Individual Soldier Sprites!

[John Kelly]

This topic has been discussed before and BTS even addressed it in the original instruction manual that accompanied the game, but I am posing a different question to the readership. What kind of machine would it take to run CM if soldiers were represented by individual sprites. I have noticed that a number of players are sporting machines in the neighborhood of 700 to 900 MHz with geForce video cards.

In my opinion, CM has, for all practical purposes, rendered most other WWII simulations obsolete. The close combat series was excellent for its day, but sadly, it has not changed with the times. However, there were aspects of the game that may merit a closer look by BTS. CM developers lament their inability to portray individual soldier sprites because of pc limitations. How so and what would one need to optimally run the game under the aforementioned circumstances? I have a PIII 750 with a geforce graphics card...would that cut it? John

[Maximus]

You'd rather have 2D sprites than 3D polygonal models???

That does not compute....must reach sanity before I blow a circuit....**BLAMMO**....too late....

[Mr. Clark]

Believe me, not everyone here has a 750 - 1 gig processor.

Also, I think the wargamers group as a whole would have a much lower "mid range" system than say First Person Shooter enthusiasts.

I too hope CM makes leaps and bounds in it's field with each new version, but I also hope you never have to be a "power gamer" to play the game.

[Major Tom]

You can get away with it with the trees, but, sprites for troops would be like going back and playing Wolfenstien 3D!

[David Aitken]

First of all, if anyone is new to this subject, please read the following thread:

A Case For Full Squad Representation

Remember it's not just a case of polygon counts. If we see every soldier, there's no point unless every soldier is acting realistically. That means a heck of a lot more programming on BTS's behalf, and the in-game AI computation involved will have a considerable hit on your computer, on top of the huge demand of the extra polygons.

Speaking from a personal perspective, I HATE low framerates with a passion. Sure, you could theoretically run a game with X more polygons on a machine running at Y megahertz, but you're going to have to set your resolution down low to get a decent framerate.

The first-person shooter crowd are continually churning out more graphically demanding games, meaning that your computer is never quite fast enough to run them smoothly. As Mr. Clark points out, wargame enthusiasts own, on average, slower computers than your average twitch-game junkie, and the market is not big enough for the likes of BTS to risk alienating those who don't wish to, or cannot, shell out for new hardware every few months.

We'll maybe get 1:1 soldier representation when (a) the computers owned by the average wargame enthusiast are a heck of a lot faster than they are now, ( BTS decide to make CM a soldier-level game rather than the squad-level game it is now, and © they are able to devote the time to programming it.

David

New map!

[saru3000]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

First of all, if anyone is new to this subject, please read the following thread:

A Case For Full Squad Representation

Remember it's not just a case of polygon counts. If we see every soldier, there's no point unless every soldier is acting realistically. That means a heck of a lot more programming on BTS's behalf, and the in-game AI computation involved will have a considerable hit on your computer, on top of the huge demand of the extra polygons.

Speaking from a personal perspective, I HATE low framerates with a passion. Sure, you could theoretically run a game with X more polygons on a machine running at Y megahertz, but you're going to have to set your resolution down low to get a decent framerate.

The first-person shooter crowd are continually churning out more graphically demanding games, meaning that your computer is never quite fast enough to run them smoothly. As Mr. Clark points out, wargame enthusiasts own, on average, slower computers than your average twitch-game junkie, and the market is not big enough for the likes of BTS to risk alienating those who don't wish to, or cannot, shell out for new hardware every few months.

We'll maybe get 1:1 soldier representation when (a) the computers owned by the average wargame enthusiast are a heck of a lot faster than they are now, ( BTS decide to make CM a soldier-level game rather than the squad-level game it is now, and © they are able to devote the time to programming it.

David

New map! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point.Why show individual representations if they can't move independently of one another? And if you do that you've drastically increased the number of things the computer needs to take care of.

Sure it'd be cool to see a squad lay down covering fire while a couple of guys snuck along the wall to flank the enemy.I just can't see myself being able to afford the setup that can run it any time soon.

P.S. If you throw out one graphical representation then,I assume, they all have to go and I'm sure the load of dealing with individual trees,bullets and fragments would be a bitch.

[Polar]

I'm not really all that concerned with the absolute realism of the action of individual units, I just kinda want to see the field littered with dead after a battle.

