Visual Bone

[Battlefront.com]

That's cool Steve. I mean, I don't expect a movie-like experience when it comes to small details such as minor equipment. I don't think devoting animation cycles to a mg ammo belt to be an efficient or good use of developer time personally. Now, if Charles happens to stumble upon a way to do it eventually without killing fps in CM2WW2's lifetime, then great!

For something like this it is more a function of programming time to get flexible items to work correctly, then artist time to create the animations and artwork. Framerate isn't a big concern for something like this because it's only a factor when the player is close enough to see it. And when he's close enough to see it he's likely not seeing thousands of square meters of battlespace (which is the real framerate strain).

Frankly, although the old saying that "big things are made up of lots of little things" is true, at this point I am more concerned with the overall game... how it feels in play, accurate depictions of standard units and equipment, etc. I am confident the detail stuff will come along nicely, whether from Battlefront or the modders. :cool:

We definitely agree that "big things are made up of lots of little things", which is why small things like soldier details are very important to do right. From a game (simulation) standpoint *most* of the small things have been complete for months or even years. Even most of the big things have been complete, though only the testers have seen the WW2 specific things so far.

The beauty of the CMx2 codebase is that we can keep adding NEW things instead of periodically going back and starting from scratch. That means each new release has all the good stuff from the previous one and new stuff on top. And when we don't get things exactly right for a particular release, like Quick Battles, we can focus on that for the next release without having it compromised because we have to redo stuff that was working well. Since there are years and years and YEARS worth of stuff to add, it is critical that we keep redoing old stuff to a minimum. CMx2 gives us that edge we all need.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I was thinking more of BAR and Bren ammo bounces distributed among the squad. I didn't dare dream of flexible belted ammo, or anything being done with them other then just being there visually.

To make it clear, with the G43 thing you already exceeded my expectations. Kudos for that, as that's not an easy thing to do.

[Battlefront.com]

Ah, I see what you mean. Well, it already is in and working that Team members can carry ammo for other Team members. For example, RPG ammo is usually carried by two guys, even though there is only one launcher. For HMGs usually 3-4 members of a Team carry ammo. Etc.

One difference (and this is a tiny bone) between the current version of the engine and v1.21 is sharing can now happen between unrelated Teams. For example, a Syrian Rifle Squad with 4x RPG rounds and NO launcher (because of casualties) can now supply a separate Syrian Rifle Squad with no RPG rounds and a Launcher. Rifle ammo and what not is treated the same way. Best of all, it happens automatically, based on need, when units are close to each other. This allows for dedicated ammo bearing Teams as well, which we do have for CM: Normandy's Heavy Weapons Platoons.

Steve

P.S. Keep in mind that there is no such thing as a "Squad" in terms of units. Everything is a Team. Squads are simply containers of between 2 and 3 Teams. Just to keep the concepts described above clear

[TheVulture]

One difference (and this is a tiny bone) between the current version of the engine and v1.21 is sharing can now happen between unrelated Teams. For example, a Syrian Rifle Squad with 4x RPG rounds and NO launcher (because of casualties) can now supply a separate Syrian Rifle Squad with no RPG rounds and a Launcher. Rifle ammo and what not is treated the same way. Best of all, it happens automatically, based on need, when units are close to each other. This allows for dedicated ammo bearing Teams as well, which we do have for CM: Normandy's Heavy Weapons Platoons.

Excellent - can't tell you how many times this has annoyed me playing Syrians . Will they share all ammo they have that they can't use (subject to weight limits) or just a little? If I load up a random guy with rifle with HMG ammo, would he share the whole lot with the first HMG team he spent time with, or keep some himself?

See, you can't share a single fact about CM:N without prompting a load of questions...

[Pvt. Ryan]

That sound great. I hope I live long enough to actually play the game.

[MeatEtr]

One difference (and this is a tiny bone) between the current version of the engine and v1.21 is sharing can now happen between unrelated Teams. For example, a Syrian Rifle Squad with 4x RPG rounds and NO launcher (because of casualties) can now supply a separate Syrian Rifle Squad with no RPG rounds and a Launcher. Rifle ammo and what not is treated the same way. Best of all, it happens automatically, based on need, when units are close to each other. This allows for dedicated ammo bearing Teams as well, which we do have for CM: Normandy's Heavy Weapons Platoons.

Steve

Nice to hear this is "in" for CMN. On that note, has the acquire menu interface been tweaked at all? For example, can units put things back into trucks/HTs? I hate it when accidentally grabbing rifle ammo for an MG team or RPGs/Javs for a squad with no launcher.

[Battlefront.com]

Excellent - can't tell you how many times this has annoyed me playing Syrians . Will they share all ammo they have that they can't use (subject to weight limits) or just a little? If I load up a random guy with rifle with HMG ammo, would he share the whole lot with the first HMG team he spent time with, or keep some himself?

Well, first of all you can't "load up" anybody with anything Sharing only happens when there is a direct need by a Team and a surplus (which is a relative term) in another Team. If one Squad has an empty RPG launcher and another Squad has an RPG launcher and 6 rounds only some rounds will be transferred. If both had 6 rounds then neither would share with each other.

To take your hypothetical HMG ammo example, if you have the remains of an HMG team with tons of ammo, but no HMG, then the first HMG team you come upon that needs ammo will take some. If the first HMG team you come upon is already full up, then it won't take any.

Steve

[JonS]

To take your hypothetical HMG ammo example, if you have the remains of an HMG team with tons of ammo, but no HMG, then the first HMG team you come upon that needs ammo will take some. If the first HMG team you come upon is already full up, then it won't take any. ...

... but, presumably, if you left the ammo humping team (AHT) next to the HMG, and the HMG started firing, they'd continually top themselves up from the AHT, until eventually the AHT was empty of HMG ammo?

[sfhand]

Ah, I see what you mean. Well, it already is in and working that Team members can carry ammo for other Team members. For example, RPG ammo is usually carried by two guys, even though there is only one launcher. For HMGs usually 3-4 members of a Team carry ammo. Etc.

One difference (and this is a tiny bone) between the current version of the engine and v1.21 is sharing can now happen between unrelated Teams. For example, a Syrian Rifle Squad with 4x RPG rounds and NO launcher (because of casualties) can now supply a separate Syrian Rifle Squad with no RPG rounds and a Launcher. Rifle ammo and what not is treated the same way. Best of all, it happens automatically, based on need, when units are close to each other. This allows for dedicated ammo bearing Teams as well, which we do have for CM: Normandy's Heavy Weapons Platoons.

Steve

P.S. Keep in mind that there is no such thing as a "Squad" in terms of units. Everything is a Team. Squads are simply containers of between 2 and 3 Teams. Just to keep the concepts described above clear

Steve,

When you cite this one difference between "the current version of the engine and v1.21" do you mean to imply that CM: Nato will also have this feature?

As always, thanks for the treat!

[Michael Emrys]

That sound great. I hope I live long enough to actually play the game.

That depends. If the game comes out before September 10th., you may get in a few games before your brakes fail and dump you and your car in front of that oncoming Santa Fe Express.

Michael

[Pvt. Ryan]

I don't drive a Toyota. I expect to be crushed by a hunk of blue ice.

[McAuliffe]

P.S. Keep in mind that there is no such thing as a "Squad" in terms of units. Everything is a Team. Squads are simply containers of between 2 and 3 Teams. Just to keep the concepts described above clear

That's all very impressive, but does that mean, that there is even more micro-management involved? Do we have to plot waypoints for each and everyone of these teams to make a squad advance in a coherent way or will we have finally some group commands, that will avoid repetitive plotting as of squad level or even better platoon level? Uhm... did I mention follow the leader command?

[Thomm]

That's all very impressive, but does that mean, that there is even more micro-management involved? Do we have to plot waypoints for each and everyone of these teams to make a squad advance in a coherent way or will we have finally some group commands, that will avoid repetitive plotting as of squad level or even better platoon level? Uhm... did I mention follow the leader command?

With respect to moving squads, the system has not changed from CM:SF.

On the level of the (unsplit) squad, you issue commands only for the squad.

On higher levels, you can use group select to move multiple squads.

But I guess you are aware of this. Perhaps I do not understand your questions correctly, or you are looking for something else here.

Best regards,

Thomm

[McAuliffe]

Sorry, if you didn't understand, but I was referring to one of my old pet peeves dating back to early days of CM. But guess, I am not alone.

"The follow the leader" idea consists of appointing one "leader unit" and plot the way points for this individual leader. You then select a bunch of units that will direct themselves in the shortest way to the starting point of the leader unit and from there onwards follows the leader in his foot-steps or tracks for that matter. It would function a bit like the embarking command, but without embarking.

A more fine-tuned version would consist of adding an tactical advance menu like:

-Advance in column

-Advance in line abreast

-Advance in W-shape or diamond shape.

The introduction of this command would cut input by 2/3 in my opinion, which would make game play much more enjoyable.

The current group selection is just too crude and needs the whole time re-adjusting, since changing way points has been omitted this is made in CMSF a real bugger (for as far as I played it)

[ranting mode on]

The idea was discussed and requested already over and over, but for one reason or another, it seems not to dawn on BF, that this would be one of the most essential changes in order to improve game play and tops the requests-list far beyond top dressings like exchanging ammunition or loose chin straps.

[ranting mode off]

[Thomm]

Hi McAuliffe,

Thanks for taking the time to make these clarifications!

Sure, what you suggest would be nice to have. One is hard-pressed to come up with an explanation for the absence of movable waypoints (I am sure that there is one!?!), e.g.

... it seems not to dawn on BF, that this would be one of the most essential changes in order to improve game play and tops the requests-list far beyond top dressings like exchanging ammunition or loose chin straps.

You have to be very careful here, since this is subjective. For example, I could rightfully state that "peeking around corner" logic is much more important than movable waypoints. Obviously, the ammo sharing came along naturally along with other, important features (I am unsure whether they are public knowledge or not yet).

I can tell you for sure that Charles' programming agenda is choke-full. We have limited weight in deciding what gets done and what not. It does not harm to bring up a topic (movable waypoints being the best example) every now and then. I see very little chance for formation orders or follow the leader functionality for the moment, though. The curse of having one guy do everything.

Best regards,

Thomm

[McAuliffe]

I am actually little baffled, that you asked for an explanation, wasn't it you that asked for the implementation of this feature yourselves. I digged this one up....

The point is to take away the tedium of having to give basically identical orders to a number of units. Say you want to move up reinforcements along a covered route (no incoming fire). Your approach would be to issue individual group moves over several turns, others want to define the whole path at once. I fail to see how the latter desire is unjustified.

Personally I would like to discuss the implementation of such a successive group move, a discussion I tried to trigger some replies earlier. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have any interest in the actual problems associated with the implementation of the order, but rather fall into flamethrowing mode over their personal preferences.

Take the "Follow Vehicle" order, for example. How are the vehicles supposed to have a concept of the order they are supposed to maintain. Even worse, lets assume that some vehicles are not even on the same road as the lead vehicles when they are issued the order. Who is to be prioritized. What rules are applied to sort out the convoy order. It sounds like a fairly complex (optimization?) problem to even build a working convoy from individual vehicles.

I think that a "Follow Road" command would be very easy to implement in terms of modifying "terrain cost" in favor of road tiles in the pathfinding algorithm. But I guess that the current pathfinder is programmed such as to follow the plotted path as closely as possible, thereby saving computation time by being restricted to obstacle avoidance. In this case, "Follow Road" would be quite difficult to implement since it ran against the basic philosophy of the pathfinder.

Regards,

Thomm

Regarding my ranting, you should always keep in mind that I am bit of sarcastic nature and go overboard in order to make my point. Sometimes it helps, most of the time I get the door slammed in the face unfortunately. I apologise if any personal feelings were hurt.

[Blackcat]

If I ead the above correctly then "Road Movement" and "Convoy Movement" will not be included in CM:N. That is a shame, as these have been asked for since CMBO.

However, as long as the command delay based on the number of way points is not re-introduced, I won't mind too much. It will be aggravating, no more. Command delays based on the idea of telling a commander, "Take you platoon down the road to point X" is a very complex order are silly and to a large extent negate the value that roads had and have in real life.

All that said, I am still going to buy the game whatever Battlefront do.

[Thomm]

I am actually little baffled, that you asked for an explanation, wasn't it you that asked for the implementation of this feature yourselves. I digged this one up ...

The "follow the leader" part of your post did not confuse me. It was not clear to me where you saw the additional micro-management ... until now, that is!

Because if I re-read everything written so far, you are referring to this part:

This allows for dedicated ammo bearing Teams as well, which we do have for CM: Normandy's Heavy Weapons Platoons.

Having understood this, I think I can answer your question: yes, the ammo bearers mean an extra team to move around. Yes, this requires some more micro-management. Yes, it would be handy to have a command to make them follow their designated MMG team.

Sorry, I was a little bit slow here.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Elmar Bijlsma]

One difference (and this is a tiny bone) between the current version of the engine and v1.21 is sharing can now happen between unrelated Teams. For example, a Syrian Rifle Squad with 4x RPG rounds and NO launcher (because of casualties) can now supply a separate Syrian Rifle Squad with no RPG rounds and a Launcher. Rifle ammo and what not is treated the same way. Best of all, it happens automatically, based on need, when units are close to each other. This allows for dedicated ammo bearing Teams as well, which we do have for CM: Normandy's Heavy Weapons Platoons.

It will be interesting to see how well it works. I might not want that routing green panzershreck team to nick rounds from an elite panzershreck team as they flee past. An extreme example perhaps, but I guess there's a lot of nuance in ammo distribution preferences that poor old Charles couldn't possibly code for.

But it's sure is good that ammo management gets some love.

With this new ability, will maximum ammo loads be lowered some? They seem rather generous in CMSF and I wouldn't mind seeing this limited in future releases. IMHO there is not enough of a downside to just distributing all the spare ammo right at the start of the scenario.

But it's another step in the right direction. Stuff like this makes me a lot happier about the wait.

[stoex]

With all due respect, this feature seems a really big can of worms to open, and I somehow can't imagine it doing either the player or BFC any favor. Something as integrally important to the battle plan as the ammo loadout of units should not be put into the hands of the AI, no matter how good a job Charles does of coding it. There will be numerous situations where the player will not want what the AI thinks it should do.

Example: Having units close to one another without them sharing ammo. Or the choice between which unit is left with the launcher AND ammo in the previously stated example where one unit has a Schreck and the other has the rockets.

Sharing ammo between non-related teams is a great idea per se, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, BFC, make it the player's choice when and how it happens. Just like reloading from vehicles. Don't leave it up to the AI. I see trouble brewing with that approach...

[stoex]

Out of time for editing, so here are some more thoughts on the subject:

Even if only ammo gets shared, this could lead to situations where the player will be left with two units with not enough ammo, as opposed to one with and one without. At the very least, it will probably mean players will have to think twice about how and when they position units next to one another, for fear of AI ammo sharing ruining or compromising their plans.

I have a feeling the mechanics (as I understand them from Steve's post) will be more trouble than help in many a situation. If I misunderstood, please clarify - if I understand correctly, I strongly urge BFC to rethink this addition to the engine. Be aware that sharing "based on need" (quote Steve) does not take into account the player's tactical needs and plans further on in a scenario. Sharing ammo is not a "now" decision only...

