Wicky Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 bomp 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WineCape Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Bump! - for the newly registered members asking lots of questions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 This one really ought to be up there with the stickies 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 20, 2005 Author Share Posted October 20, 2005 Originally posted by flamingknives: This one really ought to be up there with the stickies I second that. -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 21, 2005 Author Share Posted October 21, 2005 latest info: Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted October 20, 2005 09:44 PM We have a different system for modeling movment and fatigue. Soldiers will basicaly move at about the same speed on the US side, but certain ones will tire out a lot quicker (like a Javelin or M240 team). Terrain is also a big factor. Big difference between running down a paved street than negotiating extremely rough and rutted terrain. Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted October 21, 2005 12:18 AM I'm not sure about panicking quite yet. One thing that is VERY different in CMx2 is that Suppression and Morale are two different factors. Tired troops will be Suppressed more easily than rested troops. That is pretty much a no brainer cause and effect relationship. US troops will Panic in CMx2 if you screw up enough. Remember, there is a difference between Panic, Routed, and Broken. Panic is a temporary state that hinders the unit's ability to do what is expected of him right then and there. Probably not something that is dire. Routed means the unit has progressed to a more deeply troubled state that it will need quite a bit of time to recover from. Broken means the unit is, for all intents and purposes, combat ineffective for the rest of the game. We had difficulty in CMx1 getting this to behave as well as we wanted it to sometimes, but generally that is how it worked. In CMx2 it will just work better. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada Guy Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 From the post it seems to be saying that US troops will panic but seems to imply that they will not break or rout. I hope I am reading this wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WineCape Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Yes, you're reading tea leafs at the bottom of the cup. The soldier morale state of Broken/Routed is still valid for CMSF as per the previous CM trilogy, just more fleshed out. Put enough fp on a single squad from all angles for long enough and I don't see how BFC will change the morale model suddenly (in CMSF) so that the USA troops will never rout/break. That just seems, well, plain wrong from a simulation standpoint. I venture to say BFC will not be that silly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 What Steve said was that morale and suppression are now separate. A unit will not now rout out of a trench under small-arms fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted November 7, 2005 Author Share Posted November 7, 2005 Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted November 07, 2005 11:11 AM After more than a dozen years of making wargames I have come to the following conclusions about micromanagement. Gamers break down into (roughly) three categories: Habitual Micromanagers Give them an inch and they will double check that it is an inch then figure out if they can take an inch and 1/8th instead. They don't mind spending inordinate amounts of time to eek out a tiny bit more performance from their troops. Even if that increase is perceived more than it is actual. These are quintessential "micro view" types. Hands Off Managers The opposite extreme. These are guys who don't care if it is an inch or not... they want to just tell their guys to take whatever it is and run with it. They almost don't want to play the game at all because it is an inconvenience to them. Instead, they want to bark a few orders (preferably by voice recognition) and watch the whole thing play out without any additional input. These guys are the "macro view" types. Hands On Managers Right smack dab in the middle. They want to interact with their units in a way that yields the kind of action they expect from them, yet they don't want to get so wrapped up in doing this that they lose sight of the Big Picture. They get frustrated when they feel they are required to baby sit units too much, but also annoyed when units don't do what is expected of them. Anybody that has spent even a little bit of time with CM and these Forums knows that we cater to the Hands on Manager types. They are the hardest to please, in many ways, because they expect a line to be drawn where there is no one place to draw the line. The other two are harder to please for other reasons, but technically easier to cater to. However, the two extremes will generally enjoy a Hands on Manager type game, but will absolutely not like the opposite style. What's more, the middle guys don't tend to want to play the extremes. So if we cater to the extremes we lose most of our audience. Catering to the middle we get pretty much everybody. The reason I bring this up here is because CMx2 will walk the same fine line CMx1 did in terms of allowing unit micromanagement. Yes, there are more options to direct your units than in CMx1, but we feel that this additional control is necessary for the new environment. Otherwise the Hands On Manager types would feel the game is too Hands Off. Remember what I said earlier... the additional flexibility is available, but not necessary most of the time. We expect you won't be clicking on too many more Commands per turn, just that you will be using the flexibility to use them in different ways. For example, not setting a Cover Arc until 3/4 the way through a move or using "Fire X Rounds" instead of "Target". So hopefully there is more control without more micromanagement. Steve [ November 07, 2005, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WineCape Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Many thanks for the update Tom. Too busy with RL @ moment to do thread justice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted November 7, 2005 Author Share Posted November 7, 2005 no problem Real life is calm for me now Consider it a Team Effort this is NEW: from this thread: main UI explained thread -tom w [ November 07, 2005, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 16, 2006 Author Share Posted October 16, 2006 bump 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Ouch! Look at that placeholder artwork The final stuff looks very, very different, though the origins of where it came from can be seen in the shot above (along with the 30 or so other versions I have going back to 2003). Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronic Max Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Map size -> yes, we always have to keep in mind that when we allow something FAR too many gamers think that means they are supposed to be able to use it, even if they are still using a 486 with 32MB of RAM. So to some extent we must hard code limitations because not doing so always comes back to bite us in the butts.Is this something (I'm assuming it's okay to ask questions in this thread) that you can go back and recode without much effort at a later date? If, for instance, six months after CM:SF's release RAM becomes a penny per ten megs and fifteen gig sticks become standard*, would it be realistic for you guys to release a hotfix that would just raise the hardcoded cap? *Yes, that's an extreme (-ly absurd) example, but it makes the point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WineCape Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 This [long] post has been edited ...again. See first page, first post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khane Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Ouch! Look at that placeholder artwork The final stuff looks very, very differentProve it please. I mean "bone" it Khane [ October 17, 2006, 06:17 AM: Message edited by: Khane ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarkus Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Originally posted by Khane: Prove it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khane Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Originally posted by Tarkus: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Khane: Prove it </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WineCape Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Ahem, you missed it you say. It was posted on the first page of this thread, what, a few hours ago. Sheesh. I might as well stop trying to inform the uninformed with my useless postings. Thanks anyway Tarkus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Originally posted by WineCape: Wide Screen Support No current plans for it, though it is possible we could introduce it later. The main problem with the wider screen is it jumps the hardware requirements up quite a bit. The other problem is the code might not be friendly to such a suggestion. I don't know the answer to this last point. I know that the UI certainly won't be a problem. That is the source for this quote? This is factually incorrect. Drawing two million pixels from 1600x1200 costs the same hardware resources as drawing two million pixels from 1920x1000. Widescreen doesn't "jump up the hardware requirements". The code not being friendly would be surprising since CMx1 did 16:9 just fine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I was the source of the quote Well, first of all the current supported resolution is 1024x768. Will it support higher than that? I don't know yet. We probably won't prevent people from using a higher resolution if we don't have to recode anything, and at this point I don't know that either. In short... we either will or will not support widescreen or higher resolutions. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dima Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: I was the source of the quote Well, first of all the current supported resolution is 1024x768. Will it support higher than that? I don't know yet. We probably won't prevent people from using a higher resolution if we don't have to recode anything, and at this point I don't know that either. In short... we either will or will not support widescreen or higher resolutions. Steve Steve, considering that most people today have 17" and 19" LCD monitors, who's native resolution is 1280x1024 I think it'll be major thing not to support it. What good is CMx2 graphics when it is viewed on ugly stretched lower resolution on LCD's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Ah... my bad. 1280x1024 is the resolution we support. Man, I must have been smoking something today It's not like I haven't been working for 2 years on UI that is 1024 pixels wide! Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khane Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Originally posted by WineCape: I might as well stop trying to inform the uninformed with my useless postings.Not useless at all...by the end even a very uninformed guy like me find the right information Khane 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.