Some inspiration for BattleFront's future games?

[LukeFF]

I'd like to state here that I would be willing to invest the equivalent of a full game price into a kickstarter campaign (or some such) that would convert any one CM game to something like Unity. I'd also take a new game, too.

Steve has said they are switching to the Unity engine at some point: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1498651&postcount=27

[SlowMotion]

Quality of Life. Making stuff easier, more streamlined and informative.

One area where I would like to do things easier is identifying which parts of the map can be driven through with a vehicle and which not. Now trying to find paths to your tank through an area can be very time consuming. Especially if there are trees in the area.

In CMx1 games it was very easy to recognize map tiles where you could and couldn't move. Switch off trees and possible paths were easy to see. In CMx2 it can take ages of moving your cursor around the map trying to find these map tiles that don't block movement.

[John Kettler]

Bulletpoint,

Simply amazing and spectacular--not to mention super fast! Thanks very much for sharing this with us. I'm completely unqualified to engage in the subsequent discussion, except to say I have heard of OpenGL and am aware that at some point BFC was having issues with it.

SlowMotion,

IRL, such matters are addressed in trafficability studies as part of terrain analysis in the course of preparation of the battlefield. What the British called "going" maps were highly prized, and they suckered the Germans shortly before El Alamein with a fake map left in an abandoned, broken down armored car--which was very carefully situated and made to look completely legit in every detail. The Germans moved into what they thought was good ground and found themselves bogging down in ground not at all suitable for AFV movement. The Germans in Russia until some time in 1943 (Russian Army HQ overrun) lacked a decent set of maps and found themselves in all sorts of going trouble as a result.

At the current level of play, pathing is a real tactical issue, and there are myriad accounts of real world problems relating to it. Don't know whether the game permits it, but the Russians sometimes simply bulled through woods (say, birch) by smashing down the trees hindering movement. 1:13 below and following few seconds give some idea of how big a tree can be dealt with in this way.

KV-1 doc.

On balance, I'd say that pathing woes must simply be taken as part of Clausewitz's friction of war.

Regards,

John Kettler

[SlowMotion]

I am aware of the IRL part. Map quality was a major problem during WW2.

But this is a game and many other things are already much easier than IRL.

For instance, real commanders didn't have constant knowledge of the position and status of their soldiers so they could make instant changes to plans when needed.

This part of the battle is more realistic when you play in real time mode. Since you cannot observer all units at the same time and give orders

it is possible that enemy units manage to do something for several minutes before you notice it and react.

But I do understand this is not top priority, just WouldBeNiceToHave.

[Michael Emrys]

I think the only time I have had a serious pathing issue was in one QB in FI/GL. I had some engineers blast a wall I wanted my armor to cross, but the resulting debris was enough to cause all kinds of headaches. That was a mistake I vowed never to repeat.

Michael

[womble]

What the British called "going" maps were highly prized, and they suckered the Germans shortly before El Alamein with a fake map...

The story of the war seems littered with examples of the Allies fooling the Germans with elaborate fake intelligence, and cover-ups for the real sources of intelligence that they did gather and use against the Jerries. Was such sneakiness confined to the winning side, or did the Germans manage similar capers against the Allies?

[poesel]

For instance, real commanders didn't have constant knowledge of the position and status of their soldiers so they could make instant changes to plans when needed.

I still hope that we will get sometimes a further play mode where you can only view the battlefield from HQ units at level 1.

[Buzz]

Many 3D laden games are mostly GPU-limited now as my understanding has it.

*I noticed a huge improvement in my game experience with everything set to best installing GTX 760 with 4 GB Memory on a 5 year old slow CPU Mac Pro. Loading times and turn calculations were slow compared to the hackintosh but the game looked and scrolled much better with a stronger GPU*

If graphics application programming interface such as OpenGL which provides a software abstraction of the GPU is poorly designed, inefficient or parts actually 'broken' by an OS vendor , it makes for a lot of extra work around and a bad investment for any company with ambitious graphical goals.

As the resolutions increase (October new 27-inch Retina iMac may come with a "5K" resolution of 5120 x 2880) gamers will need beefier GPUs and more efficient APIs to use all the potential not very far from now.

I am sure Battlefront has plenty of "wish lists" from customers as well as some of their own favorite items. It seems 'if' BFC is going to make a game engine swap, getting it's customer base filled with solid working CMx2 content would be the foundation for a move to CMx3 'new game engine'. This would give them some time to make a major improvement in our CM gaming future.

