Computer Games Magazine CM2 article...

[Battlefront.com]

Hi folks,

If you haven't picked up a copy of CGM yet, and copies are available in your country, get cracking Robert Mayer wrote a great preview of our next game, fleshed out with some nice art and the FIRST EVER release of interface screenshots (which we will post in about 2 weeks).

Unfortunately, through a fluke/misunderstanding of some sort, there were two errors in the article:

1. That CM2 will cover the Winter War. It will not and we never intended it to. One bite too many for us to chew I am sorry to say (Quick Note: Steve means the 1939-40 conflict between Russia and Finland, not to be confused with combat IN the winter which is fully modeled)

2. That CM2 will include Relative Spotting. This is incorrect. The total ground up game engine rewrite will include this feature. Unfortunately, due to the coding, interface, and gameplay complexities associated with this there is aboslutely no way to implement this ground breaking feature without scrapping what we have and starting from a fresh slate.

Sorry for the confusion folks!

Steve

P.S. I will be hanging out here to answer questions regarding the article in general. Lots of great information in there to discuss, besides the two items noted above

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Madmatt ]

[Panzer Leader]

Okay Steve, thanks for the clarification. My question is, are weapons going to be modelled separately for each squad, such as range and ammo for different types? And does this include independant tracking of grenades?

[Juardis]

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

2. That CM2 will include Relative Spotting. This is incorrect. The total ground up game engine rewrite will include this feature. Unfortunately, due to the coding, interface, and gameplay complexities associated with this there is aboslutely no way to implement this ground breaking feature without scrapping what we have and starting from a fresh slate.

Sorry for the confusion folks!

Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the heads up Steve. I haven't read the article yet, but I sorry to hear about the above. As you may know, I've been a strong proponent of relative spotting and am disappointed it won't be in CM2, but I understand the reason and accept it for what it is. Do you plan on at least "dumbing down" the spotting rules? For example, making it so a buttoned up Jadgpanzer cannot spot a infantry unit 600m away in it's flanks? Very frustrating when something aphyisical happens in the game. Keep up the good work.

[Battlefront.com]

Panzer Leader,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My question is, are weapons going to be modelled separately for each squad, such as range and ammo for different types?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Small arms are simulated exactly as they are in CM1. Each weapon is simulated individually, but fired as a group depending on range (i.e. 500m LMG fires but SMGs won't). Ammo remains exactly the same as CM1 as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And does this include independant tracking of grenades?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Grenades are now tracked individually.

Juardis,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thanks for the heads up Steve. I haven't read the article yet, but I sorry to hear about the above.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing different than we have been saying here for a year It is such a huge, fundamental change that we never even entertained the thought of putting it into CMBB.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Do you plan on at least "dumbing down" the spotting rules? For example, making it so a buttoned up Jadgpanzer cannot spot a infantry unit 600m away in it's flanks?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is nothing more we can do with the spotting until we get in Relative Spotting. The system has been tweaked as much as it can be. A buttoned up Jagdpanzer should NOT be spotting infantry 600m away on its flanks though. Not unless some other unit spotted it first, which is unavoidable with Absolute Spotting. The core problem that Relative Spotting fixes is exactly this situation.

Steve

[Juardis]

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

A buttoned up Jagdpanzer should NOT be spotting infantry 600m away on its flanks though. Not unless some other unit spotted it first, which is unavoidable with Absolute Spotting. The core problem that Relative Spotting fixes is exactly this situation.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I know, and hence my frustration. Thanks for your prompt reply. Looking forward to CM2 (and CMII)

[Panzer Leader]

Thanks Steve. I am okay without the relative spotting. Besides its kinda funny to see an AT team with 15 red lines going to him! Good deal on the grenades.

So, are all textures now hi-res? And do they have more uh, what's the word, textures or sides to them?

Oh also, that terrain looks great! Also the buildings. Hmm, speaking of buildings...

I would be very interested in any differences there may be in city battles, such as terrain, and what's up with the sewers??? Does this also mean trenches?

[Stalin's Organ]

Adam "The Winter War" refers to the Finnish-Soviet war of 1939-40, not those parts of "The Great Patriotic War" that were fought in winter!!

So yes, the Germans will freeze their butts of in 1941-42 in CMBB, but the Russians won't in 1939-40.

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

[Battlefront.com]

Panzer Leader:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So, are all textures now hi-res? And do they have more uh, what's the word, textures or sides to them?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, there is no such thing as "hi-res" really There is a range of texture sizes from as small as 2x2 pixels to 1024x1024 pixels. Most 8MB cards and many 16MB cards barf when they get fed things over 512x512 pixels so we won't be going higher than that. Typical texture size in CM1 was about half this.

We have done some experiments and so far find that resolutions higher than 512x512 really don't look all that much better, yet they a crudload more VRAM and hard disk space. They also slow down redrawing. So bigger is not always better

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would be very interested in any differences there may be in city battles, such as terrain, and what's up with the sewers??? Does this also mean trenches?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We will have different shaped buildings, which will mean a different feel for battles involving buildings (rural or urban) than in CM1.

