Some questions ...

[Darren J Pierson]

So, are all of the cries for detailed building environments setting us up for a super duper ToW II: Humpin' in the Hood for only $49.00 at a dealer near you?

"The Boys* from Battlefront and those Crazy (ex-)Commies* bring you the exciting sequel allowing you to fight all of your favorite urban hits: Stalingard, Berlin, Arnhem, Dieppe, Portsmouth Pub Run, and the ever popular Denny's on a Sunday Morning after Church!. Get the dead cow from live cow to the kitchen on time or face reduced stats in the next battle. Based on demand from the forum faithful*, this carefully researched product is a reward for you, the forum faithful*. Due to the meticulous research, this product will be released when it is done*.

* - Gender not confirmed by science. Cold War political associations not guaranteed. Faithful not to imply any religious or spiritual dispostions nor state of hygiene. The Surgeon General recommends against consuming meats or computer games at anything less than medium, but well done or actually finished is strongly recommended. Patent pending.

[thewood]

I have said that I understand why they weren't done in the game, but it keeps coming up that buildings really aren't a factor outside urban combat. I have seen this said several times over several threads. All I am trying to point out is that they are a significant factor in most settings of tactical combat. Is it a game killer? I don't know. That is an objective opinion based on expecations, abstractions, and compromises in each game.

Each time I have brought it up, it was in response to someone saying buildings aren't a factor in combat outside cities and villages. That is what I have disagreed with. I completely understand that you as a publisher and deveopler have to make compromises in implementing a combat system in a PC game.

At one point you or someone from BFC stated that because of all the things you can hide behind you won't notice not being in the building. I conceded that may be true. If you want to banish me from posting on BFC for expressing my opinion in a civilized manner, I obviously can't stop you. I tried using examples in both real life and in CM and other games without bashing any of them. Please let me know what line I crossed. I will be pretty bummed getting kicked off the board, but I will continue to read the forums, play CM, and buy BFC products.

[Melnibone]

Oh grow up

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Madmatt:

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.

Well, of course that was one of the most successful abstraction choices in CM.

There is no way that any kind of TacAI can control depletion of the last rounds in a realistic manner, even if you heavily rely on randomness (or fuzzyness). The CM abstraction solved this nicely and I don't think anybody did ever complain about it (except in the case of vehicle crews maybe).

[ July 30, 2006, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Redwolf ]

[thewood]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

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

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.

Well, of course that was one of the most successful abstraction choices in CM.

There is no way that any kind of TacAI can control depletion of the last rounds in a realistic manner, if if you heavily rely on randomness (or fuzzyness). The CM abstraction solved this nicely and I don't think anybody did every complain about it (except in the case of vehicle crews maybe). </font>

[TuuSaR]

At least in close combat 3 against human opponent main use of buildings was LOS blockade. Because there wasnt much sense putting guys inside, especially in first row of buildings, because opponent shot them all to make sure.

I like very much house&tank chess game. What sort of firing lines do you plan and how do you solve them.

oh goodie

But of course, it would be lot of fun to smash houses with soldiers inside. But if I have to choose I rather take tank based game.

(sorry if off-topic)

[benpark]

I hope that some work around can be found that allows some usage of buildings, but it's not going to change my purchase plans if it doesn't make it in(lack of a decent scenario builder might, though).

I see a bunker at the back right of this screen:

http://www.battlefront.com/products/tow/screenshots/pages/grab0007.html

Is this a stationary "crewed" structure? If so, maybe it's possible to treat certain key buildings as some form of bunker-like structure that can be crewed by infantry/MG teams? I know it's not that easy, but possibly some other angle of thinking might open up some possibilities.

[Midnight Warrior]

There might be a work around for the house issue. If the scenario designers were to put stone walls closely spaced around some of the key houses then the house would provide the LOS blockage and the stone walls could serve as surrogate walls for the troops near the houses. That would give some protection for the troops near the houses from samll arms.

This might not be a perfect solution but it might be good enough until the next version comes out which will I would image go along way to remedying this current limitation.

[Mord]

Originally posted by benpark:

I hope that some work around can be found that allows some usage of buildings, but it's not going to change my purchase plans if it doesn't make it in(lack of a decent scenario builder might, though).

