New Screenshots

[Sten]

You can have my firstborn as well in exchange for a good AI.

Just think about it, you could probably start two or three kindergartens with all the kids you could acquire this way. How's that for an alternative career? And all the kids will have shadows, lifelike sounds, fantastic UI, 'learning' AI (weak at first, but with proper training...) and, last but not least, you wouldn't have to go about the tiresome business of producing them yourself!

Sten

[Fionn]

Umm, Sten, I'm not an expert on the subject although I have dabbled in the field from time to time (smirk) BUT shouldn't it be fun creating that Kindergarden? *VBG*

You better hope your significant other never sees that comment *chuckle*

[risc]

Hey Marko, if you want a good AI then you should play The Ardennes Offensive by SSG

(Don't tell me it doesn't). The best I have ever seen in computer wargames. I would also say that Close Combat 2 had pretty good AI, of course nowhere near of the Ardennes Offensive by SSG.

Peter

[Sten]

(*slowly morphing to Al Bundy*)

- Huh, Fionn, wadda you mean, fun? Fun like CM? Fun like beer 'n bowlin'?

(*one hand slipping into pants, the other homing in on the remote control*)

- Naaah, THIS is fun!

(*flipping between "Psycho Dad" and Discoverys umpteenth "Carriers at War" series*)

I'd better buy flowers on my way home...

Sten

[Fionn]

*chuckle* LOTS of flowers..

Go Psycho Dad

Fionn

[Pak40]

Steve,

Check out these screen shots of Panzer Elite when you get a chance:

http://www.ga-source.com/news/mainbits/00+17+1999/12:24:25.shtml

These are some really good examples of landscapes with lots of charachter and uh, "fluff". I Wish the CM screen shots could be like this.

Doesn't CM and Panzer Elite have similar polygon counts? How come they can put the "fluff" in their game, but with CM the game will slow down?

[Thomas Davie]

Pak40; those screenshots of Panzer Elite look ok. Perhaps a bit better than CM, but to what effect? I don't care about how the game looks (really, honest.....tonight I just played another round of Tigers On The Prowl fer instance), but *do* care about how it plays.

Whay not put any extra cpu cycles to use by making the AI smarter? If it comes to a vote for smart or pretty, I'll go for smart every single time.

Anyone ever remember Pac War?

Tom

[Doug Beman]

Pak40--lemme take a crack at answering.

1) PElite uses sprite-based infantry, which changes hardware requirements. I'm pretty sure sprite-based stuff is easier on CPU cycles, but I'm not a programmer, so correct me if I'm wrong.

2) Also, although I haven't seen the intended scope stated anywhere, I think it has a smaller scale than CM. The reason I say this is that PElite is an "in-vehicle" sim, like M1TankPlatoon; it's much harder to effectively command a battalion+ when you also have to worry about driving a tank and firing its gun (all due respect to the people in uniform who actually *do* this) so it seems the scale should be lower, therefor freeing up more graphics for other stuff. With fewer vehicles and squishy-infantry running about, there's more leeway for texture smoothness, etc. (If anybody knows PElite's intended scale, sound off so we can think about this matter)

3) PElite, being more "sim-like," is geared toward the "constantly upgrading hardware fiend," the people who base their upgrade schedules on the release of Falcon X.0. Therefor, Wings can bump up the base system requirement to something more musclebound than P200, 32 MB RAM, 4 MB video VRAM, etc. PElite looks better because, simply, it can look better and be aimed at players with the PC power to play it.

Just some thoughts; BTS will correct my mistakes Monday. Happy weekend.

DjB

------------------

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing personal opinion.

remove the caps letters in my address to email me

[Pak40]

Thomas & Doug

"Pak40; those screenshots of Panzer Elite look ok. Perhaps a bit better than CM, "

You're joking, right? Those screen shots make CM look like tinker toys.

I think you're right about the inantry sprites in PE. That would require less processing power.

I keep reading previews about how smart Panzer Elite's AI is. I have every reason to believe PE's AI will be as good as CM's AI. I too am for a smarter AI, Close Combat III was no challenge for me or any other Close Combat Vet - so believe me when I say that I want a smart AI.

CM, I'm sure will have a bigger scope (more units per side) but the overall size of the maps looks about the same or maybe bigger in PE. Since the landscape counts for most of the polygons, i think that PE and CM will have a similar polygon count. I could be wrong, of coarse, I'm no programmer.

Minimum specs for PE is a P166 with a modern 3d card. 233 without the 3D card.

But PE, as a playable game, relies more on a smooth frame rate than CM. PE is a simulation in real time and if you have a choppy frame rate, then it will be impossible to play.

CM, on the other hand, can still have a choppy frame rate and the outcome of the game will still be the same. The real time execution may look bad, but since players dont control units at this time, it wont effect the outcome.

BTW, what are the minimum specs for CM?

[Thomas Davie]

Pak40; You're right, I think the graphics in PE are a tad above the graphics in CM. For me though, the graphics fall into the area of eye candy and nothing more. Simple as that. So, you could say that the graphics in PE were worse; wouldn't bother me They're better; by what standard of evaluation though?

I'm the 'anti' 3d guy. I'm also the 'anti' eye/ear candy guy to boot. The graphics are already more than I'll ever use, considering I will not play the game in 3d, so yeah....I'm not kidding

Tom

[Fionn]

Well, as a lead tester for PE I can say it generally shows fewer vehicles and less terrain than Combat Mission and requires a much more powerful computer to run.

Also, I think there is probably more going on under the hood in CM (vis a vis complex equations etc since it's a wargame) and it is right that CM concentrates on this aspects and not others.

I think we're not really comparing like with like and I think that CM will be a stellar performer.

P.s. I'm also sure the screenshots don't do it justice.

[Mike D]

BTS,

Now that I'm done drooling all over my keyboard after checking out the latest screenshots I can write this reply. Screen shots looking better all the time. Matter of fact, they look excellent.

Would agree that they do look kinda sterile/plain as some have pointed out, but as Steve has stated when you are watching this all in motion I can well imagine it will be alot less noticeable. Besides, I'm going to be looking at where enemy fire and movement is occurring, not at how pretty every thing looks.

Would also agree that your precious programming and development time would be better spent on AI and other aspects of the game that really matter as opposed to coding Bessy the Cow and Farmer Brown's tractor.

Charles and Steve, EXCELLENT WORK. You guys are really going to shine when this baby is born. This game will set a new standard in computer wargaming when it comes out. One I sincerely hope other publishers and game companies will follow.

Now back to my drooling, ahhhhhhhhh.

Best Regards,

Mike D

aka Mikester

[Pak40]

To everyone:

my concern about the landscape's sterile look isn't just about eye candy. I'm very concerned about the effect on gameplay that a sterile environment will have.

For Example: Imaginge a firefight in a village, both sides have infantry and some armor. In CM's current state, the only landscape elements in the village would be houses and an occasional tree.

Now Imagine a more charasmatic landscape. One with shrubs and gardens surrounding the houses. The main street would have a line of trees down it, like a boulevard style street. The main center of town will have a church an maybe a fountain in a small center sqaure. The local shops or inn in the town would have crates in the back. Farms would have sheds and farming equipment strew about.

All of these elements will have an effect on gameplay: LOS, cover, physical obstacles etc.

In effect it would be a more realistic environment to play in.

All I ask is that CM have the feel of European an North African landscapes and towns. It can only make the game better.

I, as a graduate of Landscape Architecture, have had some classes on European urban design. The towns and landscapes in CM don't seem to reflect anything I've seen in pictures of Europe. Im sure if I would have visited Europe or lived there, I would be even more skeptical.

The makers of the Close Combat series have done a smashing job at making maps based on historical accuracy. Some of those maps in ABTF look just like the pictures I've seen in the history books.

The makers of Panzer Elite are making their maps from detailed aerial photos and topo maps. The screenshots look very believeable to me.

Anyway, I'm probably too late with the point I'm trying to make; since the game is near beta. Maybe since CM is still pre-beta, we havn't seen any landscapes in a finalized form. Or maybe I'll just have to wait for CM II...

Any comments, anyone?

[Fionn]

I think that you are running up against wishes vs necessities here. I am sure that BTS would love to model the squawk of birds in the forests and show flocks of them flying off as enemy units disturb them, model the 2 inch tall cans of beans and meat enemy units might leave scattered around a house and show us photo-realistic scenes.

However, that is simply not going to happen given the limitations of systems. BTW be VERY VERY careful when companies tell you things are going to be "satellite-map realistic". Do you know that if they DID use satellite maps they'd end up creating unrealistic maps since things have changed so much since then?

Satellite maps are the biggest gimmick that companies throw around.. Go to http://www.gasource.com and read an editorial I wrote there some time ago about The Marketing traps.. Click on editorials on the left of the screen and you should see about 5 from me. It's either the first or second.

There's more REALISM in this BTS game than there is in your close-combat 2 mapped games. And BTW they are only able to make things look so nice since they only had to design a few maps. BTS is gonna include the scenario editor THEY used with the game so we can make hundreds and hundreds of scenarios.

It's a difference in ethos which means there needs to be a difference in engine and look.

And as with all these polygonal-based things it WILL look better when in full-flow.. Hell it will look better than any other serious wargamer ever since it is in 3d

________________________________

Fionn Kelly

Media Relations and Event Manager

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

Email: fionnk@thegamers.net

Web Site: http://www.thegamers.net

[This message has been edited by Fionn (edited 06-20-99).]

[Thomas Davie]

Fionn said

'Hell it will look better than any other serious wargamer ever since it is in 3d '

?!?!? It will look better because it is 3d, or it will appear to look better because. My point, and it is a real question is this 'Why does 3d confer some god like status of betterness upon CM or any game'? And Fionn, you should know that looking better don't mean a damn unless it's matched by the play of the game.

Obviously I'm in a minority here, which is no biggy, but my standard has always been 'the play of the game'. First. Last. Always.

Tom

[Herr Oberst2]

Forgive the sacrilege, but...

Theoretically, if the design of CM handles to analysis of the battle in one phase/module, then passes the data to another module for subsequent rendering of the results, it seems that there is the potential for a new, second routing path for the results. For those that like overhead view, and are most comfortable and familiar with the CC1, CC2, CC3, or any other sprite-based renderings of battle, it could be accomodated.

I am NOT implying that BTS should pursue this avenue for the initial release, but perhaps a third party (read "CM customer with way too much time on his hands") could write an add-in that could handle the analytical results and interpret them in a new manner.

BTS, forgive me, but I'm working on a COM-based distributed system right now where interface to data is everything, and data providers don't give a darn what the consumers do with it. I see everything as a "Why not?" problem right now...

[This message has been edited by Herr Oberst2 (edited 06-21-99).]

[Guest Lokesa]

Oberst, an overhead view is already availiable.

Pac40, Atomic has not done a smashing job. Their maps are very pretty but aren't coded properly. for example the map may show a trench where the is none, in some places hills are coded as flat ground. the maps are not as they appear.

[Moon]

Pac40:

One thing everybody seems to forget in this discussion: CM doesn't show all the farming equipment, individual trees, park benches etc. - but it SIMULATES them. That means that "open ground" in CM isn't simply "empty space" - it is filled with exactly all the things you are calling for and infantry squads are NOT standing naked in the open!

Don't forget that the 3 men squads in CM are mere representations of a squad of 9-12 soldiers. These soldiers ARE using any available cover and concealment, and even in "open space" you cannot trace LOS endlessly.

Comparing PE and CE just doesn't work. CM is a tactical wargame, where PE is a tank (ONE TANK!) simulation. Riding your Sherman in PE you NEED all the brush and signposts and telegraph poles for a decent "feeling", whereas in CM all these things are approximated.

One thing Steve had said frequently here on the board is that the graphical representation of the "game world" is merely that - graphical eye-candy. The game could play completely in the background with a black screen and the outcome would be all the same, because it's the underlying engine that leads to combat results, and this one SIMULATES all the things Pac40 was calling for - and probably more.

[Fionn]

Tom you've completely misinterpreted what I said. I first went on about how CM was realistic etc and then I said quite clearly that it would LOOK better. I was referring to graphical look obviously.

As for the cans and stuff. It's all simulated they just chose not to represent it so that the game would actually chug along at a nice frame-rate.. As for playing top-down that will be supported and has been said publicly.

?!?!? It will look better because it is 3d, or it will appear to look better because. My point, and it is a real question is this 'Why does 3d confer some god like status of betterness upon CM or any game'?

MY ANSWER: It doesn't. I am NOT all into graphics or anything as you would understand if you'd read any of my work. I HAVE however talked with Steve and CHarles about the game in private emails and I have been totally and utterly convinced of its hard-core grognard credentials. I also know Martin who has seen the game in action and he raves about CM to me .

The fact is that as long as the realism, modelling and playability is there I WILL get enthusiastic about nice graphics WHICH ADD TO GAMEPLAY and I will make no apologies to anyone for this ever.

And Fionn, you should know that looking better don't mean a damn unless it's matched by the play of the game.

* Exactly, adn in this case it IS surpassed by the play and realism of the game..

You really should look back in the database of the OLD bulletin board and see how I quized BTS about things, asking about how they would model every little factor including T/D mismatch which isn't modelled in most tank simulations, nevermind combat tactics games.

ONLY after that did I get enthusiastic about the game. It's taken me a LONG time to see the value of the 3D graphics but now I see it and think they made the right choice.

As for my credentials.. I own zero racing or shooting games, I own European Air War and Baldur's Gate and those are the only two non-wargames I've bought in the past year.

My graphics card has been broken since about christmas I reckon but I've only noticed that it has been broken recently since I have hardly any games which utilise it.

I'm not a slave to graphics but CM has it where it counts.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Folks,

I don't want to get too caught up in a discussion comparing Combat Mission to Panzer Elite or Close Combat, but there are a few misconceptions I want to clear up. Some people have asked why CM's terrain isn't as "pretty" as PE's.

1. Frame rate. Panzer Elite has more spare CPU cycles to throw at drawing terrain because CM does many things that PE does NOT do:

a. Combat Mission has more units in a battle. A lot more. This consumes a lot of CPU power. And, frankly, I think CM's vehicles look better than PE's.

b. Combat Mission has a far more detailed system of simulating and showing infantry than PE does. PE is a "tank sim". Its focus is tanks, tanks, tanks. (Nothing wrong with that, I'm just trying to illustrate the differences here) so its infantry is secondary. PE infantry is drawn with 2D sprites rather than 3D models. This means that PE does *not* allow the same freedom of viewpoint placement that CM does. Not even close. In CM, you can do overhead views, 3/4 views, 1st person views, down-in-the-trench views, zoomed in or out, tilted up or down, and more. 2D sprites, because they're not truly 3D, limit the viewpoint into a small range of angles. CM doesn't restrict your viewpoint like a sprite game must. And CM gives full attention to infantry combat as well as vehicle (and artillery and air strikes, and mines, etc.). The infantry does not get second-class status in CM.

2. The PE team has spent approximately seventy-five times as much money on PE as we have on CM. That is not an exaggeration. They're rich, and we're not. They have a whole team of artists and we don't. We're forced to do what we can on a limited budget. And our tanks look better than theirs...

3. Combat Mission has a full-featured scenario/map editor that allows players to create their own battle maps. You can't do that in Close Combat. And I don't think you can do that in PE either (someone correct me if I'm wrong about that). Having user-createable maps means that they can't be "hand tailored" like they are in Close Combat. At the same time, however, you can have an infinite variety. You aren't stuck with the battles and maps we give you (though they will be great!). You can make your own. Other people can make their own. Share over the internet, etc., and you've got some serious replay value there. Though CM loses a little bit in not having the hand-tailored look, we gain far more in flexibility, player creativity, and replay value.

Charles

[Guest Big Time Software]

Yesh, there is a LOT to answer in this thread Well, here goes my attempt to answer all in one go!

You can not compare PE to CM on practically any level. The two games are just FAR too different. PE is a tank sim, plain and simple. CM is a wargame, plain and simple. In PE you drive around a couple of tanks, in CM you drive around a couple of platoons of tanks, crud loads of infantry, guns, teams, and other stuff.

CM is certainly pushing MANY more polygons than PE. This has to do not only with the fact that PE uses sprites, but because the scale is so much smaller. In CM you will generally have 2-4 companies of infantry under your command. Match that against PE's platoon or so and you can see there is a huge difference.

I would also be very careful about thinking that PE actually simulates ever graphic in terms of game play. Just because things look like they are what they are, it doesn't mean that they are in fact simulated (people playing CC can tell you that for sure!). And the other way around... just because something doesn't appear graphically doesn't mean that it isn't taken into consideration.

One last thing about PE... they had/have about 10 people working on PE with a major publisher pumping money into them each and every day. If someone wants to give us $1mil and a reason to shoot for higher end systems, well... we could do things a little differently in terms of eye candy, but not in terms of gameplay. We are doing more now than any wargame has ever done, regardless of budget, in terms of the game.

Back to the CC map artwork... yeah, those maps look very nice for 2D. Forget about the fact that you can't compare 2D and 3D for a sec, and concentrate on the way the maps are constructed. They are hand drawn, whole pieces of art. Not everything on there is simulated (as has been stated over and over), so much of the map is just eye candy. The trade off for this eye candy is felt strongly in the game play. Stuff that you think is happening because of the visual representation in fact isn't. And nobody is happy making scenarios for CC because their editor only allows you to use the premade maps from Atomic (though I know there are very messy work arounds for this).

All in all we think your fears about the game not being engaging are not valid. But as I said again, we understand that we can't prove this until you play the game for yourself. Until then you are going to have to at least trust us that we know what can and can not be done, and what is good and harmful to the game. Putting in too much fluff is harmful for sure.

Steve

[Pak40]

Fionn,

Did I ever say anything about satellite photos? I don't think so. I said AERIAL photos. There's a major difference, especially when the aerials come from air recon from the war. Also, I think the maps were from the time period of the war; not just some modern day road map.

BTW, ever heard of GIS? Geographic Information Systems... It's what I do for a living. I make maps, usually from rectified Aerial Photos.

[Pak40]

Steve, Charles and others...

Thanks for answering my questions. The reason why I asked them is because I didn't fully understand why graphics were toned down when compared to other games out there. I wasn't trying to bash your product, in fact just trying to help you to make a better product, if possible.

I think the biggest point I was trying to make was about European city/town design. Much of it goes back to medieval times and I hate when some game developer (I wont name any names *SSI* cough!) develops a sim or wargame with a totally ficticios map. They dont even study the basic principles of European/medieval urban design. They just take Anytown USA and call it St. Lo.

Im just trying to help you see the light from a urban planner's point of view.

[Pak40]

Lokesa,

Yea, Atomic did fudge or mess up a couple of maps in CC3 (I think it was fixed with the patch), but they've still done a smashing job, not only with the 2D artwork but with the historical Accuracy of the maps.

There is NO game out there that has this level of accuralcy in any of their maps.

Im hoping CM an PE will dethrone CC historical accuracy.

BTW-- There is a WIZYWUG editor for Close Combat Maps, thanks to Kwazydog and others. It is now possible to create your own maps in CC2/3. A good commercial graphics editor shuch as Adobe Photoshop is still needed for the artwork, however.

[Moon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, I think the maps were from the time period of the war; not just some modern day road map.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of the aerial recon maps from the period of 1939-1945 are actually still restricted, believe it or not. Only a few have been released and been made available for public. I am talking to the french geographic institute, the belgium geographic institute and the German one right now, and most stuff that IS available is from a period shortly after the war, like 1947 and on. And even a lot of these maps is restricted. I do own some aerial photographs from 1947 an on, though

Oh, and BTW, especially in France MUCH less has changed over the past 55 years than you might think. Sure, there might be a couple more houses in every village and maybe even a new highway cutting through the hedgerows here and there, but in general everything stayed the same. At least in the rural areas.

And one more thing: dunno what BTS is going to do with the game and what is going to be included on the game CD. But since there is a map and scenario and campagin editor in the game, you can expect highly accurate historical maps at least from my website once the game has been released. I will be using current 25K maps AND aerial photographs from shortly after the war, as I am doing right now with West Front scenarios. And when I can do it, I am sure that the folks at BTS have at least the same or better sources to do it. No reason why CM maps cannot be at least as accurate as PE (or any other) maps...