Jump to content

Normandy Bone


Recommended Posts

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).

Actually CMBO did have land bridges that could be passed under. ;) There were tall stone bridges, stone bridges, medium bridges, tall land bridges and tall land bridges w/ road. The two latter could be passed under. Actually the bridges over water could be passed under too, if the water was frozen.

Bridge.jpg

But the bridge limits I remember having requested almost a decade ago. Glad to have them. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 300
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Actually CMBO did have land bridges that could be passed under. ;) There were tall stone bridges, stone bridges, medium bridges, tall land bridges and tall land bridges w/ road. The two latter could be passed under. Actually the bridges over water could be passed under too, if the water was frozen.

But the bridge limits I remember having requested almost a decade ago. Glad to have them. :)

Really? And the unit will pass underneath? Interesting, I only have CMAK installed now, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way there - the units will pass over top of the bridge instead of going underneath and if there is a unit on the bridge well then... :)

Either way I am glad for any and all improvements. As suggested it will only make for a better tactical treatment whether it happens to float your personal boat or not. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mike_the_wino,

I'll help you with the math...

Color screenshot = 1 screenshot

B&W screenshot = 1 screenshot

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

Color + B&W Screenshots = 2 screenshots

...

Steve

I call shenanigans here!

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.

You could, you know, send me one of those. I will test drive and report with an informed opinion. Just trying to help out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually CMBO did have land bridges that could be passed under. ;) There were tall stone bridges, stone bridges, medium bridges, tall land bridges and tall land bridges w/ road. The two latter could be passed under. Actually the bridges over water could be passed under too, if the water was frozen.

Bridge.jpg

But the bridge limits I remember having requested almost a decade ago. Glad to have them. :)

This was what I recall Charles calling the BFUH, aka "big fat ugly hack" :) The units would disappear and magically appear on the other side of the bridge. They could pass under the bridge in this sense, but that is hardly the same thing as will be possible in the new engine. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron: Yeah, but there is only one limitation: you can't tell the unit to go directly under the bridge, because the waypoint will then just be placed on the bridge. But you can give a unit a waypoint on the other side of the bridge, and the unit will then move under it. Like this Puma:

Pumaunderbridge.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

*Raises hand*

Yeah, like the rest of us, I surmise, because we were all busy reading WW2 history books and boardgame rulebooks instead of paying attention in class!! :o DOHHH!

Looking forward to the next installment of... "As the CM:Normandy World Turns" (que corny organ music)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually CMBO did have land bridges that could be passed under. ;) There were tall stone bridges, stone bridges, medium bridges, tall land bridges and tall land bridges w/ road. The two latter could be passed under. Actually the bridges over water could be passed under too, if the water was frozen.

Bridge.jpg

But the bridge limits I remember having requested almost a decade ago. Glad to have them. :)

This would not work right when unit center points (remember CMx1 units are point-shaped) would be in the same spot due to one unit being in the bridge and one under. The AI in CMx1 is 2D, basically.

There seems to be similar code at work there to the code to have two infantry unit on top of each other in multi-story buildings, except less tested.

I think this code did occasionally work, though, if you kept the top of the bridge free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's scary to see an unmodded CMBO. Too much of that artwork was done by me :D

IIRC there were some circumstances that allowed some passing under the bridge, but as Martin said it was very limited and a brutal hack. So much so that Charles even forgot it was possible to sometimes get a unit to go under a bridge :D And something seems to tell me that something about combat didn't work correctly. Man, that was just too long ago!

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give you Combat Mission:Special Forces in "Bridge to Nowhere."

"You have command of a small troop of the finest soldiers, mounted in nothing heavier than jeeps ;). Working behind enemy lines, you will be tasked with spreading "alarm and despondancy", liasing with partisans and assassinating enemy spies. Oh, and there's this bridge, here...":cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Ok, enlighten me on just how mega significant being able to drive under a bridge will be in CM Normandy. And I'm not being a smart arse here, Im genuinely puzzled as to how it will significantly affect the game over say CMSF, where I dont have that option.

I also think its time to compare CMN to CMSF and not CM-1, which although definitely doos not have water is in the same stable as CMN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, enlighten me on just how mega significant being able to drive under a bridge will be in CM Normandy.

This is a tactical wargame right? Being familiar with fire/movement, cover, concealment, suppression, suprise and the like etc etc., its not too far a stretch to understand the tactical possibilities of 'just' being able to move under a bridge. And to be honest the small bone was a lot more than that so lets not be facetious. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a tactical wargame right? Being familiar with fire/movement, cover, concealment, suppression, suprise and the like etc etc., its not too far a stretch to understand the tactical possibilities of 'just' being able to move under a bridge. And to be honest the small bone was a lot more than that so lets not be facetious. :)

To be honest, yes any bone is better than no bone at all, but Id much rather see other, more important features of the game and how they really will affect gameplay in CMN over CMSF.

CMN shouldnt be compared to CM-1 I dont think as CMSF should be the benchmark here. So how will CMN play compared to CMSF? What Id like to see is more information on some of the following:

Cover and concealment

Foxholes, trenches and field fortifications

Infantry modelling and if possible more immersion by including 1-1 representation of formations (although I understand that this probably wont ever be happening)

Water, how it works and what it does over CMSFs marshes.

Spotting and the lethality of ww2 weapons as opposed to modern uber weapons.

Infantry hand to hand combat

Infantry close armoured assaults

Camouflage - stationery vehicles that might be camoflaged are they harder to spot.

Command delays for units as ww2 units should have some

Air support - how will this be handled

The list can go on and on and for me personally all of the above are much more fundamental to the games enjoyment and immersion than the very occasional time that I might drive something under a bridge. Not that having different types of bridges inst interesting though, because it definitely is, just not something I consider very significant over what currently in CMSF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will Normandy feature a multiplayer lobby?

I hope so, it's kind of impossible for RT multiplayer to really take off until CM features an in game lobby.

I think it could help sales too probably, at least with the 18-25 crowd who might not want to be restricted to PBEMs.

There are a handful of people who use the Xfire 'Task Force MilSim' group, it's the closest thing. Hyperlobby or something similar would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, enlighten me on just how mega significant being able to drive under a bridge will be in CM Normandy. And I'm not being a smart arse here, Im genuinely puzzled as to how it will significantly affect the game over say CMSF, where I dont have that option.

I also think its time to compare CMN to CMSF and not CM-1, which although definitely doos not have water is in the same stable as CMN.

For that I shall have to make a scenario in a town with a railway viaduct running through it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GSX,

Ok, enlighten me on just how mega significant being able to drive under a bridge will be in CM Normandy.

It's not "mega significant". I never said it was. I said it would affect the tactical play of games which have them in it, while you seemed to think it would have no effect at all. Having bridges at all is more towards "mega significant", but even then it's only applicable to scenarios which have bridges and have them in places where they actually matter.

And I'm not being a smart arse here, Im genuinely puzzled as to how it will significantly affect the game over say CMSF, where I dont have that option.

Bridges offer significant choke points for one or both sides. This can be done in CM:SF now, but the designer has to be rather clever about it. And for Normandy these sorts of tricks would likely break the atmosphere of the scenario. While atmosphere might have no affect on tactics, it does have a big effect (for many) on game enjoyment. So I'd be so bold as to say that the biggest contribution bridges have to make is on game atmosphere since the tactical consequences can be currently duplicated by doing things like making a line of swamp with a single crossing point.

Where I see the CM: Normandy's bridges having the biggest impact is when the forces and bridges are carefully arranged so that the player has to make operational decisions based on the locations and types of crossing points. What might be the best, most straight forward approach to the objectives may, in fact, be partially impassible. This sort of challenge can not be duplicated in CM:SF or in CMx1 games. Obviously we have yet to see how scenario authors will leverage this capability, but after seeing the amazing stuff they've churned out over the years I'm prepared to be awed. They always come up with interesting ways of combining elements than work great, yet were never anticipated.

As for moving units under the bridges, I can think of a particular scenario in CM:SF where the author had to simulate a raised road with an underpass. The problem was there were no bridges to be had. So it really was just a big berm with a road on top and a chunk taken out of the middle. As I got fighting on top of the road I wanted to shift forces. I should have just been able to slide things back and forth over the bridge, but instead I had to move units down the berm, over to the base of the other berm, then up and back into firing positions. I definitely would have preferred to have a bridge there.

Again, I don't think that bridges themselves are the most amazing, HOLY CRAP, excellent feature CM could ever have. But it's a really good feature which people want and, frankly, need. And instead of just giving them the same thing they got in CMx1 we went further and made the bridges technically and tactically superior. I'm actually at a loss that I even have to explain why bridges are important, but hey... everybody's got their own view of what's important and what isn't.

I also think its time to compare CMN to CMSF and not CM-1, which although definitely doos not have water is in the same stable as CMN.

Most of the new features we've been talking about, and people are looking forward to, have more to do with the setting than with specific functionality. Therefore comparisons to CMx1 are going to continue since they are relevant. But when we do talk about game functionality, of course comparing it to CM:SF is a good thing to do. All in good time.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...