A different CMx2 "problem"

[Battlefront.com]

sfhand,

This raises a question (off-topic as the thread seems to be drifting a little). Since the terrain features of Normandy are going to include much more vegitation, are you planning on changing/tweaking the way trees and such stand up to incoming fire? I'm not taking a position on how realistic the current modeling is, but I'm pretty sure with the increase in vegitation there will be an increase in scrutiny...

Yup. The first thing we did was to rewrite the way vegetation is drawn to the screen. The new method is much, much faster than the one for CM:SF. Quality is about the same (different tradeoffs), but now we can pack the map with a lot more vegetation for the same hit to the frame rate.

As for damage modeling, we'll be able to tweak that as we go along.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

I’m also curious as to how some of the die-hard CMx1 players were able to make the transition. Maybe that could help me.

In my case, I have always been interested in cold war/modern conflicts and especially middle-eastern wars, so making the commitment to CMSF was easy.

I understand your dilemna, seriously getting into a hard core, realistic simulation with the depth that CMSF has, requires a high level of commitment.

Like chess, learning the basic rules of how to play CMSF is fairly easy, but learning the intricacies of what are the most effective strategies and tactics can easily take hundreds of hours of gameplay to master. Those that do, like myself and many others, have discovered an engrossing, fascinating sim which holds my interest much more than CMx1 ever did (and I still play CMBB PBEM regularly).

Of course, the basic interest has to be there. If you have no interest in modern warfare and only play CMSF once in a blue moon, you will find it frustating and you will not enjoy it. After all, it is only a game, not a religion, you are not required to like it or play it.

As an analogy, quite a few years back, I was very much into flight sims and can remember spending probably hundreds of hours learning all the systems in Falcon 4 and Jane's F/A-18 (including many, many hours just practising carrier traps) so I could play these games effectively. The new standard in combat flight sims is now DCS Black Shark, but I have no intention to even look at it since I now have zero interest in flight sims.

[Sgt Joch]

Also, BFC's refusal to bump up Red's capabilities with some tougher units and some gear the Syrians could have bought years in the future (facing an American attack) leaves the gaming experience too much like a turkey shoot.

I am always surprised to see that type of comment on this board. That is a comment I would expect from a member of the general public who gets all his knowledge of modern weapons from watching Hollywood movies.

Any serious student of history knows that U.S/coalition victories against Iraq in 1991 and 2003 or the Israeli victories in 1967 and 1973 were the result of the proper application of combined arms warfare by a properly trained army, not because of some supposed uber weapons in the american arsenal. Its the same reasons why the Germans won in 1939-42 or the Allies in 1943-45.

The same thing aplies in CMSF, you apply proper combined arms tactics, you stand a decent chance of winning, if you don't, then you lose.

If someone really thinks the Blue forces can just steamroll over the map at will, I would love to play them a PBEM game as the Red commander.

[Pandur]

after reading this i find this, once more, to be one of the most subtile and underrated, also missjudged effects in the new CMx2 way of doing things. the way terrain works.

gladly there is a ultimate fix to it, and its simple... playing A LOT

and you need to let go the stuff you know about CMx1. X% this and that isnt the way to go in CMx2, at least its under the hood. it like to have some more feedback bout the terrain i place my soldiers in but as it is now you simply play a lot and you get the differences.

while i found CMSF overall absolutely simplest to get into after dealing with CMx1 games, still to get some of the more radical changes to CMx1, takes a lot more time and observation of these factors.

but in the end its the same. you need to cross a patch of open ground, and there are dots of brush or grass yellow/green. you rather lie in plain dirt/sand or grass/brushes wich offer more concealment? this is no guesswork in the game, this is logic. it replaces the % chances you could say.

now you have many many different combinations of terrain, thats the ultimate problem in the first place if you still struggle with the way it works, but fact is through a lot of playing and observing you work it out.

thats all there is to it, at least in my way of thinking

[Sergei]

Mostly the problems of Syrian player are not due to his poor equipment but because the Western armies have Über equipment. I mean, Javelin is gamey as hell and should be banned by a Geneva protocol. With all the C2 and IR equipment and rapid response artillery and so forth.

[MikeyD]

Well, if you want Über you should play the Brit module's "UK Outmanoeuvred" scenario. Kornets easily knocking your Challengers out with cross-map shots. The much-altered 'UK Outmanoeuvred TURBOCHARDED" on Repository substitutes crack rated T90s from the Marine module. That game is no walk-in-the-park for Blue.

[dkchapuis]

Wow, I stepped away for a few days and the thread got interesting.

Anyway...

There is no doubt that to become a "master" of the game one would need to play it a lot more to understand how it works. That isnt really my issue.

The problem for me is how do I get hooked on CMSF - which is obviouly EXTREMELY subjective. But to suggest that I have to play a lot more to get hooked is the wrong answer for me. I was hooked on CMx1 way before I had a mastery of it - in fact while I was still an absolute noob (note - if somebody asks me how to get hooked on CMx1 games, I will tell them to read Fionn's AARs and immediately play PBEM).

I brought up the cover/concealment values not because I want to go back to die rolls and hexes, but as an example of how, IMO, CMx1 provides better information to the player than CMx2 does. Obviously CMx2 is much more complex, so "stay 29.5m away from the edge of heavy woods" will never be an option. But that doesnt mean that CMx2 games couldnt improve (right now, the only "info" you get is to know that sand provides less than bushes, which provides less than trees which provides less than walls). And I hope that is something that the developers recognize, rather than just saying "looking at the map is the answer". Nevertheless, would this one change fix my problem? no. but i believe it is somehow related.

So I guess I'll try to fix my "not-hooked" problem based on my CMx1 experiences - namely, to read/watch a few more AARs and try out another pbem game.

[dkchapuis]

I have to say this whole throwback to CMx1 being more engaging because you knew exactly what the terrain parameters were, etc, is quite hilarious. I remember threads in CMx1 specifying exactly how much distance to keep between squads so that suppression of one doesn't affect the other. I remember long threads with Walpurgis Nacht discussing the exact merits of different types of terrain cover, with a level of mathematical detail that would shame a pentagon systems analyst Seriously, to say that CMx1 is more engaging because you knew more and had more control is, to me, a joke. At best you could say it is more engaging because of the period.

Well that isnt what I said. I said:

But what is lacking - for me - is the ability to look at the map and objectives, develop a plan of action, and feel like I was able to lead my pixeltroops in a way that accomplishes something in a manner that doesnt feel like I am playing call of duty.

...

One item that seems missing in CMx2 is in-game help items. Those were so helpful in learning how to play so that one felt like they could wisely effect the fate of their troops.

It took months of play to learn all the fancy game mechanics of CMx1 that would allow you to really be a master. That isnt what I am hoping for at this point.

I want to be able to play the game and know that my tactics and generalship - or lack thereof - make the difference in the lives of my pixeltroops. For CMx1, reading Fionns AARs showed me how to do that, and that is when I was "hooked".

CMx1 in-game-helps are one tool that makes it easier to have feedback on your generalship. But CMx1 helps arent required for the game to be fun. One could argue to get rid of those and to just "play a lot more" to learn how close to get in heavy trees before your can spot something. But the helps are good because they match the level of abstraction.

CMx2 still has abstraction and game mechanics. Some helps that match CMx2 level of abstraction and game mechanics would make for a better game. I dont really see how that is debatable. The question is, where does it fit in the development priority list? For people that played CMx1 on view level 1 and only tabbed to different units, they probably dont care too much about in-game helps. for people like me and Walpurgis who like to know if you can throw satchel charges 29.5m or 30m, they are pretty important. But that doesnt mean that I want the 3-man squad abstraction and FP rating back.

[Chainsaw]

now where is that so much talked about Fionns AAR ? I played CMBB and got inlove with that without any AAR... now I must read that AAR to see what the heck you guys are comparing with...

cheers

[Battlefront.com]

dkchapuis,

The question is, where does it fit in the development priority list?

In some cases that's an issue. In others it's simply that the system isn't designed to produce the sort of abstract information that was available in CMx1.

For example, in CMBB/AK you could click on a unit and see a little graphic of exactly what terrain the unit was occupying. Well, in CMx2 that sort of information is absolutely impossible to show because the terrain is vastly more complex and your units aren't standing on the head of a pin. A Squad with three Teams, for example, can be occupying perhaps 9 or 12 Action Spots at one time while on the move. There's usually 3 or 4 types of terrain per action spot. Displaying that information alone is simply not feasible, not to mention presenting it in a way that is useful to the player.

Now, it's true that we could write brand new code to, basically, boil down some things to a generalized concept. Like the % chance to hit something. It won't be as meaningful as it was in CMx1 because since CMx1 actually had a simple "chance to hit" portion of the equation. In CMx2 it's vastly more subjective because they system doesn't really know. At least not in a way that is meaningful to the player.

We do intend on adding more "tools" as we go along. That's where the development priorities come into play. But some stuff people liked in CMx1 is not going to happen, either because it isn't possible or because it's not really useful any more.

For people that played CMx1 on view level 1 and only tabbed to different units, they probably dont care too much about in-game helps.

I always play at around Camera 3 or 4 and don't feel I'm missing anything. But then again, I play almost exclusively in RealTime. When you play RT situations change every partial second so there isn't time nor incentive to try and maximize a shot.

Steve

[Yair Iny]

Well that isnt what I said. I said:

It took months of play to learn all the fancy game mechanics of CMx1 that would allow you to really be a master. That isnt what I am hoping for at this point.

I want to be able to play the game and know that my tactics and generalship - or lack thereof - make the difference in the lives of my pixeltroops. For CMx1, reading Fionns AARs showed me how to do that, and that is when I was "hooked".

CMx1 in-game-helps are one tool that makes it easier to have feedback on your generalship. But CMx1 helps arent required for the game to be fun. One could argue to get rid of those and to just "play a lot more" to learn how close to get in heavy trees before your can spot something. But the helps are good because they match the level of abstraction.

CMx2 still has abstraction and game mechanics. Some helps that match CMx2 level of abstraction and game mechanics would make for a better game. I dont really see how that is debatable. The question is, where does it fit in the development priority list? For people that played CMx1 on view level 1 and only tabbed to different units, they probably dont care too much about in-game helps. for people like me and Walpurgis who like to know if you can throw satchel charges 29.5m or 30m, they are pretty important. But that doesnt mean that I want the 3-man squad abstraction and FP rating back.

Sorry if you thought I was responding to your message, I was responding to a different poster further down the thread. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have more information and feedback about the terrain, even if it was just a popup that said "Where you just right clicked is thick bush and offers medium concealment and no cover". What I wouldn't like to see is that people figure out that you should be 29.5 m behind a tree line and not 30. In fact, i hope CMx2 is sophisticated enough (i.e. adds random factors), so much that you *can't* know exactly how far back to be, just like in real life.

[dkchapuis]

dkchapuis,

But some stuff people liked in CMx1 is not going to happen, either because it isn't possible or because it's not really useful any more.

Steve

And I just want to say that I hope you dont take what I said as a complaint. But for some reason I havent been able to latch on to CMSF like I did the before - even though I really want to.

[sfhand]

I'd be more than happy to play a PBEM with you. I'm not very far along the CMSF development curve. As I said before, the Fionn Kelly AAR's really got me into CM:BO too - most of what I learned then applies now. I tried looking at CMAK the other day, no way I'm going back to that...

[MeatEtr]

For example, in CMBB/AK you could click on a unit and see a little graphic of exactly what terrain the unit was occupying. Well, in CMx2 that sort of information is absolutely impossible to show because the terrain is vastly more complex and your units aren't standing on the head of a pin. A Squad with three Teams, for example, can be occupying perhaps 9 or 12 Action Spots at one time while on the move. There's usually 3 or 4 types of terrain per action spot. Displaying that information alone is simply not feasible, not to mention presenting it in a way that is useful to the player.

Steve

This is interesting, I wasn't aware of it. Makes me wonder though, you guys did have a terrain indicator for CMx1, probably not all that important either. But now with CMSF it's even more complicated and IMO all the more reason to give this feedback to the player. But keep it simple though, nothing too complicated, maybe something like a simple colored dot or soldier indicater on the UI which changes from red= little to no cover, orange= some cover, yellow= even better, green= great or best cover.

[Sergei]

The problem is that any such simplification would really be a simplification, ie. it might not really be the actual situation at all. Then you'd have people complain that their men were in "green cover" yet they died in droves, or men in "red cover" were invulnerable, thinking of it as a bug. If the information is not trustworthy, what value does it have for decision making?

[c3k]

COH uses that technique. While COH is a wonderful game and is very enjoyable, I am glad that the red/yellow/green cover icons are in THAT game not CMSF. My .02.

Ken

[MeatEtr]

A basic cover indicator is better than none at all right? I admit though, breaking down cover parameters to only four colors is simplistic. I would consider it a starting point. Since obviously CMx2 has alot more going on than the typical RTS out there. But the basic premise is sound to any games UI or player feedback.

Oh and who cares about what people would or could complain about. There will always be gripes and if BFC let possible complaints dictate decisions, well I think we'd all be in trouble then.

[Dietrich]

Why is a cover-effectiveness indicator not the way to go? Because cover involves more than the type of terrain a unit is on or the type of structure a unit is huddled behind.

Don't get me wrong, I've very much enjoyed playing CoH; but one of the numerous reasons CMSF can't really have a color-coded cover-effectiveness indicator is because CMSF -- unlike CoH -- simulates (among several other factors) the effectiveness of cover relative to the angle of incoming fire. In other words, a rifle squad kneeling behind a low stone wall has fairly good cover (from the chest down, that is) from an enemy squad in the first floor of a building on the opposite side of the plaza, but the same squad has less-good cover from an enemy squad on the fourth floor of the same building.

Since a cover-effectiveness indicator is not as viable as it might sound, we're left with what we've had all along: Applying sound tactical sense when determining which spot affords an infantry unit the best cover in a given situation on a given part of a given map. For example, a single-story shack-type building may afford decent cover against 5.45mm rounds from 200 meters but may well afford insufficient cover against larger-caliber fire from the same range.

But I'm not disagreeing with the general assertion that some aspects of CMSF's UI could be improved.

[Battlefront.com]

Dietrich,

But I'm not disagreeing with the general assertion that some aspects of CMSF's UI could be improved.

I just wanted to echo that statement from our perspective. There's months worth of improvements we could make to the UI of CMx2. But we have to keep those improvements in the context of doing other things which, currently, aren't done at all. Like bridges, water, temperate weather, WW2 equipment, etc. Obviously a lot of the big stuff is already in the game and even more of it is being checked off on the road to Normandy. However, there's still thousands of improvements competing for our attention. We're definitely never going to run out of things to do

Back to the terrain cover/concealment issue...

We could do a terrain indicator in CMx1 because a Team of 1 guy or a Team of 12 guys occupied a single pixel (for lack of a better term). That pixel was located in one type of terrain, which might have had a single other modifier on it (like a road, a wall, some water, etc). Pretty easy for the system to say "you're unit is here". Even then we provided very little information about what the terrain actually did for/to the unit.

In CMx2 you can have a Squad of 13 men strung out all over the place. Where is the "unit"? Almost always the answer is extremely complex. It absolutely can't be shown with the same sort of fidelity and graphical simplicity as CMx1.

Even a rough indicator, as described above, is quite difficult to do. When you move a Squad with 3 Teams you need 3 pieces of information to show you what each possible destination for each Team might be. And the indicator should be tailored to the specific, unique unit currently selected. Cover/concealment for a 2 man Sniper Team is very, very different from a 6 man heavy weapons Team. Not to mention a tank

Yes, we can definitely cram some sort of system into the game that would give some sort of indication of something. It probably won't be that useful. Or at least it would likely be LESS useful than the player simply using the information that is already in the game combined with reasonable personal assumptions (with the aid of the manual too). We have far too many things to do that don't offer marginal/questionable value to the gameplay, so we aren't likely to spend any time on something like this. Better to focus on things we are sure will enhance the game in a significant way.

Steve

[Yair Iny]

Steve, how about instead of providing information about what terrain and cover the squad is in, instead provide more information about the terrain itself? For example, right click any point on the map and you get its height, and a general (i.e. none/poor/good/excellent) indication of cover and concealment.

[lomir]

Steve, how about instead of providing information about what terrain and cover the squad is in, instead provide more information about the terrain itself? For example, right click any point on the map and you get its height, and a general (i.e. none/poor/good/excellent) indication of cover and concealment.

Hi,

Cover and concealment are different concepts. Cover provides you protection from the enemy's weapons. Concealment hides you from enemy's view. Usually cover provides both protection and concealment - but think the case of staying behind a bullet proof glass: you are protected but not concealed. Concealment doesn't offer cover - to hide behind a dense shrub may offer concealment but no cover from enemy's fire.

Said that, the cover usefulness depends on the weapons the enemy has available. It's not the same to hide behind a wall when they are shooting at you with a 5.56mm cartridge than with a 20mm ball... and it goes without saying that there are much heavier weapons on the enemy's side. So, what it's good for something is no so good for something else. You can't give a general indication of cover without saying what do you consider enough cover: from light weapons? Let's assume that. But cover and concealment must have the next conditions:

1. Orientation: the hiding place must stay between the enemy and you.

2. Capacity: it has to be large enough to protect your entire body.

3. Thickness: it should be thick enough to stop expected incoming projectiles.

The latter has been already talked. Orientation: let's imagine again the wall. What if the enemy comes from behind? No cover, no concealment. What if the enemy is a helicopter? etc. Capacity: the wall in the example may cover and conceal you, but only if you hide all the time... But you want to have a look of what's going on in front of you, don't you? In your squad behind the wall you'll have one guy kneeling that it's exposing just his head, another guy standing up uncovering as well his chest, etc. And in CM:SF they don't stay like this for long: they move and change their position, they react to incoming fire... All in all, the game is already too complex - the 1:1 model with each bullet traced independently, to make for you what in real life only your "common" sense could tell you: I think that scrubland with trees over there will be a better location than staying in the middle of the road. But well, you don't know if there are enemy snipers just covering this place and the expected aproaches... that's life.

Some examples of good cover:

Terrain features, trees, rocks, logs, rubble, trenches, sandbags, walls, vehicles, buildings and structures - remembering that their walls are not impenetrable cover even upon impact from small arms fire.

Concealment is something much more tricky than cover and I'm not sure to which level has been taken in game. But there are two factors that I'm pretty sure that they affect the effectiveness of concealment in CM:SF: shape and movement. Shape: to be outlined against the sky will give you away and makes you more easy to be spotted. Movement: 'slow', 'hunt' and 'normal' movement orders makes you less likely to be spotted than 'quick' and 'fast'. Distance from the enemy's spotter has to be taken into account, so to get a color hint about your concealment level has to include something "gamey": from which distance and angle the enemy is spotting you. So again, it's common sense: high grass, shrub, a dense forest, a rubbled area, a ravine, etc. will likely conceal you more from the enemy than staying in the open, running and shooting with everything you've got in all directions.

To end, "right click any point on the map and you get its height", well... for what? you can move around your camera, go to ground level if you prefer and have a look around, you can trace all the lines of sight/fire that you want and the game already tells you if you can make fire or not, and what's the distance. So, for what the information of the height of just one pixel?

So, with respect to all the previous opinions, IMHO, this color coding thing is totally unnecessary. I would rather have other really useful features implemented if any. They had been talked in other threads before and they could improve the game for real. My two cents.

Cheers,

Lomir

[hcrof]

lomir - Great post, sums up my thoughts entirely. Unfortunately for the new players, common sense and experience are the only things that can help here.

[[hirr]Leto]

This is really more evidence that CMSF and CMx2 is NOT a wargame. It is a simulation. I really think there is a difference here, being a wargamer all my life.

For one, I never really got into any kind of sims, I was a strategy guy.

Two, I am not saying that CMx2 is not a wargame in a pejorative way. It is, what it is. For you guys that love it: good for you.

Three, I think that you can use strategy, but that the realism of it will never make it a competitive type of wargame with "balance issues" well meted out. All the guys here that have been playing CMSF for up to three years of their life, well, they have played it enough to gain experience in it. A lot of what I heard has suggested that it is like any type of expert script: recursivity, time, dedication, and focus. That being said, for those who don't have the time to learn it, it can be played as a twitch fest... for those that do, you've become emboldened and bitter gurus of a game that only a few can come close to claiming they are good at, but can never master because of the pure fuzzyness of realism. For those die hard gamers that want rules, probabilities and pure tactical game play, not pure realistic game play, this game is not for you.

Four, there is no doubt that CMx2 is more complex, does more things and is infintely 'better' in terms of advancement. That does not necessarily make it more fun (for some). You have to have commitment (beta testers), interest in the era (modern military afficianados), or not have any hopes of ever attracting a girl and thus have the spare time to play this game all the time to learn it.

Steve has been saying all along that it is different. Right. It isn't a wargame where CMx1 was a wargame. We can get into the semantics of it all and state something like: "its a sim of modern warfare", but plain and simple, for those of us who have tried and not liked CMSF for whatever reasons, I think that translation from wargame to sim is the nebulous fairy dust that Dave Chapuis is talking about.

Is CMx2 better? That's subjective. Is it different than CMx1: yes. That is not subjective.

Inbetween all that lies the rub.

The game CMx1 is still loved and played by many, and BFC should be proud of it. CMx2 is something different, and if you treat it that way, you will be at least ok with it. how long it stays on your hard drive and how many hours of enjoyment you get out of it is the only standard individual measurement that is important.

There is no modern version of X-com. There is no modern version of MOO2. There is and will not be a modern version of CMx1. It is a species that will be extinct one day, but we will harbour it for as long as possible.

And if those who played CM1 pick up CMx2 and play it, bravo and good for you.

But unless you are one of the three above categories: the pixie dust and magic will never be there for you. It's just that easy Dave.

Cheers!

Leto

[Sgt Joch]

Leto;1164989']...there is no doubt that CMx2 is more complex' date= does more things and is infintely 'better' in terms of advancement....

for once, we are totally in agreement.

[Thomm]

I hope we shall get over CMx1 some day. The constant references to it bore the heck outta me.

For all it's greatness, I played like five scenarios from the CM:AK disk before I deinstalled it again. It certainly was an order of a magnitude better as a wargame than its competition, but at the same time it was a colossal waste of time due to WeGo.

May it rest in peace.

Best regards,

Thomm