1:1 Representation in CMx2

[tar]

Well, one nice thing about some of these ideas is that if one has multiple target points combined with better modeling of lines of fire, then getting flanking fire on a line will be more of a problem:

Better chances of getting a hit if you shoot down a line of enemy troops than perpendicular to it.

Less return fire, because of the danger of the enemy hitting its own forces.

That would make flanking a much more valuable maneuver and also introduce even more of a benefit to formation management. This might get to be too micro a level for a battalion level game, though.

[Battlefront.com]

Two things...

First, having individuals regullarly "misbehave" graphically is not an option for us. As was stated clearly, this undermines the realism aspect of 1:1 and therefore causes people to not know what is real and what is abstract. If that happens, then much of the reason for going to 1:1 is lost.

Second, there should be no additional micromanagement for 1:1 in CMx2 as there is in CMx1. In both you will plot your movements and at the last order the unit will stop facing the direction of travel. If the player wants the final position to be in a different direction, then a single command is used to point it in the right direction.

The difference between CMx1 and CMx2, in this regard, is that CMx1 uses an abstracted visual representation which assumes a kneeling position when it completes its move. In CMx2 the number of graphical soldiers equals the number of men in the squad with their final stance and positions being depending on the terrain and orders. You might have 8 guys standing along a wall, or 4 guys crouching and 4 guys prone. Whatever. But their facing will be in the same general direction as a CMx1 unit would be.

In CMx1 a unit had an abstraction in terms of its footprint. The people saying that a CMx1 unit stands on a head of a pin are not exactly correct. The terrain type and LOS line are based on a single point. However, the simulation itself treated the unit as being more spread out and with some attention being diverted to the rear and flanks. CMx2 simply makes this more realistic.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

" In CMx2 the number of graphical soldiers equals the number of men in the squad with their final stance and positions being depending on the terrain and orders. You might have 8 guys standing along a wall, or 4 guys crouching and 4 guys prone. Whatever. But their facing will be in the same general direction as a CMx1 unit would be."

That sounds Like GREAT news to me!!

"First, having individuals regullarly "misbehave" graphically is not an option for us."

dalem, it sounds like they have this covered!

Very Good!

lets move on.....

-tom w

[ January 28, 2005, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Sergei]

Tom, why do you always have to quote the whole text at the end of your posts when it would suffice to cite only the essential parts?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Two things...

First, having individuals regullarly "misbehave" graphically is not an option for us. As was stated clearly, this undermines the realism aspect of 1:1 and therefore causes people to not know what is real and what is abstract. If that happens, then much of the reason for going to 1:1 is lost.

What really undermines the realism is the AI of the soldiers. What are you going to do when people demand you to fix unrealistic behaviour (which, knowing just how well the TacAI currently behaves, is unlikely to ever satisfy everyone)? Keep patching until the Sun explodes into a supernova, or just try to persuade people to think that it is realistic that the machinegunner is lying in a location from which he can't shoot, while the squad leader is lying on open ground next to the foxhole? Aren't you worried at all that the whole 1:1 thing will backfire just for the reasons that it backfired in Close Combat series?

[Battlefront.com]

Well, if one fears challenges then one shoud instead be making simulations of Checkers Sure, there are a number of things we are doing with CMx2 that could "backfire", with 1:1 reperesention being one of them. But if we took the "oh, this is tough, let's not do it" position every time a challenge like this arose, well... you wouldn't have CMBO, CMBB, or CMAK to play with.

CMBO broke practically every rule of wargaming and broke it hard. Not only that, but it pushed hardware limitations to the max in its hayday. And the whole time we had tons of guys telling us it couldn't be done or that it would suck even if we did. Most of them ate their words or were never heard from again because we delivered on what we promised.

1:1 simulation is a must. It is without a doubt the most fundamental break with reality found in CMx1. To do the kinds of things we want done with this new engine, we have to go with 1:1. And we also have to make it work.

Have some faith grasshoppers

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Have some faith grasshoppers

Steve

Note to those who don't get it - he means don't ask a bunch of daft questions or provide business instructions...

Steve, if you don't get the Canadian SMGs right this time, I am personally hunting you down and detracking your Weasel. That probably sounds much more painful to read than to experience, but you've been warned.

Now stop assing about on your own forum and go do something constructive. An interview with PC Gamer would do nicely.

[Battlefront.com]

Some more food for thought...

When Charles and I sit down to figure out what can and can not be done, we always start with the most realistic design possible. When this can not be done "as is" we figure out what elements are to blame and tweak them as best we can to get something workable. Sometimes problems are too much programming time, hardware limitations, too much interface, too much artwork, etc. etc. If the element is too important to simply drop we find SOMEWAY of getting it into the game even if it is imperfect. Better to have something rather than nothing. It is one of the reasons CMx1 is so rich in subtle behaviors and features.

Now, 1:1 simulation is a big deal as it hits pretty much every aspect of the sim and hits it hard. Hardware demands, artwork, user interface, AI, etc... all are involved with this feature. So obviously we have examined the ramifications this will have, as best we can, quite thoroughly. Are there some surprises in store for us as we go along? Sure, but this is par for the course and we know how to handle them. That's why we have been able to do so much with so little.

Now... to show we are not totally out to lunch... we relaize that 1:1 spotting is not possible since spotting is one of the most CPU intensive tasks in a 3D sim. Currently in CMx1 each unit spots as a whole, meaning that two 10 men squads represent two spotting entities with only 2 hits to the CPU. If we did 1:1 man spotting this would mean not 2 but 20. That is a 10 fold increase. Forget about it... not possible!

Fortunately, this is not as big of a deal as it might appear. Think about the spotting system in CMx1. It works just fine almost all the time, doesn't it? The shortcomings in CMx1's spotting system are more related to Absolute Spotting and terrain abstractions. Since CMx2 is fixing both of the latter, then spotting should take a huge leap forward in realism EVEN THOUGH we aren't going to be having a 1:1 man spotting system. In other words... you won't notice the abstraction (though you would notice a 10 fold decrease in speed ).

Oh, and do not confuse 1:1 spotting with any other 1:1 simulation issue. Different beasts.

Steve

[dalem]

Geez Steve, ya shoulda just said "Dale is right. Goshdarnit, Dale is always right, how about that?!?"

-dale

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Have some faith grasshoppers

Steve

Now would the rest of you would just ... "Stop with the NEGATIVE waves!, That Bridge is gonna be there!"

(and no wise cracking comments about what happened to that particular bridge either! After all they did get across that river didn't they!)

I'm on board, I just want to pay a little extra for that Super Sized AI I was yacking about earlier!

-tom w

[ January 28, 2005, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I just want to pay a little extra for that Super Sized AI I was yacking about earlier!

-tom w

Then just send some of your hard-earned money to Ace Pilot, and, "Have a little faith, baby. Have a little faith."

[Noiseman]

Originally posted by Gpig:

Hey Noiseman, cool images. May I ask what program you used to create those?

I did them in Poser 4. I was pleasantly surprised that this older program worked on my OSX mac in 'classic' mode. Believe me, I couldn't draw a straight line otherwise...

[Stan Hope Park]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

that Super Sized AI I was yacking about earlier

Do we want to open a CMX 3 wish list?

[RMC]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And the whole time we had tons of guys telling us it couldn't be done or that it would suck even if we did. Most of them ate their words or were never heard from again because we delivered on what we promised.

1:1 simulation is a must.

You tell 'em. Some of the kvetching I see in this thread reminds me of the complaints about 3D and hexes way in the old days before you even got UBB forums. Makes me wonder if anyone ever did follow through and play exclusively from the top-down view.

[a1steaks]

[q] Currently in CMx1 each unit spots as a whole, meaning that two 10 men squads represent two spotting entities with only 2 hits to the CPU. If we did 1:1 man spotting this would mean not 2 but 20. That is a 10 fold increase. Forget about it... not possible![/q]

Your math is a bit off. Two 10 man squads all doing per-person LOS traces would yield 200 traces, or a 100 fold increase. Obviously, you cut this down by not duplicating traces. Generally if soldier A can see enemy B you don't need to do a trace from enemy B to soldier A.

[dalem]

Originally posted by RMC:

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

And the whole time we had tons of guys telling us it couldn't be done or that it would suck even if we did. Most of them ate their words or were never heard from again because we delivered on what we promised.

1:1 simulation is a must.

You tell 'em. Some of the kvetching I see in this thread reminds me of the complaints about 3D and hexes way in the old days before you even got UBB forums. Makes me wonder if anyone ever did follow through and play exclusively from the top-down view. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Groggily speaking, are we using "fold" correctly?

If you increase the number ten "onefold" - you get 20.

If you increase it "twofold", don't you get 40?

Three fold would be 80

Four fold would be 160

Five fold would be 320

Six fold would be 640

Seven fold would be 1280

Eight fold would be 2560

Nine fold would be 5120

Ten fold would be 10240

??

[flamingknives]

You are mistaken, Herr Dorosh.

Dictionary Definition

It's a simple multiple.

[Thompson]

With this 1:1 representation/simulation I take it that ammo will be tracked individually (so e.g. the squad LMG can be low on ammo, while other weapons aren't), soldiers have individual "attributes" (experience, morale, fatigue etc.), leaders can be first casualities in a unit (now they're the last to fall), and firing will be done more-or-less individually (no more squad "volley fire"). Or?

Also, I'd like to request 1) separating training from experience so you could have e.g. green paratroopers (high training, low experience) and 2) an intermediate step of "(lightly) wounded" in soldier status (it's too binary for me now - I'd like to see some walking wounded in the fight, with reduced effectiveness naturally).

[Thompson]

Forgot this from my wish list above -- give soldiers a new, separate morale attribute that is static (to a degree) during battle and describe morale state/suppression compared to this, much like Fitness and Fatigue are related in CMBB/CMAK now. HIgh morale troops would break less often and be less adversely affected by incoming fire than low morale ones, but this would be separate from experience. So you could have battle-weary veterans (low morale, high experience) and near fanatical, newly conscripted peasants (high morale, low experience).

So in effect I'd like to see the following attributes/stats/values: training, experience, morale and fitness. Training and experience would determine the "skill" of the unit/soldier, morale his "core" will to fight (pitted vs suppression), and fitness is self-explanatory.

[ January 29, 2005, 03:05 AM: Message edited by: Thompson ]

[securityguard]

Originally posted by Thompson:

With this 1:1 representation/simulation I take it that ammo will be tracked individually (so e.g. the squad LMG can be low on ammo, while other weapons aren't), soldiers have individual "attributes" (experience, morale, fatigue etc.), leaders can be first casualities in a unit (now they're the last to fall), and firing will be done more-or-less individually (no more squad "volley fire"). Or?

I'd also like to know this. I know that it's too early to ask these questions - especially such a specific one - but the curiousity kills me. You guys mentioned before that you couldn't model frequenet misbehaviours. I understand that it is impossible to model a man jumping over a wall, throwing a grenade in a window or being a rambo but 1:1 representation will seperate each mans status, right? The visuals don't have to be complicated but the statistics behind it hopefully are. Something like (I dare say it) Close Combat (but not GI combat!).

[Blanar]

Interesting topic and one that has actually forced me to come out of lurk mode and ask a question. Looking at the sketches from Gpig and Nosieman, I noticed that the only one who is doing anything even remotely left-handed looking is the “hero” going over the wall. Typical lefty, always causing problems.

Now, myself being a hard core lefty, I couldn’t shoot right-handed to save my life or that of my squad mates. If I ran holding a rifle in my right hand, I’d probably trip, fall, and knock over the two guys next to me. Hurling a grenade? You’d best not be in my fox hole if I have to chuck it with my right arm.

So, what was the training regimen for the forces in WWII? Did they force lefties to shoot righty as many schools did with hand writing? Did lefties on the battlefield shoot lefty anyway, have the expended cartridges ding off their helmets so they could shoot straight? Willl 15-20% of the 1:1 representation be shooting, hoisting, throwing, and carrying left-handed? Do you save coding effort by reversing 1/5 of your graphics so that they look like their different from a righties? Does it complicate things because you have to code whether a weapon can be shot left-handed or not?

Or did all lefties just become frustrated paper pushers constantly being written up for smudging paper work as they secretly wrote from the left side?

Any handedness grogs out there?

Carl

P.S. I did a search and surprisingly this important subject seems not to have been discussed before.

[junk2drive]

We could start a "What the leftys want in CMx2" thread.

Somewhere is an old thread about shooting left handed. Yes a right handed bolt action is a pain.

[YankeeDog]

Until relatively recently, lefties were forced to use their right hands for virtually everything.

Typical reigmen in grade school was for the child to have his left hand tied to his waist, so he had no choice but to use his right hand.

In fact, my Grandfather, who was a WWII combat vet, was "taught" to be right-handed this way.

And yes, speaking as another lefty, shooting a normal right-handed bolt-action is a royal PITA.

Cheers,

YD

[YankeeDog]

Until relatively recently, lefties were forced to use their right hands for virtually everything.

Typical reigmen in grade school was for the child to have his left hand tied to his waist, so he had no choice but to use his right hand.

In fact, my Grandfather, who was a WWII combat vet, was "taught" to be right-handed this way.

And yes, speaking as another lefty, shooting a normal right-handed bolt-action is a royal PITA.

Cheers,

YD