CMx2 bones a plenty (renamed)

[aka_tom_w]

Hi Jim

One possible answer to this question is that they are JUST tracking numbers and stats (text files and a really large in-game memory database for the most part) and that should not take up too much RAM game memory.

The game is a year away and perhaps they are counting on players having hardware that (I am GUESSING) by that time is not more than (maybe) 1-2 years old... (maybe three years old in Jan 2006?) Have they commented on the minimum computer hardware requirements at any time? (not that I know of) :confused:

(JUST guessing)

1 : 1 representation should not be too hard (otherwise I am guessing they would NOT be doing it) with any somewhat current computer hardware.

But I too am curious if there would be an upper limit on the number men and units the in-game database can (will, is planned to...) accomondate???

GOOD Question!

-tom w

Originally posted by jim crowley:

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

If you are set on taking away more control from players than in CMX1, which you are, extreme care is needed that you do not go over the tipping point. My guess is that the tipping point in breaking the near magical effect of playing CM is exactly what tom and Jim wish to see. A reduction in the flow of information from the maneuver units up the chain of command to the player. Explicitly, a delay in information from an otherwise health maneuver unit in what it can see.

So, say, a health friendly infantry squad can see, and may be being fired on, by an enemy unit, you as the player will not be allowed to see the enemy unit until some delay it played out. My guess is such a feature would break the magic of CM.

Hi Kip

I sure would not want to be known as the guy that is advocating "breaking the magic" of CM

REALLY

BUT there really ought to be some workable solution to the "problem" a balied isolated vehicle crew (any bailed or isolated crew or unit without a radio will do) presents when it is 500m away from he nearest friendly unit and can spot and relay all that "gamey" info and intel to the player who can respond to this information ALL his other friendly units could NOT ever possibly know about, other than through the BORG like flow of spotting intel, telepathically between all disconnected friendly units.

For the record, I do NOT want to break the Magic of CM . Honest!

I just want it to work a little more realistically with regard to Relative spotting. Steve has already said the goal is to have each unit do it OWN spotting check individually, (Relative as opposed to Absolute (in CMxx) spotting) the trick will be to see how this works into the interface of the game and how it will impact what AND when the player knows about the enemy on the battlefield...

-tom w

[ January 16, 2005, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

This one post by Steve pretty much outlines their design goal (I think).

it is almost 3 (!) years old but I am guessing from Steve's hints that they are still heading in this direction:

Steve Says"

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted April 27, 2002 12:53 AM                

Tom,

quote: (tom says:)

...even if the BTS idea of Relative Spotting were implimented, in that each and every unit makes it own spotting check and cannot target (but MAY be ordered to use "area Fire" at) enemy units it has not spotted, (BUT the player KNOWS where those enemy units are he can order or direct EVERY unit, irrespective of whether it has spotted the enemy unit or not, or whether it is in C&C or NOT, to fire or move in that general direction (NOW thats a "BORG Like Swarm" ™ to use Redwolf's term ), what would that solve?

Steve says:

Uhm... A HECK OF A LOT Area fire is useless against a moving target and has reduced accuracy and effects against a stationary one. If you think that Area Fire is a fine and dandy substitute for direct targeting, might I suggest booting up CMBO and playing a game on the defensive only using Area Fire commands. I think that ought to get you to see that you are taking a rather extreme and unfair look at what ONE ASPECT of Realitive Spotting will do.

quote: (tom says:)

I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat.

end quote

Steve says:

In a black and white world, where there is only Borg and Not Borg, you would be correct. But that is a world I don't live in. As I described above, there is absolutely NO solution to the Borg problem except to remove the human player from the game. Do you really want that?

If so we could easily make CM play so that you deploy your troops (which CM buys for you) by simply clicking down the HQs at the next level lower than your own (i.e. if you are the Major, you can only click on the Company HQs). CM would then deploy all the rest of the units without you even seeing them. Yup, you wouldn't see anything except what was around your HQ unit, which would be set up and unmovable (for the most part) after the Setup Phase. Then the game would start. You would issue a couple of vauge orders to your next lower HQs and then sit back and wait. From Turn 1 on all friendly units would disappear from the map. Every so often a Spotted icon would appear where MAYBE one of your directly subordinated HQ was. At this point in time you might get back some meaningful information from the HQ, or perhpas not. Depending on if the HQ is in radio contact or not, you could issue orders to the HQ along the vauge lines of Turn 1. You will have no idea what that HQ does with them until the next time he resurfaces. If there is no radio contact, runners would be necessary and that means instant communication would be impossible, thus making that Spotted icon appear less frequently and even more prone to error. After the shooting would start you might have a rough idea about where and the nature of the shooting. But until one of those ghost icons popped up, you wouldn't know much more than that. And even when that does happen, you would only get back snipts of text about what was going on and you could still only issue a few vauge orders.

Gee... DAMN does that sound like fun! Whoopie Cripes, we wouldn't even need to program in anything except some sort of ZORK like text adventure script engine and a few generalized combat resolution equations.

You see.. THAT is the be all, end all Black and White counter balance to the RTS type Borg system. CM is already somewhere inbetween the two, and CMBB is a bit more towards the realism side. The engine rewrite will be even more towards the REALISM side of the equation by reducing the effectiveness of the Borg aspect. But no way, no how can we eliminate it. So why bother having such a black and white set of standards when one side is available and not liked (i.e. RTS with no C&C rules at all) and the other would be a yawner to even those who THINK they want it (i.e. human player almost totally removed from even watching the action)? Wouldn't it be more interesting and productive to focus on practical ways to make the game more realistic without all the hoo-ha about it not going far enough? Hmmm?

Tom, I know you have been a participant in many of the previous discusions. I would have hoped that you picked up on the fact that Relative Spotting is only the underlying mechanism, not the solution. In other words, there are all SORTS of things we can do once Relative Spotting is in place that will increase realism, decrease the Borg, and at the same time make CM more fun. Having restrictions on targeting is just ONE feature made possible by Relative Spotting. A better system of artillery requests is another. More accountable and detailed C&C delays is yet another. There are LOTs of possibilities made possible because of Relative Spotting. So again, don't think of Relative Spotting as the solution, but a part of the underlying foundation for other features which in turn will do lots of things to improve the game on all levels.

When we get into this phase of design we should all have a nice group think about ways we can leverage Relative Spotting and other systems to make CM more realistic. But at this point, we don't have the time to do that. Already spent too much time on this issue as it is

Steve

Please notice the date:

that was from April 27 2002 AND still there is a reference to the "new engine" here...

"The engine rewrite will be even more towards the REALISM side of the equation by reducing the effectiveness of the Borg aspect."

I think that according to that old post NO ONE should worry about the direction that Relative Spotting is going in (except for Jim C and myself of course !)

he he

-tom w

[ January 16, 2005, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The concept for CMx2's Campaign system is not entirely unique. Very few things are However, there are other things that are more important than originality. Implementation is the key to success. A poor game design implmented excellently will likely be better than an excellent design poorly executed. We're shooting for a very good design implemented very well. The resulting game should therefore offer a better experience, in total, than most other games you've ever played. At least that is what we are planning on

There are no planned hard limitations on how many scenarios (which includes maps) a campaign can contain.

Beating the Spotting Borg into the ground is still a primary design goal. I'd say on a feature by feature basis it is still #1 priority. Everything flows through this feature in one way or another, so we had better do a good job of it. Fortunately, thanks to nearly 6 years of experience with CMx1, we have a very good idea how to do this. As Tom pointed out, there are a lot of old posts to look back over to get an idea about the direction we're headed in.

Steve

I was wondering if game owners will be able to design their own campaigns...will this be possible? Or will we be limited to pre-designed and/or randomly generated?? </font>

[Jasper 2x]

One thing I have found in CM is that only at the lower level zooms (the lower the better only the first two are really any good). Is it possible to get a good lay of the land. I feel that an elevation overlay would help greatly or if that is too much at least an adjustment of the viewing angles would help.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Jasper 2x:

One thing I have found in CM is that only at the lower level zooms (the lower the better only the first two are really any good). Is it possible to get a good lay of the land. I feel that an elevation overlay would help greatly or if that is too much at least an adjustment of the viewing angles would help.

Are you refering to contour lines like on a standard topographic map?

If so I think some of us have been asking for that elevation line feature/overlay on the map since CMBO

I would think that would be a welcome feature if it was an optional overlay on the map that the player could toggle on and off!

Good Suggestion

-tom w

[Jasper 2x]

Yep that was what I was suggesting maybe even with elevation numbers above sea level. While they are at it they may as well make projectiles of all kinds (tank rounds etc) have realistic performance at different elevations right

[kipanderson]

Jasper 2x, Tom,

from my standard wish list.

"5) Toggled map grid overlay.

Through no fault of BFC….. it is very difficult to spot undulations. I know the graphics engine will change but I still think it would help if one could toggle on and off a terrain grid in the orders phase. Save a huge amount of time just trying to spot small dips in the terrain."

A case of great minds think alike!

All the best,

Kip.

[kipanderson]

tom,

I certainly agree that there will be a number of things, that coming together, are bound to reduce the Borg Effect.

I guess is that if you are playing as part of a company combat team, three platoons of infantry, one tank platoon and some artillery support, then live team play, by itself, really will massively reduce the Borg Effect.

Three infantry platoon commanders, with one guy as tank platoon commander and artillery spotter…all just able to see what their own units can see…. and you will have the near chaos you wish for. And I wish for. Including some realistic blue on blue firing.

Far more chaos, in a far more enjoyable form, than more realism, than loss of control of units would offer. But, yes, is will be a game for special occasions in that not everyday will you be able to get together a team to play along side you. But teams of chums will soon form to take each other on.

When it comes to the tank crews, crawling around in some ditch having jumped from their burning Panther… I think you will find they are already very differently coded from other units. Even if health and unshocked. Others will correct me if I am wrong, but it is already the case that different types of units, even if all health, have very different spotting abilities. An artillery spotter with his binoculars being at the top of the tree, tanks crews and such at the bottom.

What happens to “leftovers” is not real problem anyway. It is how BFC will code the standard, healthy units.

All the best,

Kip.

[JonS]

Re: full length movie replays.

I'm not fussed either way on this one, but those of you who are may want to consider incremental movies. Specifically; in a PBEM it may be of some use to watch a movie of all the action to so far, as well as just the last minute.

[JonS]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Three infantry platoon commanders, with one guy as tank platoon commander and artillery spotter…all just able to see what their own units can see…. and you will have the near chaos you wish for. And I wish for. Including some realistic blue on blue firing.

Interesting point. Generic 'men seen/heard' or 'vehicle seen/heard' markers, rather than specifc LW, Heer, SS, British, US, French, Russian, blah blah blah, markers might be an interesting addition to the first stage of lifting the FOW veil.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The concept for CMx2's Campaign system is not entirely unique. Very few things are However, there are other things that are more important than originality. Implementation is the key to success. A poor game design implmented excellently will likely be better than an excellent design poorly executed. We're shooting for a very good design implemented very well. The resulting game should therefore offer a better experience, in total, than most other games you've ever played. At least that is what we are planning on

There are no planned hard limitations on how many scenarios (which includes maps) a campaign can contain.

Beating the Spotting Borg into the ground is still a primary design goal. I'd say on a feature by feature basis it is still #1 priority. Everything flows through this feature in one way or another, so we had better do a good job of it. Fortunately, thanks to nearly 6 years of experience with CMx1, we have a very good idea how to do this. As Tom pointed out, there are a lot of old posts to look back over to get an idea about the direction we're headed in.

Steve

I was wondering if game owners will be able to design their own campaigns...will this be possible? Or will we be limited to pre-designed and/or randomly generated?? </font>

[Folbec]

Originally posted by jim crowley:

Here my fear is that the anal micromanager might get a systematic edge by controlling individual soldiers "better than the AI", thus condemning effectivelly larger scenarios in HTH play. (I tend to prefer 2500+ pts CMBB, company sized action is much too random for my taste, I want to be able to loose a tank to a hidden AT gun without loosing the game).

There is always this kind of player with too much time on their hands.

How much control on individual soldiers (notably MGs ?), Throw us a bone ? Quality of AI will be critical here.

[aka_tom_w]

I think this idea still has some merit and should be off interest here:

From the last big spotting thread here

"If there is a unit, perhaps pinned AND beyond C&C or shocked.. and you want to give him a movement order so you can see how long it will take (and then master mind a coordinated assault with other units).

Firstly, there are no movement orders in his menu! You are restricted to firing and hiding and withdrawing. This "soft failure" isnt a total loss of control but a shade of loss.

Half squad out of C&C and out of its platoon HQ visual LOS. You give a sneak order and want to see how long it will take. Sneak is an option and you select it and draw a line. A ? shows up in the delay time. You dont know how long it will take. He is also, by the way, taken some fire the previous turn and may be under strength. Since he is out of C&C and LOS, those losses are not reported to you. The info pool is shrinking again. The attacker is slowly losing his borgiosity.

A defender has a cutoff a HMG. He is out of C&C and LOS of ALL friendly units. The player wants him to target a particularly bothersome enemy squad that he fears (its a russian guards PPSH equipped unit that is getting too close). The player opens the HMG menu and selects a fire command. He draws a line but a covered arc appears instead! He can not guarantee that the HMG will select the bothersome squad because other enemy units also occupy the covered arc. Damn, he says and decides to withdraw and makes a note to keep HQs near HMGs in the future. "

I really like the idea of varying levels of "soft failure" and changing the available options in the orders menu seems like a GREAT way to manage this in the interface.

I think there are a few things we can count on in the new game engine, individual units will have "unit memory" of what has happened in the game, AND individual units will (if Relative Spotting works the way they have hinted at) will do their own individual and automous spotting checks, AND that should mean a unit should only be able to target a unit it has autonomously spotted.

With individual memory for each unit and individual spotting for each unit and a few other tweaks and enhancements I think we should realistically expect the Borg Spotting problem to be drastically reduced.

NOW the real trick is HOW will they do it and what will the interface and orders menus look like???

-tom w

[Other Means]

Folbec, a fair point. But note, he said 1-1 visually represented rather than individually controlled.

I think it'll add to gameplay massively. I've moved into trees where I've dropped arty & found them empty - unless I managed to kill the whole squad which is highly unlikely. Where in reality they would be full of casualties. Therefore critical information which I should have is missing. This will hopefully solve that.

[hoolaman]

Firstly, the quote above from my old thread is from Dennis Grant:

Anything that stops me from clicking on an individual unit and making it do something - no matter how smart or stupid - is counter to the purpose of the game as far as I am concerned.

I agree with this philosophy, but I would not mind a game system that stops me from making a unit do something spectacularly unrealistic.

My ideal C&C/spotting system would involve:

</font>

• The player can see all his own units and everything that any of his units can see at all times.</font>
• The situational awareness of an individual unit is simulated individually. ie. For a unit to be aware of an enemy, it has to see it or hear it itself, or get some sort of simulated delayed action "report" from another unit.</font>
• The player can not *always* control his entire force without any penalty, but there should be some system to account for where an order is coming from, ie. different command levels.</font>

It seems to me that the current squad-based command delay system is upside down. A squad NCO can react the fastest of any of the chain of command to changing situations, and yet in CM the squad gets command delay as if every single move it made was based on an order from an officer.

I would like to see the squad able to act as an independant entity, but still be prevented from making unrealistic grand tactical moves without input from an officer. In the current CM officers above platoon level are basically just decoration.

[ January 16, 2005, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

Firstly, the quote above from my old thread is from Dennis Grant:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Anything that stops me from clicking on an individual unit and making it do something - no matter how smart or stupid - is counter to the purpose of the game as far as I am concerned.

I agree with this philosophy, but I would not mind a game system that stops me from making a unit do something spectacularly unrealistic.

My ideal C&C/spotting system would involve:

</font>

• The player can see all his own units and everything that any of his units can see at all times.</font>
• The situational awareness of an individual unit is simulated individually. ie. For a unit to be aware of an enemy, it has to see it or hear it itself, or get some sort of simulated delayed action "report" from another unit.</font>
• The player can not *always* control his entire force without any penalty, but there should be some system to account for where an order is coming from, ie. different command levels.</font>

It seems to me that the current squad-based command delay system is upside down. A squad NCO can react the fastest of any of the chain of command to changing situations, and yet in CM the squad gets command delay as if every single move it made was based on an order from an officer.

I would like to see the squad able to act as an independant entity, but still be prevented from making unrealistic grand tactical moves without input from an officer. In the current CM officers above platoon level are basically just decoration. </font>

[kipanderson]

Hoolaman,

I agree close to absolutely with your most recent post. It would be hard to separate my views from yours.

A point you have just mentioned has long been on my mind. That is the distinction between orders that are more likely to come from the squad leader, or say, a platoon leader.

There are two possible types of delay. One for orders from within the squad, the squad leader, the second orders from outside, the platoon leader. In the case of orders from the squad leader the delay may be for reasons of training and troop quality. Lower quality troops will not be as quick off the mark with their battle drills as some higher quality troops. But more often than not orders from squad leaders should be acted on quickly regardless of whether a unit is in C&C to some higher commander. In the of second case, orders which more often than not come from platoon leaders, not being in C&C should indeed cause some greater delay.

This could be very well illustrated by the delays to non-radio AFVs. Orders to fire would normally come from within the AFV and should be near instant. Orders to turn off route, outside the covered arc, may more often come from platoon commanders and thus have delays if no radios. And so on….

Anyway… regardless of my examples… I indeed agree with your above post. In my mind it all comes down to the fact that playing the role of the squad leader and AFV commander, sniper and such, is in fact our most common role in CM. It is the role as battalion commanders that is secondary at this scale, not the other way around. At this scale.

My guess is that the only way to do this would be simply list the tyes of orders that most often come from NCOs, or platoon commanders. Clearly no prefect answer.

To some extent this is already done with Fire orders being near instant now.

All the best,

Kip.

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

My guess is that the only way to do this would be simply list the tyes of orders that most often come from NCOs, or platoon commanders. Clearly no prefect answer.

To some extent this is already done with Fire orders being near instant now.

All the best,

Kip.

Expanding on this concept, I think you could make command delay a function of (listed in increasing order of impact):

</font>

• the number of waypoints (as is already done).</font>
• the waypoint distance from the unit's current location.</font>
• whether or not the waypoint is in the LOS of the unit and/or the commanding unit (if there is one).</font>

Orders involving short distances to points within LOS are likely to come from NCOs, so the command delay should be short. Orders involving locations that are far off and out of LOS are more likely to come from higher up and so should have more command delay. This would also better reflect the difficulty and complexity of ordering a unit to perform a very detailed manuever at a far off location that cannot be seen (i.e., go over that hillcrest that is 200m away, pass through the wide part of the woods and sneak to the edge of the brush just beyond the woods - something spectacularly unrealistic if you can't see it), regardless of where that order is coming from.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by Folbec:

Lordy, the time I've spend in CC2 trying to get the squad MG positioned where I wanted it instead of in the akward LOS blocked spot it so frequently was. Please BFC, if you must, by all means give us 1:1 graphical representation if you must but make all the game calculations for a squad from a single spot. I just know I'll get frustated as all my useless riflemen start hogging the good cover and firing positions. We all can guess the default AI deployment of individual troops will suck. Trying to correct the worst faux-pas by manually massaging the AI assigned troops location will be a frustrating chore I could well do without.

Not sure where that leaves me on how incoming fire should be treated. A thing that bugs me is when a HE shell exploded at the feet of my pixeled troops to no effect. But fixing that would probably mean individual calculations for each trooper, which I wouldn't like as styated above. Aaaahhhh. Wouldn't like to have your job, Steve.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

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

Lordy, the time I've spend in CC2 trying to get the squad MG positioned where I wanted it instead of in the akward LOS blocked spot it so frequently was. Please BFC, if you must, by all means give us 1:1 graphical representation if you must but make all the game calculations for a squad from a single spot. I just know I'll get frustated as all my useless riflemen start hogging the good cover and firing positions. We all can guess the default AI deployment of individual troops will suck. Trying to correct the worst faux-pas by manually massaging the AI assigned troops location will be a frustrating chore I could well do without.

Not sure where that leaves me on incoming fire. A thing that bugs me is when a HE shell exploded at the feet of my pixeled troops to no effect. </font>

Or simply give the SAW the best vantage point for firing of any currently occupied by that squad; have it "magically" change hands within the squad if you must (I presume individual soldier abilities won't be tracked).

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

...I think you could make command delay a function of (listed in increasing order of impact):

</font>

• the number of waypoints (as is already done).</font>
• the waypoint distance from the unit's current location.</font>
• whether or not the waypoint is in the LOS of the unit and/or the commanding unit (if there is one).</font>

Orders involving short distances to points within LOS are likely to come from NCOs, so the command delay should be short. Orders involving locations that are far off and out of LOS are more likely to come from higher up and so should have more command delay. This would also better reflect the difficulty and complexity of ordering a unit to perform a very detailed manuever at a far off location that cannot be seen (i.e., go over that hillcrest that is 200m away, pass through the wide part of the woods and sneak to the edge of the brush just beyond the woods - something spectacularly unrealistic if you can't see it), regardless of where that order is coming from.

Very interesting. Not perfect perhaps, but promising.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Some more quick follow ups...

Campaign interface for the end user has not been determined. We won't know for sure until the game is very nearly complete, so don't ask The complexity of the "behind the scenes" stuff might preclude user made campaigns. At least for the first release. We don't see this as a problem if it should happen since most games do not ship with this ability and yet few complain. Well, provided the game itself is good and the campaign/s shipped with the product are fun Plus there will always be user made scenarios and Quick Battles to play with, so it isn't like we're talking about shipping something that the user can't be creative with.

1:1 representation does not mean an increase in micromanagement. In fact, increased micromanagement makes it harder to reduce the Borg issues.

I've made my feelings about Command Level games consistently and clearly ever since becoming the mouthpiece for CM. It is a type of simulation we wish nothing to do with. So any concerns about us going in that direction are needless.

While there might be more restrictions and consequences surrounding command and control, it will not be so extreme that suddenly you find yourself only able to control your command truck and a field kitchen simply because Pvt Pyle dropped the radio (ggaaaaaaw-aaaaaaaaawly!)

I've participated in a lot of long discussions about the topics of waypoints and delays before, especially when discussing changes we were making for CMBB. Truth is that the lowest units in CMx1 have faster response times than their realistic counterparts. This is the #1 reason CMx1 battles are faster and more brutal than most WWII battles. Part of this is due to Borg issues, some C&C, some simply because of the player's God perspective. It's a very tough nut to crack and still have a game worth playing.

Our thinking is that the more we reduce certainty, the more we increase the natural reasons for command delays. In reverse, the more sure the player is of something the less he will hesitate. Currently, in CMx1, the combo of Borg and God's Eye (two related, but not exactly the same concepts) meant we had to come up with more artificial means of restricting unit movements/actions, such as C&C delays tied to waypoints. CMx2 will have a ton more uncertainty due to a greatly reduced Borg problem, even if the God perspective remains an issue. But we have ideas on how to reduce the God's Eye influence too, though not to the point of removing player control (see earlier comments).

In other words, we are planning on attacking these problems in a more fundamental way. Or put another way, attacking the cause and not the symptoms. Coming up with isolated rules for this or that system is the lesser, though easier, way of doing things. It is also more limited and brittle. Combining fundamental approaches with innovative rules to tighten outlier problems is the best combo. CMx1 has that in spades already, though I suspect many of you now take them for granted simply beacuse you've been playing CM for so long.

I remember having these same kinds of discussions 6 years ago with the ASL fanatics. They were all about coming up with rules instead of coming up with paradigm shifts. When we outlined big conceptual shifts people, even non-ASL folks, had a hard time grasping how they would change more than simple rules. Similar discussions happened when we proposed more modest shifts for CMBB. In the many discussions of Relative Spotting a few years ago I found the same thing. I expect that as we get into discussing CMx2 in more detail the same thing will happen again. Then after getting your hands on the game I'll see a lot of "oooooooooh! Now I get it!" posts as I did after each CMx1 release

Steve

[ January 16, 2005, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

I meant to add that the major reason for problems identifying elevations in CMx1 have already been dealt with. Finer detailing of terrain and dynamic lighting make a huge difference. I doubt a topo overlay will be necessary for CMx2, whereas it would have been helpful for CMx1.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Our thinking is that the more we reduce certainty, the more we increase the natural reasons for command delays. In reverse, the more sure the player is of something the less he will hesitate. Currently, in CMx1, the combo of Borg and God's Eye (two related, but not exactly the same concepts) meant we had to come up with more artificial means of restricting unit movements/actions, such as C&C delays tied to waypoints. CMx2 will have a ton more uncertainty due to a greatly reduced Borg problem, even if the God perspective remains an issue. But we have ideas on how to reduce the God's Eye influence too, though not to the point of removing player control (see earlier comments).

In other words, we are planning on attacking these problems in a more fundamental way. Or put another way, attacking the cause and not the symptoms. Coming up with isolated rules for this or that system is the lesser, though easier, way of doing things. It is also more limited and brittle. Combining fundamental approaches with innovative rules to tighten outlier problems is the best combo. CMx1 has that in spades already, though I suspect many of you now take them for granted simply beacuse you've been playing CM for so long.

I remember having these same kinds of discussions 6 years ago with the ASL fanatics. They were all about coming up with rules instead of coming up with paradigm shifts. When we outlined big conceptual shifts people, even non-ASL folks, had a hard time grasping how they would change more than simple rules. Similar discussions happened when we proposed more modest shifts for CMBB. In the many discussions of Relative Spotting a few years ago I found the same thing. I expect that as we get into discussing CMx2 in more detail the same thing will happen again. Then after getting your hands on the game I'll see a lot of "oooooooooh! Now I get it!" posts as I did after each CMx1 release.

Steve

EXCELLENT !!!

Bring on the Paradigm Shift! the game needs it!!!

GREAT NEWS!

"CMx2 will have a ton more uncertainty due to a greatly reduced Borg problem, even if the God perspective remains an issue. But we have ideas on how to reduce the God's Eye influence too, though not to the point of removing player control (see earlier comments)."

Can anyone else here refer me or direct me to the "earlier comments" Steve is refering to? I like to think I have been following these converstations and discussions fairly closely but I am pretty sure I don't recall reading anything from Steve about reduceing the "God's Eye influence" in the new engine in any way?

(or I am just to THICK to see the hints?

thanks

-tom w