Building degradation upgraded?

[Homo_Ferricus]

Been playing CMSF pretty regularly for the last decade, glad to see the update coming!

I haven't found a conclusive list of which v4.0 features are in and which ones are out for this upgrade--the thing I've recently been curious about it building degradation. CMBS and the WWII titles do this well with clean, undamaged buildings slowly becoming increasingly pock-marked and stained with gunfire before giving way piece-by-piece, some walls remain partially standing alongside gratuitous 3D rubble after building collapse. CMSF building walls only have two states--the wall is perfect, or completely gone. Collapsed buildings leave no walls standing and the rubble is somehow unconvincing. This has always made for unnatural-looking urbanscapes that just don't look or feel right. If I'm contesting a town with artillery and MOUT for an hour, it'd be much more immersive and strategically informative to see buildings changing states more gradually as we see in the newer titles.

Also wondering if environmental fires are in.

Thanks,

[Mord]

The bullet holes/wear only happens with independent buildings. There won't be any independent buildings in SF2. So, the destruction will be what you see in SF1.

We will only have the little fires that are in 4.0. The engine hasn't been updated to use anything else.

Trust me, I feel your need on the better rubble and such. Hopefully, one day!

Mord.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Mord

[sburke]

ninja’d by Mord.  No idea if eventually CMSF will have them, but it won’t at start 

[contrails]

1 hour ago, Mord said:

The bullet holes/wear only happens with independent buildings.

could you explain more? I never played CMSF1 so I'm not sure what you mean

[sburke]

open any CM title (except CSMF), open the editor.  Start new.  Go to buildings, there are two types independent and modular.  Place some on the map  go to 3d view and you'll see the different types.  Only independent buildings show the affects you noted when damaged

Edited August 17, 2018 by sburke

[LongLeftFlank]

As noted in the OP, CMSF1 featured only a single relatively thin-walled building type displaying no visual damage until walls or the entire structure is demolished.

All subsequent CM titles added certain "independent" structures, some of which (churches) have dense, thick walls (better cover and far less prone to collapse under HE) - natural strongpoints, in the absence of another game option to fortify buildings.

Other building types (barns, sheds) offered less than average hard cover to occupants, but higher profiles and LOS blocks.

Both these variants add valuable granularity and resilience to towns, cities and industrial areas. Even without RoE limitations, populated areas are critical battlespaces for RED, especially Uncons, who haven't a prayer of engaging most BLUE forces in the open.

In my view, CMSF2 is taking a [minor?] step back (and increasing BLUE uberness still more) by omitting what by now seemed to be a standard game feature, but it evidently was not a straightforward effort to include them in CMSF2. This seems counterintuitive, but we must accept their word that it was a kludge too far.  

Edited August 17, 2018 by LongLeftFlank

[A Canadian Cat]

43 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

In my view, CMSF2 is taking a [minor?] step back...

Step back? :confused: CMSF1 doesn't have this feature. The strongest legitimate criticism you can make is that CMSF2 does not go as far as you would like with adding content from other Tittles.

 

43 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

... by omitting what by now seemed to be a standard game feature, but it evidently was not a straightforward effort to include them in CMSF2.

Nothing is straightforward. There is no free lunch. There is no such thing as a one day task. What is added or not is trade off between art work, development and testing time for each and every new thing. Steve has to decide which gets added and which does not. He made his pics. You don't agree - your disagreement has been registered we get it.

 

43 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

This seems counterintuitive, but we must accept their word that it was a kludge too far.  

No one ever called it a kludge. It is feature work.

[MikeyD]

Fire has always been in game engine v4. Admittedly they're small smoldering fires from weapons impacts but they're fire nonetheless. After a particularly intense firefight (pun not intended) you can see fires burning from one end of the contested building to the other, depending on which weapons were used against it.

Some of the most entertaining scenarios in CMSF2 are urban. The standard modular building structures are doing very well in that role. The independent building types are hardly missed and couldn't have been picked up from the other titles without massive redesign anyway (No peaked roofs in Syria). Lets recall BFC is giving CMSF2 to old CMSF1 owners for chump change. If you demand all new building types using an entirely different coding system to meet some fantasy expectation expect to pay double for the title with no CMSF1 discount.

[Homo_Ferricus]

4 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

 Lets recall BFC is giving CMSF2 to old CMSF1 owners for chump change. If you demand all new building types using an entirely different coding system to meet some fantasy expectation expect to pay double for the title with no CMSF1 discount.

MikeyD,

This sort of preemptive defensiveness is annoying and I've seen it often in these forums. I have always been on Battlefront's side (since 2001) and do not 'demand' anything. That said your point is taken--we can't get everything we want, Battlefront has it's limitations and it's only acceptable.

FWIW I would pay double if we could get some additional improvements... Granted the amount of hours of enjoyment I've gotten out of CMSF1, my investment would be well worth it. I think this theater/era is particularly attractive to a number of crowds--modern warfare enthusiasts, SCW followers, veterans of ME conflicts, even average gamers whose interest is piqued by the political goings-on in that country/region. I don't mean to be an armchair game dev but I wonder if doubling down on the CMSF refresh might've paid for itself. It's impossible to know but damn it get your boots off my dreams!

[chris talpas]

Would adding independent buildings and some urban maps be possible as an add-in at some future date similar to the vehicle pack or battle pack that was sold for CMBN?

 

Chris

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, Homo_Ferricus said:

This sort of preemptive defensiveness is annoying and I've seen it often in these forums.

How is this preemptive? Someone just two posts about @MikeyD was complaining that modular buildings were not added.

1 hour ago, Homo_Ferricus said:

I have always been on Battlefront's side (since 2001) and do not 'demand' anything. 

Great. That's excellent. We can and should ask for what we want.

[A Canadian Cat]

37 minutes ago, chris talpas said:

Would adding independent buildings and some urban maps be possible as an add-in at some future date 

That certainly is possible. They have not done a building pack yet so I am not sure how likely it Is. But it is possible.

[sburke]

5 hours ago, Homo_Ferricus said:

FWIW I would pay double if we could get some additional improvements... Granted the amount of hours of enjoyment I've gotten out of CMSF1, my investment would be well worth it. I think this theater/era is particularly attractive to a number of crowds--modern warfare enthusiasts, SCW followers, veterans of ME conflicts, even average gamers whose interest is piqued by the political goings-on in that country/region. I don't mean to be an armchair game dev but I wonder if doubling down on the CMSF refresh might've paid for itself. It's impossible to know but damn it get your boots off my dreams!

If I had my way BF would put far more focus into CMSF.  There are sooooo many things I want.  Like you I'd be more than happy to pay for them.  Unfortunately I know there are a lot of folks really waiting for the 4.0 patch, modules for CMRT, CMFI and CMFB.  BF can only take on so much so CMSF has to be pushed out the door in order to free up more time for other work.  It is already far more than they initially planned, which is on the one hand wonderful and on the other a complete tease.  

Will it get some more attention down the road?  Maybe, one can certainly dream.  I know I am.

Edited August 17, 2018 by sburke

[LongLeftFlank]

11 hours ago, IanL said:

No one ever called it a kludge. It is feature work.

Apologies Ian, for my misapplication of  "kludge" for the sake of a lame bon mot. Should know better with the tech Jedi.

8 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Some of the most entertaining scenarios in CMSF2 are urban. The standard modular building structures are doing very well in that role. The independent building types are hardly missed and couldn't have been picked up from the other titles without massive redesign anyway (No peaked roofs in Syria).

MikeyD, that's 100% your own opinion, and other infantry MOUT enthusiasts are in no way required to share or endorse it. We can argue what's 'doing very well' in terms of tactical properties of buildings for hundreds of pages if you like.

(Also, peaked roofs are in fact widespread in the parts of Syria that get rain, though not in the desert plains adjoining Iraq. But let's put that aside)

8 hours ago, MikeyD said:

If you demand all new building types using an entirely different coding system to meet some fantasy expectation expect to pay double for the title with no CMSF1 discount.

How does this become a "fantasy expectation", when water, bridges, on map mortars, etc., which weren't part of SF1 either, are not?

One more time for selective listeners:  independent buildings appear in *every single title* after CMSF1. Somehow the effort to include them there was not Herculean. But now somehow it is.

I accept (with some puzzlement) that some Work was involved re peak roofs etc. But I will NOT be talked down to here, or contemptuously tossed onto the Island of Fantasy Expectations.

Ian gave a perfectly reasonable response below that would have sufficed to close this out. You didn't need to put the boot in.

11 hours ago, IanL said:

Steve has to decide which gets added and which does not. He made his picks. You don't agree - your disagreement has been registered we get it. 

 

Edited August 18, 2018 by LongLeftFlank

[MOS:96B2P]

2 hours ago, sburke said:

Will it get some more attention down the road?  Maybe, one can certainly dream.  I know I am.

Me too.  All the CM titles are excellent.  CMSF uniquely so.                      

[sburke]

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Apologies Ian, for my misapplication of  "kludge" for the sake of a lame bon mot. Should know better with the tech Jedi.

Proper usage of terms is required.  Shame on you, I’ll send you a proper dictionary and I expect you to read it cover to cover and apply correctly. There will be a test. 

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

MikeyD, that's 100% your own opinion, and other infantry MOUT enthusiasts are in no way required to share or endorse it. We can argue what's 'doing very well' in terms of tactical properties of buildings for hundreds of pages if you like.

Whew. MOUT is a several thread subject and no I don’t ever think I wil be 100% happy with how it works in CM or any title for that matter. It is a uniquely intimate form of combat where reflexes, combat training, inches of movement and luck all matter to a degree like nothing else.  It is extremely tense. Half the time I find myself afraid to issue commands knowing that the next 60 seconds may mean me watching several of my pixeltruppen die as a result of my orders.  Worse that some idiosyncrasy of CM will result in my guys getting shot by someone that I think shouldn’t even be able to see them. (Yeah I still remember our test run of your Syria scenario and that guy shooting yours like 4 stories up with what should have been an impossible shot, but allowed because building joints in CM have a gap.). Let’s not even get into tank gun elevations, gun barrels going through buildings etc etc. there are so many singular issues where MOUT combat simply fails. 

So what do you do?  Throw up your arms and say CM totally sucks I’ll never play a MOUT battle or take what the game gives you and move on?  I would love more variation in buildings. I’d love a lot of other things even more. However I have to work with what has been given and to share a little testing experience - I have played @George MC USMC Circle the Wagons scenario probably a dozen times testing out various items for this game and it is frankly a phenomenal experience.  It varies every time I play it and sometimes a building takes a crap load of fire with my guys only being suppressed and sometimes a single rpg decimates a team.  I honestly have had little concern for building dynamics as the actual combat is so amazingly tense.

I was going to wait till the game was released to start a “my latest favorite scenario” thread to discuss different ones and this particular scenario was my motivator.  Absolutely there are a ton of limitations in CM that drive me nuts playing MOUT in CM, but the one time I played this scenario where I got super aggressive with my Marines and drove right at the enemy to grab terrain and prevent them even getting into position to target the tanks I was tasked with defending and watching my Marines smash the enemy attack was pure elation.  Yeah I tried the same attack again in another play through and hit a different AI plan and was slaughtered, but that previous win was just one of those spectacular CM moments when all the problematic BS just didn’t matter 

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

One more time for selective listeners:  independent buildings appear in *every single title* after CMSF1. Somehow the effort to include them there was not Herculean. But now somehow it is.

Those were titles built from scratch, not one they were trying to get to 4.0 with minimal effort. Until you stop comparing apples to oranges you”l never appreciate the decisions BF was having to make. Sure they could have said we are gonna do this just like any other title and we will charge full price. Instead they said we are gonna do what we can and reward our CMSF base with an unheard of discount. Considering that they have no idea if this is gonna take a hit, break even or maybe even earn a little cash your (and I am gonna be really blunt here and hope you can appreciate it comes from someone who does understand how you feel) petulant harping on this subject is beneath you.  You know better.  There is a cost to everything and BF is not charging the CMSF base of users the full price to treat this product as a from scratch family and yet the amount of work that has already gone in is damn close and I am sure ended up with a lot of soul searching by Steve and Charles as to whether or not to even consider doing this.  I think most of us can agree we are extremely thankful they did regardless of the additional items we would have hoped for that didn’t make it in. And for what it is worth I was one of those pushing and hoping for independent buildings. 

Consider this. They made sure CMSF2 will play all CMSF content. Period. I can design a new CMSF scenario then copy that file to CMSF2 and it will work. Period.  That was a priority commitment they made and was a make or break for doing this and it wasn’t easy.  There was a lot of trial and effort involved. That means a lot to a lot of players.  You included as your scenarios so laboriously created work. Period. And those are my favorites. So, no you don’t have all those buildings types, but Ramadi works in CMSF2 and you can now refine those AI plans using 4.0 features.  

Dont look a gift horse in the mouth. 

Edited August 18, 2018 by sburke

[LongLeftFlank]

Hmm, why do I feel like the lead in "A Man for All Seasons", with my old friend SB in the role of Norwich chiding me that my obstinate purism will cost me my head?

And you will seek my thousands of posts in vain for a "CM totally sucks", either stated or implied. Not guilty, m'lud.

My particular wargaming interests are highly specialized and in the distinct minority (although I'm also not the only one). So I hardly expect my views to matter much to BFC as a commercial matter. I hope and expect most SF1 players will greatly enjoy the upgrade. But I am not required to alter my interests to match theirs. And the step change improvement over SF1 is not yet self evident on the criteria that matter to me. No amount of belittlement or strawmanning (not you, others) is going to alter that. Time will tell.

[sburke]

7 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Hmm, why do I feel like the lead in "A Man for All Seasons", with my old friend SB in the role of Norwich chiding me that my obstinate purism will cost me my head?

And you will seek my thousands of posts in vain for a "CM totally sucks", either stated or implied. Not guilty, m'lud.

My particular wargaming interests are highly specialized and in the distinct minority (although I'm also not the only one). So I hardly expect my views to matter much to BFC as a commercial matter. I hope and expect most SF1 players will greatly enjoy the upgrade. But I am not required to alter my interests to match theirs. And the step change improvement over SF1 is not yet self evident on the criteria that matter to me. No amount of belittlement or strawmanning (not you, others) is going to alter that. Time will tell.

heh it was just an expression, was not meant to say you were actually saying CM sucks.  Was just saying we adjust to what we have and make do.  And yeah I do understand your interests are highly specialized.. well maybe not specialized per se but very very detailed.  Specialized would be you say focus on MOUT.  However your Carillion, Dien Bein Phu and Makin work speaks to a variety of interests but a very focused attention to detail.  Your obstinate attention to detail will cost you your head m'lud.

Heh I may have to alter Avatar somehow to include Norwich.

 

[LongLeftFlank]

Simple, just swap out Alfred's "doody hat"  for a powdered wig and Bob's yer uncle.

I may blow the dust off my le Carillon work. It will keep me out of mischief here, to the relief of not a few.

On 9/5/2011 at 5:49 AM, LongLeftFlank said:

 

I tried to day trip from Paris out to the battlefield last June, but... "action contre l'industrie" stopped the trains to St Lô. Worse than Jabos.

[sburke]

whew Broadsword it worked!  All that BS I typed finally got him to revisit this map from way back in early CMBN

[mjkerner]

Maybe, but I would much prefer he revisit DBP, you Fanboi, you! (I know I’m not our old friend Broadsword, but I do recall pulling off a pretty good ambush on you back in the days of your Hamel Vallee days...)

[sburke]

2 hours ago, mjkerner said:

Maybe, but I would much prefer he revisit DBP, you Fanboi, you! (I know I’m not our old friend Broadsword, but I do recall pulling off a pretty good ambush on you back in the days of your Hamel Vallee days...)

you youngsters always harping on your ambushes.  I step outside to get the paper and something is burning on my porch, of course I am gonna step on it.  Oh wait you meant something else....

Yeah back in the early days of CMBN, when wire was a bug and we didn't have overlays in the editor.  Between Broadsword and LLF we were looking at having all of the front mapped around St Lo.

Edited August 18, 2018 by sburke

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'd certainly like to see another @LongLeftFlank map.....I'm rather fond of the ones I have. 

[Combatintman]

9 hours ago, mjkerner said:

Maybe, but I would much prefer he revisit DBP, you Fanboi, you! (I know I’m not our old friend Broadsword, but I do recall pulling off a pretty good ambush on you back in the days of your Hamel Vallee days...)

Why? It was essentially a siege battle. From recollection, the project was abandoned because of various issues around troop behaviour in entrenchments/fortifications.  I would love to see the work that was put in to modding CMBN to generate the Viet Minh, CEFEO and the Vietnam environment updated to the current engine and released.  The first Indochina war was more than DBP, which CM is not optimised to replicate on many levels, so I hope that this project gets revisited.

[Broadsword56]

7 hours ago, sburke said:

you youngsters always harping on your ambushes.  I step outside to get the paper and something is burning on my porch, of course I am gonna step on it.  Oh wait you meant something else....

Yeah back in the early days of CMBN, when wire was a bug and we didn't have overlays in the editor.  Between Broadsword and LLF we were looking at having all of the front mapped around St Lo.

Yes, really between My XIX Corps master map and LLF's Le Carillon master map, we really did have most of the St-Lo campaign area mapped. The glaring exception was the 2nd ID sector on the E side along Martinville Ridge -- a very important sector -- but one that we skipped at the time because back then the German FJ troops weren't yet in the game.