click (or SHIFT+click? Which is the one that changes the windows?) to cycle through to the end and you get the destroyed wall option. That's for Modular Buildings. Independent buildings are handled somewhat differently.

-Not what meant. Think the building in "sacing pvt Ryan" where the family is trapped and they get attacked by the sniper.

You can - sort of - do this already. I use destroyed or immobilised trucks and jeeps of various flavours, including switching sides and nationalities to get more variety.

-This is not really the same as civilian vehicles, trains and such.

[JonS]

I was more suggesting different types/kinds of walls/building facades.

Yeah, that's what I was talking about. Have a look in the repository - there's bound to be something there.

Not what meant. Think the building in "sacing pvt Ryan" where the family is trapped and they get attacked by the sniper.

You mean in the editor, or in the game? In the editor you can destroy selected walls with SHIFT+click (or CTRL+click?). In the game you can destroy selected walls with dems charges or heavy calibre fire.

This is not really the same as civilian vehicles

Sure, but it's better than nothing, and if you swap sides and nationalities (and forces within nationalities) there a surprising amount of variety available.

[umlaut]

I´m with you much of the way, Fredrik. But many of your suggestions are already made to some extend as mods - or being made as we speak.

-More textures for appearances of buildings and walls in order to increase the possibilty of variation.

Like JonS said. It is possible if you add extra numbers. Try looking at Kieme´s building mods.

-The possibility of destroying one side only of a building (using the direction arrows to choose what side of the building in question).

I know, this is not what you request, but I am currently working on a mod set that will enable you to use damaged buildings (to some extend, at least. There are game limitations)

Here´s more:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=115775

-Add civilian vehicles such as cars, trucks, railroad cars, locomotives, trams, etc... (no need for these to be operatng but more used to create the right ambiance in a map).

Train cars and locomitives are top of my personal flavor object list too. Personally, I don´t think BFC should spend much energy an making civilian cars. The number of civilian cars in Europe was very low in the forties. Especially in the Soviet Union - and especially after three years of war.

BTW, I have made a rail car mod - with great help from Juju. I´ll release it soon.

12

-Foxholes not looking like chocolate donuts!

There are several mods for foxholes - including one made by yours truly, that is meant to represent foxholes/trenches covered with camo net (for CMBN, but works with all CM2 titles):

http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods/4855/details

[poesel]

I wonder if BFC will ever open up the creation of flavour objects to the community. Units I understand they won't - that would kill them economically. But flavour objects?

[Sickie]

Since the Devs seem to be bored to death I think it is time again for such a thread.

- the name of the game in the password screen

In case this is because you sometimes fail to remember which pbem it is you're loading; it's possible to type the password and hit enter right away at the very moment the loadscreen starts.

[umlaut]

I wonder if BFC will ever open up the creation of flavour objects to the community.

I am not sure what you mean by "creation of flavour objects", Poesel? Because it is possible to add new .mdr files to the flavor object list. I have done so several times and it is not that difficult.

I would think that it would be possible to make your own .mdr file from scratch and add it

- provided that you know how to make one of those? Which I surely don´t.

[Fredrik Wallin]

Mods are just fine and I respect mod creators, the time they spend, and tjat they share the mods but.......

Any mod requires both players (assuming pbem) have the same mods as well as any player downloading a scenario from the repository to have that mod.

I therefore believe that implementing the suggestions in this thread in the actual game would be far better as it would benefit all players automatically.

[poesel]

In case this is because you sometimes fail to remember which pbem it is you're loading; it's possible to type the password

and hit enter right away at the very moment the loadscreen starts.

That is a neat trick. I'll try it ASAP.

Because it is possible to add new .mdr files to the flavor object list. I have done so several times and it is not that difficult.

I would think that it would be possible to make your own .mdr file from scratch and add it

- provided that you know how to make one of those? Which I surely don´t.

So you copied .mdr files between games then?

But I meant the creation of new flavour objects from scratch.

@Fredrik: you don't need the same mods for PBEM. However you may need the same modules.

[Fredrik Wallin]

Are you saying that 2 players would not need the same mods to see the same modified walls, buildings or any other mod:ed item?

Obviously I understand both players would need the same module but that is not what i was asking. Again, including more options for appearances of map details in the actual game would be more beneficial to more players.

[umlaut]

The players would need the same mods to see the same modded wall, buildings etc. But since mods only affect the appearance of the buildings, units and such, then you and your opponent would still be able to play the game, even though you wouldn´t have the same mods. The game would work fine in both ends - your maps just wouldn´t look identical.

[Fredrik Wallin]

Yes, exactly!

My point being that spending time on a map with all its details, the fact that these wont be part of the experience for the player lacking a specific mod is kind of blah... therefore, increasing the variations in the actual game would to a larger degree affect more players without the need to use the specific mod.

[Muzzleflash1990]

I use the fact that what-you-see is pretty-much-what-you-get, and would like the ability to lower the camera even further.

The lowest you can go now is still some bit above the head, and using the LOS-tool (target-ing) when you just want to get a quick overview takes much longer. This would also help to check whether your units can see above some terrain feature when prone, which is not possible with LOS if the unit is currently standing or crouched.

[J Bennett]

I would like to see additional AFV damage graphics, like broken or thrown tracks.  For targeting tanks, maybe an option to try for "deliberate immobilization".

That could be a good thing if your main gun has no hope of penetrating the target armor.  Also it would be cool to have woods and buildings can catch on fire with spreading fire possible.  I am sure these things have been requested before but I guess it won't hurt to mention again

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, J Bennett said:

I would like to see additional AFV damage graphics, like broken or thrown tracks.  For targeting tanks, maybe an option to try for "deliberate immobilization".

That could be a good thing if your main gun has no hope of penetrating the target armor.  Also it would be cool to have woods and buildings can catch on fire with spreading fire possible.  I am sure these things have been requested before but I guess it won't hurt to mention again

Rather than making that a command, one would hope the program automatically has the troops fire for the best possible effect.

[Bulletpoint]

• If it's foggy and max visibility is 300m, then it would be brilliant to show that to the player using the graphics, instead of having to draw a target line and notice where it gets cut off. So basically, if you placed the camera at ground level, your view would be white-out after 300 metres. But with a toggle option to make the fog lift to see the big picture just like the night lighting option.
   
• More varieties and sizes of trees and shrubs for more variety and realistic flowing nature. It's not bad currently, but variety is the spice of life. I'd love to see three sizes of every species of tree.
   
• Maybe an option to fine-tune the position of trees within each square? Even if restricted to grid-placed trees.
   
• More seamless blending of ground textures at all camera elevations. Currently, some blend nicely but others seem to stand out and clash against each other, especially when lifting up the camera some distance from the ground.
   
• Something about moire patterns in ploughed fields.
   
• Hit decals for buildings. Or if that's too difficult, just a few more damage states (textures) would be nice.
   
• Scorched textures for tanks when they catch fire. Various real damage models would also be great, but just a burnt-out texture for each vehicle would go a long way without too (?) much extra work.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[BletchleyGeek]

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

•  
• Something about moire patterns in ploughed fields.

As long as OpenGL is the mainstay for rendering I think that's not going to happen, I'm afraid. The main problem is that the techniques that exist to "blur" the aliasing - which is what we perceive as a "moire pattern" - requires the application to access rendering data in a way which is not easy to do with OpenGL. "Easy to do" meaning "working well across platforms and drivers' vendors".

To put it in non-technical terms, Phil C. did the very best that he could do given the resources available and the constraints he was subject to. Making shadows and aliasing to go away is a solved problem only for very specific geometric relations between lights, camera and objects rendered. I have no idea what Phil did, but I think I can see clearly that for some angles and altitudes of the camera the game looks ace, probably because Phil coded in some rules to activate these when the conditions are right. In other occasions, well, the heuristic just falls apart and doesn't look very good. Even in super-recent, lavish games like Total War Warhammer, if you get close to the action at certain angles, some textures and stuff looks bad (and that's with a GTX970, which isn't top dollar, but isn't junk).

If the camera was way, way more restrictive and BFC had walked away from the Mac users who can't/won't upgrade their hardware, probably CM would look much better.

Edited December 19, 2016 by BletchleyGeek

[A Canadian Cat]

5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

• If it's foggy and max visibility is 300m, then it would be brilliant to show that to the player using the graphics, instead of having to draw a target line and notice where it gets cut off. So basically, if you placed the camera at ground level, your view would be white-out after 300 metres. But with a toggle option to make the fog lift to see the big picture just like the night lighting option.

Oh yes please. Darkness hits this too. The trouble with true WYSIWIG is that game play suffers but I agree we already have mechanisms for handling that - artificial brightness for night time, toggle off smoke.  I personally would like to see a toggle for darkness and fog.  One level for what we have now - indicates that there is fog but allows you to see enough to play and one for WYSIWIG - so dense fog is like playing inside a smoke screen, you cannot see much.  For darkness similar, one level that is like the artificial brightness now and one that is WYSIWIG so when the tank comes around the corner and you only see it when it is 10m out that is what happens in game you cannot even see the house two doors down.  Perhaps three levels would work better.  I'm easy.

 

5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

• More varieties and sizes of trees and shrubs for more variety and realistic flowing nature. It's not bad currently, but variety is the spice of life. I'd love to see three sizes of every species of tree.

I'm not sure this is high value.  Of course more is cool, especially the multi size of the same species, but there already is quite a few varieties and adding them is more work and more computing load so I'm not sure if it ranks high enough for me to ask for with the current engine.

 

5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

• Maybe an option to fine-tune the position of trees within each square? Even if restricted to grid-placed trees.

Yuck, more work for scenario designers.  Pass thanks.

 

5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

• Hit decals for buildings. Or if that's too difficult, just a few more damage states (textures) would be nice.

This would be sweet.

 

5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

• Scorched textures for tanks when they catch fire. Various real damage models would also be great, but just a burnt-out texture for each vehicle would go a long way without too (?) much extra work.

Yikes speaking of not sure if it is worth it.  This would mean special versions of all textures and then there is the issue of would we need variations of the variations to match where the flames are on the vehicle. Yes this would be awesome but I think this also falls into the category of is that really work that is worth doing.

[weapon2010]

would love to see hit decals on buildings along with the appropriate damage, in general the damage and rubble visuals to buildings could use a major upgarde.

[DLaurier]

More variety of uniforms.
Puttees, Pilotcas, Older style gimnasterka, etc.

[Bulletpoint]

15 hours ago, IanL said:

Quote

• Maybe an option to fine-tune the position of trees within each square? Even if restricted to grid-placed trees.

Yuck, more work for scenario designers.  Pass thanks.

Well it would just be an option to use in those rare cases wher fine-tuning th elocation of a tree is useful. In other cases, it would work as it does currently, so there wouldn't be more work for the designer unless he wanted to.

[Bulletpoint]

15 hours ago, IanL said:

 

Quote

• More varieties and sizes of trees and shrubs for more variety and realistic flowing nature. It's not bad currently, but variety is the spice of life. I'd love to see three sizes of every species of tree.

I'm not sure this is high value.  Of course more is cool, especially the multi size of the same species, but there already is quite a few varieties and adding them is more work and more computing load so I'm not sure if it ranks high enough for me to ask for with the current engine.

That's cool. We all have our own takes on what we think would be worthwhile. For me it would be. And if I couldn't get different sizes of the same trees, then some more vegetation in the size interval between bushes and trees would be really nice. Currently, it's either those little pretty "rose bushes" or proper trees. In real life, there are many sizes in between.

[A Canadian Cat]

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

That's cool. We all have our own takes on what we think would be worthwhile. 

Indeed.

Now if instead of offering more size chioces instead there were more versions of each tree type that were randomly assigned then cool. I'm still not sure if making that change would be a high enough priority for BFC.

[AlexUK]

14 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

That's cool. We all have our own takes on what we think would be worthwhile. For me it would be. And if I couldn't get different sizes of the same trees, then some more vegetation in the size interval between bushes and trees would be really nice. Currently, it's either those little pretty "rose bushes" or proper trees. In real life, there are many sizes in between.

I agree, it would make for much more realistic terrain.