1:1 Representation in CMx2 (Part II)

[Joachim]

New posts on that topic go here...

Gruß

Joachim

[dalem]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

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

Begging your pardon but you were NOT misunderstood. That's me & Michael's point.

Well begging your pardon, but I dont think you, or you wouldnt type stuff like this:

The graphic representation you describe is unnecessary for game play

Every graphic representation more detailed than an icon is unncessary for game play. </font>

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by dalem:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Chapuis:

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

Begging your pardon but you were NOT misunderstood. That's me & Michael's point.

Well begging your pardon, but I dont think you, or you wouldnt type stuff like this:

The graphic representation you describe is unnecessary for game play

Every graphic representation more detailed than an icon is unncessary for game play. </font>

[aka_tom_w]

Not even we have the answers to all these questions at this point, so I might suggest that both sides of this debate keep that in mind. NOTHING is decided except for the fact that we are seeking a balance, which inherently means some grog stuff and some eye candy wish list items won't be happening.

Steve

That sounds good.

BUT the good part is that ....

" inherently means some grog stuff and some eye candy wish list items WILL be happening."

I think we know they are committed to 1:1 representation and whatever the entails to make it fun and enjoyable for everybody!

as per:

"We'll be torn to pieces if the 1:1 representation looks silly or woefully incomplete, even if eveything is neato mosquito under the hood. Likewise, grogs will tear us a new one if the important 1:1 simulation aspects aren't done well enough."

I guess they have figured this represents a new challenge and they plan to set up to the plate and deliver!

That sounds good to me!

-tom w

[ January 31, 2005, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Chapuis:

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

Begging your pardon but you were NOT misunderstood. That's me & Michael's point.

Well begging your pardon, but I dont think you, or you wouldnt type stuff like this:

The graphic representation you describe is unnecessary for game play

Every graphic representation more detailed than an icon is unncessary for game play. </font>

[RMC]

Pulling teeth is beyond the scope of CMx2.01.05 build 1256.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by RMC:

Pulling teeth is beyond the scope of CMx2.01.05 build 1256.

Not if you upgrade to an nVidia Smell-o-Vision card.

[RMC]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Not if you upgrade to an nVidia Smell-o-Vision card.

What grogs will then calibrate the smell o'death to make sure we are getting the full experience CMx2 has to offer?

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Admiral Kahn:

Well THAT was like pulling teeth.

Anything else we can clear up for you?

Well I was going to let it go, but then you had to go ahead and keep it going.

Charles could probably make the game do what you want, but then it would not really be CM

What grand game-changing ideas have I been lobbying for that doesnt need to be shown is a battalion/company level game?

Did I ask for moral faces? Did I ever mention anything that would require 1:1 control? Movement templates? Individual trees/rocks for cover?

Since yours is the superior intellect, please tell me.

Im sure you will bring up medics, but that is a heap of equine scatology material.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Admiral Kahn:

[qb] Well THAT was like pulling teeth.

Anything else we can clear up for you?

Well I was going to let it go, but then you had to go ahead and keep it going.

Charles could probably make the game do what you want, but then it would not really be CM

What grand game-changing ideas have I been lobbying for that doesnt need to be shown is a battalion/company level game?</font>

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> What grand game-changing ideas have I been lobbying for that doesnt need to be shown is a battalion/company level game?

None...and you're still not getting it. </font>

[hoolaman]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

While I'm sure it won't run to 300 different martial arts moves, depicting close combat will be important in a 1:1 situation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why?

-dale

I am not sure if you lot are deing deliberately argumentative and monosyllabic (although it seems Mr. Dorosh is always deliberately argumentative).

I should say I agree with most of dalem's concerns about how and where to draw the line with the whole 1:1 thing. It really could be a can of worms. I don't want medics or any of that rubbish, but as Steve said there must be a balance, and I expect there to be an animation for close melee combat. Even if it is a generic animation with a few wildly swinging rifle butts or fists.

Even the current combat mission can stand having the camera zoomed in and watching those grenades fly without looking too bad. Just because you play it at a company level or higher doesn't mean you never want to get down in the dirt and watch that cool moment in one of the movies.

For 1:1 representation to not look silly and incomplete, an important thing like close combat cannot just be ignored. So like I said, it will probably not have 300 different animations, but it should be in there. I don't see what the problem is with that.

[Battlefront.com]

Guys, it would be a real shame if the bickering here caused me to stop looking at the Forums, now woudn't it?

Steve

[Gpig]

Well said, Hoolaman.

If they're going to do 1:1 rep, then they have to address Close Combat somehow. I'm sure they'll figure out a nice way to do it that involves somewhat less than 300 martial arts moves.

David, if you don't mind me saying this . . . they are setting you up. Goading you closer and closer to a "rant." Then they'll look like winners by comparison. (Even if they aren't) Don't let the Dark Side win. Let it go.

Gpig

[jim crowley]

Steve

Given 1:1 representation, in whatever form it ultimately takes, and the addition of a more stringent set of C&C rules, will these put an effective cap on the number of units/formations that can be used in CMx2 (as opposed to CMx1, where the theoretical C&C limit is a battalion but in practice this can be exceeded many times over, albeit without upper echelon C&C)

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Gpig:

Well said, Hoolaman.

If they're going to do 1:1 rep, then they have to address Close Combat somehow. I'm sure they'll figure out a nice way to do it that involves somewhat less than 300 martial arts moves.

David, if you don't mind me saying this . . . they are setting you up. Goading you closer and closer to a "rant." Then they'll look like winners by comparison. (Even if they aren't) Don't let the Dark Side win. Let it go.

Gpig

LOL

We'll see what gets into the finished product and what doesn't - those that are satisfied with it will be the winners. Those that continue to piss and moan about lack of facial expressions, type of underwear, or other "individual modelling" will be, I suppose, the losers. **shrugs**

[aka_tom_w]

GOOD QUESTION!

-tom w

Originally posted by jim crowley:

Steve

Given 1:1 representation, in whatever form it ultimately takes, and the addition of a more stringent set of C&C rules, will these put an effective cap on the number of units/formations that can be used in CMx2 (as opposed to CMx1, where the theoretical C&C limit is a battalion but in practice this can be exceeded many times over, albeit without upper echelon C&C)

[dalem]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

While I'm sure it won't run to 300 different martial arts moves, depicting close combat will be important in a 1:1 situation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why?

-dale

I am not sure if you lot are deing deliberately argumentative and monosyllabic </font>

[Krazy Canuck]

Which junior moderator do you all think will be the first to start a "what is missing in CMx2" or "what do we want to see in the CMx2 version 1.0 patch" thread?

KC

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

I should say I agree with most of dalem's concerns about how and where to draw the line with the whole 1:1 thing. It really could be a can of worms. I don't want medics or any of that rubbish, but as Steve said there must be a balance, and I expect there to be an animation for close melee combat. Even if it is a generic animation with a few wildly swinging rifle butts or fists.

That's about all I want or expect. If you think about it, the only way to make medics and ultra-detailed close combat feel truly authentic is to include a whole lot of gratuitous blood and violence which isn't what CM is about. I think that processing power could be better used elsewhere.

[Michael Dorosh]

Close Combat wasn't something normally encountered between formed squads of men - that is what CM is about, incidentally, formed squads of men and your control of them.

Hand-to-hand combat means that something has gone wrong somewhere. Generally speaking, when infantry were in close contact, it means that one side or the other has had its unit integrity shattered. The fight has dissolved beyond the ability of the NCOs to control their men. At this point, far more realistic if the depictions on the screen vanished. A company commander would not know what his men were doing at that point in time (ie if they are literally knifepoint to knifepoint with enemy soldiers). There would be no way to report this back to him, until the close combat was over.

So from the CM standpoint, the animations would be rather self-defeating from a realism standpoint. As Steve has pointed out, there is a line to be drawn between realism and eye candy. What they decide to do will be based on their programming ability, the capabilities of the machines they are programming for, the time they have to do it in, and the relevance they feel it has to the project as a whole.

It also hearkens back to the discussions on "how much control can you take away from the player before the game becomes no fun."

I'd be delighted if squads in close contact simply disappeared from sight (and player's control) - might even add some suspense, as well as prevent "gamey" play wherein you charge three squads at the remnants of an enemy squad in a house in an effort to overwhelm them in close combat - from what I can tell, this was not often done in the real deal.

Animations? No. Disappear? Yes.

Or, at the very least, unit stats should disappear so you no longer have the running tally of how many men are left (as we have now) in each squad. That information simply wasn't reported up the chain of command as the fight progressed. CM right now only gives that info to the player based on the level of spotting - not on the level of activity or the ability of the unit to report it, in real terms.

Hopefully this is more constructive, J?

[Kip Watson]

This forum certainly moved along while I was in RL...

I knew my (much) earlier post about close combat and heroics would sound silly. But really I was making a feeble attempt to make a serious point.

One of the very interesting things about CM, is that after the game you can tab through the 'kills' panels. In most battles, most squads will record zero or low kills, but you get occasional squads that record very high kills.

This is historically right, and as implausible as it sounds, some years ago I read an article in 'Some Dashed Science Rag'* where a bunch of academics (with nothing better to do) had measured this in some way, and their concluded that in a battle, most infantrymen don't kill anyone, and that most kills are made by a relativelty small number of men. I would guess in very high adrenaline situations, such as close combat and intense firefights, this effect was even more pronounced (all the historical accounts suggest this is so).

You actually 'see' this in CM, when occasionally a small squad will manage to eliminate a larger squad at close range, although currently the statistics don't record kills by individual.

I'm not looking for 'Street Fighter WW2 edition', and I won't have a tantrum if it's not included, but some elegant/serious/non-gross modelling of this effect would be cool (fascinating historical/educational) as well as cool (exciting fun).

( *NewSci or SciAm...? )

[junk2drive]

Somewhere in between the Hollywood movie FPS crowd and the plastic figure on a stack of chips crowd is what I want in a computer game.

[RMC]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Or, at the very least, unit stats should disappear so you no longer have the running tally of how many men are left (as we have now) in each squad. That information simply wasn't reported up the chain of command as the fight progressed. CM right now only gives that info to the player based on the level of spotting - not on the level of activity or the ability of the unit to report it, in real terms.

Interesting idea and one that could be extended to more than just close combat. It seems you're thinking of a digital on/off thing where a unit can either report or not. When you mention the ability of the unit to report it makes me think of tying the accuracy of the reported information to the quality/experience level of the unit in addition to its current level of engagement.

But how many CM players want to have to make decisions based on bad info?

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Animations? No. Disappear? Yes.

Following your logic, the unit should then disappear on a number of various occations, unit break down does not only limit itself to CC situations.

While this may be realistic one can ponder of the wisdom of such a move in terms of gameplay. Wonder how appricated it would be by the player to see his units fade in and out of vision all the time..