Better fortifications in modual?

[LongLeftFlank]

What about hiding in plain sight? You could place lots of foxholes all over the map so that an attacker would be unable to know which were occupied without spotting the units within. Of course, you'd be presenting both sides with all kinds of ready made cover dotted about, but hey, some people feel that the battlefield is too lethal for infantry as it is.

I've got my hobby horses about this game, sure (one type of building and infantry still acting like drunken cats), but I can sympathize with the BFC team on this difficult issue.

[Battlefront.com]

Duplicate (redundant) defensive features were mentioned on one of the previous pages. Yes, obviously that does help, but of course it isn't a solution.

I know many of you don't understand why this is such a big problem, but then again I'm pretty sure none of you have ever programmed a 3D simulation of tactical warfare either We knew this was going to be a problem before even one line of code was written. In theory it is doable, but in reality is extremely time intensive. Since spending x time doing this means not spending x time doing something else, choices have to be made.

As much as I personally want to see both user positionable trenches and hidden trenches, I don't see them as being high enough priority to bump other things out of the initial WWII game release. Gamers never like to hear this, but then again gamers aren't game developers for a reason... game developers have to make stuff happen instead of asking other people to make them happen.

Steve

[ May 02, 2008, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Pinetree]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

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

Statisoris,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Why would it not be possible for Defender to be allowed to enter a limited "Fortifications Only" version of the map editor before starting the selected battle?...Steve, would you say what I propose might be possible, overly difficult or beyond engine capability?

Time to implement is the only issue here, not technical limitations. In fact, what you suggested is how it will work when we eventually allow user placement of trenches. Why? Because it's the most simple way to do it. Basically, the player would do something like color the tiles he wants to have fortified and this information would be incorporated into the terrain mesh for the game to follow. There would be no problem with Campaigns since this same UI could be used for both. Having it packed into the existing SetUp Phase would likely (though not for sure) introduce other problems, hence why I think a separate "fortification phase" would be the way to go.

</font>

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Adam1,

Well we've debated it a lot, I don't know how productive more of that would be

Not very It's all a matter of personal perspective on some issues. For example, your comment about Relative Spotting;

The relative spotting is good, but with fortifications and entrenchments missing it doesn't really matter since any unit can pin any other unit.

Defensive positions, of the type you are picturing and in the way you are picturing them, should be a relative rarity on a modern battlefield. Even in WWII it was not the norm. So I think having a much better spotting system should not be nixed because of a specific complaint about a very narrow scenario setting.

As for the pinning thing... well, that's realistic It's a bit more pronounced in a modern setting than WW2, but again that is also a reflection of reality, just as it is true that WW2 was easier to pin units than in the American Civil War or Napoleon.

Again... I can't do anything about perception. If people want to look at a glass that is nearly full as nearly empty... there isn't anything I can do to change that. CMx2 isn't perfect (never will be), but when one stacks up the reality shortcomings of CMx1 vs. the shortcomings of CMx2, CMx2 comes out well ahead. Whether someone likes the way it plays better is a completely different thing and is something I'd never argue with since "fun" is not quantifiable.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Adam1,

If you had to choose between having defensive works or relative spotting, and decided that relative spotting was more an applicable gain to the modern setting than foxholes, I agree you made the right call there.

Trenches, bunkers, foxholes, and mines are all present in CM:SF, so obviously we didn't have to make that choice The limit of what types of defensive works we offered was based on the need for this particular setting, which is why the list of defensive works will increase for the WW2 setting.

That's not to say that we didn't have to make some compromises to the way people WANT trenches to work. We did. But it wasn't even a close call if we should do it or not. The two limitations (currently anyway) of no user placement and requiring spotting were necessary to allow for the finer terrain mesh, true LOF, a fully 3D environment, Relative Spotting, and probably a half dozen other things. If you were faced with having to make choices like this (and of course, gamers never have to make these decisions ), I'd be surprised if you would have gutted the core of the entire simulated environment because of this. Especially because we can address the shortcomings all in good time.

Compromises are an every day part of game development, especially simulation development. There is a lot of art to it and getting things right or wrong is often in the eye of the beholder. But I can tell you, getting it right or wrong from a code standpoint is not I knew in 2003 that we would not have trench behavior like we've discussed here and was fine with that then and I am now. It is a small sacrifice to make for the greater improvements and a sacrifice that likely will be overcome anyway. Again, people are free to disagree with this and even make their own game if they feel that strongly about it. It could be called "Trench Mission"

Do the sandbag doodads "work"?

They do provide some cover, yes. They do not provide any concealment.

Steve

[ May 02, 2008, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, and I know this wasn't a serious question (and it is off topic for this thread), but I thought I would give an answer to your question about system specs, Adam1:

Kinda makes me wonder about CM2WW2 system specs req's though.

In the top priority category of our ToDo list we have some refinements to make the engine better able to handle even more polygons. We think that it does a pretty damned good job with what it's tasked with doing, but we expect WW2 will ask a lot more of it. The simple switch from an arid environment to a vegetation rich temperate climate is going to be huge all on its own, not to mention other factors. So hopefully the system specs won't go up much, if at all, between CM:SF and CM Normandy, even though the number of polygons pushed in the Normandy setting will be significantly larger. That's our goal anyway!

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Adam1,

Besides all this, even teams in craters are still *more vulnerable* to small arms than infantry light trees. I have test scenarios showing squads at 250m benefit more from trees than either shell scrapes or craters by a wide margin. There is no logical reason that light trees should provide more cover than shell scrapes or craters.

Bunkers offer virtually no protection from even near misses by artillery and mortar fire.

We should look into this more, agreed. But we're talking about extremely minor tweaks necessary, worst case, so it really is a separate issue from what we've been talking about so far.

Trenches have no overhead cover, absolutely essential for fighting the US.

We've had this discussion before and you probably know my position on this

But you can't just bomb every hundred meters squared of the Syrian infrastructure. No realistic chance of the US doing that.

Correct, but it's not necessary to do that. Things that are big enough to matter, in positions that would matter, would most likely be detected long before the first solider crosses the border. If they were in the way of a planned advance they would be bombed. If they were not, then they would sit on a map board unless it became relevant, then it would be bombed. If recon stumbled into something it would break and either direct fire against it or report back so it could be bombed by someone else or simply ignored and moved around. If a regular line unit ran into something missed by all of these other opportunities, they would likely pull back and do the same.

BTW, the amount of overhead cover that would be necessary to make a difference against US artillery is pretty significant. A piece of corrugated steel with some dirt over it ain't going to cut it

I'm not saying that improved fighting positions would be a bad thing to offer, but it is a pretty low priority. You might remember a discussion we had about 100mm AT guns for the Syrians a long time ago. In CMBO it was beach landings and actual para drops, not to mention Funnies and Engineer capabilities that ranged from barely within scope to completely out of the question. We can't simulate everything, so we have to focus on what is most relevant first, then expand from there. It's the only practical way to simulate warfare in the amount of detail we do.

Do other doodads offer concealment? Do all doodads offer different levels of cover?

No Flavor Object (doodad) offers concealment ever. Too much strain on the computer. I think all Flavor Objects offer some level of cover, but there are probably some that don't (air conditioner? ATM?). I can't remember off the top of my head. Regardless, the amount of cover is related to the object itself.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request