They can all move in general unison and fire can be a conglomerate representation... but I want to have a better idea of the actual effect of my fire (or theirs for that matter!).

As it is, the only guys that actually reflect the danger of open field marches are the Flame thrower guys, as they represent 1 guy (IIRC). To get a good feel for what this game could be, create a scenario where you have 20-30 flamethrower troops on one side, and two or three HMGs on the other and an open field in between. Then force march the Flamethrowers into the HMGs... you get a feeling for the carnage this game COULD represent. :^)

Joe

[muzzlehead]

Individual SOldiers?? Blaaah

I want individual haircuts for every soldier...

[Kingfish]

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

I'm not really all that concerned with the absolute realism of the action of individual units, I just kinda want to see the field littered with dead after a battle.

Joe<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, that's easy, just play Freyland and have him attack

In fact, he has a terrain MOD called "Dead Volkssturm battalion" that covers a medium size map .

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

Frag Hanoi Jane

[David Aitken]

Polar wrote:

> I want to have a better idea of the actual effect of my fire (or theirs for that matter!).

Unless you have Fog Of War switched off, you will not know the effects of your fire on the enemy regardless of graphical realism.

CM is a squad-level game – you're not supposed to see individual casualties. You can, though – just click on a squad and keep an eye on the numbers in the information panel. Also, a squad will 'twitch' when it takes a casualty.

David

[Polar]

Right, I know that... put this game is essentially the same scale as Steel Panthers, and I prefer to see the attack results on the field... not on a ticker.

Again, it doesn't really take away from the game... but it would make it a titch cooler.

Joe

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

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[Guru]

I would hope that the people on this board would stop the stereotyping of people who are "twitch-game junkies". I personally love both strategy wargames as well as many first person shooters, whether the game requires reflex and coordination or not. Perhaps I'm just growing tired of people who enjoy one genre of gaming being condescending towards a different style of gaming which doesn't toot their horn. I sort of understand the way it is meant in this thread, but please in the future can people be a little more considerate in their stereotyping? Thanks.

[Major Tom]

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

I would hope that the people on this board would stop the stereotyping of people who are "twitch-game junkies". I personally love both strategy wargames as well as many first person shooters, whether the game requires reflex and coordination or not. Perhaps I'm just growing tired of people who enjoy one genre of gaming being condescending towards a different style of gaming which doesn't toot their horn. I sort of understand the way it is meant in this thread, but please in the future can people be a little more considerate in their stereotyping? Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry man, I guess I shouldn't have badmouthed Wolfenstein 3D like that.

My bad!

[Roman]

I too would like to see more casualties on the field with, or without blood. The answer I had gotten was that they don't want to glorify war. Plus other technical problems which I can understand, but still wish for the realistic carnage. I think that in just making or having a game of war is glorifing it. But whatever the answer is I would hope that more casualties will be on the designers

table for CM2. Think of the mass Russian steamroller waves of infantry , and the scene that would make during and after the battle.

I for one hope they incorporate this detail.

[GhostAgent]

i wouldnt mind seeing more guys per squad just as long as i have the option to turn it off (back to 3 men max)

[Major Tom]

The only problem with this idea, is, that not everyone 'killed' is dead. Most are actually just wounded. So, we would then have to have sprites of guys crawling or hobbling back to the rear, and then someone will want to be able to target these guys, and then capture them and so on...

The only reason that dead bodies are included is to mark off where squads/crews were destroyed, so you can see their 'kill-history'. Frankly, with all of these extra dead bodies around, that would totally wreck this idea, as, you will have so many things to click on you won't be able to keep track of where one unit died when compared to another!

Then comes the step of gore. Whats next? Flying bodies, bits of troops scattered around, men running on fire and bodies scattered everywhere and CM2 will have to have a violence warning! All those 15 year olds who play CM1 will not be able to by CM2.

Won't anyone think of the children!?!

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi all,

Please... nobody take offense to my phrasing. I mean no offense to anybody since there is nothing wrong with wanting something more and/or different. However, this has been brought up so many times before and the discussion has always gone down the very same road.

First off... no infantry sprites. To borrow a phrase, "sprites suck ass dude!" I would rather poke out my eyeballs than to have sprites in Combat Mission. Charles would do this for me if I asked, but only if I poked out his right after. They would not only lower the quality of the gaming experience (less animations, flat look, oddities with higher angles, etc.), but it would also consume massive chunks of VRAM that could otherwise be used for many graphical improvements elsewhere. So, Combat Mission will never, ever, in a bazillion years use sprites for infantry. Hehe... OK, I think I made my point clearly, no?

