CMx2 bones a plenty (renamed)

[eichenbaum]

It's all very exiting info you give us Steve. Can't wait to see the actual result.

I know that even a field kitchen would make my heart go beat faster, but of coarse irrelevant in a tactical simulation

How much of the operational level actions are we going to witness in CMx2?

I have played around with 8 bit textures with carefully chosen colour palettes (indexed colours) and found that you can't see any difference between good 8 bit and 24 bit in CMx1. That's a difference of almost 66% of data on a users HD (and memory?) for graphics alone. Are we going to see a different approach to bmp and wav files usage in CMx2?

Nils

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

...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

Yes sir.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by 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

*groan*

Looks like there is a G6 in my future after all.

*groan*

Michael

[gibsonm]

Maybe even a G6 PowerBook.

By the time Apple sorts out the "how to put a G5 in a PB issue" they should be able to use a G6 instead.

[Bigduke6]

My thanks to the BF crew for the great info on this thread. It is so interesting and intriguing that, after having read this forum for about four years, all this talk of CMX2 convinced me to actually register and make a comment.

My comment is, I bet the turns get longer. Turn length primarily is a computer horsepower function, and there is more of that now than when CM. That would at a swell foop (or something like that) automatically reduce borg spotting problems, increase realism, undermine micromanaging, and even possibly get rid of the section skirmish line technique. (I can hope.)

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

My thanks to the BF crew for the great info on this thread. It is so interesting and intriguing that, after having read this forum for about four years, all this talk of CMX2 convinced me to actually register and make a comment.

My comment is, I bet the turns get longer. Turn length primarily is a computer horsepower function, and there is more of that now than when CM. That would at a swell foop (or something like that) automatically reduce borg spotting problems, increase realism, undermine micromanaging, and even possibly get rid of the section skirmish line technique. (I can hope.)

Welcome Bigduke6!

(GREAT alias!)

Perhaps you should post in the other thread as well.

How much longer do you think the turns might be?

2 mins?

5 mins?

What about optional turn length times?

1 Min

2 Mins?

5 Mins?

interesting

-tom w

[ January 18, 2005, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Halberdiers]

Different from delay time to begin the action. Could be useful that the player must to know how much time wasted with a unit first. If you know how much is the time wasted then you can give orders for more than one minute.

Sure the facts could be different in the battle, but you can make a "plan" for coordinated movement , and the delay could be put in any point. Not only at the begin of the action (more FOW). Then you can penalized the "minute-to-minute" movement, as know occur with "point-to-point" movements, but with more sense. Maybe a Bonus with the long movement too. Dont know.

Another point could be a disociated LINE-TIME /LINE-TARGET:

You put the LINE of movement and how much TIME the unit is moving. Similar with TARGET and RATE of fire.

Your tank:

Fire at 100% during 3 minute

Move at 20% during 1 minute (HUNT)

The "delay" could be in change "the plan" ,the Target or the point of arrive. Could be a top in the rate of fire when the unit is moving at some velocity. For example a top of rate of fire 20% in FAST.

[ January 18, 2005, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Battlefront.com]

Welcome lurkers, one and all Turn length is more a function of what works from a playability standpoint. And here's why... all the turn calculations are computed at one time. Twice the turn length, twice the turn cruch time (assuming each turn is identically busy, which is not likely). After the turn starts all CM is doing is reading from a file. Whether it is 1 minute or 30 it really doesn't matter.

The longer a turn, the more stratified the decision points are. That means, in our opinion, less realism. In the real world decisions can be made at any second, so the further away we go from that the less realistic things become. One minute seems to be a fairly decent compromise. Maybe two minutes would be OK, but I honestly think it would not be. A LOT goes on in a minute already. Doubling the time inbetween orders will likely bring about a lot more frustration and departures from realistic simulation behavior.

The key is AI. If the units can think for themselves, that's one thing. But they don't and that means the player MUST think for them, even if that thinking is more centralized and unified than it should be. On balance the simulation will behave more realistically with more Human interaction in this case, less realism with less.

We decided not to display time delays per waypoint. Too much information for the player. It allows greater coordination and that means increasing the Borg effect.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We decided not to display time delays per waypoint. Too much information for the player. It allows greater coordination and that means increasing the Borg effect.

Steve

I am once again Thrilled to read that the Borg effect is being considered ALMOST every time one of these suggestions rears its ugly head.

From the "I want to win,because I want more fidelity over the control and co-ordination of my units" standpoint, the suggestion to display time delays per way point is a sound idea, BUT Steve correctly points out it adds too much certainty to the game and it allows the game to me more cleverly mastered by the "mechanics" (players who work every aspect of the game mechanics for an edge, in board games they may also be known as "rules lawyers" )

I relieved that Steve has posted and mentioned that the suggestion offers "Too much information for the player. It allows greater coordination and that means increasing the Borg effect."

I think that means increased certianty and added control for the player. I am very glad to hear the game looks like it will evolve in somewhat the opposite direction, with regard to increased uncertianty and perhaps a little less direct player control at just the right time to MAKE YOU TEAR YOUR HAIR OUT!

(Then I will know they have it JUST RIGHT!)

he he

Thanks!

-tom w

[ January 18, 2005, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Halberdiers]

people,

If the change of color from "blue" to "black" line could be an indicator of the movement over the "time limit" of the turn ,and could be implemented. I want to ask:

Could be a strong help to the "new players" or increase the "borg effect" only?

[ January 18, 2005, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Stan Hope Park]

Originally posted by Noiseman:

As for the other big issues on my wish list;

Export of troops from either (or both) sides in a completed QB for use in another QB or scenario.

I'd like to echo this question and ask about the orbat (TO&E). Is it likely to be similar to current-CM or more extensive, like Steel Panthers'?

... and are you able to comment on its flexibility i.e. will we be able to build our own units from the individual, or the squad, up?

[David Chapuis]

I, for one, think that turn time would be an interesting option. A CM game with a 2 or 3 minute turn will be a very different game than a one minute turn.

But for that to work well, I imagine you would need some pretty hefty SOP options.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The longer a turn, the more stratified the decision points are. That means, in our opinion, less realism. In the real world decisions can be made at any second, so the further away we go from that the less realistic things become. One minute seems to be a fairly decent compromise. Maybe two minutes would be OK, but I honestly think it would not be. A LOT goes on in a minute already. Doubling the time inbetween orders will likely bring about a lot more frustration and departures from realistic simulation behavior.

Plus you already have players who think that one minute turns are too long (I am not one, BTW), and practically demand the ability to intervene during playback in order to respond to a changed situation from what they were expecting at the beginning of the turn. They would be even less happy with a two minute or longer turn.

Michael

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The longer a turn, the more stratified the decision points are. That means, in our opinion, less realism. In the real world decisions can be made at any second, so the further away we go from that the less realistic things become. One minute seems to be a fairly decent compromise. Maybe two minutes would be OK, but I honestly think it would not be. A LOT goes on in a minute already. Doubling the time inbetween orders will likely bring about a lot more frustration and departures from realistic simulation behavior.

The key is AI. If the units can think for themselves, that's one thing. But they don't and that means the player MUST think for them, even if that thinking is more centralized and unified than it should be. On balance the simulation will behave more realistically with more Human interaction in this case, less realism with less.

I agree the turn 1 min time is a pretty good compromise. I would hate to see it increased, because then you are in the territory of not really having control of your troops but instead leaving their welfare to the dreaded TacAI.

I think the turn time should be either 30 secs or 1 minute, and with an increase in controls like SOPs, there shouldn't be any problems getting troops to do what you want (realistically). There are also implications for PBEM if you mess with the turn time. Do you want to double the number of emails? I think PBEM has been forgotten a bit in this discussion. I would think that it is still the primary multiplay vehicle.

We decided not to display time delays per waypoint. Too much information for the player. It allows greater coordination and that means increasing the Borg effect.

Steve

I hope this issue is distict from adding pauses into orders at each waypoint.

[junk2drive]

I would like to see a movie fast forward button for those times on defense when you are waiting for contact.

The current jump forward button is ok, but I would like to make sure I am not missing anything.

[Tarkus]

Phew ! you guys ain't wastin' no time !

As for turn lenght, leaving the option from 30 - 45 - 60 - 75 secs could already pull some nice effects and give some flexibility to the rythme of a game, it's groooove :cool:

My guess is that people would go for 30 - 45 secs turn in TCP/IP, while going 60 - 75 for PBEM. IMO even such a small variation means a big deal in terms of gameplay.

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

I think PBEM has been forgotten a bit in this discussion. I would think that it is still the primary multiplay vehicle.

That is absolutely right. I am running almost solely on PBEM these days. Things are running rather smoothly though, I dunno what I might want to change apart from the import map/troops I'm fussing people with these days. This feature is soooo cool it really should be closely examined.

Cheers.

[mcgivney]

Originally posted by Battlefront:

The new engine will allow us to do WWII, sci-fi, current, fantasy, Civil War, whatever...

In case anyone hasn't said it yet:

Hammer's F*ckin' Slammers.

[Private Bluebottle]

Not sure if this has been mentioned or not but I'd like to be able to introduce a pause for units, both at the start and partway through their moves. In otherwords, I'd like to say, "unit x moves after y seconds." and "unit x moves y metres, pauses z seconds, move w metres". It would make co-ordinating action much, much easier. At the present moment it is nearly impossible to advance a unit behind a creeping barrage, or into a smokescreen.

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

Well I guess I disagree with you there, I would say a longer turn would be more realistic on grounds CM gives players far more control over their troops than the RL company or battalion commander has.

Maybe I'm not thinking outside the box, but it sure seems to me a 2 or 3 minute turn would solve a bunch of "problems", most associated with super-intelligent squad and indivdual vehicles behaviour due to player micro-managing.

But as you have pointed out there's not much fun in a game where you give orders and then watch a 30 minute movie you can't influence. I have lots of fun with 1 minute.

Actually, that is a pretty good definition of why CM works. There is a real-live war movie in progress on your computer, and only way you can influence how the movie goes is by applying proper tactics, and so the game forces you to think like a commander in actual combat.

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by Halberdiers:

people,

If the change of color from "blue" to "black" line could be an indicator of the movement over the "time limit" of the turn ,and could be implemented. I want to ask:

Could be a strong help to the "new players" or increase the "borg effect" only?

You don't know how long its going to take them to move there until they try to do it. They may come under fire and hit the dirt... they may suddenly go from being Tired to being Exhausted and start Sneaking instead of Advancing...

[aka_tom_w]

Good Point BigDuke6!

I was thinking a 2-3 min turn would take some control away from the player (1-2 mins worth) and it sure would add some uncertianty. If I could leave my units with some SOP's and I could trust the tacAI just a little bit more, I too would be interested in the OPTION of the 2-3 min turn. I think a 3 Minute turn would let you play a VERY different type of game than either a 2 min turn or the standard 1 minute turn.

Maybe 30 sec. 1 min, 2 min AND 3min, turns could be OPTIONS!

(and 30 sec turns are for control freaks if you ask me! )

these THREE new options would let player "tweak" a WHOLE new level of uncertainty in the game so they can play the "uncertainty/out of control" game JUST the way they like.

30 sec (a little more control and certainty)

up to

3 mins (a lot less control and WAY more uncertainty!) (AND a Much and a Faster PBEM game 3 TIMES less e-mails!)

GOOD thinking!

-tom w

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Steve,

Well I guess I disagree with you there, I would say a longer turn would be more realistic on grounds CM gives players far more control over their troops than the RL company or battalion commander has.

Maybe I'm not thinking outside the box, but it sure seems to me a 2 or 3 minute turn would solve a bunch of "problems", most associated with super-intelligent squad and indivdual vehicles behaviour due to player micro-managing.

But as you have pointed out there's not much fun in a game where you give orders and then watch a 30 minute movie you can't influence. I have lots of fun with 1 minute.

Actually, that is a pretty good definition of why CM works. There is a real-live war movie in progress on your computer, and only way you can influence how the movie goes is by applying proper tactics, and so the game forces you to think like a commander in actual combat.

[ January 19, 2005, 04:30 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Halberdiers]

TheJanitor:

You don't know how long its going to take them to move there until they try to do it. They may come under fire and hit the dirt... they may suddenly go from being Tired to being Exhausted and start Sneaking instead of Advancing...

Thanks for your answer TheJanitor. Yes, I have the same opinion. Then, if no too much "Borg" was added, the new players could have a strong help for begin in the world of Combat Mission. In my experience (as player of "Panzer General" ), I find confusing the first encounter with the demo of CM . And I think this could be the reason that other "hex" players have the same confusing.

Honestly ,tell me if the fact that the player do not know the mechanism of the game could be named "fog of war" or "borg effect".

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 ?

The black line tell you that you no have enough time to advance in to the house, then maybe you change your decision. Or not. This could be better , or not. Maybe an excess of "black line" could be an under estimation of your own forces (FOW). But the new player could learn very fast how to play the demo of the game CMX2 ,because the players will know what their units (in theory) can do or can not to do, I think. I hope developers you can understand what I try to say with my poor english

[ January 19, 2005, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Halberdiers:

...The black line tell you that you no have enough time to advance in to the house, then maybe you change your decision. Or not. This could be better , or not. Maybe an excess of "black line" could be an under estimation of your own forces (FOW). But the new player could learn very fast how to play the demo of the game CMX2 , I think. I hope developers you can understand what I try to say with my poor english

Maybe because I've been playing, up until very recently, CM for the past five years or so pretty much non-stop I've been able to grasp this and incorporate the delay plus movement time across various terrain concept into my mind when I plot movement. Or, perhaps I am not grapsing fully what you are writing about! LOL!

It just seems to me that after playing the game for a period of time it becomes second nature to the player to know that in order to move X meters + T amount of delay requires N many turns, and I don't really see the utility of having it spelled out as it seems quite unnatural, though on the other hand I do see the benefit in being able to coordinate movement schemes.

[Halberdiers]

LOL!

Dirtweasle thanks for read me. With the pass of the months I know that I will take the mechanism of the game. I hope .

But , instead of to think to change the "Turn" for 30 sec, or 3,4 or 5 min ,etc. What about a Hotkey that at selected time limit can change the color of the "movement lines" to black or disappear. I say in the "Orders phase" a Hotkey similar as the Hotkey of Tree coverage "moderate ", "full",etc.

In this case you "know" as a "veteran player" where expect put your unit at 30 seconds or 3 minutes , etc. without any change in the Turn limit of "one minute". As a Hotkey , could be optional.

Too much borg ?.

[ January 19, 2005, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I think a 3 Minute turn would let you play a VERY different type of game than either a 2 min turn or the standard 1 minute turn.

This is true.

Maybe 30 sec. 1 min, 2 min AND 3min, turns could be OPTIONS!

At the moment, I can't imagine how this could be programmed. It seems to me—and until Charles says otherwise—that the turn length is fundamental to all the other game functions. To make that an option might be like saying program three or four different games and put them on the disk so that we can pick the one we want to play. It that's the case, I don't see it happening.

Michael