Yskonyn Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 It still remains silent on the official side. . . Anyone popcorn? Steve, have you finished your bucket already?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I wish! I've been knee deep in various things and haven't had time to verify a couple of the low level details with Charles yet. It's been a long time since we designed this aspect of the game (close to 3 years ago!!) and almost as long since it was implemented. So I'm a bit rusty on some of the specifics. But he's busy so I'll try and answer your various questions as best I can from memory. However, you guys have it pretty much correct for the Elite Mode. Remember, things are different for each Mode so you need to be specific about which one you're talking about because there might be different answers to a specific question. Here are some points based on Elite: 1. Solid "?" are very strong probable knowledge of an enemy in a particular position. Recently spotted units that go temporarily out of sight, for example. Units that there has been some C2 communications about. That sort of thing. 2. Faded "?" represent those things which are suspected, but no longer considered near certain. 3. Relative Spotting means each and every one of your units has the POTENTIAL for a different perspective on who is seen and where. This can get confusing, on purpose actually, when the enemy is highly mobile in fairly good cover. Chances are different friendly units will spot the same enemy unit in different locations at different points in time. With no units selected you see the sum of all known, probable, and suspected enemy positions. With an individual unit selected you see what it's understanding of the battlefield is. 4. Over time the "?" fade because without this feature the map would be so overloaded with "?" that the information would basically become useless. 5. The "?" cover any and all forms of contact, be it sound or sight. 6. Erroneous "?" are removed when the unit that spotted them gets a clue. Other units, out of the communications loop, will continue to come to their own conclusions. 7. With infantry units, if you spot 1 guy in 13 or 3 guys in 5 you get a single "?". In other words, the single guy has alerted you that there is a unit there, not that there is a single soldier there. Remember, there's no way to know which "?" are real and which ones are fake. This was true in CMx1 as well, but in that case there were no multiple false sightings. Either you knew where the unit was or had ONE suggestion of where it might be. What Relative Spotting and C2 add is a better portrayal of battlefield uncertainty and misinformation. I've seen some people claim that C2 doesn't appear to do anything. My suspicion is that these players are playing as Blue and are keeping their forces in good shape. Since Blue forces have amazing capabilities for keeping information accurate and well populated amongst its units, the amount of confusion caused by Relative Spotting is minimal. But switch sides to the Red, especially a hodgepodge of misc. units, and you'll probably see exactly the opposite. For example, while play testing the new Marines scenario for the v1.11 Demo I played as Red several times. In one case Blue moved along my peripheral view of the battlefield. Lots of buildings and trees breaking up my ability to spot enemy movement and maintain visual contact. I had lots of eyes, but they were not connected to each other either by organization or by equipment. At one point I thought a whole f'n battalion was moving along my flank It turned out to be a couple of trucks with a few cocky Marines in back. I figured this out only after I committed my reserves to cover that area, so I can say for sure that my scrambled up view of the battlefield had a major impact on how I conducted my ops. Unfortunately his real main force knocked out 2 of mobile assets that I was relocating to go deal with the phantom problem on my flank. Doh Now, we are planning on expanding CMx2's way of getting information over to the user. The first thing we're going to do is reintroduce bogus information like we had in CMx1. You know, the fun stuff like thinking a MkIV Panzer is really a Panther, or vice versa. Another thing we will eventually do (though I can't say exactly when) is have the "?" icons replaced with generalized force specific icons. This is what Other Means was talking about on the previous page. That way you can look at the icon and have a better idea of what you're troops think they saw. How's that? Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Thanks for taking the time, Steve! Still, the question remains: Do the Question Markers give a spotting bonus to the AI or are they merely cosmetical? Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yskonyn Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Thanks for the input! Now finish that popcorn! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 Thanks for the reply Steve. One more question, do units receive some sort of spotting bonus if they receive a "?" via the C2 link? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I'm waiting on an answer from Charles about that last question since I doubt the answer is as simple as the question For example, the enemy AI doesn't have a clue what to do about uncertain "?" because that would require very large amounts of deductive reasoning. We don't have a government research grant or a Cray super computer to make that happen As was pointed out above, the more certain "?" are treated like enemy units by the TacAI *if* a unit was already firing at it when it was fully spotted. That's a new feature. More when I get it, but Charles is a very busy boy these days. He's importing models for two Modules and Normandy this week. That's more important me thinks Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 No, what's important is feeding us juicy bones about the new icons for spotting question marks and when we get the Brit module 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Thanks for the info, Steve...looking forward to those force-specific icons so I will finally know what I'm not seeing . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 No, what's important is feeding us juicy bones about the new icons for spotting question marks and when we get the Brit module I wish it were but I think we'll have to wait longer than the British mod. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 we are planning on expanding CMx2's way of getting information over to the user. The first thing we're going to do is reintroduce bogus information like we had in CMx1. You know, the fun stuff like thinking a MkIV Panzer is really a Panther, or vice versa. Or worse yet, thinking a Panzer IV is a Tiger. Another thing we will eventually do (though I can't say exactly when) is have the "?" icons replaced with generalized force specific icons. This is what Other Means was talking about on the previous page. That way you can look at the icon and have a better idea of what you're troops think they saw. One thing about CMSF which breaks immersion for me a little bit is the fact that you can know more about a currently spotted unit than you ever could in CMx1, even if that unit is on the far side of the map -- you know which force it belongs to (different forces within both Blue and Red, as well as different flavors of Uncon), what echelon it is, whether it's an HQ, what rank the unit's leader is. Sergeant: "Hey Lieutenant, y'know that bunch of tangos we saw run into that building?" Lieutenant: "Yeah; what about 'em?" Sergeant: "I caught a glimpse of the lead tango's rank badge with my binocs; he's a corporal." =P In CMx1, even a unit of yours which has been trading grenades for several minutes with an enemy unit for won't know much about that enemy unit beyond what sort of unit it is. So I'm glad that this is going to be adjusted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 If we could adjust the level of knowledge of enemy units a bit with varying difficulty levels, that would be an improvement. I think the instant knowledge of an HQ is a bit premature at Elite difficulty. In some cases, it may be correct, if radios are present, or the HQ unit is observed with HQ pennants. Otherwise, a generic soldier icon might be more realistic. So, add my vote to Dietrich's post. Thanks, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 We're going to change how information about the enemy is shown when we get to Normandy. More uncertainty. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yair Iny Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 More when I get it, but Charles is a very busy boy these days. He's importing models for two Modules and Normandy this week. That's more important me thinks Steve Two Modules???? Does this mean that the RestOfNato module is in advanced stages as well? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Or the first Normandy module perhaps? :0 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Its the space lobster module for the unannounced surprise game Combat Mission: Crustecean Wars. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falconander Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Awww sweet..... I love Lobster... pass the butter.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Anyone here play the XCOM series of games? Also known as UFO: Enemy Unknown in some countries? I remember the second game was 'Terror from the deep', where the aliens were underwater...one of the alien species was a man-sized lobster kind of thing...just reminded me. I loved those games, but the later follow-ons got worse and worse... Geez, CM meets XCOM would probably be the bestest game EVER!!!! Battlefront, meet Microprose, Microprose, meet Battlefront . Damn, turns out Microprose has been sold and resold and reresold...it's still a brand of sorts but I don't think they've done anything worth mentioning in years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 You guys have NO IDEA how much I want to make Space Lobsters using, amongst others, X-COM as inspiration. But alas... it won't be possible to do for a couple of years at the earliest. Dang it all! Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Come on Steve. The lastest Call of Duty managed to work in Nazi Zombies, so I'm sure you could sneak something into Normandy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 I think I've got a fever, and the only prescription is....MORE SPACE LOBSTERS! We need to do this, Steve...hire me, I've played the heck out of every single XCOM game except 'Interceptor', which hardly counts, and every CM game. And I can even program in Java! Plus I'm drunk which has to be a benefit to making Space Lobsters! Will work for another beer...you have my email...i prefer Ottakringer but any brew will do 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Steve, I will be around hopefully in a few years and then we can talk more about Space Lobsters First Screenshots I see will make me a happy old man 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Ideally any X-COM type game has three layers, the tactical, the strategic and researching alien technologies. SLOD just will have to have a strategic layer that allows you to build your bases. Except that those bases wouldn't hold teams of men, they'd be built for whole companies! The peak of military technology that you could reach would of course have to be Bren Tripod (but it'd be a three-legged mecha). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 That's the issue with doing Space Lobsters. We could do the tactical warfare thing "fairly" easily. It probably would be a lot of fun too. But it isn't what we all want. We want the strategic layer in there where you customize team members' kit, hire replacements, research technology, etc. Obviously we don't have any of that sort of stuff in the game now and we don't need it for anything OTHER than Space Lobsters. Because it's a huge amount of designing/coding/testing and yet isn't applicable to anything else... kinda creates some practical hurdles for us. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Obviously we don't have any of that sort of stuff in the game now and we don't need it for anything OTHER than Space Lobsters. Ah yes, but if you added 'hooks' to the tactical engine that could open setups produced by a separate SLOD strategic engine, then you would also have ready compatibility for CMC2! Clearly a win-win situation! :D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 We have to have the haddock launcher in CM:SLOD. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.