rune Posted December 18, 2002 Share Posted December 18, 2002 Tom, It would allow pictures and maps into the briefing. Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted December 18, 2002 Share Posted December 18, 2002 I think (though I'm probably wrong) that 'HTML briefings' refers to the ability to add maps and symbols, font changes and eye candy to the briefing itself. They'd be 'written' like a webpage is composed. Imagine a briefing with a military-style topographic map of the area with big arrows on it. That'd be cool. -- A small plug for multi-turret capability. that'd sure come in handy for the M60A1's commander's mg turret in their CM3 Cold War game (hint-hint)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted December 18, 2002 Share Posted December 18, 2002 A toggle to represent foot soldiers down to 1:1 scale. Yes, I know, I just kicked an old hornet's nest, and 1:1 scale isn't really a big desire of mine YET. However, with a new CM engine, I would instead desire that squad-level units be modeled as "formations" instead of "nodes," be they line or column or mass or whatever. Tie that in with SOP options cited earlier by others, then combat effects and movement effects at squad-level will have greater fidelity. Perhaps then, with formation "feedback" in the game code, better behavior along linear cover/obstacles like bocage can also be enhanced, as well as within buildings. Of course, some formations like skirmish line can be "simulated" by using split-squads now, but again, the movement & fire effects don't seem to vary, and it's added units to micromanage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted December 18, 2002 Share Posted December 18, 2002 1:1 squads. Have you seen the 'crazy-dance' that the one to one squads go through in GI-Combat? This is the problem with 1:1 squads They need to be coded so the formation *LOOKS* accurate for every contingency. Squads need to be modelled so EVERY soldier gets behind a wall to fire, or inside a shack, or lined up on the edge of a woods tile, and tell me what a tank with riders would look like? A 6 man squad w/riders? 7, 8, 9, etc? Lotsa coding. I don't see it happening, not without VASTLY reducing the terrain features and or/wide range of available units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrapin Posted December 18, 2002 Share Posted December 18, 2002 Originally posted by Panzer Leader: 1:1 squads. Have you seen the 'crazy-dance' that the one to one squads go through in GI-Combat? This is the problem with 1:1 squads They need to be coded so the formation *LOOKS* accurate for every contingency.Yup, this is kind of the problem. It requires a lot of coding for too little return. I'd much rather have effort and processor cycles reserved for StratAI, LOS, enhanced suppression and hit analysis, etc. Stuff that affects the game in a much bigger way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted December 18, 2002 Share Posted December 18, 2002 A small plug for multi-turret capability. that'd sure come in handy for the M60A1's commander's mg turret in their CM3 Cold War game (hint-hint)! Even easier, model it as a remote flexible. Might not look so pretty though... CM3 Cold War turned hot would be very good - a new engine would make modelling all those amphibious vehicles possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted December 18, 2002 Share Posted December 18, 2002 Originally posted by Panzer Leader: 1:1 squads. Have you seen the 'crazy-dance' that the one to one squads go through in GI-Combat? This is the problem with 1:1 squads They need to be coded so the formation *LOOKS* accurate for every contingency. Squads need to be modelled so EVERY soldier gets behind a wall to fire, or inside a shack, or lined up on the edge of a woods tile, and tell me what a tank with riders would look like? A 6 man squad w/riders? 7, 8, 9, etc? Lotsa coding. I don't see it happening, not without VASTLY reducing the terrain features and or/wide range of available units.One could just as well argue "not seeing" 4 or 5-Ghz computers with parallel inroads into VRAM and AI in the next three or four years too. Uh, guys, the suggestion for 1:1 was on a sarcastic note, given all of the earlier forum debate history on same in earlier years. I don't really advocate nor need 1:1 personally. Thus my inclusion of the smilies. But again, what I DO want in a future CM engine is a better representation --- at least within the game code, but preferably with visual modeling too --- of various squad formations than is presently the case. The visual model could be accomplished simply by showing different base shapes when the unit base option (Shift- is toggled. I really doubt, in two-three years time, that such a thing can't be had without a big hit to processor speed or graphics load. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mididoctors Posted December 18, 2002 Share Posted December 18, 2002 Over emphasis on graphics and mass market appeal will lead the series into profitable but unfortunatly different waters as it were. No doubt graphics should be improved but my intrests lie in being able to represent all the various tactical options that ASL can. (and more!) just to remind ourselves of all the areas not covered by CMBB presently but are covered by ASL ,here is a list of some of them. abandoned and captured equipment horse transport motorcycles and bicycles greater range of soft skin transport. onmap artillery. artillery barrage options abstract unit detachment for searches and mopping up buildings(scouts). mounted fire. portees! bunkers more realistic and can be occupied. caves. Tunnels. different density minefields. multi turreted AFVs weapon scrouging. numerous landing craft types Amphip AFVs/transport. parachute landings Glider bourne assualts scaling STAIRWELLS(damm fine rule) no quarter captured unit behaviour and guarding units engineering options special afvs (funnies etc) commandos FLARES infantary smoke(I have seen photos of it in use..perhaps not prevelant as ASL but none?) illumination rounds. inplace field phones afv+inf assualt movement 3 level buildings marketplace overhanging buldings sangars factory walls and breaches Demo charge ambush (SB) goliath demo tank WP fortified buildings BASEMENTS guns in buildings AFV trail breaks AFV and buldings/rubble interrogation civilian intel starting fires amphip obstacles naval gunfire naval observors Observor aircraft sledges Reindeer! sleeping throwing double fours and generating a random insurance salesman Boris London Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manchildstein (ii) Posted December 18, 2002 Share Posted December 18, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: i would add mg fire lanes and better ammo modelling for small arms units; if they could account for every single bullet fired from every weapon - and the entire "trajectory" or "path" of each bullet - that would be optimal. on a squad level, every soldier would have their ammo stocks tracked separately... the scenario editor could be improved... allowing for editing of unit characteristics from within the 'map preview' mode and allowing placement of units and flags from within the 'map edit' mode... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manchildstein (ii) Posted December 18, 2002 Share Posted December 18, 2002 --12. A small API-set: - To read unit database (all values currently visible during unitselection) - To write to the map generator or map selection (All the values currently editable by the user) - To write to the unit selection Thus allowing 3rd party extensions for campaigns and the like--- with all of the discussion around a 'campaign mode,' the above suggestion would allow a 3rd party to make some kind of 'monster campaign' app to go along with cm**... it's just that i was thinking of this very same fing not 2 days ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts