1:1 Representation in CMx2 (Part II)

[Battlefront.com]

Since 1:1 representation is tied to the most inner core of the sim, and vice versa, I doubt there is a way to make the game scale down the number of guys shown in the game without undermining the game itself.

There is only so much we can do about the technology demands CMx2 will require to work well. I doubt that a mid level 3+ year old system (4+ by the time the game comes out) will be able to run CMx2 well even if we were able to scale the soldiers down. The rest of the environment is not just a couple of polygons and stretched textures you know

Every so often people just have to bite the bullet and upgrade if they wish to use the latest and greatest software (games, OS, A/V, whatever). For the last 5 years you guys have been able to run our stuff, by and large, without having to upgrade. 5 years is a very, very long time relative to the increases in technology. The system I bought 3 years ago is barely able to run any of the new games out there as it is, not to mention my laptop from 5 years ago. So I'll be upgrading my system in anticipation of CMx2 right along with many of you all.

Steve

[jeffsmith]

Well since a great many of us

will have to ask for a new computer

along with our request for CMX2

I am confident that BFC

will continue their History of Great customer service

and let us know the Computer requirements for CMX2

as soon as it is practical

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by jeffsmith:

Well since a great many of us

will have to ask for a new computer

along with our request for CMX2

I am confident that BFC

will continue their History of Great customer service

and let us know the Computer requirements for CMX2

as soon as it is practical

If I were to guess I would say any high end to mid level computer system that was purchased BRAND NEW in the past 6-12 months would be something like the minumum standard.

ANY new computer bought between now and the time the game is released should be fine as long as it is not a bottom of the line bargin bin clunker.

The only real issue here will be the minimum megs of VRAM needed for the game and my guess it will either be 64 megs or 128 megs. Processor speed will only speed up your "crunch" time to run the calculations for the turn so even slow computers will always work if you don't mind waiting, but you will need to have the NEW minimum VRAM requirement or the chances are the game won't look good or won't run.

Not much to go on I know but I would guess those are half decent ball park estimates.

-tom w

[Panzer76]

And, oh, I doubt any computers with a integrated gfx card would be able to run it particularly well, except perhaps fro the new ATI one.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Every so often people just have to bite the bullet and upgrade if they wish to use the latest and greatest software (games, OS, A/V, whatever).

I agree! I for one am happy to see that the game wont be held back by a shrinking customer base with ancient computers.

[Captain Pies]

I would imagine that a 64 bit machine with PCI-Express graphics will be the mid range box by the time CMX2 comes out. I'm holding out 'til then before I upgrade. Might as well get the best I can then, rather than upgrade now and find its just fair to middling in a year.

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Every so often people just have to bite the bullet and upgrade if they wish to use the latest and greatest software (games, OS, A/V, whatever). For the last 5 years you guys have been able to run our stuff, by and large, without having to upgrade. 5 years is a very, very long time relative to the increases in technology. The system I bought 3 years ago is barely able to run any of the new games out there as it is, not to mention my laptop from 5 years ago. So I'll be upgrading my system in anticipation of CMx2 right along with many of you all.

Steve

Since I'll have to upgrade to play CMx2, too (a Duron 700 + Geforce2 isn't exactly top of the line anymore...), I'd like to ask if CMx2 will benefit from a dual-processor setup or a multi-core cpu (that should be available then). Or will the game run faster on a single processor core with higher clock frequency?

Dschugaschwili

[Agent-006]

I agree! I for one am happy to see that the game wont be held back by a shrinking customer base with ancient computers.

Agreed. :cool:

[David I]

I for one will be interested in seeing a Sherman tank rolling along with 12 figures crowded on board.

DavidI

[Thomm]

Originally posted by David I:

I for one will be interested in seeing a Sherman tank rolling along with 12 figures crowded on board.

DavidI

:eek:

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by dalem:

I don't know about the toggle-a-bility except for slow-running machines. What I mean by that is that I am, right now, an "anti-1:1" guy. All that means of course is that I have yet to see how BFC will implement it and remain skeptical - Steve has already stated clearly that 1:1 is happening. I am confident, however, that if they do it, they will do it at least "pretty well", and if seeing 12 GIs per squad works pretty well, why would I toggle it off except for CPU performance?

