BUILDINGS,,,has this been fixed yet??

[pwncake]

tnx for your quick reply Moon,

k we'll see what availability dates the team comes up.

just hope that MP will not suffer much.

I can understand that in a scenario everything is a little bit balanced because it plays better.

[Marc Anton]

Trees are not really trees, they represent "tree terrain". Soldiers are not really soldiers, they represent a squad. A door isn't a door - any unit can enter a building from anywhere. This doesn't work for a game like TOW which is much more "what you see is what you get" than CM ever was.

I dont agree.

Look at Sudden Strike 3 - Soldiers entering houses at the front door and then disappear.

The player gets a symbol to see who is in the building and thats ok.

You dont need furniture to simulate it.

[Vern_S]

I like the way CoH handles buildings. For ToW one would think you could do something similar but it's not to be I suppose. Still it would appear that ToW will be a welcome addition to my wargame collection and get much use...

I wonder how CM:SF handles buildings.

[ZaPPPa]

CoH abstracts it as well. Units enter building and then are placed statically at the windows. There's really not a whole lot of animations involved and there's no need for furniture.

[Directive#21]

CoH abstracts it as well. Units enter building and then are placed statically at the windows. There's really not a whole lot of animations involved...

This idea had occured to me as well... though I could never bring myself to buy CoH after playing CMBB for the last 4 years.

Moon, as a future solution, would it be possible to 'simulate' indoor combat and use only external graphical representaion(i.e. entering from the doors and firing from the windows etc.)?

Anyway, I am so pleased that battlefront is involved with ToW. There are no WW2 sims on the horizon that compete with ToW now that CMSF is modern combat. ToW may very well hold me over until they can put together a WW2 module for CMx2.

I am very greatful for the opportunity to play this game (which I never thought would see release) regardless of which design compromises were made.

Thanks Moon.

-Zach

[Moon]

The shortcuts you're describing are probably what the devs would have to do in order to implement indoor combat for TOW as well I would imagine, to at least make it halfway manageable in terms of coding effort and support. The fact that these other games, including COH the current holy grail of glitzfest WW2 games, are doing it this way should be a hint that we know what we're talking about regarding coding efforts.

Martin

[TTorpedo]

Hi all.

I ´ve been following the game for just a couple of months. I seem to be shaping to be the next "thing" for strategy fans, Nevertheless i´m waiting for the demo on this one. No smoke, the fuss around cover model and linear game play..well i still think it will be a blast!

One thing puzzles me is Wy did´t 1C pick the GEM engine instead of this IL2 ? They, 1C, worked with Bestway (GEM dev) on Faces of War . Maybe to late... well not for TOW2

In case you´r wonder Wat's this GEM check FOW, looks better than COH, fully destructible buildings that provides cover after and before..failing trees that stay on ground, you can enter buildings all the models and effects are done! they just need a realistic approach on gameplay

And no i´m not a Candy eye dependent i still play Close Combat.. but it shore makes you wonder

I sincerely hope the gameplay on this TOW makes one forget about graphics on the spot! (when i play CC it takes me a map to forget about the engine limitations)

[Vergeltung]

whining and complaining on boards like these is endemic in every game format, and for every new release. it's the human condition (or at least, the modern human).

it usually goes something like this.. "OMG! I can't believe this game is being released with (insert tedious pet peeve here) in it! I mean, what a deal breaker. I am not buying this until a demo comes out...blah blah blah"

it's a broken record. I just ignore them and game, like I have always done.

[Kellysheroes]

Sorry, but, I just don't buy that mess Moon put out about bad design for blah blah. To me not having the "popular" elements of game design within the design is just "bad game design". Not having entering urban houses/buildings, no 88's, no on board mortars is as bad as buying a Lamborgini or Mazaradi and the "designer" says, oh sorry, but, we didn't include "air conditioning". But, it's still a great car and goes just fast. lol Bad game design plain and simple.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by Kellysheroes:

Sorry, but, I just don't buy that mess Moon put out about bad design for blah blah. To me not having the "popular" elements of game design within the design is just "bad game design". Not having entering urban houses/buildings, no 88's, no on board mortars is as bad as buying a Lamborgini or Mazaradi and the "designer" says, oh sorry, but, we didn't include "air conditioning". But, it's still a great car and goes just fast. lol Bad game design plain and simple.

How stunningly brilliant of you to so roundly condemn a game without a second of playing it. Amazing. Sure, the things you name would be nice to have but do I really miss them when playing? No, not really.

Oh, and by the way: Ferrari F40

[gunnersman]

If you drive cars that can go as fast as they do you don't need air conditioning.

[iplaygames2]

Originally posted by Kellysheroes:

Sorry, but, I just don't buy that mess Moon put out about bad design for blah blah. To me not having the "popular" elements of game design within the design is just "bad game design". Not having entering urban houses/buildings, no 88's, no on board mortars is as bad as buying a Lamborgini or Mazaradi and the "designer" says, oh sorry, but, we didn't include "air conditioning". But, it's still a great car and goes just fast. lol Bad game design plain and simple.

Silver star for the most negative post of the day! If those things all lead you to call it "bad game design", then why bother reading/posting here? I hate FPS games; you don't see me critiquing them on their own boards.

[Hpt. Lisse]

I think this is most likely a limitation due to a 6-year old graphics engine. If 1C had known this whole project would have taken so long, perhaps they would have taken a year to import the whole shebang into the GEM engine. (Can the GEM engine even handle TOW distances, etc.?) There were simply key moments in the dev cycle where 1C decided whether to push forward with the heavily modified IL-2 engine, or scrap it to build something else (big $$$, esp. with no return on 6 years worth of effort.)

Is there a way to trick this? Could "Bunkers" have assigned slots, which are filled w/a squad's small arms, etc.? Could the TOW audience deal with simplified/abstracted building occupancy? Only time will tell. But I wouldn't call these (esp. 6 dev years ago) shortcomings "Bad game design."

[theBrit]

As a bridge gap, as you say buidings could in essence be bunkers. You assign a squad or individual to enter the building and the structure then becomes a hardpoint with fields of fire. The more storey's add hit bonuses to take into consideration elevation. Its not ideal but its better than nothing...

[FI_Macca]

Moon explained why the soldiers-entering-houses feature has not been implemented into the game and I am pleased with this explanation. Maybe TOW 2 will have this feature. Now Im getting TOW and am going to enjoy it. I just see that some would like to see a message from the devs/publisher getting down on their knees saying "We are sorry, sorry, sorry, please forgive us we didnt let the soldiers enter buildings". Constant whining about lack of this feature... Ok, it isn't in the game, finito. I can live with that. Id rather dont see this feature in the game rather than see it too much simplified or done wrong.

my 2 cents.

[theBrit]

I was not whining.....

I was merely giving ideas on how dev's or modders may get around the problem. I too have ordered the game and I WILL ENJOY IT TOO. I personally fall into the wait till TOW2 camp, but I also enjoy the freedom of speech this forum allows for all ideas. Stiffle that and this forum dies.

my pounds worth!

[TTorpedo]

I to have great expectations about this game, i guess as anyone else around here, or we would´t bother to post at all.

More important we all represent a bit of a rather small corner of the game market. Being pleased to have a game "made for us" doens´t automatically set it above any criticism. In the end is gamers expectation and feedback that will push the game/ series? forward

6 years development as is costs, better late than never and they are finally over.. no time to change anything just to wait..Hope to see you all soon on the fields (hopefully first than you see me

[MeatEtr]

Originally posted by gunnersman:

If you drive cars that can go as fast as they do you don't need air conditioning.

Uhh, yeah, going 80+ mph, just roll down window, that'll be all the AC you need.

[gunnersman]

This whole topic was debated when ToW first showed up here at Battlefront. And in one of the threads it was stated that mortars were in at one point, forests were in at one point and going indoors was a capability. All were taken out for one reason or another due to certain limitations (I'll let you do the search for it).

The fact of the matter is there aren't any maps where going indoors would be a factor deciding any big outcome. As I look back on it there was never any point where I was wishing I could go inside of a building.

[Fetid]

Originally posted by Vern_S:

I totally agree with Martin's perspective on this. "TOW" simulates "Open" Warfare across the broad expanse of Europe. The issue of entering houses for this type of warfare is mute at best. Even while playing "CoH", blasphemy I know, I find myself staying out of buildings more times then naught and set up defenses around buildings using them as a shield or focusing a choke point. Buildings can be a death trap. No room to maneuver. Out flank an occupied building, toss in a few grenades and let the bar-b-Q begin.

Now that's not to say that "Urban" Warfare wouldn't be a great addition to the "ToW" franchise. Can you say "Theatre of War: Stalingrad". Urban warfare at it's bloodiest. It would be an awesome expansion!!!

I do think that the "ToW" Franchise has legs and will go places.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Agreed. By the end of WW2 only the biggest cities had buildings left. Rural houses, by 1942 were largely gone as they were routinely destroyed to stop the enemy from hiding there. Open areas became barren. Unless we're talking about deep in the mountains of the Ardennes or down near the Alps. Yes, small towns and individual buildings survived in those areas. That's not to say that ALL structures were destroyed, but it would be a very dangerous thing to even sleep in a farmhouse because any enemy sighting it was likely to level it on sight just to make sure no one is hiding in it. Unless your troops NEEDED the building as an HQ or something else, it was SOP (Standard OPerating Proceedure) to level isolated buildings. In Russia, troops would use them to stay warm, but they were big targets and what better way to disrupt the enemy infantry then to fire on a heavily occupied building or house where, in the cold, everyone was located.

It would be a good second game to include urban environments.