buddy Posted June 16, 2000 Share Posted June 16, 2000 Only thing that bugs me about the game is that you can see the entire map in great detail even though this is entirely unrealistic. Seems like it would be more realistic and fair if you could only explore the map from top to bottom on the ground you take possession of. I dunno, what do you think? Also, do you guys usually play with trees on or off? I usually play with them off so I can see what is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted June 16, 2000 Share Posted June 16, 2000 Why is that unrealistic? Certainly by WW2 the combatants generally had pretty decent maps, so it would be rare for there to be too many surprises, at least as far as the terrain. Also, the are in question is small enough that you could just look and see that hill over there, or wonder what might be in those trees a kilck and a half over that-away. Line of sight becomes the limiting factor, and that appears to be modelled just fine. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted June 16, 2000 Share Posted June 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by buddy: Only thing that bugs me about the game is that you can see the entire map in great detail even though this is entirely unrealistic. Seems like it would be more realistic and fair if you could only explore the map from top to bottom on the ground you take possession of. I dunno, what do you think? Also, do you guys usually play with trees on or off? I usually play with them off so I can see what is going on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I play with trees on. More interesting that way, and easier to remember where those pesky schreck teams are hiding. As for the map, I don't see it as unrealistic. I see this as if my CO has given me a good-scale map of the area I am supposed to operate in (if I defend it, as in VoT, I would have explored it myself before placing my defenses), maybe some aerial recon pictures. That, experience and a good course in map-reading would give me the same info, I should think. I think it would be unrealistic to blacken bits, as is done e.g. in Warcraft or C&C. How would you be able to plan for your assault if you have no idea what is lying in front of you? Dang! Jeff beat me to it. Fully agree with him. ------------------ Andreas [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 06-16-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddy Posted June 16, 2000 Author Share Posted June 16, 2000 Good points all! That's really the only thing that bugged me slightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted June 17, 2000 Share Posted June 17, 2000 Hi These are not new ideas. Please check out these two threads for discusions that have already taken place about this concept. It has been refered to as relative spotting and I don't doubt for a minute that it is VERY difficult to code. But some of us hae also dreamt of this "great" idea that makes you use units to recon the map and see if what you see on the map is really there. Please read these two threads to see how this idea has been dicussed and what BTS has said about it in the past. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/003974.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/003938.html hope they show up as links -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted June 17, 2000 Share Posted June 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by buddy: Good points all! That's really the only thing that bugged me slightly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Buddy It has been discused and I agree completely, I would love to see the map "represent" what you think is there, as per the 2D "road map" the commander may have had of the area, but maybe when you actually recon the area and get los to some things like bridges or buildings, they are rubble or blown up, and the map changes when the first friendly unit with LOS looks at them then the map you see changes to reflect what your units can actually see. Please read those other two threads and you can see some of the idea's that other folks have come up with. -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted June 17, 2000 Share Posted June 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Hi Buddy It has been discused and I agree completely, I would love to see the map "represent" what you think is there, as per the 2D "road map" the commander may have had of the area, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Okay, I am on a crappy 33.6k modem connection, that is my excuse for not searching now. But a half-decent road-map has elevations on it, so it is only 2D to those who can not read it. Somehow I feel that WW II company COs do not belong in that category. You still have to do recon, and the LOS tool does not work over the map until you have occupied overview positions. So I still think your suggestion would be more unrealistic than what we have now - which is also unrealistic, but less so, IMO. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted June 17, 2000 Share Posted June 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: ...a half-decent road-map has elevations on it, so it is only 2D to those who can not read it. Somehow I feel that WW II company COs do not belong in that category...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm... if a 33.6K is crappy, my wretched 28.8 is _____? (Best I can get at home, but I got my patch this AM.) Anyway, I'm with aka_tom_w on this one as the threads will show. I think it would be cool. I spend a lot of time reading topos in the wild and I love them, but they're not the same as being there, and they are often out of date and wrong. Aerial photos are very misleading, too (the two together are about right- I recon hunting spots in the Sierras with the Terraserver). Topos don't show vegetation well, and aerials flatten topography. Most COs at the CM level didn't have the aerials, and how many squads had topos? I always play with trees on. There is a little irony in wanting a more realistic approach to terrain views, and then "switching off" the trees (wish I could do that hunting sometimes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted June 17, 2000 Share Posted June 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: Anyway, I'm with aka_tom_w on this one as the threads will show. I think it would be cool. I spend a lot of time reading topos in the wild and I love them, but they're not the same as being there, and they are often out of date and wrong. Aerial photos are very misleading, too <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes Mark IV and I have been down this road (slipery slope) before. Sure we want more FOW and more Terrain FOW in the game, and Steve and Charles have admited it would be cool too. But I totally believe them when they say it will be VERY difficult to pull off. Oh well maybe soomeday in the future (and thats years not months) ... -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-18-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Posted June 18, 2000 Share Posted June 18, 2000 We had this discussion in another thread in the "Tips and Techniques"(?) board. Your main argument is, that "a WWII CO has only access to THIS and THAT map...etc...". The point is, this is not a role playing game about "being a CO in WWII", but a wargame! Steve very clearly stated (in this other thread) that this will NOT change! CM will not be a "ultra-hyper-super realistic" CO rpg-like simulation, but it will stay a wargame, like the majority of the people here want it. Maybe PANZER ELITE could be the thing you are looking for, IF you want to recreate the "feeling" of being an "uninformed"(=total FoW) CO (Major/Captain) in WWII. Just my 2 pfennige here.. Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted June 18, 2000 Share Posted June 18, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fred: Just my 2 pfennige here.. Fred<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And they would be mine as well. I find the joy in this game is to plan the assault, find the avenues, see how it works out. I am not into the surprise element, and I am glad that Steve and Charles see it that way too. But as always, YMMV. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murx Posted June 18, 2000 Share Posted June 18, 2000 As aka_tom_w said, most things that are wanted/optional are hard to code (else they would be in the game now?!?), but I bet there will be a next generation of CM, I'm quit sure of this. Maybe there wont be a 'tileset' country, maybe there will be true LOS. It's just up to those who have fun/get money to code all this (and are able to do it). So CM is great as it is but as PC tend to get faster & faster there will be a other game with new/other/not yet used features we have thought of and if we are lucky someday one game will dethrone CM (maybe CM2 ) if the developers haven't forgotten us wargamers. murx (10 % of 2 Pfennige..) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbaro Posted June 18, 2000 Share Posted June 18, 2000 Combat Mission is a game concept of a whole cloth. It works and is fun. That is enough. But, as much a CM encompasses, no game is the end all in game design. And each success that turn a new page in concept, as CM has done (and few as well as it has), only inflame the imagination to further possibilites. Even within CM there is potiential for different styling in play; like, using only level 1 and 7&8 as has been posted previously. Taking off on this idea, one possibility is to only have view one available and instead of including view 7 and 8, to provide a map as such, rather than the same 3d view from above. View one could either work just like it does now or it could be trimmed to the view of each unit eliminating what other units also can see. The map could be set up as a base with a capability for updating either manually by the player or his AI "staff" working for him or a combination. It could even be set up as markable for planning purposes. Perhaps for giving orders as well. This latter would make orders a two level thing as from either the unit view or the map view. I can envision the units being given a "compass" for aiding them in orentation and attempting to follow their orders. It would be possible for the player to get his units lost as he fails to properly identify landmarks corresponding to the maps. Perhaps such a game could even give an elevation boost to views from units going to upper stories and having "scouts" climbing trees. Perhaps such compasses could even get lost and the unit make do without it. That would require a sun or moon for good weather navagation. Otherwise, they would just have to do it by the seat of their pants from landmarks. Wouldn't night work be a bitch with out a moon! Having navagated myself about a bit using all the above techniques including stars, that aspect is a whole game by itself. Too litteral an attempt to remake Combat Mission into something else would probably end up being an impossible coding tangle. It would likely have to be done from scratch, but with CM expertise working in the background. I can see an very much increased immersive factor in such a design. It might result in such a time consuming process that some or even a lot of present enthusiasts would turned off. On the otherhand it could grab some to whom greater first person sense would appeal. One feature of present play, the movie with unlimited camera travel, would have to be scrapped in order to support the greater FoW. If the coding of a linked turn movie capability were developed, that could be used to review the entirety of play with unlimited camera positions and full view (less blocked LOS from the camera). The player role would would appear to have simularities to the present CM. You would still play a hydra headed multi-leader role being each unit leader in succession as you give orders. But your omniview of the battlefield would be reduced to serially visiting each unit and looking at the map with its updates. The batallian command role would be somewhat lessened as that would be represented by mostly by the map view; simularly, the lower level commands. However, their sense of reality being more separated from the unit views, they would become more realistic and immersive in that role in a more clearly defined manner and more map orented. The player would probably be spending more time with each unit in working out their operations. The role of the AI would no doubt have to be altered and possibly the kinds of orders available maybe somewhat, although I right now am not thinking that far. In the present CM the large scope of view makes it possible to give orders that cover long paths of travel and time. Here that may work out as well, but probably with a lot more interventation by the player as "real" terrain details become more appearant as compared the map on which original orders and planning made clear. Micromanagement would become heavier of necessity. Anyway, this is how previous postings along this line have grown in my head as I have thought about the idea since. Whether such a game would maintain playabiity is a question unanswered. If someone is so goofy as to buy in to this line, maybe it could see some developement in concept and possible detail. One final thought occurs to me, that it might work better on a company level battle. With more possible micromanagment, less to manage would seem in order. How about also having adjacent companies possibly represented across uncrossable boundaries with a single platoon or squad to end the map edge effect somewhat? They would have their own built in scenario design orders with the possibility of you having input with reduced control or effect or something less than as you control your own. Perhaps with the possibility of acquiring them by assignment at some point under some condition. I thought that was a final thought, but you see how long that lasted. Does this spark anything in anyone else other than dismay, perhaps dismissal out of hand or contempt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 18, 2000 Share Posted June 18, 2000 Many good points here. Charles and I had this on the drawing board VERY early in CM's design. We very quickly realized that it wasn't nearly as easy as we thought it would be. Then, over a few beers, we peeked into "Pandora's Box" and realized that we hadn't even seen the tip of the problem iceberg Bobbaro points out several of these (like the AI knowing what to do!), but there are a host of others. While it is still cool in theory, and would honestly add a lot to the game if done right, we don't think we can do it right. I don't mean conceptually or technically, but realistically. We could spend six months on this alone. And since there are a few features that would have to come into play before this (i.e. realative spotting), there is no realistic chance of this happening in the forseeable future. At the earliest... CM II (the next full series), which is probably 4-5 years away from now. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted June 18, 2000 Share Posted June 18, 2000 Steve please tell me you are talking about CM1to4 version 2 and not CM2. I can't wait that long for my t34's. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh ------------------ IN VINO VERITAS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Pike Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 Just a point, commanders often didn't have acturate maps during WW2. he Germans in Russia had to use school atlases at some points as no maps existed (the Russians kept them secret) and during the drive through France after the breakout from Normandy the Allied tankers were often ahead of their maps as they were advancing far quicker than expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Private Pike: Just a point, commanders often didn't have acturate maps during WW2. he Germans in Russia had to use school atlases at some points as no maps existed (the Russians kept them secret) and during the drive through France after the breakout from Normandy the Allied tankers were often ahead of their maps as they were advancing far quicker than expected. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thank-you Private Pike! As per "Kelly's Hero's" (ok, whacky Hollywood war movie I admit) I have suggested that out of date normal everyday Michellin road maps were sometimes used during the Allied advance after D-Day. When I posted this the first time, I was (sort of) laughed at as many here could not believe that these commanders did not have up to date brand new topo maps to navigate by. I would suggest in many cases they did not have topo maps and as a commander the only thing you should see before you hit the battlefield and recon it WITH your troops by establishing LOS to what you think MIGHT be there, is a possiblely out of date 2D road map of the area. This has been discussed at length and it will likely remain just a good idea for at least a few years. Oh Well.... But I still Love this game. Still waiting for my copy, maybe sometime this week. -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 Speedy - don't worry, Steve was referring to us possibly returning to the entire CM series at some way-in-the-future date, when computers are lots faster. CM2 (Russian Front) is coming a lot sooner than 5 years. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dar Posted June 20, 2000 Share Posted June 20, 2000 *whew* Thank you, Charles! Of course, CM1 would tide me over for quite a while, but CM2 is the "Clash of the Titans" release that I'm really looking forward to! Dar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts