Terrain modeling in CMx2

[Battlefront.com]

Let's see if I can do a better job at explaining this

Start Point height is 1000m above sea level.

End Point height is 1001m above sea level.

End Point is 1000m distant from Start Point.

There are 1000 possible Points inbetween (1m x 1m grid).

A meter is 1000mm. That means to get an elevation difference between Start and End Points each Point inbetween needs to rise by 1mm.

That make sense?

This is not to say that the player specifies this. The system figures out how it will slope things (and it probably won't stretch the slope that far). The reason for this degree of granularity is so the terrain looks smooth when random heights and other terrain features are tossed in. For example, a foxhole might need to be 50cm deep while a shallow crater might only need to be 20cm deep, but a big crater 70cm. The granularity of the system allows us to do all of these things.

Steve

[Soddball]

That's hot.

[dalem]

Sunken roads.

Rail cuts.

Raised causeways.

Proper hedgerows.

Streams.

Peeing Soddy's pants now.

-dale

[aka_tom_w]

bump

[Sequoia]

I'm resurecting this thread because I've searched for an answer and couldn't find it.

Will there be more then two different road types in CMX2? I.E. will there be more than just "paved" and "dirt" roads? Other examples are "gravel", "poorly paved", and tracks (little more than ruts in the grass but used by local farmers). This may be more important in the WWII games than CMSF.

[Battlefront.com]

Currently for CM:SF we are only planning on dirt track and pavement (with urban pavement being a variant). Gravel roads are pretty rare. They are extremely expensive to make and they only last a very little while before the gravel is pushed under and the road becomes dirt again. Perhaps a bit better in rain, but not visually very different. In areas with a lot of grass and rural modes of transportation, a nice visual difference would be a dirt track with grass growing up in the middle. That's not very applicable to the Middle East.

We can change road types at any time in the future. That's the beauty of the new engine

Steve

[Kilroy Lurking]

Steve Hi!

By focusing on a smaller slice of a larger setting we can do things like have 10 different types of sand and 5 different types of sand dunes But in order to do that we would no be doing something like winter time in a deep forest. With CMx2 it is an either or sort of thing per release.

Your planned "Expansions ', "Modules " whatever, will they be "stand alone" or additions to the basic game? What I am getting at is if for example your second release is Special Forces in the NW Frontier in Winter will the winter textures, units etc be available for scenarios in the original game and vica versa?

David

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by Kilroy Lurking:

Steve Hi!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> By focusing on a smaller slice of a larger setting we can do things like have 10 different types of sand and 5 different types of sand dunes But in order to do that we would no be doing something like winter time in a deep forest. With CMx2 it is an either or sort of thing per release.

Your planned "Expansions ', "Modules " whatever, will they be "stand alone" or additions to the basic game? What I am getting at is if for example your second release is Special Forces in the NW Frontier in Winter will the winter textures, units etc be available for scenarios in the original game and vica versa?

David </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Sequoia is correct. The Modules are not stand-alone and they do in fact build upon what is already available. You can mix and match between old and new stuff without it even seeming like you bought things at different times and added them together.

For example, CM:SF's first Module will likely be USMC. This will add an entire new force to the Blue side of the equation. A few new units will be added for the Syrians (Red side) and a couple of bits of terrain that we didn't have an opportunity to complete for the initial release. Oh, and probably some slight feature enhancements, but I do mean slight. For example, like the ability to pop smoke in some different way, not adding something like multi-multi player.

Of course scenarios created using features from a particular Module will require that Module to work. For example, you buy the base game and the USMC Module. You make a sceanrio that has a single Marine Sniper helping out a Stryker Rifle Company. People without the USMC Module will not be able to play that scenario. Obviously this applies to multiplayer as well. Same two people, same scenario, but without the single Marine Sniper... no problem... the scenario can be used by both and both can play head to head because only the base game's stuff is being used.

When you boot the game you will see an icon which represents which Module/s you have active. We will probably institute some sort of interface that allows you to toggle off a Module so you can be assured that you won't accidentally put something in that would require that particular Module. Say you go to play against a friend who does not have the USMC Module, you toggle yours off so you don't create problems between the two of you. That sort of thing. We'll work on this interface stuff when we introduce the first Module, because right now it doesn't matter

Steve

[Kilroy Lurking]

You mean that with each new module purchased the game will be bigger and better..........

David

[Scipio]

Steve, will CMx2 maps be compatible in different moduls?

[MikeyD]

I'm not concerned about incompatible maps after loading modules. BFC must realise that would wreck the whole game if they did that. But there is the question of 'PATCHES' as opposed to 'modules'. Nobody will be surprised if CMSF v1.0 will need a few fixes once it gets handed over to the masses. If over the next 6 months we see 'Patch-Patch-Module-Patch' then things might start to get complicated compatibility-wise, depending on what feature got fixed in what order.

Either that, or the game will be perfect straight out of the box.

[hoolaman]

Steve states above that a scenario with a Marine Sniper will be incompatible to someone without the USMC module.

I take this to mean that a map made with the "scattered olive tree" tile that comes with the module will not be compatible.

So someone with all the modules can make rich scenarios and maps that nobody can use, or else they just limit scenarios and opponents to the base game to ensure compatibility, making the purchase of the modules slightly pointless.

This will get extra complicated by the fourth WWII module. Your friends might each decide to buy a different modiule. Although collectively you own all there is to own, the only games/maps/scenarios you can be sure of playing together will be whatever is bundled with the original game.

[Schrullenhaft]

WWII will not be a module; it is a new game (much like CMSF will be the 'mother game' to its modules). It will still be based on the CMx2 engine as CMSF is with maybe some enhancments here or there (potentially multi-multi-player, but that may not be decided yet).

As Steve has stated so far it will be WWII Normandy focusing on US-German actions. Further modules will bring in British and potentially other CW nations.

Anyway, yeah, that's the rub with a series of modules that add on to a game. Of course that would provide incentive for people to purchase them if they want all of the bells-and-whistles. You may feel a bit nickel-and-dimed by this approach, but at least BFC/BTS aren't pulling a 'Talonsoft' by coming out with newer games that fix bugs from the previous incarnation (rather than releasing effective patches to correct the problem with the previous incarnation).

[MEYER_1944]

Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:

WWII will not be a module; it is a new game

I think he meant that after the initial WW2 CMx2 game release and its consequent modules...

He wasnt refering to the WW2 game simply being a module CM:SF...

Personally I wasnt at all interested in CM:SF but of late have been learning more and more about the conflict in the middle east and Chechnya... So will most likely be getting this title now...!!!

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:

WWII will not be a module; it is a new game (much like CMSF will be the 'mother game' to its modules). It will still be based on the CMx2 engine as CMSF is with maybe some enhancments here or there (potentially multi-multi-player, but that may not be decided yet).

As Steve has stated so far it will be WWII Normandy focusing on US-German actions. Further modules will bring in British and potentially other CW nations.

Anyway, yeah, that's the rub with a series of modules that add on to a game. Of course that would provide incentive for people to purchase them if they want all of the bells-and-whistles. You may feel a bit nickel-and-dimed by this approach, but at least BFC/BTS aren't pulling a 'Talonsoft' by coming out with newer games that fix bugs from the previous incarnation (rather than releasing effective patches to correct the problem with the previous incarnation).

Yep I used that example because there will very likely be a lot more modules (4-5?) for the WWII game, and they will probably cater to a variety of tastes. So there is a possibility of having scenarios and maps compatible with 24+ different module combinations

And we have yet to see whether BFC wraps up bug fixes with paid modules. While I can't see them doing that exclusively, for non-essential patches, its not beyond the realms of possibility.

[Battlefront.com]

Hoolaman,

So someone with all the modules can make rich scenarios and maps that nobody can use, or else they just limit scenarios and opponents to the base game to ensure compatibility, making the purchase of the modules slightly pointless.

Actually, it makes the purchase of modules more pointfull (hey, I invented a word ). But like any upgrade to an existing technology there will be a time of transition when the numbers of older tech users outnumber the new ones. If the new technology is worthy of adoption then the newer tech will become the standard and those without it will be left out. For example, how many of you are still using software that was written for a 266 P2 computer?

This will get extra complicated by the fourth WWII module. Your friends might each decide to buy a different modiule. Although collectively you own all there is to own, the only games/maps/scenarios you can be sure of playing together will be whatever is bundled with the original game.

This isn't a likely situation, but even so it is unavoidable. Just as it is for any "addon" product. I remember having to purchase some version or other of Command & Conquer 2 to play against guys in my office. That's the way it goes and gamers should be used to it by now

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

I only have a signature to give my posts a little more "real-estate"

Posts: 868 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged

Schrullenhaft ,

You may feel a bit nickel-and-dimed by this approach, but at least BFC/BTS aren't pulling a 'Talonsoft' by coming out with newer games that fix bugs from the previous incarnation (rather than releasing effective patches to correct the problem with the previous incarnation).

Talon who? Oh yeah... the guys that nickled and dimed their customers to death, then sold out, and then nothing more was heard from them. Yeah, we won't be going down that corporate strategy road

Hoolaman,

Yep I used that example because there will very likely be a lot more modules (4-5?) for the WWII game, and they will probably cater to a variety of tastes. So there is a possibility of having scenarios and maps compatible with 24+ different module combinations

Not really. We're only planning on perhaps 3 Modules. We'd like to have more, but we're not sure how practical that is. In any case, the combo thing really isn't relevant. Either you have the Module or you don't. If you are missing 1 in 4 Modules you will only be out of luck for scenarios that use that one missing Module. Plus, I think you're overestimating how much mixing of Modules there will be. I see no reason to expect that scenario designers will be Hell bent on focusing on scenarios that have as much improbable stuff tossed into one scenario as possible. Sure, some will be like this, but not the bulk. Plus, I do think that scenario designers who like to make stuff for wider audiences will keep Module compatibility in mind.

And we have yet to see whether BFC wraps up bug fixes with paid modules. While I can't see them doing that exclusively, for non-essential patches, its not beyond the realms of possibility.

Only when a bug is specific to a feature in a Module would the fix (obviously) be limited to that Module.

Steve

[Sequoia]

Again as I understand it, if I had to guess, the modules for the first WWII game would be something like

Base game: U.S. vs Germans Summer 1944

Module one: Brits and Canadians (maybe Poles too) vs Germans.

Module two: Airborne U.S. and Brits Summer 1944 (now including Market-Garden).

Once we venture into Battle of the Bulge and winter terrain we're talking a whole new game, so WWII "games" really won't need that many modules.

[Battlefront.com]

That's pretty much right on the money. However, we may or may not make something like the Bulge into a new game or a Module. It really depends on a number of factors, though you are correct that the amount of work needed to make a Bulge setting happen is almost equal to a full game's worth of effort.

Steve