scottie Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 what Stikkypixie said is part of the reason why designed for effect stuff becomes a real drag on a low level sim with the degree of complexity of CM..... Steve Best explanation yet thank you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Good stuff and a complete surprise. I read RockPaperShotgun every morning and was pleasantly surprised to see Combat Mission on the list. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 In order to design for effect you need to first identify the SPECIFIC effect you're looking for. It's a while since I've played SL or ASL, but IIRC all roads were one tile wide - that's, what? 40m? Regadless of country or county, roads are 40m. I believe the reason (apart from the obvious requirement that it fit within the constraints of the hex grid) is that the designers felt that units moving across a road should always be exposed long enough for the enemy to get a shot in, so that's the effect that was designed for. Map makers in CMx2 have a similar 'design for effect' decision to make. Roads in CMx2 are always one tile, 8m, wide, but buildings can be right up agains tthe edge of the road or set back, meaning the road can be as narrow as 8m or as wide as ... 20, 30, 40m, whatever. In fact, buildings can be as close as just 4m apart, leaving only a little backalley betwixt them. Further, by adding an internal door, troops can move between buildings - or not - without going outside. It depends on the effect the designer is trying to create, using engineered elements. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Good stuff and a complete surprise. I read RockPaperShotgun every morning and was pleasantly surprised to see Combat Mission on the list. You were surprised? I'll go you one better. I was reading RPS (not a sign of the article) came directly to this forum afterwards and right away saw the thread about CMN being featured on RPS. Had me go "wut?" at myself. Liked the dead cow bit. Funny how stuff like that gets attention. We are a strange bunch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeatEtr Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Great interview, thanks! Nice to see the new guy Phil in on the action too 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wodin Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I say there is a market for an air war game.... Make a WW1 game...look at how well Wings of war the boardgame\minature game has sold. You would have all that market plus the Over Flanders Field and Rise of Flight market aswell I'm sure... I already have a great design idea..just need the progamming skills:( Good read though...makes me very happy we have Battlefront around. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 One interesting bit of movement on Steve's part that I noted. He's gone from "No beach landings. No beach landings. No beach landings" to "Beach landings can be fudged"! That may not sound like much of a concession but its like moving the Rock of Gibralter three inches to the left. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 He's always said that. If you can make a beach landing scenario with what you are given, then knock yourself out. But they aren't going to give us landing craft or anything else specifically needed for a beach landing scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 One interesting bit of movement on Steve's part that I noted. He's gone from "No beach landings. No beach landings. No beach landings" to "Beach landings can be fudged"! That may not sound like much of a concession but its like moving the Rock of Gibralter three inches to the left. This has always been the case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Map makers in CMx2 have a similar 'design for effect' decision to make. Roads in CMx2 are always one tile, 8m, wide, but buildings can be right up agains tthe edge of the road or set back, meaning the road can be as narrow as 8m or as wide as ... 20, 30, 40m, whatever. In fact, buildings can be as close as just 4m apart, leaving only a little backalley betwixt them. Further, by adding an internal door, troops can move between buildings - or not - without going outside. It depends on the effect the designer is trying to create, using engineered elements. And I am looking forward to some Nijmegen scenarios using these features to my benefit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 It's a while since I've played SL or ASL, but IIRC all roads were one tile wide - that's, what? 40m? Yeah, and in CMx1 they were roughly 16m wide because the fidelity didn't allow them to be smaller. And that's more of an issue of fidelity rather than design vs. engineered. However, the finer the detail the more design for effect becomes a hinderance than a help. Which means EFFECTIVELY to get high fidelity you probably need to be more engineered than designed for effect. It depends on the effect the designer is trying to create, using engineered elements. An interesting perspective. It's true, now that I think about it, that the scenario makers benefit from the engineered philosophy because there's a broader pallet of stuff to draw from when trying to get a certain feeling out of a particular scenario. Without a highly engineered environment that pallet, like CMx1's, would have to be smaller and less diverse. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnersman Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 It's interesting that a programmer can get the results he wants from a game that is programed in such a way that is not micromanaged, relatively speaking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krilly Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 And I am looking forward to some Nijmegen scenarios using these features to my benefit. Indeed, may I mention 'Overloon'? I am sure many of us Will work on some scenario's when it comes out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 "Combat Mission: Norman Wisdom" would have been a cool title! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 ...really crazy stuff happens in battles. So true. Everything imaginable—and quite a lot that was never imagined before it happened—has occurred at one time or another in war. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 It's a while since I've played SL or ASL, but IIRC all roads were one tile wide - that's, what? 40m? BTW, ISTR that the designer's explanation for that scale was that it was the only way that the longer-ranged weaponry could be adequately portrayed on the typical AH mapboard. IMHO it was a regrettable decision that led to a lot of bad things. In addition to 40 meter wide roads, it also had manpack flamethrowers with a range of 80 meters and similar absurdities. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 The other thing from the interview was the old trench fox hole issue (old thread floating about i know). Trenches that mould to terrain: (ala CMSF): - are problem because of frame rates - are a problem because they are not hidden ? you can see the undulations when browsing the map therefore fortified areas are known pre battle ? Foxholes (ala CMBN): - are hidden because they behave like units do , fog of war applies. - but the down side is they are not as aesthetically pleasing as terrain meshing ... ie grass growing through the fox hole base etc. So BF decided to go with the fog of war , less frame rate option. That makes sence to me. You play the game due to playability not nice looks ... although graphics help realism but not at the expense of game play IMO. Is that it in a nutshell ? When this game is released i bet there are many complaints about this area , do you have a rebuff prepared 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Sounds like you've adequately listed the rebuff. Makes sense to me too, I can live with grass growing through my foxhole if it means the enemy wont know it's there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Yes we have seen the foxholes in the screenshots and I, for one, am more than happy with them. They look slightly odd but it is very much worth it to have them FOW. I would rather BFC spend time on flammers and fire than trying to improve foxholes. I want burning fields and buildings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Yes, if that's the trade-off that must be made then IMO FOW defenses are preferable to more realistic terrain modeling. I do remember someone saying during the AAR that the earth pimple look was still being worked on . Do the best you can with them and let the modders do the rest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hukka Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I was wondering before when the CMBN would get some RPS love. Good to see it there. The game definitely needs some more publicity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Yes we have seen the foxholes in the screenshots and I, for one, am more than happy with them. They look slightly odd but it is very much worth it to have them FOW. Just FYI guys - the foxholes you guys saw in the AAR were always just place holders, Ive made some changes to them and overall am actually reasonably happy with their look now, all things considered. Dan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowMotion Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Screenshot? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeatEtr Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Please Dan! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Sorry guys, have just done a reinstall and am in the middle of flavor objects at the moment so dont have time for a screen shot but basically we reduced the height of the dirt and added a layer or so of sandbags to the top...as a result I think they visually they look much more like a reasonably good reinforced position considering the compromises with regards to FOW. Trenches have also been reworked with the new sandbags, in fact fortifications in general have probably been completely revamped from any screen shots you guys may have seen (older than a couple of weeks at least). Dan 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.