Better fortifications in modual?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Hidden foxholes/trenches are an extremely difficult thing for us to handle. I'm not sure if, or when, we'll be able to do this. Yes, it is on our list

When we put in WWII stuff everything has to be rebalanced and tested.

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

Even if you don't add any new terrain for the Marines module it would be nice to have the US side at least able to buy/use bunkers.

I get that you aren't going out of your way to support scenarios other than "US steamrolling through Syria" and whatever hasty defenses they meet along the way.

But this seems like a real easy way to give the community some new scenario design options, with US forces as the defender.

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by LongLeftFlank:

Even if you don't add any new terrain for the Marines module it would be nice to have the US side at least able to buy/use bunkers.

The scenario designer can have the US can use any Syrian forces and vice versa (not in QB). In the editor, buy your US forces, go back to data and switch the battle to red vs. red. Then buy Syrian stuff for the blue side.

[Mord]

Thanks Steve. I can live with it if you guys can't figure it out or make it work without tearing your hair out. I'd rather have trenches and fox holes that can be seen by all than none whatsoever.

And Normal Dude is turning into the Heloise of CMSF...have any recommendations for grass mod stains? LMAO!

Mord.

[LongLeftFlank]

Originally posted by Mord:

And Normal Dude is turning into the Heloise of CMSF...have any recommendations for grass mod stains? LMAO!

I was thinking more the McGyver. Thanks, bro!

[ChrisND]

Actually I am more the nerd who memorizes random stuff in obscure thread. Other people found these tricks.

ETA: Actually, I am not too keen on ground mods yet, because the game only "draws" them out to a certain distance from the camera, then reverts back to the old textures. It makes it look really, really crappy when everything within a few hundred meters of you is European dirt and everything past that is Syrian sand.

[Combatintman]

LongLeftFlank

As you will have seen from my earlier posts - I'd love Blue defensive stuff (such as Hesco Bastion) because it opens up certain types of stability operations in the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres which can be created by a skilfull scenario/campaign designer.

Like you say and as we both know this game is aimed more at the steamroller/shock and awe effect of a warfighting operation but there is enough to recreate certain stability operations scenarios from Afghanistan and Iraq if we have the right blue defensive stuff.

So - I'd love to see more of it.

[flammenwerfer]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Hidden foxholes/trenches are an extremely difficult thing for us to handle. I'm not sure if, or when, we'll be able to do this.

It's strange that this feature, as well as mis-identification, were not included in the build of the new engine.

It's one of those things that made CM, well CM.

[ChrisND]

I am hesitant to add trenches to my scenarios because they only invite air-burst artillery at the beginning of a scenario.

[Combatintman]

Normal Dude

It depends on the scenarios you create of course - if it is full on warfighting then fine - although you could place trenches as deception.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeldar Oob,

It's strange that this feature, as well as mis-identification, were not included in the build of the new engine.

This is the downside of having the more detailed terrain mesh. People hated the flat 2D look of the trenches and foxholes in CMx1. We did too. So we made them true 3D. The problem with that is that they are no longer "units", as they were in CMx1, but actually part of the terrain mesh. That means before the trenches and foxholes were treated exactly like units and therefore spotting worked easily. Not true now since they are part of the terrain mesh, not a 2D decal stuck on top of 3D terrain.

Misidentification is something that became harder to do because, like other stuff, it was less abstracted. We had generic animations, generic unit positions, etc. Now that's all gone. We also felt it was less important for CM:SF at the moment simply because misidentification doesn't matter as much as it does for a WWII game.

We are planning on having misidentification in the Normandy game.

Steve

[M1A1TC]

How about changing it so that trenches and fox-holes have to be spotted in order to appear on the map, instead of the player knowing from the beginning where they are

[Combatintman]

M1A1TC - yes that would be a good idea bowever if you are playing from the US side you might expect to be able to spot trenches from Desert Hawk as an example.

I know that roving over the map in set up is not quite the same capability as you would get from Desert Hawk (namely you'd see the troops as well).

For once I'm prepared to sacrifice realism to be able to roam over the map - I can justify it the terms above but I never expend offensive support assets on trenchlines unless I see a target because offensive support is always limited.

Your artillery guys are probably the same as ours - I'd rather them miss identified enemy troops than identified trenches (we don't call them dropshorts for nothing!).

[Battlefront.com]

Uhm... guys, that's what I'm saying isn't possible to do There is no such thing as "spotting" trenches and foxholes because they aren't units. They are part of the terrain mesh. So when the terrain draws it draws... there isn't any sort of conditional "it looks like this to one player, it looks like that to another player".

Combatintman, if we did have the ability to hide trenches and foxholes we could have a separate "fly over" to reveal things. The problem isn't that, it's the fact that we can't hide them in the first place.

The only easy way to work around this problem is to go back to the horrid 2D decals on 3D terrain. I know some of you think that would be a good idea, but I'd not be surprised to find you in a thread from 5-7 years ago arguing that we should get rid of 2D decals and have trenches and foxholes truly 3D

Steve

[C'Rogers]

At first I was upset that we could always see trenches. Then when I thought about it we have perfect information of the entire map. Where every building, brush, and tree is. In comparison to that knowing where the trenches are isn't so surprising.

[Lurker765]

Does this mean that trenches, etc will always be part of the initial map and the player will not be able to move them around in the setup to where they would like them instead of where the scenario design placed them?

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The only easy way to work around this problem is to go back to the horrid 2D decals on 3D terrain. I know some of you think that would be a good idea, but I'd not be surprised to find you in a thread from 5-7 years ago arguing that we should get rid of 2D decals and have trenches and foxholes truly 3D

Since deformable terrain is already supported, what exactly would be the problem?

Relative spotting, causing terrain remeshing whenever different units are selected, I guess!?

Best regards,

Thomm

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

... The only easy way to work around this problem is to go back to the horrid 2D decals on 3D terrain. I know some of you think that would be a good idea, but I'd not be surprised to find you in a thread from 5-7 years ago arguing that we should get rid of 2D decals and have trenches and foxholes truly 3D

Steve

There's maybe another way...please take a second look on a usual engine function! 3D struktures like trees are blended out, trenches are replaced by a 2d 'placeholder' if you get in some virtual distance, both to disburden the PC. Can't this be misused to hide trenches? As another stupid idea, why not make trenches some kind of 'vehicel' or building?

BTW, I think that the trenches in CMSF look rather unrealistic, more like a roadside ditch as a frontline trench. Even if I don't like 'ToW' that much, but the trenches look much better there.

I also hope the pillboxes in future CMx1 titles will have a more realistic look and weaponry. I guess everybody who has ever seen pics from the Westwall, Atlantik Wall or Maginot Line knows what I mean.

[Secondbrooks]

Originally posted by Scipio:

why not make trenches some kind of 'vehicel' or building?

Sounds freaking Simple! :confused: Dunno is there problem in foxholes becoming too static/cubersome to use for AI and/or player, but it sounds good.

About trenches visible to long distances, how about foxholes? There would be one, two or three small holes on one tile which are blending to background (+foilage and all). Same or even smaller effort would be to move around map and listen where opponents are talking to each of other... If i'm having right set of memories conserning me using very-much-gamey tactic and listened where Syrians are and then giving them few (tons of) BIG shells.

Ofcourse to player having foxholes those should be highlighted or something.

[Lurker765]

Bump for:

Does this mean that trenches, etc will always be part of the initial map and the player will not be able to move them around in the setup to where they would like them instead of where the scenario design placed them?

Also to add:

What would this mean for fortifications in quick battles? Can they be allocated to either the player or AI to place somewhere?

[Battlefront.com]

Lurker765,

Yes, trenches (like now) are set by the scenario designer and can not be reset by the player. This is a related issue to the one we're talking about with hiding them. I suspect that if we fix one we fix the other.

Thomm,

Since deformable terrain is already supported, what exactly would be the problem?

Relative spotting, causing terrain remeshing whenever different units are selected, I guess!?

You sorta answered your own question there The minor terrain deformations are fairly modest and they are one-off events. Once changed they don't change back. So there is only one state of the terrain mesh. If trenches are going to be dynamically visible, or not visible, there needs to be different meshes concurrently. That's problematic for the hardware to handle. Constant changing of the mesh involves a lot of things changing behind the scenes.

Scipio,

As I said, in CMx1 they were units and in CMx2 they are now terrain. Thats the way it had to be since a unit moves in relation to the terrain mesh, it doesn't conform it to its shape.

No, the LOD code can not be used to blend out the trenches like trees. All that's happening there is distance/performance affects what is drawn or not. Trees, buildings, units, etc. have hand built models that are swapped in. Trenches are part of the terrain mesh. When the mesh is reduced trenches are simply wiped out completely along with all sorts of other elevation changes. There is no concept of a trench, nor a way to have it blended in/out on its own.

Lurker765,

No, trenches can not be "purchased" in a QB any more than they could be in a game like Close Combat. You either have them built into the map, or you don't. That's because they are part of the map.

Buuuuuhlive me, if this were easy to address we would already have player positionable and spottable trenches since trenches went into the game. It's not like this was something overlooked. I want this changed as much as any of you, but I can't make any promises that it will be.

Steve

[Lurker765]

Thanks for the answer Steve.

Being able to place my own fortifications for a defense was a big deal for me and it will be very sad if it cannot make it back into CMSF.

Would foxholes be the same deal? ie: if I play a Normandy scenario and move my defending troops their foxholes would remain where the scenario designer placed them?

I realize this might be implemented at some point in the future, but I am just curious if foxholes cause the same problem as trenches.

Thanks

[76mm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The only easy way to work around this problem is to go back to the horrid 2D decals on 3D terrain. I know some of you think that would be a good idea, but I'd not be surprised to find you in a thread from 5-7 years ago arguing that we should get rid of 2D decals and have trenches and foxholes truly 3D

Put down my vote to go back to a 2D solution that works better (spotting, player-deployable).

Also, what about roadblocks? I think these would fit into CMSF's premise?

[ April 30, 2008, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: 76mm ]

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by 76mm:

Put down my vote to go back to a 2D solution that works better (spotting, player-deployable).

I think we both know that is never gonna happen.