A Case For Full Squad Representation

[Kingfish]

And just out of curiosity, would you would want a body shown for every guy killed?

And if not, would someone that does be wrong in asking? Afterall, he would be asking for the same reason you are asking for a full squad rep...Realism.

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

Charlie don't surf!

[aka_tom_w]

again, the last time Steve posted on this topic (and this is another re-post)

he said:

"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. "

What more needs to be said?

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-30-2000).]

[Hamstersss]

I don't mean to be a wet blanket Tom, but wouldn't that logic follow to mean that we would all need 1ghz chips for the 5000 point games? My little P3-450 runs 5000 pointers just fine.

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

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

[JoePrivate]

aka_tom_w, perhaps this is why,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>posted 08-30-2000 04:59 PM:

That is why I suggested that he read the stuff that has come before. But apparently our words are valuless unless they are freshly posted?

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Major Tom]

Man, lay off the crack pipe!

So what if YOU run a P450 with no problems, not everyone can afford to buy these fancy computers!!! Plus, you can run the game fine NOW, but, there are only 3 characters per squad!!! Imagine each squad having between 7 and 9 more men, which would require about 3 times as much speed as you have to catch up to the level of clarity that you currently enjoy.

I own a P266 with 64MB RAM and a Voodo 3 3Dfx card, and I cannot run any battle beyond 1500 points smoothly. I had to get low-rez grass, turn off the cool weather effects, and even get minimum tree level to get these higher point games (and even the low point games!) running at tolerable levels.

You don't produce a game based on the highest possible computers out there, you base it on the most common, and that currently is the P266.

Next time, get a REAL case for full squad representation other than the one that is just full of old newspapers...

HEHEHE, hungry hungry hippos! I loved that game!

[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 08-30-2000).]

[Hamstersss]

I don't appreciate the attack Major Tom. I'm sorry you can't afford a modern computer, don't take it out on me, though.

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

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

[Pham911]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

I own a P266 with 64MB RAM and a Voodo 3 3Dfx card, and I cannot run any battle beyond 1500 points smoothly. I had to get low-rez grass, turn off the cool weather effects, and even get minimum tree level to get these higher point games (and even the low point games!) running at tolerable levels.

You don't produce a game based on the highest possible computers out there, you base it on the most common, and that currently is the P266.

(edited 08-30-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amazing stoke of luck that the most common computer also happens to be your computers speed...

Aside from that, yes people do make games for the higest end systems out there. It happens quite a bit. Usually the games are scaleable, however, and you can lower settings to run the games on lower end machines. And that's exactly what's being asked for here. The *option* of running the game with full squads if our systems can handle it.

The real question I now have is, will CM2 be just a conversion of CM but on the Russian front, or will they advance the already excellent game engine further? If it's the former, the whole discussion(and any others that have to do with improvements) is moot. If it's the latter, then I'd be hard pressed to see validity in an argument that says "I can't display 12 men per squad, so nobody else better be doing it either"...

[Steve Clark]

Ummm, I have a 233 MMX with 96mb RAM and a 16mb Voodoo3. I display at 1024x768 with all of the details to the max except for horizon (no Mods though). I have no problems with performance with any scenarios (except on huge maps) and with high points QBs that I briefly tested. Maybe it's something else?

[Pham911]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve Clark:

Ummm, I have a 233 MMX with 96mb RAM and a 16mb Voodoo3. I display at 1024x768 with all of the details to the max except for horizon (no Mods though). I have no problems with performance with any scenarios (except on huge maps) and with high points QBs that I briefly tested. Maybe it's something else?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I run CM on either my 233Mhz 32MB computer w/Voodoo2, or my 450Mhz 128MB ram one w/an ATI card. It doesn't run much slower on the older one than the newer one.

If Major Tom is getting that poor performance with a 266, there's probably something else wrong other than the age and speed of the machine.

BTW, I was under the impression the a V3 card can only do 800x600 res like the V2. Is this wrong(in which case I am pissed I went for the ATI card instead of the V3 when I bought the parts for my new system).

[Chupacabra]

To be blunt, all of the arguments saying that BTS should represent every soldier seperately are specious and unconvincing.

BTS has stated on numerous occasions (for examples, check out the threads that David linked to, or the quotes tom_w linked to) that for the conceivable future, infantry squads will be represented as 3 man counters. They, and people in this thread, have pointed out exactly why this is so.

Elijah - it does you no credit to advance a controversial opinion, and then to dismiss counterarguments as "bogus" or "silly." No one has doubted the merit of your opinions because they are just that, opinions. To you, clutter doesn't matter. To many others, including me, it does. You say the current representation isn't realistic, I say it is as realistic as your proposal is. The ultimate arbiter here is going to be BTS. They've heard all the arguments, pro and con, many times before. Why keep beating a dead horse?

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Hamstersss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

To be blunt, all of the arguments saying that BTS should represent every soldier seperately are specious and unconvincing.

Elijah - it does you no credit to advance a controversial opinion, and then to dismiss counterarguments as "bogus" or "silly."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Better I should call them specious and unconvincing rather than bogus and silly?

Oh, and I have checked out those threads, now and back when, and they mainly consist of people against the idea saying the same thing they say now, "Clutter and not worth it." Its odd, all the photos and reels I've seen of WWII don't show a carpet of soldiers moving over the terrain like ants, do you suppose they used the 3-man squad to keep that from happening?

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

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).]

[Steve Clark]

A single voodoo2 card can do True-color displays up to 1600x1200 but 3D hardware acceleration up to 800x600 (software acceleration may be higher). Daisy-chaining two voodoo2 cards can push 3D hardware acceleration to 1024x768.

A voodoo3 can go up to 2046x1536, but probably not in True-color. 1024x768 on a 19" monitor is considered a 'lower-end' resolution for the voodoo3, thus why I can run with full details with no performance hits.

I had to replace my voodoo2 card with a voodoo3 a few months back and it was a bargain at $99 (compared to $299 for a voodoo5).

[Guest Zulu1]

Geez, this thread reminds me of the wildfires in Montana jumping the cut lines.

One thing for certain, the game is FINISHED!

Once a piece of software is finished, the developer is responsible for Bug Fixes only!

Anything else is out of the goodness of their heart or is an "enhancement".

Bug fixes cost money but it is the duty of the developer to fix problems.

Enhancements cost more money but the customer pays for them.

So, if enough people want 12 man squads, put the money up front, and Charles may do it. If he can fit it in his schedule.

Otherwise this thread is all a moot point. Fire up the wish list thread and add your wishes in there.

[Major Tom]

Sorry about the personal attack, it was a very rude thing of me to do.

Possibly there is something wrong with my comp. But, tripling the number of moving units in each battle would most likely slow the game down a lot, even with computers that are not wacky like mine

I am sorry that I struck out, but, I am starting to get sick of all the flack that Charles and Steve have received. I have seen some totally unplayable games get less attacks on it than this one. If they feel that something is not currently feasible to do, like have each person represented in the game, what is it our place to say that they are wrong? Maybe I should have let my rant out at the "CRAP AI" thread. Again, Elijah, and anyone else offended, I sincerely apologize.

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

Better I should call them specious and unconvincing rather than bogus and silly?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see a difference in both tone and meaning. I'm sorry if you don't.

You've put your arguments forward, and they've been rebutted. You've ceased to respond to those arguments and moved into "if you don't see it my way, you're an idiot" mode. You are absolutely correct in that actual war was a much more confused and disorienting experience than playing a game of CM. But during the creation of CM, or any game, compromises have to be made between playability and realism.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, this one is getting locked up. This has been debated before, and here is the SAME answer I gave the last time:

COMBAT MISSION, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. will *NOT* have 1:1 representations of men for its units. This is for three HUGE reasons, in order of least important:

1. Processor/graphics card speed - people are smoking crack if they think that we can do a 10 fold increase in graphics and processor load and not rule out any system below about 1.5 GHz. "I have a P450 and it runs fine" is a silly argument to make. Sure, of course it runs fine. Why? Because we targeted a P266, that's why. If we targeted a 1 GHz chip it would take a 1.5 GHz chip to have things run "fine" in all circumstances. Hardwareheads need to realize that they have no concept of how difficult it is to increase polygon counts to this degree. No hardware in existance today has the kind of abilities some people seem to think they do.

2. Programming time. What would people rather us do? Add more realism and increase the overall use of technology (i.e. better defined figures and more detailed buildings) or simply add eye candy for the sake of eye candy? Even if the hardware could support a 1:1 representation (which it CAN NOT) the programming time it would take to support this (unless you all want 12 man zombie clone units) is staggering. Plenty of far more important things to suck up our time than this.

3. And here is the one that has been rulled out as "bogus" - clutter. Do an experiement. Go into the editor, place one woods tile down on the map. Now place 11 US squads on that tile. That represents one platoon. This is not an unreasonable troop density, and is in fact rather common. At anything but Reaslistic Scale (which I never use because it is useless IMHO) the clutter is evident. It is also detrimental to gameplay. There is NO way around this until we get 300dpi monitors instead of the lower res 72dpi ones we have now.

OK, now balance all the above out with the counter arguments:

1. It would look cool - if it worked from a game perspective, and we found some extra months to program the behavior in for hardware that won't exist for a couple more years... sure, it would look great.

2. It would be more realistic - if you mean it would LOOK more realistic, provided there is a way to not have guys looking like they are all stuck to each other, sure it would look more realistic. But in game terms, would it be more realistic? NO!. It is pure eye-candy and nothing else. We already track each individual man, so having each represented graphically will NOT add even a tiny bit of realism to the game's mechanics. Perhaps for atmosphere, but then again... it isn't possible to do so there goes that reasoning.

In short...

It ain't going to happen for reasons outside of our control. If someone doubts that we know what we are talking about... try it yourself and THEN we'll belive you.

Argh

Steve

[pzvg]

Cool it guys you're starting to get a little mouthy, for no real reason.

It's a good argument for realism,countered by a good argument that computers aren't there yet. (no, a 2 Ghz wouldn't do what you're asking) And it's a moot point, BTS has expressed no desire to go in that direction, so unless someone is going to pony up the money to buy the rights to CM, (assuming they'll sell) it isn't going to be.

Game,Point,Match.

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

Pzvg

"Murphy's law of combat #10, never forget your weapon is made by the lowest bidder