Question about terrain intricacy

[Ivan Drago]

It's been a fun day, I know many of us are very excited to learn more in a week, when the website is launched. Since Steve seems to be responding a lot lately, I figure I might ask this now before we see for ourselves later.

I realise the urban environment will be 'much more detailed', but I would most like to know HOW much more detailed

This is a poor picture of Damascus, the Syrian capital, from a nearby hill. Looks ok...until you look at a map

Notice all those little alleys leading to no-where!

The new, smaller tiles will make a lot more things possible - but will terrain object like merchant carts, abandoned/destroyed cars, etc. be modeled?

Can we get a general approximation of what sort of details can and cannot be added, due to engine or time restraints?

It truly seems to me that the urban environment in CMSF should amaze us, after the unrealistic appearence of cities in the CMx1 games.

Oh, and here is a cool link with a bunch of photos of various Syrian cities: http://www.homsonline.com/PhotoGallery.htm

[76mm]

This might be a good thread to repost one of Hoolaman's (I think) questions from another thread--what will be max map size? Given the extended killing ranges of modern weapons, I would think that maps would have to be huge, although I guess in a purely urban battle the lines of sight would be pretty short.

[Ivan Drago]

You know, something tells me that if anything, map sizes might be smaller.

I base this assumption on the following:

1) The scale of CMSF is smaller then the CMx1 games.

2) The style of fighting we're likely to see highlights dismounted infantry/combined arms action, with teams leap-frogging under fire in environments that make movement slow and painful.

3) The extended killing ranges of modern missiles/armor might be a good reason for BFC not to make large maps, thus making the game more balanced. I mean, do we REALLY want to sit around and pick off T-72's from 4 clicks away and then spend the rest of the battle moving troops towards objective flags?

[Michael Dorosh]

Since when do weapons systems routinely engage enemy targets exclusively at maximum range?

I don't get this whole line of thought. Battle ranges for infantry - the focus of the game - are what - 200 metres or so?

Armor vs. armor, as Steve pointed out, won't be a big feature of the game.

There's nothing to suggest that maps have to be any bigger just because a T-72 can theoretically engage targets farther than a King Tiger could.

[Ivan Drago]

On a map that looks like these, you might be lucky to be able to see down the block, not to even mention maximum range:

Unless you were a sniper on that hill

Can you imagine trying to take this Citadel without air support?

Really looking forward to that Mid-Eastern flair!

[76mm]

Sure, urban fights will have very short lines of sight and so map size can be pretty small, but Steve has said that other types of engagements will also be present. I've never been to Syria but understand that parts of it are pretty hilly, so there could be lots of situations where you have lines of sight measured in kilometers. And with modern weapons, if you can see it, you can kill it. Anything from TOW to laser designators to Apaches to M1A1s (to a lesser extent) have enormous stand-off range that they should be expected to use when feasible. I'm not saying it would be fun to do so, but to do away with these stand-off ranges because of limited map sizes would be unrealistic.

[stoat]

How will mosques be handled? I have no more reservations about it than blowing up a church, but I'm sure that there are some kind of fire restrictions in place that prevent US forces from destryoing one.

[flamingknives]

Can you imagine trying to take this Citadel without air support?

Really looking forward to that Mid-Eastern flair

That's what precision guided artillery is for.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by stoat:

How will mosques be handled? I have no more reservations about it than blowing up a church, but I'm sure that there are some kind of fire restrictions in place that prevent US forces from destryoing one.

Depends. In Iraq US troops are allowed to hit mosques if they are being shot at from inside it.

[Ivan Drago]

*bump* Keep those terrain questions coming :cool:

[KG_SSpoom]

bump

[Ivan Drago]

Gawd, do we have to insult Peng or somefink to get attention?

*BUMP*

[Mord]

Originally posted by Ivan Drago:

Gawd, do we have to insult Peng or somefink to get attention?

*BUMP*

LMAO!

Mord.

[juan_gigante]

I think that all those great CMx1 scenario designers had better get warmed up for some seriously complicated maps.

[Battlefront.com]

I forget what Charles said he guesses max practical map size to be... but I think it was around 2km x 2km or something like that. I imagine this is a highly conservative number if you're talking about a fairly flat piece of terrain. Urban environments are what will kill the framerate and CPU, so don't expect to have 2km x 2km of city to fight in all at one time. Not that it's practical to do that anyway

We are planning on being able to tie buildings, any type, to certain forms of victory conditions. If the scenario designer doesn't want you to blow up that mosque, then he can assign a value to the mosque that would hit the victory score depending on damage. More details on that at a later time.

Streets and buildings are limited to 4 directions, which is an improvement over CM's 2 directions (for big strutures at least). We hope to be able to bump it up to 8 directions by the third release of CMx2. Massive hardware hit for just about everything, so not practical now. Anyway, the flexibility is dictated by the 8mx8m grid. Alleyways are a big feature of ME urban environments so they will be possible. Dead ending them shouldn't be a problem.

Yup... urban ops are going to be rather challenging... that's for sure.

Steve

[Ivan Drago]

I knew mentioning Peng would lure Steve to this thread like a hungry shark is lured by spilt blood in the ocean

Thx for the answers, very very interesting to be sure!

Can you clarify what exactly you mean by 'directions'?

Am I correct in assuming this means which way the building can be rotated or something?

Another more detail-oritented question: will ditches be represented as 3D indentations in the landscape, or as the Snikers-bar-esque tiles like currently?

If so, I imagine it would give other features like craters and field latrines a much more natural appearence

Oh and any word on 'flavor' objects like the aforementioned abandoned merchant cart or burning automobile?

[Battlefront.com]

Am I correct in assuming this means which way the building can be rotated or something?

I described that very badly, didn't I? Well, that's what I get for mixing CMx1 and CMx2 concepts together without clarity.

In CMx1 the big buildings only had one orientation... straight on the grid. That means they always faced N/S/E/W. Smaller buildings could face that way or NW/SW/NE/SE. In CMx2 all buildings can face in both of these orientations. So can roads.

The big deal improvement in CMx2 is that the scenario designer chooses explicit entrances/exits. This means it now matters which side of the building you approach from. That means the 4 direcions, and the 2 orientation angles (90 and 45) to the grid allow or a lot more realistic urban settings.

In a perfect world the buildings could be aligned freely, but like I said... big time hardware killer. It will probably be two years before the hardware can handle 90, 67.5, 45, and 22.5 angles. Even that is somewhat restrictive, but obviously the more flexibility the better. CMx2 is a huge leap from CMx1 just with the orientation and entrances/exits. The multi-floors, windows, simulated interiors, rooftops, and deformation just make it all the better

Steve

[Ivan Drago]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The big deal improvement in CMx2 is that the scenario designer chooses explicit entrances/exits. This means it now matters which side of the building you approach from....The multi-floors, windows, simulated interiors, rooftops, and deformation just make it all the better

Just those three sentences make me drool already...yes, this will be a new scale of realism indeed!

Seems like many of us will need to read that AAR you posted several times over and memorize the lessons real-life warriors learned the hard way.

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

I'd like an answer on the "Carts" issue, It's not the potential of IED's but the fact that cars lining streets or ven fighting in a car park can be a key issue.

Other things that you might expect to see are Boats and even in an airport scenario ( getting US national out) the occational 747.

Unlike CMBO-AK, large numbers of other vehicles are a much more important factor, as 50 years after WW@ the car is king, and then there are oiltankers and tank transporters, plus commercial vehicles from tractors to JCB's all of which can be put to military use. ( It's unlikely so I wouldn't want it in, but I bet you could roll a Stryker with a JCB).

Peter.

[Ivan Drago]

Good points, Peter, I agree.