Some thoughts about the next generation of this engine....

[Greg Scurlock]

Does anyone have any inside info on how this wonderful game engine will develope going forward? I have two main interest.

1) Command & Control/ micro management - Wouldn't it be great if an order could be given to the commander of company "A" to "take that hill" or "move to that position and set up a defense" and watch as the orders are dissiminated down throught he ranks and the varios platoons begin to try and carry out your orders. Yes, much as it happens with "Airborn Assult". (Love that game.) I personally have always enjoyed the small senarios because I really get bored giving orders to each and every unit especially if more than company strength.

2) It would be great to have a listing of all your available troops so you could click on it and be taken directly to that unit on the map. Example, I know i have a forward observer and I have to keep hitting the "+" until he pops up. As I said it would be good to look at a list, click on the unit you want and be taken to the map location to give orders.

I'm excited to see what developes, meanwhile I'll continue to enjoy this great game as is.

Greg

[Voxman]

Rumour has it that CM3 with the CMII engine will be set in the Mediterranean theatre, in particular Italy. I heard they are considering the name 'CM: D-Day Dodgers' or CMDD for the name.

Due to the ever increasing strength of video cards and the desires of gamers, BTS have hinted at improved graphics script that would allow Dynamic Lighting for muzzle flashes and flares.

Other than that, there is not much info out there right now.

Consider some of the things we see in high-end games like Quake, these effects may be incorporated into the next engine.

Perhaps, some of the users of these high-end games could tell us what effects they have available for them. This may shed some light on the CMII engine.

Cordially,

Voxman

[Cameroon]

Greg, regarding 1) above, IMHO I do not expect this since it would be a dramatic shift in gameplay. CM's gameplay has been about controlling the tactical aspect down to the squad/team/vehicle level.

If something like this were implemented, I feel it more likely -- based on current gameplay -- that it would be restricted to elements such as "move to contact, use cover". That removes much of the grunt work associated with large, bulky movements without drastically changing how the game is played at its core.

Guess we'll have to see what turns up, in a couple years

[Michael Dorosh]

Regarding number 1 - what would that leave the player to do?

[flammenwerfer]

I'd like to see paratroopers that fall from the sky...

and I dont want to see horses or motorcycles

[ October 21, 2002, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Flammenwerfer ]

[MrNoobie]

all i really want is the road wheels to spin and thats it, everything else is just a great add on

[ScouseJedi]

New engine would come with a toolkit

We could make new models, our own PzIIJ model, our own trees and buildings.

We could change the names of the OOB, introduce obscure countries - Dutch MOD, Czech, Yugoslav.

The hardcore wargammer WILL buy CM3. Fact. Therefore expect things to attract the non hardcore crowd. To do that without compromising gameplay means graphics. And why not? Given the existing complexity of large battles additional CPU power is not going to be used making the AI work with whole batallions, why not swaying trees, flocks of birds, civilians.

If Italy you have to call it D-day Dodgers - that name honours both sides. 'dodgers' explained

Just keep the quality the same and we'll be happy.

[jiggles]

Originally posted by Voxman:

Consider some of the things we see in high-end games like Quake, these effects may be incorporated into the next engine.

Perhaps, some of the users of these high-end games could tell us what effects they have available for them. This may shed some light on the CMII engine.

The average graphics card around when the next iteration of CM arrives (which is what, 2 years away?) would be able to render much more detailed models.

A couple of graphical additions I'd like to see are a) bump-mapping on the models, better trees, c) better lighting/shadows and d) volumetric smoke effects. The first is pretty easy to do, the others would take a bit more work.

[ October 22, 2002, 04:07 AM: Message edited by: jiggles ]

[Thomm]

I want formations and lots of smoke!

[Sigurd]

Would the new engine only be used for a mediterranean campaign ? I'd love to see CMBO and CMBB revisited with this new engine. Is that not the meaning of a #RE#-write?...

[Tom TCMHQ]

The boys will put it right ....and I hope this changes will make it into the next version:

- smaller terrain tiles ( 10 x 10 m or better )

- dynamic lightning

- better infantry models ( more polygons , better animations )

- kind of " learning AI "

Anyhow , whatever they will do , I pray that they will continue the WEGO concept and don´t jump on the RT train.

Cheers

Tom

[Bone_Vulture]

Although I'd love to see airborne insertions, I find it hard to believe that an airdrop directly on the map would succesful, as realistically the troops have to spend several minutes to drop their 'chutes and form up. I'd rather give airborne units an optional "entry point" on the field, a bit like the commandos in SP:WAW.

You'd choose a length of a map's edge, and a referred entry turn. The airborne troops would then enter the map from that zone, either on time or delayed, depending on how far back the enemy's turf the zone is, and the vicinity of hostile units. And the experience/fitness of the paratroopers would obviously matter, too.

Special forces and partisans could inserted the same way.

[aka_tom_w]

from a previous thread on this subject:

the NEW CMII engine possible new features like:

* NO more Borg Spotting (Relative Spotting)

* LOS & LOF blocked by LIVE AFV's (i.e. infantry have "some" cover behind live and dead vehicles that

are not burning)

* Same as above, vehicles and other units CANNOT shoot through other live or dead vehicles that are

not burning

* Full movie replay

* Roster (for those would think they need it)

* Multi-turreted vehicles like the Allied Grant and Lee

* Amphibious units

* Dynamic lighting effects (two fold:

i. As visual effect and more important

ii. Integration into fire- and detection algorithms

* change PBEM format to only require two e-mails per turn

* Realistic modelling of visibility at night

* collision detection for all projectiles, even those that would hit

*smaller terrain tiles ( 10 x 10 m or better )

* Programable SOP's for all units:

(e.g. "Wouldn't it be great if an order could be given to the commander of company "A" to "take that hill" or "move to that position and set up a defense" and watch as the orders are dissiminated down throught he ranks and the varios platoons begin to try and carry out your orders. Yes, much as it happens with "Airborn Assult".)

"with a little help from my friends"

-tom w

[ October 22, 2002, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[flammenwerfer]

Bone Vulture-

Some of the troopers should or have a chance of landing on the map(and be shot at by the enemy)...

Map size, wind and other factors would come in to play, and those troops that land off map would show up on the map edge at some random point.

[Renaud]

Tom has a nice succinct list which I second without reservation.

Here are a few pet-features I'd love to see:

* a pathing system for use by scenario designers in creating custom strat AI behavior. Even something as simple as waypoints assigned to grouped units would be great. This would really complement the current very good automated tac/strat AI, although it would have to be used judiciously. Would allow for multi-prong attacks, flanking manuevers, covered route approaches, etc. Obviously would affect replay value.

* add possibility of infantry command units having/not having radios or field-telephones. (see below)

* enhanced command system combined with above radio addition, which would model command units drawing command lines to their lower echelon commanders. Battalion commander would be in/out of command of company commanders, who would be in/out of command of platoon commanders, who would be in/out of command of their squads. Radios would change command radius just as they do currently with tanks. Command delay penalties would be cumulative for each echelon out-of-command. So, the lowest possible order delay would be achieved if there was a link all the way to the highest echelon commander. This would lend extra value to purchasing formations since you would get the fastest reaction time that way. A battalion commander in contact with his company CO's who is also in touch with his platoon leaders would give that player a good advantage, while the player with a grab-bag of teams and platoons and no higher level commander would have generally higher orders delay for all units.

* add the possibility of buying individual Battalion/Company level 'battlegroup' or 'kampfgruppe' leader units, who could take command of ad-hoc combinations of designated teams/platoons. Possibly make them quite expensive as they would give a reduction in command delay for units when in contact with platoon/section leaders of lower-echelon units in the battlegroup, just as a battalion/company commander in a regular formation does.

* field fortifications such as dugouts and bunkers with/without fields of fire, which squads/teams can actually enter/exit (perhaps recycling the vehicle passenger code for this purpose).

* Optional improved 'overhead' cover foxholes, in addition to the hasty foxholes currently available.

I would exchange extra functionality of this kind, and that which Tom lists, for all the graphics icing in the world.

Ren

edit: oh yea, for the bunkers/dugouts idea, you could also just use the building code, which would simply mean adding some custom building types/models with varying (but high) damage absorbing potential.

[ October 22, 2002, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

[KNac]

I saw your point about the micro-management Greg. And I would like that CMBB takes AA as example in this field,a s well in AI.

Guys, you didn't take the point, you MUST play AA, you can still micromanage as all as you want, but you can use a very good AI and CoC, to make the job too. We could play divisional games with this system, but as well we could play Company or platoon games.

Just it will be very hard to program such fine AI in a 3d enviorenment.

Other things I would like to see is individual mans in squads and teams (with cooler animations) and take that to combat system. And an even better morale system.

[Ace Pilot]

I’d like to see the modeling of smoke changed so that it limits (not necessarily always blocks) LOS, but not the line of fire. With the current model, for example, you can smoke one end of a street and ensure your troops they will have safe passage across. In reality, a MG could still fire blindly down the length of the street to deny a safe passage. It shouldn’t be as effective as area fire, but it would be better than the unpenetratable smoke we have now.

Ace

[Schoerner]

Lots of great ideas but maybe we should also think about ideas, how BTS could keep the development process as slim and short as possible.

I.e. the mod designers out there will care for the textures of the vehicles and BTS pays a small fee for each vehicle.

Or even better: the textures from CMBO and CMBB can be used in CMIII's engine, too.

A modular engine, that can be adapted for future releases, would be the best for the company, i guess (i.e. a module that implements strategical options for huge multiplayer operations).

And BTS shouldn't offer all benefits in one version.

I would prefer more releases, but not that many improvements.

For the first CMIII release IMO only a few improvements would be enough:

*full game-replay

*enhanced graphics-engine with T&L effects but not necessararily including all it's possibilities in the first release (better animations of soldiers, will maybe make it obsolete, to display every single soldier)

IMO it's also not necessary to display everything like it is calculated in the engine.

It's part of CM's charme, that you only have a roughly visualization of the real action on the battlefield - what's important for a TACTICAL wargame is shown already - that's by far enough.

Very important seems to me to mention, that BTS shouldn't make changes to the interface and not to add even more micromanagement.

[ October 22, 2002, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Compassion]

Add my name to the list for relative spotting and vehicles giveing cover... add to that better arty handleing and I'm there. EVerything else is window dressing. Don't get me wrong, nice windows make things more attractive, but the nuts and bolts need to be in place first.

[Renaud]

Oh yea, smoke is somewhat too available I think. I may be wrong but I think smoke was not always as available as it is for CM batteries. This could be addressed with seperate ammo types for artillery that could be set seperately in the 'edit unit' screen of the scenario editor. Then the game could track the number of available smoke and HE (any maybe other types) independently. Having 200 smoke OR 200 HE, or any combination thereof, for every 82mm battery is a little unbelievable.

Ren

[James]

Definatly have a command & control AI for both sides as in AA. The player can stil micro manage every squad if he wants or command from a higher level. But equally important the AI side would improve dramatically as it would use platoon and company coordination, not just a mass of individual squads. Just play AA or read of it in the products section of battlefront, it explains it well. If the AA system was scaled down so squads were the smallest manover element it would work. Weather you order a battaleon to take that town or a platoon to take that house the principles of command & control are the same.

[busboy]

I'd like to see some terrain accents thrown in, even if only for visual effect.

Example: telephone polls. Don't have a "poll square" but be able to sort of plant them like foxholes or victory flags.

Just one of those little things that would add dimension, I think.

[Louie the Toad]

Let's talk out of the box for a bit.

How about an operational type of game that would generate the tactical battles. The operational part would be strictly movement (moving units into positions) oriented. Then battles that resulted could be selected to be fought vs the AI, PBEM, TC/IP or even let the AI conduct some of them altogether.

In addition there could be multiple players on each side who each could be able to see the replay as it happened. And simultaneously plot their moves. Players on the same side could communicate with each other thru headsets.

Borg Spotting: :mad: IGWS (it goes without saying).

I'll be saving up for a new computer..... Toad

[Bone_Vulture]

Ok, could someone explain me "Borg spotting" in short? Still makes no sense to me? :confused:

[WWB]

One big thing no one has mentioned: Make victory conditions more flexible. Flags, KO points, bonuses and exit zones are really, really limiting.

On the same vein vector based mapping would be so much cooler than tile based it is hardly worth suggesting.

And one ease of use issue: make the scenario editor application able to run in a window rather than requiring fullscreen. This makes it easier for one to reference sources while designing battles.

WWB