TeAcH Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 Hi BTS. In the continuing effort to see this game get better both in terms of gameplay and graphics, I have a small request . I'd like to see you all consider adding small wisps or clouds of smoke that linger in a bomb crater for a very short time (10-20 seconds) after a barrage hits. Won't do anything gameplay-wise, but I think it would be a nice touch. Maybe the larger the caliber, the larger the cloud. And Im only talking about enough smoke to fill the crater not obscure vision in any way. Purely cosmetic. Also, Id like to see heavy fog heavier when in view 1 or 2. It seems as though the air in the immediate vicinity in that level clears up although off in a far distance, the fog is visible. I guess it seems to me that it would be mistier or a little foggier at that level than that presently shown. GREAT Game!! Thanks! TeAcH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 i would actually like the same visual limitation (real-life that is, not just ai-wise) in night time conditions that you only can get with thick fog... i always have fog on during night missions just cause it looks better... otherwise you can see just as good as during the day (im not talking los here, purly cosmetical) btw... Teach... i sent you a scenario called the bridge... I lost it could you send it back??? ------------------ Wof, wof, wof, wof... Thats my other dog impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 I'm sure this kind of graphical realism will make it into BTS's games eventually, but it's not exactly a priority that would merit inclusion in CM 1 or 2. As for fog and night visibility - I'm rather glad it's not entirely realistic, because those scenarios would be a pain to play if you couldn't see anything, and I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't bother. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 The surgeon general advises craters not to smoke during pregnancy. ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade Balonium to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: As for fog and night visibility - I'm rather glad it's not entirely realistic, because those scenarios would be a pain to play if you couldn't see anything, and I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't bother. David <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 Yes but then you could HAVE all kinds of fun with your recon units then. Not being able to see so much "shuld" be the way it is so you ahve to actually use your soldiers eyes and ears to figure out whats happening on the battle field. Sounds like fun. -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Following are opinions (very abridged because of the size of this post) of members of the 66th and 67th Armored Regiments and 2nd Armored Division: The consensus of opinion of all personnel in the 66th Armored Regiment is that the German tank and anti-tank weapons are far superior to the American in the following categories. Superior Flotation. Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome. The German guns have a much higher muzzle velocity and no telltale flash. The resulting flat trajectory gives great penetration and is very accurate. The 90-mm, although an improvement, is not as good as either the 75 or 88. If HVAP ammunition becomes available, it will improve the performance of both the 76-mm and 90-mm guns. German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy. German tanks have better sloped armor and a better silhouette than the American tanks. The M24 tank has not been available long, but has created a very favorable impression. The M4 has been proven inferior to the German Mark VI in Africa before the invasion of Sicily, 10 July 1943. " -Brigadier General J. H. Collier, Commanding Combat Command "A" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 aka_tom_w wrote: > Not being able to see so much "shuld" be the way it is so you ahve to actually use your soldiers eyes and ears to figure out whats happening on the battle field. But this would effectively require you to play night battles in 'ironman' mode, which, as I've said, would turn off the majority of people. Remember that what you see is not supposed to be realistic - it's an abstraction to allow you to control your forces, and enjoy the game. Fact is, you can see the terrain, but your squads still can't spot anything that's not right in front of them, which already makes night/fog scenarios much more challenging. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ataru *~ Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 I'd just like to say that I feel smoking craters, as well as moving wheels in vehicles, would greatly add to immersion for a worthwhile performance hit; that is, when BTS next feels like adding unrequired but duly appreciated chrome. Ataru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 I'd much rather see improvements like a larger polygon count for infantry units or more terrain tiles than really niggly eye-candy like smoking craters or moving wheels. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 What i meant by the night visibility range thing is that when youre looking from one point you can only see so much... as it is with fog now... but once you move forward you will see more... again as with fog... just that when you look from view 1 or 2 youll only see a limited distance. just as it is with fog on, but if you put fog on now, in a night mission, your soldiers wont see their hand infront of them... just want that "the enemy could be lurking in the shadows" feeling when playing at night... as it is now it feels like there are street lights placed every five meters or something. It just isnt very dark. ------------------ Wof, wof, wof, wof... Thats my other dog impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teamski Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 I think it would add quite a bit to the game to include a hidden map feature. As an option, I think it would add a suspense and additional realism. Most commanders had roadmaps and some topographical maps. They didn't have carnal knowledge of the land like we do as CM gamers. It would defiantely add that extra dimension, especially during QB scenarios... This is exactly what the world militaries do for wargaming. It's called Kriegspiel rules. I'm sure a lot of you know what I mean already, but to others: There are 3 game boards: one for each player and one main board, maintained by the referee. As the battle unfolds, the referee maintains all of the actual information on the main board, while only telling each player what he sees of the board and what he sees in the battle. This causes each commander to make decisions based on limited info..... Sorry I got off the topic, but what do you guys think? Hidden Map? -Ski ------------------ "The Lieutenant brought his map out and the old woman pointed to the coastal town of Ravenoville........" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Teamski: Sorry I got off the topic, but what do you guys think? Hidden Map? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Has been discussed numerous times before, but I can not remember the official stance (there was one, I know). Tom_W may know, he is a major proponent of that stuff. As for limiting visibility further in night/fog, that would make the game unplayable on lower-end systems (e.g. my iBook), so I am strictly against it. And from what I read I am not the only one using such a low-end system. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ataru *~ Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 *chuckles* "Niggly?" One could say that CM's environmental sound effects, such as birds chirping, are "niggly," if moving wheels and smoking craters apply. So too would the nice explosions BTS added after release be "niggly." Increased poly count on infantry would actually be technically "niggly" if I understand the term, serving only as eye candy, improving the mechanics of the game not in the least. I'd like it, sure, but I'd ASSUMED such a thing would definitely occur at some point, tho maybe not in CM1, because I believe the reason it hasn't already been done is lodged in today's comps' capabilities. (or rather inabilities) "Niggly" things like improved explosions, smoke, or moving wheels however, are less of a strain... and thus more worth mentioning. As to more terrain tiles, tho this might not be classified a "niggle," it's not higher on my list than some. For what is better, having it all, or having less with enhanced immersion? This could be differently phrased and differently answered, of course, but I would choose the immersion. ANYWAY, my whole post comes down to this... calling someone's ideas "niggly" amounts to insulting them, and I don't think we should do this. Please keep in mind that opinions naturally vary and aren't necessarily of inequal validity. You can state yours without essentially throwing in "they're better than that guy's." BTS can decide what to do or not to do without that. Ataru [This message has been edited by Ataru *~ (edited 09-03-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Teamski: ... They didn't have carnal knowledge of the land like we do as CM gamers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I hope that doesn't involve looking for a knot in a tree or a gopher hole... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeAcH Posted September 3, 2000 Author Share Posted September 3, 2000 Chupacabra: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'd much rather see improvements like a larger polygon count for infantry units or more terrain tiles than really niggly eye-candy like smoking craters or moving wheels.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Niggly? Niggly?? Ahem..no comment. Ataru: Thanks! I appreciate it. You made an excellent point in the face of Chupacabra's post. Oddball: The bridge..yeah, I still have it I believe and will email it back. Im not home at the moment. David Aitken: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm sure this kind of graphical realism will make it into BTS's games eventually, but it's not exactly a priority that would merit inclusion in CM 1 or 2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, maybe they hadn't thought of it until it was brought up. Not to say that this falls into that category, but Im sure there are things in the game now that started with a request...eh David? Not in CM1 or CM2 you say? Well, maybe and then again maybe not. It was a request afterall, not a demand. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for fog and night visibility - I'm rather glad it's not entirely realistic, because those scenarios would be a pain to play if you couldn't see anything, and I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't bother.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well I'm not. Imagine this David. If the fog was thicker, wouldn't it add to the FOG of war? I mean, if you went to level 2 or 1 and it was foggier, wouldnt that make it a bit more atmospheric. I can't understand why you say you like it easy here. And to top it off, you say that most people wouldn't like it. Overly presumptuous of you if you ask me. Besides, couldn't you use your SHIFT+W key and tone it done if that realism bothers you? aka_tom_w: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes but then you could HAVE all kinds of fun with your recon units then. Not being able to see so much "shuld" be the way it is so you ahve to actually use your soldiers eyes and ears to figure out whats happening on the battle field. Sounds like fun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes! Exactly! Excellent! You got it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 Okay, since I seem to be drawing some fire for a comment I thought pretty innocuous, I'll be more clear. Be honest, how often are you going to notice moving roadwheels, or wisps of smoke rising out of craters? I personally think I'd look at them once or twice, go "ooh, ah," and then go back to playing the game. My point was that I believe they'd add very little to the overall looks of the game. However, I believe that making infantry look less blocky and lego man-like would be a huge increase in the overall looks of the game. My use of the word "niggly" was not intended as an insult, and I'm not really sure how it was taken as such. If I thought that your ideas were stupid, I'd probably say that I thought they were stupid. Moving wheels or smoking craters are not stupid ideas per se, and in fact I'd love to see them in the game at some point. However, it is my opinion that improvements such as these are not very important, and should be back burner sorts of things. If people are going to be insulted by posts like that one I wrote, I might as well give up. I really don't get where y'all are coming from on this one. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. [This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 09-03-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 TeAcH wrote: > Im sure there are things in the game now that started with a request...eh David? Not in CM1 or CM2 you say? Tweaks are made which actually improve gameplay. Smoking craters are pure fluff, and the whole graphical realism of CM will have to move up a notch before you can expect this kind of thing. > If the fog was thicker, wouldn't it add to the FOG of war? No, it would make foggy scenarios more difficult to play. By all rights, fog and darkness shouldn't be represented at all - it's just there to make the scenarios more visually realistic. The information which matters is there no matter where you position the camera - the distance your men can see, the enemy units which have been spotted. Actually restricting what you can see from your camera position makes no sense in this kind of game. > And to top it off, you say that most people wouldn't like it. Overly presumptuous of you if you ask me. No I didn't. I said restricting visibility in fog and night scenarios would make them more difficult to play, which is perfectly true. From there it doesn't take a genius to work out that this would put many people off. The challenge in foggy and night scenarios is already there, because your men's LOS is restricted. Restricting what you can see from your camera is not a challenge, it's a nuisance. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ataru *~ Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 Hehe, I didn't really mean to say that it was intended to be an insult so much as that saying such was insulting. I'd think just about anyone could be more insulting than that, but it remains a demeaning thing to say... still, no worries; forgiven. Some people never straight up insult others however, I'm sure you know... it is all done in a subtle fashion, such that they can deny allogations of the unpopular *personal attack.* I can accept that you weren't doing this. However, I maintain that if what I stated was niggly so too is improving infantry graphics. Infantry with more faces would look nicer UP CLOSE. (views 1 and 2; namely, the range at which moving wheels would look good) And frankly, as I feel CM's vehicles are already its most beautiful feature graphically, I'd love to have them approach perfection. (don't worry, I'm not about to ask for wheels to bump up and down as tanks move over rough terrain) Crater smoke is somewhat different however. It would be quite noticable at much more zoomed out views; particularly the smoke left from large caliber detonations. And man, it could look soooo good IMO. But again... it's chrome. Unneeded chrome. There's no shame in telling BTS what one thinks would be cool tho... well, as long as it doesn't un/intentionally sleight anyone. Ataru [This message has been edited by Ataru *~ (edited 09-03-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts