New terrain types

[nathan1776]

I was thinking recently about how in the real world, brush/fields can be so thick that you have effectively zero visibility (like, less than 1 meter).  I was thinking it would be interesting to see that in CMx1: woods with thick underbrush, or thick open brush, or thick fields.  Your units might make more noise as they move through it (i.e. they'd create sound contacts for enemy units from further away).  You'd get sound contacts but wouldn't see the enemy unless you were right on top of them.  But you could area fire at the sound contacts (and maybe the AI could be made to area fire at sound contacts within a certain distance of them?).  And of course there could be intermediate levels of that, so you could have "moderately thick woods", or "very thick woods".  The AI might need to be tweaked to handle this kind of terrain intelligently.

That made me wonder what other kinds of interesting new terrain types might be possible.  It seems like a smart way to do it is to think about the dimensions that terrain can vary on (speed of travel for infantry, effect on LOS/concealment, effect on incoming rounds, speed of travel/accessibility to wheeled/tracked vehicles, bogging likelihood), see where the existing terrain is along those dimensions, and then think about what kind of terrain might exist in some part of that possibility space that doesn't currently have a corresponding terrain modeled in the game.

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, nathan1776 said:

You'd get sound contacts but wouldn't see the enemy unless you were right on top of them. 

Don't watch only the tentative contacts but also the combat stress pyramid. Before you start the next turn press the evading button and see the mood the trooper is in. Often when you get a tentative contact it is often too late. Area fire rarely results in kills it is more area denial. I tested LMG's on hidden troopers in a building they only suppressed and not all the time. Play a game with during action reports, after replay on hotseat against yourself so you get an objective perception. We all have different methods and see which one you agree with. We all bought the games for personal reasons. 

[nathan1776]

1 minute ago, chuckdyke said:

Don't watch only the tentative contacts but also the combat stress pyramid. Before you start the next turn press the evading button and see the mood the trooper is in. Often when you get a tentative contact it is often too late. Area fire rarely results in kills it is more area denial. I tested LMG's on hidden troopers in a building they only suppressed and not all the time. Play a game with during action reports, after replay on hotseat against yourself so you get an objective perception. We all have different methods and see which one you agree with. We all bought the games for personal reasons. 

Are you talking about CMx2?  This is an idea for CMx1.

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, nathan1776 said:

Are you talking about CMx2?  This is an idea for CMx1.

It applies to both I think, I bought CM1 on a disk and couldn't update them. I thought you bought SF2? Nowadays I play only CMx2 and see my posts as such. 

Edited May 18, 2022 by chuckdyke

[nathan1776]

Just now, chuckdyke said:

It applies to both I think, I bought CM1 on a disk and couldn't update them. I thought you bought SF2? 

I did, but this idea is for CMx1.  I haven't even played a scenario in SF2 to completion yet.

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, nathan1776 said:

I did, but this idea is for CMx1.

If you played CMx1 you don't have many problems with CMx2. Pretty similar but not the same. I found in CM2 there is more into units' behavior. Play and play a lot. Suggestion when you post, quote the game, scenario, difficulty. In CM2 LOS and LOF see them as guides your TacAI has the last word. Happy gaming.  

[Combatintman]

On 5/19/2022 at 12:20 AM, nathan1776 said:

I was thinking recently about how in the real world, brush/fields can be so thick that you have effectively zero visibility (like, less than 1 meter).  I was thinking it would be interesting to see that in CMx1: woods with thick underbrush, or thick open brush, or thick fields.  Your units might make more noise as they move through it (i.e. they'd create sound contacts for enemy units from further away).  You'd get sound contacts but wouldn't see the enemy unless you were right on top of them.  But you could area fire at the sound contacts (and maybe the AI could be made to area fire at sound contacts within a certain distance of them?).  And of course there could be intermediate levels of that, so you could have "moderately thick woods", or "very thick woods".  The AI might need to be tweaked to handle this kind of terrain intelligently.

