Some questions ...

[Thomm]

Congratulations, the game looks incredible and with the long history of the developer (and BFC standards) we can expect some true quality!

Please let me ask a couple of questions:

(1) how do troops interact with buildings? Are those modelled as "objects" as opposed to domains of building tiles (ala CC, EYSA)? In other words: does infantry have a concept of what a building is and what to do with(in) it?

(2) It seems as if shells leave marks on tanks?! Did I interpret that correctly.

(3) Is the ratio of infantry to tanks as shown in the screenshots representative of the actual missions? Seems too CC3-ish to me.

Thanks in advance,

Thomm

[Mord]

I can answer number 2.

Matt said this does happen (somewhere in one of the threads)...plus treads can come off, hatches twisted!

Sounds like a dream! This is gonna be cool!

Mord.

[Madmatt]

Let me try and answer these quickly before I go to bed.

(1) Well, they will walk around them...

Buildings are dynamic in nature and can be partially destroyed, collapased and even create nice big piles of 3D debris. At the moment though, they are not enterable. I know, I know...apparently CM, even in its age, has been one of the only sims to ever convincingly pull that little trick off...

(2) Penetration marks are left at the exaxt point of a..umm..well a penetration.. There are all sorts of cool damage effects. Look closely at the screenshots. I tend to only photograph vehicles that are banged up a bit.. Like this poor fellow...

Notice the multiple impact marks all over his hull and turret (and gun barrel).

http://www.battlefront.com/products/tow/screenshots/pages/ww2%202006-07-25%2003-41-06-06.html

3. What can I say, I like tanks! Thats more my doing than the average scenario makeup. I will try and get more infantry heavy shots in my next batch of piccies.

Madmatt

[Thomm]

Thank you for the quick answers!

Originally posted by Madmatt:

At the moment though, they are not enterable.

"At the moment" as in "in the present build" or "the first iteration of the game" or "with the ToW engine"?

Best regards,

Thomm

[Thomm]

Another smallie question:

Will we see soldiers interacting with objects, that is, hiding behind objects like trees, vehicles, etc.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Moon]

Yes, the AI is using terrain VERY well!

I think that Matt meant "the first iteration of the game". The engine is definitely capable of it, but it might be too much to ask for for the original release.

Martin

[hoolaman]

That is very disappointing news that troops can't enter buildings.

I'm sure the game will be fun and a big success, but to unleash the grogs on it seems a little dangerous at this point.

[Megakill]

1. What can soldiers do:

Use cover, pick up enemy weapons and ammunition, crew machine guns, guns, etc, etc, capture equipment, I will check what is the status with buildings now - I know that in some builds we put soldiers inside.

2. Damage - demage is completely realistic - you can damage pretty much everything - up to breaking up lights, shooting off antennas, extra fuel tanks, etc. Every scorch mark is real - we calculate trajectory of every shell (hell, we even RENDER shells). If you pause the game you will see shells in midair, including panzer shreks.

3. Some battles are almost infantry vs infantry. Some are tanks heavy.

[Moon]

Hoolaman, don't jump to conclusions. The engine is definitely capable of handling soldiers in buildings. The interiors are fully modelled for example. Let's see what Megakill finds out.

Martin

[Megakill]

Originally posted by Moon:

Hoolaman, don't jump to conclusions. The engine is definitely capable of handling soldiers in buildings. The interiors are fully modelled for example. Let's see what Megakill finds out.

Martin

It is possible for the engine, we had this feature, but we dropped it about a year ago - smth with gameplay and balancing :-(

However could be one of the features for the addon.

So currently soldiers are not entering buildings.

[JohnO]

As the discussion is about buildings. How many levels two or three? The reason asking is that I saw a building that looked like it was three floors, so can the troops occupy up to the third level, like a sniper or MG team?

John Osborne

[Moon]

In one of the US missions there is a church (you can see it in the screens) which is *at least* three stories, but probably more (in other screenshots you can see that it has been reduced to quite a bit of rubble).

I have not tried to put units there but probably it won't work according to what Nikolay just said.

Martin

[Thomm]

I would really like to know more about the issues with gameplay and balancing that surfaced in the past ... very odd to remove the infantry-in-buildings feature?!

How does this affect city fights?

However, when we were still playing OFP multiplayer hardly ever did people enter buildings, because one was very prone to become trapped in those locations!

But for larger infantry formations this means that only a very limited number of soldiers can actually engage the enemy "around the corner" ... will be interesting to see how this works.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Megakill]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

I would really like to know more about the issues with gameplay and balancing that surfaced in the past ... very odd to remove the infantry-in-buildings feature?!

How does this affect city fights?

However, when we were still playing OFP multiplayer hardly ever did people enter buildings, because one was very prone to become trapped in those locations!

But for larger infantry formations this means that only a very limited number of soldiers can actually engage the enemy "around the corner" ... will be interesting to see how this works.

Best regards,

Thomm

If I rememenbr right it was mostly interface and camera issues. We wanted everything to be perfect and easy, but were probably not smart enough to make thing user-friendly

[Ivan Drago]

I suppose then we must assume that at least in the release version, most of the fighting will take place on rural/small village type maps with not so many buildings.

If troops can't enter buildings or battle house-to-house then city maps would be rather pointless.

Maybe the add-on would feature city fighting capability and offer maps such as Stalingrad, Berlin, etc.?

That would be something - a bit dissapointing that it's not in the release but eh, I guess you can't have everything.

[Salkin]

Originally posted by Ivan Drago:

I suppose then we must assume that at least in the release version, most of the fighting will take place on rural/small village type maps with not so many buildings.

If troops can't enter buildings or battle house-to-house then city maps would be rather pointless.

Maybe the add-on would feature city fighting capability and offer maps such as Stalingrad, Berlin, etc.?

That would be something - a bit dissapointing that it's not in the release but eh, I guess you can't have everything.

Remember this is a real time game. Controlling a company of soldiers running in and around various buildings while checking flanks and controlling tanks could be quite an ordeal.

Sounds twitchy to me.

//Salkin

[Redwolf]

Artillery observation is also an issue when you can't enter building. Higher stories or Churchtowers were frequently used and can be an important factor in defenses.

[VicKevlar]

Controlling a company of soldiers running in and around various buildings while checking flanks and controlling tanks could be quite an ordeal.

You mean like a real company commander would?

Oft times I would pray that my squads were supposed to be where I wanted them to be and doing what I wished them to be doing. TOW is pausable with ability to issue orders so game speed won't be overwhelming.

[Battlefront.com]

I'll back up Megakill's comments..

If I rememenbr right it was mostly interface and camera issues. We wanted everything to be perfect and easy, but were probably not smart enough to make thing user-friendly

Man o man is he right. Infantry in buildings is a big headache from a UI standpoint. The more detailed people want it to be, the more effort it takes to make, the more possibilities for problems. If the development energy is spent in one spot it can't be spent in another. So while CMx2 can do things that ToW can't, the same is true in reverse. There are things that ToW can do that CMx2 can not. There are only so many hours in the day

Which again is why the two games compliment each other, not compete. Although superficially they appear "the same" they in fact have many significant differences.

Variety is the spice of life!

Steve

[dennisb55]

I'm afraid that inf unable to be in buildings may be a showstopper for serious wargamers. I find it kind of funny that you put so much 'energy' into being realistic in many areas, but decided to bypass in-building tactics. I thought you may even have an 'occupied' outhouse to assault!

[thewood]

Originally posted by dennisb55:

I'm afraid that inf unable to be in buildings may be a showstopper for serious wargamers. I find it kind of funny that you put so much 'energy' into being realistic in many areas, but decided to bypass in-building tactics. I thought you may even have an 'occupied' outhouse to assault!

I have to agree here. There are some abstractions that are pretty acceptable to wargamers in general. Not using buildings seems like a HUGE omission for a tactical game. Not representing individual soldiers is an abstarction, not counting infantry bullets is an abstraction, not entering or using buildings in a small unit tactical game is an omission. I hear the reasons, like the difficulty in controlling individual soldiers in a building. But that is why many games have left the squad abstracted. Just look at the issues Squad Assault had with occupying buildings.

Many CM players have been rather harsh on Panzer Command for not being able to at least knock a building down, along with other pretty serious omissions. I have to believe ToW will get the same treatment. I have been following the development of what became ToW from when the first announcement was mad years ago. I was pretty critical on the forums about the energy focused on graphics over some of the concessions made to playabiltiy, like shortening gun ranges to meet map sizes. I do have more faith that Battlefront can get these issues resolved than any other publisher in this space.

PS: I was kind of hoping the "big news" was upgrading CMBO or expanding CMAK.

[Battlefront.com]

dennisb5

I'm afraid that inf unable to be in buildings may be a showstopper for serious wargamers.

I think you'll be surprised how many won't be stopped Is ToW the be-all-end-all game for the most serious wargamer? No. Is is close enough for the serious wargamer to be thrilled with it? You bet.

I find it kind of funny that you put so much 'energy' into being realistic in many areas, but decided to bypass in-building tactics.

It's all about choices, and sometimes those choices don't make sense to the end user. If the emphasis of the game is rural engagements, then buildings become less important. In some maps they are totally irrelevant. So realism is not compromised at all. Now, if ToW were positioning itself as an urban combat simulator... you'd have a point. But it isn't, so the lack of entering buildings hovers between minor problem to non-existant problem.

thewood,

I was kind of hoping the "big news" was upgrading CMBO or expanding CMAK.

Dunno why you would have thought that. We've said for nearly 4 years now that CMAK would be the last thing that used the CMx1 codebase. We've never even hinted that has been changed, and that's because it hasn't been The code is gathering dust since CMx2 has 100% of our full attention, as it should be.

Steve

[Moon]

I think when dannisb55 said "*may be* a showstopper" (emphasis added), he - deliberately or not - expressed it well. It depends a lot on game design if you ask me.

In ToW, after playing dozens of mission, I can say that for some reason I do not really miss it. It may have to do with the great tactical AI which lets your viritual solders behave intelligently around houses and other structures, or maybe it's just an "optical" thing because the surroundings are simulated in such high detail; not sure.

Unlike Panzer Command (I don't know it, but you mentioned it), you can of course destroy buildings, partially or fully. The interiors are fully modelled in fact. Again, the engine is capable of handling it in theory.

Martin

[thewood]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

/QUOTE]Dunno why you would have thought that. We've said for nearly 4 years now that CMAK would be the last thing that used the CMx1 codebase. We've never even hinted that has been changed, and that's because it hasn't been The code is gathering dust since CMx2 has 100% of our full attention, as it should be.

Steve [/QB]

Maybe it was the vagueness of the news and the constant chatter. I am not saying I expected it. I was just hoping. That is legal in most states.

Also, no where did I see it listed as either a rural or urban combat simulator, you are correct.

[Battlefront.com]

thewood,

Maybe it was the vagueness of the news and the constant chatter. I am not saying I expected it. I was just hoping. That is legal in most states.

Actually, with the direction the world is heading, hope is manditory But yes, I see your point.

Also, no where did I see it listed as either a rural or urban combat simulator, you are correct.

I think the best way to explain this is to think of flight simulators. Some flight sims have very minimal treatment of anything on the ground. Others have ground detail that is on a par with a tank game. If the flight sim's main emphasis is on air-to-air combat then putting a lot of development energy into ground detail is a bad idea. However, if the flight sim is all about ground attacks (like an A-10 or IL2) then ground detail should be emphasized and "cuts" made elsewhere (like air-to-air combat). People interested in ground attack will tend to miss the lack of it when playing an air-to-air game, and vice versa. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other, nor does it mean that a "serious" flight sim gamer can only enjoy one and not the other.

Steve