Guest Big Time Software Posted June 21, 1999 Share Posted June 21, 1999 Again, CC's maps are hand drawn in 2D. You can not have that same level of "detail" for a tile based game which is 3D (both CM and PE are such games). And once again, most of the things in the CC maps that make them feel 100% from the area they are simulating (I can't say they are accurate BTW, just that they LOOK right) are not factored into the game at all. This means that it is fluff. In the end, CM is 100x more accurate than CC. We have had this particular discussion several times now, so if you want to see why you can look through the archives (remember that the Search function is fixed ). CC might look prettier than either PE or CM, but it certainly can't touch CM in terms of realism or flexibility out of the box. Plus, you don't have to be an artist to use our Editor, just someone who wants to play cool new scenarios Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lokesa Posted June 21, 1999 Share Posted June 21, 1999 Pac40, sorry for the flak barrage CC's map are beautiful, impressive for sure, no doubt about that. Some of the homemade maps out of CC2 centre (and most likely CC3 centre as well) we're even better. Frantz, the naked foot, mick, tin tin, mad kraut and too many others to mention did a great job fixing Atomics product. I still take issue with the smashing job part though, don't really want to get into it here but I was very unhappy with the last edition of the series. As to having a european feel to the towns, that would be nice. At CM's level of abstraction though, I don't know if it'll happen. [This message has been edited by Lokesa (edited 06-21-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted June 22, 1999 Share Posted June 22, 1999 "Again, CC's maps are hand drawn in 2D. You can not have that same level of "detail" for a tile based game which is 3D" Again, I know exactly how the CC maps are made, afterall I'm making one myself. I never said that CM maps should have the same level of detail as CC maps but a little more character would help, so long as it didn't gobble the CPU. I have to admit that most of the screenshots I've seen look like you've taken a couple of buildings and several trees and plopped them down on a generic piece of land. However, the Ardennes and Hedgerow shots look a little more like the European country side. "In the end, CM is 100x more accurate than CC." Obviously the game mechanics, technical data, and AI will be a lot better than CC but I was refering to the maps in particular. I can assure you that at least some of the maps in CC2: ABTF are extreamly acurate. Crack open your copy of A Bridge Too Far and you will see the acuracy of the Arnhem and Nijmegen bridge maps. Combat Mission obviously has a strong advantage being a true 3D game. I can't wait to get your map editor and make a 3D version of Combat Mission: A Bridge Too Far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Davie Posted June 22, 1999 Share Posted June 22, 1999 Fionn said '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.' Heck man, I ain't attacking you. If I was you'd know it. I'm saying I don't care how CM looks. Don't care how PE looks. Also don't care how SP, PITS, TOP or any other wargame look. I care about how they play; first, last, and always. I really *do not care* if they ever make CM look better in the first or hopefully umpteenth incarnation of the game. For me, graphics have very little importance. I guess if graphics can add to game play for you then we are on different pages, and I take no offense at that. I merely think that for Bigtime to have put even this much emphasis on graphics is (as they already have), well....misplaced. But only time will tell on this, no? Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 22, 1999 Share Posted June 22, 1999 As far as some of the screenshots go, you are correct. For some of them all I did do is toss a bunch of stuff down on the map. That is the beauty of a real map editor. I can make a 1500x800m map in about 20 minutes, complete with elevation and all land features. Add another 10 minutes for putting in units and bingo, I've got a fictitious scenario ready to go. In terms of the character we can not take a tile based game (2D or 3D) and get something even close to what CC's hand drawn maps look like. Because CM allows you to create ANY battle from Normandy to central Germany, in four seasons, fictitious or real, we can not have the specific character that something like 3 or 4 artists can produce for a limited number of places in a specific area (CC1 = Normandy, CC2 = Holland, and CC3 = Eastern Front, which is largely similar in character). CM maps can only look so much different from each other because it offers a great deal of flexibility and total ease of use. And because CM is 3D, which is SO MUCH more about realism than looks, there are frame rate and VRAM issues that need to be catered to. CC, OTOH, tossed aside functionality and flexibility for esthetics. And don't get us started about what they tossed their game system aside for In the end, Combat Mission is all about the game and not being the prettiest. Until you get to move around in CM's 3D environment, watching tanks and troops move over hills and through forests, you really won't understand that the extras you seek are not needed. The looks of CC maps are nice, but the game is still a flat, 2D experience with a horribly flawed gaming system. We feel quite comfortable that we have it beat hands down on all counts that really matter. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst2 Posted June 22, 1999 Share Posted June 22, 1999 Hmm, if CM is tile-based, it might not be too onerous a task for someone non-BTS (you guys finish this engine of all engines) to produce new scenarios in a new terrain simply by creating new tiles that are used in the graphical display. Granted, to get the correct look and feel, one would need to be able to post the new "tile file", if there is such an animal. In this way, someone could make a whole series of battles in the desert for example by providing a file that replaces the shipped tiles with new ones, and scenarios based on this new tile set. How about Monty & Rommel? Or other geographic areas outside the set that ships with CM? Hmm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 22, 1999 Share Posted June 22, 1999 Sure, you could swap out our graphics for your own. But CM will only support one set. So if you play Normanday (and you make a specific set for that) and then go to Holland (and you make a specific set for that) you would have to swap the graphics each time you played battles from each area. A pain in the ass when you considder that all you are doing is just changing the textures. The shape of everything will remain unchanged (i.e. a house will always have the same shape...). You could also make a dessert set of graphics, but it would be using the terrain types of NW Europe. There are no variable files to mess with, so there is no way for someone to make a desert module out of CM. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted June 22, 1999 Share Posted June 22, 1999 >You could also make a dessert set of graphics, but it would be using the terrain types of NW Cpt Jackson, your company must make a diversionary attack down gumdrop lane to sundae hill. Now, all that hot fudge is going to make for slow movement. And try not to get your shermans bogged down fording the custard river. Be prepared for a counterattack from the direction of the chocolate forest. Expect Rommel to do something tricky, after all, thats why they call him "The Dessert Fox". Sorry Steve, I couldn't resist. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 22, 1999 Share Posted June 22, 1999 Too funny! Can you see the American troops trying to go through Hotfudge? They would stop at the edge and use the multipurpose pot helmet for scooping It would also be funny to see SS troops storming a soft serve icecream cone Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixman Posted June 22, 1999 Share Posted June 22, 1999 I am in the Tom Davies/Marko camp all the way. What matters is the causal effect of hills, trees, buildings, roads, bridges, etc. on the outcome of the player's command decisions. That is what BTS needs to spend the bulk of their resources simulating -- and, thankfully,it sounds like they have/are. From a command simulation standpoint, it really does not matter a lick how physical objects look on the screen. We just need to know what those objects are and how they relate to each other. To understand that, just look at the game from the AI's perspective. Does it "see" those graphics? No, it just knows an SS squad is in a stone building on the second floor and factors all of the attributes of that situation into it's decision to storm the building with its green mortar crew or not (lol). And, hopefully, that's what all of us will do, whether the windows on the building have pink curtains or blue and the building has a mansard vs. a gabled roof. These things just do not matter in the game play. The distinction I would like to press home here is the one between simulation and representation. The onus should be on BTS to SIMULATE the attributes and effects of terrain, architecture, armor, leadership, morale, experience, weather, muzzle velocity, etc. This simulation requires the utmost realism and accuracy to make the game the best it can be from a playability (command) standpoint. Graphically, however, these things just need to be REPRESENTED such that we can quickly recognize what each object is -- granted in a way that does not insult the senses of the player (but even the static screen shots we have all seen are far from insulting to the senses). This representation gives the player quick visual information that he needs to make decisions, i.e. he literally sees the SS squad on the second floor of a stone building. Think about it; the game could just as easily print out: "Your selected crew can see an SS squad on the second floor of a stone building at 100 meters to the NNE." Obviously a picture can paint, in this case, 22 words -- making graphical representation much more efficient and intuitive than textual feedback (thus, Windows vs. DOS). But the information transferred to the user is identical in both cases. In another thread I cautioned players about focusing too much on numbers and not enough on command and tactics. I would make the same caution here with regard to graphics and artwork. With the exception of first person action simulations, graphics do not make a game and never will. In the real world of finite development time and technology resources, a more than representative emphasis on graphics will ultimately detract from the end product. I would encourage all who read this (at least those I have not totally turned off through my typically high handed assertion of my opinions) to find and purchase a game called UpFront. It was published in the mid 80s by either Avalon Hill or Victory Games. It simulates combat at the same level as CM or SL/ASL, except you only command a platoon and a couple of crew weapons or vehicles. The thing that hits you when you open the box is that there is no MAP!! In fact, there is no board of any kind. The game uses CARDS to represent men, weapons, vehicles, wire, smoke, terrain, buildings, movement, etc. It also uses chits to represent relative ranges between respective groups (friendly and enemy). It is a truly ingenius game system and, although BTS would probably argue it relies too heavily on statistics and chance (luck of the draw so to speak), very realistic. I point out this game because it was not until I played it that I realized just how much of a battlefield you can abstract and still have a very playable game jam packed with difficult decision making. If you can find UpFront, buy it -- you will not be disappointed. For the Pacific Theatre aficionados out there, they have an expansion module called Bonzai to go with it. That module introduces caves, jungle, booby traps, bonzai charges and the inhuman morale attributes of the typical Japanese soldier. If anybody reading this has played either of these games, I would love to hear your comments. To sum up: BTS is making a warGAME not a warMOVIE. In fact, the part of the game I am least looking forward to is the execution phase when you watch the battle. When I need the sensory feedback of being in a world war II battle, I'll rent Saving Private Ryan, A Bridge Too Far or Midway. When I want the ultimate simulation of company and regiment level command, hopefully I will come back to CM time and again. If you got this far, I applaud your tenacity. Recognizing that there are others who get more of their gaming satisfaction from graphics than I do, I apologize if this has offended anyone -- that was not my intent. I also mean no slight toward BTS for their investment in graphics to date. Marketing realities require them to produce an aesthetically attractive game -- even if it costs a little in the areas that matter more to me. However, based on my reading of their comments to date, I am clear that they have their priorities in the right order and have sacrificed graphics to gain realism when they could not get both. Pixman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted June 22, 1999 Share Posted June 22, 1999 Point 1: I'm NOT attacking anyone here. I'm just giving my 2 cents on the ideas here.. SO if you see me totally disagree with you then we can settle this on the field of virtual battle via CM but it's not personal. Point 2: I would LOVE to make "Fantasy Combat Mission".. Unfortunately the novelty value of the game would probably mean the time it would take wouldn't be worth it. I do think that having toothpaste tubes instead of mortar tubes and suchlike would be a fun experience. Point3: I personally think many people here are assuming FAR too much. It seems there is one camp which feels that CM is concentrating on graphics at the expense of realism and another which thinks its realistic but the graphics suck cause they're not Unreal or whatever. MY take on the game is that they've put everything else in there and are using the 3D aspect of the game so that we can play using TRUE LOS and not some stupid uber-abstractions. I understand it is hard to believe that a company can be concentrating on realism so hard when we've been let down so often but from everything I've heard abvout CM in public and private I firmly believe this is the case. I think BTS has been really adamant that the 3D graphics are in for UTILITIES sake. I think that most people who say they'll play in the top-down view probably will end up using the 3D views when they see how tactically useful they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted June 22, 1999 Share Posted June 22, 1999 UPFRONT... oh yeah... I know it and believe it or not it's still one of those games that I play occasionally. In fact, IMO, it's one of the most realistic games out there because it indeed simulates fog of war, something which traditional board games have always a hard time to do. And yes, UPFRONT has a high luck element, but that makes it even more realistic. Pixman: well said. But do not underestimate the usefulness that CM's 3D landscape will have on your gameplay. Did I mention already that I've seen the game? Well, anyway, just imagine this: no calculations, no abstractions, no "ruler-checks" to see if you can just spot that enemy unit right on the edge of the house behind the little hill... instead - true 3D Line of Sight! And that's just one example. Once you see the game in MOTION (and that's directed to all the "empty space" spectics out there) you will also realize that you will not miss any details and that you simply do not need to SEE every stone, bush and tree. In fact, probably you'll be happy to concentrate on the main thing (how the hell are we going to take that hill?) because that will be difficult enough WITHOUT having to track if Unteroffizier Schmidt is in cover behind a telegraph post. That's my 2 Zloty... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixman Posted June 23, 1999 Share Posted June 23, 1999 Well put Moon and Fionn. By the way, I do not feel attacked Fionn, and assume you are apologizing to someone other than myself. I have no problem with the 3D REPRESENTATION of what I see. I just hope it did not come at the expense of something more important to tactical reality. But, clearly from the BTS posts, LOS is not going to be determined by this graphical representation. Otherwise, I have completely misunderstood all of the writings about what the game engine sees vs. what the player sees with regard to scaling units ("ants", etc.). If it's in your LOS, they'll let you "see" it -- no matter what it looks like, giants or ants. If it's in your LOF, they'll let you target it -- no matter what it looks like, giants or ants. Furthermore, there was the whole talk about just being able to hit the nose of the tank if that's all that is peeking out from behind the building. Again, BTS said "no". You see it or you don't and LOS/LOF is targeted on the entire vehicle, not just the front fender. Same with a squad in the tree line, LOS/LOF is traced to a virtual "center" of the squad and the graphic representation of that squad has nothing to do with where the men in the squad actually "are" with regard to fire effect. Moon, one final point -- actually there are "calculations, abstractions and ruler checks", they are just being done by the computer now instead of my stubby, grubby hands -- and nothing could make me happier. Pixman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted June 23, 1999 Share Posted June 23, 1999 Pixman: Correct. Not talking to you . Let's just say I've been holding myself back since people started talking about CC and the "AI" and how the maps were "great" etc... Anyways... Moon: 2 zlotny.> Dude you you are undervaluing your opinion AND as someone who has seen CM in action I think people should be paying what YOU say a LOT more attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhet Posted June 23, 1999 Share Posted June 23, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Unteroffizier Schmidt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Damn! demoted again I was hoping for Hauptmann of a pioneer company. ------------------ Rhet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted June 23, 1999 Share Posted June 23, 1999 I would hearby like to resign from the Thomas Davie/Marko camp as characterised by Pixman. I do care about the look of the game. In my opinion, BTS needs to strike a balance between look and play. Currently, I think BTS has done all it can on the look front and should now concentrate on finishing off on the play front. And that mainly means strategic AI. I also fully expect (and hope) that CM2 will have better graphics - and better play. Just clarifying, Marko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 23, 1999 Share Posted June 23, 1999 Looks like we have come to closure on this thread. I am going to close it up because it is getting too long to load and might be getting near the point where the BBS software starts to choke on it (roughly 130k). Better to close it up then have it go cookoo on us Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts