aka_tom_w Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Hi Steve Thanks! " 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." I would hope most folks here understand the massive amount of man hours it will take to do all the graphics for all the alternative states. Cleary for every bridge there needs to be a "broken" bridge, or a half broken down bridge or a semi- damaged bridge AND maybe a charred burned out bridge, and they ALL take time to design and create. All of us are keen to help, and there is a small army of modders that can add all kinds of graphic enhancements to the game JUST SO LONG as the place holders are available in the game code. This brings us to the question of wheather or not the game graphics will be moddable the way CMx1 was? I think I have followed all these threads very closely and I have no idea if the new proposed game system will offer moddable graphics? If it does, then many of the alternative state graphic images can be enhanced after the game's release. I guess this really does not help much because you still need the graphics files for ALL those alternative states before you ship Thanks -tom w [ February 17, 2005, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McAuliffe Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 One more little tiny question, Sir: "How are we gonna command (read move) our pixeled heroes around in this vectorized world? " Please, please let me chew on that one and I will only come out my den again for further begging, when springs awakes in 2006 and brings us the finished version of CMX2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 17, 2005 Author Share Posted February 17, 2005 In general you will move units much the way you do in CMx1. Not exactly... but that gets into other areas that aren't as easy to explain at this stage. And as stated before, no 1:1 control allowed. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Well if its a truck driver then thats 1:1 control (right now). Any chance that these will go away in the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Originally posted by gibsonm: Yes I agree these non standard weapon allocations existed but aren’t we talking about the extreme of the bell curve? If 0.000000000X% of squads in NWE had these weapon allocations why open the flood gates for those who will tinker with every squad they own (and then complain about how long it takes to setup)? Perhaps a compromise. Maybe if the troop type is “special forces” or something they can tweak the setup otherwise they turn up with what they were issued at the armoury? Or maybe the scenario designer can do this but the player can’t? Or am I getting too interested in the cup holder again? Sten Guns were issued on a scale such that each infantry battalion was expected to hold extras for special missions. I have a Canadian Army inventory document dated either 44 or 45 that states this explicitly. In my own regiment, there are some examples of men carrying Sten Guns that weren't "supposed to". I've talked to some personally, including a DCM winner who was just at a regimental association meeting with me. He actually loved the Sten - most hated it. He was a Lance Jack and not a section commander (though he did take over his entire platoon at Gruppenbühren in April 45 and led assaults on enemy "88" and 20mm gun positions). Some other examples come to mind - platoon commanders trading .38 revolvers (useless) for US M1 carbines, as Farley Mowat did for just one example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Originally posted by 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'd rather see a demo. But the rest of what you say is good. If ya can do it. Go make us believers. Good stuff snipped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrD Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Thanks for the updates. I'd like to add my voice to the chorus singing your praises. I trust you! You did it once, you can do it again. I'm sure CMx2 will blow us away, much like the original. I'm looking foward to the demo so we can play it so much that the only way to keep it interesting is to play with only reverse movement allowed, like we did with the CMBO beta demo way back when. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pad152 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 posted February 17, 2005 02:23 PM In general you will move units much the way you do in CMx1. Not exactly... but that gets into other areas that aren't as easy to explain at this stage. And as stated before, no 1:1 control allowed. Are you saying we won't have control over individual tanks in a tank platoon? I for one like the god mode, I'm currently playing War in the Pacific with full human control. I consider CM1x a tactical wargame and I want tactical control in a game of this scale. Is CM2x a tactical wargame, what is the scale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonSense Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Wait for the demo to hatch; then discuss. The game designers do just that. Design games. If you are not on their payroll then shut up about your wants that you mistake as needs in a game of someone elses vision and design. The game designer could'nt care less about what you think. How many times does Steve have to tell you? Why does he even have to post that? Use your heads! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 No no don't be confused the is issue is 1:1 control of men in a squad, Squads will be controled as a Squad but each man will be represented with his own graphic image, BUT that image of one soldier is NOT to be controlable by the player. YES as far as I can tell Tanks will be individaully controled like CMx1 games we play now. ok? -tom w Originally posted by pad152: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> posted February 17, 2005 02:23 PM In general you will move units much the way you do in CMx1. Not exactly... but that gets into other areas that aren't as easy to explain at this stage. And as stated before, no 1:1 control allowed. Are you saying we won't have control over individual tanks in a tank platoon? I for one like the god mode, I'm currently playing War in the Pacific with full human control. I consider CM1x a tactical wargame and I want tactical control in a game of this scale. Is CM2x a tactical wargame, what is the scale? </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Hope Park Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Originally posted by JonS: Obviously people will abuse any system that gets created.You have touched on a point here which is likely to divide Combat Mission players. On the one hand will be those who want to tweak squads' TO&E because they don't like what Battlefront presents them with. There will be those who have particular scenarios or situations in mind. There will be those who want to do experiments using the game as a virtual lab. Some of these experiments will be sensible. Some will not be sensible. The difference between sensible and not sensible will be a matter of opinion and there are planty of these here! On the other hand, those who play against other humans will be deeply suspicious of squad and weapons loadouts editing because, as you quite rightly say, it is open to abuse. Nobody will want to waste precious game time only to discover that an opponent or a scenario editor has used squad editing to bring about an unsatisfactory game experience. Nobody likes a cheat, and few will be impressed by "dorks who put 88s on Pumas" (to resurrect an ancient debate in the Close Combat forums of yesteryear.) Not sure how this circle will be squared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Originally posted by CommonSense: Wait for the demo to hatch; then discuss. The game designers do just that. Design games. If you are not on their payroll then shut up about your wants that you mistake as needs in a game of someone elses vision and design. The game designer could'nt care less about what you think. How many times does Steve have to tell you? Why does he even have to post that? Use your heads! Blow me. -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I think that if you are to allow alteration of units, you would need to prevent it's use in QBs. As a scenario design tool, I can see it's utility. Perhaps a change log that notes if, and perhaps what, has been changed. As an aside, aren't there a lot of trolls about of late? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonSense Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Failem; asking someone to blow you on a forum might be a sign that you are not living your life to it's fullest. Go get some fresh air sunshine and by osmosis it will give the rest of us here some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonSense Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I am so sick of reading the challenged thoughts of troll bastards on here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flammenwerfer Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I think it's time for KwazyDog to post. How are those new models comin' along? [ February 17, 2005, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Flammenwerfer ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ExplodingMonkey Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Originally posted by CommonSense: I am so sick of reading the challenged thoughts of troll bastards on here! Too many fanboys in here too. I swear, I left these forums years ago for that reason, and the mentality is still here. Not to mention the top poster of these forums is still a condescending, self righteous jerk. Thanks for the info Battlefront. I look forward to your next line of products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 17, 2005 Author Share Posted February 17, 2005 OK, calm down everybody... and let's get this back on the right track. 1:1 control, as we were discussing before, pertains to individual soldiers within a unit. For example, a truck with a crew of 2 is treated as a single truck from an orders standpoint. If a truck is destroyed, and the crew bails out, then the two men are directed as a single unit. If one of the two crew is incapacitated in some way, then you are now ordering a unit of one man. So, in this case you have 1:1 control, but it is incidental (i.e. through losses) rather than inherent (i.e. set up that way from the beginning). Customized units is a tough topic to deal with. In CMx1 we purposefully designed the game to not allow this. The "gamey" and abuse factors were simply too much for us to deal with at the time. We knew if we allowed such a thing it would be horribly abused, and I think few here would attempt to dispute this. But... it would be accurate to allow for SOME historical reassignment of weapons. Having said that, we do think that most historical examples (not all!) fall into the category of "special ops". Things like a night time raiding force of 2 squads all with full auto weapons... not something CM is designed to simulate, therefore irrelevant. Expect more flexibility in CMx2 regarding weapon allocations and TO&E. Don't expect it to be completely open ended. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrold Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Steve, Charles, Matt, et al...let me know when you want my money. I have been saving cans and selling plasma so there should be no problems with all that. Please let Rune give another sneak peak so I have another excuse to go to Chicago to see it early. How about putting in Easter Eggs like a special key combination that changes artillery shells from black dots to little wedges of cheese? BFS5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 1:1 control, as we were discussing before, pertains to individual soldiers within a unit. For example, a truck with a crew of 2 is treated as a single truck from an orders standpoint. If a truck is destroyed, and the crew bails out, then the two men are directed as a single unit. If one of the two crew is incapacitated in some way, then you are now ordering a unit of one man. So, in this case you have 1:1 control, but it is incidental (i.e. through losses) rather than inherent (i.e. set up that way from the beginning). A sharpshooter is a single man inherently controlled unit in the sense of 1:1 control. But for remnant units like the single man survivor of a squad, I wish the future game system would just fold him into either another squad or into a platoon HQ. Having this single man 'entity' with all the orders capability that is present in the current CM game is an abuse of control. Other units like tank crews should not fold in but rather get out of the battle. [ February 17, 2005, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Watson Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I think a little bit of editing in the scenario editor would be cool. But also I like in CMBB/AK, how during QBs the game randomises unit experience. eg. you pick 'veteran' and you get a handful of green and regular, as well as a handful of crack and elite. I would love to see something like this in QBs with weapons - not uber squads, just a little bit of random shuffling to account for combat units gaining and losing weapons (a rifle for an SMG here or there, and of course it could randomly degrade as well as enhance). This would be especially noticeable in sort of 'high morale, highly individualistic' units (I believe the NZ Maori Battalion was cited in this respect in a much earlier thread as being 'weapon collectors'). - although this is more something for the scenario designer. I emphatically think that in veteran combat units, most officers would have weapons other than just a pistol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Originally posted by Wartgamer: [snip] But for remnant units like the single man survivor of a squad, I wish the future game system would just fold him into either another squad or into a platoon HQ. Having this single man 'entity' with all the orders capability that is present in the current CM game is an abuse of control.[snip] You know, that's exactly right - once the squad gets down to 1 or 2 guys, they're going to look for another squad to join, not fight off on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Even if the last surviving guy was the squad NCO, he would be so traumitized temporarily or if not then needed elsewhere (to replace another NCO), that his 'unit' status would be lost in the game. I would think he would have to come to some good order status before this would happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 17, 2005 Author Share Posted February 17, 2005 Guys... this is way more simple than you guys are making it out to be Control is at the unit level. Period. That means that inhernetly the game system is not 1:1 based. If a unit has 1 guy or 15, the control is exactly the same. Yes, a unit of 1 man means you are controlling a single man, but the control level game wide remains at the unit level even though incidentally that one unit has only 1 man in it. If a sniper is 1 man then yes... it should be a unit with 1 man in it. That is realistic and to do otherwise is unrealistic. Generally snipers are in teams of 2, but that is beside the point A squad that is reduced to 1 man should be able to get sucked into another squad, with some sort of cohesion penalty. Expect this sort of thing in CMx2, but with strict and realistic conditions for unit combining. You won't be allowed, for example, to take two 12 man squads and make an übersquad of 24. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Thats not the intent (ubersquad) but a consequence. And yes there should be penalties. Maybe not being able to split the squad, reduced overall experience, etc. If a squad can be tracked ammo wise with the 1:1 modeling, so can NCO leadership. The thought being that small unit leadership can be lost and the resulting remnants will be susceptable to combing with either other remnants or the platoon HQ (or company HQ, etc). The player should have no control over this and the game will combine remnants as it sees fit. The ability to give many units orders allows ubercontrol on the battlefield. Small units like a bazooka team may have a corporal but in many cases were just privates/PFC types. Having these small support weapons demonstrate the same controllability as squads led by NCOs has never been addressed (I think?). [ February 17, 2005, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts