CMx2 bones a plenty (renamed)

[dalem]

As long as us Cesspool idiots can play the darned thing, I say "gimme gimme!"

-dale

[Denwad]

where do I preorder ???!?!?!

[Battlefront.com]

Tom, I was pointing back to earlier comments I made to reassure people that we wouldn't be yanking away control of units for the simple sake of reduing Borg issues.

Here is an example of how reducing the Borg reduces certainty and introduces natural delays:

Let's say you are on the defensive and suddenly find a section of your line attacked by a bunch of enemy infantry. In CMx1 you could assign all sorts of assets to attack this enemy infantry without significant delays. If you felt the enemy was sufficently tied up you could then rush reserves into the spot to reinforce your defenses. All of this could be done within a turn or two because.

If all we did was simply make each unit capable of targeting only what it spotted on its own, the situation as described would likely play out very differently. Think about all the assumptions and reassurances one has with the current system. Step through the situation in your mind and picture all the things decisions you would make and note how many of them involve KNOWING something that shouldn't be known. Now think about the same situation assuming a more realistic knowledge and reaction system, then see how that might affect your decisions.

I expect you will find that you'd have to hesitate before making plans and then take longer to get plans moving. And if you don't, then think about the possible ramifications if your "rushed" plans fail. Can you afford to take that sort of risk? Sometimes yes, most of the times no.

Put another way... think of how many tried and true "gamey" tactics didn't work in CMBO. Then remember how many from CMBO didn't work with CMBB (oh boy do I remember those discussions ). It is very safe to assume that a good amount of what worked in CMx1 will not work in CMx2 for the same reason (i.e. that we are making the game more realistic).

Dale, I was unaware that the Poolers played with anything other than... well, I won't go there since this is a family friendly thread

[Battlefront.com]

Double Post!! Hmmm... guess my message did send before my connection cut out on me

Steve

[ January 16, 2005, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Steve the rookie just double posted.

Maybe he should be posting more often...

[junk2drive]

Will this thread lock at 300?????

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

"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."

This sounds GREAT but how would the game determine exactly WHAT is an unrealistic grand tactical move?

The game SHOULD stop the player from ordering any unit to do something spectacularly unrealistic!

It is of course a very difficult thing to determine. How do you differentiate between a unit sent over the other side of the map to meet some borg-spotted threat and a unit sent over the map because that happens to be where you wanted it to go?

As I understand it, there are a few levels of "Real World" command missing in the current CM engine.

1. Battalion HQ and Company HQ's cooperate to plan company level activities.

2. Company HQ and Platoon HQ's cooperate to make platoon level moves.

3. NCOs and platoon HQ's cooperate on the ground to plan squad moves.

4. NCO's move their squads as they see fit to keep them alive.

Now number 1 and 2 are only present in the game as far as the battleplan in the players head. The player can make changes to a high level battleplan without command delays because these levels are not translated into game mechanics. In reality, changing the axis of a whole battalion would be absolute chaos.

Number 3 is the only command system in the current CM. Every movement comes via communication between a squad and a platoon HQ. Sure higher HQ's can do the same job, but when they do, they are only "playing leiutenant", not doing their real job.

Number 4 seems to be handled by the TacAI. When that squad is routed as a single entity and spins around twice before running toward danger, that is the NCO's contribution, and he does it with no command delay.

I would like to see a system that allows each level to be played by the player at the same time. Something where the higher HQs are participating in the game engine in some way. Not a command level, "you are Major Smith and see only what he sees", but simply a CM where units must follow a chain of command and yet allow for small units to act on their own intiative.

I don't ask for much do I ?

[Cull]

Holy smokes, I'm officially on The Hype Train to Gigglytown now.

I just caught up on this thread after a few days and all I can say is that that I peed myself. Then I sat in my wet trousers and read more.

So many great features that I didn't even expect. And by "features" I mean really really cool stuff.

Campaign?! Dynamic lighting?! 1:1 representation?! Other Stuff?!

And of course hearing that the Borg issue is priority one has pleased me to no end. Hell, everything else is just gravy to me. Not to say I won't lap up the gravy like a starving dog.

My only fear is that I may need a lobotomy before this thing arrives.... :eek:

[securityguard]

1:1 man representation has me sold and was my only beef with the original CM. Thanks for the confirmations battlefront.com

[Battlefront.com]

Remember that 1:1 representation for a battalion level 3D wargame was simply impossible to do. Still is if you're talking about the average computer wargamers have in front of them. We're counting on the average wargamer having to finally bite the bullet and upgrade by the time CMx2's first game comes out. I know I'm long overdue for an upgrade! Cripes, Apple's new $500 buck book sized computer is nearly four times faster than my desktop

At the risk of causing people to ask for a lobotomy sooner rather than later, I've started up a new thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=30&t=003451

I am going to stay away from talking specifics about CMx2's design, but I thought it was time to refocus people on looking at the core problems with simulating command levels before thinking up ways to deal with this age old problem.

Steve

[Mace]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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.

One of the limitations of the CMx1 engine was the restrictions or limits to heights, no doubt due to the limit in the number of ground bitmaps required to display height levels.

Since CMx2 dynamic lightning should reduce the number of base ground graphic 'skins' required, will there be a far greater range of heights available? Ie if the Italian theatre was modelled in CMx2 would the engine be able to more accurately model say Monte Cassino.

While you're working on the terrain engine, put a vertical drop in there as well.

Mace

[ January 17, 2005, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: Mace ]

[dalem]

Like many of us, I've been playing this thing since the early days.

I think the "biggest", most "root" change would be increasing the granularity of the terrain. Of course this is all based on the CMX1 conceptualization.

Still, if one somehow changed nothing else save the granular resolution of the current terrain modeling, I suspect the overall "experience" would improve tenfold.

-dale

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Terrain is significantly refined to the point that tiles, basically, don't exist any more.

[...]

Steve

Does that also mean that units will be able to aim at non-ground objects? Right now the only thing other than terrain you can aim at with area fire is the top floor of large buildings. I'd like to see troops being able to aim at building walls (tanks wanting to destroy a "hull-down" building) or trees (arty spotters aiming at a wooded slope, currently if you can't see the ground, you'll always get a blind mission even if you could see spotting rounds that explode in a tree).

And it would be nice if shells fired through trees would have a chance of hitting a tree and exploding in mid-air. Especially if a tank fires through a patch of woods where friendly trioops are hiding.

Dschugaschwili

[aka_tom_w]

OK, I get it.

Thanks for the clarification

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Tom, I was pointing back to earlier comments I made to reassure people that we wouldn't be yanking away control of units for the simple sake of reduing Borg issues.

Here is an example of how reducing the Borg reduces certainty and introduces natural delays:

Let's say you are on the defensive and suddenly find a section of your line attacked by a bunch of enemy infantry. In CMx1 you could assign all sorts of assets to attack this enemy infantry without significant delays. If you felt the enemy was sufficently tied up you could then rush reserves into the spot to reinforce your defenses. All of this could be done within a turn or two because.

If all we did was simply make each unit capable of targeting only what it spotted on its own, the situation as described would likely play out very differently. Think about all the assumptions and reassurances one has with the current system. Step through the situation in your mind and picture all the things decisions you would make and note how many of them involve KNOWING something that shouldn't be known. Now think about the same situation assuming a more realistic knowledge and reaction system, then see how that might affect your decisions.

I expect you will find that you'd have to hesitate before making plans and then take longer to get plans moving. And if you don't, then think about the possible ramifications if your "rushed" plans fail. Can you afford to take that sort of risk? Sometimes yes, most of the times no.

Put another way... think of how many tried and true "gamey" tactics didn't work in CMBO. Then remember how many from CMBO didn't work with CMBB (oh boy do I remember those discussions ). It is very safe to assume that a good amount of what worked in CMx1 will not work in CMx2 for the same reason (i.e. that we are making the game more realistic).

Dale, I was unaware that the Poolers played with anything other than... well, I won't go there since this is a family friendly thread

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We're counting on the average wargamer having to finally bite the bullet and upgrade by the time CMx2's first game comes out. ...

Steve, can you share what the target PC type system is you have in mind for tthe first release is please?

Even though it's still aprox. a year off I'm just wondering what you're projecting as the average machine. 3.00 ghz processor 1 gb RAM kind of thing with a pretty advanced graphics card?

tia

[aka_tom_w]

that is a very good question

I have been wondering about that my self

I am guessing that maybe about 1.5 gHz or great processor speed should do it.

The REAL question is what is the Minimum RAM requirement?

My guess would be 64 megs?

good question

thanks

-tom w

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

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

We're counting on the average wargamer having to finally bite the bullet and upgrade by the time CMx2's first game comes out. ...

