should we be able to see so much?

[Mark IV]

Steve, thanks for the factual clarification. Nice to know, as always, that BTS is listening!

Of course, you've opened a new can of speculative worms with the CM roman-numeral II versus CM2 nomenclature. Controversy shall rage (like conversations about "update" versus "upgrade")!

OBG, here's the reply BTS made to your request for 3D rubble in the thread of 2/10/00: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We aren't putting in any 3D rubble effects because it would require reworking the building code. Since this is a top priority for CM2 we decided that it would be a waste of our precious time to hack in something at this late stage. All good things come to those who wait<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those guys- undaunted by the impossible!

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I did not know you were into computer war game programing. But since you are perhaps you could tell me how those "hard coded" terrain features like trees can be so easily toggled off and on with the Shift T command. And how about Smoke Shift I and its gone and Shift I and its back No problem.

If I shoot enough rounds into that two story building it turns into rubble, does it not, how "hard coded" is that ?

Why could I then, Not simply, get a friendly LOS to that building and see it reduced to rubble? (which it really was in the first place, I just couldn't seen it), when before

I saw it on the map as a 2 story building?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That really wasn't my point. But I see what you mean. My point was that to actually move the location or physical make-up of a terrain feature was somewhat hard-coded. Like you couldn't see a bridge here by accident, and then later on see that the bridge somewhere else due to current LOS. Or, you thought this building was a two-story building and then find out later that its only a one-story building. That sort of change. Not whether or not if they have been destroyed. I don't think any game engine, at this point, could handle that.

Also as to what Steve said about this whole thing is what I've being trying to say ALL along. The idea of having this terrain FOW isn't a bad one, but how to, and how practical to implement it, is the problem.

[This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 04-21-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 04-21-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

OB&G, I know what you are talking about. And that is one of the worms that is in that can Not easy to do at all. Not impossible, but a lot of work. Unfortunately, it is pretty much required.

Steve

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

OB&G, I know what you are talking about. And that is one of the worms that is in that can Not easy to do at all. Not impossible, but a lot of work. Unfortunately, it is pretty much required.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right! That has been my point all along, it's not easy programming that stuff. I just can't imagine what it would take to get a FOW engine to do what they're asking.

IMHO, the way you all are doing the unit FOW is absolutely a break-through accomplishment, with the generic silohette and all. But to push the engine to do that very thing on terrain features is something a bit more difficult, isn't it?

I can maybe see a generic texture on a building perhaps, but to suddenly "pop" them into view based on many units' LOS is a bit more difficult to code up. Think of all the calculations it would take to determine that! NOW unless that it would be similar to unit LOS, but we're still talking an individual LOS check for every unit on the board to some extent aren't we.

I think the problem here, in general, is that people aren't aware of the complications in calculating LOS, let alone coding it.

No offense to anyone, this is directed towards Steve. I could take a pop-shot on SS here, but I won't.

[This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 04-21-2000).]

[Guest tom w]

Hi Steve

Thanks for the insight in Terrain FOW and the notion of

getting lost. I found that new idea very refreshing.

I do really appreciate your sharing with all of us

the thoughts behind your game and what you are thinking

about for up coming releases.

Those thoughts themselves might actually dowse

some of the flame activity.

Of course now I'm very curious as to what you were suggesting

or refering to with the comment

"Unfortunately, it is pretty much required."

Is that the hard work to code it

or the concept that Terrain FOW its self

(including the bonus of recon units getting

lost WHAT a great idea) is required.

I can see a real big problem with independant

unit spotting and LOS per unit, while I think that

would be cool too, I sounds MUCH more difficult

to execute than some limited terrain FOW

like map inaccuracies or terrain features

that cause units to get lost like in the Maze

of the Bocage or hedgerow country.

Its very inspiring to know that you

guys have already thought of all these

ideas and have now implemented what

was actually do -able into the demo

and now the gold master.

Congradulations are in order

the Demo is ground breaking in

its use of nation symbols for mostly

unspotted units and the generic vehicle

for an unkown tank, and the spotting

by sound... how brilliniant and

ground breaking is that..???

I hope you Make lots and lots of money

and profit from your sales so you can continue

to realize your dream of the "Perfect":

wargame. I think it is clearly

heading in that direction...

You know we all just can't wait

to play the release version

and get our hands on the Scenario editor.

Thanks for being such a patient, fair

balanced and level headed

moderator.

-tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

OB&G, I know what you are talking about. And that is one of the worms that is in that can Not easy to do at all. Not impossible, but a lot of work. Unfortunately, it is pretty much required.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Unfortunately, it is pretty much required.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he was talking about the amount of work that it would take, but I could be wrong.

[Guest tom w]

now I'm concerned that this ....

"Congradulations are in order

the Demo is ground breaking in

its use of nation symbols for mostly

unspotted units and the generic vehicle

for an unkown tank, and the spotting

by sound... how brilliniant and

ground breaking is that..???"

may have sounded less than sincere

or be interupted possibly as sarcasm.

This could not be further from the truth

I was attempting to pay the highest

compliment to the creators of a wargame

that is nothing at all like a a sily

old 2d wargame/board game

but is in fact MUCH more like a real

life military battle tactical simulation.

The Demo is VERY VERY good

I have the greatest confidence

the release version with the

Scenario editor will set new

standards and hopefully win

computer war game awards....

-tom w

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

OBG, here's the reply BTS made to your request for 3D rubble in the thread of 2/10/00<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just out of curiosity, what's that got to do with this topic? I knew that was their reply and accepted it right then.

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

"Fear is the path to the Dark Side.

Fear leads to anger.

Anger leads to hate.

Hate leads to suffering."

--Jedi Master Yoda

[Guest Big Time Software]

The "required" comment was in connection to having variable terrain much the way we have variable unit spotting. We don't think it would be good to "black out" the map like in RTS games. Easier to do, but not realistic at all.

The commander on the ground would very likely have have SOME sort of map or oral information about the terrain (i.e. some local saying "take this road to x and then turn right at y..."). The problem is that this information was always imperfect at CM's scale (i.e. not ever tree and stone wall is on even the BEST tactical map). So we would have to lay out some sort of "best guess" map for the attacker, complete with errors, and then morph that as knowledge became better through recon. Again, this isn't impossible to do, but it requires a HUGE amount of programming and some pretty carefully thought out ways to overcome certain issues (there are more than just this map morphing thing).

Steve

[Fred]

Steve,

I agree with you; there is no need for shrouded terrain or (even worser) blackened terrain. At this tactical level, it is irrelevant, if a tree is 10 feet to the left or right. What matters is, where this enemy sharpshooter hides, and this is already build in.

And not to forget, CM is not a simulation of being a CO in WW2, like a role playing game. It is, after all, a wargame, with a player in front of the screen. Maybe a captain does not have all the information, but I don't impersonate a captain, I play a wargame

So, IMHO, no need for shrouded terrain.

Fred

[This message has been edited by Fred (edited 04-22-2000).]

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The "required" comment was in connection to having variable terrain much the way we have variable unit spotting. We don't think it would be good to "black out" the map like in RTS games. Easier to do, but not realistic at all.

So we would have to lay out some sort of "best guess" map for the attacker, complete with errors, and then morph that as knowledge became better through recon. Again, this isn't impossible to do, but it requires a HUGE amount of programming and some pretty carefully thought out ways to overcome certain issues (there are more than just this map morphing thing).

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, this was what I was trying to get across to the people. For one, a shroud over a battlefield in a realistic wargame WOULD be unrealistic. And secondly, to code the map morphing thing would be a bitch.

This is what I've been trying to say all along, but instead of coming out and saying it clearly like this, I've been "beating around the bush", trying to avoid pissing people off. But still, no matter what you say, you'll end up pissing someone off somewhere.

IIRC, Steve once said that a while back that most people don't realize what it takes or how to go about software development. Or something to the effect, so that is what I have been drawing my point-of-views off of. Because, I tried my hand and programming when I started Computer Science in college and failed the second class. So I know that it ain't easy. And I know what it takes just to program the simpliest thing.

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

"Fear is the path to the Dark Side.

Fear leads to anger.

Anger leads to hate.

Hate leads to suffering."

--Jedi Master Yoda

[Guest Big Time Software]

Fred, in generally I totally agree with you. And practically speaking since the human knows all of what his units know, it won't take long in any open terrain scenario to pretty much know what the map looks like. Just put one guy on the nearest hill and bingo

BUT...

It still would be cool to introduce the uncertainty (and error!!) of local navigation at the lowest tactical level. It would certainly change the nature of CM, just as CM has already changed the nature of wargaming in general (3D terrain, variable spotting, etc.). So if we ever do something like this it will be a fundamental shift into something new. And because of that trying to slap something in would most likely be a disaster. So until the time comes when we can and want to do it right, not going to happen

As I said a few posts earlier, Charles and I see relative spotting to be more important and probably required for map "uncertainty" in any case. But this too is a HUGE undertaking on many levels, so don't expect that any time soon either

Steve

[Guest tom w]

This is my favourite thread and my most

cherished potentially "new" feature....

Steve Said it best:

" So we would have to lay out some sort of "best guess" map for the attacker, complete with errors, and then morph that as knowledge became better through recon."

PERFECT!

EXACTLY!

Thats the BEST thing I've read on this BBS yet....

I don't doubt for a minute that this WILL not be easy to pull off,

but I do really hope that it is do-able and in my opinion

I would rank it as the highest priority ofr CM II (2) (?)

Again.... just a suggestion....

just my humble opinion

I can now see Steve' and Charles' and BTS's vision for the

future of Combat Mission in the comeing years

and I LOVE it! BRING IT ON!

I wish I could help out with the programing....

The least I can do is buy the damn game,

(I've done that already, what else can I do?)

Thanks for the VISION of the future Steve and BTS....

It looks exciting to say the least....

-Tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The "required" comment was in connection to having variable terrain much the way we have variable unit spotting. We don't think it would be good to "black out" the map like in RTS games. Easier to do, but not realistic at all.

The commander on the ground would very likely have have SOME sort of map or oral information about the terrain (i.e. some local saying "take this road to x and then turn right at y..."). The problem is that this information was always imperfect at CM's scale (i.e. not ever tree and stone wall is on even the BEST tactical map). So we would have to lay out some sort of "best guess" map for the attacker, complete with errors, and then morph that as knowledge became better through recon. Again, this isn't impossible to do, but it requires a HUGE amount of programming and some pretty carefully thought out ways to overcome certain issues (there are more than just this map morphing thing).

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Username]

Steve

Whats relative spotting? Is this when you choose one unit on your side and the battlefield "changes" to correspond to his perspective? ie he only sees what is in his line of sight and other enemy (or friendly) units are sensed as noise contacts/stars/crosses?

I was thinking about that myself and have it in my platoon game "notes" ( I am developing a game proposal..if any game companies are listening..). Basically I would handle it by forcing the player to order his units in the following order. Those units with the LEAST battlefield info are first with succeeding units given to the player. I am sure this will go over bigtime with all the control freaks here but its just an idea.

Lewis

[aka_tom_w]

An old topic re-visted here soley for the benefit of new members who may not have read some of our more interesting and controversial posts/threads from the past.

-tom w

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well at least Steve didn't spill the beans about our real next project: Holy Grail Grand Unified Theory of Wargaming Construction Kit v3.4 II Pro, Millennium of Warfare Elite Edition Pak.

Let the speculation commence!

Charles

[Guest Madmatt]

Ahh yes, you must mean the HGGUToWCKv3.4IIPMoWEEP? Yeah thats going to rock!!!

I have already started work on the new support webpage for it:

HGGUToWCKv3.4IIPMoWEEP HQ!

Madmatt

HGGUToWCKv3.4IIPMoWEEPHQ.com

"Building a better a war for you!"

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 05-31-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

Just thought this blast from the past would be fun for the newer members to check out.

GREAT humour!

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[robertpat1]

If you want shrowds I think you can get it to a degree in the Mega campain. Whats more there is a shrowd in CM it's just not visable, what do you think Fog of war is? And yes it would be cool to have bad maps in some operations, but that can be simulated with bad Intel in the startup screen, and FoW. Besids the point coding has ended in CM, and how would you micro-manage your troop waypoints? And finaly I doute the allies would have atacked Normandy if they had bad or incompleat intel.

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

A 2x4 and a kind word work better than just a 2x4

[chrisl]

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

Ahh yes, you must mean the HGGUToWCKv3.4IIPMoWEEP? Yeah thats going to rock!!!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But I heard it wasn't going to include quantum gravity. They can't really claim it's realistic without including quantum gravity!

[Renaud]

As far as the lack of FOW for terrain goes, I'd like to rip an old post of mine from one of the several lengthy topics that have discussed this problem. This is my solution to the problem and if you have the cohones it provides an intense 'you are there' feeling:

'Along these lines I've been thinking of playing a game where I restrict myself to the #1 1st person perspective view (troops viewpoint) with zooming only from officer led units or vehicles (binos). No roaming around the map in #1 view either, just rotation around the unit locked to. I can only give orders from the perspective of the unit locked to in the #1 view, not from any other unit. I'd most likely have to cycle through my units with +/- since I wouldn't always be able to see them from the unit i'm currently locked to. Talk about difficult. Now listening posts and picket lines have some real-world importance. Hardcore...'

I've played several games like this now and kind of made up a rules set for myself for this type of game. One addition is that I only view action turns from the highest level command unit on the field...I pan around during the action but don't get to replay. This makes you want to get your commanders to a good viewpoint to see the battle which is quit realistic imho.

-Ren

[aka_tom_w]

Thought this thread might be of interest to those reading the "Gamey Recon" thread.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

bump just for fun since we are now disccusing Relative spotting and it implementation in CM2.

-tom w

[Gyrene]

<cough cough>

You could have at least dusted these relics out.

Gyrene

[Louie the Toad]

How about this:

Everyone try a company sized scenario using just this much of the Iron Man rules, then come back and renew this discussion:

All units use level 1 view only, except when on second story buildings, level 2. Steeples level 3. Level 5 only for placing in buildings, and only for that specific building. Level 7 for map view. Make a screen shot at set up then dont use it again.

Size of units at #1 or #2 setting.

Zoom only at power 2 for HQs. Power 4 for FO and tank or gunsights. No zoom otherwise.

Views done only from a unit not beyond, not allowed to fly across the battlefield at any level.

Not allowed to click on an enemy unit.

Can use LoS tool to check out enemy units.

Hit reports turned off.

Not allowed to adjust terrain in any way in order to see better. Except for blowing up

a building of course.

This is a double dog dare. Try a company sized or smaller QB using just this much of Franko's Rules. Then lets discuss fog of war.

"Go and see what that is!" -- Oliver Hardy