Jump to content

Normandy Bone


Recommended Posts

Replayability is my #1 concern. Whether I decide to buy this or not depends on what is being done with the quick battles.

I'd like to hear more about that.

Replayability for me will be how good the immersion factor is.

Improvement on the trees/plants from what ive seen of CMSF is a must! (and I know they are doing it).

The vehicles are already very well done.

Soldier details I am sure will be equally well done.

Buildings - I hope go beyond the standard 4 walls and a pyramid roof - relying on just textures to show that its a barn or house. ( I realise this can be a memory hog - but it could be done low poly).

Also the ability in the map maker to create realistic scenarios off real maps/photos etc... and to have it at least be in the region of looking correct!

I dont want much do I :D

Cant wait for this one, pitty it will be after Christmas...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 300
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The screenshot looks very nice! I was concerned that the colours in CM:Normandy were going to have a dull look like in CMSF. Yeah I know it was set in dusty arid terrrain; but it did look a bit lifeless. I'm glad to say I was greatly mistaken. These colours are much more vibrant. I think were in for a treat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also the ability in the map maker to create realistic scenarios off real maps/photos etc... and to have it at least be in the region of looking correct!

I'm not sure what you mean, currently a designer can build a map off a real map/photo it just requires alot of time and patience.

Are you talking about some sort of automated image scanning process? The image would have to contain elevation data and the program would need to be able to interpret features on the image as game objects. Your talking about an editor program that would take more time to build than the game itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps he just means a map overlay/underlay for the map editor, like in Empires of Steel, or Mapping Mission for the CMx1 games. It certainly makes it easier and more precise to reproduce the terrain features such as roads correctly, rather than alt-tabbing back and forth or by some other method. That still leaves you with elevations, building manipulation and so on, but it's certainly a time saver if you try to be accurate.

Empires of Steel:

image015.jpg

(Another time saver is to get drunk and say good bye to accuracy, that's how all Ker Dessel* scenarios are born.)

*Ker Dessel - when it's called a setup for a reason!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just one word to say about the need to destroy bridges: "The Bridge Over the River Kwai".

:)

It all sounds good...

Ken

Edited to add: I am not in the "destructible (is that a word?) bridges or the game is broken" party. Quite the contrary; it would be a nice addition, but is certainly not a requirement for a great game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick follow ups...

No, the bridges will not have their carrying capacity degraded due to damage or demolitions. Again, we're not building Bridge Mission :) Improvements over time may include things like that, but for right now the things I mentioned in the Blog are huge steps forward and we're quite content with that being enough for now. Better to spend our time on other leaps instead of minor nudges.

Okay, but let's not exaggerate, unless you would consider CMSF "Building Mission." The concept of showing bridge damage and having that damage affect unit movement is no different than having the intact wall of a building block movement by infantry, then having that partially damaged (breached) wall allow infantry to pass through, just in reverse.

That being said, while it would be nice to have an intermediate damage state for bridges (and it would be logical for that state to affect movement), I fully understand that economy of having a bridge simply either there or not there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, but let's not exaggerate, unless you would consider CMSF "Building Mission." The concept of showing bridge damage and having that damage affect unit movement...

I'd be happy with just the former, being able to show bridge damage... and having rubbled bridge tiles in the editor as well.

So bridge height will be fixed regardless of whether it's an infantry or vehicle bridge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AKD,

Okay, but let's not exaggerate, unless you would consider CMSF "Building Mission."

I was referring to the totality of suggestions being made, not any one particular suggestion. As I said, there's a lot of good suggestions here... just not the sort of stuff that warrants immediate attention.

The concept of showing bridge damage and having that damage affect unit movement is no different than having the intact wall of a building block movement by infantry, then having that partially damaged (breached) wall allow infantry to pass through, just in reverse.

It's not that simple. Think about this from the AI Player's perspective. What happens when the AI is programmed, by the designer, to do certain things that involve a bridge. What happens when that bridge has been suddenly, and without warning, removed completely? It's not like there is a likelihood of equivalent choices to be made. What happens when some of the AI's forces can't cross but some portion can? What happens if that state changes in the middle of crossing?

The chances of the AI successfully recovering from the state of the bridge changing is extremely small. Which then means the Human Player just has to destroy the bridge and its' pretty much all over. Ironically that's not far from the way real combat for bridges works, but it's not much fun in either case.

But we ultimately would like to have damaged/destroyed bridges. At the moment, however, it's not a priority.

That being said, while it would be nice to have an intermediate damage state for bridges (and it would be logical for that state to affect movement), I fully understand that economy of having a bridge simply either there or not there.

It's not that, really. It's simply assessing the amount of time it would take to successfully code up an outlier event and comparing it to core things which are currently waiting for implementation. This isn't a priority for us because it's not a priority for you customers either. Well, except those of you who can look at a list of 1000 suggestions and rate them all AAA HiGH PRIORITY :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flammenwerfer,

So bridge height will be fixed regardless of whether it's an infantry or vehicle bridge?

Not necessarily. Bridge height is fixed for that particular bridge type. Think of it like buildings. A building can be between 1 and 8 stories. A bridge can be between 1 and 8 stories (theoretically ;)). The difference is that for bridges you can opt how many stories a particular building has, for bridges the height is fixed to each particular type of bridge.

The code already supports something like the bridge at Arnhem, which is just a tiny bit bigger than a small little wooden footbridge in the Norman countryside :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the feck?!?!?!? 12 pages of prattling by you slack-jawed yokels and no one the glaring omission? Steve clearly said 'a couple of screenshots'. A couple. That means TWO. I see the same screenie twice, once in color and the other B/W.

We are due another screenie, Steve!

P.S. By the by, looks loverly. I can hardly wait for the release

P.S.S. I think that gave me a Normandy boner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mike_the_wino,

I see the same screenie twice, once in color and the other B/W.

I'll help you with the math...

Color screenshot = 1 screenshot

B&W screenshot = 1 screenshot

--------------------------------------

Color + B&W Screenshots = 2 screenshots

:D

Thomm,

You do not happen to have a screenshot of this handy, do you?

Nice try ;)

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, fights for bridges rigged or being rigged for demolition happened with some frequency, often because defenders were under unrealistic orders to keep bridges intact for retreating defending forces or (usually imaginary) counterattacks. Also, why would only cases of a bridge being successfully dropped in the middle of an attack (and there were many more than just Son) be relevant? What about cases were demolition was prevented because of aggressive action on the part of the attacker? Same problem with a different outcome.

I think bridge demolition should definitely be in, it could be done like Close Combat where the defender has a timer before he can blow it - and the attacker has to take possession for the timer to stop and prevent the bridge being blown.

I know it sounds a little arcade-ish the way ive explained it, but it would be nice to have the option to blow the suckers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean, currently a designer can build a map off a real map/photo it just requires alot of time and patience.

Are you talking about some sort of automated image scanning process? The image would have to contain elevation data and the program would need to be able to interpret features on the image as game objects. Your talking about an editor program that would take more time to build than the game itself.

No I didnt mean it as being that detailed (although it would be good).:D

I dont have CMSF (modern doesnt interest me) but from what ive seen the new engine editor can re-create far more detailed ground details etc...

I am just hoping that the objects, vegetation, buildings etc... are sufficiently well done to maximise immersion into the game. For me the replayability has alot to to with a realistic look and feel.

And no, I dont expect cutting edge graphics - but at least an improvement on the vegetation I have seen in pics and vids of CMSF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll help you with the math...

Color screenshot = 1 screenshot

B&W screenshot = 1 screenshot

--------------------------------------

Color + B&W Screenshots = 2 screenshots

Steve

This is why when Steve says so and so will take a few days or a few weeks, etc., he is so far off the mark. He clearly failed at math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flammenwerfer,

Not necessarily. Bridge height is fixed for that particular bridge type. Think of it like buildings. A building can be between 1 and 8 stories. A bridge can be between 1 and 8 stories (theoretically ;)). The difference is that for bridges you can opt how many stories a particular building has, for bridges the height is fixed to each particular type of bridge.

