ChrisND Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Whilst I don't passionately want gliders in the game (just as well eh?) - I would have thought that the game engine could be improved to allow "super flavor objects" or some such - that could allow for the "easy" building of things like gliders, trains etc. Once again: it could be done. Anything could be done, short of programming the game to make you a ham sandwich. It's a question of priorities. There are things the time is better spent on, like Quick Battles, anti-tank guns, vehicles, pretty Normandy scenery that would actually be present in most/all battles, bocage, hedges, fortifications, etc. Compared to those, things like dead cows, trains, and gliders are distinctly unimportant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Whilst I don't passionately want gliders in the game (just as well eh?) - I would have thought that the game engine could be improved to allow "super flavor objects" or some such - that could allow for the "easy" building of things like gliders, trains etc. I may be wrong, but I think flavor doodads (the mailboxes and tires and roadsigns we see now) aren't modeled to provide cover or concealment. Big-ticket scenery like trains and wrecked planes would be a new kind of object requiring new kinds of programming. Plus, they would have weird shapes. BTS would have to program new movement routines for hugging the side of a plane/train/V2-launcher, or else there would be loud wailing and lamentations about how the stupid troops can't crouch under a wing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 I may be wrong, but I think flavor doodads (the mailboxes and tires and roadsigns we see now) aren't modeled to provide cover or concealment.... I'm pretty sure this is not fully correct. IIRC, the current doodads provide cover, but not concealment. That is, if a bullet trajectory intersects with a polygon of a doodad, this will affect the bullet's flight path, and potentially stop it. But doodads don't factor into LOS & spotting calculations, apparently because it would just require too many CPU cycles to do so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barkhorn1x Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Once again: it could be done. There are things the time is better spent on, like Quick Battles, anti-tank guns, vehicles, pretty Normandy scenery that would actually be present in most/all battles, bocage, hedges, fortifications, etc. Compared to those, things like dead cows, trains, and gliders are distinctly unimportant. Agree with your point but must ask what it is that you believe will be missing regardin AT guns? Detailed crew animations? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Agree with your point but must ask what it is that you believe will be missing regardin AT guns? Detailed crew animations? I'm not implying anything missing, I'm just using them as an example of something that happens to be a major part of the WW2 landscape that has an impact on most battles, so they deserve a lot more work done on them than some other things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Bones re: AT guns would be most appreciated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 The reasons we don't concern ourselves with beach landings, either with CMx1 or CMx2, are as follows: 1. In all of ETO WW2 there were only a couple of days worth of fighting on beaches. As a % of combat they are tiny minority of the action. 2. CM is a game of tactics. Beach landings, when opposed, were about one side throwing enough ordinance on a small patch of ground to win, while the other side was all about rushing the defenders in the most straightforward manner possible. Tactics? None worth speaking of. At least not if we do beach landings realistically. For unopposed, or lightly opposed, beach landings there is little point in play them as a game. 3. Within the timeframe of CM, a beach landing battle would likely be "attacker lines up forces, suffers massive casualties, bumbles ahead a few meters, suffers more casualties, then the game ends". Not very fulfilling. 4. Amphibious landings require unique combat modeling which is completely irrelevant to other aspects of ETO combat. These unique requirements are also quite involved technically and, in some cases, artistically. 5. The novelty of beach landings would wear off VERY quickly. I think we can all agree it would be interesting to play an opposed beach landing. I know I would love to do that! But probably only once or twice, then play for many years to come without ever doing a beach landing scenario again. We suspect this would be the general reaction to them, so why bother putting so much effort into something that isn't valued by the player? Considering all the thousands of other suggestions people want to see realized in CM... beach landings are a very poor place to squander our limited resources. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Correct... Flavor Objects provide cover but not concealment. There is no support for Flavor Objects larger than a single Action Spot. Of course we could create something like a glider, which crosses over many Action Spots, but it isn't worth the programming time to make it happen. Not with so many other things on people's want lists. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Beach landings, when opposed, were about one side throwing enough ordinance on a small patch of ground to win, while the other side was all about rushing the defenders in the most straightforward manner possible. Tactics? None worth speaking of. You've just described most of my battles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alchenar Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 You've just described most of my battles. Oh snap! I was actually hoping to see a "to the Shores of Tripoli" style scenario thrown in though. And I think there is a degree of replayability there. Throw the Allied forces onto the beach and chew them up with ordinance. You rush the defenders and wipe them out. But that's just the opening of the scenario. From the beach you have to organise what you have left into some form of coherent force and push on to take objective/village/hill x beyond the beach. That's where the tactics come in and the randomness of what you have available at this point effects how you can go about it. I think that makes an interesting scenario in and of itself and as a good the opener to a campaign because you can: a) give the Allied player enough forces so that as long as he's vaguely competent he'll always win; and use the mass of defending firepower to 'train' consumate save-scummers like me into accepting that they are going to lose soldiers no matter what. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 You've just described most of my battles. i can relate to that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.