BTS: graphics request for CMBB: seperate bmps for KIA Infantry

[Tiger]

So we can 'mod' our own KIAs.

You wouldn't actually have to make seperate mods, you can use the normal uni bmps that soldiers use now that do for both live and dead soldier models. Simply allow the option by having seperate bmps for KIA soldiers that people could mod.

possible?

[Panzer Leader]

I smell blood...

[Pzman]

Thats a good idea... you could have men with little red spots in the middle of ther chests.

[offtaskagain]

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

Thats a good idea... you could have men with little red spots in the middle of ther chests.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

People only get shot in the chest? Damnit, I want flying limbs!

[Juju]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

Damnit, I want flying limbs!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh dear...

[CJMello]

Sucking chest wounds.

Tiger, getting back into modding?

[LGMB]

Soldiers,

Hmmmmm....... this is an excellent idea.

but I could raise some modding problems. KIA soldiers with differnt collored uniforms then the living ones ect.

I assume Tiger plans to make the uni mods and then INLCUDE the KIA mods (like a bonus).

[CMplayer]

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

So we can 'mod' our own KIAs.

You wouldn't actually have to make seperate mods, you can use the normal uni bmps that soldiers use now that do for both live and dead soldier models. Simply allow the option by having seperate bmps for KIA soldiers that people could mod.

possible?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That won't do the trick. You obviously

will need a different .bmp files for a

guy killed by, say, a sniper, than for

someone taken out by a flamethrower

or 14" naval guns. Best would be to

have separate files for all the various

body parts (and inner organs) so that

you can script the proper arangement

of carnage based on military medical

statistics (taking account of flukes of

course) Also, if the contents of the

guy's last meal spill out, sauerkraut

isn't going to look like pizza. And

some soldiers are peabrains, so you'll

need a 'pea' .bmp.

Well, you get the picture. This is quite

a thorny issue, and definitely needs

to be addressed soon.

--Rett

[ 07-21-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[Fieldmarshall]

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

Thats a good idea... you could have men with little red spots in the middle of ther chests.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What if a 300mm rocket lands on the sqaud(happend to me killed the whole squade,the explosion completely engulfed them then when it was all clear..they were all dead..pretty cool) I doubt if that happend you would just have a little red spot..they should have bodies for shot..and little BITS of people if they were blown up.

[Tiger]

Rett, don't be an asshole.

[Pzman]

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

What if a 300mm rocket lands on the sqaud(happend to me killed the whole squade,the explosion completely engulfed them then when it was all clear..they were all dead..pretty cool) I doubt if that happend you would just have a little red spot..they should have bodies for shot..and little BITS of people if they were blown up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What if one landed on you.

[David Aitken]

CMplayer and Fieldmarshall are right. The 'dead body' icon was never meant to be a dead body as such, it is simply an eliminated unit marker. In theory all of the men could just have disappeared, and the marker indicates their last known position. Or indeed they could have become casualties in any way from stepping on a mine, to being shot in the arm, to being blown to bits by artillery. Therefore a 'dead' bitmap constitutes pure eye candy and is irrelevant to the game.

[Tiger]

"Therefore a 'dead' bitmap constitutes pure eye candy and is irrelevant to the game."

Following this reasoning, all mods are pure eyecandy and irrevelant to the game. It's easy to dismiss something under the interpretation of meaningless symbolism.

Other than the "kia" graphic of the soldier lying on his back with one leg crooked in the air representing the loss of a squad, I think it would add something to the game beyond visual eyecandy, though there's nothing wrong with eyecandy to start with.

Kind of like asking for tanks with seperate turrent side bmps so we can get numbers and markings on them without them being reversed on the other side. Probably the same reason we couldn't get seperate soldier KIA graphics.

-Tiger

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tiger wrote:

Following this reasoning, all mods are pure eyecandy and irrevelant to the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed.

[gunnergoz]

Hmm, someone's been playing Myth too long, methinks...

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Therefore a 'dead' bitmap constitutes pure eye candy and is irrelevant to the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Visuals in general, btw, are most certainly not irrelevant to any software program that is primarily based on visual interaction, let alone the 3D depiction of realistic or historical physical objects (e.g., terrain, tanks, troops.) CM would not at all be the same game if weren't for those latter features, in terms of both the game system and its emotional impact on the player.

Imagine CM with a 2d overhead map with hexes and unit counters, or a "3D" version with stick figures. A) It would suck and it would not be the same game on a number of different vital grounds.

[ 07-22-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[CMplayer]

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

Rett, don't be an asshole.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm incapable of following your advice

as I am an asshole by nature. Sorry

if that doesn't please you. BTW I was

just having some fun; trying to get

a chuckle. Your request seems perfectly

reasonable to me. (Though to model

bodies, you'd need one at every point

where the squad lost a man, and since

some of them presumably hobble off, it

still wouldn't be right)

--Rett

[Tiger]

and stop reminding me of me CMPlayer

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Stacheldraht wrote:

Visuals in general, btw, are most certainly not irrelevant to any software program that is primarily based on visual interaction, let alone the 3D depiction of realistic or historical physical objects (e.g., terrain, tanks, troops.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is, however, a distinction to be drawn between bitmaps which serve to make the visuals more realistic, and bitmaps which serve simply to sensationalise what is there. A realistic bitmap of a tank or a soldier's uniform is indeed important, but a bitmap of a 'dead' soldier with blood or bullet holes or whatever is simply unrealistic and unnecessary. It is conveying inaccurate information – blood for the sake of blood, which provides you with no relevant information which you didn't already have. You can argue that it improves 'immersiveness', but then so would no end of graphical fluff which BTS could have wasted their time programming.

[CMplayer]

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

There is, however, a distinction to be drawn between bitmaps which serve to make the visuals more realistic, and bitmaps which serve simply to sensationalise what is there. A realistic bitmap of a tank or a soldier's uniform is indeed important, but a bitmap of a 'dead' soldier with blood or bullet holes or whatever is simply unrealistic and unnecessary. It is conveying inaccurate information – blood for the sake of blood, which provides you with no relevant information which you didn't already have. You can argue that it improves 'immersiveness', but then so would no end of graphical fluff which BTS could have wasted their time programming.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are definitely two sides to this game:

the tactical wargame and the combat-movie

generator. Where they overlap is when

the film (and soundtrack) provide

information via effects which is

necessary to playing. This is especially

important if you are under certain

constraints such as:

1)A short time limit in a TCP/IP game

2)Franko's ultra fog-of-war rules.

The former requires a good ability

to interpret the sounds, whereas the

latter will probably be easier with

higher-res graphics.

just some thoughts,

--Rett

[CMplayer]

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

and stop reminding me of me CMPlayer <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No hard feelings Tigger...mod on

--Rett

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>but a bitmap of a 'dead' soldier with blood or bullet holes or whatever is simply unrealistic and unnecessary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, it would be highly realistic, for obvious reasons: killing, injuries, and death are central to warfare. Granted, the details of each soldier's injuries don't necessarily directly impart tactically relevant data, but seeing the effects of the battle in more personal and realistic terms could, arguably, make real effects on players' tactical decision making. (I.e., they might be less inclined to send more men into the meat grinder as if they weren't men at all. Many human lives were at stake in WWII, after all.) Also, visual depictions of the appropriate wounds would let you know what type of enemy unit caused the casualties, which isn't always clear as it is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is conveying inaccurate information<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How is information about casualties inaccurate? It would only be inaccurate if the game were to somehow display or not display visual or other data that mislead you about the number of casualties, what caused them, and/or when they occurred.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You can argue that it improves 'immersiveness', but then so would no end of graphical fluff which BTS could have wasted their time programming. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, one very easily could argue that it improves immersiveness. Please be aware that immersiveness can be or is a major or even central feature of the gaming experience for many gamers and games. That immersiveness works on multiple levels, both emotional and intellectual. One is not inherently better or more important than the other.

Clearly, among many CM players there's a real interest in the presentation of the game, given the enthusiasm over graphic and sound mod creation and use. Not all of us see these things as "fluff," as if what we see and hear somehow made no difference in our experience of the game. Happily, CM isn't abstracted to the point where we just see streams of 0's and 1's scrolling down the screen. I can see how that might appeal to one or two people, but I can't imagine that group would be more numerous.

It's highly debatable that BTS "wastes time" by implementing the graphics and sound of the game or that they'd be wasting time by improving those major and absolutely vital aspects of it. These would only be improvements, not detriments, and it's quite clear that they wouldn't come at the expense of hard historical data, given BTS's stance on such issues.

It's also clear, based on personal experience and numerous anecdotes that I've read on this board, that the visual presenation of CM, particularly "out of the box," has turned away many a gamer. That has a real effect on the sales and popularity of the game. That fact alone means these things aren't "fluff," but are actually quite important on a number of levels.

[ 07-22-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Stacheldraht wrote:

Actually, it would be highly realistic, for obvious reasons: killing, injuries, and death are central to warfare.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 'realism' in question is vague and emotive, rather than accurate and informative.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Granted, the details of each soldier's injuries don't necessarily directly impart tactically relevant data, but seeing the effects of the battle in more personal and realistic terms could, arguably, make real effects on players' tactical decision making. (I.e., they might be less inclined to send more men into the meat grinder as if they weren't men at all. Many human lives were at stake in WWII, after all.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no point in BTS spending time trying to create an emotional response in the player to realistically affect their decisions. The realism they have brought to CM and will continue to develop is purely technical. Trying to develop the 'human' element is pointless, and actually disrespectful – CM is a game, and to try and make it a 'war simulator' would be impossible and ridiculous. We play CM for entertainment and to attempt to defeat our opponent using historically accurate weapons. Emotional response to what we are pretending to do – wreaking destruction and killing people – would be entirely realistic, but totally out of place.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, visual depictions of the appropriate wounds would let you know what type of enemy unit caused the casualties, which isn't always clear as it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would only be the case if every casualty were accurately depicted, which is not going to happen.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How is information about casualties inaccurate? It would only be inaccurate if the game were to somehow display or not display visual or other data that mislead you about the number of casualties, what caused them, and/or when they occurred.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is innaccurate because it cannot be accurate within the scope of the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes, one very easily could argue that it improves immersiveness. Please be aware that immersiveness can be or is a major or even central feature of the gaming experience for many gamers and games. That immersiveness works on multiple levels, both emotional and intellectual. One is not inherently better or more important than the other.

Clearly, among many CM players there's a real interest in the presentation of the game, given the enthusiasm over graphic and sound mod creation and use. Not all of us see these things as "fluff," as if what we see and hear somehow made no difference in our experience of the game. Happily, CM isn't abstracted to the point where we just see streams of 0's and 1's scrolling down the screen. I can see how that might appeal to one or two people, but I can't imagine that group would be more numerous.

It's highly debatable that BTS "wastes time" by implementing the graphics and sound of the game or that they'd be wasting time by improving those major and absolutely vital aspects of it. These would only be improvements, not detriments, and it's quite clear that they wouldn't come at the expense of hard historical data, given BTS's stance on such issues.

It's also clear, based on personal experience and numerous anecdotes that I've read on this board, that the visual presenation of CM, particularly "out of the box," has turned away many a gamer. That has a real effect on the sales and popularity of the game. That fact alone means these things aren't "fluff," but are actually quite important on a number of levels.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The kind of people who would dismiss CM on the basis of its graphics are not the kind of people who are likely to appreciate the underlying accuracy, or indeed buy the game. As I have said many times before, there are plenty of photorealistic games out there to please aesthetes, with very little substance underneath.

I am quite happy for BTS to improve the game's graphics over time, but I would still play the game whether they did or not. The important thing is the underlying engine, and in graphic terms all that is needed is a representation of each of the processes which is going on underneath; this is a tank, this is a squad, this squad is firing, this squad is taking cover, a large artillery shell has just landed here, etcetera. If it is practical to develop these representations to the extent that the result looks true-to-life, that's great. But if you push too hard for graphical realism, you start to outrun the engine, and it becomes necessary to do a lot of programming just to provide visual effects, rather than having each effect tied to an underlying process.

So the distinction I make between necessary and unnecessary graphical effects, is whether or not they provide accurate and useful information. A tank model tells you that there is a tank on the map, where it is and what it is doing. An explosion effect tells you that a shell has landed, where it has landed, and approximately what size it was. A 'dead body' tells you that a squad or team has been eliminated, where the last man became a casualty, and allows you to click on it to confirm what it was and how many casualties there are. On the other hand, a 'bloody' bitmap on that 'dead body' tells you nothing, because you already know what the figure represents. If the bitmap were applied to active soldiers, telling you what physical condition they are in, in that case it would be appropriate (although this example is, of course, irrelevant to CM) – but where it simply embellishes present information with innaccurate and emotive graphical fluff, it is in my opinion undesirable.

[CMplayer]

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

but where it simply embellishes present information with innaccurate and emotive graphical fluff, it is in my opinion undesirable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the reason I hate the little

note in the AAR saying how many of

your casualties were 'KIA'. Since

the number is generated arbitrarily

and is not affected by whether artillery

falls on the wounded, or they are trapped

in burning buildings, etc. it is also

just a cheesy bit of numerical fluff,

IMO.

--Rett

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Trying to develop the 'human' element is pointless, and actually disrespectful – CM is a game, and to try and make it a 'war simulator' would be impossible and ridiculous<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One could well argue the opposite: treating these tragic events as a game is disrespectful. People killed, suffered, and died for ideals, for their nations, for the families, for their self-preservation, and often for no good reason at all. Using those events for entertainment purposes is arguably where the disrespect lies. And for the record, I don't propose or endorse anything that would detract from those people's lives or deaths.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Emotional response to what we are pretending to do – wreaking destruction and killing people – would be entirely realistic, but totally out of place.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The issue here is that CM's realism is of an extremely selective sort. Depending on what that realism should ideally entail, it may be either appropriate or out of place, as you say. I for one question the appropriateness or desirability of taking something that inherently involves killing of human beings (i.e., war) and trying to depict just a portion of it for entertainment purposes, devoid of "the nasty parts," so to speak. (Which is not at all to say that I have any desire to witness the carnage of war in any form, though I think it of the utmost importance that all be aware of it to help avoid it.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This would only be the case if every casualty were accurately depicted, which is not going to happen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It could in a future installment of the CM series. Obviously, I'm talking about hypothetical issues since CM isn't going to be patched, from what we're told.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is innaccurate because it cannot be accurate within the scope of the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto the above.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The kind of people who would dismiss CM on the basis of its graphics are not the kind of people who are likely to appreciate the underlying accuracy, or indeed buy the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You'd be surprised. Many serious/hardcore gamers with an appreciation for strategy or wargames have an appreciation for the importance of any game's audiovisual presentation. Furthermore, when one sees graphics of relatively low quality when compared to other games, one's likely to assume (often justly) that the rest of the game's quality likewise suffers. Clearly, there are exceptions, and I'm obviously not advocating that one judge a book by its cover.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So the distinction I make between necessary and unnecessary graphical effects, is whether or not they provide accurate and useful information. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The larger question is what is desirable, not merely absolutely necessary. I understand your distinction, but one has to be careful of a reductio ad crapola Were tanks to become untextured white oblongs with a little rectangle on top to depict the turret, you'd still know it's a tank. They could just have a label on screen that says "Pz. IV H" or whatever. It would work, but it would detract from the experience. This isn't a wholely abstract intellectual endeavour like chess, nor should it be. I think most here would agree, though not in extent.