Things about R.U.S.E that i'll love to see in CMx2 WWII eventually

[Cid250]

I was playing the R.U.S.E beta and it's not bad at all, even considering that It's just a RTS.

The two features that i love more is the posibility to play a 4vs4 Multiplayer game, and record (save to a file) the whole battle.

I think that i will buy every module of CM Normandy, if the long term plan (in two or three years) is to get multiplayer "team" suport, and also the "replay" feature for the whole battle.

Those two are part of my wet dreams, with a WEGO TCIP game... too bad thar R.U.S.E is a simple RTS, without the nice WEGO.

Another impresive thing about R.U.S.E is how they managed the "level of detail" of their terrain when you move the camera close to the ground level... the cons are the lack of positioning flexibility for the infantry in the urban areas. But the game is plenty of "eyecandy".

[Schrullenhaft]

It may take longer than "two or three years" to get multiplayer teams into the game. Steve has mentioned in the past that they would like to get this feature into the game, but it will take a lot of work, even with the new CMx2 engine to get it implemented as desired.

The 'whole game playback' may never happen. It's possible that a solution may be found, but more than likely it may never reach the point of being worked on since there are so many other features that demand time that affect the playability of the game. Considering the size of PBEMs now, I could imagine that a full-game playback file may be over a gigabyte in size (and just get bigger as further changes happen to the game engine).

[LuckyStrike]

Really? Games like IL2 manage it OK, and there is a lot going on there. Just record the player inputs, and the initial randseed value, and all the random numbers generated during the playback should be identical to those in gameplay. There is no need to record everything or indeed really anything that happens, unless the game architecture is radically different from most. Just start the replay with the randseed plugged in, apply the recorded player inputs as and when they occur, and let the game play itself.

[Sergei]

Really? Games like IL2 manage it OK, and there is a lot going on there. Just record the player inputs, and the initial randseed value, and all the random numbers generated during the playback should be identical to those in gameplay. There is no need to record everything or indeed really anything that happens, unless the game architecture is radically different from most. Just start the replay with the randseed plugged in, apply the recorded player inputs as and when they occur, and let the game play itself.

If feature X has been done in some game then it must automatically be easy and effortless to implement to any game? Really?

[LuckyStrike]

Well not just in some game but most games - you have the approach I mentioned, or a more complex approach where everything that happens is explicitly recorded - so apparently CMSF lends itself to the second approach, which is indeed far far more demanding. Obviously I realise if it was easy to implent it would have been done already, and that approach is never easy, it requires huge effort and resources. I have an MS in Comp Sci in AI, so I do understand this issue a little bit

Its a feature we'd all like to see, but if its in the far future, its worth waiting for

[moneymaxx]

...Considering the size of PBEMs now, I could imagine that a full-game playback file may be over a gigabyte in size (and just get bigger as further changes happen to the game engine).

Condidering the velocity with which ram and storage capacity increases I'am tempted to ask "if it's just a gigabyte where is the problem?".

[Cid250]

It may take longer than "two or three years" to get multiplayer teams into the game. Steve has mentioned in the past that they would like to get this feature into the game, but it will take a lot of work, even with the new CMx2 engine to get it implemented as desired.

The 'whole game playback' may never happen. It's possible that a solution may be found, but more than likely it may never reach the point of being worked on since there are so many other features that demand time that affect the playability of the game. Considering the size of PBEMs now, I could imagine that a full-game playback file may be over a gigabyte in size (and just get bigger as further changes happen to the game engine).

And?.

In 6 years you can get a broadband connection to internet of 100Gigabits/s straight to your home thanks to the new Cisco routers developed for the ISPs... the model CRS-3 of Cisco has a network output of 322 Terabits per second (or in other words 40 TeraBytes per second):

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/09/cisco_crs_3_core_router/

And in 6 years you will buy a 250 Terabyte Hard Disk for 100$.

Or... consider the most probable technology path...

By that year, in fact, your PC will not need only a 100Gb/s network card to support the input bandwidth that internet will provide by that year, but also your PC will need a HBA (interface to connect to a SAN that "in short" allows you to connect to an array of remote hard disks with Fibre Channel), or maybe if you can't buy a dedicated HBA, you will do the same with your current network card using iSCSI that is already natively supported by Windows 7 or any flavour of GNU-Linux... with one technology or the other, the result will be the same, your PC will end with a remote attached hard disk bigger than a PetaByte provided by Google, and faster than your current Serial Ata by several orders of magnitude.

In my work we use SANs and HBAs as main Disk connection solution in all the blade servers since a lot of years... in only 3 years the technology will be cheap enought to become a standard in the home PCs. Back 5 years ago, a HBA was really expensive, but today is becoming cheaper and cheaper (you just can't imagine how much).

I also did some trials the last year with old operating systems like Windows XP, installing the poor's man solution to access to a SAN plenty of fast disks (with iSCSI)... just installing the Microsoft iSCSI Software Initiator for Windows XP (it hasn't native support) i got a D:\ hard disk inside of my laptop of 40Terabytes, way faster than the Local Solid State Disk... the bad news were that in the other end of the network cable those array of disks were installed inside of a SAN chasis, that is still very expensive for a "home user" today.

By 2020 to see a Home PC booting his main operating system from a local hard disk, will be more rare than a Today's gamming PC booting from an old fashioned flexible 3&1/4-inches floppy disk. Trust me...

So, what's the problem?.

P.S: Please... bookmark this post and bump it at year 2016, and i bet that you will be surprised by the accuracy of this content.

[LuckyStrike]

Interesting stuff.

[Moon]

Really? Games like IL2 manage it OK, and there is a lot going on there.

Actually, there is much less going on there than you think. Don't confuse a lot of eyecandy with the stuff that CM has to do under the hood.

[LuckyStrike]

Actually, there is much less going on there than you think. Don't confuse a lot of eyecandy with the stuff that CM has to do under the hood.

Yeah I realise that Was just wondering if their game-recording approach had any application to CMSF, but I guess not. Given the pretty amazing stuff that CMSF does do, I'm sure if it was in any way worth the time and resources it would have been done by now, so evidently it is, as we say in IT, 'non-trivial'

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I think game recording is less interesting then things that improve actual gameplay. Despite what some might think, I forsee only a tiny minority that will use such a feature much.

Now, bona fide multi-player, instead of "mere" 1v1... that's really the ticket to taking gameplay further. I'm shocked that it's such a long way off. In the past I'd gotten the impression it was something BFC were very interested in. What's the holdup?! Charles busy with upgrading the campaign features?

[hoolaman]

One workaround that would enable movies to be made of the whole battle is to allow save games to be loaded up or switched to "Scenario author" mode (with both passwords for PBEM files). This would give you a no FOW option to see what your opponent was doing. You could then make saves every turn if you wanted to or load up each PBEM file.

But its not something I care about, there is usually only a couple of sequences of play that I wonder what the other guy is doing, and I have no desire to play a 40 min battle then watch the same 40 min battle again.

[moneymaxx]

One workaround that would enable movies to be made of the whole battle is to allow save games to be loaded up or switched to "Scenario author" mode (with both passwords for PBEM files).

For the CMx1 engine someone programmed that (using a macro IIRC). It worked but was a little bit cumbersome, therefore I did not use it that much.

That's the reason I thought it would not be that difficult to implement a slightly more polished version.

[MikeyD]

..would enable movies to be made of the whole battle

Try that using FRAPS and files get VERY big very quickly. Plus framerate hit to the game feels like you're dragging an anchor. Remember, every nifty idea has to be payed for with a performance hit in another area to get it to run on the average Joe's machine. Giant maps would cause X amount of harm, micro-detailed buildings would cause Y amount of harm, and storing all info on the fly for playback would cause Z amount of harm.

[Schmoly War]

Here is a video from a channel I subscribe to:

The guy has voice overs from alot of online Total War games using the replay feature implemented in it.

Judging from the amount of interests the AAR threads get on the forum, Id assume most of us would like to see a "similar" feature in future battlefront games.

I tried to FRAPS a few of my CMSF pbems. Took alot of work in windows media player to glue them together! :-)

[LuckyStrike]

IMHO if implemented, the feature would be a lot more popular than many think. It would be an excellent tactical training tool.

[noxnoctum]

Ya a multiplayer lobby would be awesome. I guarantee it would encourage more people to buy it too. Multiplayer is huge these days and a game that doesn't properly support it def suffers in the sales department. Getting a real lobby would take it out of the "niche grog" market and into the wider strategy game market. It's not too "complex" for the general public either, look how well Civ 4 has done, and that's a pretty damn complex game.

Just getting tcp-ip wego with replay is really a must have though, like now, especially since it was in the older games.

I mean, for IL-2 Sturmovik, some guy (not working for Ubisoft or Oleg) just by himself managed to make a multiplayer lobby for it and a bunch of other flight sims... it's now used by hundreds daily (Sturmovik peaks at about 600-700 people online at once). I guarantee sales of 1946 would not have been as good if it were not for hyper lobby. If one guy can do it in his spare time for free no less, can't BFC?

BFC really needs to 1) Get back all the old features of CMx1 that were taken out (now it's mostly just tcpip wego and a couple other random interface things I miss) and 2) Seriously ramp up the multiplayer.

I see all this talk that makes it sound like the general gaming populace is some dumbed down breed of subhumans who just drool over CoD and nothing else. Simply not true. Again, look how well Civilization 4 has done. Or the Total War series. Granted Total War is a bit more simplistic, but there are definitely realism fanatics in that community (a lot too), because mods are constantly being made for it to deepen gameplay and ramp up the realism.

I think it's the lack of MP options that's holding CM series from really breaking out.

[videoment]

"multiplayer lobby would be awesome. I guarantee it would encourage more people to buy it too."

I think that developers of the game should listen to that more carefully and dont say always that "there are more important featers then battle replay"

battle replay MUST BE! all games have it! IL2! Total war!

WHY CMSF DOESNT HAVE IT TOO?? is it very very very difficult???

[Cornfleek]

I agree with what is being said here, I feel BFC has the priorities wrong when it comes to multiplayer. 2-3 years into development is bad bad news. I believe a lot of people (including me) are not interested in 1v1 against people you don't know, but greatly enjoy co-op multiplayer with friends. Somewhere else I believe that Steve said that CM multiplayer's greatest challenge was making the AI a proper ''wingman' so that 2x2 scenario's would be possible. I'd give my left ball for a 2x2 co-op multiplayer option without being able to go 2x2 with AI against AI.

Uhm, make that my left pinky toe actually, but still, the point stands. Proper multiplayer with lobbies and co-op would push CM into the edges of main stream without having to give in to the realism.

[SKELLEN]

A total replay feature would be welcome, but if not a nice compromise would be to maintain what we have now 60 sec replay from CMX1 and releasing a small utility later for people who wish to join those replays into one whole.

[Tim A]

It may take longer than "two or three years" to get multiplayer teams into the game. Steve has mentioned in the past that they would like to get this feature into the game, but it will take a lot of work, even with the new CMx2 engine to get it implemented as desired.

The 'whole game playback' may never happen. It's possible that a solution may be found, but more than likely it may never reach the point of being worked on since there are so many other features that demand time that affect the playability of the game. Considering the size of PBEMs now, I could imagine that a full-game playback file may be over a gigabyte in size (and just get bigger as further changes happen to the game engine).

It sounds to me that this isn't going to get done in a CMx2 engine. However, I would think that some major rethinking needs to be done on CMx3 engine so that these type of issues are much more easily handled or inherently supported.

In this day and age there are tons of game engines that have MUCH more going on than CMSF and can easily handle multiplayer and full playback.

Neither of these should be issues at all unless your hands are severely tied due to the CMx2 engine.

[Paper Tiger]

Neither of these should be issues at all unless your hands are severely tied due to the CMx2 engine.

It's more likely to be that there's only one person doing all the coding and not something inherently flawed with the CMx2 engine

[Battlefront.com]

Bingo We could have 12 people per side with the existing CMx2 code no problem. But this would require probably 6-8 months of doing nothing else. Not a single new game feature, no work on new settings, and not even work on Modules (separate from artwork, of course).

For such a massive interruption of development, or more probably hiring out for the work, we'd better see a corresponding increase in sales. Besides a military contract (which would almost certainly require this functionality) we are not sure the end result would be financially beneficial to us. Which is why we've been saying for some time now that CoPlay will more likely happen, and happen sooner, if we land a military contract. But since that isn't something we are actively pursuing, nor is it likely to happen (getting a contract is like being struck by lightning), it seems CoPlay is still a long ways off.

Steve

[purpheart23]

Bingo We could have 12 people per side with the existing CMx2 code no problem. But this would require probably 6-8 months of doing nothing else. Not a single new game feature, no work on new settings, and not even work on Modules (separate from artwork, of course).

For such a massive interruption of development, or more probably hiring out for the work, we'd better see a corresponding increase in sales. Besides a military contract (which would almost certainly require this functionality) we are not sure the end result would be financially beneficial to us. Which is why we've been saying for some time now that CoPlay will more likely happen, and happen sooner, if we land a military contract. But since that isn't something we are actively pursuing, nor is it likely to happen (getting a contract is like being struck by lightning), it seems CoPlay is still a long ways off.

Steve

I'm willing to wait. Hell I'd even give you some more money for this feature alone.

[Blackcat]

Tim A, siad above:

"In this day and age there are tons of game engines that have MUCH more going on than CMSF and can easily handle multiplayer and full playback."

Is he right? I have my doubts. Every man and every round fired in a battalion isezed game (i.e several hundred shooters aside) seems to be a lot of processing to me. I am not aware of any other game that comes close. Which game engines does he mean I wonder. Someone must know becuase apparently there are a lot of them out there.

Mind you, if there are "tons of game engines" that can handle the CMSF workload and more, one has to wonder why BF went to all the bother of writing their own.