1:1 Representation in CMx2

[Other Means]

I think what Steve is saying is that if you place a movement order inside a house, because that house is built from a template and so is the squad, there will be pre-prepared positions inside the house where each squad member will go to.

Similarly if you tell them to 'advance' over a certain terrain type, there will be a pre-chosen animation for "squad of type X performing advance over terrain of type Y".

By using these pre-determined routines BFC can ensure that optimal placement and movement of your squad members. If they plan to do it without various members teleporting around when changing state it's going to be a hell of a lot of work. Personally I wouldn't bother.

But I think it'd look good enough and ensure that the 3 guys left in the street scenario doesn't happen.

So you will only be able to fit 1 platoon inside a normal house. If BFC make it so 2 50% depleted platoons can fit inside a house then well done to them. Again a lot of work.

[Cpl Steiner]

"Full Spectrum Warrior" is a good example of the "template" idea mentioned above. When a team is ordered to move, each man's future position is shown graphically (with the AI positioning them close to the best cover) and the player has to confirm the order before they move. This way they move realistically and stack up behind car wrecks or around the corners of buildings. You can even order them to "bound" - i.e. half the team covering whilst the other half moves.

I don't see why this couldn't be implement in CMX2 with a slight reduction in graphical detail (i.e generic terrain rather than pre-designed levels). FSW is much lower level than CM but it does a good job of portraying realistic troop movements.

[RMC]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

While CC was certainly 1:1 Graphically, it was not 1:1 Modeled. Unless my memory is playing big tricks on me, much to the contrary of sycophant ramblings a CC unit was no different than a CMx1 unit in that all LOS, LOF, and location calcs were based on a single spot. That means 3 guys of a CC squad on the wrong side of the wall were likely in no danger if the system though of the center of the unit as being on the correct side of the wall. If the system thought the unit was on the incorrect side of the way, the 3 guys on the "protected" side were vulnerable even though they looked protected.

Your memory is failing you, well, at least partially. LOS was modeled individually. I am not sure about cover, though it stands to reason that it was too. It has already been mentioned in this thread about the difficulty in coaxing a CC "team" (no squads as such remember) into a position just so. It was one of the frustrations of the game series that it would take "micromanagement" nudges to get a unit in position so that everyone, especially those all-important gunners, could see and shoot.

CC had this component of the GUI that was called the Soldier Monitor that would tell you the status of every man in the team. It told you who had what weapon, how much ammo they had, their physical and psychological conditions and when a fire order was given, whether or not they could see. Of course you didn't know this before giving the fire command because the LOF/LOS that was drawn was from some sort of center of mass.

[Battlefront.com]

What CC did and did not do is hard for me to say without going back in time many years to posts and stuff that I most likely can't get a hold of anymore. My memory is that there was a long running debate and, based on the arguments I saw at the time, sided with the soldiers not being 1:1 simulated. Or at least not to the extent claimed by the other side. But since this is irrelevant to CMx2 I'm content to agree with anybody on this issue regardless of their opinion

The one thing I said about CC that is not in dispute is that they had serious limitations on what they could expect from the computers of the day. The current systems are so much more powerful that I'm not worried about these issues in CMx2. Also because I know Charles is a fantastic programmer. No Dance of the Spinning Tank in any version of CM

Steve

[markl]

With regard to the 1:1 modeling. How will this effect the damage models. This could allow for a much more detailed damage model of trees etc being damages by artillery etc. Has BFC commented on this on any of their recent threads?

To me the poor damage modeling is worse than the squad representation at present. Fully destructable terrain would be my no 1 like to see option.

I would like to see a better damage model as this to me would increase realism a lot. This may have been discussed but I have not read all the recent posts, sorry if it has.

Cheers Markl

[Stan Hope Park]

No Dance of the Spinning Tank in any version of CM

[Karl Anderson]

One man, one sprite would be the single best enhancement to the CM franchise, I think. Instant recognition of casualties and other important info would be great for gameplay, but even more important for immersiveness. In CC I felt more connection to squads because of the identifiable members. Maybe we could have them maneuver without the moonwalk effect, too. It's 2005, we can have this.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Karl Anderson:

One man, one sprite would be the single best enhancement to the CM franchise, I think. Instant recognition of casualties and other important info would be great for gameplay, but even more important for immersiveness. In CC I felt more connection to squads because of the identifiable members. Maybe we could have them maneuver without the moonwalk effect, too. It's 2005, we can have this.

So instead of having a neat little display you can click through to determine casualties (as we have now), you'd prefer...counting sprites in every squad on the map???

I'd like to see some fuzziness here, as per the other discussion on command levels - ie maybe the player (ie company commander) shouldn't have a clear idea of his own casualties until his units have a chance to consolidate on the objective or reorg.

[RMC]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

My memory is that there was a long running debate and, based on the arguments I saw at the time, sided with the soldiers not being 1:1 simulated. Or at least not to the extent claimed by the other side. But since this is irrelevant to CMx2 I'm content to agree with anybody on this issue regardless of their opinion

Just to be sure I pulled out CC2 and reinstalled it.

These are images of the soldier monitor showing soldiers that are not firing. The first one shows a team leader who can't see after he hit a soldier in the targeted team.

The second show the bow MG gunner who can't target the team being shot at by the main gun.

I would think that this kind of detail could be shown in CMx2, since like in CC, that data will be present in the engine already.

This, however, is probably more than anyone wants to see especially given the size of the battles in CM.

The one thing I said about CC that is not in dispute is that they had serious limitations on what they could expect from the computers of the day. The current systems are so much more powerful that I'm not worried about these issues in CMx2. Also because I know Charles is a fantastic programmer. No Dance of the Spinning Tank in any version of CM

Oh, yeah. Installing CC2 just now went super fast compared to the good old days of my PII 266 on which it was first installed. Maps and everything load instantly.

[aka_tom_w]

Once again this is just some FAN art from a guy that likes

to draw stuff like this

its ALL by Gpig who does not work for BFC (not yet anyway)

he sent these to me for posting here:

"I was just wondering about bailing out crews. Will they be 1:1 rep'd as well? (They should.)

There should be some cool animations for THAT!

Also, as far as animation goes. Do you think the tracks of the tanks and their bogie wheels will undulate/react with the terrain?"

Gpig

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

thats it for today...

Thanks to Gpig for the FAN art!

-tom w

[ January 24, 2005, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

[...]some FAN art from a guy that likes

to draw stuff like this. Its ALL by Gpig

These are outstanding ! Keep 'em coming GpiG. I really like your sketches. The bailing out crew rocks !

[Michael Dorosh]

Re: the fan art-

The defensive positions are something out of a comic book....a mortar FO's dream, catching a whole squad that close and in the same holes, with nice trees to turn into tree bursts...

A machinegunner would love that squad column too.

Perhaps we could move the pretty pictures to the General Forum, where they belong?

I'm not sure I understand the point of them, really.

[ASL Veteran]

From playing many hours of CC3 and CC4 head to head I can say with some confidence that both the LOF and cover status was calculated on a soldier by soldier basis. In fact, in CC .... I think in both CC3 and 4 you could activate a player aid that surrounded the individual soldiers in your squads with their individual "Cover" status. I believe that a green outline was the best and black outline was the worst. I always played with that player aid on and every member of your squad was seldom in the same cover state. This was especially difficult with the big Soviet squads since they didn't always 'fit' into the various terrain features you were trying to hide in. It was also extremely frustrating when you deployed your squad and only two guys were firing their weapons because the other four dudes in your fire team had no LOF to the enemy. The trick with the smaller buildings would be to place the 'location' marker for the fire team in between two small buildings so the team would disperse between them both. The great irony of CC3 was that the Soviets had the upper hand in the early war scenarios and the Germans had the upper hand in the later war scenarios.

[aka_tom_w]

Hi Michael.

I am just a little curious, what makes you suggest these images "belong" in the General Forum?

"I'm not sure I understand the point of them, really."

The point was that someone who can draw things that they can think of and kind of visualize is rendering some "ideas" about about how all the men/soldiers might look in the next game when they are all displayed in 1:1 represenation and not abstracted into little 3 men "clumps". (hence the two men bailing out of the tank).

So Gpig asked me to post them to the 1:1 thread.

If the good folks at BFC feel they need to move the whole thread to the GF then I guess that's their call :confused:

-tom w

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Re: the fan art-

The defensive positions are something out of a comic book....a mortar FO's dream, catching a whole squad that close and in the same holes, with nice trees to turn into tree bursts...

A machinegunner would love that squad column too.

Perhaps we could move the pretty pictures to the General Forum, where they belong?

I'm not sure I understand the point of them, really.

[Michael Dorosh]

Tom - I liken it to the mod artists who used to come on the forum, compare Kwazy Dog's released work to steaming piles of faeces, and then trumpeted the work they did on their latest three-colour camoed Panther.

I always wondered how good a job they would do with a six or eight month deadline, in which they had to build 200 3D models and completely skin them, sometimes with two or three different paint schemes,... Oh, and of course researching the unsexy stuff like Romanian softskins or Italian tankettes before embarking on the real work...

The artwork is fine, but what does it have to do with CM? Do we really think the design team is so clueless they don't know how to animate human motion? I know I learned a lot from looking at those German infantrymen walking too close together. I would suggest a look at GERMAN SQUAD TACTICS IN WW II by Matthew Gajkowski would be of far more value to potential animators than storyboards....frankly, I'd rather they get engineering stuff, or realistic artillery rules, or any of the other grog stuff we've whined about (HOW BOUT THEM STEN GUNS) correct than obsess about what a German squad might look like crouching behind a fence.

Maybe you can post some nice watercolours of how blue the sky is, next - just in case Kwazy Dog doesn't have blue skies down under, and needs a reference for European sky tones...

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The defensive positions are something out of a comic book....a mortar FO's dream, catching a whole squad that close and in the same holes, with nice trees to turn into tree bursts...

IRL the Finns and the Soviets preferred to position their defensive positions in this manner.

At least the Germans and AFAIK the Western Allies preferred to position theirs in front of the tree line.

My gripe is the drawing as such does not seem realistic because there is no undergrowth. It looks like the forest is in the UK or some such central European place where the forests are groomed and cleared of unseemly excess vegetation.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The defensive positions are something out of a comic book....a mortar FO's dream, catching a whole squad that close and in the same holes, with nice trees to turn into tree bursts...

IRL the Finns and the Soviets preferred to position their defensive positions in this manner.

At least the Germans and AFAIK the Western Allies preferred to position theirs in front of the tree line.

My gripe is the drawing as such does not seem realistic because there is no undergrowth. It looks like the forest is in the UK or some such central European place where the forests are groomed and cleared of unseemly excess vegetation.

Yeah, but CM (well, CM I) itself is devoid of undergrowth.... So it may be accurate in that sense. Of course since no one knows what CMX2 will really look like any speculation on that on my part would be silly, so you may have a valid point.

The placement in the trees isn't really a huge concern - the three man fighting positions (?) seem odd, as does the regular disposition along the squad's front - the Germans often had a single team out front - to stop the enemy and make him deploy - which I gather was the opposite of Allied practice. Certainly their positions were dug at irregular intervals. The lack of camouflage is not a concern, for a game, though of course in "real life" most MG positions were invisible - getting back to your underbrush point. I refer you to Charles Cromwell Martin's autobiography BATTLE DIARY in which he laughs at an "official" photo of a Bren Gun team dug in. The photographer made them scoop away the underbrush - infantry in battle are generally invisible. Kinda makes arguments about their animations seem beside the point too...

"Hey Willie - I can't get closer to the ground, me buttons are in the way..."

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Yeah, but CM (well, CM I) itself is devoid of undergrowth.... So it may be accurate in that sense. Of course since no one knows what CMX2 will really look like any speculation on that on my part would be silly, so you may have a valid point.

In the 1:1 representation the role of undergrowth is essential in the sense that while you may spot a man in the bush you never know if it is a team or a full platoon you are facing. Or you may spot all but one man which happens to be the one fielding the SAW and positioned in a way which will ruin your day when he opens up on your flank when you are making your way towards the spotted positions.

The placement in the trees isn't really a huge concern - the three man fighting positions (?) seem odd, as does the regular disposition along the squad's front - the Germans often had a single team out front - to stop the enemy and make him deploy - which I gather was the opposite of Allied practice. Certainly their positions were dug at irregular intervals.

That is IMO dependant on the terrain. To get the optimal FOF and fire sectors you may have to space them out this evenly. But I agree with you, the position seems way too clean.

The lack of camouflage is not a concern, for a game, though of course in "real life" most MG positions were invisible - getting back to your underbrush point. I refer you to Charles Cromwell Martin's autobiography BATTLE DIARY in which he laughs at an "official" photo of a Bren Gun team dug in. The photographer made them scoop away the underbrush - infantry in battle are generally invisible. Kinda makes arguments about their animations seem beside the point too...

This does raise the point about wether or not there should be blood visible when the cyber warriors get hit.

"Hey Willie - I can't get closer to the ground, me buttons are in the way..."

"Is that your ammo poutch or are you just glad to see me ?"

[Gpig]

Mr. Dorosh, you truly are a grognard.

I should know better than to try and defend myself from someone who loves to hate, but here goes . . .

I stand here accused of showmanship, rude behaviour and worse.

I bought the book you referred to by Matthew Gajkowski, in fact that's where I got the squad placement, marching order, positions and deployment ideas from.

The defensive position is just an "idea" about how a squad of 12 men might appear in a CM setting. If -you- had to place 12 men in foxholes on a CM map, how would -you- do it? Bearing in mind the current spacing that a squad takes up in CM. How much space your other 2 squads take up. Plus where the 3 to 9 men in your HQ squad would set up and still be in command range. Would you put them in a big circular crater? 12 men in a hole (like it is now?) Or would you set about trying to figure out a way to disperse those men?

The other pictures are just visualizing "out loud." I feel you may have misinterpreted my intention. It was just to share in the Sesame Street sense. You remember Sesame Street, right? I have not set out to insult Battlefront. Far from it. I am so impressed with the talents there that I've bought all the products they've produced and played them for endless hours. Enjoying every minute.

While I readily admit to retaining some measure of childishness, I trust you won't hold that against me.

Enthusiasm. That is all it is, Mr. Dorosh.

I know you can slingshot back and forth between youthful vigor and excitement and your current state. Therefore, I hope your next postings are somewhat more constructive.

I'm not really surprised that you did not get the point. I'm guessing you feel it's beneath you.

Thanks,

Gpig

[Mord]

"The artwork is fine, but what does it have to do with CM? Do we really think the design team is so clueless they don't know how to animate human motion?"

"Perhaps we could move the pretty pictures to the General Forum, where they belong?" - M. Dorosh

Damn Mikey did we skip our nap today?

"frankly, I'd rather they get engineering stuff, or realistic artillery rules, or any of the other grog stuff we've whined about (HOW BOUT THEM STEN GUNS) correct than obsess about what a German squad might look like crouching behind a fence."

Well it seems to me we've all read your 3400 posts on all these topics. Did Gpig or Tom walk in there and insult you? If you don't like the thread don't participate. Start ANOTHER Bren thread.

GPig and Tom went out of their way to draw and post these for us. If anything they are a nice way to pass the time day dreaming. I don't see where any of it takes away from one of your pet peeves.

"Tom - I liken it to the mod artists who used to come on the forum, compare Kwazy Dog's released work to steaming piles of faeces, and then trumpeted the work they did on their latest three-colour camoed Panther."

This has nothing to do with nothing. And in fact is pretty rude. All Gpig did was share some ideas of how things COULD or MIGHT look. Jeeeez what a jerk he is!

Not everything can be about Dorosh. Alot of us happen to be interested in this thread and the pics. It's one of the first real clues we have on how the new engine is gonna be. Can't help it if that doesn't fall into what you deem important for the game.

Maybe you can post some nice watercolours of how blue the sky is, next - just in case Kwazy Dog doesn't have blue skies down under, and needs a reference for European sky tones... [Wink]

All the smileys in the world can't hide the fact you are acting like a dick. Check your Maximus level it's on full.

Mord.

[ January 25, 2005, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: Mord ]

[Sergei]

About the drawing with GI's in front of a house, perhaps it'd be easier to draw them in a realistic formation if the building was bigger (or the men smaller). Now it looks like it's 6 metres wide in comparison to the soldiers, which makes it packed.

Overall, I think you show promise, but don't quit your day job. Here's what a true artiste such as moi can come up with:

[Gpig]

Dude. That is awesome!

I agree about the pic of the squad in the yard. I drew them too big. Pretty soon I'd run out of room. Those 12 man squads are going to take up a lot of real-estate when each soldier is depicted in game.

[Thomm]

Since a lot of true things have already been written, I am trying to contribute in a positive manner!

Gpig, I love your sketches and I would be happy to see more of them!!

I tried it myself and realized soon enough how difficult it is to emulate your seemingly effortless style. I am happy that instead of "artist member envy" I feel admiration for your skillz.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Bigduke6]

I think Gpig's sketches are terrific and keep them coming.

As to the the squad in a defensive position, the East Front was pretty big. I bet what Gpig drew happened in RL.

See, Red infantry left to its own devices would automatically dig a trench, starting with indvidual holes and then expanding the next guy down the line. You don't wait for orders, if you are left alone you must dig, period.

The intermediate state between individual foxholes and a single trench is larger holes connecting 2-3 individual holes, the connections being determined by who's faster with the shovel, what dirt is where, who just had his vodka ration, and so on.

Thus IMHO Gpig did a fine job rendering a Red Army squad defending a half-finished trench in a woodline. Molodets!

[Krazy Canuck]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Re: the fan art-

The defensive positions are something out of a comic book....a mortar FO's dream, catching a whole squad that close and in the same holes, with nice trees to turn into tree bursts...

A machinegunner would love that squad column too.

Perhaps we could move the pretty pictures to the General Forum, where they belong?

I'm not sure I understand the point of them, really.

Hmmm....

Battlefront.com

Administrator

Member # 42

- posted January 23, 2005 01:37 AM Profile for Battlefront.com ........

....Repetition of visuals is not a concern for us. It isn't like we are planning on having a 12 man squad stick to a static formation. Look at Gpig's drawings as they are pretty much spot on how things will look in CMx2. Even the very old (by computer standards) Close Combat had guys individually positioned, so it can obviously be done.

Steve

'Nuff said.

KC