JonS Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 S_D, did you not read my post on the other page? I was trained as an FO, and I have spent some time wandering around on the side of hills trying to find a spot with good visibility. A map recce will generally get you within the right 100m x 100m, but you then need to roam about a bit to find the best - or most suitable - spot. No comment from anyone about my 'seek-hull-down' command for infantry suggestion (perhaps 'seek-LOS' would be a better name for it)? Reagrds JonS [ February 12, 2004, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: JonS ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: The same thing a certain set of players has lobbied for since over a year before CM was even released: a fantasy game that shares certain features with CM but is not CM; a fantasy game that more closely matches their expectations based on the war movies they grew up on and the more triumphalist sort of historical documentary. They want the kind of game where all you have to do is point your Tommygun and spray bullets and all the Germans obligingly fall over; the kind of game where every shot from a Tiger causes a tank on the other side to erupt in violent flames. Welcome to the Twilight Zone. Or should we call it ArcadeLand?Are you *that* ignorant or just trying to be rude? The situation is this: you start with a totally unrealistic setting, namely complete and perfect information about each and every feature of the map and THEN try to make up for it by denying the player additional tools to exploit this shortcoming. Not my taste, but not up to me to deside, either. Mr. Emrys, I am sure that you find comfort in the tight circle of 1943-map-reading specialists, but PLEASE, spare us your über-smart comments on our inability of reading an (unfortunately) unshaded 3D map. Regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Originally posted by JonS: No comment from anyone about my 'seek-hull-down' command for infantry suggestion (perhaps 'seek-LOS' would be a better name for it)?I overlooked it (was there a buzzing noise - oh, just jon), but you can take my second para in my previous post as endorsement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Simon Fox: As an aside I have a question for you. If you go and stand somewhere can you quickly ascertain your field of view or are you constrained to do it while peering through a tube? IRL I think that, as you say, you still have to go to the place, to figure out what you can see from there. I hill-walk a lot, using 1:25k OS maps (best there are), and they are just not good enough to tell me if (and more importantly how far) I can see from spot X, until I get to it. Now one problem with the game is that this necessitates some micro-management. Another is that you have no control over individual units while they move. So if the unit crosses a crestline onto a forward slope, it would probably stop IRL, if it had a consciousness, because it is doing something stupid. In CM it goes on. I think that in a computer game, it will be very difficult to fix this. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Originally posted by JonS: No comment from anyone about my 'seek-hull-down' command for infantry suggestion (perhaps 'seek-LOS' would be a better name for it)? Reagrds JonS I would certainly like a feature like this. I also think that it would solve SandDigger's issue without giving the player unrealistic control over his units. It is realistic for a commander to give an order to soldiers to keep moving until they see some particular thing or location, and then to move no further. Under the current system, however, a player can see the entire map from the start, which when combined with this new "seek line of sight" order might give the player control a bit greater than he would have in real life. Thus, this new order would be especially apporopriate in conjuction with a system that "blacks out" those areas of the map that the player has not yet seen (in those scenarios where the player is assumed not to have covered the terrain previously). Of course, if parts of the map are blacked out, the player should (at least in some situations) have some sort of "map" tool that gives some him a general lay of the land. Just goes to show that even small changes can lead to imbalances that should be rectified by other changes, which in turn lead to yet more imbalances and changes. Still, I think that the addition of just a "seek line of sight" order would be net addition to realism and player enjoyment, even if no other changes are made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Originally posted by Hat Trick: Thus, this new order would be especially apporopriate in conjuction with a system that "blacks out" those areas of the map that the player has not yet seen That player, or that individual unit? True multiplayer could be really fun if each player only got to see the map that his unit "knows" about. Another way to do this is for the map to change, to reflect inaccurate maps, poor memory, whatever. Ie - your spotter gets to the top of the hill, and once he has LOS to a part of the map, the terrain changes, reflecting an inaccurate map, and the new "actual" vista in front of him... Think ladder players and firepower counters would hate it much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 You could have non-visible areas rendered in wireframe - it would save on rendering on the larger maps at least. In addition, it would be distinct but not too different to what you can see. Perhaps a "map quality" setting could be introduced and when this is poor, the random generator makes up the map that you cannot see. Or possibly have it so the designer does two maps (might not get used much) the actual one and the one that is given to the player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blah Blah Blah Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 The lack of suitable terrain feed back is for me a great issue. The AI is not good enough for me to not micromanage how they go from A to B or where EXACTLY B is. I also have to agree the current line of sight tool is both clumsy and time consuming. I feel that the current LOS tool is no more realistic than having a light/dark shading to indicate current LOS. I do not feel that I should be able to have a LOS from anywhere other than the unit/s. The setup phase. I have had many experiences where it has taken me a ridiculous amount of time to set up a unit as each time I place the unit I must do a clumsy and time consuming LOS. The battle phase. The problem here is that the AI path finding is so basic that if I put a straight line from A to B that goes through soft ground, rocks, building etc the AI will do just that, go through, not around. Then of course if I then make alterations around the obstacles I then receive a time penalised. As we play out a minute, and we cannot give the unit a complicated enough order to move towards point A till you get a view at point B, With regard to the slopes and valleys within the terrain. In the real world (courting trouble here), as the soldier was moving from A to B walking around the above obstacles, he also would ensure that he moved through the valleys as best as possible. The current AI does not. With the current terrain display there is the issue of trying to move your vehicle and/or men forward enough to engage but not too far to get shot up. As the players AI cannot move intelligently from A to B (very well highlighted with the crawl to enemy away from cover) it is left up to the player to micromanage the move/s without, IMO, suitable terrain feedback. The addition of the Light/Dark would go a long way to make the game more easy to use without loosing anything in realism, but I presume it cannot be done? But the terrain, I am surprised that they did not at least include a high quality grid BMP set for those who may wish to us it. CMAK is a very rough diamond, and to date, for me, the best WWII game I have played apart from a 1992 (?) game about managing aircraft carriers by Microprose (?). I also feel that CMAK was maybe one too many. Whilst I am at it, I hope that the next game includes better documentation, and unit information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Most 2d top down turn based games have a hotkey for grid. With all the hotkeys that I never use in the cm series, I'm surprised that there isn't one for grid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by Simon Fox: Your the one who stuck your neck out by sliming this sand_digger bloke. Sheesh! Anyone would think you own the place. Bull****! I was going to some lengths to avoid saying anything offensive in fact. I was being very lenient to him. He had it pointed out to him by several people what was wrong with his suggestion yet he persisted in it. I could have called him an annoying idiot but didn't. So what are you on about Simon? I have respected your opinons in the past, but this time you've really blown it. Maybe it's you who think he owns this place. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Well I got a good laugh out of that, Jon "got it", but clearly you didn't. Positively curmudgeonly you are Mr Emrys. Quite frankly, I don't give a rat's arse what you think of my opinion. Since it's clearly at odds with your own I would hardly be expecting you to be welcoming it would I? My interpretation of this thread and what people are on about is clearly different from your own. I don't see any dramatic polarization going on, morelike a diversity of opinion. I don't necessarily agree with everything sand digger has said as he did have multiple points but you seem to be the only one lumping it all together and getting excessively exasperated. I find myself in agreement with a lot of what Blah x3 has to say. CM is far from perfect and some of these 'deficiences' seem to actually encourage micromanagement. I like Jon's suggested 'advance to los' idea too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Simon, go cool off and someday come back and read the whole thread when you aren't in such a touchy mood. You may come to realize that the entire drift of my comments in it is very different than the way you have characterized it. Now just for the record, the things I might like to see in regards to this issue are: 1. Contour lines on the map. 2. The ability to click on one of your own units and strike a hot key and have every point on the map visible to that unit highlighted. What I would not like to see is that same facility granted to be able to see what my enemy can see, or to be able to choose any arbitrary point on the map and see what can be seen from there. You should have to get a friendly unit to that point first. These two suggestions I have made before over the months in more than one thread. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the point to point LOS tool we already have in CM. It's the "rotate" command. If you wish to have LOS to point A, you simply plot temporary movement to some prospective point that looks like it might have LOS to point A, then a rotate command to point A. If the rotate line does not cross too many trees, or get "bent" too much by terrain, you almost certainly have LOS to point A from there. If it looks bad for LOS, just shift your "viewing" waypoint around until the rotate line looks good. Bingo, there's your destination for LOS to point A. This process can be time consuming; but, as has already been said, CM is all about micro-management. I kinda like it. There's nothing like a beautifully executed convoy, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Simon, go cool off and someday come back and read the whole thread when you aren't in such a touchy mood. Simon has been an arrogant **** from day one. He gets off on throwing wild accusations about people from his high horse and then sitting back when his victims (rightly) object to being mischaracterized. I'd recommend ignoring him in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 .....but Grog Dorosh, I've got all I can handle just ignoring your 13,000 posts. Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Simon, go cool off and someday come back and read the whole thread when you aren't in such a touchy mood. Firstly let me assure you I am not in anyway "touchy" nor need to "cool off". In fact I view this whole exchange with whimsical astonishment. I have already read the whole thread, several times. I voiced my opinion that I thought your post immediately preceding my first was "unfair". In contrast, you think you were "lenient". Unfortunately you've taken umbrage at my light hearted banter regarding forum ownership, whereas JonS correctly recognised the reference. The rest follows... From my perspective it is you who seem "touchy" I find this whole miscommunication thing worthy of a good chuckle. Obviously I misconstrued your first reponse as light hearted, not realising you were spoiling for a fight, for that I apologise. I'll bear it in mind in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Don't make me come back there, you lot! I guarantee you won't like it. Everyone play nice now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by Blah Blah Blah: The problem here is that the AI path finding is so basic that if I put a straight line from A to B that goes through soft ground, rocks, building etc the AI will do just that, go through, not around.Actually I really appreciate this simplistic behavior now that I regularly play EYSA. There, you mark a straight path and sometimes the tank starts off in wild directions and zig-zags across the map over seemingly perfect tank terrain. I long for the CM system in these situations! Regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blah Blah Blah Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by Rollstoy: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Blah Blah Blah: The problem here is that the AI path finding is so basic that if I put a straight line from A to B that goes through soft ground, rocks, building etc the AI will do just that, go through, not around.Actually I really appreciate this simplistic behavior now that I regularly play EYSA. There, you mark a straight path and sometimes the tank starts off in wild directions and zig-zags across the map over seemingly perfect tank terrain. I long for the CM system in these situations! Regards, Thomm </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by Blah Blah Blah: Two wrongs don't make either right!OUCH!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruthless Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by Moon: Sand digger, one of the problems with such features is that while in itself they are "not unrealistic", they *can* ultimately lead to the player being able to micromanage his forces too much. The requirement for the player to go down to level 1 view and check with his own eyes is a built-in obstacle to micromanagement. We *want* screwups in CM, the missed LOS, the blown opportunity, the unit that walks a tad too far or comes too late or has to take a few extra minutes to find the perfect spot! Without them, CM would be half the simulation, and if you ask me, half the game, too. Martin The other side to this is that many (perhaps most?) players are adults with little time to play as it is and simply don't have the time to get down to level one all the time. As it is, I play most of my games from higher up because otherwise it would take several times as long to both issue orders and, even worse, to replay turns. If I have to watch the replay from every other squad's viewpoint that would greatly multiply the time it would take to watch a replay. Now, this is not as bad as it sounds; with some experience a player can check a few spots each turn for LOS by getting down to level 1 and looking around, but it's still kindof a pain and occasionally you mess up a LOS by just a pixel-length and so your unit can't see where it needs to--where in real-life the guy would just move forward a little so he could see. And, as someone pointed out above, there is a problem in the realism in that a real-life unit would be able to find a spot with LOS pretty fast (assuming there were one nearby) whereas a human player HAS to micromanage to get the LOS (in most cases), which is kindof contradictory to the anti-micromanagement argument you are making. But, what we really need in that case is a "search for LOS to this spot in this area" (user specifies location for LOS and a box on the map in which the unit would try to find a LOS to the spot.) However, that'd be a heck of a lot harder to code than adding a grid option. In short, having a grid option would add enjoyment and playability for many players--in fact, probably more than lower fog-of-war settings do (since I doubt many use them.) Realism issues about this are pretty much non-issues since in real life a commander wouldn't be able to see all of his squads all the time and issue orders to them and to see what they see in real-time, so we're well past realism in the sense of what the commander can and can't do/see. OTOH, it isn't like CM isn't still one of the best deals out there in terms of $/entertainment and the completeness of its package. I can think of all sorts of things I'd like to see (number one would a be a real operational layer or realistic command system), but we'll probably have to wait for CMX for any new major improvements and that's fair. I'd just ask that you keep the grid option on the wish list for CMX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I forgot to mention that I, too, am going around a lot on level one! The problem is that upon going higher again it is easy to loose the explored position if no landmark is nearby. Solution: provide a hotkey which plants a little flag (or something similar) at the cursor position for use as a reference mark later on! Regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Malan Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I think a lot of people here are after some unrealistic vision of a game. In RL, you cannot (as has been said) tell LOS from any map I have ever seen, except in the broadest terms. Contours do not show every little 2m high ripple in the ground, and maps do not show clumps of bushes. Also, there are numerous instances of units not realising they didn't have full LOS from where they are, and missing dead ground (or at least not realising the full extent of it). As for the time delay on move orders: a straight line move is executed within seconds - way too fast if you need a runner, or even radio. Try (in RL) telling a spread out group to move forward to the next ridge line, and wait (or whatever), and then having them start moving in 10s or less! You can just about do it if standing next to them on the street! The time penalty for a multi-waypoint move is just some counter IMHO. As for the theory that troops will automatically move forward to correct LOS, etc, well maybe they will, but they certainly don't have Borg spotting. If you want to up the 'realism' with half the suggestions here, you should also address the other issues I mention. IMHO, the 'establish LOS to here; suggestion has some merit, but I do not see it as essential - it is giving the Company commander (or whoeever we are WAY too much control). The only reason I think the abilty for units to read the terrain better should be coded is to improve the rout behaviour - away from cover based to 'block LOS based' (i.e. more likely to head for open ground out of LOS than in to cover (and all the issues that holds) I always think: SP is a good game, but it is not CM. If you like SP, play SP, if you play CM, then play it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruthless Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by Sailor Malan: I think a lot of people here are after some unrealistic vision of a game. In RL, you cannot (as has been said) tell LOS from any map I have ever seen, except in the broadest terms. Contours do not show every little 2m high ripple in the ground, and maps do not show clumps of bushes. Also, there are numerous instances of units not realising they didn't have full LOS from where they are, and missing dead ground (or at least not realising the full extent of it). True, but they'd know if they could see a particular spot from where they are and act accordingly. The units in CM do not (because, as good as the TacAI is--IMO--it still is not really that close to how real humans would act...thus the micromanagement still exists, only it's harder to do without the grid.) Yes, of course having a grid is unrealistic, but then so is being able to see every part of the map at once in real time and to see what your squads are doing and what they see. If you want that level of realism, CM would have to change drastically: Only give the user a realistic military map with occasional updates from units which report in. Of course, then the 3-d would be almost superfluous since you wouldn't seem much anyway and you'd only get to get text reports about unit status and position. I don't think BFC is going to take CM that direction, though a few die-hards would enjoy it immensely. Originally posted by Sailor Malan: As for the time delay on move orders: a straight line move is executed within seconds - way too fast if you need a runner, or even radio. Try (in RL) telling a spread out group to move forward to the next ridge line, and wait (or whatever), and then having them start moving in 10s or less! You can just about do it if standing next to them on the street! The time penalty for a multi-waypoint move is just some counter IMHO. Yes, it is an abstraction for a real command system which, I think, they are hoping to introduce in CMX, and I hope they do, too. I'm not crazy about it, either, but even though I disagree with a lot of their design decisions, surely we can all (or most?) agree that CM works fairly well most of the time. There are problems and things that didn't happen in real life, the games are compressed (as in a 30-minute fierce battle would probably in real life have been played out much more cautiously over the course of a day or something like that.) But, taking into account that BFC must balance playability with realism, I think we should be able to agree that their system works reasonably well most of the time. Originally posted by Sailor Malan: As for the theory that troops will automatically move forward to correct LOS, etc, well maybe they will, but they certainly don't have Borg spotting. If you want to up the 'realism' with half the suggestions here, you should also address the other issues I mention. Agreed. Borg spotting is a big problem, but a grid is a lot easier to implement than a realistic command system; Actually, now that I think about it, IIRC BFC has said that their solution to Borg spotting will not be a full-blown command system but more likely a slightly refined system of what is there now (units must spot other units themselves before they can fire on them.) But don't take my fuzzy memory as the final truth on that subject and it's possible that even BFC doesn't know at this point what the changes will be like. Originally posted by Sailor Malan: IMHO, the 'establish LOS to here; suggestion has some merit, but I do not see it as essential - it is giving the Company commander (or whoeever we are WAY too much control). The only reason I think the abilty for units to read the terrain better should be coded is to improve the rout behaviour - away from cover based to 'block LOS based' (i.e. more likely to head for open ground out of LOS than in to cover (and all the issues that holds) Well, yes the routing behavior is yet another issue that could use work. But, really--and I'm no grognard--isn't part of a company commander's job to establish defense positions? I mean, wouldn't he(or she?) tell their platoon commanders or section commanders: "Hey, go up on hill 137 and establish a defensive fire position on that road over there." or somesuch? In CM, to get that kind of behavior, you have to be company commander, platoon commander, and squad commander and tell the guys EXACTLY where to sit and look and what to do. I don't really expect CM to be improved to the point where you can give the guys orders like that and I fully expect the level of micromanagement will have to continue. The problem being that we are forced to micromanage because AI is really hard to do (and is very CPU and memory intensive), but the micromanagement is not mitigated by good LOS tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Focker Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Simon, go cool off and someday come back and read the whole thread when you aren't in such a touchy mood. Simon has been an arrogant **** from day one. He gets off on throwing wild accusations about people from his high horse and then sitting back when his victims (rightly) object to being mischaracterized. I'd recommend ignoring him in future. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts