CMX2: Can we get back to fantasising now?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

1) I would have thought that Vietnam ranges were shorter than WWI/WWII. Certainly small arms lost power and range.

2) passage of time is in

3) Relative spotting (the antithesis of Borg spotting) is in

4) Command game is out, at least for the first two games, but may come in for later games (games will come along faster than with CMX1)

8) Operations have changed into more scripted campaign battles. 'Upgrades' are unlikely though

Seems relevant to the latest crop of "we want this for CMX2 because..." posts

[Midnight Warrior]

Since this is fantasizing....

1. Tanks don't drive through fences but over them (or through them)depending on how heavy the tank and how sturdy the wall. If they go over them they expose themsleves to belly shots.

2. Fallen tree trunks and logs to hide behind

3. Creeks and streams

4. True 3D fox holes and trenches

5. Vehicles leave tracks in the ground.

6. More interior details in houses and buildings.

7. planning map with the ability to draw phase lines.

8. Links from Plt HQ to Co HQ's

9. A way to jump around the map to preplanned sight points so that you don't have to keep scrolling back and forth.

10. Programmable mouse wheel

11. 3d Audio

12. Interface to IR head tracker (like in aircraft sims)

[Pvt. Ryan]

You forgot cows that the men can shoot for cover.

[flamingknives]

9. try Ctrl-click

12. ????

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Midnight Warrior:

1. Tanks don't drive through fences but over them (or through them)depending on how heavy the tank and how sturdy the wall.

This is the most nonsensical sentence I have seen in a while.

[WineCape]

No need to fantasize. The first CMx2 release will be a WWII "slice."

--------------------------------------------------------

“I am simultaneously embarrassed and proud to state for the record that only two bottles of your fine South African wines remain in my wine rack. The rest gave their lives honorably in the service of the construction of CMAK over the past several months.” -- Charles Moylan, CM programmer, 28 Nov03

[ July 21, 2005, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

[Michael Dorosh]

CMX2's first offering has to be Eastern Front 1939; Poland, Russia, Finland and possibly Japan and the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania). Looking forward to it.

[Pzman]

I highly doubt that MD, who would buy it? Lamo. Also keep in mind that BFC has repeatedly said they will not do that large a scale, rather more along the lines of "Americans battle of the Bulge" or "Americans at St.Lo." I wouldn't expect a very large area of operations.

[juan_gigante]

Remeber that the first one pretty much has to be a big-money setting. After the first release's success and BFC has made billions of dollars, they can start dabbling in the weirdo crap that only grogs would want. After all, the whole point of modules is that they can do many different settings with less time between them.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

Remeber that the first one pretty much has to be a big-money setting. After the first release's success and BFC has made billions of dollars, they can start dabbling in the weirdo crap that only grogs would want.

Thank God! So all the speculation about Korea 2006 is officially over, then?

Right - now the thing about Finland is that they pretty much kicked ass, took names, and all the ladies love them. Since BF.C has already done the research on their order of battle, I can't see anything holding them back. They even have that great soundclip of Hitler talking to Mannerheim that can be converted into a rap music track for the intro movie.

[Pzman]

So you are switching to the life style of a troll now are you MD? I'm not sure whats worse, you or gunny bunny.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Pzman:

So you are switching to the life style of a troll now are you MD? I'm not sure whats worse, you or gunny bunny.

Now, now, why be offensive? I am simply championing my point of view - the crystal clear if byzantine logic that propels me to conclude that the only suitable topic for CMX2's first release is East Front 1939. I can't understand why the Finns have abandoned me in this one. It makes far more sense than Korea 2006 or Cold War 1985 or any other conflict that never really happened save in the hearts of the Cold Warriors who trained for it but never got to play.

Really, what could be better than Polish naval infantry storming ashore at Helsinki and battling up the mountainous spine of the country into the land of the midnight sun? Think of the weather effects alone.

[Pzman]

I don't think that even deserves an answer.

[hellfish]

I'm beginning to think Dorosh is talking out of his derriere to sound like he's more grog than any other grog in the world.

I'm sure the unwashed hordes will be lining up for that version of CMx2, MD. Nevermind the fact that most people can't even find Finland on a map. Way help out BFC.

[juan_gigante]

Maybe if we ignore his crazy ravings, he'll stop, or at least go to another thread.

I would be interested to know if anyone has seriously thought about a pre-modern times CMX2. Would Napoleonic wars or the like work well with CMX2? What would it be like? Would the lack of tanks make everything way worse? What about pre-gunpowder? The Crusades or even farther back, with Genghis Khan or something? I'm not recommending that as an excellent idea, I just wonder how well that would work in a CMX2 engine. Thoughts? Comments? Pie?

[hellfish]

I'm no student of pre-modern warfare by any means. I've always been under the impression that ACW and Napoleanic battles were massive in scale - thousands of people packed into relatively small areas to fight at very close quarters. I'd be interested to see how the CMx2 engine would deal with that. Were company/battalion sized battles frequent, or were they usually corps-on-corps sized fights?

[juan_gigante]

I too know little on the subject at the tactical level, so I would really be interested to know what could be done. Would there be enough skirmishes that a game do them, or would CMX2 work at more of a "Total War" series level? Really, what limitations are there on the engine? BFC, any clues? If I had a super incredibly powerful computer and a lot of time, could I actually run, say, all of the battle of Kursk?

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, the numbers of guys is a real killer. Three ways around that:

1. Limit the number of pollies on the soldiers, horses, guns, etc. This probably means restricting the camera to higher altitudes so you don't notice.

2. Use 1 figure to represent 5 or 10 men. Whatever seems right for the particular battle.

3. Use 2D sprites instead of 3D characters. Doesn't look as good when you get up close, but from a distance it's very hard to tell.

I think the main problem with these games in 3D is actually the best asset from a technical standpoint. In Napoleonics you really CAN'T care what an individual Grenadier looks like because, well, there are tons of them and any single one doesn't make a hill of beans difference for the game. So inherently you are more focused on The Big Picture as a gamer. That means you won't notice a drop off in rendering as much as you would in a game that focuses more on the individual. Like a Special Ops game where you only have dozen dudes under your command. In that case low rendering is not needed nor will it pass muster these days.

Steve

[juan_gigante]

I've heard mention of on huge battles, having distant figures 2D sprites, and then as you get close they turn 3D. Is that sort of thing in for big battles? And I assume that there might be some way to switch 1:1 representation to 1:3 or 1:5 or even 1:10 representation for those monster fights (like the 3 or 2 men per squad now).

I understand the ideas that you list as solutions to the problem, and they're good ones, but can you give us a clue as to which ones specifically (if not all) are probably going to be put into place in the game?

[Pzman]

I think doing that would take a lot more VRAM. Having different sets of graphics for each level would be killer in that regard.

[Battlefront.com]

I've heard mention of on huge battles, having distant figures 2D sprites, and then as you get close they turn 3D. Is that sort of thing in for big battles?

If you are talking about LODs, all 3D games use it. The screen's pixel resolution sucks so why bother trying to display 10,000 poloygons at 1000m distance when you might only have 10 pixels to display them in? CMx1 uses at least three levels of LODs IIRC.

Same with terrain. As terrain gets further back from the camera's point of view the terrain mesh and features are generally boiled down for the same reasons as the models. In CMx1 when you see a forest 2000m away you are looking at a smear of texture, not invididual trees like you see at 20m. Remember, even flat billboard objects (2D in 3D environment) take up polygons, and they add up quickly when you're talking about things like trees.

So yup... my comments were made assuming LODs since it isn't possible to make anything 3D environment of even minimal complexity work without 'em.

Steve

[hellfish]

My thing is that I like small unit (company and below) fights - anything bigger than a battalion tends to get too overwhelming (at least it was in CMx1). That's one of the reasons I didn't sign up for the second CMMC - in the first one I frequently found myself commanding more than one and often two battalions in combat against a similar sized force. I'd easily and rapidly lose track of my units, not to mention that the PBEM battles could take nearly a week per turn.

My worry is that with Napoleanic or ACW battles that there wouldn't be sufficient material for small unit actions or a proper feeling of the larger battle with a Napoleanic/ACW game that involved more than about fifty controllable units.

And if I wanted to play at that kind of scale where each moveable unit was a regiment, I'd probably go for the Napoleanic mod for the Total War games.

[juan_gigante]

I very much agree that CMX2-based game probably wouldn't work as well at a massive scale than on a small one. I was just kind of wondering. I think that a Napoleon or before era game would not be fun because it would not have tanks. Tanks, as I see it, are pretty integral to the CM games, and I can't envision a CM without tanks or a tank-like thing (in the case of SLoD).

Right now, I'm wondering when BFC will announce at least the top five topic choices, if only so Dorosh might shut up, and we can narrow down the things we argue about. Plus, all the grogs will probably want to get a head start on reading up on everything there is to know about the topic.

So how about it, BFC? Just a top five list? It would make us all ever so happy.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

I very much agree that CMX2-based game probably wouldn't work as well at a massive scale than on a small one. I was just kind of wondering. I think that a Napoleon or before era game would not be fun because it would not have tanks. Tanks, as I see it, are pretty integral to the CM games, and I can't envision a CM without tanks or a tank-like thing (in the case of SLoD).

Again, you're looking from a graphics standpoint rather than gameplay. Tanks look more interesting, even when closeup, because they are inanimate. You can't animate 100 guys in a Civil War company because they won't look realistic. Three tanks sitting in a field do, because they don't have to look different or do all kinds of idiosyncratic things like blow their nose, check their watch, hike up their pants, spit, rub at a mosquito bite or all the million things 100 guys standing in a line would be expected to do.

They "got" tanks pretty well down in CMX1, and luckily the other post of Steve's has the priorities down to terrain/infanty/vehicles in that order. Good job!

Tank vs. tank (only) combats involving large numbers of vehicles were rare indeed and rarely decisive...the true challenge will be modelling infantry vs. armour and vice versa - overruns, close assaults, etc. CC tried to do that but didn't seem to me to be too successful. CMX1 is a little better, albeit abstracted.

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh is correct about why infantry based games have been so long in coming compared to vehicle based games. The first 3D games were... vehicle based Even as technology improved it took a long time for 3D games to come out with more than just a few figures in them. And it is still the biggest problem for 3D games even today. Look at BF2... how many guys are visible in that game at any one time? Maybe a dozen or perhaps two dozen? How about the now defunct WW2RTS? Hard limits on the numbers of units and soldiers. Even our own T-72 doesn't simulate a "typical" modern battlefield scenario that would find tanks outnumbered 20 or 100 to one. It's just too brutal on the processor.

So how are we going to do it in CMx2? Well, because we're making design decisions that will allow us the processor and graphics power to show lots of guys (meant to add that we are also making decision decisions to allow us terrain detail as well). BF2 made design decisions that favored pretty looking terrain (and it is VERY pretty) and T-72 obviously is about the tank simulation so that is their emphasis.

Yup, it's still all about tradeoffs

Steve

[ July 22, 2005, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]