David's post, and the most recent from Major Tom, sum things up. What the "pro-figure" camp is ignoring, and always has, is that this is not simply a matter of adding more figures. There are all sorts of side issues that MUST be addressed.

Even if people say "I don't care about x, y, or z, I just want more figures"... I bet a million bucks such opinions would change instantly if we simply put in more figures and ignored the rest. I've been making games for 8 years, and I know how this works Customers generally can not envision the downsides of complex and complicated features like this. Or more simply put, they don't even understand that it IS a complex and complicated feature request. That is why "good" game designers are so far and few inbetween.

Besides all the side issues, there is still the technology problem. The "hardware bigots" (a friendly term, so please don't take offense ) always ignore the fact that if we catered to the highend we would go out of business, or at the very least hurt the game itself by wasting time on features only a few people can take advantage of. And ironically, features that perhaps even the people who requested them would turn the feature off because it is "stupid" or slows down their system too much. Trust me, it would happen

Part of the "hardware bigot"'s standard line of thinking is "my computer can do whatever I can imagine it can do". In other words, people with faster systems always overestimate what their systems can hack. Then they complain that software developers are underusing their system's mighty capabilities. This has been true for the entire time I have been making games, and so it will be forever more.

So to sum up...

1. Today's hardware, even the fastest systems, would have a hard time with full 1:1 representation. So much so that people would turn it off because the framerate would be so poor (at least for medium to large infantry battles).

2. The people with the best hardware ALWAYS make up a small percentage of the customer base. In our case, an even smaller percentage since wargamers are generally slow to upgrade.

3. Without putting in all sorts of very complicated and time consuming game features, 1:1 figures will actually detract from the gaming experience. This will make the people that requested it turn it off and demand that we then add in the features they previously said they don't care about.

4. Putting in any major feature like this takes time. Time that is not spent doing other things. Things that have far more direct impact on the gaming experience AND (most importantly) are practical, positive additions to the game for EVERY customer.

Thanks,

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 12-15-2000).]

[Tom Callmeyer]

1) Oh please not another dead bodies thread!

2) I'm not interested in upgrading my K6-2 550 - 160 Meg RAM - 32 meg No-Name (Apollo Actually) TNT2 based Video Card machine until the 1-Gig P4 or whatever equivalent Athlon processors have become last generation processors - just to run a game I'm already enjoying.

3) My other big timewaster is a 3d real time game and great fun to play (Shogun Total War).

I hope I have been succinct.

[dalem]

BTS is a tough act to follow, but this is a topic that hearkens to my own personal Holy Grail of wargaming:

Scale.

In my opinion, which is worth considerably less than BTS's, graphics and processing don't mean diddly next to scale. I don't care if every wargamer out there is running Pentium Twelves with the Holo-Thunder X-Thousand video chipset (cryo-cooled by the patented stare of the really hot chick at last weekend's corporo-bash) and Steve and Charles never sleep again - they can't make a good wargame that functions at CM scale with individual soldiers being modeled. They can't do it. Because it can't be done.

As Steve pointed out, that's what is really being asked for; individual soldier modeling. And let's face it, the individual soldier is simply not relevant on, say, a battalion scale, on average. Unit training, equipment, doctrine, and whether there was a hot meal that morning are far more important at medium scale and up than whether Private Parts has three clips of rifle ammo or only two. Or whether the MG loader is behind a tree or a bush. Allowing for individual soldiers' actions and motivations at those scales, even if it could be done, would be criminally counterproductive and lead to battle results so far out of true that I can't even think of a smart-ass example.

Again in my opinion, there are two groups in this debate: there are those that always divide debates into two groups of people and those who... Hmm. (Sorry, couldn't resist - read that once and thought it was funny.)

Anyway, CM and games like it are wargames. Wargamers in general are grognard history buffs and frustrated armchair commanders who believe (even just a little) that we could have done everything better even without our Hindsight 20/20 glasses on. But to our credit, and to a degree, we also understand that the average battle is determined by the boring and standard types of characteristics I listed above (training, unit cohesion, morale, etc.) - that's why we'll argue endlessly over whether having nine guys or twelve in your rifle squad is important, etc. We tend to see computers as great ways to play the wargames we've been playing on tabletops and hexboards for years - fewer charts and no dice in your pizza.