The code already supports something like the bridge at Arnhem, which is just a tiny bit bigger than a small little wooden footbridge in the Norman countryside :D

Steve

Also, a page of going on about bridges and how awesome they are going to be, but do we get a picture of a bridge? No we do not. Disgusting really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think bridge demolition should definitely be in, it could be done like Close Combat where the defender has a timer before he can blow it - and the attacker has to take possession for the timer to stop and prevent the bridge being blown.

I know it sounds a little arcade-ish the way ive explained it, but it would be nice to have the option to blow the suckers!

This could be done using the IED code and the need for a trigger man with LOS. The trigger man could arrive as a reinforcement at a specified time. The enemys job would then be to bump off the trigger man. He should of course be modded to be wearing a fluorescent orange jump suit and be towing a barrage balloon with "I am the trigger man" emblazoned across it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While all this ejaculation over a few bridges is fine and dandy its not really a significant bone is it? I can see now why Steve is not keen to open up a new forum or even give away any more info. Lets face it, bridges will be very insignificant in the game for a variety of reasons and will more than likely not be much different in practice from what happened in CM-1. Now Im not degrading the bridge chatter here its just a fact.

Lets say I get a game set up, what am I going to do, yes, place my heavy tanks nearer the bridge that can take them, or my AT to cover it etc etc.

The more important bones will affect the way the game plays much more than a bridge. Im thinking, proper foxholes, defensive works, trenches, hand to hand fighting, close armour assaults etc etc etc......

So being able to drive under a bridge, while being absolutely fantastic, doesn't really get my juices flowing.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could be done using the IED code and the need for a trigger man with LOS. The trigger man could arrive as a reinforcement at a specified time. The enemys job would then be to bump off the trigger man. He should of course be modded to be wearing a fluorescent orange jump suit and be towing a barrage balloon with "I am the trigger man" emblazoned across it.

This could all be solved using exploding Normandy cows....:rolleyes:

Kuh Abteilung! oh yeah!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GSX,

While all this ejaculation over a few bridges is fine and dandy its not really a significant bone is it?

Sure it is. I think 13 pages of chatter about it proves that pretty handily.

Lets face it, bridges will be very insignificant in the game for a variety of reasons and will more than likely not be much different in practice from what happened in CM-1. Now Im not degrading the bridge chatter here its just a fact.

No, it's an opinion ;) And might I add, an opinion based on nothing substantial since you don't have CM: Normandy in your hands to compare against CMx1.

A real "fact" is that people asked us for these two significant improvements since CMBO days. Especially the ability to pass under the bridges or to have foot bridges which excluded vehicle traffic (Normandy is loaded with such bridges). When such discussions came up there were usually some ingame needs that couldn't be satisfied with the tools at hand. I can also think of several real world maps we used in CM:SF which were harmed by the lack of bridges that could be passed under.

The more important bones will affect the way the game plays much more than a bridge. Im thinking, proper foxholes, defensive works, trenches, hand to hand fighting, close armour assaults etc etc etc......

No argument that these are important things as well. Nobody ever said that two improvements to bridges constituted the entire list of improvements for Normandy. Therefore, more bones will come about in due time.

The reason I chose the bridge bone is because it's never been mentioned before, while we've had a couple hundred pages of discussion devoted to the topics you mentioned above. Therefore, I'd say that the bridge bone is a superior bone since it's completely new information to you guys vs. confirming things you're already expecting due to comments I've made in the past.

So being able to drive under a bridge, while being absolutely fantastic, doesn't really get my juices flowing.......

Another example of how it isn't possible for us to please everybody all the time :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with both GSX AND Steve here.

Sure, the bridges bone can be seen as less significant than news on various other topics. But a more sophisticated treatment of bridges is also welcome and I expect the new features will quickly come to be seen as indispensable.

I'm imagining situations like American infantry trying to fix and suppress a carefully placed German machine gun covering the far side of footbrige in heavy terrain.

I think the combination of obsessed WWII fans and pent up enthusiasm here means that any and all Normandy bones are going to generate pages and pages of questions, comments, and concerns. (Some of which will even be reasonable and constructive.)

:-)

I can't wait for CM:N!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...