-dale

Don't get me wrong. I think it is valiant to want to have 1:1.

I would toggle it off because I like how the game is right now. The current level of abstraction is a perfect balance in my opinion. It is what keeps me playing it. To me, a 1:1 representation is a roll of the dice. It is trying to capture real life and that is impossible with the foreseeable abilities of PCs. There are too many variables to accurately show what would happen because of the randomness of terrain.

The approach to realism with abstraction is bound to produce some severe oddities.

Its gonna look real strange when that 12 man squad has only 5 men graphicly behind a wall and 7 men in front of it. I know that they said things are abstracted and one shouldn't take it literally. Its just that with a 3 man squad, it won't look as bad. That is why I want to toggle 1:1 off.

I respectfully say "improve/ fix what is wrong with CMx1 first." Fix things like stopping LOS with vehicles, fix the snow in hot weather thing, fix the artillery "bug", improve the scenario editor by making it easier to create maps & OOBs, make it so we can import/ export maps from Operations, how about giving us a list of what units we have, etc......... Then go after the eye candy.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

I respectfully say "improve/ fix what is wrong with CMx1 first." Fix things like stopping LOS with vehicles, fix the snow in hot weather thing, fix the artillery "bug", improve the scenario editor by making it easier to create maps & OOBs, make it so we can import/ export maps from Operations, how about giving us a list of what units we have, etc......... Then go after the eye candy.

Well sure, I mostly agree, and I certainly understand where you're coming from. But if/when BFC pulls all of the above off, including 1:1, then don't folks like you & I have to admit that it works?

-dale

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by dalem:

Well sure, I mostly agree, and I certainly understand where you're coming from. But if/when BFC pulls all of the above off, including 1:1, then don't folks like you & I have to admit that it works?

-dale

Well.....

If we go by their past reputation, and 3 previous game designs and the improvements in that game design over the past 5 years, I would be betting they will MORE than "pull it off". AND the whole 1:1 representational thing will be a HUGE success and combined with Relative Spotting they should be able to make more than a few claims about the new game that NO OTHER GAME can make.

Steve says:

"Since 1:1 representation is tied to the most inner core of the sim, and vice versa, I doubt there is a way to make the game scale down the number of guys shown in the game without undermining the game itself."

That tells me they may have already, sort of, designed the rest of the game around this fundamental principle.......

I am pretty confident they will impress the heck out of "most" of us with the 1:1 scaling because they want the game to be GREAT because they want to SELL lots of copies and make LOTS of money!!!!

(AND they like playing GREAT games they can't get anywhere else so they have to make them for themselves, so if they are gong to get the kind of game they have been "dreaming" about playing for the past 5 years I am guessing most of us will enjoy it too! )

-tom w

[ February 03, 2005, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[dalem]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Well.....

If we go by their past reputation, and 3 previous game designs and the improvements in that game design over the past 5 years, I would be betting they will MORE than "pull it off". AND the whole 1:1 representational thing will be a HUGE success and combined with Relative Spotting they should be able to make more than a few claims about the new game that NO OTHER GAME can make.

Tom, I am optimistic and also a bit curmudgeonly on these sorts of topics. Especially considering that most of the "improvements" to the original CM engine have left me cold. I understand the necessities underlying those improvements, but it does leave me thinking that perhaps BFC is moving in a direction that is not mine.

Which is fine!

But believe me, if CMx2 does for me what CM did for me, I will Praise Them With Great Praise! as much or more than you.

-dale

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by dalem:

Yes, it will be nice indeed when it does work. I wish them (and us) the very best.

[Battlefront.com]

I'm not sure how many times I have to say this but... the 1:1 representation is NOT eye candy. Sure, it will look good, but that is not the point of putting it in. Adding individuals in place of abstract groups will greatly increase the realism of the game and fix many of the abstraction issues people have with the current system.

Like the big, long thread about "gamey" half squad uses... well, going to 1:1 allows us to get rid of that problem without even specifically trying to.

Steve

[Ace Pilot]

The first time I played the CMBO demo, my first reaction was, "This is Squad Leader in 3-D!" OK - that was my second reaction, right after, "HOLY COW IS THIS COOL!"

I'm beginning to think that CMx2 is going to be like nothing I've seen before, including CMx1. Is that what you've been trying to drill into my thick skull, Steve?

[Battlefront.com]

Yes

I'm reminded of the reactionary comments we used to get back in 1998 and 1999. "What are you doing? We don't need 3D, we don't need WeGo... just take Squad Leader as is, have he calculations done by the computer, and bingo... perfect game!! Don't fix what isn't broken". On and on and on and on these arguments came. Passionate though they might have been, they were made without vision and without fully understanding what the new features were supposed to fix.

Much like some of the arguments I've seen against 1:1 representation, we waded through tons and tons of posts where people were arguing that 3D graphics were nothing but eye candy. No matter what we said or showed made any difference. The graphics looked better and therefore they had to be worthless fluff. That was the thinking of some. Period.

Then the Alpha AAR came out and some of the previously vocal, and self assured, posters started having their doubts. Wow... the graphics are cool *and* they can portray combat better than 2D chits. Hmmm... maybe there is something to this afterall. Others, however, scoffed and continued to say it was all fluff, and when they got their hands on the actual game (if it was ever released, that is) they would be the last ones laughing.

Then the Beta Demo hit the net and the remaining holdouts either agreed that they had it all wrong or quietly slinked away. Sure, some ASL/SL, Close Combat, and Steel Panthers guys never fully shed their love affair with the previous systems they loved so much... but as time went on more of them admitted that they never wanted to go back now that they saw, and heard, the difference between CM and those which came before them.

We are now in the same spot as we were 6 years ago. But instead of people arguing against us in favor of other games, we're seeing arguments against us in favor of what we already made. The irony is that if we had listened to these same people 6 years ago, they wouldn't be able to do that because we CMBO would have looked like Steel Panthers or ASL/SL.

We're flattered that people love what we have done so much that they don't want us to change it, but spending the next 6 years redoing what we did over the past 6 years is not an option. We need challenges We're going forward and taking you guys with us, whether you understand the vision or not. Our track record clearly shows that we know what we're doing even if the doubters don't.

Steve

[ February 04, 2005, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I'm not sure how many times I have to say this but... the 1:1 representation is NOT eye candy. Sure, it will look good, but that is not the point of putting it in. Adding individuals in place of abstract groups will greatly increase the realism of the game and fix many of the abstraction issues people have with the current system.

Like the big, long thread about "gamey" half squad uses... well, going to 1:1 allows us to get rid of that problem without even specifically trying to.

Steve

I guess the first question is why does 1:1 representation mean no more split squad problem?

If you have 1:1 and you have a 12 man squad and you can see all the men, can the player no longer split them into two teams?

Was this stated somewhere there are no more split squads?

Just curious

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

In theory, going 1:1 means that a squad of 12 men is 12 men firing 12 weapons a 12 different targets. A 6 man 1/2 squad is 6 men firing 6 men at 6 targets. If nothing else were changed, the 1:1 system has not fairly made a 1/2 squad 1/2 as effective.

Also think about the "head of the pin" problem current units have. If you want to spread out your forces even a little bit, split squads is sometimes the only option. But wiih a 1:1 man representation you could, in theory, have your entire 12 man squad physically spread out over 100m. Now an artillery round comes down near one side... bang... it can only possibly hit 3 guys or so. That means, no matter what your squad was doing, only 3 guys are going to go down max. In current CM it could be the entire squad, because although there is some accounting for guys being spread out the abstraction of unit footprint means we can only do that to a limited extent.

Will you be able to split squads in CMx2? I don't know. Probably since the same reasons for adding this feature into CMx1 still exist, even with 1:1 representation. There just won't be as much need nor the potential for "gamey" benefits in some situations.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Thanks Steve

BUT you have me Stumped!

If you say:

" But wiih a 1:1 man representation you could, in theory, have your entire 12 man squad physically spread out over 100m"

How does that make sense if you tell us that in no way will the player have 1:1 control over each man (I do not want 1:1 control over each man, thanks ).

The only solution that comes to mind is an SOP or a "formation template" that in effect says "Stretch it out boys!" ( 2 man fox holes 1 every 15 - 20 m) or something?

VERY interesting!

Thanks so much for the VERY prompt and informative post.

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

In theory, going 1:1 means that a squad of 12 men is 12 men firing 12 weapons a 12 different targets. A 6 man 1/2 squad is 6 men firing 6 men at 6 targets. If nothing else were changed, the 1:1 system has not fairly made a 1/2 squad 1/2 as effective.

Also think about the "head of the pin" problem current units have. If you want to spread out your forces even a little bit, split squads is sometimes the only option. But wiih a 1:1 man representation you could, in theory, have your entire 12 man squad physically spread out over 100m. Now an artillery round comes down near one side... bang... it can only possibly hit 3 guys or so. That means, no matter what your squad was doing, only 3 guys are going to go down max. In current CM it could be the entire squad, because although there is some accounting for guys being spread out the abstraction of unit footprint means we can only do that to a limited extent.

Will you be able to split squads in CMx2? I don't know. Probably since the same reasons for adding this feature into CMx1 still exist, even with 1:1 representation. There just won't be as much need nor the potential for "gamey" benefits in some situations.

Steve

[ February 05, 2005, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[junk2drive]

Ironic Steve should mention SP. For a couple of reasons I installed SPMBT this week. I still don't understand the people who play SP and don't like CM.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Our track record clearly shows that we know what we're doing even if the doubters don't.

Steve

Oh I don't doubt it Steve. I'm prepared to be wowed again.

-dale

[Halberdiers]

I still don't understand the people who play SP and don't like CM.

I tell it before. I'm strongly sure that the main reason is that for the "hexes" player the first encounter with the CM system is a shock.

I was a player of "Panzer general 1,2,3" for years ,a weeks after I take the decision of change my old "Panzer general", I ask to a friends about the Combat Mission game and they tell me ,with the same reasoning: is too complicated. Yes , maybe you as "ASL" player or Veteran "CM" player look the rules normal and easy. But it is no easy for green players.

The main problem is the control of the Time-Velocity-Tempo. I say it before, and I'm sure about this. Yes , by the pass of the time your mind no need a help for understand the game. I know it after a weeks. But the DEMO needs to win the heart of the player in the FIRST battle.

I understand the reasons of Michael Emrys about a risk of an artificial dependence but I strongly suggest to the developer: make a TEST , maybe adding an optional patch for the DEMO of CMAK?, but see by self.

I want apologise if I'm repeated. Sorry:

Black line would be the "theoretical " movement over the "one minute" turn (of course theoretical without the combat penalties of the next 60 seconds). See the pictures.

Or the inverse , the "black line" could be the movement under the next 60 seconds , and the color line the rest. Totally realistic with the uncertainty of the next 60 seconds in the movement turn. (Not see in the pictures but I will try to put in another post).

Maybe you guys who want a short turn (30 sec), really wanna this ?, or have the inverse problem of dont know when your orders are under the turn limit ?

Listen me ,I'm not say that the player can not send orders over "one minute". I say that Turn by turn, minute by minute, the black line of the order of movement changes automatic to the color for the next 60 sec. Then , you no need send new orders of movement turn by turn, it's clear. But the green player understand , the first time when play CM , the first order that he send .Because the black line (the "theoretical " movement over the "one minute" turn) tell us where your units will be in theory this first turn the first time that the green player plays CM. This tactical knowledge is critical for the hexes player as you can see.

Today on 2005 , and after a years , Combat Mission continues being a revolutionary game in the world of Wargames . You not must be complacence. Combat Mission could be the standar in the world of wargames. Dont misunderstand me , I say too: Developers goes far !! , but please , give us those breadcrumbs so that hexes players can follow you on this fantastic game. I think .

[ February 05, 2005, 05:25 AM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[junk2drive]

"Yes , maybe you as "ASL" player or Veteran "CM" player look the rules normal and easy. But it is no easy for green players."

I tried the BO demo years ago and couldn't figure it out. It wasn't until summer 2003 that I saw news of CMAK that I tried the BO demo again. Something clicked. I liked it.

A tough decision for BFC to lean toward a broader market or groggy players.

[ February 05, 2005, 05:57 AM: Message edited by: junk2drive ]