Many folks, however, have never seriously played a lot of wargames, but they have played lots of computer games and are very experienced there. The more whizz-bang computer games out there (of which I own and play several) are great for skirmish stuff - max of a platoon, maybe, but wouldn't really scale up very well to company- or battalion-sized. I'm not talking actual game-play here, but rather about that awful word 'realism'. Often hearkened after and never achieved in simulation, 'realism' is one of the things wargamers sweat over. And while I guess you could design a gigantic Unreal Tourney level for that Pentium Twelve I mentioned and stick 200 folks in it to fight on two sides, the individual slay-fests that would ensue would not be very 'realistic' for large-scale combat. If the individuals teamed up and formed units and maybe practiced together, maybe. But then we're talking units again, not soldiers.

And so it is as inappropriate to try to scale down CM to be a shooter/skirmish game as it would be to try to scale up a shooter/skirmish game to cover company actions. A real wargame will never make a good shooter and a good shooter will never make a good wargame.

-dale

[This message has been edited by dalem (edited 12-15-2000).]

[iggi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A real wargame will never make a good shooter and a good shooter will never make a good wargame.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never is a long time.

[John Kelly]

Combat mission represents a paradigm shift in the gaming genre. Three years ago, I was transfixed by Close combat: A Bridge Too Far. I never could have imagined that war gaming would be what it is with CM. BTS has taught us to think beyond the present. How many of you have played back the movie using the "1" key and thrilled at the sight of a first person assault? You smile as your squad hurls grenades at the enemy position. I believe that same assault would be so much sweeter if we could watch individual soldiers, moving idenpendently with but one click of the mouse. Instead of watching an indicator toll the casulaties, we would actually watch them fall. Why is it blasphemous to challenge the creative genious of Charles and company by suggesting individual 3D soldiers. Forgive me if I used the word "sprite." I intended it to mean a generic representation. I didn't realize it implied something 2D. "My bad." I hope to see these 3D figures on the CM battle field at some point. I have always favored one to one ratios, even in the days of miniatures and Tractics rules. I know BTS can do it. My question is simply, what would I need to run it?

[Dogface]

Get squad leader by hasbro if u wannt single man stuff

or better yet a cheap and fun game 101st airborne invasion of normandy.hours of fun with that one (after they released the patch)

that is

[Phoenix]

I have always favored one to one ratios, even in the days of miniatures and Tractics rules. I know BTS can do it. My question is simply, what would I need to run it?

BTS already answered your question.

Today's high end systems would not support it without massive hits to the frame rate.

They also listed other reasons why they are not going that route.

I think the key one is the fact that this is a squad based game. It's not modeled around individual soldiers.

[Major Tom]

One day affordable computers will be fast enough to warrant 1 to 1 representation for a battalion's worth of troops. The AI will also be a lot smarter and more complicated. If CM2 is to come out at any reasonable time it will probably not have these aspects. It could be possible for CM3. Computer technology is progressing at ever faster rates. When I bought my P133 5 years ago it cost $3,000.00 Canadian, now a top of the line computer doesn't get past $2,000.00. Upgrading is even cheaper (upgraded mine to a P500 for $400.00). However, with all those High-Resolution mods and with anything over a Company of troops it gets a little slow (not much, but there are laggs).

I would say that what people propose here would be possible for a CM down the road. Having each squad member represented doesn't actually mean that we would have to, or even get to control each individual. Possiby we issue a squad an order, and we visually see what we currently don't in CM. That is what I predict the long term future of CM to be.

[dalem]

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

Never is a long time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh, but iggi, my use of 'never' isn't the important part of the statement, it's the 'wargame vs. shooter' that is key. And regardless, I stand by my choice of words: I typed 'never' and I meant it. The two concepts are incompatible in any reasonable gaming sense, unless you want to propose full-sense virtual reality experiences. And I still maintain that 'realistic' battle results wouldn't be achieved with out 'realistic' unit tactics, again subsuming the individual's characteristics into the unit.

-dale

[This message has been edited by dalem (edited 12-16-2000).]

[This message has been edited by dalem (edited 12-16-2000).]