Objects still mising in CM

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

]Good God. I haven't actually gotten caught up on this thread, but your defense against accusations of sweeping generalization, vagueness and inaccuracy are that you don't have any access to sources, and that you can't remember anything significant about what you've recently read other than your own assumptions about what they had to say about what you felt was true?

And you're getting shirty with other people about their reaction to your unsupported statements regarding things they've called into question because you don't feel they've been properly deferential?

Gods, how I hate all you knowledgeable people, and your whinging attempts to seek any sort of certainty.

After all, I know what I know. Why don't you know it as well? [/QB]

As always General Sena you see things more clearly than I. This carbon chap is a complete waste of my time, thanks for the perspective check.

[Cabron66]

Another idea I had concerned a sort of fixed attrition rate set by the scenario designer in the parameters. This is one way in which the effects of air strikes could be shown. What I imagine is something like a range of settings from say severe to light to none which reflect the amount of enemy airpower in the area and/or the relative air superiority enjoyed by either side.

The designer sets the parameter to severe (such as what the Germans would have faced in Normandy) and some or all units take a cut in ammo, maximum ammo is reduced, units begin scenarios with depleted strength due to replacments not being received, a longer delay on reinforcements or a lower probability of their arrival, units do not receive replacement troops during operations, units simply do not show up (especially aircraft from the side not enjoying air superiority), troops suffer from lack of provisions (becoming weakened or unfit), friendly aircraft are more accurate and likely to appear, etc. In other settings the severity would be reduced or certain effects reversed. Bad weather would negate this option entirely or in part.

Unfortunately, I do not know a great deal about the prominence of the Luftwaffe on the eastern front or know anything about Russian military aircraft of the period so I do not know what settings would be appropriate or even to what degree this was an issue in that theatre. I think the format would be more important in portraying conditions in Italy, Western Europe or perhaps the Mediterranean. And, in general, a good way to account for the important influence of this aspect of war.

Now, all of these suggestions are already existing features in the game which would not need to be altered to any great degree. It could even be argued that the creative scenario designer could make most of these things happen without BFC doing a thing, but here I go back to my original point of asking for the game to take airpower into account in some way.

To me this would be a way of allowing for players to recognize the effects of airpower (even some of the more intangible ones) and designers the option of including it without having to tweak all of the aforementioned settings. In this fashion the ebb and flow of air superiority and the resulting hardships faced by those on the ground could be realistically portrayed within the scope of CM.

[Andreas]

Cabron

Could CM's air support model benefit from improvement? Yep. Should it be anything you suggested in your posts preceding my last one? No.

Now, since you seem to have trouble providing any sort of information backing up your claims, and instead like to get huffy about being asked for them, I think I'll ignore you until you can.

Before I do that, here's a hint though - there is a way to get BFC's attention about matters that need improvement with CM. I can assure you it is not by failing to provide evidence and talking in generalities, though. So unless you want to waste your time doing just that, or impress other posters on this board with your great, if somewhat unsupported by evidence knowledge, you are better off working in your garden or taking a hike, in terms of what you do with your time.

Have a good day.

[Cabron66]

Andreas

I agree with you completely. Your advice is much appreciated. Your tone and manner, however, are not. If no one else has told you, you are frequently condescending, often insulting, usually sarcastic and always opinionated. At least to the same degree as myself. My reaction to your original challenge is based on what I perceived your tone to be in the context of numerous anterior posts in which you challenged people in essentially the same manner. I am sorry, you seem like a pretty smart fella, but I do not engage in intellectual discussions unless I feel the other participant is at least civil. In the end, I hope I am wrong about you and you about me.

As always General Sena you see things more clearly than I. This carbon chap is a complete waste of my time, thanks for the perspective check. [/QB]

Please. Does he wipe your bum for you as well?

[ September 07, 2003, 05:57 AM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

My reaction to your original challenge is based on what I perceived your tone to be in the context of numerous anterior posts in which you challenged people in essentially the same manner. I

You are joking, right? It was a simple question for clarification, and a number of other posters here have noted that it was just that, despite the missing flowers, smileys and 'pretty please'.

To now hide behind the idea that "you have not been nice to others in the past, so now I don't want to answer a perfectly reasonable question relating to my post because I think you may not be nice to me at some point.", or sumfink, disqualifies you in 0 time as a serious participant in any discussion as far as I am concerned.

[sHRUG]But suit yourself, it is an open board after all, and I am sure you find lots of others to talk to. [/sHRUG]

[eichenbaum]

OK, Andreas & Cabron66, that's enough. The previous version of this topic ended in a war. Nobody is waiting for a 2nd. please keep your posts to the original subject of this topic.

Thank you.

Eichenbaum

[todd]

3 litter letters that would mean so much to the allies.. FAC.

todd

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by todd:

3 litter letters that would mean so much to the allies.. FAC.

Well...maybe. I think they should be included but not used often. There weren't enough of them around to give one to every battalion on the front. Possibly not enough to give one to every division, though I don't know that for sure. I find the most references to them when they were assigned to mobile columns during the pursuit phase. Once movement slowed down or became static and the artillery could keep up, the armies preferred to rely on it and shifted the air support to deeper missions behind the front rather than the kind of fights we see in CM. Although greatly improved by the end of 1944, it was still not as reliable or as fast as artillery. Also, artillery could maintain harrassing fire all day long if needed, whereas air strikes were brief but intense.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

I am presently reading An Army at Dawn by Rick Atkinson and came across a passage that is germane to the CAS discussion. The action is occurring during a pause in a fight between the 71/21 Lancers and an unnamed German force in northern Tunisia a few miles south of Mateur in late November, 1942.

Stuka pilots evidently confused signal flares with Allied anti-aircraft fire: a Lancer reported that Wehrmacht infantrymen repeatedly "sent up a stream of Very lights, which had the satisfying effect of bringing the bombs down amongst themselves whilst we watched."

I am also reading Martin Blumenson's Sicily: Whose Victory?, in which he mentions in passing problems the Allies had of being attacked by their own planes.

So at this point in the war, '42-'43, both sides were having problems identifying their own forces from the air, though not I think as commonly as CM portrays. I think a careful balance needs to be struck between making CAS excessively powerful and commonly used at the battlefront, and excessively untrustworthy.

To recapitulate several points that I thought were well made in this thread and elsewhere:

</font>

1. Air strikes should be handled in a manner similar to preplanned artillery barrages with the exceptions that greater variations in time of arrival and impact point will be the case.</font>
2. The player will designate an area rather than a point as his target. There is some finite chance that the strike may however fall outside that zone depending on several variables including lighting conditions, atmospherics, etc.</font>
3. The player may designate the class of target he wishes to be prioritized within the strike zone: buildings, vehicles, guns, etc., but there is a high probability that other targets will hit instead of or in addition to the designated preferred targets.</font>
4. Attacking planes should mostly attack in groups of not less than two, and all planes should be strongly likely to attack on the same heading.</font>
5. In the late war period, the Western Allies may have FACs on the ground who will improve the chances that an airstrike will be delivered on target. These FACs should have a very high rarity factor.</font>

If anyone feels that some additions or modifications to this list are needed, I welcome their comments.

Michael

[ September 08, 2003, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[Hurricane]

Ok, another thing:

What about a battle briefing including a small map of the area, with

*victory flags

*your setup area

*landmarks

*exit zones

*expected enemy setup area

*expected point where reinforcements will appear

The two last points are IMHO the important here (the others you can just as well look at during your setup phase).

First, in everything except meeting engagements, you usually have a rough idea of the enemy's expected position. Pre-battle scouting is supposedly taken care of, so why is there no mention of the enemy's position? This would also add a whole new aspect to the game, i.e. "how much should I trust this intelligence?". It is of course up to the scenario designer to decide how much he wants to reveal to either side, and how correct that information is.

Second, reinforcements (especially when defending) sometimes appear at the most unexpected places. I was just the other day playing a scenario, where I had left the main flag lighty defended, because it was furhest behind on one flank. Imagine my surprise when all reinforcements then appear on the other flank, just a short distance away from the enemy.

Again, this is also something a good scenario designer would have included in the briefing, but my experience is that writing briefings is not the scenario designer's favourite task, so why not make everyone's life easier by adding some nice maps to them?

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I am presently reading An Army at Dawn by Rick Atkinson and came across a passage that is germane to the CAS discussion. The action is occurring during a pause in a fight between the 71/21 Lancers and an unnamed German force in northern Tunisia a few miles south of Mateur in late November, 1942.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Stuka pilots evidently confused signal flares with Allied anti-aircraft fire: a Lancer reported that Wehrmacht infantrymen repeatedly "sent up a stream of Very lights, which had the satisfying effect of bringing the bombs down amongst themselves whilst we watched."

I am also reading Martin Blumenson's Sicily: Whose Victory?, in which he mentions in passing problems the Allies had of being attacked by their own planes.

So at this point in the war, '42-'43, both sides were having problems identifying their own forces from the air, though not I think as commonly as CM portrays. I think a careful balance needs to be struck between making CAS excessively powerful and commonly used at the battlefront, and excessively untrustworthy.

To recapitulate several points that I thought were well made in this thread and elsewhere:

</font>

1. Air strikes should be handled in a manner similar to preplanned artillery barrages with the exceptions that greater variations in time of arrival and impact point will be the case.</font>
2. The player will designate an area rather than a point as his target. There is some finite chance that the strike may however fall outside that zone depending on several variables including lighting conditions, atmospherics, etc.</font>
3. The player may designate the class of target he wishes to be prioritized within the strike zone: buildings, vehicles, guns, etc., but there is a high probability that other targets will hit instead of or in addition to the designated preferred targets.</font>
4. Attacking planes should mostly attack in groups of not less than two, and all planes should be strongly likely to attack on the same heading.</font>
5. In the late war period, the Western Allies may have FACs on the ground who will improve the chances that an airstrike will be delivered on target. These FACs should have a very high rarity factor.</font>

If anyone feels that some additions or modifications to this list are needed, I welcome their comments.

Michael </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I suspect changes this extensive will need to wait for CMX2...

Certainly. I don't really expect any changes to the modeling of any major system within the game for CMAK. I think we can expect some new national forces, some new vehicles, some new terrain, and that's about it.

Michael

[Halberdiers]

I don't really expect any changes

The game need better infantry pictures:

-Better pictures.

-Realistic number of soldiers(for example in the squad nine to eleven soldiers).

What is the difficult for the developers?.As we can see the people can't MOD the NUMBER of soldiers or vehicles in each unit.

...and MAPS:

-MAP of units to Go easy (in the pause).

-Possibility of add a picture of "strategic Map" for explain the context of the Battle.

...and user defined "auto-pause":"timer" plus "events" plus "elective".

-Timer-autopause: from 10 to 60 seconds.

-Events-autopause: (spotting,damage,losses,etc).

-Elective autopause.

[ September 08, 2003, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Michael Emrys]

Halberdiers, I confess I haven't the foggiest notion of what you are trying to say. If you are not a native speaker of English, you have my complete and sincere sympathy for trying to express yourself in a foreign language. But do you think you would like to take another try at it? Whether I agree with you or not, I'd at least like to know what you are trying to tell us.

Michael

[flamingknives]

Realistic number of soldiers(for example in the squad nine to eleven soldiers).

What is the difficult for the developers?.As we can see the people can't MOD the NUMBER of soldiers or vehicles in each unit.

What is so difficult in multiplying the number of polygons used on infantry by three or four?

It's a matter of processing power. Most computers would keel over if you tried to have them show 1000 men on the field at a time. Remember that the engine was developed in the days of 8-16MB graphics cards.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Halberdiers, I confess I haven't the foggiest notion of what you are trying to say.

I believe he was just trying to say "My record is scratched."

[Cabron66]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by todd:

3 litter letters that would mean so much to the allies.. FAC.

Well...maybe. I think they should be included but not used often. There weren't enough of them around to give one to every battalion on the front. Michael </font>

[Halberdiers]

No problem in repeat the post. Hope Babel fish help me

Pause:

Now we make the actions and must to wait 60 secs. ok?. But,60 seconds it's a long time to wait.What about if the player can defined the "Pause" before:

User defined "Timer pause": 10,30,60 secs. possible? what's the problem?

But, I tried to say more: The option defined by the user before that the game make a pause when the player have new event (damage,lost,engage,spotted,etc).

For example ( autopause with event=spotting )

Your Sherman is attacking a house , but 15 secs later your infantry squad spotting a panzergrenadiers with a panzerschreck running across the street in the direction of your tank. (You,the player now can't to do nothing until arriving at 60 seconds).

But if you have an "event pause" in the game , you can decided ever the command orders (mistake or not, accord to the battle) to the infantry squad to defend the Sherman that could be under fire. This mechanism can help better than you wait to the "pause" ( you , the player decided the action in front the new event: panzergrenadiers spotted ).

"elective pause" can help in the game for other actions as new orders without wait 60 seconds, but when you have a lot of units under your command maybe you can not see the "new event".

A mix of this parameters in the Pause "Timer"+"event"+"elective" can make the player more active.

Another point: map.

-first:strategical map:

Not all the people is an expert of Military History or Geography. A Map of the context can help a lot explain the battle situation. A simply image of strategical map can help a lot to understand the battle.

-second:tactical map

Now is difficult to go from one unit to another. A simply tactical map (not for "the terrain") for GO FAST from unit to another unit.

About Infantry pictures:

The Images of the vehicles are very good . But the infantry must to be better,You know.

[ September 08, 2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Halberdiers]

It's a matter of processing power. Most computers would keel over if you tried to have them show 1000 men on the field at a time. Remember that the engine was developed in the days of 8-16MB graphics cards.

This is a practical handicap.Ok.

[Cabron66]

Also, as an aside, it would be possible to model all of the men in a unit, but it would require a massive amount of CPU speed to do effectively and a major change in the appearance of the game. The end result would be more akin to a new game then a new version of the old.

Has anyone seen Medieval: Total War? Brilliant game in which every member of the army is modelled. Very similar to CM in many respects from the interface to the engine. Only difference is the individual soldiers are part of units that remain in formations of 60 to over 200 men. Every man looks exactly the same and is doing basically the same thing. Every member of a unit carries the same weapon and the individual soldiers are not nearly as detailed as those in CM. That game requires 3 gigs of hard drive space (over 4 with the expansion) and a 64 mb video card to play with anything but modest settings.

Now, think about the requirements for doing the same thing in WWII with far more detailed models. Individual soldiers carry different weapons and equipment, use a wide variety of formations, do different things, regularily break formation and run for cover (that alone represents a big CPU bite), and if casualties must remain on the field, watch out (believe me, corpses use up a lot more memory than you'd think).

This is not to mention all of the models that would have to be made (and the animations to go with each of them) from loaders to radio men, to ammo carriers to tank crews to whatever (even medics?).

This is not something we will likely even see with CMX2. It just represents too much of a quantum leap for a game that can go up to battles with multiple batallions.

[ September 08, 2003, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ]

[YankeeDog]

There are ways that CMX2 might possibly manage to graphically model all members of a squad.

For example, some 3D programs change the number of polygons for a given 3D sprite depending on the sprite's distance from the viewpoint.

So, soldiers more than, say, 500m away from the camera might be shown at a lesser level of detail, those from 100m-500m to the camera at another level of detail, and only those closer than 100m to the camera at the highest level of detail.

You can do similar things with other 3D objects like tanks, buildings, etc.

Such an approach is not necessarily easy from a programming viewpoint, but it does reduce the load on the 3D rendering system and gives you more detail where you really want it (i.e., close up).

Just pointing out that 1:1 representation of infantry might not be totally impossible for CMX2; creative programming can solve hardware limitations. There are also other newer 3D rendering processes that the CM engine does not take advantage of, like bump mapping, that can add texture and '3D feel' to objects without increasing polygon count.

Time will tell. A lot also depends on what they choose as 'baseline' system for CMX2. The newer computers out now are a factor of magnitude faster (in terms of processor speed) than the computers the CM engine was originally designed for. By the time CMX2 comes out, things will obviously be even faster. BTS will need to make the new engine at least somewhat capable of running 'legacy' systems in order to keep the audience for the game as large as possible, but I'm also sure that Charles is looking forward to taking advantage of some of the increases in computing power over the last 5 years. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Halberdiers:

No problem in repeat the post. Hope Babel fish help me

Okay, you're doing better. I think I can understand you well enough to give you some answers. If I misunderstand you, correct me.

Pause:

Now we make the actions and must to wait 60 secs. ok?. But,60 seconds it's a long time to wait.What about if the player can defined the "Pause" before:

User defined "Timer pause": 10,30,60 secs. possible? what's the problem?

But, I tried to say more: The option defined by the user before that the game make a pause when the player have new event (damage,lost,engage,spotted,etc).

For example ( autopause with event=spotting )

Your Sherman is attacking a house , but 15 secs later your infantry squad spotting a panzergrenadiers with a panzerschreck running across the street in the direction of your tank. (You,the player now can't to do nothing until arriving at 60 seconds).

But if you have an "event pause" in the game , you can decided ever the command orders (mistake or not, accord to the battle) to the infantry squad to defend the Sherman that could be under fire. This mechanism can help better than you wait to the "pause" ( you , the player decided the action in front the new event: panzergrenadiers spotted ).

Okay, a couple points here need explaining. One thing you have to keep in mind is that all design decisions by the makers of CM are governed by the principle of realism. That means that within practical limitations, what happens in the game replicates what happened on the World War II battlefield. Now, commanders on the battlefield were limited in how quickly they could get their orders to their units. It sure wasn't instantaneous. In fact, CM makes it a lot easier for us armchair generals than the real guys had it by letting us give fresh orders every minute. On the battlefield it might take anywhere from five minutes to half an hour. Or maybe the orders didn't arrive at all. So maybe 60 seconds seems like a long time to one of of us players, but it's almost no time at all on the battlefield in this context.

The second point is that we don't need to intervene instantaneously. The game has something called the TacAI that gives the units a certain amount of initiative. They will do things on their own even without orders. To take your example above, when the infantry squad spotted the Panzerschreck, it would immediately fire at it. In fact, 'Schrecks are such high value targets, that when one is spotted anywhere on the battlefield, everybody with an LOS to it will immediately start shooting at it. That's a case of the TacAI taking over.

Another point: map.

-first:strategical map:

Not all the people is an expert of Military History or Geography. A Map of the context can help a lot explain the battle situation. A simply image of strategical map can help a lot to understand the battle.

Suggestions along these lines have been made. We'll see what comes of it.

-second:tactical map

Now is difficult to go from one unit to another. A simply tactical map (not for "the terrain") for GO FAST from unit to another unit.

If I understand you correctly, this is to be addressed by a roster or OoB for your units. Hopefully, you would be able to click on the name of a unit on the roster and it would take you to that unit on the map.

About Infantry pictures:

The Images of the vehicles are very good . But the infantry must to be better,You know.

Agreed.

I think something along those lines has been promised.

Michael

[Cabron66]

Yankee Dog

I hope you read this. A friend just pointed out to me that I mistakenly put your name on top of a post in this thread and later proceeded to call your defense of CM "fundamentalist". That comment was not aimed at you and was a mistake. I sincerely hope you accept my apologies. Your comments were both eloquent and much appreciated.

Paul

[ September 10, 2003, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ]

[YankeeDog]

Cabron -

No worries. I honestly never noticed, so no offense taken, but apology is certainly accepted.

Cheers,

YD

[Berlichtingen]

Air to ground attack can be broken into three categories.

1) Air engageing targets of opportunity. Planes flying overhead spot a target and enhage. That is what is currently modeled. As it is, it is modeled well.

2) Preplanned strikes. Flight of Stukas bomb village X at 15:00. This would require some form of Air TRP, and should only be available in the scenario editor as the grunts on the ground are not going to have any real control over it. Placed in the editor and locked in place.

3) True close air support. Air dedicated to supporting a specific unit on the ground and directed to targets by that unit. Ok, that ain't gonna happen in the current engine. Originally developed by the USMC in the 20's and 30's (Btw, the USMC still uses the same basic method to this day). Copied by the Germans (though I do not know how completely). Used by the US Army by at least 1944 (again, I do not know how completely). No clue about when and if other nations used it. Here's how it works...

The ground unit has a FAC Team (current Marine practice is 1 team per grunt company in the battalion. IIRC, in WW2 this would be 1 FAC Team per division). Now, the KEY component of the FAC Team is the FAC officer who IS a pilot (best case scenario, he is a pilot of the squadron providing the air support). The reason this is key is twofold... First, the pilots that are dropping the bombs know the guy they might be dropping them on... that makes them a bit more careful. Second... the FAC Officer KNOWS how to talk to pilots (yes, they do speak a different language). He knows exactly how to describe a target in terms other pilots will understand. As a side note, this, in my opinion, is why USAF CAS sucks... no personal involvement. The FAC Team makes requests for air strikes and coordinates target marking. There are three ways to mark a target.

Best... Get mortars or artillery to fire a smoke round on the target. FAC Team tells the incoming planes (via UHF radio) to bomb the smoke (or 100m north of the smoke if the smoke was off target to the south). In CM terms, you would need an Air FO, an Arty or Mortar FO (or onboard mortar), and you would have to code it so the planes would see the smoke as a target. Way beyond what the current engine is capable of.

Next Best... Recognition panels (fires, whatever). In this scenario, the grunts mark their front line in a way that can be seen from the air. This is the most common method in WW2. Planes are informed before taking off where to drop bombs in relation to those ground marks. In CM terms, you need an Air FO, and you need a command available to your squads to 'Mark your position'. Again, this is beyond the capabilities of CM's current engine. NOTE: This method was used my the Marines on Guadalcanal to strike targets as close as 100m from friendly lines. As a formar member of a FAC Team, the idea of calling in air on a target that close scares the **** outta me.

Worst... Use a clearly identifiable landmark as a reference point. Bomb 400m east of village X. Why's this the worst you ask? Because things on the ground look a whole lot different from the air, and this method has the highest chance of mistakes being made. In CM terms, you need an Air FO that targets something like an Arty FO. Bombs drop either on target, not at all (they dropped 400m East of a different village), or randomly off target. This may be within the scope of the current engine, but I'm not stupid enough to argue with Charles on that point.

The panel method would be the best way to model it in CM. Air FOs should be insanely expensive. And it ain't gonna happen before the engine rewrite

[ September 10, 2003, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: Berlichtingen ]