[John Kettler]

womble,

Ever hear of Unternehmen Nordpol/Operation North Pole aka Englandspiel/England Game? This was a superb German counterintelligence op in Holland which ran for years. For quite a long while, the Germans captured ALL and turned most Dutch SOE (Special Operations Executive, charged by PM Winston Churchill to "Set Europe ablaze.") agents sent in to organize resistance to the Germans and report useful intel. Those who refused to cooperate were sent to lovely places such as Mauthausen, where they died or were killed. This was Germany's version of what the British XX Committee/Double Cross did to the Germans with their agent network in England. It was subsequently been alleged the British rumbled to what the Germans were doing and turned the game back on them, but not only was the direct damage acute and ongoing, as seen by the agent losses, RAF aircraft and crew losses and considerable unwitting transfers of war materiel into open German arms, but some hold that it created such a lack of distrust in the Dutch resistance that it led to Monty's blowing off the repeated warnings about the two SS Panzer divisions refitting in the Arnhem. And we all know how well that worked out! Some of the translations are a bit tortured, but their info content is much higher than in English language sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englandspiel

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englandspiel

http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/index.php/Category:SOE_The_Netherlands

When you control the other side's agent network, you effectively control much of the opposition's perception of the situation, as well as its ability to do anything contrary to your interests.

But for strategic deception, it would be tough to match the German OPDEC (Operational Deception) effort prior to Barbarossa. Hitler's extraordinarily audacious explanation for and personal assurances the massive German buildup at Russia's borders have only recently surfaced.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol50no1/9_BK_What_Stalin_Knew.htm

A broader look at the overall German OPDEC scheme for Barbarossa. It matters not that the rather porous OPDEC scheme was made possible by Stalin's unwillingness to accept what so many told him, for as the great Sun Tzu pointedly observed "Primary target in war is the mind of the enemy commander." And that is particularly true when getting ready to attack.

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133b/07Projects/Murphy2005MatthewNeal073.htm

I think it could fairly be argued what the Germans planned and achieved utterly eclipses what the Western Allies subsequently did in terms of OPDEC.

Regards,

John Kettler

[hobo]

I wonder how that engine would hold up with hundreds or even thousands of bullets flying around in real time.

Honestly, better graphics is probably not anywhere near my top 10 wish list for game improvements. I would prefer BFs time be spent improving the playability, adding content, improving campaigns and fixing bugs.

[Michael Emrys]

...they suckered the Germans shortly before El Alamein...

If I may offer a correction, it was shortly before the battle of Alam Halfa. The second and more famous battle of El Alamein came several weeks later.

Michael

[womble]

I still hope that we will get sometimes a further play mode where you can only view the battlefield from HQ units at level 1.

You do realise that that view restriction would make the game literally, yes, literally, unplayable. You wouldn't be able to tell any unit to go anywhere you couldn't see from an HQ unit. So an infantry squad couldn't go round the corner out of sight of any HQ unit. A tank couldn't move along a backfield road unless you had HQ-eyes on it. You wouldn't be able to send your troops across a linear LOS-blocking obstacle unless your HQ had its face poking through it.

And even if the AI became sufficiently autonomous that subunits would follow some sort of map-based plan, it'd be a completely different game conceit, and not what CM is aiming to be at all.

Even restricting the camera to "units-eye-view" (any unit, not just HQs) would mean many simple maneuvers would become impossible to order in one turn: "Go round that corner and sneak into the farmhouse" wouldn't be possible. "Advance into the next field" wouldn't be possible until your units could actually see into the next field, which could waste a lot of time unnecessarily, particularly so when maneuvering in defilade in secure areas. Maneuver in towns and forests (I bet you'd want the trees left on permanently too) wouldn't just be claustrophobic, it'd be a clusterf***.

[hobo]

LOL. I tried playing the game this way and have come to the exact same conclusion. Now if you could play the game in coop mode where there is a human squad/team/platoon leader for each unit then it could be a great deal of fun.

[sburke]

Classic "be careful what you wish for."

For coop what might be more interesting is to only be able to see what any of your units could see, but for order issuing you have to have a birds eye view. As wobble very clearly described, without the high level view you are simply incapable of issuing any useful commands.

Try watching just the replay locked on to a unit at level 1. Total confusion. Fun to try, but unplayable for sure.

[sburke]

Classic "be careful what you wish for."

For coop what might be more interesting is to only be able to see what any of your units could see, but for order issuing you have to have a birds eye view. As wobble very clearly described, without the high level view you are simply incapable of issuing any useful commands.

Try watching just the replay locked on to a unit at level 1. Total confusion. Fun to try, but unplayable for sure.

and my apologies womble for misspelling you handle.

[Michael Emrys]

and my apologies womble for misspelling you[r] handle.

I thought that was deliberate.

Michael

[PanzerMiller]

Wow -- thanks for the vid, Bulletpoint -- stunning graphics indeed.

I am also not a programmer, so I have no experience to add to the technical discussion here. But a CM3.x with this engine, while retaining the same "under the hood" computational complexity/realism that we enjoy now?

That would be amazing.

It's at least worth a discussion, eh?

[poesel]

You do realise that that view restriction would make the game literally, yes, literally, unplayable. You wouldn't be able to tell any unit to go anywhere you couldn't see from an HQ unit. So an infantry squad couldn't go round the corner out of sight of any HQ unit.

...

Yes, you are right. Upon further reflection I agree this would not work.

Even restricting the camera to "units-eye-view" (any unit, not just HQs) would mean many simple maneuvers would become impossible to order in one turn:

...

Maneuver in towns and forests (I bet you'd want the trees left on permanently too) wouldn't just be claustrophobic, it'd be a clusterf***.

Upon this I do not agree. Restricting the view would certainly make the game much more difficult. It would also make certain manoeuvres impossible or more time consuming. But it does not make the game impossible.

And I'm sure I wouldn't regret what I wish for: this would be a game mode that can be played or not. It is (except for the more masochistic of us) not something you would play every day. But I think it has a place in this game and it is a way to play it in a quite different way. That adds to the games value and can give a player a fresh angle.

It would be also - I guess - a 'cheap' feature to add. Nothing new, just restrictions to what is already possible.

[womble]

Yes, you are right. Upon further reflection I agree this would not work.

Upon this I do not agree. Restricting the view would certainly make the game much more difficult. It would also make certain manoeuvres impossible or more time consuming. But it does not make the game impossible.

Have you tried it? As a way to discourage people from ever going into towns, it's excellent. It only makes the game more difficult to interact with, having to cancel waypoints that snap to the wrong place because of intervening objects. As if the interface isn't difficult enough.

And I'm sure I wouldn't regret what I wish for...

Only because you're ignoring the opportunity cost of the useful things that could be developed in the time that was wasted making the game unnecessarily difficult to interact with.

[poesel]

Have you tried it?

...

Only because you're ignoring the opportunity cost of the useful things that could be developed in the time that was wasted making the game unnecessarily difficult to interact with.

I have not tried but I will. Report to follow.

Opportunity costs have to be calculated only if you have something better to do. Which is in this case highly subjective.

Your opinion is that is a waste of time while my opinion is different. That is ok but don't argue as if you had some superior insight into something which is basically a matter of taste.

And I might repeat it: this is about an OPTIONAL feature. If you don't like it don't use.

[Baneman]

...

Opportunity costs have to be calculated only if you have something better to do. Which is in this case highly subjective.

...And I might repeat it: this is about an OPTIONAL feature. If you don't like it don't use.

I think he's talking about the opportunity cost to BFC. They probably do have better things to do.

Not to knock the idea, but if some ( probably "many" ) people wont use an optional feature, it's going to be low down on BFC's to-do list.

Seems to me that with some self-control and discipline, you could simulate a good deal of what you're advocating. Worth trying against the AI.

[Hellas]

I was surfing the old forums again and learned that the CM1 community had used rulesets restricting the player's god-like abilities and restricting it to level 1 long ago!

The comments indicate that people prefering less god-like abilitites and a more difficult game, especially when they played against the AI as attacker, were (very) positive about it. The main problem seems to be the needed self-discipline to stick to the rules. So this would cry for a hardcoded game mode.

I think it's very childish if customers argue against other customers about the costs for the developer. It's just the obvious try to hide saying the truth: I don't like your suggestion, it isn't important to me, the things I want are much more important and therefore the opportunity costs for your idea are not justified.

[A Canadian Cat]

Well yeah exactly. I do think you idea is not important and I do want BFC to work on other things. There I said it - all in the open now

All kidding aside some of what you are talking about - reducing the god's eye view advantage - could be a useful mode to play in. Those IronMan mode discussions of old were interesting. Considering I don't much care for Iron I would probably not be a big user of that mode. But hey if BFC thinks it is wroth doing then sure. But some of the things you are talking about - no ability to command or see or interact with units out of C2 - really are not likely to be workable. They create game play issues beyond just making more clicking necessary they actually break game play and would require a lot of changes to the way commands are handled and the responsibility of the TacAI.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Yep, Franko's True Combat rules from back in the day. Only way to make the AI challenging.

[sburke]

Keep in mind cmx1 was a whole different game. What works in one won't necessarily work in another.

And I am with Ian, I hate your idea. Kidding!!!!!!!!

I do at times adopt Peregine's rules. The Borg sense of communication does kill some of the immersion at times. However I still feel trying to have the game enforce rules is far more complicated to have work correctly than anyone realizes and womble's contention that ordering units around would completely break down is I think very much true.

Oh well just my worthless opinion. Carry on.