Some questions ...

[Madmatt]

Since we seem to be comparing the realism inherent in ToW as it compares to CM let me talk about an obvious abstraction in CM which people seem to accept without question and one in which is vastly more important than occupy-able buildings.

Ammo... In CMx1, your infantry will never, ever run out of ammo. Sure it can go into a depleted ammo state, but they will always manage to crank off a few more shots if need be and will do so for as long as the battle lasts. We explain this by abstracting the scrounging of ammo off the dead and wounded.

In ToW, every clip, magazine, drum, and belt of ammo is tracked down to individual round. This weapon and ammo tracking is done separate from the tracking of a soldier himself which makes it possible for you to move a trooper over to where a comrade (or enemy soldier) has fallen and choose exactly what of his equipment you want to pick up or swap out. You could for example drop your Kar 98k and pick up a MP-40 and 4 clips of ammo and a few M-24 grenades. You could drop off your M-34 belt of ammo to the MG team. You could crawl through your trench line and pick up a fallen AT Rifle and ammo. That is a level of realism that CMx1 games simply could not do. Proper ammo and weapon management is just about the single most important tactical consideration and yet was totally abstracted in CMx1 and this was accepted almost totally without comment.

The design of a game is often a delicate balance of features, playability and realism. And lets be clear here, the devs have already said that the engine CAN allow for building occupation and was even in the game at one point and we (Battlefront) are going to find out exactly what problems they had with its implementation and see if maybe it could be re-addressed at some point.

Now, about my comments with T-72. There are lots of people that enjoy that game and got from it exactly what they wanted, a fun modern tank sim. With its graphics, dynamic and destroyable environments it offered what no other tank sim had, up until that point, and I am still not sure that even Steel Beasts 2 PE (which I do wish to check out) was able to do some of the things that T-72 did. Was it the perfect tank sim, no, but my excitement for it, like for ToW was and is genuine.

But you don't need to take my word for it. We release demos for all of our games and everyone has their own expectations and desires for a game that they bring to a table. If you don't like ToW, fine, that's your prerogative. But I think it kicks ass and I will continue to try to tell people about it as best I can.

Madmatt

[Battlefront.com]

RSColonel_131st,

Sorry guys, but the more details you tell us, the more it sounds like this is still mainly a "clickfest RTS" and only secondary a very tactical game. That's okay - but please don't go "wow, the graphics are so cool, you won't mind if it's not realistic" - because slowly that how the sales pitch starts to sound, and I didn't think Battlefront was like that.

We're not. What is happening is that a few of you guys are reacting and rushing to judgements without any hard facts or concern for context. So that sorta puts us in a tought spot, eh? We have to correct you because you're not "getting it". This isn't the first time we've been through this, won't be the last either.

Look back at posts before any of the CM games were released and you'll see the same sort of "if it doesn't have x then it is crap" lines of argument coming from people on the Forum. People convinced themselves that because y little this or z little that wasn't in then the WHOLE GAME was a waste of time. Then they played it and promptly shut their cakeholes because they realized how wrong they were. We expect a lot of cakeholes to be shut soon enough

Guys, we are not positioning ToW as the most accurate, comprehensive depiction of WWII possible. That's something you keep thrusting on it. So we are trying to kick lame, judgmental and small minded feature focus criticism to the curb where it belongs. We've ALWAYS done that, and always will. No different now in the summer of 2007 than it was back in the summer of 1998.

Matt just gave an example of how ToW is MORE realistic than CM. I suspect the same people bitching about not being able to use a farmhouse for infantry will somehow manage to ball up that little factoid and toss it out the window instead of weighing that before making one's mind up. Of course you could just remain open minded and wait for the demo, but for some reason gamers (in general) find that to be too boring or somefink.

Darren,

Customers need to judge a game by what it is, not what the customer thinks it should be.

That's it in a nutshell. ToW is no more an urban warfare simulator than it is a simulator of castle sieges. Nothing wrong with either of these things, but the game isn't about them so complaining ToW lacks such features is pointless. There is no 10 Commandments of waragming with #3 reading "Ye shall put urban warfare in all wargames or the Lord shall strike ye down". At least I hope these don't exist, because man... like we developers need any more pressure on us

RMC,

o when did you graduate from the Donald Rumsfeld school of public speaking?

I'd like to tell you, but it is a matter of National Security and therefore I can't. BTW, the little clicks you hear when you use your phone are imaginary. Trust me!

Steve

[ July 29, 2006, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Midnight Warrior]

First off, let me say a huge, Wow!!!!.

Now some questions.

1.I have not seen any graphics for fox holes, only trenches. Will the game support fox holes as well as trenches?

2. It seems that there will be mines. Will engineers be able to clear the mines? If so will they have mine detectors or is that abstratced? Are different types of mines modeled?

3. I have not yet heard any explicit mention of off board artillery. Will that be supported? If so how will it be called in? Will there be special FO's or can any person with a radio do so?

4. Same question for air strikes. How are they called in? Can they hit the wrong target or even friendlies?

5. Can vehicles bog? Apparanetly they can throw tracks? Is this random are is it tied to the crossing of local terrain features like crossing fences or knocking down trees?

6. There is apparantly fighting outside the battle area. If a unit hugs the edge of the playable map can it recieve fire from units outside the playable area are is this fire just cosmetic?

Well, that is enough questions for now.

[hellfish]

Seriously, some of you guys are the whiniest people I've ever encountered on the internet. You keep trying to make points that have been rendered irrelevant months, years ago. We're not gonna have enterable buildings in the initial release. Get over it. No amount of bitching is gonna change that. Just be happy they told you about it before you bought the game.

[Mord]

LMAO.

I can picture the guy's at 1C going "what the hell did we get ourselves into here?"

Welcome to the forums guy's! It's not nearly as bloody as it appears to be.

Mord.

[RMC]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

Seriously, some of you guys are the whiniest people I've ever encountered on the internet.

It's like a flashback to the announcement of CM in 98 when AH went to Hasbro. "If doesn't have hexes, I ain't buying it..."

Or more recently, the announcement of CM:SF as the Syria thing.

Grognard is such an apt appellation for the wargamer. Brilliant!

[Mace]

Oooh yeh.....

Sorta reminds one of the fracas that occured during the initial CMAK announcement days, don't it?

[John Kettler]

Apropos of the offboard fire support question by Midnight Warrior, and bearing in mind a certain moniker I've had for years (inspired by Jarmo), I was wondering whether we'll see Nebelwerfers and Katyushas in play? With the stunning graphics possible in the game, I imagine such a strike would be simply spectacular to see.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Prince of Eckmühl]

CMx1 does a lot of things very well. For instance, you can setup a situation where AFV face off at 750 meters and go at it. The modeling of the relationship between the vehicles as they shoot it out is peerless, exquisite if you will.

That said, there are aspects of the game that are flawed, holes that a critic could drive a truck through. I will not detail these here out of respect to the pure of heart and a recognition that the POH are fully aware of said flaws and choose to overlook them. I believe that they are willing to do so because they value certain aspects of simulation over others, but that's pure suppositon on my part.

Well, we've got another developer in play here, one that's pushing out a product that MIGHT deal with some of the shortcomings evidenced by CMx1, ones that could really use some doctoring. If the direct-fire-vs-armour modeling of CMx1 gets watered down a tad in the process of delivering a better-rounded simulation, then I say, more power to them.

There's more to simulating a WW2 combat environment than armour placement, thickness and the qualities of a HV round coming down range, a lot more. Otherwise, the Wehrmacht would have been defeated in France in 1940.

How about let's put the axe aside and give these guys a chance?

PoE

[MorgTzu]

Yep...I'm a CC fan, and as much as I liked CM, nothing will ever replace the multi and single player tactical feel of CC. That said, I will buy TOW, even if it was released today, because it's clearly the next step in what I and evidently a lot of more serious gamers have benn waiting for. I'm not going to be fanboy..but as a long time lurker above I will say that there are extremely few places where devs and company reps get this ivolved with their community, and I for one support them and their record of trying hard to put wanted features in their games given enough time. Me, I'm looking forward to Christmas with TOW this year.

[Lt Bull]

OK, so no infantry occupiable buildings in the initial release of ToW.

In CM, being IN a heavy building affords infantry one of (the best?) forms of cover against small arms fire. I can't recall exactly where light buildings rank but it sure as hell beats being in the open terrrain just outside the building . The reason why I am concerned about this no infantry in buildings thing is that if you consider CM (and most of us do) and imagine playing a village battle where infantry COULDN'T enter buildings, it would be a sluaghter as any infantry in the town would be limited to the road/open terrain around the buildings, which, as we alll know, is just a death/rout/panic sentence for infantry under fire.

Will the omission in ToW of what was the "king of infantry terrain" in CM mean that infantry just won't be as effective as they were (at least in defending towns/villages/hamlets) in CM? Will tanks just dominate too much and infantry reduced to a much lesser effective role?

So what other terrain can infantry occupy in ToW?

What kind of terrain will ToW instead afford infantry the best form of cover/protection from small arms fire etc? Can a full list of terrain types be listed?

Wil there be hedgerows for instance? Swamp? Rough? etc

Will infantry actually gain defensive bonuses for actually "occupying" certain terrain (like in CM) or wil the terrain work like in a FPS where infantry simply shelter behind whatever "objects" block LOS, regardless if that "object" is a foxhole, a tree, a wall etc?

I am not sure if it has been explained yet but will there be rubble terrain that infantry can enter and gain terrain cover bonuses for? Can buildings be reduced to rubble (like in CM) so that infantry can then occupy? If so, then I can already see that if you are defending any area that has buildings in it, the destruction of those buildings will be a great tactic for "upgrading" your defensive terrain, at the cost of course of a few HE shells and potentially revealing your position to the enemy . No point in having a pretty looking solid block building that no one can enter and affords no cover (except block LOS) while infantry get slaughtered in the streets.

Lt Bull

[Battlefront.com]

Lt Bull,

Will the omission in ToW of what was the "king of infantry terrain" in CM mean that infantry just won't be as effective as they were (at least in defending towns/villages/hamlets) in CM?

This is a point I tried to make a few posts above. CMx1 had a more abstract handling of terrain in general, so players tended to gravitate towards those things that were (simply put) not "Open". Be that a house, some trees, a stone wall, whatever. Each one occupying 20x20 meters.

In ToW, and CMx2 incidentally, the terrain is far more detailed. Check out the ToW screenshots (all 200+ of 'em!) to see what I mean. For example:

Soldiers will have more to hide behind than their good looks

Personally, I totally disagree that houses were "king of infantry terrain". I would always, and I mean always, put them anywhere but if I could avoid it. In some trees, behind the house, whatever. But in the house... might as well put a big "whack me hard" sign on the front door. While it is true that being in a house offered some good small arms protection, it was orten a death trap once the enemy figured you were in there. And it should have been much worse (as I explained a few posts up) then it was. Expect buildings in CMx2 to be much less friendly to defenders (and attackers for that matter!).

Steve

(Kwazydog - Just fixing Steves screen shot )

[ July 29, 2006, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[benpark]

Can they use that axe when they're out of ammo?

[Earl Grey]

By the way... who's grass mod is that?

[Lt Bull]

OK. Nice screenshot BTW.

The "king of defensive terrain" is really a comment on the actual modifiers on any small arms fire on units in a heavy building. From what I understand in CM there isn't any better terrain for a infantry unit to be in that will give them better modifiers on incoming small arms fire than "heavy building" terrain tiles.

So will the individual soldiers/units in ToW be labeled/classified (like in CM) as occupying any kind of terrain and hence have any incoming fire against them (regardless of the direction it is coming from) modified based on a standard terrain effects modifier table? The screenshot seems to indicate not.

Or is it, for argument sake, more like a FPS where if there is stuff to hide behind (any stuff, like in the screenshot, a pile of logs) then THAT is what gives you cover from HE/small arms fire/arty and just makes it harder for the enemy to see you/hit you?

If so, then that raises many intersting and fundamental questions which I think would be good if they could be explained.

eg. Will the trajectory of each bullet fired be calculated out to determine whether it hits a target or hits any interveining "blocking" features (like in a FPS)? So if a unit is in say a bunch of trees (equivalent to a woods or scattered trees in CM), then it is physically the number of tree trunks (which I can only assume would have to be individually physically modelled and represented on the map) between him and the enemy that will instead potentially block each incoming bullet and hence reduce the chance of him being hit, rather than how it is in CM where you get a standard/preset terrain effects modifier applied to the incoming "firepower strength" for just being in particular terrian tile? Is it that every physical geometry on the battlefield actually has the potential to "block" the path of each individual bullet/HE blast etc, like in a FPS? So no terrian feature you see is at all "cosmetic", and there are no "general terrain abstractions" like "being in woods" sop you get a benefit as it is in CM?

ie. If you see a a bunch of trees (woods), you MUST physically position a soldier behind a tree trunk for him get cover from being "in woods"?

:confused:

Lt Bull

[ July 30, 2006, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[thewood]

Even though I understand why buildings are unusable, I will try this one more time:

In real life, as in CM, tactical and strategic positions are built around even individual buildings in a rural eviron. How many small unit actions do we read about in WW2 where the entire action was around capturing or defending a single building (in a non-city environment). Not because they just liked the architecture, but becuase it provided the best cover and protection.

At Waterloo (a very rural battle), Wellington built his entire line around three buildings, one on each end and one in the center. Most of Waterloo was fought over a single buildings, including a single wooden barn, because buildings were the only cover and dominated the woods and fields in front of it. The wooden barn was hammered by artillery also. In the equivalent of AARs, witnesses describe entire Scottish and German companies occupying the barn and see-saw tactical battles going on for the barn the entire time of the battle. They weren't fighting for the stone wall in front. That was just a way to protect the physical approach to the barn.

Yes, these are anecdotal, but to say that in real life infantry run from buildings at the sign of anything greater than small arms fire is entirely false. Even in the era of tanks, infantry still use buildings as cover whenever they are available. As a matter of fact, many infantry AARs talk about setting up antitank positions to protect the approaches to building and keeping armor away.

Just look at scenarios in CM. A large number are set up to defend a few buildings as the victory conditions. Most wargames, especially CM, get buildings right. They reward players for defending them and for seizing them. This is done through either setting victory conditions or through giving infantry protection in the buildings. Even in scenarios where buildings aren't given victory conditions, the protection they afford drives intense battles for their occupation.

As I said before, if technical reasons keep buildings unusable, so be it. But I can't really see someone saying that buildings really didn't matter in any type ground combat. Maybe by putting smaller objects around buildings you can create the feel of a building being defended and consider it an abstraction.

[Melnibone]

Never in the field of human forums as it taken so many words to make one point....again and again.

[Brent Pollock]

Hmmm...so on the attack, I'm not going to have to worry about dropping the church steeple, because no one'll be in it. That's going to save me some ammo.

Assaulting without HE fire support should be easier, too, because I won't have to sweat assaulting that big stone farmhouse that dominates that Italian vineyard because it's too damned muddy for my tanks to come up and the FO can't get the 25 pdrs on it due to the atrocius maps he has to use.

I'm going to love TOW when it comes out, but I'll even take it home for dinner with my folks & keep a picture of it in my wallet once it also has buildings you can use.

[kabex]

thewood: stuff

Good points.

I think it's important, if there are a very small amount of buildings I don't think it'll be a micromanagement nightmare.

[howardb]

I think it's kinda silly when BFC is trying to downgrade the tactical importance of buildings to infantry in WWII. I've been a member of this community for a long time because of it's no corporative 'blue-suit' bull****.

It might not be a game killer but it's definately a huge letdown, just admit that. Personally I would delay the game the time it took to get this very important feature right. Also keep in mind a simplified 'enter building' feature is better than none at all.

Now with that said I will probably buy the game anyway, but this just doesn't feel right. Sorry.

[Battlefront.com]

Howard,

It might not be a game killer but it's definately a huge letdown, just admit that.

I thought I already did? Several times in fact. But I also said I understand why they made the decision and, as a wargamer, it doesn't bother me (that much). And I am a guy that is urban warfare centric at the moment.

Hope that clears things up a bit more for you.

Personally I would delay the game the time it took to get this very important feature right. Also keep in mind a simplified 'enter building' feature is better than none at all.

That's where we fundamentally disagree. Since the emphasis of the game is NOT on house to house fighting, it does perfectly well without it. Holding the game back (probably for a month or more!) for something that is not central to the experience it presents is idiotic. Idiotic for us as a publisher, idiotic for the developer, and ultimately idiotic for the consumer as well. The game is fantastic as is, right now. In fact, I am sure most of you would love playing it as it exists this very minute. If you got it you'd find 10,000 things to bitch and complain about, but you'd still find yourself blocking out time to play it as often as your schedule can handle.

That's why this is such a mountain out of a molehill. Some of you guys are running around as if someone cut your heads off. We saw it over and over and over again with each CM game we made. "It doesn't have this... the game will be crap and I won't buy it" or "I'll buy it, but I won't enjoy it". BULL CRAP! Your collective track record for things like this extremely repetitious, predictable, and counter productive. And that is why you are called Grognards and not Happy People

Steve

[howardb]

Every time I pass a building in the game I'm going to think of you and groan

[Battlefront.com]

thewood,

But I can't really see someone saying that buildings really didn't matter in any type ground combat.

Never did. What I've been saying is that they aren't the make or break sort of thing that some of you have been trying to portray it as. In other words, an extreme position has been put forward and I'm knocking it back down to size. One of the first things was to remind people that this is not an urban warfare centric game, which chopped the complaint down by at least 2/3rds Then I've pointed out that building use in CMx1 was not as great as some people would like to think it was. Then further reduced by pointing out that buildings in CMx1 were highly abstracted to the point of (probably) introducing unrealistic tactics and expectations.

So we started with a Doom's Day argument and after all the sorting through arrived at a good point. And that is, it would be more realistic if houses could be entered into, even if abstractly. However, because the emphasis of the game does not rely upon structures, the lack of this feature is not all that important on the whole.

If that isn't a good enough line of argument for someone, then I suggest they leave this Forum. I don't just mean ToW, I mean the whole Battlefront.com website. Why? Because nothing we ever do will ever be good enough so why bother wasting one's time expecting and demanding (even) something that will never, ever be? Not that you'll find any other place to go that will offer better options than you will find here. Not even close.

I can assure you that as good as CMx2 is already, and will be when it is released, there are PLENTY of molehills that people could make mountains out of. Besides living up to the grumbly expectations of the name Grognard, why bother?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Howard,

Every time I pass a building in the game I'm going to think of you and groan

That's BS. I know you are going to lob some HE at 'em and watch 'em burn

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Lt Bull,

I'm sorry, but I don't have those sorts of answers for you. My knowledge of the game's inner workings is extremely limited at the moment. I'm learning fast though Matt can hopefully give you some more details.

But from what I know those objects, like the wood pile, do matter and in a way that you'd expect. Hiding behind something gives you cover from something on the other side. CMx2 is coded like this too.

The great thing about ToW is you just say go here" and the AI figures out where to stick individual guys. You don't have to micromanage that aspect. And what's more, it does it extremely well (Matt and the CMVention guys went on and on about how great the tactical AI is).

Steve