Two small "not for the first game" notes

[Battlefront.com]

Recently I've posted some stuff that I wasn't sure of which Charles has confirmed aren't possible right now. One was something I wasn't surprised to hear (and had said I wasn't sure), the other is something that in hindsight I'm not surprised to hear but had unfortunately forgotten when I posted. Hopefully I won't need to retract statements very often, but when I find the record needs correction I will do so as quickly as possible.

The first one is vehicles blocking LOS and/or LOF. The word is final (for now) that they can indeed block LOF but they can not block LOS. This has to do with computation and RAM costs for tracking moving, variable sized objects. LOF is a lot easier and therefore we can do that. Out of the two, LOF is the more important one. LOS would be hard for most vehicles to block effectively for any length of time anyway, so from a simulation standpoint it really isn't a big deal to leave it out. Leaving out LOF would be, as you CMx1 guys know full well since CMx1 didn't support LOF blocking.

The retraction is on the ability to split Squads. For the first game, at least, this will not be possible. As you guys recall, this was a feature added to CMx1 really late in the initial development cycle. We were never happy about putting it in for a number of reasons. One of which was the potential for abuse, which turned out to be a justified concern. However, we felt it was necessary for various reasons and therefore we put it in anyway.

For CMx2 the need for split squads is inherently reduced. First of all, Squads now behave as teams (2-3, depending) which removes the "leapfrog" problem associated with CMx1's solid Squads. In our opinion this was the biggest problem with CMx1's Squad modeling, and now it is fixed. The other reason to split Squads was to engage more targets. CMNx2's new target selection and 1:1 representation system fixes these problems. In fact, the Split Squad thing in CMx1 actually created gamey and potentially unbalancing problems for the game system, so it isn't like CMx1's Split Squad thing was a net positive in this respect. The third reason to split up Squads is to cover more terrain with fewer men. To some degree the new Team modeling of CMx2's Squads takes care of this, but not completely. For extreme, Eastern Front type scenarios, where Squads are strung out in 2-3 men over vast distances... the CMx2 system will not work. But to be fair, neither would a simple Split Squad feature. Instead you'd need to be able to break up Teams in addition to Squads. That is just not going to happen.

Besides the playability issues associated with splitting squads, there is a performance issue. A Company of Squads and Teams means x # of units. The system can count on this and performance and hardware resources predicted. But if you can suddenly add about 35% more units, on the fly and without any limitations, things become very messy fast. This is the reason why we aren't allowing it.

To put things into perspective, Charles recently made this statement to Dan and I when talking about terrain heights.

Our heightfield is a 1m x 1m grid. For a 2km x 1km map it uses (at least) 32MB of memory. If the heightfield was a 10cm x 10cm grid, it would need 3.2 gigabytes.

A 10 fold increase in a single aspect of terrain fidelity (or so the request would be worded) has a 100 fold increase in RAM consumption. How many people here have 3.2 GB of RAM in their systems? While not directly related to the Squad issues, it does give you guys a real world number to look at and realize that just because you can conceptualize something as "not a big deal" doesn't mean that the code will reflect this. Sometimes even small features are very big deals.

Anyway, there you go. Discuss amongst yourselves

Steve

P.S. Yes, there is another bone. Height is in 1m increments and there are NO hardcoded limitations (yet... hehe) about the height delta between lowest and highest points.

[ September 04, 2005, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Gromit]

*shrugs*

I can certainly live with those limitations...

[dalem]

Seems reasonable. Most of the tactical reasons for splitting a squad are answered by new squad abilities. Still and all, a scenario designer could use a line of very depleted squads and normal MG teams to represent that "Long, Thin, Nazi Line" defending their glorious Russian homeland against Slavic attackers, right? I mean, assuming the game goes to the WWII East Front.

The only think I'll miss under those new conditions is the ability to split off a small team to act as a picket or scout. But I guess some of the new "Auto-Spot" mechanic Steve mentioned will eliminate that need.

And as far as the terrain height confirmation, I'm running out of peoples' pants to pee when I hear delightful things.

So I just peed Mord's again, since they are already soggy.

-dale

[aka_tom_w]

The first one is vehicles blocking LOS and/or LOF. The word is final (for now) that they can indeed block LOF but they can not block LOS. This has to do with computation and RAM costs for tracking moving, variable sized objects. LOF is a lot easier and therefore we can do that. Out of the two, LOF is the more important one. LOS would be hard for most vehicles to block effectively for any length of time anyway, so from a simulation standpoint it really isn't a big deal to leave it out. Leaving out LOF would be, as you CMx1 guys know full well since CMx1 didn't support LOF blocking.

OK

I hope if I read that correctly that that means that if a tank or AFV moves (during the one minute turn) INTO the LOF of the round inbetween the shooter and the target the "stray" AFV friendly or otherwise will intercept the round and "feel" the impact of the friendly fire or whatever.

Is that correct?

So while you can get LOS through AFV's, if you have a friendly AFV in front of you and you attempt to fire through it you will shoot your own AFV in the rear? Yes?

Sorry

Just looking for clarification....

Other than that the rest of the retractions and limitations are no problem

Thanks for the update.

-tom w

[Londoner]

Grat news, LOF is obviously the important one.

[c3k]

WHAT!?! The terrain will be "stepped" one meter at a time instead of one centimeter at a time? This makes it totally unplayable!

I just wanted to get the first complaint in...

Thanks for the clarifications and the reasonings behind them. FWIW, it all seems great.

Thanks,

Ken

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

First of all, Squads now behave as teams (2-3, depending) which removes the "leapfrog" problem associated with CMx1's solid Squads. In our opinion this was the biggest problem with CMx1's Squad modeling, and now it is fixed.

Depending on how this is done in-game, I don't see either of these points as problems.

Does make me curious how "close combat" will be handled; a squad with an LMG team and a rifle team would generally send the rifle team forward with grenade and bayonet to close with any enemy positions in the final seconds of an assault; hope they do this in game as well.

[General Bolt]

LOS yes/LOF no.

Hey Ivan, there is a squad moving up behind the STU III model G.

Da, but this is Oct 42 and the STU III model G wasn't fielded untill Jan 43 . BTW, I see them too but can't get off a clear shot.

This sounds just like real life. How many times have you seen a deer but couldn't get off the shot?

My only concern is if someone can be spotted (but not shot at) behind a tank will the borg then open up on the exposed troops?

[YankeeDog]

On the whole, good news on all front, I think. LOF is definitely more important then LOS. It would be pretty rare that a vehicle would *completely* block LOS to another vehicle behind it, or an entire squad, anyway (a smaller team, maybe).

As far as the loss of half squads, I do agree that the present system was a bit open to abuse. My major concern in losing them is what will replace putting a half-squad in front of a platoon advancing on Move To Contact drill. An entire squad exposed up on point is AFAIK, not realistic for any major 20th Century combatant. But this could be handled in ways other than half-squad splits. For example, BFC has already intimated that the Squad "footprint" is going to be variable for CMX2. If the lead squad could be ordered to advance in a rather dispersed coulmn footprint (2 riflemen, then squad NCO, then BAR, then rest of riflemen (for US in WWII, anyway) then we'd have a good realistic MTC formation, and if this is combined with good SOP orders (pull back and/or go to ground if taken under fire, etc.), then I think MTC behavior will be just fine.

Thanks for the detailed explanation of everything.

Cheers,

YD

[kipanderson]

Hi,

All sounds fine to me… .

When it comes to LOS and LOF with AFVs it is of course the LOF that did the damage in CMX1. A mix of infantry and tanks blasting their way down a narrow road, with all tanks able to engage any enemy target was the problem. The Gamey tactic of jamming together an entire platoon of tanks down a narrow road will be gone in CMX2… great .

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. I never split squads anyway…

[Ron]

Hmm, I don't know. Yes, the non-LOS blocking of vehicles pales in comparison to LOF blocking so not having that is a minor point. However, not being able to split squads into their 'component teams' has greater implications. We have been told that the game will model initially 1 Coy(2 max?) plus associated Teams and that the smallest controllable unit will be the Team and now in the case of the Squad, simply the Squad. No matter if graphically we see every individual soldier, as players we will only be controlling a relatively few number of 'units'. Also considering the Squad itself, in CMx1 we could use RL Squad tactics by splitting the squad and using one element to provide overwatch while the other manuevers/assaults at the time and in the place of our choosing. Now that will be removed from the player's hands and the burden will be entirely on the TacAI to 'perform' such an order not only in a believable/realistic fashion but also in the way the player intended them to. Not a big deal? - We will see.

Ron

[Cull]

I think the LOS/LOF compromise is just fine. LOF blocking I am very glad to see in. Agreed that LOS blcoking just isn't that big of a deal.

For a future iteration I can picture a "follow" command for infantry that would allow use of a friendly AFV as cover/concealment. That would be cool, especially in those "advance across the steppe"-type situations.

Squad-splitting. Eh, I never really do it anyway. I do use it in defense when I simply have too much ground to cover with the units supplied.

Sounds like the way the squad behaviors are modelled now will make up for the missing option, though I am interested to see how that modelling looks.

The terrain bones continue to make me all a-flutter.

[ September 04, 2005, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Cull ]

[Barrold]

I would also be curious to see how a spread out squad will be handled.

BDH

[Steiner14]

Master Steve,

does this mean, AFV comanders can not leave the vehicle for spotting?

[securityguard]

The LOS/LOF is hardly a big deal - as long as the LOF is blocked then the LOS doesn't matter. It's almost the exact same thing anyways.

[Martin Krejcirik]

Couldn't there be some limitation, say one split squad per company, or something ?

If there there is no splitting, how will the recon be handled ? I thought it would be possible to detach one guy from a squad or AFV crew for this.

[British Tommy]

Surprised the hawks out there didn't spot this!

"CMNx2's new target selection.... "

So does this mean it's Combat Mission Normandy for the new title?

[Soddball]

Or it could be that since N is next to M on the keyboard, he knocked it?

[Andreas]

Combat Mission Novorossisk?

[stoat]

Norway.

[Andreas]

Combat Mission Nepal - gotta have Ghurkas.

[stoat]

And the Dalai Lama.

What's his morale bonus?

[Battlefront.com]

I noted the "CMNx2" typo but decided to leave it in for the fun of it. Sometimes it is fun to throw chum at the sharks (like when you're in a large, steel ship and not the Orca II )

As for split squads... yeah, not having a lead element is indeed a shortcoming of the new system. I have a work around for that, but I'm not sure Charles can get it in. Hopefully he can.

When we cover a setting that would really need "thin line" defenses on a regular basis, perhaps we can afford to allow squads to split. The main reason right now (though not the only one) is the impact on hardware. That issue (though not the others) will go away over time.

Steve

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I noted the "CMNx2" typo but decided to leave it in for the fun of it. Sometimes it is fun to throw chum at the sharks (like when you're in a large, steel ship and not the Orca II )

Yeah yeah. As lame recoveries go, this one is legless. Fess up, Maori Wars are the first setting.

[aka_tom_w]

Normandy would be My guess

-tom w

Originally posted by British Tommy:

Surprised the hawks out there didn't spot this!

"CMNx2's new target selection.... "

So does this mean it's Combat Mission Normandy for the new title?