I see a bunker at the back right of this screen:

http://www.battlefront.com/products/tow/screenshots/pages/grab0007.html

Is this a stationary "crewed" structure? If so, maybe it's possible to treat certain key buildings as some form of bunker-like structure that can be crewed by infantry/MG teams? I know it's not that easy, but possibly some other angle of thinking might open up some possibilities.

I was thinking along the lines of once the soldiers entered the house you could just show their gunfire emminating from it and maybe a little screen when you click on it showing who is inside like the vehicle pics show....without having to graphically display the actual soldiers inside the building...that would eliminate the problem of the camera angles and such and allow the buildings to be used. But I don't know how hard that would be to do.

If it doesn't happen I'll be okay. I am so looking forward to the yard to yard fire fights I don't think I'll have time to care.

Mord.

[Brent Pollock]

Hey...yeah...

TANK = ROLLING BUNKER

&

BUNKER = SPECIALISED HOUSE (usually with just a single storey/door/room/"window")

...so...treat a house like a big, non-moving tank with a large crew.

Works for me.

The next level will be loopholing & mouseholing, but those can wait for the urban combat upgrade

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by 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

I look forward to hearing more about how this terrain/combat system all works. It is then fundamentally different to how CM handles things. Close Combat kind of appears to be more similar to ToW than CM is to ToW in this respect. I recall in CC you could set a "cover arc" so that the individual soldiers in a squad would actually re-position themselves about the terrain they were currently around to be facing and be better protected against fire from the direction specified by the arc.

Without this "cover arc" function, you may be suggesting that the soldiers in ToW are smart enough to know HOW to use the cover around them and from WHERE to expect fire from. If we take the soldiers in the screenshot for example: They appear to be taking cover, but only from fire coming from the right of screen. What would happen if they suddenly took fire from the left of screen? Would the TacAI take over and actively move each individual soldier around so that they now took cover on the opposite side of the logs and facing to the left? I guess the game has the concept of "unit facing" to some degree. Will there be CC style "coverage arcs"

?

This was never a problem really in CM as each unit gained coverage benefits from being in terrain regardless of which direction the incoming fire was coming from (except of course for morale check purposes!). The abstraction was that the soldiers inside each unit were adjusting themselves about the tile to gain cover from whatever direction fire was incoming.

Lt Bull

[Battlefront.com]

thewood,

lease let me know what line I crossed. I will be pretty bummed getting kicked off the board, but I will continue to read the forums, play CM, and buy BFC products.

Ack! Who said anything about kicking you off? Never in a million years would we do that. As you say, all you've done is express an opinion. So am I, as are others. Obviously we don't agree, but nothing is wrong with that. And fundamentally we actually don't disagree. Where we diverge is on the relative importance. I think you're taking some extreme views of the importance of buildings in relation to everything else. But we both agree that infantry in buildings is going to be missed. I just think not as much as you do. Problem was we started out with "no buildings, game is no good" line of reasoning and that was a wee bit too out there for my tastes.

RedWolf,

There is no way that any kind of TacAI can control depletion of the last rounds in a realistic manner, even if you heavily rely on randomness (or fuzzyness). The CM abstraction solved this nicely and I don't think anybody did ever complain about it (except in the case of vehicle crews maybe).

Thanks for the compliment, but oddly enough you won't find the same system in CMx2 as you found in CMx1. We track every round of ammo and who has it quite specifically now, just like ToW. Why? The abstraction in CMx1 worked because everything else at that level was abstracted. ToW is not abstracted to that degree, therefore the ammo abstraction would be out of place. As it is with CMx2.

Lt Bull,

It is then fundamentally different to how CM handles things. Close Combat kind of appears to be more similar to ToW than CM is to ToW in this respect.

Correct. Or put another way, ToW is closer to what CM will be rather than what it once was.

Sorry guys, I can't comment on the rest of the stuff. However, whenever a gamer says "as a work around all you need to do is..." I usually know that whatever follows isn't easy or even a good idea I'm not the developer of ToW so I can't say that for sure this time, though I have my suspicions!

Steve

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Howard,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 </font>

[Megakill]

Guys, I feel sorry now that we were not smart enough to make a decent system for soldiers inside houses. Trust me it was an interface nightmare - it was always a question "accuracy" vs "gameplay". ToW is the game in the first instance and it has to be fun and not the struggle against interface panels and buttons.

Also, you hardcore guys, wouldn't be probably really impressed by this - but the ultimate goal for us was to make this game interesting and playble for kids that are now playing James Bond style arcades. We want to get them hooked on REAL games like CM, IL-2 or ToW, so that we will all see fresh blood joining these forums. How many kids under 18 nowdays really understand what happend in 1939-1945? That can make a difference between KV-1 and PZ-4 ? Hopefully this game will change something and convert a few thousand kids into wargamers. That's why it took us 5 years to finish this game, to make it equally appealing to super experinced guys like you and newcomers to tactical wargaming...

[Copper]

I think the ability to occupy buildings is a factor that should be included in the game to make it more realistic.

I can remember stories from my uncle fighting in Italy. Clearing out snipers from the upper levels of buildings and machine guns from basements built like bunkers. When the shells started falling he and his squad were running into the lower levels of a stone house and not running out into the fields.

[RMC]

I love it.

"We can't" is answered by

"Make it so."

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Megakill:

Guys, I feel sorry now that we were not smart enough to make a decent system for soldiers inside houses. Trust me it was an interface nightmare - it was always a question "accuracy" vs "gameplay". ToW is the game in the first instance and it has to be fun and not the struggle against interface panels and buttons.

Also, you hardcore guys, wouldn't be probably really impressed by this - but the ultimate goal for us was to make this game interesting and playble for kids that are now playing James Bond style arcades. We want to get them hooked on REAL games like CM, IL-2 or ToW, so that we will all see fresh blood joining these forums. How many kids under 18 nowdays really understand what happend in 1939-1945? That can make a difference between KV-1 and PZ-4 ? Hopefully this game will change something and convert a few thousand kids into wargamers. That's why it took us 5 years to finish this game, to make it equally appealing to super experinced guys like you and newcomers to tactical wargaming...

Excellent statement. That was the way I saw the game from the moment I read that BFC was going to publish the game. It's a way to ease the unwashed millions of gamers who have no idea that wargames even exist and bring them into the wargaming community - even if they don't realize they're being pulled in. The game has enough realism to keep us older hands happy and is accessible enough for the new guys to easily adapt to. Brilliant idea that, I think, will help everyone in the long run.

I haven't seen too many people around here under the age of 25 - nevermind 21 or 18 - lately.

[Tarquelne]

The game has enough realism to keep us older hands happy and is accessible enough for the new guys to easily adapt to. Brilliant idea that, I think, will help everyone in the long run.

Young players who don't pay attention to the "grogy" details join up and get pummeled in games by the old hands? Good thinking!

[John Kettler]

Megakill has confirmed my suspicions. ToW is the gateway E-drug to E-crack (CM, etc.)! And those poor, innocent RTsers get to self-finance their own

path to mega addiction.

(cackles maniacally)

Regards,

John Kettler

[Megakill]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Megakill has confirmed my suspicions. ToW is the gateway E-drug to E-crack (CM, etc.)! And those poor, innocent RTsers get to self-finance their own

path to mega addiction.

(cackles maniacally)

Regards,

John Kettler

Exactly! Too bad everybody knows that... :eek: :cool:

[Thomm]

Did any of those who witnessed ToW in action also play "Brothers in Arms"?

I love the way the soldiers in that game interact with the environment and would like to know how well the soldiers in ToW compete with that game in terms of environmental interaction!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Megakill]

Well I wonder how do you compare tactical wargaem to a first person shooter? ))

It is like comparing ToW with another game of ours - Faces of War.

[Thomm]

Well, it was written numerous time on this board by the respected folks of Battlefront.com how well the soldiers use cover, how much cover is available (detailed environment, and so forth ...).

Now my question was how well - and realistically - the soldiers use the available cover. Since this question cannot be answered easily in absolute terms I tried to offer a comparison to what I personally consider the benchmark at the present time, namely "Brothers in Arms". And I do not think it matters that the latter is a FPS; it is more a question of data-structures and algorithms.

As a counter-example, many are familiar with the well-established, "traditional" tile based approach of CC (or EYSA, for that matter). Here, it is difficult to resolve problems like "which side of the fence am I on as soon as I am on a 2mx 2m fence tile"?

I assume that soldier-object-interaction in ToW is much more subtle and I am seeking for confirmation

Best regards,

Thomm

[Megakill]

Probably Martins AAR will answer questions.

About guys running for trenches, etc, etc.

[Thomm]

Trenches are not challenging enough!

I want to see guys hiding behind trees!!!!

Best regards,

Thomm