That made me wonder what other kinds of interesting new terrain types might be possible.  It seems like a smart way to do it is to think about the dimensions that terrain can vary on (speed of travel for infantry, effect on LOS/concealment, effect on incoming rounds, speed of travel/accessibility to wheeled/tracked vehicles, bogging likelihood), see where the existing terrain is along those dimensions, and then think about what kind of terrain might exist in some part of that possibility space that doesn't currently have a corresponding terrain modeled in the game.

The CMx1 ship has sailed so there is no point in asking for improvements or even discussing them.  Battlefront have not updated it since CMx2 came out and have no intention of revisiting it.

[womble]

9 hours ago, Combatintman said:

The CMx1 ship has sailed so there is no point in asking for improvements or even discussing them.  Battlefront have not updated it since CMx2 came out and have no intention of revisiting it.

This. Quoting for emphasis. It's a "dead" product, obsolete and superceded. Asking for updates for it is like asking for security patches for Windows XP.

 

[nathan1776]

I understand the devs have stopped working on it.  But I've been seeing a lot of "old/old-looking" games get popular on Steam, and that has made me think it might be possible to revive the game by releasing a relatively-easy-to-create package of content.  And I've heard some CMx2 players saying that there are ways in which CMx1 is actually better.

[Combatintman]

22 hours ago, nathan1776 said:

I understand the devs have stopped working on it.  But I've been seeing a lot of "old/old-looking" games get popular on Steam, and that has made me think it might be possible to revive the game by releasing a relatively-easy-to-create package of content.  And I've heard some CMx2 players saying that there are ways in which CMx1 is actually better.

Well stop thinking it then - it isn't going to happen - you're urinating in the wind with this one.

[nathan1776]

10 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

Well stop thinking it then - it isn't going to happen - you're urinating in the wind with this one.

IIRC the devs also said at one point Combat Mission would never be sold on Steam.  And now it is.

Edited May 23, 2022 by nathan1776

[womble]

8 minutes ago, nathan1776 said:

IIRC the devs also said at one point Combat Mission would never be sold on Steam.  And now it is.

I'd be interested to see a direct quote from Steve that said that. My recollection is that they said they weren't going to sell on Steam for [reasons]. Those [reasons] changed. The reasons that they stopped developing CMx1 20 years ago (basically, "it's too hard to develop this spaghetti code any further", to be simplistic) haven't.

You're making some assumptions about what would be "easy" that may well be far from reality, and you're forgetting that the outfit has a very small developer staff whose time is devoted to CMx2 now. Veering back into an abandoned code base isn't going to be on their list of things to do. And what you're proposing definitely requires coding updates. You're touching on the spotting engine and on the AI, and the updates needed for either of them to achieve the things you're proposing in the OP are way past "minor". 

[nathan1776]

22 minutes ago, womble said:

I'd be interested to see a direct quote from Steve that said that. My recollection is that they said they weren't going to sell on Steam for [reasons]. Those [reasons] changed. The reasons that they stopped developing CMx1 20 years ago (basically, "it's too hard to develop this spaghetti code any further", to be simplistic) haven't.

You're making some assumptions about what would be "easy" that may well be far from reality, and you're forgetting that the outfit has a very small developer staff whose time is devoted to CMx2 now. Veering back into an abandoned code base isn't going to be on their list of things to do. And what you're proposing definitely requires coding updates. You're touching on the spotting engine and on the AI, and the updates needed for either of them to achieve the things you're proposing in the OP are way past "minor". 

Thanks for the information.  What kinds of coding updates would be necessary?

[Combatintman]

4 minutes ago, nathan1776 said:

Thanks for the information.  What kinds of coding updates would be necessary?

Just leave it will you - it isn't going to happen and nobody apart from Charles at Battlefront really knows how that code works.  There are threads aplenty in which Steve or the Beta team say that 'easy changes' aren't actually that easy.  The programming team at Battlefront is at best three guys who have their hands full with CMx2, CM Professional for military clients and are rumored to be working on an entirely new engine.  They are not going to dust off the CMx1 code to update it ever ... they don't have the resources for one, there is zero commercial benefit in doing so and they are looking forwards not backwards.

[womble]

6 hours ago, Combatintman said:

...nobody apart from...

"Not even" was the impression I got by the end... Two decades later? Even more so.

Edited May 23, 2022 by womble