3 men represented squads...

[KiwiJoe]

Quote from BTS FAQ page:

We would love to show the entire squad full of men, but it isn't possible unless you have a 600MHz G4 or 1000MHz Merced chip The problem has to do with the number of 3D polygons needed to represent all of these men. Current hardware just can't handle the number we need for this level of realism. As it is CM is pushing more polygons than probably any other game on the market today (and that includes QuakeII).

I'd say right now a 1gig cpu isnt that awesome and when CM2 is released end of this yr/beginning of next it will be fairly standard on new systems. How about more men in a squad for cm2? perhaps 1 man to represent every 2 would be a good compromise.

[Michlos]

I can't answer for BTS but I believe they have stated that they will always do their best not to force their consumers to buy big honkin computers just to be able to play the game.

One solution would maybe be that you would be able to set the detail even more defined. That way you can use the setting that suites your system best.

[KiwiJoe]

All they have to do is make it an option... thus if u have a crap PC u have 3 man squads, if u have a sweet pc u can select 5/6 man squads

[jKMkIII]

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

All they have to do is make it an option... thus if u have a crap PC u have 3 man squads, if u have a sweet pc u can select 5/6 man squads<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you be happy to have 1 figure presenting 2 men? Would you also want more figures to support weapons and HQs?

My personal opinion is that if those figures will not show actual place of men (or even combat pair) and they just are grouped together to show center point of squad it serves no purpose to add those extra men.

First either squad marker should take more space, or those 6 figures would be grouped together so closely it would look stupid

Second. If figures would be put in so that it would clearly show how many men (or pairs) there are should still check what weapons they have (half dead squad with 3 riffles is pretty much different than same squad with 2 LMGs and SMG)

Third. How much does it hurt performance if you multiply your infantry figure by 2 or 3? (more than 2 because surely MGs with 6 men need more than 1 figure?)

At least I do not see any need to put those extra figures into squads. I have learnt to see how beaten squads are from 3 figures. And playing around with Coy to Bn size troops you really do not need to know exactly how many men you have, just how much power you have and that can be seen from 3 figures and checking morale.

When those figures can be made to represent actions of single soldiers, or combat pairs, and they start to spread out and are not just 3d markers they are now I will start wanting more figures to game. But until that day I do not see any need to pollute battlefield with more figures.

[offtaskagain]

Then turn the option off if it ever gets put in.

[New Age Santa]

Think about ordering each freakin soldier individually, now multiply the pain in your head by how many platoons you have. I'd rather see 3 man representing squads for he fact that squads are the lowest most efficient unit. (Commanding every single soldier on the map could get to be quite a task, especially in larger games)

[David Aitken]

As jKMkIII says, there's no point in representing more people, because they'd all be doing the same thing. CM is a squad-level game, it doesn't model individuals, so there's no point in seeing individuals.

#'s of soldiers in future CM titles - will modern tech help?

men flying from explosions

An interesting idea for squad representation!

A Case For Full Squad Representation

[depawel]

IMHO the 3 man squad shows the roots of CM.

Remember; this game started as a Squad Leader game. If the 3 man squad, 2 man crew, and 1 man leader doesn't remind me of the good ol' days; what could?

[dalem]

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

IMHO the 3 man squad shows the roots of CM.

Remember; this game started as a Squad Leader game. If the 3 man squad, 2 man crew, and 1 man leader doesn't remind me of the good ol' days; what could?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More importantly it shows the roots of practicality. Why do you think SL used the 3/2/1 count? They had limited space on teeny counters and those numbers were sufficient and proper for the job at hand.

Neither Squad Leader nor CM are games about individual men - they are games about units of men. Additional detail, while pleasing to the eye for some, is just clutter as far as games at that scale are concerned.

-dale

[kmead]

I strongly support the three man representation for all the reasons so clearly stated by jKMkIII. I do not need to see all the men until such time as all the men shown are in fact representing the individual actions of each man. The abstraction is fine and dandy for me. I beleive GICombat will allow you to see what you desire and control all of the men.

[Slapdragon]

One other factor is video cards. Each man is a cluster of polygons (10?). Right now the 3 man setting uses the power of an 8mb video card with a coprocessor (give or take, depends on the res of the screen and the mods you use). 12 men would need 32mb and the fastest processor, maybe even verge into 64mb with a 1280x1040 monitor because of the resoultion issue. Then the line up would look like this:

Low end with goodies disabled: 32mb card

Middle range some goodies: 64mb card + 1280 monitor resolution

High end with lots of mods: 128mb card (perhaps a SGI CAD card or the like) with 1600 res (to see the little faces and hands) monitor.

I think this is coming. Nvidea is talking about the Ge5 cards coming with a PPC 600 G3 processor and 128 RAM standard in 2-3 years, and Open GL will be allowing more processor power to be used for 3D graphics, but the question is what will we all have when the new game comes to market. My Dell has 8mb video card, my Apple has a 32mb video card.

[KiwiJoe]

I asked for it as an OPTION ie turn it off if you dont like it/PC cant handle it. So stop with the "it would require too much hardware" debate! THX

And yes I want it for eye candy and to increase the sense of "realism". Waves of 3 men Russian squads just will not look right IMO The more men represented per squad, the more it would draw me into the game.

Of course, being eye candy, if its going to take days and days to code I wouldnt bother. But its a thought none the less.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think if BTS were to do this it would end up looking not nearly as cool as some people think. For one thing, they would have to make the squad graphics more spread out and less uniform than they are now. Putting 12 figures into the same little squares that now hold 3 would look kinda crowded. Real squads do not fight bunched up shoulder to shoulder like that.

Sounds like a good feature for the engine rewrite.

[KiwiJoe]

I agree that 1 to 1 representation wouldnt be practical at this time. But perhaps 1 to 2 or even 1 to 3 would be a good thing.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think it all comes down to time. BTS has already said they have more stuff they would like to put into CM2 than they have time to do.

Also, making it optional would not be a good idea, as people who use it would have have a small advantage over those who didn't. For example, if you know your opponent is using an infantry type with 10 man squads, when you see a squad with 3 men shown graphicaly, you know it may have 8, 9 or 10 men left. You don't know exactly unless you have the highest spotting info level on it. People using an option to show more men graphically would have more detailed info by just counting the little guys shown.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

But perhaps 1 to 2 or even 1 to 3 would be a good thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1 to 3 is about what it is right now.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I agree that 1 to 1 representation wouldnt be practical at this time. But perhaps 1 to 2 or even 1 to 3 would be a good thing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um...full-strength German rifle squads have nine men, right? A three man representation would mean a one to three ratio.

-Andrew

EDIT: (Damn you, Vanir! )

[ 07-20-2001: Message edited by: Mirage2k ]

[LGMB]

Soldiers,

Heres what I have for you:

A 1:1 is prety much out of the question. 12 men is a whole new ball game. It would certainly not allow for the uniform 3 man style of walk sit walk sit. Some men would have to sit, some stand, move around ect. Thats just to much (though it would be really cool ). I would like to see somthing more simple, like mabye a man for each type of gun in the sqaud? that would limit the squads to 3/4/5. Thats not to big is it? And for the HQ groups I would like to see them as much more then a guy with a pistol. Mabye make them 3 men teams? Or again a guy for each type of gun? Though CM2 will adress that with the interface. (BTW i'm NOT talking about CM2 here. This is far to late in the game for BTS to sundelly add much larger teams. I'm talking more like CM II). For the small teams I.e Flame throwers, LMG, Zooks,Shrecks, and PAITs I would like to see the full teams very much. Only 1 more guy would have to be added any way. Lets be honest here: Who would REALLY like to see full of everything? ME!!! (jking) I like the standard but I would certainly like to see a few more men to increas the realisim.

[KiwiJoe]

Its not 1 to 3 right now or yanky squads would have 4 men represent them. 1 to 3 would mean:

8 men = 3

9 men = 3

10 men = 4

12 men = 4

13 men = 5 (strum platoons)

I cant see this bogging down moost PC's, its not a drastic change. Even if it does, as pointed out, its an option that could be turned off like 3 man squads can now :0

[Spook]

In response to some of the naysaying here about adding figures to represent a squad, let me now suggest that perhaps we need to look at this in an added light.

As a disclaimer, let me state that I am presently satisfied with the three-figure (3fig) representation of squads. I certainly don't need 1:1 (which will never happen anyway), nor do I think that 1:2 is overly important either. Besides, for late-war ('44-'45) Soviet infantry squads, a common authorized squad strentgh was only seven men. Thus even with 1:2, you can be back to three figures in some cases anyway.

However....there is one possible situation where I might prefer to see a 4fig or 5fig representation of a squad instead of a 3fig.

The situation would be if a future CM version might consider the squad FORMATION as an added element. Trained squads were not "clumps" of men, they were formations. They could be formed in line, or column, or "mass" with attendant effects to the squad's "target footprint" and firepower.

Squad formation could also have an effect on its movement. I think that squads more closely "massed" in dispersion were better able to rush or assault a position more quickly than a squad stretched out in an extended line. (Of course, such a mass would also make for an easier target too, especially to a MG team.)

Now, I don't think that the present 3fig squad rectangular base is an overly bad representation. And some abstraction should always be anticipated. But at a ground scale fidelity of 20 meters per tile, it's certainly my view that a squad would be discernible in a line, column, or "mass" formation. Thereby, if not for CMBB, I hope that the CM II engine of the future will give added consideration to squad formations. (The upcoming Matrix game Combat Leader seems to be considering a squad formation premise in its own turn.)

Granted, some present means do exist to model "formation" in some ways, e.g., the split-squad command that can be used to simulate a "skirmish line" squad deployment. But split-squad arrangements entail possible morale penalties and loss of "effective firepower," such that I'd sometimes rather see a standard line deployment as differentiated from a squad column or mass grouping.

A squad 3fig graphic might still work okay even with such variations in squad bases that show "formation." But a 4fig/5fig MIGHT give a better visual reference.

[Spook]

Not seeing any commentary to the "squad formation" tangential concept yet. Well, then, perhaps a courtesy nudge.

Bada-bing, bada-bump.