Rivers in CMSF?

[Sequoia]

So do we get rivers in the first game or do we have to wait until WWII Europe? There is the Upper Euphrates. Any running water at all?

[panzermartin]

That would be indeed refreshing to the eye with all the dryness of the scenery. But, if they want to put water and its graphic quality to be on par with the rest of CMSF, it would be quite a problem. Water modelling with motion and reflections sounds like a lot of eye candy work.

[John Kettler]

panzermartin,

It's also quite CPU intensive because of all the rendering and ever changing redrawing of reflections, splashes, etc.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

No water in CM:SF. Big time time suck for development on something that really has extremely little to do with the setting we have. WWII ETO can't live without it.

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

No water in CM:SF. Big time time suck for development on something that really has extremely little to do with the setting we have. WWII ETO can't live without it.

Steve

There go my plans of a "Naziriyah 2003" scenario!

Seriously though, could this not be added with the USMC module? They have amphibious APCs so it would make a lot of sense to do it for this module rather than wait for CMx2:WWII.

[panzermartin]

Bridges must be there right? You can make an impassable terrain with marsh/rocky like a dryed up river bed I guess.

[Sequoia]

Steve has said there will be no amphibious landings in CMSF or even CM2 France 1944 so no D-day landings either. For amphibious fans you'll have to wait and see if they do a CM2 Pacific and then once amphibious capabilities are programmed, see if it will be added as a module to other games.

Likewise it is possible that once running water is programmed for CMX2 France 1944, it can be added as a module to the Dutch/German/Canadian module, if it appears, as the plan is CMX2 France 1944 will be out by then.

I hope my speculations aren't too off the mark. I'm sure Battlefront hasn't even decided many of things yet.

[Cpl Steiner]

Perhaps as a short-term solution there could be a feature to make selected areas of the map impassable to all ground units in the editor. Then at least we could make a ditch with some marsh, brush or scrub at the bottom that would represent a small stream, river or canal.

[MikeyD]

Well, CM[AK] has water. But besides 'eye candy' oasis ponds to fight over and no-go ocean edges I can't think of a NA theatre scenario where water was anything like a significant tactical factor. Like they said, won't be able to live without it in ETO but for Syrian terrain water tiles would have roughly the same tactical significance as in all those CMSF North Africa scenarios.

[ April 29, 2007, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Well, CMSF has water. But besides 'eye candy' oasis ponds to fight over and no-go ocean edges I can't think of a NA theatre scenario where water was anything like a significant tactical factor. Like they said, won't be able to live without it in ETO but for Syrian terrain water tiles would have roughly the same tactical significance as in all those CMSF North Africa scenarios.

Not exactly, Syrian terrain is nothing like North Africa. Syria has rivers, big lakes and irrigated farmland. There are also cities where a river goes right through.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_ez-Zor

Also see Al Hasakah on Google Earth.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Perhaps as a short-term solution there could be a feature to make selected areas of the map impassable to all ground units in the editor. Then at least we could make a ditch with some marsh, brush or scrub at the bottom that would represent a small stream, river or canal.

Or just make the river banks an uncrossable cliff.

[Sergei]

I hope CMSF can model Crusader fortresses like this in northern Syria:

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Well, CMSF has water. But besides 'eye candy' oasis ponds to fight over and no-go ocean edges I can't think of a NA theatre scenario where water was anything like a significant tactical factor. Like they said, won't be able to live without it in ETO but for Syrian terrain water tiles would have roughly the same tactical significance as in all those CMSF North Africa scenarios.

Mike do you mean CMAK?

[MikeyD]

D'oh! Yeh, I of course meant CMAK and have edited my text. I'm the worst friggin' typist in the world! :mad:

[Wicky]

I don't know how your seismic flu ridden 'puter handles such things but my graphics card handles the rendering etc

Originally posted by John Kettler:

panzermartin,

It's also quite CPU intensive because of all the rendering and ever changing redrawing of reflections, splashes, etc.

Regards,

John Kettler

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Sergei:

That is like .05% of the landscape and as Steve said too big of a investment for such a small return.

There is plently of cool terrain to play with that will represent 99.5% of what you would encounter in Syria.

The game is well covered in that department

[Sergei]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

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

That is like .05% of the landscape and as Steve said too big of a investment for such a small return.</font>

Then you don't need rivers for ETO either, because they don't cover a large part of France either.

The point about rivers is never that they are present on every map (that would be Amazonia), but where they are present they form an obstacle, a significant tactical feature, and since rivers can run for hundreds of kilometers, they are also operationally and strategically notable. But yes, we can live without water... oh wait!

[YankeeDog]

While I do understand the need for BFC to pick and choose their battles in order to get the game out sometime this decade, I must admit I'm a little disappointed that water will be left out entirely.

We humans have a curious habit of settling on or near reliable sources of water, and especially rivers. Maybe it has something to do our habit of imbibing 2-3 liters of the stuff/day, not to mention its utility for hygene, transport and defense. Since CM:SF is supposedly going to feature MOUT, I guess urban maps will be conspicuously missing their rivers and canals.

It's no coincidence, either, that many of the most important battles in the history of organized warfare, from Antiquity to the present, have taken place on or near a bridge, ford, or other important-to-control feature of a water obstacle. I was just watching that Shootout program in the History Channel the other night, the episode feature recent combat in Iraq. In a large proportion of the firefights they portrayed, control of a bridge crossing a river played a prominent role.

Tactically, I guess impassable terrain will work as a substitute. Considering how beautiful the rest of the game is looking, I do think the lack of any H20 running through the channels will stick out, though. Too bad.

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Dorosh]

Clever CMX1 scenario designers used workarounds all the time - rivers in CM:SF should not present any additional obstacles if all that is required is an impassable low lying area lying in a line. I'm pretty sure smart scenario designers will find a way. Remember the guy who figured out that walls on cliffs in CMBO allowed you to simulate climbing ropes ala Pointe-du-Hoc? That's like the first guy who figured out yeast, eggs, sugar and flour would rise into a cake in an oven. He should have got a frigging medal. Denis Leary said the same thing about the guy who invented whippits - that they should be involved in the space program or somefink.

The same applies to clever scenario designers like that.

So unknot your panties, Herr Steiner the game isn't even out yet. Where there is a will, there is a way. Unless you're looking for assault boats (which never really worked in CMx1 anyway).

[Battlefront.com]

Syria is not a barran, waterless land. That's totally true. But the development cost (i.e. time) for adding water is too much for us with the first release. It's one of the reasons why we went with an Arid setting (a minor reason, more of a perk). We figure to do water right would take a solid month. The main problem is the TacAI. Huge amount of work to get that to function correctly with bridges, which are in and of themselves a nasty prospect for us. Which is why there are no bridges either. Without water there isn't much need for them (I didn't say no need, just not much need).

Steve

[panzermartin]

We can still make impassable terrain with an elevated road running across? Works exactly like a bridge.

[tankibanki]

Originally posted by panzermartin:

We can still make impassable terrain with an elevated road running across? Works exactly like a bridge.

And the AI will probably have the same problems with it.

But we'll find out soon enough (hopefully)

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by tankibanki:

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

We can still make impassable terrain with an elevated road running across? Works exactly like a bridge.

And the AI will probably have the same problems with it.

But we'll find out soon enough (hopefully) </font>

[Klavan]

I totally understand BFC point of view about the bridge/water "problem". In my personal experiences with other games (FPS with very advanced AI) bridges are always a pain in the a**: disrupted formations, soldiers and vehicles that jumps out of the bridge sinking into water or that just refuses to cross that damn ford.....expecially if the engine recognize the meaning of the word "drowing". Not to say if they're engaged by enemy during the crossing crucial moments...What a damn mess! lol

How many headhaces during mission editing: extremely carefully placed WP, specifically selected formations, vehicles and behaviours.....And in the end: SPLASH! :mad:

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request