CMx2:Normandy questions

[Gryphon]

Hey BFC,

I shamelessly bump these questions as they were missed in the things to come thread Anyway, i don't think any of these were answered before and i was, as always curious about the WW2 version of CMx2

Will we have individual turret/vehicle numbers this time around? This was one of the things that was sadly missing in CM1. It would give the vehicles more character imho, especially when you move round core units in the campaign.

Also, when are we going to see the first model screenshots? You guys had shown some CMSF models well before the game was out, so I was hoping we could get a preview of some of the equipment

Will Normandy's models also possess even more detail and polygons?

And what about some of the animations, the hunt animation for soldiers currently looks a little odd.. will we see something were the soldiers move slower perhaps with their weapons ironsighted, and of course the weapons not held in SWAT fashion

Regards,

Gryphon

[istari]

Unfortunately, I don't have any answers for you Gryphon, but I am going to add a question to your list...

You make a good point about WWII troops not moving with SWAT-style animations of modern infantry. That got me thinking about how impressed I am with the infantry AI in 1.10. They really move and react like highly trained professionals. I was particularly impressed last night to watch a Marine team assaulting up in bounding overwatch, time their grenade toss perfectly into a trench, leap down and pause to finish off a few cowering defenders, then charge through keeping appropriate spacing and weapons boresited.

So here's my question...

Will we actually see a less competent infantry AI for WWII Normandy? Yes there were US Airborne, 1st Division veterans from North Africa, German Fallschirmjaeger, etc, so the elites should be highly skilled professionals as good or better than modern US troops. Yet these elite were a small minority of the WWII battlefield. Bolger made the point a few years ago that even your vanilla line battalion in the modern US Army would be considered elite in WWII terms. In other words, green citizen draftees or German conscripts in CMx2 Normandy shouldn't move with the precision and training of modern US Marines, right?

Chris

[Michael Emrys]

Will we actually see a less competent infantry AI for WWII Normandy? Yes there were US Airborne, 1st Division veterans from North Africa, German Fallschirmjaeger, etc, so the elites should be highly skilled professionals as good or better than modern US troops. Yet these elite were a small minority of the WWII battlefield. Bolger made the point a few years ago that even your vanilla line battalion in the modern US Army would be considered elite in WWII terms. In other words, green citizen draftees or German conscripts in CMx2 Normandy shouldn't move with the precision and training of modern US Marines, right?

Good point. Of course that will mean more programming effort and time...

Michael

[salwon]

What about troops that start off green, but gain experience through a campaign? You know, the old "if you're here tomorrow you'll be a veteran." Or would a scenario designer have to hard-code that in?

[Michael Emrys]

What about troops that start off green, but gain experience through a campaign? You know, the old "if you're here tomorrow you'll be a veteran." Or would a scenario designer have to hard-code that in?

Wouldn't work unless you also had provision for units taking casualties and incorporating green replacements for instance. This might be way too much overhead for either the programmer or the computer. Besides which, different units did not learn at the same rate or necessarily the right lessons. Yet more overhead.

Let's be realistic, this is a game company, not the RAND corporation.

Michael

[Gpig]

Gryphon, I've been thinking of those very same things. Especially the movement of infantry from yester-years.

Men running while holding onto their helmets (G.I.s only?). Men moving up in a crouch, but not SWAT style. Weapons held at the ready, or slung low. Shooting from the hips, even.

The low sprint across a road/hedgerow/alley. Crawling on hands and knees along a trench.

Lots of fun, flavourful ideas out there.

Gpig

[Holman]

Green units should definitely bunch up when under fire.

[Battlefront.com]

We'd love to put in tons of animations. Unfortunately, we've not really found commercial samples that are worth a damned, nor 3D animators who are willing to squeeze in another couple of hours' work in a day after spending 14 or so for a day job. KwazyDog (Dan) is our internal artist and his dance card is quite full. So we're still trying to solve the bottleneck on getting more animations into the game.

Gpig knows how difficult it is to get guys to help out I also talked about this with my cousin this weekend at a family gathering. He and his wife work for big Hollywood production companies (including a certain outfit in Kiwiland). The people best qualified to help us out are the ones with the least amount of time available. Or they want Hollywood hourly rates, which are a wee bit out of our budget.

Turret numbers on the sides of tanks... eventually it will happen. Not sure if Normandy will get that or not.

Pics and what not of WW2 stuff will come around sooner rather than later.

I don't think the models for Normandy will have more polygons. I can't imagine what that would even look like since the current ones are already frik'n huge!

Steve

[Gryphon]

Hey there Steve

Any news on the animations for the Normandy game? I'd love to see some more appropriate WW2 ones, especially for the hunt command. And of course the way the units hold their rifles.

Also, when are we going to see some model renderings like we did for CMSF? I'd love to see weapon, infantry or tank models!

On another note, will we also hear the forward observer-artillery communication in the normandy game? this added so much to the atmosphere in CMSF marines!

Finally, what about the damage models/animations on tanks? any improvement there? (a catastrophic explosion disintegrating the tank for example )

Regards,

Gryphon

[Battlefront.com]

It's on the list, but we're not nearly to that part of the development yet. Animations are a really big problem for small shops like us, unfortunately. We are working on some options already.

Renders and other visual bones are likely in the near future.

Everything that is in the game now will be in Normandy if applicable. Radio coms for artillery is applicable for sure. Different lingo, perhaps, would be appropriate. Not sure at the moment what the calls were back then.

The game engine is designed to handle different model states based on damage. For example, when you hit ERA armor the blocks are blown off. Unfortunately, more complex things like different destroyed states requires hand made alternative models for them to look right. The quick and dirty turret/gun things we did in CMx1 barely looked OK then, but now they would look silly We're not sure at what point we'll start to have more detailed knocked out graphics.

Steve

[Dietrich]

what about some of the animations, the hunt animation for soldiers currently looks a little odd.. will we see something were the soldiers move slower perhaps with their weapons ironsighted, and of course the weapons not held in SWAT fashion

WW2-era soldiers moved and held their rifles/carbines/SMGs different than modern-day soldiers for several reasons.

The typical WW2-era rifle was built to serve secondarily as a close-combat weapon. Being bolt-action and having a solid fixed stock and fitted (often) with a bayonet, in situations where the enemy could appear suddenly at close/point-blank range, the rifle was meant to be held at the waist, ready for squeezing off a single shot (not having time to reload) before wading in and attacking with the rifle itself.

The typical modern-day rifle is not built to serve secondarily as a close-combat weapon. Being festooned with components (optic sight, laser pointer, forelight, etc.) which, though built to be durable, are not so tough (compared to the rifle itself), and fitted with a sling (enabling the infantrymen to keep his weapon with him yet have both hands free when needed), the modern rifle, in CQB situations, is meant to be held at the shoulder, ready to squeeze off a burst or two at any suddenly-appearing enemy.

Ironsighting means narrowing your field of vision markedly and thus is unsuitable for close-combat situtations. Modern rifles are typically fitted with optic sights, a fair number of which are designed for both-eyes-open use for greater situational awareness and faster target acquisition. Even the modern-day weapons which are generally not fitted with optic sights (AK-74s, AKMs, etc.) are semi-auto, if not full-auto, and so are better held at the shoulder and ready to fire at a split second's notice.

Having said all this, though, I cannot specifically recall if in CMSF infantrymen (even USMC/US Army ones) have their M4s, etc., at the shoulder and ready to open fire while on the move via the Hunt command.

Radio coms for artillery is applicable for sure.

In other words, when a request for artillery is made, the player hears the correspondence between the FO and the battery?

The game engine is designed to handle different model states based on damage. For example, when you hit ERA armor the blocks are blown off. Unfortunately, more complex things like different destroyed states requires hand made alternative models for them to look right. The quick and dirty turret/gun things we did in CMx1 barely looked OK then, but now they would look silly We're not sure at what point we'll start to have more detailed knocked out graphics.

What about how armor penetration is visually modelled in Theatre of War? In that game (which, admittedly, is not nearly as good as CMSF ), a penetration is shown at the corresponding point on the model by a fairly realistic-looking distorted black circle, and even when a tank's turret is knocked off its ring by a hit, the turret model simply tilts slightly. Perhaps a .bmp (or a set of .bmps) could be coded to appear on a tank's or model where there's been a penetration -- no changes would necessarily need to be made to the model. When a tank brews up, some sort of 'blackened' .bmp could be applied over the tank's default .bmp to show where the exterior has been scorched. But if these sound like hokey 'fixes', I understand.

[hcrof]

Just out of interest, is all the ERA modeled to dissapear when hit? Because I swear I have seen tanks take multiple front turret hits and not lose ERA.

I definatly love the feature though. The first time I saw a T-55 take a hit on its ERA and lose a couple of blocks was just awsome!

[Gryphon]

What about how armor penetration is visually modelled in Theatre of War? In that game (which, admittedly, is not nearly as good as CMSF ), a penetration is shown at the corresponding point on the model by a fairly realistic-looking distorted black circle, and even when a tank's turret is knocked off its ring by a hit, the turret model simply tilts slightly. Perhaps a .bmp (or a set of .bmps) could be coded to appear on a tank's or model where there's been a penetration -- no changes would necessarily need to be made to the model. When a tank brews up, some sort of 'blackened' .bmp could be applied over the tank's default .bmp to show where the exterior has been scorched. But if these sound like hokey 'fixes', I understand.

First of all thanks for the replies Steve! I'm still hoping for some more detailed animations, but artillery-FO chatter in German sure is going to make my day! Also because i am quite curious about it

And i kind of second that idea above, a small overlay on the model as seen in ToW would greatly add immersion. Also, is it not possible to place some black semi-transparent layer over the vehicle when it's a brew up (like mentioned above)? Or what about simply adding more fire effects? Like a real brew up? These look especially violent, and particle effects are already in, so... granted, this is a missile hit, but i would expect the same sort of fireworks from an ordinary AP round

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1093165/armed_tank_get_hit_by_anti_tank_missile/

[Battlefront.com]

Dietrich,

In other words, when a request for artillery is made, the player hears the correspondence between the FO and the battery?

Yes, like is in the game now, but probably with different "lingo".

What about how armor penetration is visually modelled in Theatre of War? In that game (which, admittedly, is not nearly as good as CMSF ), a penetration is shown at the corresponding point on the model by a fairly realistic-looking distorted black circle, and even when a tank's turret is knocked off its ring by a hit, the turret model simply tilts slightly.

[Thomm]

It would be cool to a have at least some "vectors" or arrows stick out of vehicles where shells hit. I know that I have seen this in games, but do not remember where. A flight sim, perhaps. This would have even more info than decals (angle of incident, e.g.) and should be *comparatively* easy to implement.

Best regards,

Thomm

[hcrof]

That would be cool but as much as I would like it sometimes, the feeling of realism would (In my opinion) be severely hit. It's gamey enough to watch 3 to 4 replays of an incoming RPG to guess where it came from but vectors would make it very easy to find those hidden AT units

Now, a replay function to watch the battle afterwards with hit vectors would be awsome!

[Gryphon]

It would be cool to a have at least some "vectors" or arrows stick out of vehicles where shells hit. I know that I have seen this in games, but do not remember where. A flight sim, perhaps. This would have even more info than decals (angle of incident, e.g.) and should be *comparatively* easy to implement.

Best regards,

Thomm

This was possibl in Il2-Sturmovik with "arcade mode" switched on in the conf.ini It would be sort of cool to have this, with a realism option to switch off the vectors.

[Wrath of Dagon]

What about all the complaints about Russian and some other allied guns being undermodeled in CMX1? Will that be addressed, or does Battlefront feel they got it about right to begin with?

[rune]

The Russians fought in Normandy?

Rune

[Chainsaw]

The Russians fought in Normandy?

Rune

Yeah, calle "ostbattalions"

on the other hand, if the actually fought before they surrendered I dont know... :eek:

[JonS]

Yeah, calle "ostbattalions"

Heh. There were even a reasonable nuber of Russian 76.2mm guns and hows in Normandy. And heavier calibres in more limited numbers.

on the other hand, if the actually fought before they surrendered I dont know... :eek:

Some did fight, but not often, not many, and usually not effectively.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The Russians fought in Normandy?

Rune

Yes, sorry about that, I forgot this was Normandy and not WW2 in general. But I think there are similar complaints about Sherman guns for example, and my question still stands for whenever the Russians make it in.

[Battlefront.com]

Gryphon,

This was possibl in Il2-Sturmovik with "arcade mode" switched on in the conf.ini It would be sort of cool to have this, with a realism option to switch off the vectors.

It was also in T-72 Balkans on Fire, which we sell. It's great for AARs when you want to see exactly what happened to each tank. It's not a good thing during the game since it's a big break from realism.

Wrath of Dagon ,

What about all the complaints about Russian and some other allied guns being undermodeled in CMX1? Will that be addressed, or does Battlefront feel they got it about right to begin with?

Pick a weapon system, any weapon system, and you'll find some people complaining it is over modeled and some complaining that it's under modeled. So the answer to your question is yeah, we feel we had it about right

Steve

[Gryphon]

Any idea on when we can expect a Normandy forum? Or is that after the release of the British module? And can you actually give us an indication of the work that is done or still has to be done on Normandy? I'd personally love a detailed update

[Pandur]

as the thread says;

1. did german or US halftracks carry any rifle ammo or stuff for the squad they carried? if yes, will the same aquire system be in CM normandy as we are used to it in CMSF? or maybe ammo trucks you have to embark and take it from there or something like that? dont know.

2. how where the "average"(i know ) US and german rifle squads put together in the time CM normandy will play? in the end i want to know if we get any option to split squads again as in CMx1 and CMSF, and if yes how could it look like? can we exclude 2 man MG team oder simple split of 50/50?

3. is there possibly a chance of fire for CM normandy!? like burning buildings or vegetation wich spreads with the wind again! this was awsome. i guess it would be hard to get it to look right and be easy on FPS in CMx2 but it was a nice thing to the game combined with ampulomet(!?) and flame tanks. EDIT: is there any chance at all that CMx2 will see fire like CMx1!?

thanks,