men flying from explosions

[David Aitken]

Germanboy wrote:

> Your illustrations, do you draw some of your inspiration from Manga?

To be honest, I despise Manga. =) I do agree there is a certain similarity, though. My illustrations tend to be much less stylised.

Mikeydz wrote:

> The most times that I can remember men "flying" because of an explosion comes from action films from Stallone, Arnold, or Van Damme.

Yeah, so what's your point? I mean, Combat Mission is a long way from the cutting-edge realism of Commando or Universal Soldier, but let's face it, Charles and Steve are only really amateurs. Give them a chance, they'll soon get it right. =)

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Offthewall]

All of the eye candy in CM is to further immerse the players in the experience of combat. The game could be played with little armor symbols representing the tanks infantry symbols representing the grunts but I think almost everybody would rather use the 3D models. It may be true that having men fly through the air is not necessary to the game, you could even say it would be a bit sadistic, but this is a war game. We are playing a game that simulates men fighting and killing each other. Too bad the real men doing the fighting in WWII didn't get to leave out the gore and the flying body parts. That is the difference between Saving Private Ryan and any number of movies made in the Forties and Fifties. The ultimate war game is one that totally immerses you in the fighting and gives you the most authentic experience possible. I really don't think you can say that CM is a better game because it leaves these types of things out.

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All of the eye candy in CM is to further immerse the players in the experience of combat. The game could be played with little armor symbols representing the tanks infantry symbols representing the grunts but I think almost everybody would rather use the 3D models. It may be true that having men fly through the air is not necessary to the game, you could even say it would be a bit sadistic, but this is a war game. We are playing a game that simulates men fighting and killing each other. Too bad the real men doing the fighting in WWII didn't get to leave out the gore and the flying body parts. That is the difference between Saving Private Ryan and any number of movies made in the Forties and Fifties. The ultimate war game is one that totally immerses you in the fighting and gives you the most authentic experience possible. I really don't think you can say that CM is a better game because it leaves these types of things out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, but you can't say that CM would be a better game if it included those things, either. The point is, excessive gore and "flying body parts" don't add anything to the game's purpose, which is simply to immerse the player in the tactical management of WWII. Flying body parts do not enhance this, they are just something to "ooh" and "ah" over.

There are several threads on this.

-Andrew

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

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it!

[Offthewall]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k:

No, but you can't say that CM would be a better game if it included those things, either. The point is, excessive gore and "flying body parts" don't add anything to the game's purpose, which is simply to immerse the player in the tactical management of WWII. Flying body parts do not enhance this, they are just something to "ooh" and "ah" over.

There are several threads on this.

-Andrew

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of the graphics in the game are there to "ooh" and "ah" over. It just seems to me that the people who want this left out feel that way because it makes them feel uncomfortable.

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Most of the graphics in the game are there to "ooh" and "ah" over. It just seems to me that the people who want this left out feel that way because it makes them feel uncomfortable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, maybe it should.

-Andrew

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

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it!

[David Aitken]

Offthewall wrote:

> It just seems to me that the people who want this left out feel that way because it makes them feel uncomfortable.

Dunno where you pulled that from.

If you have flying bodies, where do they come from? As I have said, individual soldiers are not modelled. The men you see in squads are placeholders. Where is the logic in a placeholder spawning a flying body?

As has also been pointed out, in war bodies don't tend to fly - they get torn apart, and generally just fall to the ground. Sure there is eye candy in the game, but not this kind of theatrical rubbish.

Combat Mission is a squad-level simulator, and as such, individual men are out of its scope. Bodies belong to individual men, and are therefore irrelevant to this game. The one kind of dead body you see is simply a placeholder to indicate the demise of a squad, so that it doesn't just disappear without trace. This represents all the casualties the squad has taken.

If you want total graphical realism, this is the wrong game for you. Simple as that.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Offthewall]

It is true that the men that are shown to comprise the squad are not individual troops but that doesn't really address the issue of whether there sould be a visual representation of troops taking casualties. As it is now, you do see the figures "jerk" a bit when a casualty is caused. The only difference between that small movement and bodies flying through the air is one of degree.