Cheers

[Thomm]

Having understood this, I think I can answer your question: yes, the ammo bearers mean an extra team to move around. Yes, this requires some more micro-management. Yes, it would be handy to have a command to make them follow their designated MMG team.

Have to correct myself; according to my latest information it is not quite like that. But I do not want to wander off into NDA land ...

Teaches me not to talk about stuff that is best left for Steve to write about.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Battlefront.com]

Steve,

When you cite this one difference between "the current version of the engine and v1.21" do you mean to imply that CM: Nato will also have this feature?

It will be in NATO as well because it won't negatively affect what already exists or require reworking of old data. It's actually more work for us to turn something like this off for a particular product release than it is to include it, so if it doesn't cause harm it goes in. In fact, several features in v1.20 came about because of Normandy's coding, not because we specifically programmed them for British Module.

That's all very impressive, but does that mean, that there is even more micro-management involved?

Depends if you want to have the control or not. Where it is historically correct, heavy weapons are a Squad with one Team manning the weapon and a second Team lugging ammo and providing area security. You can keep them tied together as a Squad and therefore have no extra responsibilities. Or you can split the Squad so that you can independently manage the ammo separate form the weapon.

The rule of thumb I'd use is when on the move you keep the Weapons Squads whole. Since you want the two Teams within to wind up in the same location, there's no need to independently move each piece.

When deployed I'd recommend having them separate since they are stationary and therefore only rarely would you be issuing Movement Commands to both at the same time. By default the TacAI tries to keep all Teams within a Squad "in the fight", which is fine for "infantry" type units but is not usually desirable for Weapons Squads. For example, you might want to have the Ammo Team back under cover a couple of Action Spots away and only move up to the weapon when there is a need for resupply. This keeps your ammo safe and reduces the chance that a mortar round or something takes out everybody.

The idea was discussed and requested already over and over, but for one reason or another, it seems not to dawn on BF, that this would be one of the most essential changes in order to improve game play and tops the requests-list far beyond top dressings like exchanging ammunition or loose chin straps.

Sure, in a perfect world we would have this. But of course why should your pet peeve get ahead of the other 10 years worth of pet peeves people have heaped upon us over the pervious 10 years? It's natural for players to think that their ideas are the single most important thing in the whole world, but that doesn't make it so.

Would "Follow" be a good thing for the game? Absolutely. It's been on an internal ToDo List since before CMBO ever got into a single player's hands. And yet it still isn't in the game. Perhaps there's a reason for this that you don't comprehend?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

It will be interesting to see how well it works. I might not want that routing green panzershreck team to nick rounds from an elite panzershreck team as they flee past.

Won't happen because two things are required for an ammo transfer that would not be present here:

1. Units have to be stationary at the time of transfer (and not just pinned, I mean not intending on moving).

2. Routed units don't get to do fancy stuff like, uhm, fire their weapons, move sensibly, or grab ammo

With this new ability, will maximum ammo loads be lowered some? They seem rather generous in CMSF and I wouldn't mind seeing this limited in future releases. IMHO there is not enough of a downside to just distributing all the spare ammo right at the start of the scenario.

Units carry the amounts of ammo they were supposed to have. With US Heavy Weapons the amount of ammo is pretty high because they have a ton of ammo bearers. In real life they divide up the load so that the unit can move at roughly the same pace for roughly the same distance. If you have one guy carrying 20 pounds of extra gear and another 60 pounds, that's not a good idea.

With all due respect, this feature seems a really big can of worms to open, and I somehow can't imagine it doing either the player or BFC any favor. Something as integrally important to the battle plan as the ammo loadout of units should not be put into the hands of the AI, no matter how good a job Charles does of coding it. There will be numerous situations where the player will not want what the AI thinks it should do.

True, but the opposite extreme is that the player has to micromanage the ammo distribution all the time, every time. On the whole I would say that is by far the less desirable approach.

Example: Having units close to one another without them sharing ammo.

In real life this sort of sharing would go on without orders in triplicate from Battalion HQ While this might sound rather snide, it's actually not. The player should not be able to micromanage control over extremely low level details using his vantage point of floating above the battlefield with near perfect information at his disposal. Units in real life would never wait for orders from more than perhaps their Platoon Leader, if that.

Or the choice between which unit is left with the launcher AND ammo in the previously stated example where one unit has a Schreck and the other has the rockets.

First of all, the chances of having two Weapons Teams (Schrecks, Bazookas, Light Mortars, Medium MGs, etc.) right next to each other by random circumstances are extremely small. Meaning, for the Schreck team without ammo and with a launcher to get access to another Schreck team that has ammo but no launcher will almost certainly require the player moving the two Teams together because only a fool would have two Schecks within an Action Spot of each other.

Ironically, the problem here isn't automatic sharing but the player being able to unrealistically move units around to consolidate ammo. This is the sort of thing that often took hours to achieve in real life because even identifying who has what and who needs what took a considerable amount of dedicated effort.

Sharing ammo between non-related teams is a great idea per se, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, BFC, make it the player's choice when and how it happens. Just like reloading from vehicles. Don't leave it up to the AI. I see trouble brewing with that approach...

I don't see any trouble with it being automatic because practically speaking the amount of times it will happen without some player input is very low. And out of the times that it does happen without some player input the chances are very good that the AI will do the right thing. Far better to have it this way than to require micromanagement 100 out of 100 times to avoid an actual 1 out of 100 times problem with automatic sharing..

At the very least, it will probably mean players will have to think twice about how and when they position units next to one another, for fear of AI ammo sharing ruining or compromising their plans.

As I said above, I don't see that happening. Players should not be bunching their units together within sharing range, and then having them sit still, in any but the most extreme circumstances. If such a situation happens it will likely be for the better to have more units equally capable than having fewer units capable.

Steve

[TheVulture]

Well since you're here and (apparently) forthcoming

It will be in NATO as well because it won't negatively affect what already exists or require reworking of old data. It's actually more work for us to turn something like this off for a particular product release than it is to include it, so if it doesn't cause harm it goes in. In fact, several features in v1.20 came about because of Normandy's coding, not because we specifically programmed them for British Module.

Call me a whippet and spank me, but isn't the current patch 1.21?

Depends if you want to have the control or not. Where it is historically correct, heavy weapons are a Squad with one Team manning the weapon and a second Team lugging ammo and providing area security. You can keep them tied together as a Squad and therefore have no extra responsibilities. Or you can split the Squad so that you can independently manage the ammo separate form the weapon.

The rule of thumb I'd use is when on the move you keep the Weapons Squads whole. Since you want the two Teams within to wind up in the same location, there's no need to independently move each piece.

When deployed I'd recommend having them separate since they are stationary and therefore only rarely would you be issuing Movement Commands to both at the same time. By default the TacAI tries to keep all Teams within a Squad "in the fight", which is fine for "infantry" type units but is not usually desirable for Weapons Squads. For example, you might want to have the Ammo Team back under cover a couple of Action Spots away and only move up to the weapon when there is a need for resupply. This keeps your ammo safe and reduces the chance that a mortar round or something takes out everybody.

Excellent news, since I'd just been complaining about having to have a whole MG team pack up and move to get more ammo, rather than leave the MG deployed and firing and just send a few men back to get more ammo from a truck.

One question that it does raise though. In the current 'one team' approach to e.g. MG squads, if the gunner gets injured, someone else can take over. For a CMN squad, if one of the 'weapon' team gets injured / killed, do you then need to keep the squad unsplit so someone from the 'ammo' team can take their place? The way splitting works as seen in CMSF, if you then split off the ammo squad, you'd be stuck with the the MG firing team missing one of its men and being less effective. Have you found a way of getting men to automatically move from the 'ammo' team to the 'weapon' team to replace causalties?

I've no idea where the realism comes in to that. Would the ammo-bearers have any training on how to be part of an HMG crew, or be able to ad-lib enough to replace a fallen comrade?