Rivers in CMSF?

[Sergei]

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. </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by AdamL:

Um, what about the multiplayer aspect?

I recall Steve said something like 9 months ago that multi-multi won't be there for CMSF but later.

[bitchen frizzy]

During the filming of Braveheart, a local asked Mel Gibson why he wasn't including a bridge in his Battle of Stirling. Gibson responded that the bridge would be inconvenient and get in the way. The local replied, "Aye. The English found that to be true as well."

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

The problem is the StratAI (the one that replaces the Human's brain), but the TacAI (the one that controls minute behavior of the unit). As Klavan said, it's a general problem with games. We had tons of problems with it in CMBO, and we only implemented very primative bridges.

To put this another way, it is easy for the StratAI or Human player to say "I want this vehicle to get to the other side of the river by driving straight across this thing that is called a bridge". It is extremly difficult to get the TacAI to actually do this instead of, as Klavan also described, drive off the side, try to drive around it, or our all time favorite from CC2... sit and spin around in circles in front of it Why is it so hard?

The reason is that an AI likes things in a 2D grid. So do component pieces such as path finding, LOS, LOF, etc. A bridge introduces a 3D aspect to the grid that would otherwise never be there. This causes a huge amount of problems for the calculations of space around these areas. Problems that introduce speed hits, odd situations that turn up as bugs, and in general nutty behavior.

Buildings, some might say, are just multi leveled bridges, right? Not inherently, no. They are much more simple and predictable things which, apparently, are a lot easier to code. There are still problems and limitations with them, but for whatever reason those problems can be worked out more cleanly and effectively.

So think of buildings being a more primative type of bridge. One tester asked if we could use buildings in place of bridges. In a very primative way it could sorta work now. But vehicles, with their far more complex pathing requirements, can not use them without doing the coding that makes bridges such a problem to include. Ther answer back from Charles was, therefore, an understandable "no". However, the code effort that went into buildings will help make bridges a reality.

Another reason why water wasn't included, in addition to the "if we don't have bridges, let's not have water" thinking is the need for special animation of terrain in order to give the effect of water. It is something that people have come to expect. So to do this right we have to also introduce code to animate terrain in a special way that currently doesn't exist in the game.

Combine that with the 3D modeling stuff that we'd have to do to get the bridges to mesh with surrounding terrain, and it really is a huge amount of work that we felt was not worth holding up the game for. Charles' conservative estimate was 1 month just for bridges. Based on CMBO's teething problems, I think that sounds about right.

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

Steve,

As I said in a previous post, it would be cool from a player and even a marketing point of view to do the extra 1 month plus of work for the anticipated USMC module for CM:SF, assuming it was possible to do this as add-on code or a patch released with the module.

The USMC has fully amphibious AAVs for troop carriers, so you could tout "amphibious assaults and river crossings" as a major feature of the module to help sales. It would also flesh out the Syrian setting a lot by adding terrain features not previously included.

[mav1]

Wrong decision in not having water and bridges. But since there are other time cutting measures in the game Iam not surprised. The reasons for their inclusion have already been stated by sergei.

Just put in the simple river and bridges from cm 1, its better than nothing.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by mav1:

Just put in the simple river and bridges from cm 1, its better than nothing.

You don't just "put in" stuff from CMx1. Usually a new engine means that all code has to be reinvented.

[Moronic Max]

Another reason why water wasn't included, in addition to the "if we don't have bridges, let's not have water" thinking is the need for special animation of terrain in order to give the effect of water. It is something that people have come to expect. So to do this right we have to also introduce code to animate terrain in a special way that currently doesn't exist in the game.

Combine that with the 3D modeling stuff that we'd have to do to get the bridges to mesh with surrounding terrain, and it really is a huge amount of work that we felt was not worth holding up the game for. Charles' conservative estimate was 1 month just for bridges. Based on CMBO's teething problems, I think that sounds about right.

To hammer home what Steve's saying here, the team Irrational has making BioShock had two programmers spend a whole year doing nothing but water effects.

The mind boggles.

[C'Rogers]

At a month (at least) for bridges and water I am glad to hear they aren't going in.

[mav1]

Is it possible to leave room in the code to be able to place river and bridges in the game in a patch or module later on. Iam thinking when the ww2 western front is done, then rivers and bridges will be available to be put into shock force, if possible.

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mav1:

Just put in the simple river and bridges from cm 1, its better than nothing.

You don't just "put in" stuff from CMx1. Usually a new engine means that all code has to be reinvented. </font>

[wunwinglow]

Originally posted by bitchen frizzy:

During the filming of Braveheart, a local asked Mel Gibson why he wasn't including a bridge in his Battle of Stirling. Gibson responded that the bridge would be inconvenient and get in the way. The local replied, "Aye. The English found that to be true as well."

Hollywood NEVER lets the truth get in the way of a marketable screenplay, that's what makes it Hollywood.

Tim

[Tzen]

At least give us drainage pipes as flavor objects so it doesn't look so lame to have a mound of dirt under a "bridge".

[JonS]

Put low walls along each side of your nominal "bridge". It looks very good.

[thelmia]

I simulate it with marsh. Vehicles can't cross it. Not quite accurate because of amphibious APCs, but close enough.

[John Catsack]

I for one am glad that rivers won't be included in the near future. Even though rivers often form important strategic objectives, I find that actual battles over them usually turn out to be boring grindfests.