A little bit about buildings

[RCHRD]

Why not make several buildings of identical physical properties, say, Large stone 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, etc and let the modders make the skins.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Mord:

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

Interior stuff, such as furnishings, debirs, doors, walls, etc. are handled abstractly. Again, more settings for the scenario designer to play with. However, sometimes internal walls and doors are simulated directly. Depends on how scenario designers want do it.

Steve

I pretty much get the gist of what you were saying with the rest of your post but are you saying that designers will be able to place walls and the like if they want? or Just walls and doors?

This is actually the part that confuses me;

"Interior stuff, such as furnishings, debirs, doors, walls, etc. are handled abstractly. Again, more settings for the scenario designer to play with."

The "abstract" and "more settings to play with" has me scratching my head.

Mord. </font>

[Cull]

Just wanted to further the opinion (or uh, fact I guess, since Steve said it) that the urban fights will be much more interesting now.

I've rarely designed or played them with the current games, and I think the reason is that they just lacked personality. Without the little details and urban detritus, various states of building damage, etc, the environment was just sterile. Also something about the visual aspect I found slightly annoying. I'm not really sure what it is, to be honest, nor am I sure how to get the right balance of eye candy and "playability" from the graphical standpoint with urban settings.

Actually, maybe that's it: more "doodads" and unique visual cues around the dense areas should help alot, I think.

Urban fights should be some of the most intense and dramatic, but for some reason that I obviously can't quite put my finger on, they just aren't with the current games. I just never get that immersion that I get with more rural battles.

I'm pretty sure that will be corrected for me in CMx2.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cull:

Just wanted to further the opinion (or uh, fact I guess, since Steve said it) that the urban fights will be much more interesting now.

I've rarely designed or played them with the current games, and I think the reason is that they just lacked personality. Without the little details and urban detritus, various states of building damage, etc, the environment was just sterile. Also something about the visual aspect I found slightly annoying. I'm not really sure what it is, to be honest, nor am I sure how to get the right balance of eye candy and "playability" from the graphical standpoint with urban settings.

Actually, maybe that's it: more "doodads" and unique visual cues around the dense areas should help alot, I think.

Urban fights should be some of the most intense and dramatic, but for some reason that I obviously can't quite put my finger on, they just aren't with the current games. I just never get that immersion that I get with more rural battles.

I'm pretty sure that will be corrected for me in CMx2.

Which CMAK scenarios have you played that featured urban fighting? Maybe the scenarios just sucked.

I think what bothered me about them was the difficulty of maneuvering the camera in and out of buildings. That might be made even worse with internal walls and stuff. I suppose urban battles are supposed to be chaotic, but that doesn't mean the interface should be, too.

I've been left cold by some of the urban fights in CMBB and CMAK also - I liked Skulpturny Park by Charlie Kibler, was mildly wild about the factory fight on the CMBB CD (two factories and that's it, with tanks playing ring round the rosie on the outside), and call me biased, but am enjoying Little Stalingrad for CMAK, mostly because it is just plain chaotic. Was getting regular email reports from one playtester who looked like he was having a wild time in Ortona as well.

The fight in Vienna (?) on the CMBB disk was not bad either. The fight in Paris in CMBO, however, left me cold.

I think designing an exciting urban battle may well be a case of luck - but for me, it was always the interface that killed it - though I guess its my own fault for not taking the walls option off.

[76mm]

Wow, these new building options sound pretty cool, although I don't look forward to building urban, or even village maps. Two questions:

1) Will the random map generator do a decent job of building towns & villages at least? I guess it would be too much to expect for it to build decent cities.

2) How will geographic fog of war be handled, if at all, with the new building options? For instance, units facing a building would have no way of knowing if mouseholes have been blown, what kind of windows/doors, etc. exist on the back side, or if the alley they are heading down has an exit or not. Will it be possible for players to zoom around and scout out the whole city in unrealistic detail? Ideally, the parts of a city outside the LOS of your units would be sort of "fuzzy" and not reveal certain crucial details. Any plans for this kind of thing?

76mm

[Cull]

I think that is the crux Michael. I originally rambled in my previous post about the interface, but then decided I was rambling...

I just realized which scenario you're talking about when you say "factory fight". I did like that one pretty well, maybe because the big open square was really the focus there, rather than the buildings.

Mainly I think it's the dense areas---with large clusters of nearly identical two story buildings---that I had issues with.

You're right also that more walls and such could well make it worse, but I am hopeful that the additional visual cues and the diversity that the smaller tiles will allow will be the ticket.

[Michael Dorosh]

I always rated scenarios partially on how much I would like to live on the map, were it a real location. Sometimes a map is so absolutely interesting, despite the limited palette of terrain, that you could zoom the camera down to ground level and just "go for a walk". I've never seen a computer generated map do that, but there have certainly been some human created ones that hold that much interest. Given a wider palette of building types, and talented scenario designers, this should get even better. But I still won't hold my breath waiting for the computer to do it.

However, I would also hate to see a situation like Close Combat - where the maps are 100% individualized and interesting, but are the only ones you get to play on because they are hard coded.

Tom Grace had a battle of the bulge scen for CMAK that had a map such as I'm speaking of - and you don't need to have huge elevation changes to make something interesting, either. Sometimes wide open spaces just seem more realistic too.

I was always disappointed with the random "cities" in the CMAK editor though - certainly the hardest thing to get realistic. With the addition of narrow alleys and buildings up to 6 stories, I can only anticipate much more realism in maps. Just not by the computer drawn ones.

But - we shall see, won't we. Personally, who wants to see human scenario designers put out of business? Even if a computer could draw a map, it still takes a human to balance a scenario, research the history (and the map if it is historical terrain), and give the scenario "heart" for lack of a better word.

[Battlefront.com]

Mord, the designer will have the ability to set the type of interior for a building, but it will not be represented in a direct 1:1 way. For example, a densely cluttered room might have some graphics to show you that, but they will be like Doodads in CMx1 (i.e. eye candy).

Random map generation is a key feature of CMx2 as it was for CMx1. We will do the best we can to make randomly generated stuff be appealing to you guys. We've got some ideas on that, but they're not fit for public consumption just yet

Camera controls... well, there ain't much we can do to improve this. If you don't want to play with drop down walls/roofs, you're pretty much insisting on a hard time.

It would be nice to hide building details from units, but really... they already know so much more than they should what would this accomplish? I mean, you shouldn't even know if there is a house on the next block at all, not to mention if it has windows with green shutters Fogged out Terrain was something we tossed around as an idea a long time ago. We decided the cons outweighed the pros so that concept is not in the game.

Steve

[Mord]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Mord, the designer will have the ability to set the type of interior for a building, but it will not be represented in a direct 1:1 way. For example, a densely cluttered room might have some graphics to show you that, but they will be like Doodads in CMx1 (i.e. eye candy).

Steve

Awsome! Good enough for me. Some items here and there would do just fine to fill in the empty looks of the buildings.

Thanks!

Mord.

[legend42]

6 levels for bldgs, thats sick(cool),imagine Stalingrad now!

[British Tommy]

Can't wait to get my hands on that editor!

This is the sort of thing I've been waiting for, lots of details to add to the terrain to make the maps look more natural.

You guys must be up to your neck with work so the question is, who will be making the scenario's to go with the new game? ( on the disc ). If your too busy then I'm sure some of us out here would love to step forward!

[Gordon]

From the description of how buildings can be specified within the scenario editor, is it safe to assume that the building graphics will consist of a blank wall and one or more door graphics and one or more window graphics that are placed/generated by the graphics engine? As opposed to the way that the building's walls are drawn now.

[Hat Trick]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com (snipped):

Fogged out Terrain was something we tossed around as an idea a long time ago. We decided the cons outweighed the pros so that concept is not in the game.

Steve

That's a shame. I'm sure that it will be a great game, but one of the biggest (remaining) hits to realisism is the perfect knowledge of the map that both sides have; I was really hoping for terrain fog of war. It would have taken the game to a whole new level.

[hellfish]

All exceptionally positive information. Thanks, Steve.

Looks like all my architecture books will come in handy now...

[Battlefront.com]

There were two options for doing the wall graphics and I can't remember which one Charles used (he only finished the code a few days ago). One was to have a single, blank, texture and have the code put in windows/doors as needed. The other was to premake the 4 options as separate textures (blank, with windows, with doors, with windows and doors).

It would have taken the game to a whole new level.

It's already going to a whole new level. With terrain fogging it would go even further, if we could pull it off. We figured we couldn't pull it off (yet) so we crossed it off the list. Since we're not known to shy away from challenges, and can't think of any other similar game that has terrain fogging, that should make people say "ah... guess it's one of those easier said than done things". Cuz it is indeed MUCH easier to say than to do. It really is a bear of a feature. And not the Winnie the Poo kind either... we're talking about pissed off momma grizzly variety.

Steve

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

There were two options for doing the wall graphics and I can't remember which one Charles used (he only finished the code a few days ago). One was to have a single, blank, texture and have the code put in windows/doors as needed. The other was to premake the 4 options as separate textures (blank, with windows, with doors, with windows and doors).

Steve,

am I correct in thinking that the windows - and doors - themselves are abstracted. So, if a wall has windows, then great, it has generic "windows" and graphics to indicate that, but it doesn't have a Window 2m wide by 1 m high, set 2.5m in and 2m up from the NW corner of the bldg, represented by the exact placement of the window on the bldg skin.

The reason I ask is because I'm trying to get a handle on how the units will interact with the openings in the walls. IRL, for an individual looking out it makes a huge difference whether you are close to the window, or far away, or if you are in the left of the room, or the right. The field of view in each of those situations is completely different. Presumably worrying about that is well below the bar for CMx2(?), particularly since we won't (and mostly don't want to) be able to control where individual soldiers go. Based on that, I'd expect that we'll get something similar to CMx1, in that if a wall has generic "windows", the unit can see out through the entire wall, rather than out through a specific Window opening. And presumably if there are no windows, then nada - no visibilitry out that wall ... unless it gets damaged to * or ** level maybe?

Also, while I'm thinking about it, how are windows, (internal) doors, and damage handled for multi storey bldgs? Is there one setting for the entire wall from ground to sky, or will the wall on each storey have it's own setting?

Cheers

Jon

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

2. Roof tops can be used if there is access to them.

:cool:

8. Mouseholing is now possible.

:cool:

12. With the 1m x 1m terrain mesh underlying the terrain...

Way cool! That means realistic looking road and railway cuts and fills, elevated roads, dams, viaducts, berms, dikes, ditches, the works.

:cool:

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Mouseholing is where you want to get into the next building, (where buildings share the same walls) BUT you don't want to go OUT into the street and get mowed down be MG fire.

SO you blow a hole in the wall and burst (in dramatic fashion) into the next building!

It doesn't have to be an interior wall. Lots of industrial buildings, warehouses for instance, have blind walls facing out. Approaching from the blind side and mouseholing could be a cheap and easy way of getting in as long as that approach isn't covered from some other location. In that case, it would get complicated...

Michael

[kipanderson]

Steve posted,

“The only downside, besides the more involved scenario making, is that there will be a bit of a generic feel to the buildings from a graphical standpoint.”

Is this not where the advantages of the more focused, narrower setting for each game will kick in. i.e. the buildings for a Normandy game will look very different, have very different skins on them, when compared to the buildings for an Ardennes game. That is what I am hoping anyway.

I was not much interested in graphical changes, but am now a full convert to the idea of far more focused settings for each game, but also more games/modules to give variety.

One of the downsides to CMX1 was that the graphics, buildings and such, had an identical look to them for all of NWE or Eastern Front. With the modular system I am hoping that, say, an Eastern Front game set around Kharkov will have a different look to one set in East Prussia. Similarly, greatly looking forward to more heavily weathered AFVs to suite the climatic conditions of a given module.

All good stuff,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. More games/modules each with different graphics does give us more toys to look forward to .

[Philippe]

Steve mentioned randomly generated doodads. I just want to mention that I've never been very fond of the random crates graphics. I like the idea, but I find it disconcerting to see a blatantly two-dimensional object filling in for a three dimensional object. So please make your crates out of cubes this time around, and not out of two flat surfaces arranged in a cross.

I also have a similar problem with graveyards -- some of those headstones look really weird. I'm hoping that the extra polygon count possibilities will allow you the time to do away with this kind of shortcut. (You haven't heard me say anything nice about vinyards, but that's because I don't have CMAK yet. I love vinyards.)

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

It really is a bear of a feature. And not the Winnie the Poo kind either... we're talking about pissed off momma grizzly variety.

Quality sig material, that.

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by JonS:

The reason I ask is because I'm trying to get a handle on how the units will interact with the openings in the walls. IRL, for an individual looking out it makes a huge difference whether you are close to the window, or far away, or if you are in the left of the room, or the right. The field of view in each of those situations is completely different. Presumably worrying about that is well below the bar for CMx2(?), particularly since we won't (and mostly don't want to) be able to control where individual soldiers go. Based on that, I'd expect that we'll get something similar to CMx1, in that if a wall has generic "windows", the unit can see out through the entire wall, rather than out through a specific Window opening. And presumably if there are no windows, then nada - no visibilitry out that wall ... unless it gets damaged to * or ** level maybe?

Cheers

Jon

Steve said in another thread that LOS would be for the unit, not for the individual. Based on this, I think the abstraction has to be that everyone in the unit has LOS out of a window, regardless of how they are depicted.

Or were you thinking there would be some way to account for each individual's position relative to the window while still modeling a single LOS for the unit?

[Jack Carr]

WOW! That's unbelievable! I'm starting to picture CMBB and CMAK with some of these improvements and the picture in my head is blowing my mind.

Great job, Battlefront!

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Mouseholing is where you want to get into the next building, (where buildings share the same walls) BUT you don't want to go OUT into the street and get mowed down be MG fire.

SO you blow a hole in the wall and burst (in dramatic fashion) into the next building!

It doesn't have to be an interior wall. Lots of industrial buildings, warehouses for instance, have blind walls facing out. Approaching from the blind side and mouseholing could be a cheap and easy way of getting in as long as that approach isn't covered from some other location. In that case, it would get complicated...

Michael </font>

[YankeeDog]

I obviously can't say what BFC is planning to do with the game, but strictly speaking, most shaped charge weapons -- Rifle Grenades, Panzerfausts, etc. shouldn't create mouseholes.

The hole that a highty focused shaped charge (such as is used in an AT weapon) creates through the surface it detonates on is very small -- only a couple of CM wide in metal, and not that much larger in concrete or brick. Of course, the plume expands on the other side of the wall, and so can do quite a lot of damage inside the building, but usually not to the wall itself, unless the overpressure is enough to actually cave in the wall, but this would create more of a general collapse than a mousehole.

Depending on the size, HE shells might create a hole you could step through, but they would be just as likely to bring the whole darn wall down; this should be a very unpredicatable way of creating a useful mousehole.

IMHO, mouseholes should only be able to be reliably created by placed explosives, i.e., demo charges.

Cheers,

YD