The uber nature of obstacles/mines in CMX1 and changes for CMX2?

[kipanderson]

Hi,

As CMSF is so close now, three to four months, it seems reasonable to ask what the conclusion has been to some of the requests made over the last years for CMX2.

One such request was that some attention be given to the uber nature of wire and mines in CMX1. Of course CMX1 was designed to run on P200 machines and to model twenty minute battles between companies. The mines and wire in CMX1 did the job very well when one thinks of these limitations. However for longer battles and my much loved operations , there were problems. An example is that units could not follow in tank tracks if a tank made it through a minefield. There was also a general problem of a lack of means to clear obstacles.

Question is has this changed for CMX2? Can units follow in tank tracks? Are there more means of clearing obstacles?

I would be surprised if these matters have not been discussed and either made it in or failed to make the cut. Some months ago I remember Steve saying these changes may make it in.

Hoping Steve will let us know .

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[MikeyD]

The way CMx2 is being set up with 1:1 soldier representation, they could possibly be able to do a grid of individual 1:1 mines as opposed to generic CMx1 'mine fields'. That would mean instead of the arbitrary 50% chance of hitting a mine, a 1:1 soldier would step on a 1:1 mine and BOOM 100% of the time, or he'd not step on a 1:1 mine and no BOOM. A 1:1 mine grid would allow infantry to follow tanks through cleared mine fields

About clearing obstacles. I believe Stryker Brigade has dedicated Stryker engineer vehicles. They're gonna hafta give 'em something to do in the game, won't they?

[Peter Cairns]

MileyD,

Given that we are going down to 8x8 tiles with the ability to place the likes of walls to within 1m, them I think it will allow better representation of these things than the difficulty of placing each individual mins and calculating if an individual foot steps on it. That would seem both a programming nightmare, and a CPU intensive activity.

However as we seem to be getting deformable terrain then one possible way through, would be to have "Tank tracks" as a tile option like hedge or wall.

This would mean that they could be pre placed on maps as both a graphic, that would look nice, but also a terrain. As terrain, they might depending on weather and or ground conditions, aid cover or improve or impeed movement.

They could also negate mines ( you would start the scenario with cleared tracks, through minefields and wires). Equally as a vehicle moved, it could lay down this terrain, changing the map as it went.

One effect od this would be to have tanks not just clear mines, but multiple tracked vehicles might make it increasingly difficult for other vehicles as they churned the ground by passing .

Although this is one way to proceed, which I think would be easier that what you suggest, I'd urge caution as it might if abused lead to unrealistic and gamey effects.

A Steve has warned before BF tries to avoid putting in things that although possible weren't likely as it can both overload and distort the game.

Having said that I'd be interested in Steves view if whether treating "Tank Tracks", as terrain, like hedges etc might be the way to go.

Peter.

[Midnight Warrior]

Given that we are going down to 8x8 tiles with the ability to place the likes of walls to within 1m, them I think it will allow better representation of these things than the difficulty of placing each individual mins and calculating if an individual foot steps on it. That would seem both a programming nightmare, and a CPU intensive activity.

I don't think that 1:1 mines would be that hard to program nor require that much CPU time. The key is that each mine would be associated with a localalized group of mines as in a minefield and not as individual mines scattered totally at random all over the map. That way only when a unit is in a minefield (which would be typically a small percentage of the time) would the software have to make the additional 1:1 checks.

Also, it's not like these checks have to make LOS checks or anything that computationally intense but merely the software has to check if a man/vehicle comes within the fusing radius of the mine.

This does not mean that the computations have to be down to the inch but rather if the man gets withing a foot or two the dice is rolled to see if there is a boom. (Also, for trip wire triggered mines this may mean passing between two points rather than one). And once a mine goes boom it is deleted from the minefield. Also artillery rounds that impact in the minefield could be checked to see if they trigger mines in a similar manner.

[Midnight Warrior]

Also, mines can have a spotted state (both as to whether the minefield itself is spotted or the 1:1 mine is spotted). If a mine is "found" and "marked" (say with a bayonet poked in the ground beside it like in the movies) or has been "stepped by" i.e the follow on men are carefully stepping where the lead man stepped then the probability of a mine being triggered by the dice roll could be reduced. Thus perhaps when a man gets close to the mine the results of the dice roll (adjusted by its spotted state) could be boom, found and marked, marker with footprints, not found.

Boom is obvious.

Found and Marked means that the mine is somehow marked (like with a bayonet) and all men regardless of whether in the same unit or other units have a greater probablity of spotting the mine. Perhaps the owning unit to the man that spotted the mine might have a higher probability of spotting the mine so that we don't have borg mine spotting.

Marked with Footprints would be just like Found and marked except that it would only be applied to the unit inwhich the man that step by the mine was in (i.e only those close to him could follow his footsteps unless perhaps they are preserved in mud or snow in which case that is more like the find and mark results). Also, this result would only be applicable if either the minefild itself is spotted or that perhaps the player might have a special command like watch out for mines.

"Unfound" would men that everyone is clueless that they are in a minefield in that the minefiled itself is not spotted (or maybe it is spotted but they are moving too fast to take proper precautions) and hence are not carefully stepping where the lead guy is stepping and thus the mine is not "spotted" by stepping by it.

All this mine spotting logic could be adjusted for vehicles, mine clearing vehicles, and leg engineering units as appropriate.

edit. fixed a few typos.

[ February 18, 2006, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Midnight Warrior ]