CM2: Will it live up to our high expectations?

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Great expectations in the graphics department is hardly a trademark of wargames, if you have been around to see what came before CM that is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite right, and quite unfortunate: few things are as visually dramatic and emotionally riveting as war (see Saving Pvt. Ryan for an obvious example).

[Mattias]

Considering all the well documented historical anomalies in SPR that comparison pretty much pins situation here.

I for one is only really interested in accuracy and game play improvement, graphics taking a decidedly secondary role.

Then again, grognard acceptance of poor graphics is born purely out of necessity. As long as BTS manages to maintain their fine record in the realism department all graphical improvements will be warmly welcomed.

M.

[ 04-17-2001: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Then again, grognard acceptance of poor graphics is born purely out of necessity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As BTS has proven so well, that needn't at all be the case. No need to settle for 2D and hexes now, thankfully.

[John Kelly]

I would obviously like to see better soldier graphics, but the one thing that would truly enhance CM2 for me is augmented wav files. Rather than represent a generic submachine gun, for example, create a sound for each individual weapon. Then, even if one cannot see the enemy position, it will still be possible to determine what you are facing by listening. Currently, the MG42 and MP44 are quite distinctive' so,let's add the rest of them. John

[Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How about things like tanks leaving tracks in the snow? (It happens now in Flashpoint 1985)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still don't see why people are trying to compare CM to FPS games like Operation Flashpoint. CM is putting many more polygons on the screen all at once. Oper Flash is more akin to Rainbow Six than a true historical wargame.

BTS shouldn't have to cater to high-end users at the expense of low-end users. Scaleability is fine but what scaleability really means is plusses the higher you go, minuses at the lower end, regardless of good intentions. Example: tracks in the snow. High-end users get this support but not low-end users. Can you see where this will lead?

Adding the various levels of graphical eye candy people are suggesting here would take an entire engine rewrite, something that is already planned for later in the CM series.

To be frank your shiney new geforce3 is not going to be using many of its much-hyped features, not until around a year from now. How many games are using transform and lighting? I can count them on my fingers alone and that feature came out 2 years ago almost. DX8 features won't start to appear in games right away (this is what I've read about it in a couple of places, not my own opinion). It takes an average of a year before new features start to make it into games. Add to this not many people are going to shell out $600-$700 for a graphics card... it's a niche market. When games start to come out that use these new features it'll be great (if you paid alot of money to get this card; many won't be able to afford it). There's one or two "games" in the works right now being specifically designed to include geforce3 features, by companies rushing to be the first. We'll see what this rush to be first produces. It's this way with *any* new dx version or revolutionary video card feature nowadays.

Game companies over the last several years have been routinely putting eye-candy ahead of gameplay. Thankfully BTS has not been one of them.

One important thing to think about is this: who is going to implement all these gee-whizz eye candy features? BTS is 2 people, 4 now that they added KwazyDog & Madmatt. It would take a studio of around 24 full time employees to make happen (average game project size). Which means BTS would have to get big-name game publisher backing ala Sierra or Hasbro (whoever the hell bought them out), et. al. If this happens I can guarantee you the CM series would end up in the gutter as far as gameplay and historical accuracy goes, once the bean-counters in suits take over.

I think the current modded graphics in CM are very well done and much more than just adequate. CM2 will be another success for the BTS crew if they hold true to their vision and commitment to the game as a whole, not focusing on one aspect over another.

-Tiger

ps ~ in answer to your topic's title Heinz, I think that CM2 will more than live up to our expectations, as long as we don't set them too high based on graphics alone. Give me the entire Eastern front 1941-1945 with most all of the relevant important vehicles troops and equipment done as historically correct as possible and great support after release, even with current CM graphics, and my expectations will be well met.

[ 04-17-2001: Message edited by: Tiger ]

[Leeo]

OK, this will likely piss some people off, but many of you are nothing more than whiners. I'd pay good hard money for CM2 if it came out with the EXACT same engine as CMBO v1.12 has now. It is already far and away the best wargame ever developed for the computer, and jumped light years ahead of it's precursors. I'd rather it came out in 5-7 months with new units and the same engine, than to wait 18-24 months to create a whole new graphical engine. You've all had more fun with this game as is than you've had with any other computer wargame, but now you're whining about "ooooo, give us this" and "oooo, give us that". As is, with all the additional earlier German units and all the Russian units is better than we deserve.

Ok, I'm done ranting, but I stick firmly by my rant. Now quit your spoiled demands for more, and let BTS get back to turning out the next edition of the best computer wargame on God's green Earth.

[StellarRat]

I'd be happy with the same engine and graphics with a couple tweeks for Russia (like bigger maps) and smarter AI. I'm glad that BTS is going to try and improve a bunch of stuff, but I think that the current engine with a different database of unit types would probably be a pretty good game in it's own right. If you think about it the game already has everything you really need to do a pretty good sim of any WW II combat.

Everyone should bear in mind that BTS is marketing to a very small group. They can't afford to turn it into a big production like BG II or something because they would never sell enough units to recoup their costs. Us WW II hardcore sim fans are a tiny population of the computer game market. Think back to your school days...How many wargamers were in your high school? We had three out of 1200 students!

[ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

[TeAcH]

/flame protect v2.3 on

I'd like to see Operation Flashpoint Style graphics for CM2. Have you all seen that game? Whew. Seriously, I think the graphics need a facelift. Tanks that show different types of damage, partially collapsing buildings, smaller tiles, better fog, and on and on. Hey I love CM like everyone else, cept CM2 is going to need a better engine. Thank God Im not the one that has to design it though. Sometimes being a consumer aint half bad.

/flame protect v2.3 off

TeAcH

[BloodyBucket]

Graphics vs. Gameplay...

I think that same arguement has been going on for centuries in regards to the female of the species...

Will it live up to our high expectations? I am sure it will excede and dissapoint in ways that we can't imagine. See reference to females above.

[TeAcH]

Don't get me wrong, I think BTS has gotten the gameplay down just right. Its damn right near perfect. Now its time to tweak the engine.

TeAcH

[Guest ckoharik]

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

To be frank your shiney new geforce3 is not going to be using many of its much-hyped features, not until around a year from now. <Snipped for length>

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you that there are currently not a lot of games out there (or coming soon) that will really push the GF3 cards to their limit, but games is not all I am interested in. At least a couple 3D programs are already planning on putting out updates shortly after the cards hit the market.

At first I had planned on immediately acquiring a GF3 card. Now, after having read several reviews and ongoing discussions I will hold off for at least a bit until I can get a better handle on their true capabilites.

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

I think the current modded graphics in CM are very well done and much more than just adequate. CM2 will be another success for the BTS crew if they hold true to their vision and commitment to the game as a whole, not focusing on one aspect over another.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On this point I have to agree. I've done reinstalls of CMBO on a couple systems depending upon my needs at the time and then played with the stock graphics. They do not bother me in the least. But, I am glad there are people out there like you, Tiger, that are putting out such visually stunning textures that really make it look like a new game entirely and I'm sure the same will happen with CM2.

[Loki]

There will be improved graphics. All games improve graphicly every year, and CM2 will be no exception.

Some of you have suggested that the current engine would work fine, well it won't IMO. How could you recreate Stallingrad with the current engine? BTS has already stated that they have to rework how combat in buildings will be simulated. Currently you can't have platoons fighting inside a building. I am also going to assume that interior walls and cover will be depicted in the game. That alone would have to increase what is required to run the game.

As gamers we just have to accept that we need to upgrade pieces of our machines yearly, or every other year at the least. By the time CM2 comes out we'll be looking at 1½ years since CM, so why stick with an old engine?

[Mattias]

Stalingrad and the east front is unique in many ways but not for the fighting in built up areas. You will find just as intense and complex urban fighting in the in the west. Mostly on a smaller scale in space and time, but that’s exactly where CM takes place!

My point is that there is nothing that says that CM2 “has” to include an expanded urban environment.

If you accepted CM:BO as fulfilling your need for city fighting you might just as well go on accepting CM2 with no special improvements.

If you felt CM:BO lacking in this sense, lets hope BTS manages to up the complexity.

If you thought urban combat was limit to the east, read up on the subject.

M.

[tss]

aka_tom_w wrote:

How about things like tanks leaving tracks in the snow? (It happens now in Flashpoint 1985)

That would be very nice (as would be infantry leaving tracks in forests). However, it would place really high burden on LOS checks. And I mean really high. In the rest of this post I will try to demonstrate this using figures derived by the DOMH method. (Those who don't like estimates that are based on wild guesses should directly skip to the next post, and do not pass the GO square and collect 200 zorkmids on the way).

Suppose that there are 25 units per side that each move 4 terrain tiles forward per turn. I seem to remember that the internal engine uses a 2 x 2 meter grid, so one unit leaves marks on at least 80 places on each turn. (For tanks the locations of both tracks, for infantry it would be even more).

I don't know how often CM does LOS checks. Let's estimate that it is once per second. Currently each of the 25 units have to check los to every enemy unit, so there is 50 x 25 x 60 = 37500 LOS checks during one turn. If the engine has to check also LOS to enemy tracks, in the second turn it has to do at least 50 x 25 x 60 + 50 x 25 x 80 x 60 = 3037500 LOS checks, plus the checks for new track marks that are deposited.

At the start of the third turn, each unit has left marks on 160 places, so for that turn 6037500 checks are necessary, and so on.

The real situation is not quite that bad since after one track mark is seen by some unit you don't have to check LOS to it again. However, in the worst case the units are advancing towards each other with a large hill or a forest in the middle blocking the LOS for ten turns or so. Of course, it is probably possible to optimize a majority of the LOS checks away, but I would bet that it will still be an untractable problem for the near future.

- Tommi

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you accepted CM:BO as fulfilling your need for city fighting you might just as well go on accepting CM2 with no special improvements.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that not many of us were ever truly happy with how city fighting is handled in CM. Frankly, it's one of the weak points of the game, imo.

***

And to the person calling others whiners because they'd like new features in CM2 and not just new units and terrain types or what have you: many of us ask for (or "wish for out loud but don't really expect, alas") graphics improvements and so forth precisely because we love CM so much--it's a game we really care about, and we want to see the series constantly improve. It's not peevish greed or ingratitude, rather a wish for continued excellence on all fronts (pun intended )

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTS shouldn't have to cater to high-end users at the expense of low-end users. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And vice versa. Why (speaking theoretically since we obviously haven't seen CM2 to judge it) should all of us with powerful systems be left out? Why shouldn't the game take full advantage of what our rigs can do, as almost all games do?

I think it's a misconception that a) the majority of people who play CM or wargames have antiquated systems and that CM's (potential) audience is composed solely of a group of hardcore grogs who only play wargames (and only on dated systems). AFAIK, the interest in the game is happily and deservedly wider than that. It would seem to me that with proper marketing, the game could be pitched to anyone interested in WWII, wargames, RTS games, or strategy games. There's a big crossover.

[Wesreidau]

Tom, it's unrealistic to expect CM to be detailed to the level of Flashpoint 1985 simply because FP cheats!

For starters, if you had the ability to hover a 100m above the battlefield it would not show all of the terrain and units, (it would fog out a lot and drop the detail on closer stuff). CM doesn't do that since having a foggy view of the world while trying to direct a company or three would be really annoying!

Instead CM shows the whole of the map and all available units. The result is the poly count is already very high and so are the number of textures used.

I am certain BTS will push thing further in the future (more complex building structures, for eg, which will add more polygons to be drawn), but to ask for much more detail than that is unrealistic considering current computer power.

PeterNZ

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Instead CM shows the whole of the map and all available units. The result is the poly count is already very high and so are the number of textures used. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One word, or rather, acronymn: LOD. When you're in view levels 4 and up, how big do all the units look? Not very. As such, you don't need to render them all in full detail: polys and textures are added/subtracted depending on how close you are to a 3D object. Different dynamic level of detail techniques are more and more commonly used now, it seems. Look at the engine in Sacrifice, or check out B&W, among others.

[ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[Mattias]

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

I think it's a misconception that a) the majority of people who play CM or wargames have antiquated systems and that CM's (potential) audience is composed solely of a group of hardcore grogs who only play wargames (and only on dated systems). AFAIK, the interest in the game is happily and deservedly wider than that. It would seem to me that with proper marketing, the game could be pitched to anyone interested in WWII, wargames, RTS games, or strategy games. There's a big crossover.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Has anyone claimed that grognards with old computer systems constitutes a majority of the CM players?

If anything the opposite seems to be the case, at least if the forum is any indication.

Be that as it may, however, I am completely convinced that CM would not have achieved it's current level of success had the ratio between quality engine design and graphics been reversed.

Boring and one sided debate really. The ones in favour of in graphics before anything else label themselves as forerunners of the technical revolution while those focusing on game engine improvements are called reactionary.

The only thing these “reactionaries” have against graphical improvements is when they comes with a disproportionate cost in game engine development.

M.

[ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[Leeo]

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

Boring and one sided debate really. The ones in favour of in graphics before anything else label themselves as forerunners of the technical revolution while those focusing on game engine improvements are called reactionary.

The only thing these “reactionaries” have against graphical improvements is when they comes with a disproportionate cost in game engine development.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said.

[aka_tom_w]

I'm sure there will be a balance struck between eye candy and great graphics and game play and historical reality.

I have every expectation that BTS will find the right balance here that will make CM2 even more successful than CMBO.

-tom w

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Boring and one sided debate really. The ones in favour of in graphics before anything else label themselves as forerunners of the technical revolution while those focusing on game engine improvements are called reactionary. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not by any means my words. Just to set the record straight, should that be the implication. Also a straw man argument, since I don't recall seeing anyone asking for graphics improvements over all else in CM. That would be an odd argument to hear from a gamer in any context, actually.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Be that as it may, however, I am completely convinced that CM would not have achieved it's current level of success had the ratio between quality engine design and graphics been reversed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. Again, though, both gameplay and graphics work hand in hand in CM's game design, and it's not a simple binaristic issue. Historical accuracy just requires careful research--you can find that in other wargames. It's CM's interface, camera system, 3D battlefield and units, and WEGO system that set it apart and contribute strongly to its excellence. It's unreasonable to treat the graphical element of CM as some kind of afterthought or separate issue with no strong bearing on gameplay. It's vital to gameplay and helps define the game's unique character.

Btw, regarding the idea that it's difficult to render lots of units on screen at once in 3D, and that comparing CM to an FPS like Operation Flashpoint is unfair: fly a chopper in one of the hacked missions, and also look at games with lots of units and that let you position the camera with substantial freedom (including along the Z axis) like Ground Control, Homeworld, Sacrifice, Total Annihilation, Earth 2150, etc.

[TeAcH]

Damn. I couldnt have said it better Stacheldraht. I agree 150% with ya.

TeAcH

[PIATpunk]

Please update the awful soldier graphics for cm2. I don't play the game at all, every time I used to zoom close to the little dollies I'd giggle, it would put me off

[BloodyBucket]

I think one reason that you hear from users with high end machines here is simple.

If I got a great new system, I would post and tell everyone about it. How many folks sit down and think, "Hmmm, I think I will post about this same old 350 MHZ geezer I have had for two years because, boy, I feel like bragging today!"?