Hamstersss Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Its been argued that showing all the men in an 8, 9, 12, etc. man squad, as well as all the guys on an HMG team and bazooka team would be: 1) A waste of resources. 2) Unnecessary. While I agree with the first point, in that I would rather have a BN level CM than a company level CM with 12 man squads, I feel that BTS should move toward full representation for realism's sake. Whether you like it or not, the shorthand display of your squads does not accurately portray their positioning or activities and you end up with a more complex version of the SP and CC shorthand issues. Therefor, for the same reason BTS has gone for realism with tank warfare, they should strive for realistic representation of squad actions. I don't think of this as a patch but if CM2 is going to include more realistic interiors, then it should also include more realistic squad representation. ------------------ You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins. -Hakko Ichiu (Edited for minor changes and bolding and this smilie ) [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 08-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Elijah, what is the smallest unit of control when it comes to tanks and vehicles in CM? What is the smallest unit of control when it comes to squads? The answer to those questions is the answer to whether or not squads should display individual soldiers. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted August 30, 2000 Author Share Posted August 30, 2000 Jeff, You've missed my point entirely. Just because you can't command a tank to change ammo types, does that mean tungston rounds shouldn't be modeled? I don't want individual soldiers modeled so that I can order Johnson to run over there and shoot Hanz, I want individual soldiers modeled for REALISM. Computer wargame shorthand, just like pen and paper wargame shorthand, has nothing to do with making a game better, it has to do with keeping a player from performing psychoanalysis and trig while playing a game. If, however, we have computers powerful enough to handle it, we should take advantage of it as it improves the game. Otherwise, why not remove the complicated armor penetration algorithms and replace them with a d6-based, critical hit system? (Edited due to hatred of the word algorithm and its spelling) ------------------ You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins. -Hakko Ichiu [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 08-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 FAQ FAQ!! ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilger Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 I agree with this argument 100%. If there is aything that breaks the illusion of reality in this game, it is the soldier representation. They are the building block of tactical level warfare and need improvement as a command/control unit. While Heidman makes a valid point about the smallest unit of control being the squad, lets remember that with a tank the main gun, machine gun/s and driver all have actios that are independent. With the squad, actions of individuals are conglomerated so as to appear as one. CC handled this issue well, though at the expense of scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pham911 Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 I think that everyone would agree that full soldier representation would be cool as hell, as long as it doesn't detract from the game by draining resources. I'd personally love it, and am crossing my fingers for more men in CM2. I wouldn't love it if it meant that you had to control individual soldiers, as I fell that CM's scale of squad level combat is, in a word, perfect. It would be cool to see the computer controlled individual soldiers completing my orders to the squad. Very, very cool. Maybe by the time CM2 goes gold, mid-range PC's will have the capability to model this. If you'd need a top-end machine to play CM, it's not really worth the added feature(even though I'd probably upgrade just to play it, which my wife would just love..."You want to spend $1500 to do *what*?"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redleg Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Meeks, you have violated the law of the CM bbs, you are not are real wargamer and your sniveling flashbanger self makes us ill. Go back to playing hungry hungry hippos. hehe I belive that in the current iteration of CM, the squad representation is fine. In future iterations, however, the game should increase its realism with each version. I belive that the game would be MORE REALISTIC if all the guys in a squad or team were modeled. This does not mean that you control each guy, it just means we can see all the guys. So what is more realistic? Representing a tank with a rock, or representing a tank with a plastic model of a tank. The model of course, and the squad representaion argument is simalar with this example. I dont understand why the big resistence to making the squad representaion more realistic in FUTURE iterations of the game, and then not even neccesarily the next iteration of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zulu1 Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Elijah; Steve posted on 02-20-1999 "In a Battalion sized engagement you would see 94 figures for the infantry ALONE. That would be 27 Squads x 3 figures, 9 Platoon HQs X 1 figure, 3 Co HQs x 1 figure, and 1 Bat HQ x 1 figure. Add to this teams and you could get well over 120-140 figures on the map for a battle of this size. Then you have vehicles and enemy forces which means an AWFUL lot of figures running around In fact, I can't even picture this since we are only playing with a reinforced company sized force for each side and there seems to be a crud load of guys as is! If you are concerned about there being too few figures on the map, worry no longer :)" So if you model 10 or 12 soldiers per squad, you are talking about going from 120 - 140 figures to 350 - 400 figures. Until we all have 2 Ghz chips, it's not going to happen. Plus Steve made his post with the 1000 point maximum enabled IIRC. With 5000 points this number of figures increases accordingly. And your system slows down accordingly. [This message has been edited by Zulu1 (edited 08-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>FAQ FAQ!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Andreas you really shouldn't be calling people names just because they haven't read the Frequently ... OH ... you mean that Elijah should read the ... you weren't calling him ... never mind. Joe BTW, I don't care if they have 3 people or 30 people. As long as I know it's a squad it's close enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted August 30, 2000 Author Share Posted August 30, 2000 Zulu, Not quite true. CM was created with, I assume, a baseline 300mhz-8mb vidcard box. The Athlon 1Ghz is only ~$450 right now and nVidia has moved Moore's Law into video cards. If CM2 has a classic dev cycle of 18-23 months, that means you could buy a modern powerhouse (Sans flatscreen monitor, mouse and keyboard, of course) for, roughly $399 when it comes out. And for those of us who want all that with big textures, we'll buy the 2-3ghz Mustangs and Willamettes (Er. Pentium 4s, what a stupid, stupid name) with the wildly powerful nVidia cards. ------------------ You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins. -Hakko Ichiu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Read these threads. Do it. #'s of soldiers in future CM titles - will modern tech help? men flying from explosions An interesting idea for squad representation! David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 This subject, which is probably obvious to everyone here, has been brought up numerous times before. While I kind of like the idea of having all squad/team members represented graphically, there are several reasons against this. 1) Though not necessary, more unique animations for the squad/team members would be desired so it doesn't appear that you have a "clone army". This would take a bit of time to code up and increase the requirements for a system to display such a feature (reasonably). 2) Probably the biggest factor against full representation is one of clutter. If you have several infantry units in an area it can be problematic selecting between them if they are close together ( and this is just with the current 3-man representation). With full representation this becomes even harder. 3) The number of polygons to represent all the members of a squad/team would slow down CM very significantly. This may bring most systems to their knees trying to render/animate the turns and calculate all the other important, background mechanics of the game. Because this would be such a hit and most systems probably couldn't support such a feature, it isn't worth the time to code at the moment. The future is always hard to predict, so some of these arguements may fade with time (computer speed, etc.). But the fact remains that there is a small team to make these changes and with what is currently on the plate in terms of upgrading CM and future versions - this is at the back of a long list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Okay, leaving the CPU hit issue aside, can anybody explain to me why Charles should spend time working on a feature that will most likely be toggled off by most people anyway, except in small-scale battles, because it will make it impossible to see the battlefield under a morass of soldiers, instead of working on something that will genuinely improve game-play? Does the concept of opportunity cost have any meaning around here? Anyone fired up Chambois lately? Do you really want to have full squad representation there, unless you have a 25" screen? ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think CM currently DOES model all members of a squad, and it's only the graphical representation of that entire 12 man squad which is modeled as a visual representation of 3 men. This doesn't bother me a bit. Sure it would be nice to see all the guys, but IMHO it would simply be eye-candy. Play with your units set to actual scale and you'll see that it would be meaningless. My 2 cents. Zamo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted August 30, 2000 Author Share Posted August 30, 2000 David, I have read these threads and, frankly, I don't think your arguments are valid. The ONLY valid argument is one of resources. The other arguments, that it is simply too much clutter and that they are unnecessary, are both just silly. First, if there is a grognard here who tells me, "That's too much clutter" and means it, they should have their membership revoked. The COs in WWII had to deal with it, why the heck can't you? Second, lack of neccesity. It could also be argued that it is not necessary that the tanks are represented in any kind of fancy way but this would be false, too. Having realistic representation of tanks makes for realistic command level decisions when looking at the battlefield, in the same way that 3-man squads are better than 1-man squads. I think everyone is defensive because they think I'm telling BTS that CM isn't good enough. This is as far from the truth as it gets. I think BTS has produced an amazing piece of work and yes, I'll buy CM2 without full squads. However, this same reasoning hasn't stopped Ferrari from making better cars. ------------------ You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins. -Hakko Ichiu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purple4Ever Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Currently, the squads are graphically represented by 2 or 3 soldiers, standing, kneeling (and turning their heads), etc. How will the game be different with 9 - 12 soldiers standing, kneeling (and turning their heads), etc.? As Schrullenhaft touches on, the only way graphically representing these additional men would change anything is to have different animations for each of the soldiers. What's the point? If I can't command each individual soldier (and I don't want to, btw), then I don't need each individual soldier on the screen....and I certainly don't want my CPU animating them... Just my $.02 ------------------ "The mass of the [Red] army stationed in Western Russia is to be destroyed in bold operations involving deep penetrations by armored spearheads, and the withdrawal of elements capable of combat into the extensive Russian land spaces is to be prevented. By means of rapid pursuit a line is then to be reached from beyond which the Russian air force will no longer be capable of attacking the German home territories." - - - Directive 21 "Fall Barbarossa" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zulu1 Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Believe it or not, BTS is in this to make money. Profit is not a dirty word. They have to design a game to meet certain minimun requirements. To cater strictly to high end systems would deprive them of a big chunk of their market share. While this is a moving window with the constant change in technology, there are still a lot of people out there with systems around 300 mhz. Additionally, you could code the game to use graphics for both high end systems and low end systems but this would add a ton of extra code for how much payback? Pretty small IMHO. Remember BTS is a small (but excellent!!) operation. Would you want to wait another 6 months for the game? Sure the feature would be nice to have. But is it a show-stopper. Not for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzvg Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Well there is the other issue Namely, yes 1Ghz systems are only $450, now I'm not poor, but I still object to using "only" in conjunction with $450, after all, I could be using that fundage for CM's 2-11 instead I can see both sides of this, and ya both right however, consider that modelling 300-600 infantrymen might bring a 2Ghz to it's knees, because while algorithms are scalable, the total quantity of computations your CPU has to make is based on the total quantity of computations your CPU has to make (no that's not nonsense, 300 trackable items is 300 trackable items, period) Maybe when we get 30Ghz machines as baseline we can start sweating the small stuff. I'd allow them to take it down to 2 figures if that would allow my men to dig hasty positions ------------------ Pzvg "Murphy's law of combat #10, never forget your weapon is made by the lowest bidder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Portraying individual soldiers is outside the scope of this game. Can you imagine the AI issues that will arise? The squad members' actions will be anylised and criticised. So why go in that direction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rune Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Wrong assumptions. 1. the cycle is not 18-23 months. Not even close. we should see CM2 within a year. 2. People here are still running 166mhz pentiums...do you REALLY think that everyone is going to go out and upgrade? 3. Steve and Charles have stated countless times that 12 members shown would cause screen clutter. Imagine 2 squads and an mg team in a house. If I had to choose between your impression and what they have stated...since they made the game, I'll go along with them. 4. CC has individual members of a squad. they are also limited to 15 units per side. I have an 800mhz pc and I have beta tested scenarios that even slow my system down. Now you are going to add 8-10 more times the units? Steve and Charles know the game. They have publically stated that you are not going to see individual soldiers any time soon. Their engine, their program...I think they know what they are doing. Put this topic to rest already. Back to beta testing and researching the Russian front. Rune <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: Zulu, Not quite true. CM was created with, I assume, a baseline 300mhz-8mb vidcard box. The Athlon 1Ghz is only ~$450 right now and nVidia has moved Moore's Law into video cards. If CM2 has a classic dev cycle of 18-23 months, that means you could buy a modern powerhouse (Sans flatscreen monitor, mouse and keyboard, of course) for, roughly $399 when it comes out. And for those of us who want all that with big textures, we'll buy the 2-3ghz Mustangs and Willamettes (Er. Pentium 4s, what a stupid, stupid name) with the wildly powerful nVidia cards. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Also, if my squad fails and dies, what difference does it make how they die? They're dead or alive. Winning or losing. Think big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The ONLY valid argument is one of resources.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bingo. ------------------ Charlie don't surf! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The other arguments, that it is simply too much clutter and that they are unnecessary, are both just silly. First, if there is a grognard here who tells me, "That's too much clutter" and means it, they should have their membership revoked. The COs in WWII had to deal with it, why the heck can't you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Come on buddy, we have a difference of opinion here, that doesn't mean that we're "silly" or that our viewpoint has no merit. You see it differently, good for you, allow us our opinion. As for the COs in WW2, they also had to deal with the being at ground level all the time, not being able to "fly" all over the battlefield and not being able to rewind the action and see it again. IT'S A GAME ... a simulation and a representation of the real thing, with all the compromises and restrictions implied by that. I personally agree with Andreas that a full squad would create a cluttered screen that I wouldn't like. You might like it ... okay. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Elijah, thanks first of all for making a well-considered and reasonable argument, even though many folks won't want to discuss it since it probably won't happen any time soon. FWIW, I don't think I'd use such a feature IF it got into the game. It was one of the things I didn't like about Steel Panthers 1&2 (squads looked too cluttered). But, to each his own. I would much rather have the currrent 3 men animated separately so they don't look like animatrons! Yes, this takes more resources as well, but I think most computers in 18-24 months will be able to handle it OK. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Elijah Meeks wrote: > I don't think your arguments are valid. I've said this before, but - aren't you lucky - I'm going to say it again. Combat Mission does not model individual men. It averages out the men in a squad. The three-man graphic you see is a placeholder for the squad, it is not a representation of three men. If all 8-12 men were modelled, at this stage they would all be doing exactly the same thing, which would (1) be a total waste of programming time, and (2) look pretty strange. For example, in many cases you'd have guys hanging out of a building. The only way to model all the men and still make sense, would be to model the behaviour of every single man. When your squad runs across the road, it doesn't just run across in a bunch - it moves across tactically, a few men at a time. The fact that you do not see this makes sense with a three-man placeholder, but if you had ten men, seeing them all running across the road in a bunch wouldn't make any sense at all. The programming time and processor power required for full squad representation is not just in showing models of all the men - it's in creating the behaviour to back it up. At the moment this is unfeasible. But more importantly, Combat Mission is a squad-level game. It would make as much sense to represent each squad with a counter, because this is effectively what you see - a three-man-shaped counter, which performs various actions to represent what the squad is doing. Full-squad representation is outwith Combat Mission's scope. Even if it were feasible, that would not make it appropriate. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts