aka_tom_w Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 OK RTS is Real Time Strategy. FPS is First Person shooter. thanks How about some new Bone information: Does anyone know if there has been any mention of shooting and getting LOS Straight through Vehicles and bunkers like in CMx1? In the past (CMxx) infantry units were not in any kind of cover behind a tank or bunker because you could shoot and target and get LOS right through it. (its true no need to question this) Same for AFV's behind other AFV's for instance a BIG tank (like a Tiger 1) could never cover a smaller tank by being up front because you could get LOS and target right through AFV's UNLESS they are burned out and smoking then the smoke was known to block the LOS. (BUT provide NO cover) Anyone know anything about this question in CMx2? -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 "I would like to lobby most vociferously" You certainly are : ) Having played games for many decades, and having approximately 200, I have seen games disappear as they have appealed to a more and more specialist market. Responding to the siren cry of more realism more realism the games become less and less playable, and for noobies impossible. Squad Leader comes to mind for sure. Negotiating turn lengths ..... you have to be joking surely. Turn length would be the most fundamental variable you could have in the game short of turning of fog of war. The danger of throwing out a very nearly perfect playable game because of a desire to be "realistic" is great. If you think of the great games you have Scrabble, Monopoly, Chess, Acquire, Empire Deluxe [the oldest still played computer game?] Realistic they are not, simple to comprehend yes, learning experience - as much as you like. Altering timescales for Napoleonic battles with this new engine makes sense . But to throw it in as a variable in WW2 battles seems to be misguided. My wish list is comparatively minor for CMX2. More realistic width of roads etc, fire by rounds - everything else is not important. Generating a new multipurpose game engine that can do loads does not mean they should all be thrown at a popular game assuming that only improvments will happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Pilot Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: OK RTS is Real Time Strategy. FPS is First Person shooter. thanks How about some new Bone information: Does anyone know if there has been any mention of shooting and getting LOS Straight through Vehicles and bunkers like in CMx1? In the past (CMxx) infantry units were not in any kind of cover behind a tank or bunker because you could shoot and target and get LOS right through it. (its true no need to question this) Same for AFV's behind other AFV's for instance a BIG tank (like a Tiger 1) could never cover a smaller tank by being up front because you could get LOS and target right through AFV's UNLESS they are burned out and smoking then the smoke was known to block the LOS. (BUT provide NO cover) Anyone know anything about this question in CMx2? -tom w That's a good question, Tom. I would think if they are able to do this, it would mean that vehicles and bunkers would no longer be modeled as 1 and 2 point objects, which is how I think bunkers and vehicles are modeled in CMx1. In addition to providing cover, vehicles could potentially have more realistic turret and hull sizes modeled, making it actually worthwhile to put that AFV with the lightly armored but very small turret hulldown. It might also mean that hulldown would no longer be a binary function, but instead there would be shades of hulldown, ranging from fully exposed to lower hulldown to full hulldown to turret down. The possibilities boggle the mind! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Exclusive behind the scenes development screenie of CMX 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Originally posted by CSO_Talorgan: What if turn length varied with the quality of your command and control setup? Say 1 minute for WW II Germans, 3 minutes for WW II Soviets; 30 seconds for modern Americans. My two cents? It would be interesting and easier to rationalize than the delays we now have in setting a collumn of vehicles down a winding road. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 One thing that I hope they address is a units "forgetfulness" in reference to enemies that have been spotted but then disappear behind cover. How many games have all of you played where you have given a tank the command to hunt down a road and 20 seconds into the turn, the tank spots an enemy tank that either continues its forward path and reaches cover, or backs up, after having been spotted, behind cover. Your tank begins to target the enemy but can't bring its main cannon to bear in time before the enemy tank disappears. Your tank then proceeds to completely forget that such a dangerous threat was even there and resumes its now suicidal path down the road. The above situation has taught me to give shorter command paths in turns to avoid losing tanks. I think at the very least, the hunting tank after spotting such a dangerous/threatening unit should stop where it is and await further orders, recognizing that to continue down the road could be potentially disastrous. Any thoughts? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Not to worry we are told in a bone in the original bone thread (now locked) that it is their plan and intention to give units some form of memory of events from a previous turn in the game (ONE single game) this regurgitated "bone" may be TOO specific but to answer your question they have stated they will hope to have a solution for the "lack of memory for units" problem you have stated. I think (correct me if I am wrong) they have that one covered and have told us they are working on it and it is on "the list" of planned or intended features. -tom w Originally posted by Jack Carr: One thing that I hope they address is a units "forgetfulness" in reference to enemies that have been spotted but then disappear behind cover. How many games have all of you played where you have given a tank the command to hunt down a road and 20 seconds into the turn, the tank spots an enemy tank that either continues its forward path and reaches cover, or backs up, after having been spotted, behind cover. Your tank begins to target the enemy but can't bring its main cannon to bear in time before the enemy tank disappears. Your tank then proceeds to completely forget that such a dangerous threat was even there and resumes its now suicidal path down the road. The above situation has taught me to give shorter command paths in turns to avoid losing tanks. I think at the very least, the hunting tank after spotting such a dangerous/threatening unit should stop where it is and await further orders, recognizing that to continue down the road could be potentially disastrous. Any thoughts? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 20, 2005 Author Share Posted January 20, 2005 Originally posted by CSO_Talorgan: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Which games were those?Panzer, 88 and Armor They looked a lot like board game versions of Steel Panthers. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 20, 2005 Author Share Posted January 20, 2005 Originally posted by Jack Carr: I think at the very least, the hunting tank after spotting such a dangerous/threatening unit should stop where it is and await further orders, recognizing that to continue down the road could be potentially disastrous. Any thoughts? Use Move to Contact instead of Hunt? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 20, 2005 Author Share Posted January 20, 2005 One thing I would like to see is an end to units freely firing through friendly units with no penalty whatsoever. The unit fired through should at least go to a pinned state and there should be strong inhibitions to firing through friendly units in the first place. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: One thing I would like to see is an end to units freely firing through friendly units with no penalty whatsoever. The unit fired through should at least go to a pinned state and there should be strong inhibitions to firing through friendly units in the first place. Michael yes very good it is the same sort of issue as the LOS through AFV issue Line of Fire through friendly units is something you don't have to think about or consider AT ALL in CMxx. oh well (I suspect that one and the LOS through AFV's might be hard if not impossible, to fix oh well) -tomw 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 20, 2005 Author Share Posted January 20, 2005 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I suspect that one and the LOS through AFV's might be hard if not impossible, to fixWhy? We already have a situation where friendly fire falling on ground occupied by friendly units is apt to cause casualties and disruption. So that's in. The only thing that needs adding is fire passing over ground occupied by friendly units. This couldn't be done in CMx1 because the trajectory of small arms fire was not calculated by the program, but if the code is being rewritten from scratch assuming greatly increased computational capacity, how hard would that be to include? Granted it would have to compete for CPU cycles with the other demands of the game, but this strikes me as a priority item. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 OK I agree with you logic I just don't have very high expectations around this one issue because it "sounded" like they made it out to be next to "impossible" to fix or "re-code" the last time the discussion came up.... " because the trajectory of small arms fire was not calculated by the program," I am not sure they really want to calculate AND trace in the game, the ACTUAL trajectory of EVERY round in the game, because I think that's what it would take. it would be great but my expectations are not high. I would be happy to be wrong -tom w Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I suspect that one and the LOS through AFV's might be hard if not impossible, to fixWhy? We already have a situation where friendly fire falling on ground occupied by friendly units is apt to cause casualties and disruption. So that's in. The only thing that needs adding is fire passing over ground occupied by friendly units. This couldn't be done in CMx1 because the trajectory of small arms fire was not calculated by the program, but if the code is being rewritten from scratch assuming greatly increased computational capacity, how hard would that be to include? Granted it would have to compete for CPU cycles with the other demands of the game, but this strikes me as a priority item. Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 20, 2005 Author Share Posted January 20, 2005 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I am not sure they really want to calculate AND trace in the game, the ACTUAL trajectory of EVERY round in the game...Yep, I expect you are 100% on that one. I'm just not as convinced as you are that that's what it would take. If it is possible to make an estimate of what the "average" trajectory would be for a squad, MG, or whatever, that should do the trick. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 There was a two part problem with CMx1's coding in terms of firing through units. One was the issue with hardware at the time we coded the game. LOS/LOF (they are basically the same thing) is very costly. Shortcuts greatly reduced the bottlenecks with a few trade offs. The second problem was simply a coding misjudgement in how units were coded. I say misjudgements because with a few years of hindsight there was a better way that things could have been coded irrespective of the first issue. Unfortunately, it was stuff that couldn't be changed without a major part of the code being rewritten (knock on effects of code changes are a bitch!). So we recognized, before CMBO was even released, that next time we'd do things differently. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 At the risk of going from the sublime to the ridiculous, do I detect the possibility of taking cover behind a tank in the more advanced LOS/LOF ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Once the abstractions and shortcuts taken for CMx1 are undone, lots of things become possible. Some of them should become automatic. I am not the one doing the coding, and this part of the coding isn't done, but I suspect being able to hide behind a vehicle will be one of the things that "just happens" as part of the larger changes taking place. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 On a much less exciting but more pragmatic topic, is there any chance that "dead" units could be toggled off the map (in the zoomed out diplays at least)? Kinda like "don't show vehicles" I'd like "don't show dead stuff". TJ (once known as GaJ). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Once the abstractions and shortcuts taken for CMx1 are undone, lots of things become possible. Some of them should become automatic. I am not the one doing the coding, and this part of the coding isn't done, but I suspect being able to hide behind a vehicle will be one of the things that "just happens" as part of the larger changes taking place. Steve So could it also happen that shells fired through a patch of trees sometimes hit one and go off early? I always wondered how the gunners manage to avoid just about any potential obstacle on the way to the target, especially if there are friendly troops in those trees... Dschugaschwili 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 That's GREAT news!! Thanks for the update. -tom w Originally posted by Battlefront.com: There was a two part problem with CMx1's coding in terms of firing through units. One was the issue with hardware at the time we coded the game. LOS/LOF (they are basically the same thing) is very costly. Shortcuts greatly reduced the bottlenecks with a few trade offs. The second problem was simply a coding misjudgement in how units were coded. I say misjudgements because with a few years of hindsight there was a better way that things could have been coded irrespective of the first issue. Unfortunately, it was stuff that couldn't be changed without a major part of the code being rewritten (knock on effects of code changes are a bitch!). So we recognized, before CMBO was even released, that next time we'd do things differently. Steve AND especially..... Once the abstractions and shortcuts taken for CMx1 are undone, lots of things become possible. Some of them should become automatic. I am not the one doing the coding, and this part of the coding isn't done, but I suspect being able to hide behind a vehicle will be one of the things that "just happens" as part of the larger changes taking place. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 If there is anything added to the game, I would like it to be a brain transplant into my panzertruppen to give my poor pixelated troops a memory... those guys who can't seem to remember that they ended last turn on the cusp of dire circumstances. Heck, even the transplant of a untermenschen brain such as Seanachai's would be enough to let them remember what the situation is from turn to turn... well, maybe enough. [ January 21, 2005, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Herr Oberst ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jack Carr: I think at the very least, the hunting tank after spotting such a dangerous/threatening unit should stop where it is and await further orders, recognizing that to continue down the road could be potentially disastrous. Any thoughts? Use Move to Contact instead of Hunt? Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 21, 2005 Author Share Posted January 21, 2005 The chief disadvantage of going to MtC instead of Hunt would be that the tank will go slower. You might want to keep that in mind. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Shells currently can prematurely detonate in CMx1. Probably not as much as they should. I've already stated that units will have some sort of memory. Again, that was not coded in CMx1 because of the hardware limitations of the day. 32MB of RAM and P266s were standad back then Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 I am so proud of my (our) latest map (mod) that I drop it here as food for thought! Layout, elevations and shading were done by me, texture and objects by a certain Mr. Young. I hope that CMX2 will go in this direction ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.