CMX2: Can we get back to fantasising now?

[juan_gigante]

I was just thinking about how cool it is that we, the customers, have an open forum like this to talk with the people creating the games we love. BFC, thank you so much. Few other companies who do or produce anything, from games to music to food, offer this kind of customer service and feedback. It's amazing.

Anyways, I find your comments interesting, Steve. Dorosh mentioned hundreds of guys on screen, all with their own little behaviorisms and thngs going on. You said nothing to contradict this. Am I correct in thinking that your silence is consent, that the CMX2 engine will be capable of modeling the, say, 300 guys on a battlefield ALL doing their own things? All taking cover where it appears, dragging wounded, firing, moving about, shouting orders, etc.? If so, wow.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

Anyways, I find your comments interesting, Steve. Dorosh mentioned hundreds of guys on screen, all with their own little behaviorisms and thngs going on.

No I didn't. I mentioned that it CAN'T be done.

You said nothing to contradict this.

Because I wasn't talking about CMX2

Am I correct in thinking that your silence is consent, that the CMX2 engine will be capable of modeling the, say, 300 guys on a battlefield ALL doing their own things?

LOL. You didn't see the sad face and the comment about tradeoffs?

All taking cover where it appears, dragging wounded, firing, moving about, shouting orders, etc.? If so, wow.

And you didn't see the other comment about processor power?

Good Lord, man, he also said no release until at least the end of the winter. Why not just wait happily and take the info as it comes in. I suppose you open your Christmas presents on December 1st, too.

Seriously, are you one of those people that sees the face of the Virgin Mary on grilled cheese sandwiches?

[CobaltTiger]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Ever heard of Rome: Total War? If you turn off synched animations it's rather easy to see hundreds of little guys each locked in their own little battle on the screen at one time, or randomly fidgeting a bit while standing in formation. Sure, you can argue that since they're just sharing around animations it doesn't count as each doing his own thing, but if it's good enough to fool the eye what's the difference?

[a1steaks]

Cobalt, you're right, it's just eye candy. There is no simulation for each individual in the Total War series. They are treated as a group. You cannot control each individual. It's realatively easy to randomly assign animations to a large group of agents. All this requires is storage space for the animation date. Simulating the actions/thinking for each of them is a whole different story.

[juan_gigante]

Michael, I'm sorry if I didn't make my comments clear enough - I was responding to Steve, not to you. It seemed to me that Steve's reply to your "each soldier can't have own movements" comment was "not necessarily". I thought that that would be really cool, and I wanted to know if that was really what he ment. And I think that it is perfectly reasonable for BFC to make a game that requires at least a pretty good computer to run it. Technology marches on, and I don't think BFC should waste their tme trying to make a game that would run on an old, 733 Mhz computer with 128 megabytes of RAM. (no offense to those who have that computer; until recently, I was one of you). Do I want the game to run on something less than a fairly new machine? Yes. Am I willing to sacrifice that ability to maximize gameplay? Yes.

Cobalt makes a good point. I had never heard of that feature in Rome: Total War, but its a cool one, and there's no reason that an idiot like me can think not to have at least the visual effects for individual soldiers moving in CMX2 scalable.

And Dorosh, what's Christmas? When I was a kid, I noticed that all the stores were different during December, and lots of other people put trees in their houses, but whenever I asked my mommy or daddy about it, they would hit me. Can you explain?

[Col Deadmarsh]

I want the use of smoke grenades in at least a small supply to use for cover. I think it is the major thing missing in this game. And pu-lease, don't tell me they weren't used on the battlefield...

AN-M8 HC Smoke Grenade

The AN-M8 was the standard U.S. smoke grenade during World war 2. It has a cylindrical body and is a burning type smoke grenade, the smoke is created by burning a chemical composition. This is a safer type of grenade than white phosphorus type grenades and produces a longer lasting smoke screen.

M15 White Phosphorus Grenade

The M15 was used primarily for creating smoke to screen troop movement, the effect of the white phosphorus however also gave this grenade a useful anti-personnel and incendiary effect. As with other white phosphorus munitions this grenade was often called "willie peter" after the letters WP.

M18 Colored Smoke Grenade

The M18 was introduced in 1942. It is similar to the AN-M8 but produces brightly colored smoke, it was generally used for signalling or target marking purposes, although it is fully capable of being used to screen troops like other smoke grenades. The M18 is available in Red, Green, Yellow and Violet.

U.S. Infantry Grenades During WWII

.....

"The Germans have been conducting experiments to test the effect of smoke weapons used at close quarters against tanks. No information is available as to the type of tank and the type of grenade employed in these tests. However, it is known that the results convinced the Germans that smoke can be an important factor in combatting tanks."

Use Of Smoke On Tanks

.....

"Of the other types of hand grenades issued to GIs in Europe, the two most common were smoke and phosphorus grenades. Both these grenades were used to mask movements or mark artillery and ground-support aircraft targets."

Smoke And Phosphorous Grenades

.....

"By World War II, the grenade inventory expanded to include smoke grenades for signaling and screening, phosphorus and fragmentation grenades to produce casualties, and gas grenades for both casualty and riot control effects."

More About Grenades

[Battlefront.com]

My silence is usually because I'm not reading a thread any more

My comments were about the problems of 1:1 simulation were aimed at the thousands of guys that would be needed to simulate a decent ACW or Napoleonics battle. The amount of AI and grunt data crunching is not possible for a commercial game. As was stated above, Total War abstracts the behavior to the unit level and randomizes the animations within that. Big time savings.

For CMx2 you will have the ability to do battles nearly the same size as CMx1 was INTENDED to be (not the near regimental craziness that some people have done). Specifically, less than battalion for the average battle, upwards of a battalion and less than a company for exceptional battles.

Soldiers within a CMx2 unit will have a certain amount of freedom of action, but for the most part they act in concert along with the other guys of the unit. This doesn't mean they all use the same animations at the same time... far from it... it just means that when a unit goes from A to B you won't see Pvt Pyle saying to himself that he knows a shortcut and separates from the unit to get there ahead of time. That kind of thing would require 1:1 AI and that's just not in the cards.

What can happen in CMx2, but couldn't in CMx1, is for there to be more variation of unit behavior resolved down to individual soldiers. For example, one dude freaking out and buggering off. That's possible now. One guy refusing to retreat and trying his best to stick it out as Rambo should also be possible as well. We haven't got to programming that sort of thint yet. However, 2 guys going prone while another throws a grenade while 3 others are either shooting or reloating... well, that stuff is already in CMx2 and functioning great.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Getting back to my earlier comments about the graphical representations... I should have clarified that I was assuming a certain level of simulation for the characters being animated. There is a big difference between 100 figures being animated as if they are a single unit than 100 figures being animated as if they are 100 individual men. The polygon count hits the framerate hard, and so that is a big conern. The more detailed teh game, and the more refined the simulation of inviduals is, the worse the framerate gets. At least in realtime. In CMx1 hybrid turn/RT type of play there is a little more flexibility because the code can have infinite (in theory!) time to think about stuff inbetween turns.

Steve

[Pzman]

Sounds good to me.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

For CMx2 you will have the ability to do battles nearly the same size as CMx1 was INTENDED to be (not the near regimental craziness that some people have done).

Regimental? Regimental's for wimps. Try divisional

[J Ruddy]

CMX2: Can we get back to fantasising now?

I don't recall if I posted this already:

career mode

To improve single player playability I was hoping for a career mode option.

When you start out in career mode you select your branch (Infantry/Engineer/Armoured etc..) and take command of a platoon or company etc.. You use your core troops to participate in a series of actions, supported by elements of other units in combined arms actions. Somehow the game rates your performance (Material and personel losses, objectives etc...) and tracks your success/failures until you are promoted to the next level (at which point you take command of a larger element of your branch) or are demoted - charged with dereliction of duty or discharged.

It could be as simple as a limit on the maximum points for a scenario you could play and a two step unit purchase for quick battles

For example 500 point battle

Screen 1: Pick 300-500 of core units (based on your branch)

Screen 2: Pick 0-200 supporting units

You could even track casualties and modify the number/cost of regular and veteran troops based on how many hardened troops vs replacement troops you have.

This works well for >2 player (3+ player) multiplayer, as you could have one player assume the role of Infantry commander and another take on a support role, such as Armoured or Cavalry commander.

Two Step Purchasing

The two step unit purchase is nothing new in wargaming, I'd also like to see it as an option in scenarios - here are your x points in core troops, select up to y points in supporting troops from the following available units...

Infantry Formations

Last but not least, infantry formations! I think the option for this is being included in CMX2 - I hope so anyway - because if you are trying to do anything other than 20th - 21st century warfare, infantry / cavalry formations are critical to the success/failure of the battle. In Napolionic times, French Cavalry charging the flank of a British Line is considerably less suicidal than French Cavalry charging a British Square.

[juan_gigante]

I'd like to be able to see the map when purchasing. Lots of times I'd buy a bunch of ATGs or something and realize I had no where to put them, or I'd see the map and instantly know "I should have more artillery". While you might not want to encourage that kind of cherry-picking for QBs, I think it would still be handy to have.

If I had to choose between formations and a bunch of new commands that make stuff easier, I would choose new commands: "follow" (for convoys), perhaps some kind of "semi-dig-in", for when one is advancing but wants their troops to stay in one place for a while and just find extra-good cover, firing spots, maybe move a little crap around, whatever.

Another cool thing would be to select a unit, click a button, and everywhere on the map in that units LOS would be highlighted. No more toying with the LOS tool, seeing just how much of the forest could they see, just boom and you've got it. Major help for HQs commanding on-board mortars.

And Steve, those unit animations sounded great! It is pretty unreasonable to expect to do a regimental or larger action with whate you're giving us. So, it seems that the average CMX2 battle will be on a smaller scale than the average CMX1 battle. I've got no beef with that, but it's an interesting shift, and one that perhaps limits the settings for at least initial release.