When CM revisits Normandy

[SlapHappy]

I see two possible ways that the game could go with this. One is to actually do "beaches of Normandy" with all the baggage that entails....fortifications, beach obstacles, landing craft, etc.

Or they could simply fast forward to hedgerow action a few weeks into the historical proceedings. Or perhaps the game focus will be even smaller than this?

I know this far off, but I was just speculating....

[Melnibone]

I would think the latter the best bet. So much extra stuff to code for beaches. The smaller scale also would make beach battles a bit weird maybe?

[Cpl Steiner]

More importantly to my mind is if there will be weather.

If the WWII game time-frame goes up to December then there should be snow.

Even if it's only narrowly focused on June/July '44, there should be rain, because it was raining when the 101st Airborne dropped on Normandy IIRC.

[Other Means]

The only thing the setting affects is the amount of units and weather available for user built scenarios, therefore I'd like whatever option gives me the most "vanilla" units.

A landing craft might be a unit but how many user scenarios could be made using it?

So I'd like to be off the beaches, to give BFC more time to make proper units.

[SlowMotion]

Thinking about weather: it would be cool if the weather could change during a scenario. First the weather could be good, then after some time it might start raining. Visibility would change and ground as well - like no dust clouds when the ground is wet.

[Oddball_E8]

oh god i hope they revisit the east front first... i hate (yes, hate) the over-done normandy and westfront scenario...

[JohnO]

No dice, it is Normandy.

[flamingknives]

Steve did mention something about bocage in the MOUT thread.

[MikeyD]

They want water. They want mortars. We want water. We want mortars. The difference between them and us on this is THEY have to do the work!

One has to wonder, what if they 'nail' water? i mean do such an excellent job of coding that they start thinking of including DD Shermans, landing craft on the beaches, Mulberry harbors, etc? Sounds like that would increase the complexity of the game exponentially. Full water with the extras would be very nice - it might also be much too much to expect from the game.

[Cpl Steiner]

MikeyD,

I'm not a games coder but I would hazard a guess that water is not as difficult to do as it sounds, just by the sheer number of games that use it. I've seen really naf games that include reasonable water effects when they needn't have bothered. For instance, a racing game I played recently ("MX vs. ATV") had water in just one racing arena of the game, and then only in a single square ditch of that level. Why include it for just this tiny area if it is so hard to do?

I am hoping that Charles will figure out a way to get water with ripples/splashes into CMx2.

[M1A1TC]

Water is one of the hardest things to code, from what I have heard

[Paper Tiger]

I'd be more than happy for a deep blue coloured impassible terrain tile if it's going to be THAT difficult to code it properly. It would be better than the deep ruts we have to use to simulate rivers at the moment.

Water HAS to be in the game for Europe. I suspect it's not in just now to prevent us from making Syria look like it's replete with waterways. The scenario editor only allows us to create missions during the months of May-July, the hottest, most arid months of the year there so it's an acceptable limitation FOR Syria.

The splashes effect would be COOL though, bullets, shrapnel etc really kicking it up.

[Sequoia]

I've speculated before that once they have water done for WWII they could add it in the Brit Module.

['Card]

We can't even get a creek in CM:SF and you guys are asking for an ocean?

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

Water is one of the hardest things to code, from what I have heard

I'm sure it is but that's assuming you are doing it from scratch. I contend that there must be loads of open source code out there by now that does passable water effects. It doesn't have to be bleeding edge, just passable.

By the way, "Theatre of War" has water effects on a par with what I'd like to see for CMx2. Check out the video of the new editor:

TOW Editor

Perhaps Charles and 1C should put their heads together on this one, seeing as BFC already has a working relationship with them?

[Melnibone]

You either surf or you fight.

[orwell]

And Charlie Don't Surf.

[TheVulture]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

Water is one of the hardest things to code, from what I have heard

I'm sure it is but that's assuming you are doing it from scratch. I contend that there must be loads of open source code out there by now that does passable water effects. It doesn't have to be bleeding edge, just passable.

By the way, "Theatre of War" has water effects on a par with what I'd like to see for CMx2. Check out the video of the new editor:

TOW Editor

Perhaps Charles and 1C should put their heads together on this one, seeing as BFC already has a working relationship with them? </font>

[Steiner14]

Water like in Half Life 2 would be good enugh for me.

[c3k]

Hmmm, water. I want waves. Waves with spray. And plumes. If it doesn't have rainbows with accurate physics modelling I won't buy it. Oh, and refraction. With different refractive indices for fresh water and salt water. And fish. With the right species. And the fish have to exhibit appropriate behavior. And breeding.

If all that fails, I guess blue tiles could work.

Ken

[benpark]

Rivers are an absolute must. It would be ill advised to release the WWII game without them. The code might be tough, but better sweat spilled than blood in the reviews and slings and barbs in the forums.

D-Day landings are fine to leave out by me. Just call the game something like "Inland Overlord" or "Salt-Free St. Lo".

[Paper Tiger]

From TheVulture:

The tricky part is getting the behaviour of water correct. CMx1 style of all water is one level and completely static is okay, but given the level of detail in other areas of the games and Steve's previous comments, they'd rather have something more realistic to a) be more realistic, and not jar too badly with the other levels of detail as noted elsewhere, the lower level of abstration in troop behaviour etc. causes more complaints in CM:SF because it stands out more due to the representational detail. If you want vaguely accurate water, with the right level of cover (high velocity small arms rounds disintegrate very quickly on hitting water), impairment to movement to waders, effect on vehicles, currents in rivers, waterfalls and a whole host of other things, it gets very, very complex. And without those things, people are going to complain about abstractions and 'bugs' causing results not matching up with what they expect.

