What do we want in the new CM game, Part Deux!

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Moon:

Indeed, and it would be good if you start another if you like to continue. I am going to lock this now. The fact that it'll be locked doesn't mean that your suggestions were useless. Quite the contrary, we've found a number of interesting ideas, as usual.

Now, we also found a number of useless ideas of course , mostly because the assumptions that they were made under are way too close to the way CM currently works, and the new engine will be that - a totally new engine, started from a clean white sheet of paper so to speak. But thanks anyway, and keep posting

Martin

Okay, post yer ideas here. I think one thing that BFC might consider is allowing drawn roads, railways, walls, hedges, fences or other linear obstacles on the map rather than using pre-drawn tiles. That would allow for more natural variations in size, shape, and paths than is now possible using the editor.

Oh yeah, I would like the game to provide both east and west front forces, and would like the ability to designate certain enemy vehicles as captured rather than be limited to those present in the editor (i.e., if I want to give the Russian player a captured PSW 233 I want to be able to do so and not be prohibited by editor limitations).

Steve

[Joe Shaw]

Originally posted by MrSpkr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Moon:

Indeed, and it would be good if you start another if you like to continue. I am going to lock this now. The fact that it'll be locked doesn't mean that your suggestions were useless. Quite the contrary, we've found a number of interesting ideas, as usual.

Now, we also found a number of useless ideas of course , mostly because the assumptions that they were made under are way too close to the way CM currently works, and the new engine will be that - a totally new engine, started from a clean white sheet of paper so to speak. But thanks anyway, and keep posting

Martin

Okay, post yer ideas here. I think one thing that BFC might consider is allowing drawn roads, railways, walls, hedges, fences or other linear obstacles on the map rather than using pre-drawn tiles. That would allow for more natural variations in size, shape, and paths than is now possible using the editor.

Oh yeah, I would like the game to provide both east and west front forces, and would like the ability to designate certain enemy vehicles as captured rather than be limited to those present in the editor (i.e., if I want to give the Russian player a captured PSW 233 I want to be able to do so and not be prohibited by editor limitations).

Steve </font>

[Nelson 1812]

Would be nice to know which ideas were of interest.

(Don,t mean the percentage either!)

[Redwolf]

Am I the only one who hopes for a deep breath and a real review of:

- vehicle turn rates

- command delays, especially along a road, for a continuous curve or at scenario start

- foxhole protection

- exhaustion rates (yes, I will take you up on the challenge to run through snow with 30 pounds and combat boot this winter, we meet in Lincoln, MA)

- bogging chances

- artillery model, in particular at least holding fire and then unleashing it

- turret front size model

- documented "curved armor" angles

- non-radio spotters (non-)escape

- gun setup times lower than anything I read in historic accounts

- death of pillboxes by 20mm

- troops moving in trenches are not supressed and inhibited from movement by MG fire some dictance away the same way that troops outside the trench are

[MikeyD]

Still sounds like CM game engine related ideas to me.

Me, I'm hoping the game can 'do water'. That's water as in fording tanks really ford, landing craft really float and land and disembark, river craft movements are affected by the direction of the river's flow, and the engine is capable of doing scenarios in rivers, bays, and out of sight of land with actual 3-D warships.

I'd also like a 'through-the-gunsight' viewing option for tanks/guns at the weapon's sight's actual magification.

[Philippe]

To parrot MikeyD,

Boats.

I want boats. And not just rubber dingies. The real thing, with some limited modeling of destroyers, submarines, and the odd freighter. I want boats that can sometimes shoot back, and can even move a little (but probably not under player control).

Why ?

When you think of WWII you think of D-Day. But so far you can't really play D-Day.

I think a lot of people were slightly crestfallen when they went to play D-Day scenarios...and that island out there at the back of the map with the FO's on it gets to role-play being a destroyer. Or a monitor. Or whatever. And how do you raid St.Nazaire if there isn't a ship in sight ?

I want to dodge Teller mines and attach explosives to a submarine pen. And I don't want to do it playing Commando.

CMx2 needs native amphibious assault capability. And there's no shortage of native amphibians. British destroyers can stage commando raids in Norway. Operation Sea Lion can overrun the South Downs by landing the Wehrmacht from river barges (assuming they don't swamp in the Sleave). Commonwealth troops can stage several invasions of Madagascar against Vichy French who fight back. US troops can land in North Africa wondering if the Vichy French will continue to fight back. Everybody can invade Sicily, and get shot at on the beaches. And Salerno, and Anzio, and Normandy, and Southern France. And even that theatre of operations that will remain nameless where amphibious operations were regular occurrence.

You don't have to pretend you're NWS. If I want a ship simulator, I'll buy one, assuming that Silent Hunter III ever gets released.

But the naval combat environment needs to be addressed.

And speaking of D-Day, how about having paratroops coming down as unit smaller than teams scattered all over the map. And the one next to it. And the one next to that. And the one next to that....

[MikeyD]

Thinking WWII is still thinking inside the CM game engine 'box'. Why not think Vietnam Mekong river delta combat? By the time the game comes out our new president would likely be halfway through his first term. a riverine combat sim might be just the ticket.

[Pzman]

I hope it sticks to WWII, and all this talk of having ships (destroyers, battleships etc) in the game itself sounds like going little overboard to me. Having assualt landing craft, rubber and wooden boats sounds good though.

[Tarkus]

Okay, time to jump in with my two cents wish list

...of course having no idea where BFC is going, I assume much of this is, to put it Moon's way, useless, but still,

* * *

</font>

• partial HQ contact. Unit with such a state could be given one waypoint order (that is, of course, if there is any waypoint based system...) or some partial limitations, a bit like the Assault and Advance command are already in current CM.
  
  - Recon HQ bonus; Already in somewhat with the F.o.W., but might be useful to know (and, IMHO, realistic at that) that some officers are more able than other to spot-identify-report enemy sighted and/or ennemy contacts.
  
  - Different data interface for enemy units;
  
  - For the borg spotting issue, maybe something like a "commander basic interface" where contacts could be reported (with leds, I like leds ) Then, some sort of "units SITREP" button would enable anything from "jump to that unit" to see what is going on from that unit's P.o.V./LOS and/or a more or less factual, generic report like "sporadic small arms fire", "ennemy armor spotted", "mortar fire" and so on, perhaps with icons (which I'll quickly mod ). These could, like anything else, be modified by F.o.W. Just an idea...
  
  - Options, everything as an option. For example, all these combat rules and material limitations for game balance could be presented like in the flight sims where you decide of the realism options you want, like the "view 1-2-8 only" with defaults values for quick doing.
  
  ( Note: I do not mean to suggest, nor in any way imply that "unlimited ammo" should be an option )
  
  - I would be for a multiplayer-per-side system, say in TCP/IP. I suppose that would be of immense help for meta-campaigning.
  
  - More flexibility on the units stance. Although pretty good as is, that could come from the interface, like a switch where you can go from "nil contact" to "contact expected"... So a move order would be executed differently given this setting.
  
  Now that I think about it, it could also be part of the setup phase (should there be any still) where these "danger zone" could be "drawn" on the map much like phase lines on a briefing map. That way it would not be a burden to constantly look for the stance. Of course, this implies that there would be an advantage with the "nil contact" setting, like less delay for straight road moves. In terms of scenario design, it would be very handy to somewhat simulate surprise, if the designer could force the stance. Also, this would be more of a planning tool as it is well understood that things get harder to control when the bullets fly. Another example would be that this higher-level control/setting would automatically change from "nil contact" to "alerted" or "contact expected" or something for all on-map units when an enemy arty barrage is spotted/heard or a plane is spotted, and would then be "locked" at this setting for a certain amount of time.
  
  Mmmm. It obviously requires a lot more refining, but I hope you get the point...
  
  - Possibility to import 3D buildings (Marco Bergman's idea) out of some *simple* 3D modeling tool that could enable texturing as well.
  
  I have not the faintest idea of the implications of this code-wise and for the safety of the core engine, all I say is that to give people the chance to be creative and to enhance the visual aspect of the game is one cool side of CM. If CMx2 goes a little further in that regard, we get a game that is partly us to built, customize, modify, and that is coooool !
  
  And more than eyecandy, I am refering to a real 3D building tool where windows and doors would matters in terms of urban combat. (I know many said something about this.) You also solve part of the fortification problem with that.
  
  - Allow other shapes than square for maps, to properly model a valley, for example; Linkable maps; All this already mentionned IIRC, as are printable maps.
  
  - More variation in:
  - roads, like forest infantry-only paths, corduroie, mudpath left by tracked vehicles;
  - bridges;
  - infrastructures in general.
  
  

  Originally posted by MrSpkr:
  
  and would like the ability to designate certain enemy vehicles as captured rather than be limited to those present in the editor
  
  Steve

  - Another thing, perhaps already mentionned, would be the possibility to place wrecks on scenario map, which could even be misidentified and assumed live units instead of dead ones. A dead KT in the middle of an American position in the Ardennes would go a long way in putting me "in the game"...
  
  Moddable wreckages, of course
  
  

  Originally posted by Redwolf:
  
  - vehicle turn rates
  - command delays, especially along a road, for a continuous curve or at scenario start
  

  Absolutely. And even though it might seems trivial, I'd like them to leave some sort of traces on the land they move upon. Useful - and realistic- in QBs.
  
  

  Originally posted by Redwolf:
  
  - foxhole protection
  

  3D modelled as well.
  
  

  Originally posted by Redwolf:
  
  - non-radio spotters (non-)escape
  

  What do you mean ?
  
  

  Originally posted by Redwolf:
  
  - [...] trenches [...]

  Again, trenches rendered in 3D with depth and perhaps more flexibility in layout.
  
  Plus everything WWB said and many many other equally interesting ideas.
  
  - among other things.</font>

Now back to what I should really be doing. Essay due tomorrow.

Best

[General Bolt]

I want tanks that provide some protection to infantry by blocking bullets.

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Philippe:

To parrot MikeyD,

Boats.

I want boats. And not just rubber dingies. The real thing, with some limited modeling of destroyers, submarines, and the odd freighter. I want boats that can sometimes shoot back, and can even move a little (but probably not under player control).

You left out the "through the sextant" view option. Might as well, since we get celestial bodies moving across the sky.

[weasleboy]

Before I start off on my wish list for CM2, I would like to comment on one of the thoughts in the first thread.

I read a few posts about using "real time" in cm2. Whether this is a preference over UGO IGO or not, does not matter. It won't work. For one reason. AI. The machines we play our games on today have nowhere near the computing power to control a squad, much less a platoon or larger. Games like C&C ( which I play )simulate an intelligent AI by giving the computer an "edge". Usually this is in the form of LOTS more units, mines or booby-traps, prebuilt defenses, psychic artillery, etc, etc. In a game like C&C or Warcraft, this is fine. They are fantasy. But in an historical simulation like CM, micro management is the way you get your guys to do (generally) what you want. That is because we are trying to mimic REAL life. The time when you can tell a platoon leader to take his men and secure 'that house over yonder', and leave it to the AI to do it, is a long way off.

[ September 22, 2004, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: weasleboy ]

[Philippe]

Bitmap Redundancy.

Why?

Right now I have to suffer looking at infantry shoulder patches on tankers, because Allied infantry and tankers share the same sleaves. And if I give in to Darknight and put sergeants stripes on one of my Commonwealth uniforms, everybody in the squad, all three or all twelve of them, is a sergeant. And even if I look closely at one of my infantrymen, what do I see? One of his shoulder patches is always reversed. And the same thing goes for numbers on the sides of tank turrets, which means I'm really getting sick of having every tank in my army numbered "888".

BFC could map out the architecture for a truly fully modded CMx2, and the modders could take care of the rest. Squads would have a dozen figures, and one of them would be an NCO. Tanks would all have different turret numbers (or seem to). And if you put a divisional insignia on the front of a jeep's windshield, you wouldn't see it in reverse when you looked at the windshield from the back. And the same goes for fenders.

These and similar problems were the result of shortcuts that BFC had to take or the original engine would have been cut off at the knees. These are dumb, trivial little things, but if attended to systematically in advance, there are enthusiasts ( i.e. maniacs) out there who will fill in the details. Now that he's got his database together, Darknight would mod in the shoulder patches for the CW in a heartbeat. And there are three of us (myself included) who could do the same for the US. And with a little prompting and a slightly easier palette to work with something similar could be done for the Germans -- just take a look at the uniform notes in Grog Dorosh's German website.

The kind of obsessive uniform modding that I'm describing makes no sense being carried out by BFC -- but if they smooth the way by adding a few bmp's here and there that they don't need for the program, but that modders will, they can turn CMx2 into a living virtual museum. A bit like walking through the vast armies of lead soldiers at the Invalides before they sold most of their collection. Creating the basis for a living virtual museum would be quite an accomplishment in and of itself.

I'm assuming, of course, that CMx2 will be compatible with some kind of CMMOS-like texture-switching program that will have to be programed from scratch once the new game is released. And how wonderful it would be if such a system existed were developed that was native to CMx2.

[Pzman]

How much VRAM do you have again? I figure that most people wont go buy a 300+ dollar card just to play CMX2 (I know that I wont). That many uniform bmps would push the limits of even the top of the line graphics cards. As for tank crews sharing shoulder patches, I cannot say I can recall any crews shareing bmps with regular infantry.

[Philippe]

Actually, it won't. I have one of the few working copies of the Semiotics mod installed on my computer (which doesn't exactly push the envelope) and it already does most of what I describe with CMBO. Not CMAK, CMBO. So it wouldn't take much more than a little planning to enable the virtual uniform museum.

[Pzman]

The point is though, that's in CMBO, which has low res-graphics. Even the mods in CMBO aren't very high res compaired to CMBB and CMAK. I figure CMX2 will already require a better card then I have, at least 64MB one no doubt. If you have a ton of high res graphics you need more VRAM. Then if you have more of those high res graphics showing at the same time then you will need even more. Its not about how many sets you can have, its how much VRAM it takes to show a larger number of them at one time.

[Cthulhu Dreams]

*scratch sratch*

Why the heck are you talking about BMPs?

If it's anything like any of the other 3d engines kicking about, there will be no bitmap files to be seen?

Expect skins, models and they might be scaleable? Ie you draw them at super awesome detail, then if your PC cannot cope with that, it downgrades the detail until it's something reasonable?

If the infantry models are "moddable" there is no reason why you couldn't do anything with them. No need for redudant BMPs or whatever - look at a 3d game on the market now - say UT2004 - you can add any number of models and skins to that.

Edit: And seriously, this game is going to take a year to come out? We can expect to be a generation further ahead in terms of graphics, so the 256 meg awesome cards will be in the affordable, and the 128 meg radeon 9800 pros etc should be like, 100 dollars AU

Load up far cry, or dawn of war or something, and have a look at the level of detail and what you can change!

[ September 23, 2004, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: Cthulhu Dreams ]

[Bogdan]

Originally posted by Philippe:

And the same thing goes for numbers on the sides of tank turrets, which means I'm really getting sick of having every tank in my army numbered "888".

I really agree about this point in particular, and I still think that it could have been included in the first CM serie.

- 3D modelling for foxholes, trenches and craters and a correct simulation of its protection for infantry may be interesting.

- More flexibility in the way of designing maps, in particular for buildings and their eternal "box-shape", which always create perpendicular road patterns.

- More bridge "variety" : stone bridges, railroad bridges, or like at Arnhem for example... A sweet eye-candy, IMHO, but really nice to correctly represent some famous battlegrounds.

- T34's that "raise their hat" in front of a Tiger. Blown off turrets lying on the ground near a burning hull...

By the way, as we are in a complete fog of war about CMx2, my remarks will surelly be a little off-topic in the future. :confused:

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Cthulhu Dreams:

[...]

If it's anything like any of the other 3d engines kicking about, there will be no bitmap files to be seen?

Expect skins, models and they might be scaleable? Ie you draw them at super awesome detail, then if your PC cannot cope with that, it downgrades the detail until it's something reasonable?

[...]

You're right. From the short article we've been reading recently on CMx2 progress (couldn't dig out the link), I think BFC is experimenting with OpenGL now, instead of the current direct 3D based engine. Now what does that mean exactly, I cannot tell, but it's along what you say in terms of scalable performances, among other things. Perhaps it will also mean that I'll get to see fog with my radeon card ! yay !

But unlike FPS (where you rarely see at more than, say, 250 m) or flight sims (where you very little very far), current CM model rather precisely up to anywhere between 3000 m to what, 6000 m of reality at a time, which mean a s***load of polygons, especialy in big battles. That is why it is running lazy pretty fast.

Now unless BFC change the basic principle of the game (battalion size tactical simulation), that will be moddeled still somehow, and this is where the technology leap (both software and hardware wise) might comes in.

Modding may also change from bmp mapping to texture file like IL2 or FPS where one file is used for the whole model, a bit like wrapping paper.

All this to say that technically speaking, I'm clueless about where this will go, although I am confident I'll be glad it got there

Have a good day.

[Alsatian]

I want some random amount of fire/interaction from outside the map affecting games. This is the effect that my line isn't in some abstract box, but that there's something going on on my flanks. Let the scenario designer set the amount of "flank activity." Might affect the gaminess of hugging the map edge.

[Alsatian]

Somehow program the TacAI not to put it's HQs at the front of the platoon. Keep them in the back so they survive long enough to actually command it's platoon.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Cthulhu Dreams:

*scratch sratch*

Why the heck are you talking about BMPs?

If it's anything like any of the other 3d engines kicking about, there will be no bitmap files to be seen?

Expect skins, models and they might be scaleable? Ie you draw them at super awesome detail, then if your PC cannot cope with that, it downgrades the detail until it's something reasonable?

If the infantry models are "moddable" there is no reason why you couldn't do anything with them. No need for redudant BMPs or whatever - look at a 3d game on the market now - say UT2004 - you can add any number of models and skins to that.

If you need to improve performance in face of texture overload, then just loading a smaller texture for distant objects is not enough, and in fact not particulary useful

The problem is that your polygoon count is still the same and overloading the graphics card not with amount of textures but number of polygons.

To do resource-saving level of detail, you need to draw models with less polygons for distant objects, something which takes quite some effort to do and, of course, usually requires a seperate set of textures.

In CM the situation is special anyway, since you have a lot of reuse of textures. If you have 100 infantrymen drawn on the screen, all using the same uniform textures, then you will actually see a net loss in performance by using different textures for those who are far away.

Edit: And seriously, this game is going to take a year to come out? We can expect to be a generation further ahead in terms of graphics, so the 256 meg awesome cards will be in the affordable, and the 128 meg radeon 9800 pros etc should be like, 100 dollars AU

Well, but it would suck e.g. for people with notebooks who can't change their graphics cards.

[Redwolf]

Regarding detail textures and saving texture space both on the CD and on the grapphics card, I could never understand why BFC did not implement optional textures.

Example: the left and right side of the turret of a Panther D are currently drawn with the same texture, lets say file 1188.bmp. Now that is good for people with low-memory graphics cards and it is good because you save space on the CD.

But why didn't CM implement this:

- for right side of turret, load 1188.bmp

- for left side of turret, if 1188b.bmp exists, load that

- if 1188b.bmp doesn't exist or if it is size zero, then just use 1188.bmp again

That way you can ship with the same texture for both sides but a highres mod for people with good video ram (and downloading the mod, not getting it off the CD) will be able to define different textures for both sides.

Obviously you can expand that scheme to all kinds of optional textures.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Redwolf:

- non-radio spotters (non-)escape

What do you mean ?

</font>

[samurai man]

I like the current CMAK engine. But it would be nice to have the following:

1)*most important* Follow the leader group command. (ie. the ability to plot the waypoints of a lead unit and then have other units follow it along a road or to a destination - rather than tediously plotting paths for each unit inividually and having to time vehicles so they don't crash into each other.)

2) A more dynamic operation designer that allows reinforcements to enter at any side of the map - such as flank or rear rather than just front.

3) A larger map area - say 6km x 12km or larger.

4) More units such as King Tiger, M36 Jackson, Jumbo Sherman, and Puma.

I'd be very happy with any one of these additions - particularly the first one. Anything else is just icing on the cake.

THX