1:1 Representation in CMx2

[kipanderson]

Hi,

“Yes, Morale separate from Experience. Already in the CMx2 design ”

Well… one cannot ask for more than that… put a request in and it is already included .

Thanks Steve.

All the best,

Kip.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

How about just focussing back on underwear like I suggested (if you'd bother to read the posts). White=good morale

Brown=bad morale

damp=tired

soaked=exhausted (physically and emotionally)

You forgot:

routed = urine soaked leggings

casualty = blood red

+2 moral HQ = Superman Blue

And people call you a grog - sheesh!

[Sergei]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

How about just focussing back on underwear like I suggested (if you'd bother to read the posts). White=good morale

Brown=bad morale

damp=tired

soaked=exhausted (physically and emotionally)

You forgot:

routed = urine soaked leggings

casualty = blood red

+2 moral HQ = Superman Blue

And people call you a grog - sheesh! </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

How about just focussing back on underwear like I suggested (if you'd bother to read the posts). White=good morale

Brown=bad morale

damp=tired

soaked=exhausted (physically and emotionally)

You forgot:

routed = urine soaked leggings

casualty = blood red

+2 moral HQ = Superman Blue

And people call you a grog - sheesh! </font>

[Halberdiers]

Michael Dorosh ,...So you're seriously suggesting that every 60 seconds, I need to go down to view level 0, maneuver the camera on 150 seperate individuals, and look at their faces to determine morale states?...

Nop No sorry guys Im not suggesting this.

Because I do not think that morale or experience must to be asked every minute. Neither with faces nor colors.

I think that BEFORE the first turn, IN THE SETUP PHASE, the leader can ask to their troops about morale and experience.But NEVER every minute DURING THE BATTLE.

O.K. , you can put words or colors. Yes, it is simple and efficient. Its good to me too...But:

I have a idea that sure you like it . Try To Imagine this dialogs in the SETUP PHASE. You SELECT a units (to make everything or change the disposition,etc), then the player ear a voice in off:

example:Select squad.

-You can ear the HQ-platoon ask "eyy how are you guys?"

-The squad respond "better than your sister sergeant".(sincere laughter!!!**good signal).

example:select HQ plattoon

-Hi harry. How are your troops? (ask the HQ-company).

-ready Captain.(distrust murmur!!!**bad signal)

Good, Isn't it?. But,because it is impossible understand all the languages ,japanese or Russian,etc. We need a Help. Of course , Write words and Colors are good to me too, but why not a face expression in the SETUP PHASE directly in the units (or in an emergent little screen)during the dialogs ?.

Battlefront.com , So... even IF it was easy to add some detail like facial expressions, we wouldn't waste the interface space on it because it is a unnecessary distraction to the player.

Developers, the player could have a full inmersion in the first second of the game !!. Knock out to the FPS :cool: Think about this little idea please.

(Note: another point are the voices that have another role during every minute during the combat as now occur , for example when they happen to be face down because they are crawling).

[ January 30, 2005, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[dalem]

No Halberdiers, none of what you suggest is good. At least, not in a wargame trying to playably simulate company and battalion sized engagements.

Maybe in a UFC fighting game that stuff would be appropriate, but not in a CM game I would buy.

-dale

[Halberdiers]

I know dalem, it is a crazy idea maybe . But ...maybe , maybe...

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I humbly bask in the sunshine that is your scatological knowledge.

From whence that sun shines, I have no desire to know!

I do have 4 kids ... but that hardly qualifies me as a scatologist.

[stikkypixie]

Hey what about this:

You get a horoscope of every soldier before you start the battle in CMX2. That way you can plan to have the guys with a good horoscope to do the heavy fighting and keep the ones with the bad horoscope behind.

And for your horoscope grogs out there, this feature can be turned off, so that you can only determine the horoscope based on the birthdate of every soldier (which is of course written in his/her underwear; although you would want to ask first). and the position of the stars and the planet.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Halberdiers:

I know dalem, it is a crazy idea maybe . But ...maybe , maybe...

It's not a crazy idea - it's a bad idea.

-dale

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by dalem:

No Halberdiers, none of what you suggest is good. At least, not in a wargame trying to playably simulate company and battalion sized engagements.

I think it contains the germ of a wonderful idea -- attempting to simulate the junior officer's attempt to impress his peronality on his troops, and inspire them to follow him.

Exactly how you do this through the nerdomorphic interface of a personal computer is a bit of a puzzle.

Maybe a web-cam and some face-recognition software could be included to check that you, the player, have the right look of steely determination and jutting jawfulness.

Alternatively, a rhetoric appreciation plug-in to a commercial word-processor might assess the inspirational value of your speech to the troops. Finally, a game mechanism that savagely punishes l33t Ha><0r 5ki11s.

All the best,

John.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

I know dalem, it is a crazy idea maybe . But ...maybe , maybe...

It's not a crazy idea - it's a bad idea.

-dale </font>

[Battlefront.com]

The 3D environment of CM does offer us some challenges in terms of where to draw the line between a simulation of the individual soldier and larger groups of soldiers (i.e. units). It's something we've all be struggling with since the early days of CMBO's design.

Back in the old days of wargaming you'd have a cardboard chit with some numbers and a shape on it. Nobody called for more than that simply because the system was so abstract probably nobody thought of it (at least not thinking it possibly practical).

The first couple of generations of computerized wargames fell into the same category. As time went on and technology improved wargamers wanted better looking maps, more attractive looking units, and of course more under the hood. But again, for anything but the smallest scale wargames nobody thought about simulating the individual soldier to any significant degree. Until, that is, Close Combat came out.

CC was the first commercial wargame to model the individual soldier in detail and in substantial numbers. And for all its flaws, the game worked very well and people saw the value in having the 1:1 soldier simulation. Then CMBO came around...

Our problem, from the beginning, is our chosen scale. MUCH larger than CC's, yet not so much that individuals ceased to matter. But due to technical limiations we never once thought about doing 1:1 because it simply wasn't possible. However, the desire has always been there, at least to some extent. Now comes CMx2...

What we are doing now is giving the individual soldier a place on a larger scale battlefield (larger than FPS, CC, etc). That is the right thing to do. However, there are limits. We must make sure to not lose sight of the fact that this is a larger scale wargame and not a FPS of even Close Combat scale game. Therefore, when push comes to shove, decisions are made which favor the larger scale wargaming environment. Clutter, unnecessary development distractions, big hits to the CPU for little simulation gain, etc. are all bad things for CMx2.

In short... we know what CMx2 is supposed to be and what it isn't. We have this vision very clearly laid out and will not waiver from it. There will be no mission creep.

Steve

[David I]

Steve,

Thank goodness.

On a personal level, and I think for others, are modders going to have a chance to ply their art in CMX2?

David

[Kip Watson]

I'd be interested in how you model heroics and close combat in general.

It sounds like a silly statement, but seriously - 'studies have shown', as well as millenia of anecdotal, that most of the killing in infantry combat, especially close combat, is done by a smallish minority of soldiers. I'd be most impressed if this 'Audie Murphy affect' was modelled to some degree.

At the moment troops in close combat just stand a few metres away and fling grenades at each other, but the willingness to engage in close combat made a big difference to the lethality of some units. It's be cool to see the Brits getting in the the bayonet or whatever, without needing to cross the gross-out-line.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Kip Watson:

'studies have shown',

Name one, without mentioning Grossman or SLA Marshall, and we'll let you stay in this thread.

[Gpig]

I agree, Kip Watson.

I can imagine that Close combat will provide one of the big challenges for the 1:1 representation issue.

Bayonets and rifle butts. It happens often enough in CM games and it would add another level to the gaming experience when watching all your little warriors mixing it up in the trench line. Or bursting in the ground floor of the enemy strongpoint.

There are many great things that could come out of the new 1:1 displays. Troops embarking and disembarking. Advancing and Assaulting (leapfrogging), etc. Mortar teams working. Crews bailing out.

But Close Combat will really be thrilling AND chilling to watch. Once the ORDERS are in and the 'puter crunches the numbers it'll know how the Close Combat ends. All's you have to do is sit back and root for your guys.

Two squads enter Close Combat with each other, both Veterans. Both Fanatical. There might just be one guy left standing . . . It already happens in CM, but now you'll get to (or HAVE to) watch each blow. Each fallen man. CMx2 is going to be VERY good. It's CM on crack.*

Gpig

*Not that I'd know what THAT's like . . .

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Gpig:

but now you'll get to (or HAVE to) watch each blow.

According to whom??? :confused:

Do you guys even read Steve's posts?

What we are doing now is giving the individual soldier a place on a larger scale battlefield (larger than FPS, CC, etc). That is the right thing to do. However, there are limits. We must make sure to not lose sight of the fact that this is a larger scale wargame and not a FPS of even Close Combat scale game. Therefore, when push comes to shove, decisions are made which favor the larger scale wargaming environment. Clutter, unnecessary development distractions, big hits to the CPU for little simulation gain, etc. are all bad things for CMx2.

I can see the huge buildup is starting already - only to be followed by lots of hurt feelings later when the 1:1 representations don't know 300 different jiu jitsu moves...

Again, you guys are positively obsessed with eye candy that doesn't matter a damn to a game on the scale of CM...

[David Chapuis]

I have some more questions about how the squad footprint will be handled. That actually seems like one of the hardest issues to resolve.

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.

You have given two examples in this thread that deal with this, and both would have to see huge differences and problems when compared to the abstracted way CMx1 handled it.

First

For example, having a LMG team stay put while the rifle section moves forward on an assault. This is inherently possible because CMx2 already knows what a LMG team is and what a rilfeman is, if for no other reason than to get the animations correct.

The way I read that, Steve was talking about not having a split squad (if he meant the player doing a split squad, then the issue is moot). I just wonder how this will be handled while keeping the squads footprint a playable size. Will the AI split the squad automatically, have the rifle section move, then, when the rifle section gets to its location, will the LMG section come forward and join the group? Having the AI split the squad seems undesirable from a player perspective. Or will the squad footprint cover the entire 10/15/20m? That doesn’t even seem possible to work from a squad-level spotting/cover perspective.

Second

Routing will certainly be different for CMx2. Units will be able to lose individuals, or small portions, without the rest of the unit routing.

So is that individual then out of play for the rest of the game? Surely you don’t want to create a new control unit for each routed guy - but if you dont then the guy is gone. Which mean he could not rally and join the fight - seems like not a good option. But creating a new control unit for each routed guy seems bad too. Or does the soldier stay in the squad footprint but just in a routed status? That doesn’t seem to make sense either - what if the squad moves, would the routed guy go with it.

And if the guy leaves the squad but does not become a new contolable unit, the AI will still have to keep track of him - unless he just vanishes into thin air. Seems like the only options are for the AI to have the ability to track hundreds of routed guys individually (if they leave the squad - which is the way I read your post) or the soldiers go to never-never land.

Very, very curious about these things.

[ January 30, 2005, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: David Chapuis ]

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Again, you guys are positively obsessed with eye candy that doesn't matter a damn to a game on the scale of CM...

Again, you guy are obsessed with spitting your venom all over this thread!

I was looking for an 'ignore' feature, but this board does not seem to have one! Pity, really!

Best regards,

Thomm

[hoolaman]

While I'm sure it won't run to 300 different martial arts moves, depicting close combat will be important in a 1:1 situation. And like just about all other aspects of 1:1, I'm sure it won't be easy to get right, but thats why those guys get paid the big bucks.

As for routed squad members, didn't close combat have a way to deal with this, where the man was left behind cowering, but was still part of the squad. I never played enough to see how it worked, but I'm sure a simple regroup command would be possible. You wouldn't always want the guy who just ran away screaming to come back, so it should just be optional.

[Le Tondu]

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.

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

Please tell us this 1:1 representation thing will be scalable like it is now with squads being able to be represented with 2 or 3 figures. The folks with slower PCs sure could use it. Thanks.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

depicting close combat will be important in a 1:1 situation. And like just about all other aspects of 1:1, I'm sure it won't be easy to get right, but thats why those guys get paid the big bucks.

And highly entertaining to watch. I am hoping that some of their 'visual scripts' can be modded.

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

As for routed squad members, didn't close combat have a way to deal with this, where the man was left behind cowering, but was still part of the squad. I never played enough to see how it worked, but I'm sure a simple regroup command would be possible. You wouldn't always want the guy who just ran away screaming to come back, so it should just be optional.

I am sure there are ways to do it, but all the ways I can think of have some flaws. That is why I was asking the question.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Again, you guy are obsessed with spitting your venom all over this thread!

Once once one has been canonized as a Grog, he don't have to be nice to mortals any longer.

Being friendly to Grogs is, naturally, unnecessary even before that. As a matter of fact, you are required to vehemently attack the sexual peculiarities of a Grog if you want to address him. If you feel unsecure, you could of course join a gang (i.e. the Pengstas or the Waffle League). But that option comes with a price in sanity...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

As for routed squad members, didn't close combat have a way to deal with this, where the man was left behind cowering, but was still part of the squad. I never played enough to see how it worked, but I'm sure a simple regroup command would be possible. You wouldn't always want the guy who just ran away screaming to come back, so it should just be optional.

CC also had "seperated" men who never did rejoin. Very annoying in some scenarios where you had to hunt down and kill the last coward, and your troops were ill-disposed to actually shooting him. I hope we will have auto-surrender in CMX2 still.