CMx2... a little more to chew on...

[JonS]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

If 0.000000000X% of squads in NWE had these weapon allocations ...

Your maths is a bit wonky. Not your fault though - you are, after all, Australian and a tanky. Even if Dorosh's beloved example was the only case in NWE (which I rather doubt) the incidence is something like 0.1% (or 0.0006% in terms of section-days)

[ February 16, 2005, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[gibsonm]

Ah but I totally agree with Aunty Helen’s decision not to have a rock concert at Gallipoli - so I can’t be all bad.

[Cull]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> "Another problematic area might be the detailed terrain modeling. In my opinion, the quick and dirty approach of CMx1, with rough 20x20m piles, and not sperating looks from functionality, is a great feature and brought us many battles by scenario designes with limited amount of time. IMHO it was well worth the disadvantages of edgy roads and boring cities.

I hope that a solution can be found to keep the quick'n'dirty approach in CMx2 and not mandate to start fiddling with tiny terrain tiles or a seperate representation of terrain feature and looks."

Yeah But...

um I don't think there will be any tiles at all if the new map is a vector based wire frame editor design...

I dream that terrain map will be Like building something in Bryce or the Terra Forming Tool in Sim City...

.

.

this concept would suggest to me there would be no more tiles at all.

but I have no idea how they will actually do it.

I have REALLY enjoyed making maps and landforms in the Sim City terrain editor and I would be thrilled if some such map editor would be available in CMx2

-tom w </font>

[aka_tom_w]

Hey Cull

this Works!

Where you see a train think column of Shermans on railroad tracks: (VERY NICE)

.

.

.

.

We have similiar expectations (Sim City Terrain editor Trainz Terrain editor) BUT for "just" a wargame, we may have set our expectations too high.

But who knows? The Main Man is promising to deliver a Ferrari with all the bells and whistles so....... you NEVER know with these guys.

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Some quick follow ups...

CMx2 will be revolutionary. If the tiny glimps I have given you doesn't make you confident of this, then just have confidence in my assertion that it will be as I say. I think you guys should know by now that we aren't interested in building up false expectations.

There is, of course, many things I haven't so much as hinted at and much of what I am talking about would take far too long to describe to be worth it, so for now I am keeping it vague. Better to just wait and show you as soon as that becomes practical.

But, since some of you might have missed it, I have already said that the grid/tile system is gone. Not "will be gone", I mean it's already long gone since the underlying 3D engine is complete and there aren't any tiles in it. Dynamic lighting also gives the maps a real topographical appearance that the non-lighted CMx1 maps never could. The combo of no tiles and lighting opens up all sorts of possibilities for modeling real terrain that was difficult, if not impossible, to do in CMx1. er... which is why we went this route

The main difficulty of adding terrain types in CMx1 was that the code was not readily accepting of change. Putting in new stuff was a BIG pain in the butt for us and therefore very limiting. With CMx2 we can, in theory, have an entire map of a town with every single house being custom made. I say in theory because in reality there are limitations on what we can do, but the code itself doesn't care if there is 1 or 1000 types of houses.

It is doubtful that end users will be able to import terrain models because a model is just that... a model. It isn't a house, a tank, a tree, etc. unless the code understands it to be so. And that would require shipping a model editor along with the game. It isn't something we are planning on doing right away, but who knows about later on.

Ammo resupply is something that becomes much easier to simulate with the 1:1 man system. You can have, for example, a two man carrying party dashing about the map with a realistic load of ammo per man. Blamo... one guy gets hit and goes down. Whatever that guy had, say Milans in the Goose Green example made earlier, now stay with him. The other guy gets to go on with whatever he had, say small arms ammo. No abstraction there, all works dandy.

Same with wounded/dead. With 1:1 simulation we can now have a Squad lose a man and spend time getting him to a safe spot, or have an individual freak out and stay put (or run away), without affecting the rest of the Squad in an abstracted/unrealistic way.

Comments about artifical delays to affect changes in Borg or God aspects... not our goal. Our goal is to model the real deal as beast we can. If there is a process that takes 1 minute in real life, it should take 1 minute in the game. Units that can see a unit in front of it should be able to see the unit in front of it. Even CMx1 behaved like this, though with some systems being themselves abstracted we sometimes were stuck with abastracted effects.

More tools for the scenario designer does include things like more control over victory conditions. Again, we're looking to more realistic ranges of victory conditions instead of just Flags and Points.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

OK

But but but....

"It is doubtful that end users will be able to import terrain models because a model is just that... a model. It isn't a house, a tank, a tree, etc. unless the code understands it to be so. And that would require shipping a model editor along with the game. It isn't something we are planning on doing right away, but who knows about later on." (Says Steve)

Steve, are you going ship the terrain editor along with the game?

You pretty much have to if you plan to let us design scenario's don't you?

(I hope)

I am guessing we can live without the "model editor" at first I just don't understand why they are not one and the same? (model editor same as terrain editor, or maybe they are one and the same and we won't get either, so that would suggest NO terraforming or terrain landform editing for scenarios I guess?)

sorry to ask I was just curious about the map editor in CMx2 as there was one in CMx1

thanks!

-tom w

[ February 16, 2005, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Battlefront.com]

Did CMx1 give the player the ability to manipulate terrain witout being able to import models? Obviously it did, so obviously they are not one in the same.

Map/Terrain editor - manipulates objects already known to CMx2's game system. You click on "building" and the model is placed down, complete with whatever properties are assigned to that specific building.

Model Editor - manipulates the objects themselves. Takes 3D information and assigns various properties to verticies (such as textures) and conceptual things which make sense to the game engine (such as turret, tree, church, etc).

The Map/Terrain Editor utilizes the stuff the Model Editor creates. We are planning on making a Map/Terrain Edtior for the end user, but not a Model Editor. At least not one that would be functional to the end user. Maybe some day we'll go the extra step and do this (it involves a lot of work), but for now we have no plans to do so.

Steve

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

It is doubtful that end users will be able to import terrain models because a model is just that... a model. It isn't a house, a tank, a tree, etc. unless the code understands it to be so. And that would require shipping a model editor along with the game. It isn't something we are planning on doing right away, but who knows about later on.

I assume with model editor you mean editing more than the 3D model? That means not only where to place object parts but the editor would also have to open up declaring how that object behaves with regards to game mechanics.

Obviously that would be very difficult if you want to include combat units, much less moving units.

I think if you limit this to terrain elements that all behave building-like, that would go a long way. You could import an XML file (or a file for a popular 3D editor program) and everything drawn in there just behaves like a wall, but can also be horizontal. If the "wall" is horizontal, you can drive on it. If the wall is vertical infantry can walk into it.

This would allow people to do:

- any kind of building and placing their own textures, e.g. a photo of Stalingtrad tractor works or whatever

- any kind of complicated bridge

- complicated street setups

If you include a single hardness level (analogous to the heavy and leight buildings in CMx1) then you could also have people draw any kind of bunker system. Since the roof is horizontal you could place guns on it. FlaK tower, anyone?

[Pak40]

But, since some of you might have missed it, I have already said that the grid/tile system is gone. Not "will be gone", I mean it's already long gone since the underlying 3D engine is complete and there aren't any tiles in it. Dynamic lighting also gives the maps a real topographical appearance that the non-lighted CMx1 maps never could. The combo of no tiles and lighting opens up all sorts of possibilities for modeling real terrain that was difficult, if not impossible, to do in CMx1. er... which is why we went this route

This is sweet music to a guy who builds Geographical Information Systems for a living. Thanks for the good news, Steve.

[Wartgamer]

I like that the new game will model morale on more of a individual basis. The present model abstration is somewhat unrealistic at times. I always wondered why the game did not split off a half squad and send them off into some compromised morale state and leave behind a somewhat good order half squad. The compromised half squad being the one taking the casualties if any.

[pad152]

Why? Surely if we are modelling warfare rather than wargames then the squads / sections have a “normal” weapon allocation.

Obviously this might change as weapons are lost or “scrounged” but I don’t see the point in a 10 man squad all armed with MG-42’s or 30 Panzerfausts.

Nobody is saying this!

If a weapon requires a 2 or 3 man squad then a 10 man squad could carry 3 weapons of that type. There are a ton of inf companys in CM1x that the only difference was the name. Near the end of WWII very few German Inf companys/platoons had a standard set of equipment.

The TOE weapons and equipment that Inf company has on the start of battle is lot different after 3 days of fighting.

The point value of Inf should be based on it's weapons/fire power not just on experince. What I'm asking for is the ability to edit a standard inf company/platoons and modify it for the specific mission.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

More tools for the scenario designer does include things like more control over victory conditions. Again, we're looking to more realistic ranges of victory conditions instead of just Flags and Points.

I've mentioned this before, but not really sure whether it's come up over the horizon. Have you considered an 'opportunity cost' victory point model as one of the options available? A couple of examples might make it clearer what I'm on about.

In real life, FOs were cheap(ish) - every battery spawned a couple, and batteries were a dime a dozen in divisional orgs, with plenty more available from Corps and Army (thinking Western Allies here, obviously, but also applicable to a degree to the other nations). So, an FO 'should' be cheap to buy in CMxX, and it's loss shouldn't be overly expensive in terms of VPs. So far so good. However, having an FO floating around isn't that useful. He only really earns his keep when he starts calling in missions - and using ammo. And therein lies the VP cost. These theoretical FOs would have no ammo limit*, but each round expended beyond some nominal value (e.g., 100 rounds for a 4 mortar fire unit) 'costs' VPs, possibly on an increasing scale (i.e cost = factor x rounds²). The point of this is that it helps to reflect the wider context within which battles happen - an artillery battery firing in support of your battle can't fire in support of another battle. So, what we have is a situation wherein the commander/player has to weigh up whether the VP of firing more rounds will be balanced by the VP gain he expects to acheive from it - firing a bn of 155s for 10 minutes on a pn of volksturm is a waste of resources, and should be punished as such. On the other hand expending 400 rounds of 105mm to clear an SS Coy out of the key crossroads village is money well spent. Clearly, though, this approach pre-supposes that ROF and RFFE can both be controlled by the commander/player per-mission.

As a second example, you are a bn commander defending with 2 coys up, and 2 in reserve (off map). The enemy attacks - and you need to call up reserves. Do you call one coy, or two? Do you ask for additional resources (engrs, armour, A-Tk, arty) as well? You can get anything (within reason) available within your echelon (i.e. bn) and one up (i.e. bde) - but it all comes with a cost, because once its committed to you, it can't be committed elsewhere. So, say you do decide to call up reserves - how do you go about it? All at once, or a little at a time? All at once means that you might call too much, and pay too high a price in VPs. OTOH, if you only call a little bit it might not be enough to stem the tide, and you need to call more - and so pay the same VP cost, but maybe not have the resources available early enough to contain the assault. Decisions decisions. What's a poor commander to do? Call up too much and lose the battle on points? Call up too little and lose the battle anyway because he got overrun? Or put more effort into effective recon/counter recon and screening, so he can figure out how much he actually needs?**

Now, these 'opportunity cost VPs' would never be the only VPs available in a scen. But they would have an effect, and would serve to swing a close battle one way or the other. Or, depending on the amount of 'VP overspend' turn a big 'victory' into a draw.

Does this idea make sense? Is it practical? Does it jive with 'modelling war, not modelling wargames'?

Jon

* well, maybe they would have a limit, to refect specific operational conditions, but no ammo limit in the sense that we know it from CMx1.

** given the time that it would take reserves to move to the area of battle, this example of variable call-up of reserves might be more appropriate to operations/campigns - or very long scenarios.

[Cull]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Did CMx1 give the player the ability to manipulate terrain witout being able to import models? Obviously it did, so obviously they are not one in the same.

Map/Terrain editor - manipulates objects already known to CMx2's game system. You click on "building" and the model is placed down, complete with whatever properties are assigned to that specific building.

Model Editor - manipulates the objects themselves. Takes 3D information and assigns various properties to verticies (such as textures) and conceptual things which make sense to the game engine (such as turret, tree, church, etc).

The Map/Terrain Editor utilizes the stuff the Model Editor creates. We are planning on making a Map/Terrain Edtior for the end user, but not a Model Editor. At least not one that would be functional to the end user. Maybe some day we'll go the extra step and do this (it involves a lot of work), but for now we have no plans to do so.

Steve

Ok, though I mostly get that, how about just some good ol' straight shootin'? I'm dim like a 40 watt.

What's the difference in the following statements?

1) Map/Terrain editor - manipulates objects already known to CMx2's game system.

2) Model Editor - manipulates the objects themselves.

I REALLY REALLY PRETTY PLEASE want to deform and paint terrain more creatively/realistically. Will that be possible? What will replace CMx1's elevation tool?

How will trees, etc get added? What will replace the current "tile" system?

If it's not a full-on program like Sim City or whatnot I will....get over it. I'm sure whatever editor the thing comes with will be quite satisfactory, and an improvement over CMx1.

Thanks for any further hintage.

**edit**

If Steve you are talking about no 3DMax-type model editor than that's just fine by me. I'm sure there are those that would do great stuff with it but I have no desire (nor talent, nor patience) for that sort of monkey-business.

[GAZ NZ]

Are you looking at a release this year or probably next?

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by JonS:

Have you considered an 'opportunity cost' victory point model as one of the options available? [...] Now, these 'opportunity cost VPs' would never be the only VPs available in a scen. But they would have an effect, and would serve to swing a close battle one way or the other. Or, depending on the amount of 'VP overspend' turn a big 'victory' into a draw.

Does this idea make sense? Is it practical? Does it jive with 'modelling war, not modelling wargames'?[...]

Quite interesting idea here. It opens up all kinds of balance problems, but IMO it really is more in line with warfare as you say. Isn't part of this idea in current CMx1 operation already ?

Of course, these additional ressources can or cannot be available, which would in turn affect the context quite nicely. I guess the hardest part is to make this feature work in a way that would be simple too use and would still keep things roughly balanced. Could be by making it very costly in terms of points to use reserve assets (as opposed to intended reinforcements, two separate things).

Anyway, I think one would get the distinct impression of being part of a greater organization and/or being the last obstacle before the tide.

Very interesting I say.

Cheers

[John Kettler]

aka_tom_w,

If you're persistent and lucky, you'll eventually locate my emphatic request for fractal based terrain in one of the earlier CMx2 wish list threads. What's possible that way is simply breathtaking, as shown by your Bryce image. Something like that, combined with DEM import capabilities, would give us maps to die for. When do we get running water and velocity effects?

Steve and troops,

I have wanted ammo redistribution and resupply ever since one of the CMBO Demo scenarios had a fresh American infantry platoon show up as reinforcements

and I had to gnash my teeth in frustration because this ammo flush unit couldn't give my ammo exhausted main force so much as a single clip. Even if we don't get resupply per se (want it!), I fervently hope ammo redistribution makes it in. Numerous wartime accounts from Allies and Axis alike support it, too.

If we're going to individual soldier status, then I'd like to see taking ammo and weapons from casualties depicted, too, with a chance said items may be found useless. There's an Eastern Front combat artist's sketch where one Landser has three K-98s. Reports suggest that the Germans used PPsh-41s as throwaway weapons. Soldiers, unless already heavily burdened, ought to be able to carry at least one other rifle or SMG over and above their primary one. No firing two weapons simultaneously, though! Would love to see airborne/commando/Ranger/razvedy and other appropriately trained forces given the ability to use weapons captured during a battle (see Audie Murphy's story), with some sort of toggle provided for use by scenario designers as well. And please provide us with things like rifles/carbines for ATG crews, the missing local security troops and MGs for German ATGs, and the weapons carried for security by even the likes of the PanzerWerfer 42 (Panzerschreck, MG, and mines) and Allied halftracks (mines, wire, etc.). Ground mounts for vehicle weapons would be good and also historical. Vehicle crews should have appropriate small arms for local security, dismounted recon, etc. Nothing like a nighttime raid on the lager! The CW practice of tailoring unit armament to combat task would be a great capability to include. Would love to see both spike weapon and temporary decrewing commands for crew served weapons. It's ridiculous that a Ma Deuce crew in extremis has to withdraw while saddled with a millstone of a heavy tripod mounted weapon.

Am going to be optimistic and expect flares, starshells and similar will be in. Very excited by

the new lighting features! Nonexplosive barbed wire breaching would be helpful, and I'm sure quite a few are drooling at the prospect? of bangalore torpedoes, cratering charges, log cribs, abatis, and timed and command detonations. AVREs would be a lot more useful if they came with their actual sapper team and same was dismountable. More Funnies would be nice, and where are the Terrapins, Ducks, Weasels and LVTs? Ditto B IVs, Goliaths. If Borg spotting can be tamed, please give us motorcycles and bicycles. Very important for early war and creates intriguing possibilities for later (German bikeborne reinforcements in Normandy/Welbikes at Arnhem). Definitely would love to see horse and mule transport (with and without wagons or sleighs) and cavalry units such as Cossacks, Florien Geyer, etc.

I'm hoping for radical improvements in the artillery model in both technical capabilities (fuzing, WP, etc.) and procedures (fire on my command, FO selectable ROF, sheaves, in game target registration, fire concentrations, etc.). Ditto for DF capabilities and rangefinders. Given that the maps are now big enough, please provide a way for at least some support weapons to switch from indirect to direct fire without having to buy both the guns and a separately munitioned FO. Based on my own reading, I believe that heavy MGs/light autocannon are seriously undermodeled. I know of a case where a single 20mm cannon not only savaged an American infantry platoon coming out of the woods but wrecked it as a fighting force. Try that in the current game. The abilty of such weapons to penetrate cover and keep going isn't in the current engine, nor is the morale hit from seeing someone blown apart or torn to bits by a single hit. The Germans hated the Ma Deuce. Per a number of sources, U.S. BARs were routinely loaded with AP, not ball. Makes quite a difference when fighting targets in good cover. Maybe we could have the delayed tracer ignition for the MG-34/42 modeled, too? Recall a stellar example Steve? gave in which several such guns tied up the Allies for hours but couldn't be located, even though they were only a few hundred yards away.

Speaking of morale, please institute some sort of logic so that isolated troops cut up, surrounded, pinned/broken and under fire by infantry and armor surrender at game's end. Unless we're on, say, Iwo!

There needs to be local morale as well as global morale.

I look forward to seeing the differences in AFV turn and traverse rates better modeled (American tankers reported their Shermans had huge turning radii relative to the German tanks, whereas many German AFVs could pivot turn; the traverse matter's been extensively discussed), and I would like to see things like grousers/Ostkette/Russian equivalent revisited. Was astonished to learn that a rain storm stopped a Russian tank corps attack at Kursk--for hours. Also, I believe that depicting the effects of German smokeless/flashless powder for AFV/AT weapons is important, this based on the testimony of Allied crews. Would love to see things like jammed turrets, shot up vision blocks, incremental damage to various systems (radiator leak, say), in game repairable broken tracks, towing, ARVs and tank retrievers. Unexpected breakdowns would also help keep players on their toes. What Barkmann did with a damaged Panther in real life is simply not possible in the current game, nor can we set external kit on fire and force tank abandonment (yes, the Sherman with WP vs. Tiger story).

In wrestling with thinking big, I keep coming back to toggleable graphic control measures. Frankly, I don't see how we'll ever get where we need to be without them. Units, from squads to army groups, live or die on GCMs. Even rudimentary ones would have the effect of making the AI smarter, because it would focus the AI's attention on a much narrower set of decisions to be made, especially if some sort of effective terrain use rules (i.e., don't skyline your AFVs) were incorporated as well. Whatever causes units to not recognize good cover and leave it while under fire needs correction. I don't know whether it's doable or not, but I love the idea of everything out of LOS being rendered as a topo map (not necessarily accurate)or maybe via hachure marks. Please, please give us map grids.

Would love to have more bridge types, materials and sizes, both static and portable. Oh, the joys of throwing up a pontoon bridge while under artillery fire or air attack! Motorized rubber boats, landing craft, rafts, ferries, etc. would be most welcome, and I really want working trains, for they create all manner of marvelous possibilities both offensive and defensive. When it comes to terrain types and structures, please give us as many as possible, with an eye toward maximum scenario design possibilities. IMO musts include: single lane roads and trails, airfields (grass, dirt, paved) mit hangars, planes, control towers, etc., supply dumps of various types and sizes, industrial complexes, motor pools, warehouses, security fences and barricades, quays and related gear, locks and dams, watercraft up through small freighter and warships up through a destroyer. Would like a range of railroad facilities and structures, to include tunnels. Think of the scenarios! May we please have

variable weather, wind, maybe even lighting during the game? The overcast parts, and the moon shines down, catching a patrol on the hop. Realistic lightning would be fantastic. Maybe fog models could be improved, too, with variable presence and opacity included with burnoff.

For in game sound, may I suggest you look into HoloPhonics? Heard a demo tape many years ago of a barber cutting hair which was so realistic I found myself feeling my scalp to make sure no hair had been cut. Could practically feel his walking around me, scissors snipping all the while. Talk about immersive! Would also recommend perusing the manuals for distances at which various sounds of military interest can be heard. One such chart appears in CAMOUFLAGE in the Soviet Military Thought series. Please consider modeling sound ducting under certain conditions.

I hope these ideas go well past being cupholders!

What say you, Steve, and the troops?

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Double post. Computer got stuck.

[ February 17, 2005, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[bo_tellin]

I´d like CMx2 with campaigns, with interconected maps, not linear campaigns (like desert rats vs afrika korps), somehow like close combat campaign type, some battlegroups with the surviving troops moving thru the whole strategic map.

Thanks

[FGM_Smashing]

wow..this just gets better and better..awesome stuff...

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Cull:

Ok, though I mostly get that, how about just some good ol' straight shootin'? I'm dim like a 40 watt.

What's the difference in the following statements?

1) Map/Terrain editor - manipulates objects already known to CMx2's game system.

2) Model Editor - manipulates the objects themselves.

I take it to mean the map editor refers to something similar to the current system, where maps are constructed from a palette of objects. An object editor would allow creating or importing a 3D model and assigning game parameters to it, such as:

Destructability/cover

Weapons Hardpoints (windows or mounts on vehicles)

Entry/Exit points

Transparency/concealment

So when a bullet hits a building the game knows whether it ricochets off a brick or smashes through a window. Or when somebody is hiding behind a big stone wall, the game system doesn't allow guys to see through it.

[aka_tom_w]

Thanks Steve

As I understand it, Steve is saying....

There are, or will be, TWO seperate 3D modeling systems/tools.

This makes sense.

the Modeling tool that makes tanks is TOTALLY different than the Modeling tool to create land forms and terrain and maps.

TWO totally unrelated aspects of 3D modeling

we will get the Terrain Map editor, BUT not the 3D modeler to build tanks and buildings.

From that explanation tanks and buildings (I think) are "things" that will be placed on the map. Buildings and such will be available as 'things' to be placed ON the terrain modeled in the terrain editor. This concept is already employed in Sim City and Trainz (as an example of two games I have seen). Maybe Populous has a terrain editor like that too, for FOR sure it has been done lately in recently released games. Sim City 4000 is about 18 months old now I think.

I hope they will take a look a Sim City in its latest incarnation, (4000), as it has a GORGEOUS, STUNNING terraforming terrain editor, something like this for CMx2 would be greatly appreciated.

OK?

Thanks

-tom w

Originally posted by Cull:

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

Did CMx1 give the player the ability to manipulate terrain witout being able to import models? Obviously it did, so obviously they are not one in the same.

Map/Terrain editor - manipulates objects already known to CMx2's game system. You click on "building" and the model is placed down, complete with whatever properties are assigned to that specific building.

Model Editor - manipulates the objects themselves. Takes 3D information and assigns various properties to verticies (such as textures) and conceptual things which make sense to the game engine (such as turret, tree, church, etc).

The Map/Terrain Editor utilizes the stuff the Model Editor creates. We are planning on making a Map/Terrain Edtior for the end user, but not a Model Editor. At least not one that would be functional to the end user. Maybe some day we'll go the extra step and do this (it involves a lot of work), but for now we have no plans to do so.

Steve

Ok, though I mostly get that, how about just some good ol' straight shootin'? I'm dim like a 40 watt.

What's the difference in the following statements?

1) Map/Terrain editor - manipulates objects already known to CMx2's game system.

2) Model Editor - manipulates the objects themselves.

I REALLY REALLY PRETTY PLEASE want to deform and paint terrain more creatively/realistically. Will that be possible? What will replace CMx1's elevation tool?

How will trees, etc get added? What will replace the current "tile" system?

If it's not a full-on program like Sim City or whatnot I will....get over it. I'm sure whatever editor the thing comes with will be quite satisfactory, and an improvement over CMx1.

Thanks for any further hintage.

**edit**

If Steve you are talking about no 3DMax-type model editor than that's just fine by me. I'm sure there are those that would do great stuff with it but I have no desire (nor talent, nor patience) for that sort of monkey-business. </font>

[Le Tondu]

Hopefully, the casualty report at the end of a scenario will be accurate and no longer randomly generated.

[Wartgamer]

Comments about artifical delays to affect changes in Borg or God aspects... not our goal. Our goal is to model the real deal as beast we can. If there is a process that takes 1 minute in real life, it should take 1 minute in the game. Units that can see a unit in front of it should be able to see the unit in front of it. Even CMx1 behaved like this, though with some systems being themselves abstracted we sometimes were stuck with abastracted effects.

I think this statement contradicts the 1:1 representation system that is being proposed.

How does a 'unit' 'see'? A 10 man squad could have only 1 or 2 men actually see an enemy (the others could either be pinned/busy or just not have an LOS). The 1 or 2 men that actually 'see' the enemy may not get that info into the 'unit' shared-knowledge-base due to many reasons (others are firing, pinned, distance, seeking cover, NCO-dead, noise, etc).

Is a 'unit' still either a 8-12 man squad, half-squad, bazooka team, HQ, truck driver, etc? Or will this also take some non-abstracted quantum leap also? Will the granularity of the 'unit' fall to a fireteam (2-5) men instead of squad?

At some level in the new game, abstractions must be used soemhow. A WEGO type system requires some time chunk in some form to halt the game so that orders may be doled out by each side for example. The time chunk is an abstraction.

[ February 17, 2005, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Battlefront.com]

Wow... OK, too much stuff to respond to directly, so I'll have at a few points in general terms...

Yes, the model editor performs an entirely different function than a map/scenario editor. CMx1 has both, but the "model editor" is really just a "model coding process" which is horribly painful. It involves 3 separate programs (i.e. commercial applications) and tons of hand coding from Charles, all of which is error prone. In short... it sucks The tools used for CMx2 are much more refined and powerful, but there still is no executable code to do all of this in one place. That is what a model editor needs to be if it is to be of any use to the customer.

Models made in a 3D program are simply vertices without any properties. A building might look like a building, but to the code it is nothing but a bunch of points with some lines connecting them. It needs to be instructed as to what is a window, what is a door, what is a roof, what kind of roof is it, what materials are used for each, how troops go from one floor to another, what decorative stuff on the outside (like shrubs) are separate from the building, etc., etc., etc. Some model types are easier than others, like a pile of sandbags, while others are intensely complex, such as soldier animations. Without some way of telling a game what is what there can be no way for the end user to import stuff and have it do more than just sit there and look pretty. And the more detailed the properties of a game's models, the more complicated the effort to build an end user tool set.

Destructible terrain is a function of the game system and the models we put into it. It has nothing to do with the map editor since all it does is manipulate something that is already there. In other words, if the game allows you to make a crater of any size then the editor is simply there to provide the interface for the scenario designer to make that crater ahead of time. While in the game the game has its own interface, of sorts, to make this happen (eg. a 155 round deforming the terrain instead of the scenario designer). There will be some degree of terrain deforming in CMx2, just not sure how extensive it will be since pretty much all of it involves us making alternative "states" for whatever is being deformed. Nothing "just happens" in our line of work.

A lot of the things you guys listed above are automatically VERY easy to do with the 1:1 representation. For example, individual morale or the ability to track ammo by individual. The latter is important to avoid resupply cheats like having a rifle unit somehow be able to cough up .50 cal ammo for a HMG team. With 1:1 tracking these sorts of issues go away since a rifle unit normally doesn't cary that sort of ammo, though perhaps it is because it was tasked with moving the ammo on behalf of the HMG team. Without 1:1 these sorts of things are very difficult to do for the most part, though not necessarily impossible.

The game's release is still slated for winter 2005/2006. We don't see any reason, at this point, why we can't make this date. We have been working on this for about a year and a half already.

There are some abstractions that can be done to get around the impossibility of 1:1 LOS. And we are going to have to do that because, as I've said many times, 1:1 LOS is not going to happen. A suggestion made by someone else about this realistically slowing down the game doesn't understand that we're talking about probably needing HOURS to crunch a single turn in a big game with very sparse terrain. If you want to see what I mean, fill a big flat map with tons of tanks (say, a full BN on each side), and see how long the turn crunching takes. And even this is NOTHING compared to 1:1 LOS.

I'm not entirely sure at this point, but I think we might abandon the whole notion of "points" completely. I really don't want to discuss the various possibilities we've got on the drawing board right now, just figured I'd toss out another bone to show how radically different CMx2 is from CMx1. Getting rid of points will, of course, require something in place of it. While we feel the point system worked really well, we think that because of all the other changes we are doing there might be a better way now available to us. Then again, perhaps not. Or perhaps we will wind up with some sort of hybrid system. You'll just have to wait on that one.

I'm sure I forgot to say in earlier bone threads, but have said this many many times in past discussions... improved artillery modeling is one of our top priorities for CMx2. The artillery system we had in CMx1 was superior to anything else I've ever seen in any wargame of this scale, but it had some serious shortcomings. And the root of those shortcomings had to do with the core of the game engine system. Only a total rewrite can allow us to make the sorts of improvements needed to take artillery modeling up a notch. When the foundation was made for a 3 story building you can't simply add another 2 stories on top and expect it to work. Either that or you spend so much time and resources shoring up the lower 3 you would have been better off tearing the whole thing down and starting over. This concept is something that the "anti-change, but pro-improvement" grumblers here seem to have such a problem grasping.

Steve

[Melnibone]

2005

2006 :mad: