Wiggum Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Hi, as i saw this picture some questions came to my mind: http://www.battlefront.com/images/stories/CMBN/Elvis_vs_JonS/2nd-installment-4-full.jpg 1. Those foxholes look very unnatural and a bit strange. The engine should be able to make them look a lot more natural and pretty i think. 2. Will those foxholes and trenches still be visible all the time to all sides ? So i can still scroll over the map and see all (possible) enemy positions ? Will there be a option for the scenario designer to choose the overall Intelligence of a side ? So for example with 100% Intelligence all enemy trenches and foxholes would be visible from start, with 0% will not know about them before your troops "discover" them. 3. Will troops entrenche themselfe ? Will there be an entrenche command or will there be some kind of "auto entrenche" ? So if your Infantry group is a long time at one place they will be much better entrenched then a group that just arrived. 4. Are their any other kinds of entrenchment like fortified buildings or something ? . . . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnersman Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Here ya go. From the horses mouth...so to speak. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94378&highlight=foxholes http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94322&highlight=foxholes Edit: That's better. Posted the same link 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincere Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Hi, as i saw this picture some questions came to my mind: http://www.battlefront.com/images/stories/CMBN/Elvis_vs_JonS/2nd-installment-4-full.jpg 1. Those foxholes look very unnatural and a bit strange. The engine should be able to make them look a lot more natural and pretty i think. . You'd benefit from keeping up with the terminology. They are redesignated as 'earth pimples'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Do we get trenches in CMSF's style too? If someoene doesnt want FOW trenches and wants the nicer looking "underground corridor" style ones, can we use these too? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MG TOW Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 A little surprised at this, reminds me of the ink spot trenches in CMBO. But fog of war is important for hasty defences so it makes sense. As ali-baba said it seems there were some TOW dug outs in CMSF. For established defenses with wire and tetra hedra, there would be no need for FOW in that type of defensive trench position. Maybe not so prevalent in Normandy as compared to the Russian front. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 There are a ton of very long and detailed threads on CM:SF Forum (and maybe here) about the tradeoffs between Fog of War functionality vs. Nicer Graphics. We tried as hard as we could to have a good compromise between game functionality and graphics enjoyability. Foxholes definitely are the ones that have the most compromises visually. The CM:SF type Trenches are no longer available. They were removed, in part, because they really hurt the framerate when overused. Since CM:BN's maps have a lot more polygons than CM:SF we felt it was a good idea to take this one out since most of the functionality was transferred to the new Trench system. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Poor Steve's been browbeaten for years by the board demanding proper FOW on trenches and FOW on foxholes. This is what happens when you get what you ask for. You can't exactly break the terrain mesh and have FOW rules at the same time. CMSF terrain mesh-breaking ditches are a thing of the past. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymaxx Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Form must follow function, if earthpimpels are the only way to have FOW, so be it . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 You can't exactly break the terrain mesh and have FOW rules at the same time. Says who? It's all just software GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincere Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I have little issue with how foxholes look, but very keen to know how thay work. Is there any abstraction for cover between the pimples or will rounds and nasty bits of metal go through there like the the thin air that we see? I presume the defenders will kneel to shoot over the mound? And why not just have the earth go all way round? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volltreffer Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I dare say the new above ground trench system aids in keeping the troops where they should be - in cover? What I mean is that in CM:SF the troops had a tendency to want to overtake each other or run up the side of the trench and be in full view of fire rather than follow the exact path of the trench. I realise some things are abstracted and that area fire calculates the hits/misses etc therefore just because 1 soldier is in view may not guarantee a hit...... However, going back to my opening sentence, I would assume that these new trenches prevent the climbing the wall issues from the old trench system and that the troops are funnelled so-to-speak by the trench walls........Am I right with my assumption? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Are small ditches available at least? I liked the look of these terrain mesh features and they generally worked fine for a terrain deformation. How will a scenario author create a ditch along a road for instance? * Also I hope FOW trenches remain visually on map once spotted and not switch on/off regarding of LOS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 The TacAI is the issue with staying in trenches, not the physical form they take. The reason for the problems has to do with Soldier bottlenecks not being resolved in a way that necessarily makes sense to the player. It's a tough AI issue for many situations like this in many different games. Advances have been made in CM:BN so far, but I expect there to be at least some instances of sub-optimal behavior for a long time to come. Just a hunch. No small ditches available. Terrain mesh deformation like this really hurts the framerate. Shallower ditches hurt almost as much as deep ones as they don't take significantly less polygons. Yet they become practically useless as protection. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Steve, does this mean we cannot expect to see the large craters created by CAS bombs in CMSF recreated with large naval shells in CMBN ? i.e explosions from large calibre shells wont mesh the terrain at all they will just be an image on top of the terrain as in CMx1 ? (apologies if this has already been answered, i just didn't fully appreciate the impact ... so to speak). Scott 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 scottie, I'm not a tester or anything, but I am 100% sure that impacts from HE and other large ordinance will create craters in CMBN as they do in CMSF. There would be no point in taking this feature out of the engine. What Steve is saying is that foxholes and trenches are not deformations in the terrain mesh - in order to give them the FOW that was clamored for so much. In order to achieve this effect the foxholes and trenches are actually objects placed on top of the existing terrain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 scottie, I'm not a tester or anything, but I am 100% sure that impacts from HE and other large ordinance will create craters in CMBN as they do in CMSF. There would be no point in taking this feature out of the engine. What Steve is saying is that foxholes and trenches are not deformations in the terrain mesh - in order to give them the FOW that was clamored for so much. In order to achieve this effect the foxholes and trenches are actually objects placed on top of the existing terrain. Thanks for clearing that up and a big phewwwwwww. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 With all respect, I'm a bit puzzled why features already in, with no extra need to code apparently are taken out. I have a low end pc and trench heavy maps didnt seem to affect frame rate more than trees or buildings. It was an easy way to add some cover approaches in maps, they looked great and could be used in many different ways, from hasty prepared trenches to irrigiation ditches. Most good scenario authors made excellent use of them as terrain depressions along roads etc. I will miss them * I was also hoping to create terrain features like that with a combination of hedges/bocage/trench: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Migo441 Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 What MikeyD said: > This is what happens when you get what you ask for. We can agree that the foxholes and trenches aren't the most beautiful things in the world, but everyone whined and threw a fit about the FOW aspects. (I think I was one of the whiners.) So... On balance, I'm happy with the outcome. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Personally, I never asked to remove such a nice terrain feature. I'm not in favor of removing anything. This really highlighted the finer CMx2 mesh. Are these the same people that whinned about the infamous cherry picking that's now back? God, I hate these grogs.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Personally, I never asked to remove such a nice terrain feature. I'm not in favor of removing anything. This really highlighted the finer CMx2 mesh. Are these the same people that whinned about the infamous cherry picking that's now back? God, I hate these grogs.. There has only been one comment about this, MikeyD is just overreacting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futon river crossing Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I don't see why we have to loose roadside ditches either. No one asked for it. All we asked for, and got, was for FOW trenches - I don't think anyone expected that to be at the expense of ditches. Maybe the two didn't work well graphically together? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 A bit late in the day but - Could the 'earth pimples' be reduced in height to represent the dirt throw out from the trench/foxhole. and simply 'Boolean deduct' from 3D soldier/gun model the parts that would be in the hole below ground level i.e make them negative and 'invisible'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 There's no point in making alternative suggestions. We've gone over all possibilities over and over and over again internally and externally. Not that there are really many options to start with. What we have now has taken all these things into consideration and therefore nothing can be said now that hasn't already been evaluated before. Old style CM:SF trenches were removed because they are framerate killers. We even had a couple of scenarios (one for Marines I can think of in particular) where the scenario designer gained something like 10fps by deleting excess Trenches. Given CM:BN's more graphically intensive environment we felt it was a really bad idea to leave CM:SF Trenches in. This despite the fact that the testers lobbied hard to have them retained and I personally agree it's a shame they had to be pulled. But life is all about compromises. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 So how would we go about simulating roadside ditches and the like? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 So how would we go about simulating roadside ditches and the like? You don't, unless you use the elevation tool but it then resembles a canal more than ditch. 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.