Steve, can you share what the target PC type system is you have in mind for tthe first release is please?

Even though it's still aprox. a year off I'm just wondering what you're projecting as the average machine. 3.00 ghz processor 1 gb RAM kind of thing with a pretty advanced graphics card?

tia </font>

[stikkypixie]

And while we're talking practical stuff, will there been an European retail release through CDV again? I don't have a credit card so..

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

The REAL question is what is the Minimum RAM requirement?

My guess would be 64 megs?

You mean on the graphics card? If so, my guess would be 128 as middle of the road.

As for main RAM on the machine, I'm guessing 1 mb is going to be the standard soon, if it's not already.

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

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

Graphics will be as good if not better than the best of the 1st Person Shooters out there.

Better than HL2? I'll believe that one when I see it. Please surprise me! </font>

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

If all we did was simply make each unit capable of targeting only what it spotted on its own, the situation as described would likely play out very differently. Think about all the assumptions and reassurances one has with the current system. Step through the situation in your mind and picture all the things decisions you would make and note how many of them involve KNOWING something that shouldn't be known. Now think about the same situation assuming a more realistic knowledge and reaction system, then see how that might affect your decisions.

Steve, it would be tremendously helpful if you would give each unit a "gray out" mode that would gray out those parts of the map a given individual unit can or cannot see. If the intent is to give more realism, what better way than to allow the player to instantly determine whether his unit can see a certain spot on the map (or not). I know it is possible to use the LOS tool, but we both know that is tedious and time consuming. Better to allow us to quickly and easily determine visibility through a quick key-command than to continue using the cumbersome LOS tool.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Yes thanks

I meant Video RAM and your guess of 128 megs might be more middle of the road than my lower 64 meg Minimum Standard perhaps?

as for over all RAM yes I agree I would not be surprised to see it as high as 1 Gig. (I think you meant 1 gig yes?)

thanks

-tom w

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

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

The REAL question is what is the Minimum RAM requirement?

My guess would be 64 megs?

You mean on the graphics card? If so, my guess would be 128 as middle of the road.

As for main RAM on the machine, I'm guessing 1 mb is going to be the standard soon, if it's not already. </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

I would like to see a system that allows each level to be played by the player at the same time. Something where the higher HQs are participating in the game engine in some way. Not a command level, "you are Major Smith and see only what he sees", but simply a CM where units must follow a chain of command and yet allow for small units to act on their own intiative.

I'd be interested in the answer(s) to this as well. I think that if something like this could be implemented, it would be a great step in depicting how WW II armies actually functioned.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

We have no idea what hardware specs will be best for CMx2. However, our desire is to have the current batch of higher end computers the middle of the road. The latest and greatest wizbang computer put out a few days before we release will of course be better, but a good system by today's standards should still be a good platform for CMx2's first release. A system from last year, or a lower end system from today, should make for a decent game experience but with some of the graphics features toggled off (i.e. optimizing performance).

Steve

[jeffsmith]

Time to start saving my pennies !!!

Oh Honey, I am going to need a New Computer for Christmas !!!

[Noiseman]

To say that I like what I'm reading here is an understatement So far my wish list for CMx2 has been almost completely fulfilled.

1). Campaign mode (context) - check.

2). 1:1 graphical representation - check.

3). Dynamic lighting (with associated improvement of reading terrain and LOS) - check.

These were really the big three improvements I wanted. Most other new features are gravy.

As for borg spotting/god's eye view issues, my eyes tend to glaze over at some of the more detailed and nuanced discussions, though I appreciate their importance. My understanding from reading this thread is (and I could very well be wrong about this) that it will primarily be handled by including more uncertainty about what a spotted object is depending on how it is spotted (Example: a bailed out crew could more easily mis-identify a truck as a Tiger, which would affect how a player and the TAC AI react to it). I think this is what Steve was driving at. That seems like a reasonable solution I could live with. Very extreme fog of war. (Of course, at this very moment, Steve is probably rolling his eyes and thinking, "That's not what I meant at all. Why do I bother..." )

As for the other big issues on my wish list;

1). Full movie playback; it will probably be there, which is about what it deserves - this is more a want than a need (Though I really want it).

2). Export of troops from either (or both) sides in a completed QB for use in another QB or scenario. This is a really important issue for me, as it is a way for the individual player to make his own campaign, pseudo-operation, or participate in a third party campaign.