Infantry Representation

[IDF]

I must say it does look kind of dodgy having a squad of 10-12 men represented by 3 soldiers, it kind of feels a bit incomplete. Maybe this is something to attend to for future releases. Its just hard to adjust because most other games that I've played don't have this concept.

The infantry graphics also remind me of 101st in Normandy anyone play that one? What a boring waste of time game.

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

lead by example!!

[Apoc]

I don't mind the three figure per stand look. From what I've read the reason behind the limited figures was to ease the polygon hit on lower-end video cards.

If they had gone with the 1 figure per man principle just think how odd realistic +2 would look. Perhaps in the future they'll give us an option for the players who have 128 Meg DDR Video cards of Death I don't have one (*yet*)

[Guest Michael emrys]

"From what I've read the reason behind the limited figures was to ease the polygon hit on lower-end video cards."

Basically that is the case. The figures in CM are fully-rendered 3D and not sprites.

I was a bit uncomfortable with the concept when BTS released its first screenshots to illustrate what they were up to (in fact, I thought it was a bit Mickey Mouse though I recognised that it was driven by necessity), but after playing with it for a while I don't even particularly notice it anymore. If they started putting a dozen men on a base, my initial reaction would probably be that they make the screen look too crowded!

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 07-05-2000).]

[BenSp]

Finally someone who bashes 101. I already thought i was the only wargamer who didn't like this game at all .

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Its just hard to adjust because most other games that I've played don't have this concept. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? I'm a relative newbie at wargaming, so I just assumed this kind of abstraction was the norm. TacOps does the same sort of thing, as I recall.

-Andrew

[Bobbaro]

Actually, the 3 figure cluster may look more tactical than a full cluster of jokers trying to hide behind the same tree. Somehow I wonder if actual deployment of a squad is as confined as we have it here. The fire team drills I participated in certainly could have spread over more than one of our tiles. I recall that a lot of defensive deployments were spread rather farther than the "book" called for. a little circle of up to 12 guys looking like flys on a speck from a honey bucket don't exactly appear as though they are trying to avoid being shot or as if trying to shoot back.

[KNIL]

I read somewhere that the ability to represent full squads can be added to the game already. For technical reasons, as others have pointed out, this has not been done. I wish that BTS would give us an option to display more soldiers (perhaps with slider)and tweak the settings to our own tastes and to the capabilities of our computers and video cards. I'm curious whether one of the newfangled 1Gig computers with a brand new vid card could handle full squad graphics. Any ideas?

[KNIL]

Ok, directly from Battlefront.com's FAQ about Combat Mission:

_____________________________________

Why do squads show only three men instead of ten or twelve?

We would love to show the entire squad full of men, but it isn't possible unless you have a 600MHz G4 or 1000MHz Merced chip The problem has to do with the number of 3D polygons needed to represent all of these men. Current hardware just can't handle the number we need for this level of realism. As it is CM is pushing more polygons than probably any other game on the market today (and that includes QuakeII).

To get around this problem some people have suggested we use "sprites" instead of polygons. We could do this, but the game would lose the capability to place the camera viewpoint at any position (i.e. you'd be locked in to one or two vertical angles) and the animations would look a lot less interesting and dynamic. In other words, a considerable price in flexibilty and visual appeal would be paid in order to show those extra men. And you would still need a high-end G3 or Pentium II to handle all of this animation work. We don't think it's worth it.

Plus, as computers get faster, the fully 3D nature of the Combat Mission system provides the potential for updates which do show all the soldiers.

______________________________________

Since we are beyond the 1000Mhz barrier now, can we hope to see full squad graphics soon? (at least as an option)

[Redleg]

Geez, when I brought this up I was accused of being 'not a real wargamer'. The forum population has been gracious to you . The 3 soldier representation is annoying, but the good gameplay makes up for it, at least for Ver1. In future versions, this should at least be an option.

[KNIL]

Ok, some more digging around and I found this post from BTS:

__________________________________________

posted 12-13-1999 02:49 PM

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

Probably not for the remainder of the Combat Mission series (i.e. the next 4 games). There are two reasons.

First, the reworking of the game system to handle this is far from trivial. It involves almost an entire game with a game to be written. If people see 10 men, then they will want all 10 men to behave differenently (like Close Combat), otherwise you will be commanding armies of like minded robots.

The second reason is the impact on the rest of the game, both graphically and user interface wise. Put two 3 figure squads together in some woods. No picture there not being 6 figures there, but 24 (US has 12 each). Picture what a mess that would look like at the standard, usefull, graphics scale of +1 (don't even bother thinking about +2 or +3 ).

We can overcome #1 with a lot of hard work. But #2 is not something we can work around. Graphics have to be larger than life to be seen at any distance, so if we triple or quadruple the number of figures, there are going to be LOTS of problems no matter what we do. And for this reason alone, we probably won't even try to solve the first one.

Steve

_______________________________________

Perhaps at larger scaling the graphics would be muddled, but at the realistic setting I think it might work. I also read something about current monitors not being up to speed to show the detail necessary in rendering so many men. What about desktop resolution, e.g., 1600X1200?

[Neutral Party]

I've noticed in a few recent threads the re-appearance of a lot of the arguments that went around many months ago. In principle this is a good thing as it is useful to revisit these questions from time to time, although taken to extremes can be a waste of everyones time. The question of squad representation is one of these endlessly fascinating subjects.

I think there are a few points that it's worth bearing in mind.

The basic unit of gruntness is the squad (or half-squad if split), individual infantrymen are not represented. This means the smallest unit that can have individual and adjustable behavior is the squad. The individual "men" in the squad all behave in exactly the same way because they do not, in fact, represent individuals at all. They represent the squad.

Representing a squad by 9 or 12 or 15 figures would not IMHO improve the situation so long as the basic unit remains the squad. All that would happen is that you would have 9 or 12 or 15 figures behaving in exactly the same way. This would look silly, as some of the other posters have mentioned.

In order for such a representation to be an improvement, the basic unit of gruntness would have to change from the squad to the infantryman. But not just that - the basic manouver unit would still be the squad except now it would be composed of individuals each of whom could panic, get pinned etc., Although this may be closer to reality, it would need such a major hike in the AI requirements that (I expect) it would require complete recoding and might not even be possible with todays technology.

AFAIK very few computer wargames use a one to one representation of individual troops (CC and 101 - any others). Games that try to cover a larger tactical situation (SP, EF/WF, CM) do not. This is because giving orders to individual troops in an infantry company is an unmanageable task - even for computer commanders with nothing better to do.

Getting the most enjoyment out of playing Combat Mission requires the "suspension of disbelief".

I would guess that for many of us, it is the high level of self-consistency, the realistic physics model and the 3D environment that makes this "suspension of disbelief" possible.

Joe

[Guest Scott Clinton]

101st was, and still is the single most accurate wargame of its scale. NOTHING can touch it.

If the 'pace' was too slow for someone...then that is another issue and perhaps 'realism' in a game of this scale in Normady 1944 was not something they should have purchased in the first place...

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[KNIL]

Ok,

All the points I've read are well taken. BTS has already stated that it IS possible to represent full-squads. It is really a matter of whether or not BTS chooses to implement this feature. Certainly many of the obstacles concerning hardware are less of a problem with each passing day.

As for the technicalities of showing more men, remember, the 3-man graphic is also only representative of the full squad. So the additional graphics would only show the depletion of squad members as the battle ensues. I don't think that additional squad member graphics would make a larger AI hit than already is the case.

Of course the addition of many soldiers would probably clutter the interface. By allowing an OPTION of switching between 3-man squads and full-squads while in-game, the player could carry out the strategic portion of the game in the 3-man mode and switch to full-squad to watch the replay.

With the possiblity of full-game saveable replays hinted at by BTS (please, please!) , the graphical lushness of the game almost demands a full-squad view. Imagine the movie-like replays we could have of our greatest triumphs (and blunders).

I hope both full-game replays and full-squads become a reality sooner rather than later.

This game just gets better and better.

Any comments BTS?

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

Koninklijk Nederlands-Indisch Leger

--Royal Dutch-Indonesian Army--

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Maybe, if we nag BTS enough about full squad representation they will release it as an option in a patch (and thus put something ELSE on the 'back-burner').

...Then, when we all see for ourselves that the game in unplayable with all the infantry represented on the map (as they have said countless times!) we can all toggle back down to three figures per squad again...

I'm sorry (not really) but this has been covered at LEAST a dozen times in lengthy threads just since the first of the year. Does anyone really think anything has changed since the last thread?

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Guest Big Time Software]

We have absolutely no plans to increase the squads to represent 1:1 manpower. Everybody in favor of this is woefully underestimating the limiations of cuting edge hardware (even projected out to next year or the year after) and the average machine people will have in 3 years time. But more importantly, people are NOT fully understanding the gameplay problems that would come about with the clutter. So bad, in fact, that if it were an option I don't think hardly anybody would use it even if their hardware could hack it. On top of that the programming necessary to have a 12 man squad not look like 12 robots in parade formation is daunting to say the least. Lots of coding and lots of CPU cycles chewed up.

In short, our time and computer resources would be MUCH better invested in improving the game instead of making some eyecandy of questionable practical use. People that don't agree with this are obviously not game developers or programmers, and therefore the opinion isn't worth much since it isn't based on reality. In our heads we can easily picture 1:1 representations being cool, but we have the experience to understand that this is not practical

And as others have said... abstraction of this sort has been around for 50 years. It is therefore NOT new. And as many molds as we have broken and intend to break, we do not think we will ever break this particular one. It matters not that in theory we like the idea, because in reality it isn't possible. And reality ALWAYS wins out over theory.

Steve

[Guest Wally'sWorld]

Steve, well said! The three figure representation of squads does not bother me at all.

[KNIL]

Thanks for the input Steve.

I guess I am a bit confused by the FAQ stating that the full-squad representation was possible given the mention of 1Gig processors. If it truly is the case that computer hardware could not handle the cycles (I'm not a programmer so I must confess ignorance) then I guess this feature is not possible at present.

As for wargaming abstraction: it is nothing new to me. I've played most of the Talonsoft Battleground Civ War/Napoleonics and I'm used to it. I was just hoping that BTS might break new ground (again) with full squads. Oh well, maybe down the road a bit.

I hope the full-game replay makes it in still...

[Guest Big Time Software]

In theory (and this is only theory unless we actually code it and test it) a 1Gig processor and something like a Voodoo5 (or whatever will be released in 2 years time) might be able to push the polygons. IIRC, that is all I was discussing in that VERY outdated FAQ. But some of the other problems are not cured by faster hardware and others futher add to the drain of CPU cycles beyond what the graphical representation (polygons) uses up.

Steve

[IDF]

Steve et al...

I don't understand, why couldn't something like the Close Combat system or Sudden Strike be incorporated in CM. Personally I am a big fan of CC (and thought until CM) that it was the best war game out there!!

[Guest Big Time Software]

IDF,

Best thought is to use the Search function on this BBS to find the answer. It has been discussed at length many times. The basic difference is that CC is only 2D, and therefore sprites hardly hit the CPU or video card compared to a poliginal figure. There is also the scale issue. You can have a force of 1500 or more men PER SIDE in Combat Mission. How many figures can you have in Close Combat? 60-80 total per side? And how many units can you have in CC per side? 15? And in CM it could easily be 100. Picture trying to find the right unit to click on with 100 units of 1500 figures on the map

Bottom line is that it would, in theory, be cool to have a 1:1 representation. Unfotunately reality says this ain't going to happen. So instead of banging our heads against walls that we know are there (and are very thick!) we should instead invest our time and energy into things that can be done to improve the game. So that is what we will do

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 07-05-2000).]

[guachi]

Don't worry, I'mt not here to throw a pile of links at any of you.

I just wanted to mention that this single thread has pretty much every reason that any of the other threads have for not having full squad graphics, and in with a much calmer tone, too.

1. Visual clutter (too many men on the screen)

2. processing power (computers too slow)

3. wrong scale (smallest unit is team or squad, not individual infantrymen)

Jason

[Guest Michael emrys]

In fact, if anyone ever wanted to take a vote, mine would be for battalion-sized infantry units, companies for vehicles, and batteries for artillery. For the *next* series of wargames, you understand; I like CM just fine.

Just my 2¢.

Michael