God, the Borg and the art of relative spotting.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

houses will come in a variety of sizes and shapes which you, the end user, will have no ability to manipulate.

Did you consider doing houses - in fact all buildings - in a manner similar to CMBB factories? IOW, a fairly limited pallet of 'house pieces' that can be assembled in a variety of creative ways?

To take an extreme example, you might build a house with a solid 2-story core (i.e., heavy), with a single storey light annex/lean-to on one side, and a second single heavy story annex off an adjacent side so the whole thing forms an L shape from above. For example.

[Andreas]

Bad idea, unless you also have the ability to do pre-fabs.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Bad idea.

Why so :confused: Wouldn't it depend on the size of the 'factory-like elements'? Given that the grid is likely to be down to 1 x 1m, the elements could be a single wall 'some' metres long (or stretchy like a rubber band) which would give an awful lot of flexibility.

Hmm. Doing a town might get a bit tedious I suppose. But that depends on how it's implemented, don't it Stretchy walls could be used to knock together a block of two story stone row-houses quite quickly. And fixed length segments only a little less quickly. Sure, it'd be slower than plunking down a couple of 'House Type B', but visually a lot more appealling I think.

[Thomm]

Since we are knee-deep in technical details: Will there be room-to-room fighting?!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Battlefront.com]

Hmmmm... what to say about buildings.... what not to say... that is the question

Jon, in short... yes. I don't want to go into the details just yet, but the upshot is that a city in CMx2 will look like a random jumble of buildings that so happen to be right next to each other (or with alley ways or not exactly lined up, etc.) instead of the straight and unified look of CMx1 city streets.

Rollstoy,

Yes and no. Buildings are much more detailed than in CMx1, but internal fighting within a building will still be abstracted to a large degree. Continuing to use abstractions with buildings is necessary for a variety of reasons. If CMx1 is on one extreme and a real house is on the other extreme, CMx2 will be somewhere in the middle.

Steve

[Ace Pilot]

Steve,

Can you say whether staircases will be modeled?

[Battlefront.com]

Yes. Now you have to figure out if I mean "yes I can answer" or "yes staircases will be modeled"

Seriously though... yes, staircases in a basic form will be simulated. Those of you hoping for oak banisters and marble steps can go make your own game

Steve

[Melnibone]

...and Monkey Butlers to run up and down them

[Battlefront.com]

That's for CMx2's third release "Combat Mission - Gone with the Wind in Africa"

Steve

[Wartgamer]

Should be interesting to see howw 1:1 soldier modeling will plat into the modeling of houses/rooms/etc.

[Battlefront.com]

This is one reason why we have to keep things abstract. If we had to simulate individual soldiers kicking in doors, hiding behind overturned office furniture, etc... shoot... we wouldn't be done with the game for another whole year. Well, maybe not quite that bad... but it would be a pretty serious extension of our development schedule. Fortunately we feel the abstractions we've come up with will lead to pretty realistic outcomes, and that is ultimately the only thing that matters.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

" If we had to simulate individual soldiers kicking in doors, hiding behind overturned office furniture, etc... shoot... we wouldn't be done with the game for another whole year. "

That is sort of in the realm of the First Person Shooter, and I would suggest most folks here feel CM is different.

The level of abstraction for houses and rooms in CMx2 sounds like it should provide more than enough entertainment.

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

This is one reason why we have to keep things abstract. If we had to simulate individual soldiers kicking in doors, hiding behind overturned office furniture, etc... shoot... we wouldn't be done with the game for another whole year. Well, maybe not quite that bad... but it would be a pretty serious extension of our development schedule. Fortunately we feel the abstractions we've come up with will lead to pretty realistic outcomes, and that is ultimately the only thing that matters.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

However

I might add something less then "Gee Whiz EVERYTHING is great!" for a change...

I would like to mention structural damage for buildings, not the old discussion about rubble. But about some issues around problems with the mechanism by which the game turns buildings into rubble.

I am not a structural enigneer BUT other folks here have pointed out that the "damage model" of how buildings fall down, or are damaged or destroyed could use a little help.

Maybe model some structural component of buildings and let them fall down more like how they fall apart or are damaged in real life?

This has come up before has it not?

(sorry this has NOTHING to do with GOD BORG and Relative Spotting)

-tom w

[Juardis]

Will there be a Z component to the ground? By that, I mean, if a 150mm shell impacts it, will there be a crater 5m diameter x 3m deep (for example)? I know it's abstracted now, but if the terrain is going to 1m 1 1m, then I presume the Z component is also in 1m high increments, meaning you can now represent craters better (and more realistically).

[Halberdiers]

Buildings are much more detailed than in CMx1

stairs?

[aka_tom_w]

Great!

that sounds like a Sim City back end terrain (wire frame) game engine to me. !

" However, there is an underlying mesh which is made up of 1m x 1m pieces "

I am guessing this might also be known as a wireframe "mesh"

That all sounds wonderfull

Now how about nice Waterfalls and ceremonial Fountains and Hanging Gardens? Ochards? Vinyards? Olive Groves?

AND Those Cows we were talking about?

Do we get Cows this time around???

Apparently ANY Simulation of the ETO in WWII is just not complete without the stench of cow dung and dead cows everywhere.

( I am REALLY JUST joking about all that extra ornemental eye candy there, so the rest of you can relax).

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Less flexible in the sense that you can "paint" some features to be exactly the shape you want them to be, others are fixed in size. In all cases you'll be able to put things down pretty much where you want them to be.

For example, in CMx1 you would have a 20x20 tile with a house, in a fixed orientation, sitting on it and nothing else. In CMx2 you can choose to put the house anywhere on the map you like in any direction. The only restrictions are sensible ones, like you can't put a house hanging off a cliff or tipped at a 45deg angle to the ground. And unlike CMx1 the terrain immediately around it is fair game to any other terrain feature, such as trees, roads, hedges, fences, whatever you like. BUT... houses will come in a variety of sizes and shapes which you, the end user, will have no ability to manipulate.

And before I continue... the terrain itself doesn't have a concept of "tiles" like the CMx1 system did. However, there is an underlying mesh which is made up of 1m x 1m pieces which, for lack of a better term, I am calling "tiles". Not quite the same the term used to describe terrain in CMx1, but if it makes everything easier to explain you can think of them that way.

Steve

[JonS]

Heh. Odd as it may seem, I don't care about the internal arrangements of buildings, just the external sizing and shaping options.

At the scale I think CMx2 is going to be at fretting about the locations of stairs, etc, seems to me to be too fine to worry about. I rather like the way that side of things is handled in CMx1.

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

snip

AND Those Cows we were talking about?

Do we get Cows this time around???

Apparently ANY Simulation of the ETO in WWII is just not complete without the stench of cow dung and dead cows everywhere.

snip

-tom w

Package Mailed !!!

[Battlefront.com]

Jon, that is our thinking too. Sure, it would be nice if such low level detail could magically find its way into the game, but for some reason we've not been able to attract any magical pixies for the night shift here at Battlefront. Such a shame that is

Steve

[Wartgamer]

Day Shift........................Night Shift: "We like playing pixie in the middle!"

[ March 07, 2005, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Battlefront.com]

For those who don't know... pixies are on the right. They work for free powered by magical pixie dust. On the left are people that (gasp!) expect to get paid, sleep occasionally, and are largely powered by various things like beer, scons, BBQ, beer, and coffee (in at least one case). The guys on the left aren't nearly as magical, but then again they don't have to worry as much about the bug zappers in people's back yards

Steve

[Wartgamer]

{no one tell him I edited the post...shhhh}

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

Did you consider doing houses - in fact all buildings - in a manner similar to CMBB factories? IOW, a fairly limited pallet of 'house pieces' that can be assembled in a variety of creative ways?

My objection to this—and I suspect Andreas' as well—is that while factory buildings tended to be rather bland, standardized structures (or at least often enough to be treated that way), most other kinds of buildings, whether domiciles or public buildings tended to be rather more individualistic (exceptions such as row houses noted). Unless you have a rather large kit of "parts" I think it would be rather hard to make convincing looking models of all the varieties. Remember, the "parts" that buildings have to be assembled from have to harmonize so that they look like they would belong together (architectural montrosities again noted).

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

" If we had to simulate individual soldiers kicking in doors, hiding behind overturned office furniture, etc... shoot... we wouldn't be done with the game for another whole year. "

That is sort of in the realm of the First Person Shooter, and I would suggest most folks here feel CM is different.

Quite. We need always to keep fixed in the forefront of our minds what CM is, namely a simulation of combat at the company and battalion level. Trying to stretch it away from that scale in either direction can only cause something to break, either the game or the player.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Now how about nice Waterfalls and ceremonial Fountains and Hanging Gardens? Ochards? Vinyards? Olive Groves?

And naked slave girls. Don't forget the naked slave girls.

Michael