You raised some very good points there mate. Some people will probably complain if their troops can't swim. I hadn't thought about it from that angle before. Maybe it will be a long time before we get.

[vertigus]

I don't think simulating rivers is that difficult. Just look at Rome:TW (haven't seen Medieval, but I suppose it's similiar). Soldiers don't need to swim, just slow down in shallow water, being unable to crouch, or get prone. Use pontoons in deeper water etc.

Anyway, I would love to see CM getting back to WWII.

I'm hoping for a MOD of some kind, since the tools are out.

[Thomm]

It is the bridges, stupid.

Imagine having to code up a BMP floating through under a bridge. Should make for some funny pathfinding.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by SlapHappy:

I see two possible ways that the game could go with this. One is to actually do "beaches of Normandy" with all the baggage that entails....fortifications, beach obstacles, landing craft, etc.

Or they could simply fast forward to hedgerow action a few weeks into the historical proceedings. Or perhaps the game focus will be even smaller than this?

I know this far off, but I was just speculating....

An intelligent discussion on what would be needed for the latter case might be welcome here. The depiction of bocage/hedgerows in CM:BO was definitely subpar and a unique opportunity presents itself for BF.C to not only get it right this time, but quite possibly be the first true tactical wargame to attempt to tackle the subject with the degree of detail and seriousness it deserves.

There were many discussions of what true bocage was in the CM:BO and CM:AK forums. The new terrain grid will be an aid in properly modelling this terrain. Some challenges will be modelling the steep banks (and of course climbing statistics for the various vehicles used in the game) and of course the Culin hedgerow device. U.S. vehicles in CM:BO got the "Rhinos" by default after a certain date which was an extreme simplification.

It would be possible to do a Normandy game without bocage, of course, as many sectors had no such terrain - the Canadians and I think the Poles never fought in it, and there were were British and American units that didn't either. I understand only the Americans will be in the first module in any event. I think one would expect either water (and the attendant challenges presented by that, as discussed already in this thread) or bocage to be included, unless the module focused on, say, the Airborne operations, which would be a popular idea and fit in with BF.C's new limited focus approach as well as concentration on "elite" forces. You would still have marsh and flooded terrain but moving water would probably not be an issue.

Mortars? The 5cm Granatwerfer was pretty much obsolete by the time of Normandy. Then again, many "German" units actually consisted of conscripts and foreign nationals equipped with a wide array of obsolete weapons. Either way, the 8cm and 12cm weapons were definitely used in great numbers, but could reasonably be represented by FO's only. The 60mm MTR of the Americans - hard to say how commonly used they were. In an Airborne setting, again, they probably were not too widely used on the first night of the invasion and could reasonably be excluded from any Normandy scenario in favour of a company FO but I think it would be harder to justify, particularly in line infantry or armored infantry units.

I wouldn't suggest, though, that dodging water and just jumping into bocage fighting would be easy as pie as there would be a lot of detailed modeling to have to do in order to do the subject justice - just mapping the weapons effects to the new grid (i.e. the nahverteidigungswaffe) will, I presume, require time to do.

Given a choice, I'd prefer to see both simulated - i.e. water and bocage, though not necessarily the beaches; opposed beach landing scenarios strike me as more than a little silly and pointless, particularly for the defender. But there were enough actions fought for major bridges across rivers and canals - and hopefully the module would be general purpose enough to be able to simulate actions farther ranging than just Normandy - Brittany and beyond to the German border, or even Germany in the spring of 1945, TO&E permitting - so that inclusion of enough terrain would permit that.

In short, why wish for something just because it sounds quick and easy. I doubt it would be were it to be done right. And of course the natural tendency for gamers to focus on AFVs means that there will be an expectation to have all kinds of German vehicle types out of proportion to their true employment. One of my favourite quotes these days, which I included in my last book, is:

Our perception of land operations in the Second World War has...been distorted by an excessive emphasis upon the hardware employed.

- John Ellis, "Brute Force"

It's too true. We can see that CM:SF has focused on vehicles - basing the game on the Stryker brigades makes that a natural progression - so taking a vehicle-heavy game engine and doing something with either amphibious landings or bocage country seems like a bit of a non-sequitur. I suppose if the aim is to prove that the game engine is as all-purpose as was originally claimed, it will be a good test.

How have the all-infantry scenarios in CM:SF stood up through the latest patch? I've tried Meeting at High Altitude and the vehicles seemed ok; the infantry still picked odd paths to run around things.

How the infantry do as the patches continue to develop will be your indicator as to how feasible a bocage or beachhead module will be in the next Title. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to see Shermans and panzers slugging it out in Normandy given the focus of the engine to date. Bocage and beaches wouldn't be conducive to either.

I guess you can ask yourself this - if you need to add T-72s and M-1s to your scenarios in CM:SF to make them enjoyable (or even playable), how likely do you think it will be that the same engine will provide enjoyment in a Second World War bocage setting? Or an Omaha beach setting where the defenders are all hunkered down in bunkers and all the American tanks are drowned off-map? I think we'll still be seeing a lot of armor, simply because that is what people like to see and that is the focus of the engine.

[ February 07, 2008, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]