I'm not really arguing for or against this feature. Combat Mission is the best wargame, computer or non-computer that I have ever played, with or without graphic representations of casualties taken. It would just be one more piece of eye candy to further immerse you in the experience.

[JAGDPANZER]

well, eyecandy's definitely important, not only does 3d show the terrain elevations, a big plus in determining defense and hulldowns, 3d also gives the much satisfaction associated with finally blasting that 2story building to bits (and together with that pesky panzerschreck team in it).

I guess flying men isn't so bad as long as it's not over done with every artillery shell explosion or every time a tank turret's hit.

Speaking of not modeling individual soldiers, is the tank commander modelled?? He clearly comes out when the hatch's open, and if he's hit, he doesn't come out , and there's one less person or injury in the tank.....

Just like tanks flakes when hit, there should be more done to simulate the casualties taken, especially if it's a significant amount of casulaties in one hit, say by a 155mm landing in the middle of the squad or something. There should be some men flying, or just simple abstract textures of flesh..........but i am not sure about showing broken arms, or legs flying around....that's just abit too real. I suppose that's the dilemma facing wargamers who wants realism, and yet wants to avoid the cruelties of war. May our wargames help us realize the true nature of real warfare, and never be a global war again, or even small wars.

takecare all.

[This message has been edited by JAGDPANZER (edited 08-19-2000).]

[Seanachai]

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

It is true that the men that are shown to comprise the squad are not individual troops but that doesn't really address the issue of whether there sould be a visual representation of troops taking casualties. As it is now, you do see the figures "jerk" a bit when a casualty is caused. The only difference between that small movement and bodies flying through the air is one of degree.

I'm not really arguing for or against this feature. Combat Mission is the best wargame, computer or non-computer that I have ever played, with or without graphic representations of casualties taken. It would just be one more piece of eye candy to further immerse you in the experience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sigh...I really don't even want to hear the term 'eye-candy' and 'ruptured, torn, and unstrung (because that's what they are) bodies flying through the air' in the same sentence. This sort of thing has been discussed before, and has often resulted in threads that became very heated. I, for one, have no interest in this sort of crap. Most of the immersion devices in Combat Mission serve some actual, game oriented function. Flying bodies do not. Period. I might add that I don't remember seeing any calls for this sort of 'eye-candy' from vets on this board, and can't remember any from vets who served in combat. Go to the movies for theatrical, 'cool' violence. It's a lame, never-been-there argument that claims that 'flying bodies, gore, blood, etc.' are an immersion level that makes war more real, and therefore more horrifying'. In reality, requests for this kind of 'immersion' don't come from people who think it will make war more horrifying, they just think it would be cool. Total purpose defeated, and the whole, 'it's an historically/morally necessary level of realism' is so much fetid dingoes kidneys, as the arguments come from people who just want 'cool eye-candy'. This argument eternally comes up, and my feeling is, if the proposed change doesn't contribute a useful and necessary aspect of game play, then let the blood drinkers get it elsewhere. Sorry, don't even feel like being polite on this issue.

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

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[Lindan]

"Ferro, copy this. We'll take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

Cpl. Hicks on LV-426 Acheron

[Guest Germanboy]

Well said Seanachai. If you need blood and gore, I suggest to get a job at a slaughter-house. If you want total immersion, sign up with the Légion Étrangere, or if you are French with some mercenary company.

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

Andreas

[Sitting Duck]

This thread is still getting posts?

hmmm...I was testing the v1.04 patch on an unnamed scenario. Wanted to see just how well the tank targeting priorities had been adjusted and if the changes to Tiger armor modeling made much difference...

During the test I actually saw men from a 6pdr AT gun go flying through the air as the result of a direct hit from the Tiger's HE...the visual seemed to show the team getting blown right out of their foxhole and falling to the ground next to the AT gun...you can hear some guy scream too.

Repeated the moves a couple of times and the result was the same. The crew suffered anywhere from some to no casualties.

Now. It's not the the kind of end-over-end toss that I've seen in the CC series, but certainly does have guys flying through the air...

On a side note - I didn't see much difference in tank targeting priorities. My elite Tiger tank was shot and killed by the dreaded sherman/smoke manuever while trying to shoot an HQ unit that was 200 meters behind. But that's a topic for another thread.

[This message has been edited by Sitting Duck (edited 08-19-2000).]

[Vanilla Thunder]

Ahhh, yes, Red Devils, I see that I wasn't the only one to see the dreaded dance of death! I had a German Platoon HQ targeted with a bazooka team, they had 2 guys left, 2 guys dead. The bazooka round exploded on them, the HQ team stood up, turned around 270 degrees, then fell over backward..was hilarious!

[BFCElvis]

When I first saw the title of this thread I said to myself "Self, not another of these hammerhead posts" But after reading it and thinking on it a little a body flying out of one of those nuclear expolsion looking shells wouldn't be too bad. It might add more tension. Now body parts and blood are a whole different thing. And remember I was from the no dead bodies camp when people were asking for that.

PS David..is that an REM reference in your signature?

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

"To conquer death you only have to die" JC

[David Aitken]

When you see a unit 'twitch', it is a variation of the placeholder which lets you know that it's taken a casualty. It is not an extra object, as a flying body would be. Likewise, the eliminated unit placeholder (dead body) is another variation, not something extra.

What you have just now is graphical feedback. What you're proposing is totally superfluous fluff.

Elvis wrote:

> PS David..is that an REM reference in your signature?

Hurrah!

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Mikeydz]

Germanboy stated....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What do you try to say? These are not realistic? (shock horror, falls over, gasping for air, hyper-ventilating...) You, you can not be serious!!!!?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course it's not realistic. Realistic was me kicking your butt in the Demo.... You might be tougher now with your army of Gerbils backing you up...

[Minnesota Joe]

Guys, don't turn this into another one of your CESSPOOLS. Okay?

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Minnesota Joe:

Guys, don't turn this into another one of your CESSPOOLS. Okay?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Everything that needs to be said about BSG has been said before. We can as well have this thread now! What is that about Cesspools anyway? The only one I know is the pool at our university sports centre.

Mike, the fact that you beat me as the GIs in Riesberg means nothing, absolutely nothing to me! I just hate you for it. Rematch when I live in London. Slap! Consider yourself challenged.

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

Andreas

[Sitting Duck]

David said-

"What you have just now is graphical feedback. What you're proposing is totally superfluous fluff."

But isn't there other 'superfluous fluff' in the game?

Is the crux of the disagreement over having men flying through the air as a result of an explosion whether or not the effect conveys some piece of game information? Well...<u>relevant</u> game information?

Not so sure about this line of reasoning, I like it, but...For instance, in a turn-based game aren't the sound-effects pretty much all irrelevant? Unlike a Real Time Simulation, in a Turn Based Game there's nothing you can do about the aural 'information' while watching the replay, and all of the relevent information (a unit is taking casualties or being fired on) is already displayed in the unit stats, tracers, or unit markers (3 man graphic converted to 2 man graphic, etc).

Even if the sound effects aren't all superfluous fluff, what about the...more personal...sound effects? "We're taking fire!" or "Incoming!" is probably less objectionable than "The blood!" or "My Arm!" or (related new thread) "My Leg!"

Maybe my analogy between auditory and visual effects does not hold.

What's the spectum of visual/audio cues in the area of computer strategy games? What games are at the sparse end and what games are at the superfluous fluff end? I confess that I don't play enough of them to be be able to name names.

[This message has been edited by Sitting Duck (edited 08-19-2000).]

[David Aitken]

Sitting Duck wrote:

> But isn't there other 'superfluous fluff' in the game?

We're talking here specifically about the squad placeholders. In this context 'flying bodies' are completely inappropriate, for reasons detailed above.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT