1:1 Representation in CMx2

[Gpig]

Now they can be portrayed as men in horse costumes. 2 men per horse. (One with LMG)

And you can split the 2 man horse costume team into front (head and forelegs) and rear (ass). LMG stays with the ass.

But no horses.

[Sergei]

Having asses is just as good.

[Lee]

As usual, BTS is going to make an awesome wargame. CM is already the best

tactical land combat WWII computer wargame ever, and CMII will take it to

the next level.

Steve: A graphics question. All this talk of the 1:1 representation

of soldiers graphically has got me thinking about how great these

battles will look (not to mention the superior realism being calculated

under the hood). I was wondering, will CMII be making full use of

pixel shaders for special effects? I can just imagine the super realistic

looking muzzle blasts from Tiger tanks and the muzzle flashes and

building smoke in the air from two MG-42's located near each other

laying down a withering fire on advancing enemy infantry, or the

dense smoke rising from a burning tank that looks so good you can

almost smell it! All this is possible with pixel shaders,

and all modern video cards can handle them nicely, so it would be

very desirable to see them in CMII.

[junk2drive]

wargamer dot com news article with new screenshots of an RTS may give us an idea if what can be done.

The developer's site has more screenies.

[Noiseman]

Inspired by Gpig, I've made a few sketches to try and illustrate some points on this subject, as much for myself as anyone else.

For starters here's the present squad graphic we've all come to know and love . My understanding is that CMx1 represents a squad "under the hood" as a point for LOS, taking fire, etc. Perhaps something like this;

Now with a squad in CMx2 being represented by more figures, there is bound to be more of a 'shape' to a squad, which is difficult to represent with a single point. One solution could be to represent a squad with three points like this and take the average of cover/firepower etc. as the final modifiers;

This would allow for some articulation of a unit, but still leave a comforting layer of abstraction. For example, the same unit as above in echelon;

This system works fine in the open, but let'e move the wall in the background forward;

Whoa Nelly, there's a lot more going on now than meets the eye! Some men are out un the open lying down, some men are crouching behind cover, some are only partially covered, and one hero is leaping from cover to glory... Now comes decision time for the ambitious game designer; do you model this situation as a single point, an average of three points, or each soldier as an individual as shown below (Note that height is a factor in this, and all the other cases as well.)?

A wall that that only partially covers a squad is a relatively simple situation, but think of the problems involved modeling it. If a squad's location is determined by a single point, the whole squad is either totally under cover or out in the open. Modeling individuals 1:1 is most accurate, but opens a pandora's box of programing and hardware issues. Averaging a few points of a unit is a compromise position that leaves some abstractions.

Personally, I think a little abstraction is a good thing, so I won't have a meltdown when one member of a field kitchen unit appears to be (graphically) on the 'wrong' side of a wall. Of course most people playing the game, especially newcomers, won't realize that some things are abstracted and will meltdown all the same...

And think of the myriad other situations more complicated than the wall scenario that can occur...

This is obviously a much more complicated subject than it appears at first glance, hopefully I haven't muddied the water too much with this post...

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

wargamer dot com news article with new screenshots of an RTS may give us an idea if what can be done.

The developer's site has more screenies.

thanks

these are interesting!!!

Good shots of crew (1:1) exiting a burning Sherman

see them all here: War time command screen shots

-tom w

[dalem]

Originally posted by Noiseman:

Personally, I think a little abstraction is a good thing, so I won't have a meltdown when one member of a field kitchen unit appears to be (graphically) on the 'wrong' side of a wall.

See, this is the danger point. I will go a little bat**** if I see a guy on the wrong side of the wall, if you are bothering me by showing all the guys in the squad.

I generally don't want to see it if me seeing it is giving me false information - in this hypothetical, a pixel-trooper shown in a ridiculous place but yet not really "there" or "relevant".

I wouldn't accept the argument "oh, yeah, your tank LOOKS like it's facing the wrong way, but it's really not, so don't sweat it." None of us would. Why would I accept the same wrt an infantry squad?

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

Personally, I think a little abstraction is a good thing, so I won't have a meltdown when one member of a field kitchen unit appears to be (graphically) on the 'wrong' side of a wall.

See, this is the danger point. I will go a little bat**** if I see a guy on the wrong side of the wall, if you are bothering me by showing all the guys in the squad.

I generally don't want to see it if me seeing it is giving me false information - in this hypothetical, a pixel-trooper shown in a ridiculous place but yet not really "there" or "relevant".

I wouldn't accept the argument "oh, yeah, your tank LOOKS like it's facing the wrong way, but it's really not, so don't sweat it." None of us would. Why would I accept the same wrt an infantry squad?

-dale </font>

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by dalem:

I generally don't want to see it if me seeing it is giving me false information - in this hypothetical, a pixel-trooper shown in a ridiculous place but yet not really "there" or "relevant".

I wouldn't accept the argument "oh, yeah, your tank LOOKS like it's facing the wrong way, but it's really not, so don't sweat it." None of us would. Why would I accept the same wrt an infantry squad?

-dale

But, don't you already accept that in CMx1? We all know that where the 3 guys depicting a squad are shown to be doesn't matter - all that counts is what terrain is shown when you click on the squad. If the squad is said to be in a building, it doesn't matter if one of the three guys appears to be out in the street - it's an abstraction. Does it matter if 8-12 guys are used instead of 3 for an abstract squad depiction?

[Ace Pilot]

Noiseman - interesting point that BFC could decide to use a system of more than one point for a squad without representing each man with his own point. I'm still not sure why BFC would want to abandon the model that uses a single point for a squad, but your idea makes me wonder if they might. It also raises questions of could such a system calculate LOS and handle spotting by averaging the multiple points.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

If the squad is said to be in a building, it doesn't matter if one of the three guys appears to be out in the street - it's an abstraction. Does it matter if 8-12 guys are used instead of 3 for an abstract squad depiction?

You don't see the difference?

[Gpig]

Those screen shots from War time command are amazing!

Check out the fact that even the steering is working on that halftrack.

I believe that Wartime command will have smaller ammounts of overall units, is that right? Sort of like Close Combat did? 10 to 12 units per side?

So maybe this level of animation/modelling works fine for that scale of game. But I'd be blown away if this level of animation and scale can be achieved for CM battalion sized engagements.

Blown away, but very happy.

Gpig

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

[ January 27, 2005, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Gpig ]

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by Mord:

IN CMx1 games the CO is always the last man to fall in HQ units, will it be the same in CMx2? Or will there be a chance that the main officer can be killed/wounded first leaving only his staff to continue?

Mord.

Very good point.

Assuming the command stats relate to the CO himself, they never change with HQ casualties, so he must be the last one left.

Perhaps, if the HQ unit takes a casualty, say at platoon level, then there is a 25% chance of that casualty being the officer, and so on.

This could lead to possible C&C disruption until the 2i/c is able to take over, with the command stats changing, for better or worse, to reflect the change.

This might be even more significant at the section level, where the loss of an NCO could have even greater impact on the morale and overall ability. The same percentage chance calculation could be made as per HQ's.

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

If the squad is said to be in a building, it doesn't matter if one of the three guys appears to be out in the street - it's an abstraction. Does it matter if 8-12 guys are used instead of 3 for an abstract squad depiction?

You don't see the difference? </font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Gpig:

I believe that Wartime command will have smaller ammounts of overall units, is that right? Sort of like Close Combat did? 10 to 12 units per side?

So maybe this level of animation/modelling works fine for that scale of game. But I'd be blown away if this level of animation and scale can be achieved for CM battalion sized engagements.

Blown away, but very happy.

Gpig

I believe the map sizes will be a lot smaller too. So, less units, smaller maps, hazy horizon, but what you see within those limitations is not too bad.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

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

I generally don't want to see it if me seeing it is giving me false information - in this hypothetical, a pixel-trooper shown in a ridiculous place but yet not really "there" or "relevant".

I wouldn't accept the argument "oh, yeah, your tank LOOKS like it's facing the wrong way, but it's really not, so don't sweat it." None of us would. Why would I accept the same wrt an infantry squad?

-dale

But, don't you already accept that in CMx1? We all know that where the 3 guys depicting a squad are shown to be doesn't matter - all that counts is what terrain is shown when you click on the squad. If the squad is said to be in a building, it doesn't matter if one of the three guys appears to be out in the street - it's an abstraction. Does it matter if 8-12 guys are used instead of 3 for an abstract squad depiction? </font>

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

wargamer dot com news article with new screenshots of an RTS may give us an idea if what can be done.The developer's site has more screenies.

I really don't want to be the one that cut the fun short, but it seems these guys are having big troubles with their product. No updates, scant comments about how things are going. It sure looks good, but it really is what may be done.

FWIW

[Salkin]

Just wanted to compliment and encourage our artists again .

Nice drawings Noiseman !

//Salkin

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Noiseman:

Inspired by Gpig, I've made a few sketches to try and illustrate some points on this subject, as much for myself as anyone else.

Snip

Personally, I think a little abstraction is a good thing, so I won't have a meltdown when one member of a field kitchen unit appears to be (graphically) on the 'wrong' side of a wall. Of course most people playing the game, especially newcomers, won't realize that some things are abstracted and will meltdown all the same...

snip

GREAT post Noiseman

those are great drawings and some really GOOD questions about some interesting issue around the actually inner workings of 1:1 representation.

I think you are most correct when you state.

"Personally, I think a little abstraction is a good thing, so I won't have a meltdown when one member of a field kitchen unit appears to be (graphically) on the 'wrong' side of a wall."

Should it really be any other way?

There will have to be a certain level of abstraction if the men are not controled on a 1:1 basis .... so basically "DEAL WITH IT!"

(or something like that!)

-tom w

[Noiseman]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

Personally, I think a little abstraction is a good thing, so I won't have a meltdown when one member of a field kitchen unit appears to be (graphically) on the 'wrong' side of a wall.

See, this is the danger point. I will go a little bat**** if I see a guy on the wrong side of the wall, if you are bothering me by showing all the guys in the squad.

I generally don't want to see it if me seeing it is giving me false information - in this hypothetical, a pixel-trooper shown in a ridiculous place but yet not really "there" or "relevant".

I wouldn't accept the argument "oh, yeah, your tank LOOKS like it's facing the wrong way, but it's really not, so don't sweat it." None of us would. Why would I accept the same wrt an infantry squad?

-dale </font>

[dalem]

Noiseman-

My point is that the hypothetical situation of a soldier looking like he's in the wrong place WILL BE a problem for me, and for other players like me, for the reason I described. As I mentioned earlier, these kinds of issues are exactly why I personally dislike the idea of 1:1 graphical representation coupled with abstraction.

Right now no one knows exactly how it's going to work, so I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch. But my concerns are valid.

And unit facing increasing in importance too? Yikes. More micromanagement, what fun.

-dale

[DaveDash]

Hi there, I'm new to the forums (just picked up CMBO, certian to buy everything else these guys make for ever after now).

I'm also a big fan of the Total War series. One of the biggest dissapointments with the latest game, Rome Total War, is the developers have 'dumbed it down' to attract the masses and you have to mod the heck out of it to get it realistic.

Anyhow, my computer:

Radeon 128MB 9800 Pro

P4 3.10GHZ

512MB 433MHZ DDr Ram

In Rome Total War I can have upwards of 8000 men on the battlefield at full resolution and detail graphics. It looks incredably beautiful btw.

Anything after that and it bottlenecks my CPU (not my video card or RAM).

AFAIK these are some of the calculations RTW does

:

Tracks experiance and morale on a unit by unit basis

Shields are tracked (so if the arrow goes past the shield it will likely kill a man, or if a arrow hits a shield it will likely bounce off - this makes your right flank very vulnerable)

Weapons collisions are tracked.

Collisions between men/animals are tracked.

However arrows and so forth going through trees/obsticals are abstracted I believe.

And a whole bunch of other stuff.

Individual men have different morale depending on how many friendly/enemy units are around them.

Groups have different morale levels depending on their flanks being exposed and the proximity of enemy forces. It is possible to rout shaken enemy units simply by running a formation of cavalry behind them.

So as you can see, it puts a fair strain on your processing power when you have up to 8000 men. Not even the latest CPUS can handle more than that.

The good news is that CM will never need 8000 men or above, at most 800ish. It will have more complicated routines than a game like RTW but there should be able power to do all this using todays machines. This also means video cards can easily render everything required.

I would love to see a 1:1 graphical/engine representation provided I could have a range of preset realistic formations to chose from and the ability to 'group' units together and recall that group with ease.

All in all as someone mentioned in the first page, I'd like to be higher up the chain of command. If I order a Platoon to move to position X I would want the tacAI to sort out the finniky details for me (where each unit goes) - I just tell them what kind of drill to use (formation, speed, stealth, hold fire, so forth). That is also more realistic too.

However I doubt AI is up to the task of picking the right spot for a MG unit and so forth so I guess we'd still have to manage that when a firefight starts.

[edit] To also avoid formations not using walls/corners/etc properly you could use a system that Full Spectrum Warrior uses and apply it on a squad/team basis where corners and so forth are 'sticky'.

That is if you order a unit to the corner of a wall, it assumes a point fire formation (two guys stick their guns around the corner and the remaining two stand against the wall).

If you move a unit behind a car they use a line formation:

____

XXXX

If you move a unit behind a box they use a square formation:

__

XX

XX

Any units ordered in the open just use a default wedge formation.

You could simply apply this to the game but on a squad level. Move the mouse cursor near a damaged wall for example and it 'sticks' to it and draws out the likely formation of all the individual men.

If a whole squad can't fit behind enough cover then others gone in the prone position around the object.

Sorry it's difficult to explain, you'd need to play Full Spectrum Warrior to get what Im talking about.

Here are some screenshots: Take note that you DO NOT ORDER INDIVIDUAL MEN AROUND, but rather fire teams. The AI choses the best formation based on the terrain around your units:

How would this work in CM? Well if you ordered some men behind a wall the mouse pointer would stick to the BACK of the wall and your men would line up nicely behind it, with the leader going to the exact point on the wall.

Order them into a clumb of trees and it would STICK to a particular tree based on where you move your mouse pointer, and that is where the leader of your formation goes, and everyone else arranges around him based on their current formation.

[ January 27, 2005, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: DaveDash ]

[Noiseman]

Originally posted by dalem:

Noiseman-

My point is that the hypothetical situation of a soldier looking like he's in the wrong place WILL BE a problem for me, and for other players like me, for the reason I described. As I mentioned earlier, these kinds of issues are exactly why I personally dislike the idea of 1:1 graphical representation coupled with abstraction.

Right now no one knows exactly how it's going to work, so I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch. But my concerns are valid.

And unit facing increasing in importance too? Yikes. More micromanagement, what fun.

-dale

Dale, I share your concerns :cool: But I think, on balance, that 1:1 is well worth it.

I honestly don't think that hitting the 'O' button and orienting your troops (About as much trouble as setting a waypoint) at the end of a unit's movement is a great deal of micromanagement. After all, don't you plan the orientation of your AFV's in the same way now in CMx1? Basically, squads will be more hetzer-like; their fire power and protection are to the front, and they are more vulnerable to the flanks and rear. This strikes me as much more realistic with little trade-off in playability.

Edit: This also has the added benefit of subtletly (and more realistically) making the player more aware of the importance of protecting his infantry's flanks and rear with other units. It's these kinds of subtlties that make CM such a great gaming experience.

[ January 27, 2005, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Noiseman ]

[dalem]

Originally posted by DaveDash:

The good news is that CM will never need 8000 men or above, at most 800ish.

Welcome Dave.

Trust me that there are plenty of guys who play CM battles with total troop totals greater than 800. Heck, an infantry company has about 120 "fighters", and the big multiple-battalion-plus-support elements scenarios is going to be at least 6 companies-plus worth of guys.

Not my cup of tea but guys do play them.

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by Noiseman:

Dale, I share your concerns :cool: But I think, on balance, that 1:1 is well worth it.

I honestly don't think that hitting the 'O' button and orienting your troops (About as much trouble as setting a waypoint) at the end of a unit's movement is a great deal of micromanagement. After all, don't you plan the orientation of your AFV's in the same way now in CMx1? Basically, squads will be more hetzer-like; their fire power and protection are to the front, and they are more vulnerable to the flanks and rear. This strikes me as much more realistic with little trade-off in playability.

Edit: This also has the added benefit of subtletly (and more realistically) making the player more aware of the importance of protecting his infantry's flanks and rear with other units. It's these kinds of subtlties that make CM such a great gaming experience.

Oh I agree that 1:1 is probably worth it if done correctly. Whatever "correctly" might mean. I am just trying to point out that there are those of us that will have big problems with what you might feel is fine.

And by micromanage I am talking more of my frustration with the crap that we currently have to deal with with the crawling infantry junk. If I'm running a couple of companies in CMx2 and I have to babysit each snot-nosed pixel-private myself by way of diddling with the perfect facing of each squad, I'm going to lose interest rather quickly.

-dale