Some questions for Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Roter Stern]

Hasnt all of this been covered at least a few times by now?

Foxholes are in, btw ...or rather Shell-Scrapes ... look closer next time

Here's a good place to start looking...

Steve's Recent Posts

[thewood]

Actually, it is scattered all over the forum and in little dribs and drabs. It would be good to have some of these questions answered in one spot. I think its called a FAQ. Because of the confusion with bugs, manual not matching game in some areas, complexity of the game, and differences from CM1, I think its needed to help both old CM hands and new CM people get through the game.

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by thewood:

Actually, it is scattered all over the forum and in little dribs and drabs. It would be good to have some of these questions answered in one spot. I think its called a FAQ. Because of the confusion with bugs, manual not matching game in some areas, complexity of the game, and differences from CM1, I think its needed to help both old CM hands and new CM people get through the game.

A Fine idea: I hope BFC can put one together

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

AdamL,

Some questions I and others are wondering about. Could you help explain these things for us?

1) Is infantry small arms fire being abstracted at all? If so, how?

2) Is cover/terrain being abstracted at all? If so, how?

3) Is movement being abstracted at all? Ditto

4) How detailed is the armor penetration model now? How does it work?

5) Are there any plans to introduce the equivalent of "foxholes" from CMx1 into CM:SF?

Answers are as follows:

1) Not that I'm aware of. You'll even see M203 grenades launched only from the guy with the M203 launcher.

2) Cover is abstracted somewhat. For example, an individual bush that you see reduces LOS to that Action Spot in ways that make sense (i.e. an Abrams doesn't benefit, soldiers do). So if you see an individual behind the bush and another guy next to it, both are considered to have some degree of LOS protection. Remember that cover and concealment are two different things, so when LOF is calculated the shots are exactly tracked but there is some allowance made for things like trees and what not so as to abstractly simulate the guys taking cover behind them.

3) No, movement is not abstracted.

4) Armor penetration is modeled in far greater detail than CMx1 because the actual 3D representation of the model in CM:SF is used in the calculations. When a round is fired it's exact flight path is tracked and where the round hits the damage calculation is made based on what it hit and the angle (along with all the properties of the round and what was hit). In CMx1 the shots were not traced and instead an approximation of impact was made based on the time the shot was fired.

5) You can put down shell holes and they serve the same purpose. We would like to have user placeable foxholes and trenches in CM:WW2, but it isn't extremely high up on the ToDo list. It would also be pretty ugly because it would require the game to recompute the terrain mesh, which takes some time to do (though perhaps not that much).

And yes, a FAQ would be a good idea. Unfortunately, they take time to make and I've not been saving my posts to use as a basis. I'll probably get around to a FAQ in a few weeks.

Steve

[Flanker15]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

2) Cover is abstracted somewhat. For example, an individual bush that you see reduces LOS to that Action Spot in ways that make sense (i.e. an Abrams doesn't benefit, soldiers do). So if you see an individual behind the bush and another guy next to it, both are considered to have some degree of LOS protection. Remember that cover and concealment are two different things, so when LOF is calculated the shots are exactly tracked but there is some allowance made for things like trees and what not so as to abstractly simulate the guys taking cover behind them.

3) No, movement is not abstracted.

There's abit of a problem with this at the moment (hope it gets fixed) where things like buildings and walls have a cover/LOS/move block effect that spreads across the entire grid instead of the 1:1 model of the object. This currently makes urban combat very hard where LOS/LOF is blocked by a piece of open ground next to the wall instead of the wall itself (you can only get LOS if the it passes through no wall grids), same thing for vehicle movment. Also if inside the grid that the wall is on a unit can have LOS/LOF to the other side of the wall instead of it being blocked.

[fireship4]

Can you elaborate a little on why this approach (abstracting LOS) was chosen? Maybe if improvements are made to the TacAI (ie taking cover more intelligently, moving intelligently in other situations) then this can be removed...

[thewood]

I would think instead of writing the long answers over and over again, it would help productivity to look at the repetitive questions on the board, answer them once, and sticky it.

[panzermartin]

Originally posted by Flanker15:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

2) Cover is abstracted somewhat. For example, an individual bush that you see reduces LOS to that Action Spot in ways that make sense (i.e. an Abrams doesn't benefit, soldiers do). So if you see an individual behind the bush and another guy next to it, both are considered to have some degree of LOS protection. Remember that cover and concealment are two different things, so when LOF is calculated the shots are exactly tracked but there is some allowance made for things like trees and what not so as to abstractly simulate the guys taking cover behind them.

3) No, movement is not abstracted.

There's abit of a problem with this at the moment (hope it gets fixed) where things like buildings and walls have a cover/LOS/move block effect that spreads across the entire grid instead of the 1:1 model of the object. This currently makes urban combat very hard where LOS/LOF is blocked by a piece of open ground next to the wall instead of the wall itself (you can only get LOS if the it passes through no wall grids), same thing for vehicle movment. Also if inside the grid that the wall is on a unit can have LOS/LOF to the other side of the wall instead of it being blocked. </font>