Flames

[Reiter]

Hi all,

 

Do you remember in CMx1 games, when fierce battle started a burning, what ignited nearby building or a field, resulting for a massive field fire? My point is, that why there is no real burning in CMx2 games? They are not done yet? We have 6 CMx2 games (or 7 if count Afghanistan). Battlefield burning is big part of realistic warfare, so BF, when we have realistic burning in CM?

 

[womble]

We'll have realistic burning when BFC have found a way to stop us gamey bastidges from turning their perfect simulation of spreading fire into something that's used in an entirely unrealistic way because of the context (or lack of it).

[weapon2010]

that should not be BFC's concern, just that it works and performs, don't worry about stopping "gamey bastidges", because you cant 

[Bil Hardenberger]

I suppose they've had bigger to fry.. eh?  Spreading fire is and should be pretty darned low on the priority list, and would be more complicated than you might think... taking into account, weather, terrain type, etc.

[Anthony P.]

Flamethrowers would undoubtedly become a lot more useful in CQB if the house actually caught on fire. I doubt it'd be particularly gamey, fire does take a while to spread, so if you'd count on torching a house and waiting for the wind to spread it across an entire village you'd probably lose because you run out of time. 

[Reiter]

17 minutes ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

I suppose they've had bigger to fry.. eh?  Spreading fire is and should be pretty darned low on the priority list, and would be more complicated than you might think... taking into account, weather, terrain type, etc.

Low on priority list? I think that we are beta testers for game that is not even complete. Yes it is very good and most things work but let´s face it; CMx2 is not done yet, despite these years. No hope for CMx3, hope for ten bucks 4.0 upgrade.

[Andrew H.]

I think spreading fire is rare enough to not be an issue within the scope of CM (with maybe one exception*).  But I think that persistent fire in one location is more realistic, and could mean that that location cannot be entered.

But - even within an action space, fires will start small and spread. While they are small, troops can put them out; to be realistic, we would probably need rules for troops fighting fires.  Which starts to get kind of complicated.

*Fires started in a building should maybe spread to other squares in the same building. Unless firefighting troops put it out.

What I would actually like to see is a chance that 3+ story buildings, when rubbled, fall into an adjacent square.  Possibly blocking a road.

[Bil Hardenberger]

10 minutes ago, Reiter said:

Low on priority list? I think that we are beta testers for game that is not even complete. Yes it is very good and most things work but let´s face it; CMx2 is not done yet, despite these years. No hope for CMx3, hope for ten bucks 4.0 upgrade.

You are welcome to your opinion of course, but I think CM is the hands-down best tactical simulator on the market.. does it have holes?  Absolutely, ground combat is so complex that it is impossible to simulate every aspect... with that being said Battlefront has to pick their battles, and this is not one they have deemed as important.  

I for one am thrilled to have these games on my HD and be able to apply real tactics and get realistic results.  No other game I have ever played has given me that.

[Reiter]

1 minute ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

I think CM is the hands-down best tactical simulator on the market.. does it have holes?

Yes Combat Mission is in my opinion the best tactical simulator, as you said. That´s why I have supported the company from first CMx1 game. I just nag, because want those flames rise.

[Bulletpoint]

Just because it would be difficult to make "perfectly realistic TM" fire in the game, shouldn't mean that they couldn't make some kind of improved fire. Flamethrower vs house makes house catch fire... surviving troops inside flee, house becomes un-enterable and with pretty graphical fire effect and lots of smoke. That would be a big, yet quite simple, step in the right direction.

[RockinHarry]

I think if BFC decides on it, they want to do it right! Realistic fire and & smoke also has effects on illumination levels, dynamic line of sight creation (lingering smoke) and all that. I do not know how other game companies handle all that, but it´ll require new and better hardware for many of us for sure. 

[womble]

3 hours ago, weapon2010 said:

that should not be BFC's concern, just that it works and performs, don't worry about stopping "gamey bastidges", because you cant 

What BFC concerns themselves with is their choice. I was paraphrasing what Steve himself has said on the subject. And they already go a fair way in contexts which they care about to suppressing gaminess. Best example off the top of my head is the restrictions on what you can pull into your force in a QB; they truly abhor "cherry picking". Tank crew swapping is another. They let many things slide, but Steve seems to have purely hated the way everyone and their dog set any wheatfield they saw on fire in CMBB, and that's an inhibitor for "proper fire" making it into CMx2.

2 hours ago, Reiter said:

 I think that we are beta testers for game that is not even complete. Yes it is very good and most things work but let´s face it; CMx2 is not done yet, despite these years. No hope for CMx3, hope for ten bucks 4.0 upgrade.

Even (especially) the creators of the game recognise that it's not yet complete. And it's hardly a stretch to say there's going to be a CMx2 v4; Steve has said it's in the pipeline. He's also said there may be a change in graphics environment, which sounds to me like a potential CMx3. So eventually, perhaps, we will get both. I'll assume you were joking about the "beta testers" part.

[Anthony P.]

I mean, they are working on a new game engine where flames will be expanded upon like this IIRC. Put down extra effort on that vs. making some half finished, rushed thing for the current engine...

[weapon2010]

I was under the impression that flameology is/was going to be in cmx2, that it was on their "to do list", unless they changed that

Edited April 19, 2016 by weapon2010
wrong word

[Wicky]

Maybe they are saving it up for a whole new game: Combat Mission - Fire Fighter

Edited April 19, 2016 by Wicky

[weapon2010]

I loathe you

[gnarly]

Does this mean I'll be able to specify CAS with either water or flame-retardent payloads??   

[Ithikial_AU]

Area denial... I thought that was the whole purpose of fire on the battlefield, planned or otherwise.

I think the community keeps banging on about fire not solely because flamethrows are available for targetted burning, but because the possibility of spontaneous fires from exploding vehicles / HE rounds / small arms tracers flying through the long grass on a dry day simply can't happen yet.

Dynamic wheather (particularly changing wind direction) could be a good way at preventing us players from using it in a gamey fashion - particularly in QB's. But hey if my opponent wants to sink their points into additional falme thrower teams and light that wheatfield up, go ahead. Not going to stop my company of T-34's from rolling over it.

[niall78]

Personally I think it is fire is the biggest missing feature from the modern series of games. 

Anyone ever see any real life WW2 "action" pictures or film where fire and smoke wasn't present? 

It plays a big part on any tactical battlefield especially urban environments. 

Edited April 20, 2016 by niall78

[Reiter]

9 minutes ago, niall78 said:

Personally I think it is fire is the biggest missing feature from the modern series of games. 

Anyone ever see any real life WW2 "action" pictures or film where fire and smoke wasn't present? 

It plays a big part on any tactical battlefield especially urban environments. 

So true.

Womble, yes there were little bit of sarcasm in "beta testers" thing.  In my mind, only thing to nag in CMx2 is lack of flames. Please BF, make it burn!

[MikeyD]

"Do you remember in CMx1 games..."

Huh. An interesting question. Now that I think of it, no. I don't. Not really. CMBO showed up sixteen years ago. Before 9-11, before the Red Sox won the World Series. Before the series premiere of 'Alias' and 'Scrubs'.  Before the 'Harry Potter' and the 'Lord of the Rings' movies. That was a looooong time ago.

I recall about 3 years ago I fired up an old copy of CMBB for nostalgia sake but I had completely forgot the keyboard commands. 5 minutes on it and no more nostalgia for me.

[niall78]

4 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

"Do you remember in CMx1 games..."

Huh. An interesting question. Now that I think of it, no. I don't. Not really. CMBO showed up sixteen years ago. Before 9-11, before the Red Sox won the World Series. Before the series premiere of 'Alias' and 'Scrubs'.  Before the 'Harry Potter' and the 'Lord of the Rings' movies. That was a looooong time ago.

I recall about 3 years ago I fired up an old copy of CMBB for nostalgia sake but I had completely forgot the keyboard commands. 5 minutes on it and no more nostalgia for me.

I fired up CMBB a few years ago. It was probably my most played game of all time. Thousands of hours over years in a time before kids. I found it virtually unplayable. 

[womble]

3 hours ago, Reiter said:

So true.

Womble, yes there were little bit of sarcasm in "beta testers" thing.  In my mind, only thing to nag in CMx2 is lack of flames. Please BF, make it burn!

So you don't care that you can't shoot at a building unless you can draw LOS to the centre of one of its floors? To me, that's the single most glaring problem with the engine currently, and makes urban combat distinctly less satisfying. Me, I want that fixed before spreading fire. It's a shame it couldn't be fixed before MG, but (IMO) it has to be fixed before Berlin.

[Anthony P.]

Definitely. Stuff like that, an AI that just retreats to just outside the building/next room when too suppressed, essentially causing them all to act like fanatical die-hards are things that are far more important IMHO.

[womble]

55 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

Definitely. Stuff like that, an AI that just retreats to just outside the building/next room when too suppressed, essentially causing them all to act like fanatical die-hards are things that are far more important IMHO.

Aye. TacAI and operational AI improvements, along with expanded features for the AI plan writing process would also be higher on my list than spreading fire.

Don't get me wrong, spreading fire would be good to have, but there's definitely room for BFC to put other things first, and the "potential abuse" of a rule/mechanism is at least a contributory factor to that rule being further down their development priority list.