We have added a few new terrain types (like Steppes) and weather variations (snowy ground, unfrozen rivers).

Trenchs are placed on the battlefield just like barbed wire.

Sewers will be abstract "portals" where you enter one and request which one you would like to pop out of. The chance of coming up in the right spot depends on distance and luck. Also, the time to get from A to B will depend heavily on distance. We are also thinking that any defending unit imediately near a sewer opening will get first crack at emerging units to simulate "guarding" the opening. Of course, if they are distracted in some way this might not happen. Still not implemented yet so the exact specifics are still up in the air.

Adam, the "Winter War" (using capital letters) is the most common term for the war between Finland and the Soviet Union during the winter of 1939/1940. Of course there will be winter fighting in CM2

Steve

[yobobo@TH]

Hi Steve thanks for the update,

Will rubble be modeled the same as in CM1, or will have degrees of cover, 1/2 buildings 3/4 buildings etc..?

yo

http://tournamenthouse.com/CM/

[Maxx]

Hi Steve - I have a quick one for yas.

Will we be able to create larger maps than the current CM:BO limit allows?

Thanks.

[TopShelfCookieJar]

Just been salivating over the new pics posted on CMHQ.

Steve, what's the story regarding movement from house to house when the buildings are adjacent/flush? Will we still be forced to move the squad out through an 'empty' wall and then back in through an 'empty' wall of the new building, or will we be able to charge headlong into the neighbouring room/building, thus copping a load of grenades in the teeth?

Also, will PBEM be modified so that each turn will involve:

Player A: Give orders. (first turn only)

Player B: Give orders. Generate movie (but not watch).

Player A: Watch movie. Give orders.

Player B: Watch movie. Give orders. Generate (but not watch) movie.

Player A: Watch movie. Give orders.

Player B: Watch movie. Give orders. Generate (but not watch) movie.

etc....

Can't say I have a problem waiting till the release of CM2 - I'm having too much fun playing CM1!

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Jeeves ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Holy cow - sewer portals. I think Steve has been reading this very forum!

I am intrigued by the "different shaped buildings" comment - hopefully we will see some factories and large, large buildings ala Squad Leader - rather than simple rowhouses as we have in CM (ie making any building larger than 20 m by 20 m means that interior walls are impassable).

Love the trenches idea.

My big question is - will engineers be better able to blow obstacles, such as building walls, barbed wire, roadblocks, etc. I do remember your comments on roadblocks from before so suspect I know the answer - but these kinds of obstacles are so potent that it (from a gamey standpoint) can make a scenario unplayable. Also wondering if mine warfare will be revised - ie mine clearing tanks, changed lethality of minefields, etc.

And finally - Men Against Tanks. So many stories of Russians and Germans both fighting AFVs with Panzerfausts, molotov cocktails/molotov projectors, AT mines, etc. etc. - will infantry be better able to assault enemy AFVs? Perhaps this can be a seperate order - as it stands I can rarely get my infantry to fire a PF on an enemy tank. Again, I have read the previous comments on this, but was wondering if a rethink has occurred?

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Battlefront.com]

Some quick answers for y'all...

I don't think we will be able to model partially colapsed buildings. It is on the list to try, but it might not be possible until the engine rewrite. This also answers the question about "mouseholing" (i.e. going through walls using TNT instead of going outside and back in). We can't do this unless we can have individual states for individual walls.

Yes, larger maps will be possible. I don't envy people trying to use the biggest settings if they have older systems though

PBEM format might change, but it might not. Depends on how much coding time it will take. The reason why there is the extra step in the first place was because there was some issue which was hard to code around by the time the PBEM code was put in. Obviously, the same issue faces us today as it did two years ago (cripes, almost to this very MONTH!) when PBEM functionality first went in.

Steve

[Gyrene]

Steve, would it be possible to tweak the map editor so units already on the map won't get shifted when more terrain is added to the map?

This might displease those who like to place guns in houses that way, but would save a lot of designers some headaches.

Gyrene

[GriffinCheng+]

Great BTS is out there. Time to seek out "The Truth".

I am very sorry to hear that "The Winter War" is not in. But since Finns would be in, I suppose there will be a lot of space for out Great Scenario Designers out there to fulfill our desire. Right?

Since each unit info includes the detailed TO&E info (see my previous thread) so will there be a small OOB screen so we can check the total units available?

It is also mentioned that there would be an optional rule based on AFV crew experience. Bob mentioned elsewhere that it is possbile that the crew reactions would be based on their experience/moral/physical condition. Could you eleborate?

It is also mentioned that there would be AFV C&C rules. How would it work?

Since the 1st GUI screenshots does not show the entire unit info bar (the lowest "line" removed"), who could the player know about the "physical fitness" of a infranty unit?

How would be long-range tank engagements be improved?

How about the "rumored" sewer system, how is it modelled?

Finally, an OT, when will the pre-order be taken? :cool:

That is it -- for now.

Griffin.

[Battlefront.com]

Michael,

I don't think we are going to allow engineers to destroy things at will. This would be unrealistic. I have an Engineer's book here and most of the things people are asking Enginners to destroy took WAY more explosives than they could easily carry. Also to a lot more time than people are aware of.

However, we are allowing Engineers to toss explosives into buildings instead of just at tanks. I also think they can do this for barbed wire, but I am not sure. Roadblocks and bridges are out as per my above explanation, but mouseholing is out for entirely different reasons.

If a roadblock makes a game "unplayable" then that is the luck of the draw. Some of the roadblocks in cities and forests took hours to clear. Those are the types we are simulating. I'm not sure the attacking troops thought of them as "gamey" though

No, we are not planning on changing the way close assaulting of tanks works. It was a very dangerous and chancy thing for troops to do, so most did not. Most in fact ran away. Even the good ones! We will have dedicated tank hunting teams though, and a wider range of individually manned AT weapons. These units will most likely not have any special ability to kill tanks, but instead should haev better Experience ratings to simulate them either having better training or better frist hand experience KOing enemy vehicles. And let us not forget that sometimes the "best and brightest" were not necessarily the ones selected for this very dangerous job! So Conscript - Regular AT hunting teams should still be rather common.

Steve

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

And does this include independant tracking of grenades?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Were you the guys that asked this a few weeks ago?

Tracking of grenades isn't necessary. Say for instance that each man carries 2 grenades and the squad has 10 men. That's 20 grenades per squad. I haven't yet seen where one squad chucks more than maybe 5 or 6 grenades before either being eliminated or vice versa.

[Panzer_Meyer]

Hi Steve,

Glad to hear so many changes are going for CM2. I can't wait.

My question is will engeneers be able to blow up bridges using their demo charges?

There has been a lot of talk about bigger operations for CM2 (or campaigns). So will campaigns be part of CM2?

How many new building, in all will there be in CM2. And what are the differences between these buildings. How big, how long, how many stories?

Will tank be able to cross fords now, or is there a new terrain tile to let tanks and other vehicles cross a river or a stream?

Also, will vehicles be able to cross a frozen river, maybe not the heavy tank but light tanks, like ACs and light guns and infantry?

I guess that's it for now.

Thanx for you time Steve.

[TopShelfCookieJar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This also answers the question about "mouseholing" (i.e. going through walls using TNT instead of going outside and back in). We can't do this unless we can have individual states for individual walls.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough. If the buildings will be bigger as Michael and Rommel22 have asked, then that will satisfy my need.

Please say it will be possible to preview a QB map before unit purchasing (or at least make it an option if both players agree).

Also, will we be able to create our own maps and then use them in a QB? ie create the terrain, but leave the unit purchase up to each player.

Thanks for staying up late (not for me thankfully) for this Q&A session Steve. Much appreciated.

[Commissar]

I heard you are including the IS-3. If this is true, why? Chances are the IS-3 never saw combat in Europe and it is doubtful it saw action against the Japanese. Is this just for "what if" scenarios or for fun? Same reason for including the SturmTiger?? What sources/books do you find the most accurate when it comes to data on Soviet weapons, equipment, squad organization? Also, can you give us a few more details on how you plan to implement Soviet command and control in the game? Thanks.

[Mace]

One question:

In CMBO, one skin is mapped to both the left and right hull/turret sides through mirroring.

Of course this makes it a bit difficult to use lettering or numerals in mods.

Will CM2 allow seperate turret/hull side skins for both the left and right sides for each AFV?

Mace

[PawBroon]

Hi Steve!

Glad you always manage to find some time to answer those.

It's really beyond the call of duty.

I'm quite certain CMBB will be as much a shock in gaming experience as CMBO was.

Thanks for keeping us posted.

BTW, good call you did in that French distribution agreement.

Knowing the frogs I can tell a big chunk of customers had been waiting just for that...

[Michael Dorosh]

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

One question:

In CMBO, one skin is mapped to both the left and right hull/turret sides through mirroring.

Of course this makes it a bit difficult to use lettering or numerals in mods.

Will CM2 allow seperate turret/hull side skins for both the left and right sides for each AFV?

Mace<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You bitmap molestors are all alike! The play is the thing!

[Pvt. Ryan]

Will the cold Russian weather cause mechanical difficulties, such as engines freezing up? I don't know if this is beyond the scope of CM since when we enter the battle all the engines are running and warmed up. But maybe there is a dice roll to determine if a vehicle starts out immobilized?

[Mord]

Hi Steve. I was wondering if any graphical changes have been made to teams? Like two guys per MG instead of the one.

And will there be different forms of water this time around? Such as a brook or stream besides just the river/pond.

Actually I have been wondering a ton of stuff but don't want to ask a bunch of questions that may sound stupid to everyone else.

Thanks! Mord

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Mord ]