Buildings repaired...!!!

[Götz von Berlichingen]

I have just started the Marines campaign.

During the first mission my Sniper teams took a bit of a beating - but I also managed to dish out alot of death from above.

Thing is - I took out several buildings in this mission, yet in the second mission those same buildings appear re-built (repaired) and a few other building are destroyed instead.

Is ground deformation not carried through from battle to battle accurately?

I did a search but couldnt find anything on this...

[TheVulture]

I have just started the Marines campaign.

During the first mission my Sniper teams took a bit of a beating - but I also managed to dish out alot of death from above.

Thing is - I took out several buildings in this mission, yet in the second mission those same buildings appear re-built (repaired) and a few other building are destroyed instead.

Is ground deformation not carried through from battle to battle accurately?

I did a search but couldnt find anything on this...

Short answer: landscape damage isn't carried through in to the next battle.

As far as the engine is concerned, it is a new scenario with a new map. There is currently no way of using the same map (or sections of) for a second scenario with persistent damage. It's one of the many things on the wish list.

[Götz von Berlichingen]

Short answer: landscape damage isn't carried through in to the next battle.

As far as the engine is concerned, it is a new scenario with a new map. There is currently no way of using the same map (or sections of) for a second scenario with persistent damage. It's one of the many things on the wish list.

Must have missed that one!

I hope they put this high on the list of things to include for the WW2 games.

To have linked battles with accumilative damage is very high on the immersion factor...

Then again - to have the battle move to a completely new map immediately adjacent the previous battle map could also suffice (then what I just said is worked around).

[-Pv-]

"accumilative damage is very high on the immersion factor"

Stick with campaign designers who do not re-use maps if that is a deal-breaker for you.

"move to a completely new map immediately adjacent the previous battle map could also suffice"

This is the technique used by the default campaigns I've seen so far.

My understanding is persistent damage would be nearly impossible without a complete re-design of the game since each battle map is created by the campaign designer with no knowledge of what happened in the previous player map other than win-loss-draw. Forces are placed and AI goals set based on each clean-new map. Persistent damage would require the game engine dynamically redesign the scenario with unpredictable results. In other words, to get what you want, the Mission/Campaign editor would have to be completely redesigned to be almost entirely game controlled (you have this force, to start, you get these re-enforcements, and the game generates terrain, objectives, enemy until you lose or make it to the last map.)

Campaign designers who revisit the same map count on players to suspend expectations on that aspect of play.

-Pv-

[Alan8325]

A good start regarding improving the engine to allow for persistent damage would be to simply have destroyed buildings carry over to the next scenario. It seems like it would only be a matter of flagging buildings in the next scenario to start in the destroyed state if the corresponding building gets destroyed in the previous scenario. Any units that would have started in that building in the next scenario could just start in the rubble. Realistic? Maybe not, but it's a start.

[-Pv-]

Destroyed buildings with exposed crews would blow away the designer's enemy AI plans. This might cause players in previous maps to purposely blow away all important-looking buildings (if possible) without regard to their importance to current operations to make the next map easier. Designers might then resort to leaving off artillery and so it goes... on and on.

-Pv-

[Thomm]

I'd take the risk of messing up AI plans over not having persistent map damage at all any day!

Best regards,

Thomm

[birdstrike]

Don't know if we'll ever see that. Something like the old 'Operation' style campaigns Depends would be nice IMHO, but if the coding required is too difficult or would take away resources needed for the other things for Normandy, I doubt it'll happen. It's also a question of how many times this feature would get used eventually. If it's only for a handful of maps it's hardly worth the effort, I reckon.

For what it's worth though (and to lobby for consistent building damage ), from my experience, I think the current AI would already be able to deal with buildings destroyed from an earlier battle. The question is valid if players woud destroy each and every building on the map to deny building cover to the AI, but I'd say two things would basically rule that out: for one the player may not know if he needs the buildings himself in the following mission, and secondly there's always the option to use preserve objectives to prevent him from even reaching the next mission if he does that.

[bitchen frizzy]

The question is valid if players woud destroy each and every building on the map to deny building cover to the AI, but I'd say two things would basically rule that out: for one the player may not know if he needs the buildings himself in the following mission, and secondly there's always the option to use preserve objectives to prevent him from even reaching the next mission if he does that.

Well, that would rule out Caen scenarios.

While there were WWII ops, like Market Garden, with standing orders to limit collateral damage, there were also plenty of battles where smashing towns flat was part of the plan.

Gotta have it in the game.

[-Pv-]

Ok, another tack (although I have more arguments on the potentials of gamey-ness on repeat maps...)

I've already heard complaints about the PBEM file sizes. I expect a dense town with significant damage would require a lot of data to describe each building, location, what portion and type of damage occurred. How about trees? I'm just talking about SF. Imagine Normandy with bridges, rivers, hedgerows, farm fences. Add to that craters, vehicles, flavor objects.

-Pv-

[Elmar Bijlsma]

That's why we should have ready access to 15 inch naval guns in every scenario.

A few big craters but absolutely no trees, vegetation or buildings to keep track off. Watch those file sizes shrink!

[bitchen frizzy]

I'll try a different tack, too:

CM:N's significantly different setting and era may make persistent damage more important to immersion than in CM:SF. Might become more important still in future WWII modules and games (Arnhem? Stalingrad?).

[-Pv-]

What's more interesting in terms of what is most often referred to as re-playability? Fighting over the same location more than once, or moving on to a new set of challenges. For myself, although I can envision reasons why I might fight over the same ground more than once (Stalingrad was mentioned) I cannot envision what the new challenges might be which would make BF's investment in time re-designing the game worth it to all the purchasers by adding features to an already working base game.

Aren't you just saying you want the time period to be longer (which has been and will be further addressed?) What's the difference between a two hour game on a map and two one hour games? How about a scenario that lasts a whole day (we can of course save.) How's that different than 12 two hour scenarios on the same map? I can see how changing objectives and AI plans might be interesting, I don't see THAT much value added compared to the effort. This feature at the probable cost of throwing out dozens or potentially hundreds of other wish-list features seems... asking too much. Event triggers if and when they get introduced will blow away any great experience persistent damage might introduce.

-Pv-

[Flanker15]

Well with a 12 hour game the tax on the memory would be pretty horrible and the size on disk would be 1 huge file, so it's better to break it down into smaller pieces/seperate map files. Also without breaks in the mission you have to model everything that exists in a prolonged battle, nothing could be abstracted (things like vehicle recovery/repairs, troop replenishment, the long periods of inaction etc).

[Thomm]

... reasons why I might fight over the same ground more than once

Atmosphere. It is about atmosphere.

Best regards,

Thomm

[bitchen frizzy]

What's more interesting in terms of what is most often referred to as re-playability?

Both are very interesting! If the game can only deliver one, I'll still enjoy the game very much, but the game's limitations won't obligate me to binary thinking. I'll own the game, not the other way around.

What's the difference between a two hour game on a map and two one hour games? How about a scenario that lasts a whole day (we can of course save.) How's that different than 12 two hour scenarios on the same map?

a) Playability Realism

Very typical historical Normandy operation: Allies attack to take an objective. Time elapses, then comes the standard German counterattack. Time elapsed between attack/counterattack: 20 minutes or more. This played out time and again all over Normandy. You could put that all in one scenario, sure. I guess you could even put a day in the life of Caen into one scenario. But then you have to sacrifice the realism concerning what actually happened in the lulls. You also sacrifice player interest. What's the player supposed to do while the lull passes in real time - check email, maybe, or go make a sandwich?

CM:SF is built on the premise of a modern mech brigade on a lighting advance where it is imperative to keep moving and the entire brigade is fully motorized in high-tech vehicles. The defense is usually static. Wipe them out, then the area is secured with little likelihood of a counterattack, so mount up and move on to the next map for the next scenario. What's "typical" for CM:SF was very exceptional for 1944 Normandy. The battles of Operation COBRA, maybe, could be done the CM:SF way, though in the 1940's even a lighting advance usually moved at a snail's pace compared to the implicit assumptions in the CM:SF game. Fighting for hours or days over the same ground was the norm for WWII, not the exception. If game can only accurately reproduce the exceptions in operations it will still be very fun, but limited.

[birdstrike]

Usefulness is hardly an issue. I guess most people would want to see such a feature added, and there are scenarios which would greatly benefit from it. It's a matter of allocating resources.

It could be as simple as using a saved game from the end of the first scenario and just import the new units for next scenario, or it could require the game code to be turn inside out, I don't know.

[-Pv-]

With 4 hour time limits, you can play over the same damaged map simulating four, one hour battles. Counter attacks can be simulated with large reinforcements at semi-regular intervals with the large spans of time between reduced to minutes as they would be if the maps were played back to back.

I still think some of what people want can be had without throwing out the current game. Many scenarios currently available were created with the old time limits prior to 1.20. Isn't much of this discussion more related to the often complained about short time limits?

Even broken into two major battles, I can see a four hour scenario over the same map as doable. Beyond that, I'd start to say to myself "not this map again?" (however realistic) at least without some major intervening time period. Obviously, an intervening time before returning to a map you would not expect the map to be rebuilt, thus the persistence would be expected, but under a new set of circumstances which might be even harder to code than two scenarios back to back.

It's something I can live without as a dedicated feature if other features have to be tossed out to get it.

-Pv-

[bitchen frizzy]

With 4 hour time limits, you can play over the same damaged map simulating four, one hour battles. Counter attacks can be simulated with large reinforcements at semi-regular intervals with the large spans of time between reduced to minutes as they would be if the maps were played back to back.

In other words, you can make it work if you devise a workaround to preserve playability at the expense of realism. Agreed.

Isn't much of this discussion more related to the often complained about short time limits?

No, at least not my contribution to it. My point is that if the CM:SF premise - a highly mobile mechanized force destroying static strongpoints while rapidly advancing into enemy territory - is inherent to the game code and cannot be changed, then accurately reproducing a typical WWII op is out of the question. At best, only the rare exceptions of rapid exploitation of a breakthrough can be simulated. I think that's a problem. Now, that won't break the game entirely. Individual scenarios, for instance, will be unaffected by this limitation and they should be plenty entertaining.

[-Pv-]

"a highly mobile mechanized force destroying static strongpoints while rapidly advancing into enemy territory - is inherent to the game code and cannot be changed, then"

I've seen no evidence this limitation exists. Even SF (not much is known about Normandy) can be played entirely without vehicles.

"Individual scenarios, for instance, will be unaffected by this limitation and they should be plenty entertaining. "

Agreed. Fewer-longer scenarios should work. What's inherent to the game code appears to be non-persistent map damage between scenarios (which can be "worked-around" yes bad words) by placing some static damaged elements in the new map. A clever designer can require elements to be destroyed before moving to the next map. I still think a well designed campaign can be created using longer play times (which is a very rare element in campaigns so far.)

-Pv-

[bitchen frizzy]

I've seen no evidence this limitation exists. Even SF (not much is known about Normandy) can be played entirely without vehicles.

Look, the limitation, which I know you understand because you've spelled it out, is that each scenario of an op has to take place on a new map, unless the designer and player wants to accept the realism hit of damaged buildings repairing themselves. The vehicular activity is part of the premise that explains away the limitation. Of course, the CM:SF soldiers can all be on foot, but they still travel from map to map in an op - just more implausibly if they cover large distances between scenarios.

My point is that in a WWII setting this limitation causes more problems than in the CM:SF setting. This is because CM:SF has an explanation for why each scenario moves to a new map, but that premise simply won't hold water for most cases in a WWII setting. The limitation becomes more noticeable in a WWII setting because it impinges more on immersion. Your methods for getting around it all involve gamey improvisations - like a peculiar set of orders requiring the player to destroy some buildings but not others. It would be nicer if the game code allowed more than one scenario on the same map without improvisation.

[SlapHappy]

I have to agree with B.F. here.

Certain limitations/assumptions about how the game engine works can definitely affect game realism based on theatre of war being simulated.

For instance, using persistent damage (or lack of) as an example:

Stalingrad?

[Alan8325]

Isn't Normandy supposed to have improved building damage modeling? I thought I read that each wall will now have 3 visual damage states as opposed to only OK/completely destroyed.