Suggestion: unit abstraction linked to POV height

[Other Means]

As I understand it, the squad is still a single entity, with some spreading out over action spots but essentially one entity. The soldiers in each squad are modelled individually, and displayed as such.

We've had some discussions over icons being used to represent the status of the unit it represents, pinned etc, and this is a reasonable idea.

However, what I think would be good is if as you raise above the map, say to level 4 where I do most of my planning and observing, the squad gets represented as a single, large unit again, with the status represented as in CM1 with the unit cowering or standing (units above ground level to go to abstraction in sync with the level 0 ones).

This may seem a retrograde step, but I think it would give the player a more satisfying experience.

Currently, when I'm playing, what I mainly get is a lot noise of shooting and the icons telling me where everyone is.

Units not selected don't give me any information on what's happening to them so I get less info about how the battles going.

The icon status idea is a way to bring this information out but I think it would be even better to show the abstraction.

When a unit is heavily engaged, or does something spectacular (or stupid if they're mine) then you could actually get to see the little troopers doing their thing - which would be brilliant. But when you're trying to get an idea of how the tactics are working out and you're at a higher level, you'd get to see that too.

If so decided this could also be linked to distance from the current POV, hopefully grabbing back a few FPS.

As usual, let me caveat that with the usual "I've never designed a best selling game" stuff, but to my mind what I'm missing most is that instant grasp of the battle I used to be able to get.

Does anyone else think this could add something to the game and be a useful mechanism?

Do-able is down to BFC of course.

[Michael Dorosh]

So this would be sort of like increasing the unit scale in CMX1 (i.e. making the soldier models larger) - to increase visibility and playability at the expense of visual realism?

[Huntarr]

Other Means if I understand you correctly your basically saying that you want the switch from individual units to the icon effect. Ala Supreme Commander. The way you zoom in and out of tactical and strategic view? I hope I am not the only one who played that title. I know that when I pull back really far I only see Icons, but I think it is still rendering the units under them.

[flammenwerfer]

I think he means that as you zoom out of the battle field the 1-1 squads would revert to an abstraction, as in an icon or the cm1 three man squad.

Not increasing the size, just to a more playable icon.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by flammenwerfer:

I think he means that as you zoom out of the battle field the 1-1 squads would revert to an abstraction, as in an icon or the cm1 three man squad.

Not increasing the size, just to a more playable icon.

That's how I understand it as well.

[KNac]

And that's what SC does, so what Huntarr is telling.

The units still there, but above (mmm, or below, hehe) X level of zoom you see icons instead of units.

Not a bad idea, but I would prefer the "dinamic icon" showing status, movement, etc done first; but these are not exclusive, so both things can be done.

[Exel]

Good idea, it would definitely ease command when on viewing the battles from high altitude. Of course when you zoom closer the current level of detail could be used.

[SlowMotion]

I haven't seen Supreme Commander, but I think this idea is used in the new BF game that hasn't been released yet, Les Grognards. I noticed it in their latest video:

http://www.battlefront.com/products/les_grog/news.html

[thewood]

SlowMotion, I noticed that also and the first thing I thought of is how it might reduce processing power needed for larger scenarios in CMSF.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

So this would be sort of like increasing the unit scale in CMX1 (i.e. making the soldier models larger) - to increase visibility and playability at the expense of visual realism?

I think we threw something like this into the 1:1 discussions of yesteryear. For people like me who never really spend much time "close up", it would bypass the scale mismatch issues that are so troubling. Allow the people who like to count pores their fun and allow old grumblers like me our fun too.

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by thewood:

SlowMotion, I noticed that also and the first thing I thought of is how it might reduce processing power needed for larger scenarios in CMSF.

Mmmm, dunno about that. All the calcs for facial grimaces and dropped lighters will still have to be done, just at certain levels not shown.

I mean, think of reviewing a WEGO turn at a high level and then zooming in on a juicy mortar hit on the replay - still gotta have both levels of detail under the hood, even if the higher level saves video cycles.

-dale

[KNac]

i don't get what would be the diference. so the scale mismatches would still be there. there wouldn't be 2 game mechanics, just above certain view level you would get different representations, but all the stuff would still be there.

no two games in one, in short. that would take rewritting the engine in big part to happen.

edit: editted for ugly spelling; also was answering to dalem, sorry for not noting that

[ September 12, 2007, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: KNac ]

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flammenwerfer:

I think he means that as you zoom out of the battle field the 1-1 squads would revert to an abstraction, as in an icon or the cm1 three man squad.

Not increasing the size, just to a more playable icon.

That's how I understand it as well. </font>

[Other Means]

Originally posted by dalem:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by thewood:

SlowMotion, I noticed that also and the first thing I thought of is how it might reduce processing power needed for larger scenarios in CMSF.

Mmmm, dunno about that. All the calcs for facial grimaces and dropped lighters will still have to be done, just at certain levels not shown.

I mean, think of reviewing a WEGO turn at a high level and then zooming in on a juicy mortar hit on the replay - still gotta have both levels of detail under the hood, even if the higher level saves video cycles.

-dale </font>

[KNac]

Other Means I understood you perfectly I was answering to Dale, changing the represation wouldn't help the mismatches in scale he talks about (not me).

P.S: I may wrongly think what he is labelling as 'mismatches' are one things and not others; I mean I'm not sure what mismatches he is refeering to, but have an idea as this has been discussed in other threads and he has expressed his views on the matter.

anyway don't want to hijack your thread lol. so back on topic: yeah I agree and is a good idea, would like to have it hehe.

[dalem]

Originally posted by KNac:

i don't get what would be the diference. so the scale mismatches would still be there. there wouldn't be 2 game mechanics, just above certain view level you would get different representations, but all the stuff would still be there.

no two games in one, in short. that would take rewritting the engine in big part to happen.

edit: editted for ugly spelling; also was answering to dalem, sorry for not noting that

Oh, I don't for a minute think it's going to happen, I'm just shooting the breeze at what I think would be a better representation. Imagine the "perfect" wargame - you could play at any level from theater on down. Obviously at the higher levels you wouldn't draw individual guys (although I wonder if you could track them as meaningful datapoints? Hmm...) you'd blob them into units. At medium to low levels you'd go to "counters" of some sort like the Strategic Command II ones, then as you hit tactical level, you could distinguish your squads, then go to eyebrow level and see individual guys.

That's a complete pipe dream now, but I think you'd get a giant "YES!" from a large number of historical gamers if you asked if that would be the right way to do it.

So if I'm right, a small slice of that (1:1 through squads depending on height of camera) woud be both useful and visually pleasing.

Now, as far as the scale mismatch, it disappears as soon as you remove the 1:1 visualization, because the game is automatically admitting it's inexact. Problem solved.

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by Other Means:

Umm, IOW when a juicy mortar strike hit, if you weren't looking you'd record it happened but not the particles flying. And if next time you looked at it you'd do the particles but not the T72 cooking off in the distance.

Ahh, gotcha. I don't know that it's accurate (I don' know nuthin' 'bout birthin' no programs), but I now see what you mean.

-dale

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by dalem:

Imagine the "perfect" wargame - you could play at any level from theater on down.

The Road to Moscow.

[a bugle plays "Taps" in the distance]

Michael

[Other Means]

I just want to see what's going on. Currently I can only see tracers.

[MikeyD]

I get the feeling that BFC is trying to edge players away from 'board play' and get us down among the troops eating dust. Elite FOW only really makes sense if you're playing it from the grunt's eye view. i've got to admit I don't spend much time at ground-level, myself. But I don't spend as much time as I used to hovering Godlike over the battlefield either. I tend to stay about the height of King Darius in "the 300", an omniponent giant looking out above my slave troops' heads

[dalem]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I get the feeling that BFC is trying to edge players away from 'board play' and get us down among the troops eating dust.

I agree that that is the ideal they are moving toward.

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

Other Means,

AIUI this would still save GPU (and probably CPU) time as the texture fills etc wouldn't have to be done when the unit detail wasn't needed, decided on what the player was looking at at the time.

This is correct, but it is also what the game already does There are 4 (I think that's right) LODs (Levels of Detail) for all models. Buildings, trees, soldiers, vehicles, etc. These are hand made reductions of the full resolution 3D models, each one less than the one before it. What CM does is draw the LOD that makes sense given the distance it is from the camera.

For example, a Soldier at 500m distance is going to look like a little blob on the screen. If there were no LODs the GPU and CPU would have to handle several thousand polygons, textures, and complex animations. But since none of that can be seen, CM instead works with a tiny model containing perhaps a dozen or two polygons, miniscule textures (or just one IIRC), and animations that don't really do much because they're moving around almost no polygons.

Without LODs... framerate disaster. Trust me... the game was barely playable when the first models when it and there were no LODs in the game yet

Therefore, when you're up high and looking down you're seeing the bare minimum of what is needed to give you context. It costs almost nothing in terms of CPU and GPU speed as a result. A couple companies of troops viewed from up high problably have less polygons than the suspension system of an Abrams up close. In other words, there is no problem showing what we show therefore there is no noticable savings to be had if we drop out a bunch of soldiers.

So where is the framerate bottleneck of note? Terrain and the texturing of it. We've been futzing around with some alternative systems. The problem is that we have to get the right balance of visual tradeoffs for speed improvements. The current v1.04 Beta pretty much doubles the framerate for most people, but as soon as you pull the camera up off the ground a significant amount the terrain looks like crap (aesthetically and from a tactical information standpoint). So we've decided to scrap it and go with something different. That's why you don't have v1.04 yet

Steve

[KNac]

Originally posted by dalem:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KNac:

i don't get what would be the diference. so the scale mismatches would still be there. there wouldn't be 2 game mechanics, just above certain view level you would get different representations, but all the stuff would still be there.

no two games in one, in short. that would take rewritting the engine in big part to happen.

edit: editted for ugly spelling; also was answering to dalem, sorry for not noting that

Oh, I don't for a minute think it's going to happen, I'm just shooting the breeze at what I think would be a better representation. Imagine the "perfect" wargame - you could play at any level from theater on down. Obviously at the higher levels you wouldn't draw individual guys (although I wonder if you could track them as meaningful datapoints? Hmm...) you'd blob them into units. At medium to low levels you'd go to "counters" of some sort like the Strategic Command II ones, then as you hit tactical level, you could distinguish your squads, then go to eyebrow level and see individual guys.

That's a complete pipe dream now, but I think you'd get a giant "YES!" from a large number of historical gamers if you asked if that would be the right way to do it.

So if I'm right, a small slice of that (1:1 through squads depending on height of camera) woud be both useful and visually pleasing.

Now, as far as the scale mismatch, it disappears as soon as you remove the 1:1 visualization, because the game is automatically admitting it's inexact. Problem solved.

-dale </font>

[dan/california]

It seems to me that a least from a game-play perspective a lot of the abstractions involved with the terrain at higher view levels would be far more tolerable if they engine would just draw elevation lines, and maybe give some kind of graphical indication of the total amount of cover available in a given 8*8 tile.

Or maybe the current target arc tool, which already has some LOS functionality, could adapted to show the available LOS as you moved the cursor around the map.

I just want some idea if the movement order I am giving is going to get my guys hosed or not. Hosed by heavy machine guns that is.

[dan/california]

I would buy it w/o a doubt

But would or could you by the computer to run it any time in the next ten years.