A bunch of bones for y'all

[Battlefront.com]

What started out being a post for a smallish bone grew to a larger one. Instead of trimming it back I decided to just toss all of 'em out to you and watch the chewing frenzy Here goes...

Progress is what progress is... fits of momentum that can seen on the screen followed by long periods of apparent nothing. Believe me, I know how tough that is to sit through. I've got to sit through it almost as you guys do. The main difference is I am working on the "apparent nothing" day in and day out, so I know things are moving forward even if new screenshots won't show it. Therefore, I'll throw you guys some smallish, though very interesting, bones to chew on...

First bone is that we're getting close to a major milestone - the completion of the basic Editor. This will allow us, for the first time, to really start messing around with the core of the engine. You know, important stuff like making, saving, and loading maps, putting down units, tweaking parameters, etc. There is still much work to be done beyond this milestone, in terms of adding terrain attributes, graphics for terrain, units, etc, however all of these things should happen steadily after the Editor is complete. Some highlights of the new design that you military types should love:

The Editor in CMx2 is "holistic" unlike the Editor in CMx1. What I mean by that is you enter a single Editor interface that allows you to change *everything* about the scenario. This doesn't really improve core functionality, but it makes the whole editing experience a lot nicer to go through.

The single Editor concept was built around the primary goal of User Interface modularity. From a UI standpoint can add, remove, or relocate functionality within the Editor with little effort. This might not seem like a big deal to you guys, but it is. Besides it allowing for a better overall experience (as mentioned above) it means that we (Battlefront) don't have to struggle with UI crap when we want to make a change. Again, you might not grasp the significance of that, so I'll make it more clear When I say to Charles "hey, I think we should do x" the first thing Charles USED to say was "Oh man, do you know what a pain in the butt it will be to get the UI to support that?". This would then be followed by a post to the Forum saying "sorry, we can't support that at this time". Now that initial hurdle is eliminated and therefore we can at least progress to the next stage where Charles shoots the idea down because the idea itself is too hard to do But at least it won't be because of the time it would take just to get it accessible to the user. Hopefully the importance to you guys is now clear! This next bit is not going to need clarification, I think!

In CMx1 the Purchase screen consisted of a column of TO&E on the left and an Order of Battle on the right. The user had some ability to augment the OB, such as removing some units, changing ammo loads, causing generic pre battle casualties, etc. Better than most wargames, but not as good as we would all like. Not surprisingly, that has all changed with CMx2. Now you get a column of TO&E and two Orders of Battle. The first one is the Organic OB where you establish the command relationships, unit designations, and basic unit stats (Exp, Cond, etc.). The second column is the Task Force OB, which allows further customization of the force for that specific battle. Why this extra step? Because the new C&C modeling requires knowing how units are set up to communicate with each other as well as how they are set up for a particular battle. The two are inherently different, though there may or may not be much difference in game terms (depends on the time period, force type, nationality, etc).

For example, in theory you can attach two units together to form a Task Force, but perhaps in reality they don't have the same communications gear. Well, that might pose some problems within the game such as one set of units not passing on spotting info to the other set, and vice vesa. Or perhaps you're not allowed to cross attach certain units together, like Terrorists with an Army Rifle Company on the Syrian side, or something like an SS Rifle Squad to a WH GJ Platoon. Perhaps you can have something like an SS Tank Platoon attached to a WH Infantry Company, just not the low level switching. In CM:SF this will allow you to reorganize Rifle Platoons for MOUT operations by sticking certain Squads with the assault Platoon and others with the Support Platoon, yet prevent things that are simply not allowed or allow things that aren't smart (with accompanying negative factors). That sort of thing.

(pause to let the massive implications of the above statement sink in)

To make things even more fun and interesting, we are allowing the Order of Battle to extend up to the Regimental/Brigade level. Mind you, CM:SF is still focused on less than battalion sized forces, it's just that these forces can have context outside of the particular battle. This is an obvious plus for historical scenarios, but it also has major game implications. For example, if your mission is to link up with a Rifle Company from 3rd Battalion, 2nd Brigade with your own force from 1st Battalion, 1st Brigade... you might not be able to directly communicate with each other, support assets might be available to one and not the other, etc. etc. So now instead of the CMx1 concept of "one big happy family" you have distinct military structures within a given battle. And yes, we have decided to allow Battalion HQ elements to be in the game No go on anything higher than that, so don't ask!

(pause to let the massive implications of the above statement sink in)

This new structure allows us to fix a whole host of off map (and on map) support fire issues. The support assets are treated as regular OB units and therefore have designations just like units that appear on the map under the direct control of the player. This allows the user to easily simulate the ability of a particular formation to call in support assets in a realistic way. For example, artillery assets within a brigade are easily utilized by maneuver battalions within that brigade, mortars within a battalion are easily available for the companies within the battalion. Support fire can be redirected to support other units outside of the organic formation, but it comes with various penalties and restrictions as in real life. For example, you might go into the battle with a battery of heavy artillery assigned to the FIST (Fire Support Officer) organic to Alpha Company. The battle unfolds differently than you expected and now you want the fire to be called down by Bravo Company's 1st Platoon. Well, it is possible but there are significant delays involved now where there would have been next to none of Alpha had called down the support. That sort of thing.

(pause to let the massive implications of the above statement sink in)

It gets even better when one thinks about the Campaign system. You start out the Campaign with a set Organic OB and draw from that battle by battle depending on what the Campaign designer specified. For example, perhaps you have Alpha and Bravo Companies of 3rd Battalion for battle one, just Bravo for the next, Alpha and Bravo with a Tank Platoon the next, so on and so forth. As far as the Campaign is concerned you are seeing the same units each time they are called up for a battle. In this example Bravo is the constant factor for all three battles, so for all three battles you have the same guys under your command. Casualties, lost equipment, ammo shortages, and what not can be carried forward depending on the timeframe. Lose a command vehicle in battle #1 and find that you also don't have for battle #2 since the Campaign designer only put an hour in between the two battles. But perhaps battle #3 is a day later and that command vehicle is replaced. But, now that the player has the ability to customize his OBs, he can perhaps reorganize his units so losses aren't as much of an issue, like consolidating or redistributing stuff from units that still have plenty to those that do not. However, the Campaign designer can force the player to go into a particular battle "as is", which would simulating something like an ambush where the player doesn't have time to reorganize. All sorts of stuff like this is now possible.

(pause to let the massive implications of the above statement sink in)

Well, I think that is enough bones for now Fire away with questions!

Steve

[Lars]

To many massive implications.

My poor brain hurts...

[stikkypixie]

Yes, yes but where are the sceenshots? :confused:

[Drusus]

How much information of the upcoming battle you have before you make the task force decision? I think it would be vital to see the map, maybe only from the furthest away top-down viewpoint, but so that you get a general feeling of what is the situation. Or better, let the Campaign designer decide the amount of information...

How is artillery assigned in US Army? I mean, is it possible (or the standard way) to have the same mortar platoon under many FOs simultaneously? It would give all of them equal access to the fire support. When multi-multiplayer is introduced this could bring up some interesting situations... At least in the Finnish army the way is to give some amount of ammo to each observer and they can fire whenever they want. Then they can ask for more allowance from the higher levels, if they run out of ammo.

[Wicky]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Charles... "Oh man, do you know what a pain in the butt it will be to get the UI to support that?".

[hellfish]

Interesting stuff. Now about the fire support implications you mentioned - I get the impression that fire support isn't directly tied to FO/FIST elements anymore and your example of Bravo's 1st Platoon kind of hints that maybe individual squads (or platoon leaders) could call in artillery.

[aka_tom_w]

The Editor in CMx2 is "holistic" unlike the Editor in CMx1. What I mean by that is you enter a single Editor interface that allows you to change *everything* about the scenario. This doesn't really improve core functionality, but it makes the whole editing experience a lot nicer to go through.

OK

Does this mean the Map editor or map maker or terrain editor is in "The Editor" ?

How does this impact WHEN the player gets to see the map for the first time?

I am not sure I understand how the Terrain Editor can be in the Unit editor? (a very clever interface I suppose?) So I am left to wonder if in the Editor there is a button or selection or "window" for units in the OOB and the TO&E and then another button or window for the terrain editor. OR am I confused and there is infact two seperate programs? ONE for "The Editor" for units and another whole program or application or UI window for "The Terrain Editor" ?

:confused:

-tom w

[Michael Dorosh]

Interesting ideas.

[ng cavscout]

Will the Syrian forces have significantly more difficulty in utilizing the flexibility of the OOB and Chain of Command switching? I think that would be a good way of reflecting the qualitative differences in the forces.

Regarding call for fire, in the US Army, it should be able to be done by team leaders and above, in certain force structures, such as Cavalry formations, anyone with a radio should be able to call it in. In my humble opinion that is.

Will the chain of command flexibility allow replacement of command elements destroyed in combat? For example, if the company commander is killed, the senior platoon leader or the XO would take over after a certain delay, longer or shorter depending on the quality and training of the unit. Therefore, if the senior platoon leader took over, he would command the company, leaving direction of his platoon to the platoon sergeant, or alternatively retaining command of the platoon, but serving in both roles at a lowered efficiency.

The US Army spends considerable effort trying to prepare its leaders for just such eventualities. One part of each OpOrder is the chain of command where they explain to the leaders and the troops just who takes over as leaders are incapacitated.

In answer to Drusus' question, in US Army doctrine, each element has a "priority of fire". For example, lets say 3 platoons of a Cavalry Troop are conducting a Zone Reconnaissance and the 2nd platoon is given priority of fires from the mortar platoon. If 3rd platoon calls for fire, it can, unless the 2nd platoon is using the mortars at that time. If 3rd platoon is calling in a fire mission, and 2nd platoon suddenly needs the fire, 3rd platoons fire mission is put on hold until 2nd platoons mission is complete.

Of course, this can be changed in the middle of the mission based on the commanders decisions, such as if the 3rd platoon comes across an artillery park, and 2nd platoon is just shooting the mortars at a woodline with suspected enemy dismounts.

Just my 5 cents worth

[Drusus]

Who is the player in the chain of command? I know, a bit weird question... What I mean is that in CMx1 it seems like the player is actually every squad leader, giving commands straight to them (ok, maybe plaroon leader...). Even if the squad is out of platoon leaders command, it can do a lot of stuff, and react relatively quickly. In CMx2 will the commands the player gives have to go through the whole chain of command. That is, is the commands given by some (real or virtual) HQ and then they have to go through the chain to the squad, or is the commands given by the "voice of God" system?

[Dirtweasle]

The real question is when to schedule the vacation days.

[Battlefront.com]

Drusus

How much information of the upcoming battle you have before you make the task force decision?

A very good question, if not an obvious one This area of the design is a bit murky still, but it is my intention to allow the player to see the briefing and map (being able to switch back and forth between the two) prior to entering the battle. Ultimately, I would like the map to be a BMP that is auto generated and can be swapped out by the designer. That way positions can be "grease marked" and incomplete/incorrect intelligence marked down. For example, putting a mark where enemy locations are suspected, which advance routes to take, etc. The designer should be able to disable this feature to suit his own purposes.

How is artillery assigned in US Army? I mean, is it possible (or the standard way) to have the same mortar platoon under many FOs simultaneously? It would give all of them equal access to the fire support. When multi-multiplayer is introduced this could bring up some interesting situations... At least in the Finnish army the way is to give some amount of ammo to each observer and they can fire whenever they want. Then they can ask for more allowance from the higher levels, if they run out of ammo.

Assigning support assets is a three step process in my mind (this has not yet been coded!). The first step is to "purchase" them, the second is to assign them some sort of position within the Order of Battle (Organic and/or TF), and third define the "commander's intent" for the use of those assets. If the commander wants the support asset to provide a little support to multiple units, that should be doable. If the commander wants one particular unit to have overriding access to the asset, that is also fine. But the rules of how the asset is actually used in combat will be most affected by where it is in the OB since the commander can change his mind during the battle, but can not change the hierarchy. In other words, he can override the original plan but he can not suddenly make the 2nd Battalion's mortars suddenly be 3rd Battalion's mortars. In other words, the C&C implications are not negotiable.

Wicky, nice picture

fytinghellfish

Interesting stuff. Now about the fire support implications you mentioned - I get the impression that fire support isn't directly tied to FO/FIST elements anymore and your example of Bravo's 1st Platoon kind of hints that maybe individual squads (or platoon leaders) could call in artillery.

In theory, sure. Depends on the nature of the simulated force, timeframe, etc. For CM:SF individual Squads can call for some types of fire in some circumstances, while the Syrian player won't be able to. Who is calling in the support will matter a lot, both in terms of delays and in terms of what is delivered. For example, a FAC is still going to be your primary asset for calling in air support, but perhaps there are specific situations that would allow non FAC units to call in fire (though perhaps only through a FAC). Whatever the case my be, C&C is the important thing that is constant throughout all of this. If you don't have it, it doesn't matter who the unit is... he ain't getting support

Tom,

Does this mean the Map editor or map maker or terrain editor is in "The Editor" ?

Correct. You can also do things like create force, go into the 3D world and deploy, edit, and issue preliminary Commands then with a click of the mouse be editing the weather or renaming the Task Force the units are assigned to. This is all done without having to go back to a main screen.

Note that you will do most of your scenario making stuff using a 2D map, just like in CMx1. We did not want to spend the time trying to figure out how to allow the player to do everything in a realtime 3D environment. In theory it can be done this way, but the programming time and hardware demands were determined to be excessive.

am not sure I understand how the Terrain Editor can be in the Unit editor? (a very clever interface I suppose?)

Clever interface There is only a single Editor with a single UI to control all elements. Manipulating the UI on the left side of the screen sets you up on the right side of the screen to do work. Twiddle a few things and you're putting down terrain, twiddle a few more and you're creating Orders of Battle, settings, briefings, or whatever else is needed for the scenario. All right there at your fingertips.

The great thing about working with Charles is that he challenges me to come up with clever things. Here is how it works. I say to Charles "I want to do everything in the world!". He says "That sounds great, as long as I can program it all within a month". Then I say "uhmmm... OK, I'll have to get back to you" ;D Charles had extremely low expectations for what we could achieve with CM:SF's editor because of the typically daunting amount of work that goes along with one. Knowing that if I didn't "outsmart" Charles it wouldn't get in, I put my noodle to work for many, many months to come up with a clever way around Charles' limited time. It probably took me a year (elapsed, not of actual work) to come up with this design concept. It is amazing how much better a design is if you don't have to come up with it and implement at the same time.

This might not be the best editor in the world, but it is about 10 times better than what I thought we would be able to deliver the first round!

NG cavscout

Will the Syrian forces have significantly more difficulty in utilizing the flexibility of the OOB and Chain of Command switching? I think that would be a good way of reflecting the qualitative differences in the forces.

Yes. The rules for allowing, or disallowing, attachments are side independent. We can also make them "player" independent as well when we get CoPlay in. Meaning, I can reorganize my units but not yours, even though we are both on the same side.

Regarding call for fire, in the US Army, it should be able to be done by team leaders and above, in certain force structures, such as Cavalry formations, anyone with a radio should be able to call it in. In my humble opinion that is.

Yes. One thing I have seen from OIF documentation is that if trust exists between the guy screaming on the other end of the radio, support will come his way regardless of what officially should happen. In today's professional US military I don't see a commander saying "I'm sorry you are in such a bad spot there fella, but could you put your daddy on the phone so I can talk grownup stuff with him?" However, we need to do more research on this sort of thing. Just know that in theory anybody within a functioning chain of command can call for support.

Will the chain of command flexibility allow replacement of command elements destroyed in combat?

Yes, but not as much as I would like. Charles nixed the 100% realistic system I had because of technical problems (TacAI and memory usage being the two big ones). However, I am sure we can improve upon this as we go forward. The good news is that the compromise solution has the "leader" assigned to individual soldiers and not units. That means the command responsibility can be passed long to different units instead of the CMx1 way of "you lost the HQ unit now you are SOL". Equipment is a separate part of leadership, so it is still important to keep your HQ elements safe. As capable as a Platoon SGT might be in leading the platoon, if the CO got taken out with the platoon's manpack radio, well... the Platoon SGT is going to have degraded contact with higher commands even though his communications within the platoon are probably not degraded at all.

In answer to Drusus' question, in US Army doctrine, each element has a "priority of fire". For example, lets say 3 platoons of a Cavalry Troop are conducting a Zone Reconnaissance and the 2nd platoon is given priority of fires from the mortar platoon. If 3rd platoon calls for fire, it can, unless the 2nd platoon is using the mortars at that time. If 3rd platoon is calling in a fire mission, and 2nd platoon suddenly needs the fire, 3rd platoons fire mission is put on hold until 2nd platoons mission is complete.

Of course, this can be changed in the middle of the mission based on the commanders decisions, such as if the 3rd platoon comes across an artillery park, and 2nd platoon is just shooting the mortars at a woodline with suspected enemy dismounts.

Excellent example. Yes, this is exactly how it will work in CM:SF. Once we get into CoPlay things will become even more interesting since someone is going to make the call as to who gets what. And that might make some players rather grumpy if they get into a pinch and are denied support fire.

Steve

[Martin Krejcirik]

Thanx for the bones Steve, sounds interesting.

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

Well I have to say Iam a bit underwhelmed, it's not that these are'nt good things to have in, but well they have been so talked about since CM1 that i'd sort of come to expect these higher level changes to be in there.

Any ideas yet as to the UI for the map editor, I always though that the terrain pallet in CM was a bit cluncky and uninspired.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

Druss,

Who is the player in the chain of command? I know, a bit weird question...

Actually, it is an excellent question and one I have to constantly ask myself to make sure things don't get "weird".

What I mean is that in CMx1 it seems like the player is actually every squad leader, giving commands straight to them (ok, maybe plaroon leader...). Even if the squad is out of platoon leaders command, it can do a lot of stuff, and react relatively quickly. In CMx2 will the commands the player gives have to go through the whole chain of command. That is, is the commands given by some (real or virtual) HQ and then they have to go through the chain to the squad, or is the commands given by the "voice of God" system?

It depends on the level of play, but inherently the system is set up for "everything must go through the chain of command". This can be turned off, so to speak, and instead have an every functioning, perfect chain of command. Up to the player.

Here is the basic logic I have used in all my designs related to passing around information between units, no matter what that information is. And that is... what would happen in real life? This has been the design principle since the very first day of CMBO development, but now it has taken on even more importance. In the first game engine the end results were all that we really cared about, which meant we would take shortcuts whenever we felt we could get away with them. This made some things inherently limited and inflexible when we wanted to improve them. Therefore, in CMx2 we are more concerned about the process rather than the end result.

This change in philosophy was made possible by the 9 years of CMx1 experience. We know so much better how to simulate tactical warfare (from a technical standpoint) that we don't have to shortcut things nearly as much. And when we do, we do so knowing pretty much what the future limitations will be. Command and Control is one of those things that is dangerous to short cut. Not only is it potentially a problem for CM:SF and future games, but it would be a major problem for CoPlay. Since we know that is what we are destined to do, building an inherent limitation into the system now seems to be a very bad idea.

CoPlay means that information must pass through units in a realistic manner. Otherwise you run into problems, such as "I am the Platoon Leader... what should I know and who should I be able to talk with?". With a realistic simulation of C&C these kinds of questions have already been answered and coded. Now all it takes is adding the technically difficult support of multiple players in one environment at one time. The rest should basically be good to go from the start.

To give you a realistic example, let's look at NG cavscout's recon example. 2nd platoon wants to get its mortar support back, but for 2 minutes can not get into contact with the mortars. 3rd platoon continues to get support. On the other hand, 2nd platoon gets in touch with the mortars right away... 3rd platoon's support is cut off right away. Another example, 3rd platoon requests support from the mortars, but it can't get in touch with the Company Commander to get permission for the override. So on and so forth.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

Well I have to say Iam a bit underwhelmed, it's not that these are'nt good things to have in, but well they have been so talked about since CM1 that i'd sort of come to expect these higher level changes to be in there.

Then be exited that it actually got included Because I have to tell you... for a while it was looking like much of it would only get in there by doing a text script file. I'm serious.

Any ideas yet as to the UI for the map editor, I always though that the terrain pallet in CM was a bit cluncky and uninspired.

All the UI is done and coded, so I do have a good idea of what it will look like The system for CMx2 is much improved over CMx1, but it is not perfect. Perfect would be selecting "dirt road" and tracing a line on the map and have CM make all the connections. This is something we decided was not a good use of Charles' programming time. Because of the terrain resolution and sheer complexity of possibilities, he'd have to write a pretty robust AI just to figure out what the player was intending on doing if the feature was to be of any use. Bottom line, the CMx2 terrain editing UI is much, much better than CMx1, but it is not "perfect".

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

Any plans to limit Player to Player Chat ( though if they have broadband with free calls they can always talk while playing).

In the above example 3rd platoon potentially wouldn't know it was going to get it's support cut till it happened, but if players can chat, then it might be warned.

If possible could a system be designed for CoPlay, that built in delays when you want to talk, or even go cut off from time to time ( like when the MG42 on the ridge cuts your radio operator in half)...

Peter.

[aka_tom_w]

WOW!!

Now all I want to know is when can I play it on the next Generation Intel Mac laptop?

I for one, am not underwhelmed.

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

Voice over IP will be built into CoPlay system. We can screw around with voice just as we can anything else. For example, unless you have radio contact you can't use voice with that person. Or we can potentially garble the message to simulate static. That sort of thing. And of course this can all be turned off so voice over IP is perfect.

Steve

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

For example, a FAC is still going to be your primary asset for calling in air support, but perhaps there are specific situations that would allow non FAC units to call in fire (though perhaps only through a FAC). Whatever the case my be, C&C is the important thing that is constant throughout all of this...

See I recall in Rick Atkinson's "In the Company of Soldiers" one recent example with 101st. The USAF controller / liason was co-located at the TOC, however the unit on the ground requesting the support was, IIRC, a line unit. One thing I found interesting was the decision to lay fire on the target by arty or by tac air was done at the TOC or Command post, not by the line unit. The Company commander engaged with the bad guys called up for fire support, stated the type, effect needed, etc., and they chose to go with tac air initally back at the TOC. Turns out in the case I am thinking about they shot two Mavs which did not hit the targetand shot an arty mission after which did. My recollection is this took no more than a few minutes to all happen.

So, my question is how common was that kind of thing, and did Atkinson get it correct, (providing I recounted it correct)?

In the game then does the FO / FAC / FIST need to lay eyes on a target or can he relay from the company commander provinding they are in commo?

And if so, how long do you figure the delay? Just the few seconds for the FAC to get the Company's requirment and relay to the shooter is all it sounded like in Atkinson's book.

[John Kettler]

Steve,

We don't normally manage to get meaty, provocative,

informative and entertaining content from you all in one post, but this time you succeeded. Especially love the "pause" lines!

The new capabilities sound most valuable, the UI rework gives hope to people like me who've floundered repeatedly under the old system (which I've learned the hard way lacks a Back or Undo button in many areas), and I'm excited about the asset subordination and command succession features.

The explicit modeling of C4ISR aspects alone offers all sorts of wonderful possibilities, with your dead PL and blown up radio being very much on point. Indeed, the history of modern warfare is replete with radios and the like packing it in at the worst possible time. The CMAK COMPANION has dozens of examples from WW 2, and I can cite recent ones such as the screwup in Evan Wright's OIF book GENERATION KILL who failed to order batteries for his units NVGs and other night vision gear, leaving his unit highly vulnerable in consequence during night ops.

All in all, I'd have to rate this bone a femur!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Tarquelne]

... but it is my intention to allow the player to see the briefing and map ... I would like the map to be a BMP that is auto generated and can be swapped out by the designer. That way positions can be "grease marked" and incomplete/incorrect intelligence marked down.

Yay! I've played way too many games where choice of the next battle is a meaningless feature due to lack of info.

And I've always liked actually feeling briefed going into a CM scenario. Another feature not common enough. Glad to see intended improvements there, too, and I hope they make it in.

Now, how about a "trash talk" window where auto-generated barbs from the computer opponent appear? I figure something with an 80's gangsta rapper vibe. You guys want to be on the forefront of wargame design, am I right?

[aka_tom_w]

Oh Yeah! ROTFL

Thats a good one!

"auto-generated barbs from the computer opponent appear? "

No no, I want to hear them live in real time from the AI and the computer Taunting you and trashing talking its way to AI glory and AI computer victory!!!! LOL!

Oh yes.....

PLEASE let the AI taunt players who are losing badly!! (or just losing)

yes

yes I can see it now

Real live audio files (a good variety of them may be extracted directly from the Peng Threads (lots of Material there!) if I am not mistaken) that speak to the player trash talking and taunting!

Who here would NOT volunteer to record trash talking, taunting sayings for the AI to "speak"/bark to the player when triggered by obvious bone head moves!! (or JUST bad luck).

This is such a GREAT feature I can't believe it has only come up now SO LATE into the development cycle..

This idea has SO much potential it really deserves its very own thread! ...... really,

LOL

One possible example: (please submit more I am sure there are FAR more creative "taunters" out there than myself!)

AI to the player:

"Hey LOSER! WHAT?! you didn't think I would see that colomn of Strikers on my left flank!? See they are all in flames now, bet you can't guess what smoked them!/brewed them up!?."

(or something)

-tom w

[ January 25, 2006, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Andrew H.]

If your opponent is syrian, I think that the taunting should be in arabic.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Peter,

Voice over IP will be built into CoPlay system. We can screw around with voice just as we can anything else. For example, unless you have radio contact you can't use voice with that person. Or we can potentially garble the message to simulate static. That sort of thing. And of course this can all be turned off so voice over IP is perfect.

Steve

Good thing I remember my radio procedures. Break.

They might come in handy during coplay games, over.