Hadwin73 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 yes, my English is bad:eek: will there are burning buildings, trees, gras in CMBN??? I dont understand why are these things are not in CMSF? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 No, I believe it's not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vencini Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Yeah! We want to see roofs on fire. Can we edit houses on fire? How about an AAR on the editor? To find out how it works ... Greetings! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaws Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 No, in CMx1 is was possible but the CMx2 engine dont support it atm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hadwin73 Posted May 9, 2011 Author Share Posted May 9, 2011 Why not??? what is the difference between burning tanks an burning Houses??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetchez la Vache Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 A petrol tank? :-) I would like to have burning houses myself. Not going to lose sleep over it though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatoichi Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Burning tanks in CMSF is mostly just a graphical effect - sure, it creates smoke which can and does have an effect on gameplay through blocking LOS, and burning vehicles can have their ammo cook off, which can have unpleasant side effects on any nearby units. In order to correctly model fire, they'd have to model the spread of fire realistically. They'd also have to program the AI so that it didn't do stupid things (like run into flames, or run out of burning buildings into kill zones). They'd also have to add the graphical representation, and then test this all repeatedly until it worked realistically enough to add something to the game without becoming easily abused. Yes, they managed this in CM1, but that was then and this is now. These things are non-trivial undertakings, and all the time they could spend on this is time they can't spend improving other things (like QBs). They want to bring in fire eventually, but to do it properly will require more time and so it isn't part of the initial CMBN release. At least, this is my understanding from having read several posts on this topic by Steve over the years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Why not??? what is the difference between burning tanks an burning Houses??? Burning tanks stay there burning. Houses on fire tend to fall down. The fire spreads to neighbouring buildings and wheatfields. Modelling this realistically is very difficult. Modelling it less-than-realistically would almost certainly lead to game players using deliberately set fires in even less-realistic ways. The flames on a KOed tank are little texturey things and the damage to any unfortunate crew can be abstracted easily; no one is going to get back in a burning tank. The flames from a burning building would have to be much larger and better-rendered to be even halfway realistic-looking. Damage to units in the buildings would need more detailed calculation. Players would want to be able to send units into parts of the building that are not on fire. They're apparently working on overcoming these and doubtless a thousand other difficulties with having fire modelled on a large scale in the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hadwin73 Posted May 9, 2011 Author Share Posted May 9, 2011 Ah ok, thanks guys! it´s a pity! I think fire is extremly important. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaws Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Ah ok, thanks guys! it´s a pity! I think fire is extremly important. There are a lot of futures we would like to have and some will come in next module or next CM engine. But I can tell you if you really love CM type games you will be knocked of your chair by de graphics and gameplay. My advice it to play it turn based and check the replays. I had so many OMG moments like I had them 10 years ago with CMx1. The glass is definitely half full here. And as Steve announced in his May update there is a big chance to get the experience yourself very very soon . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hadwin73 Posted May 9, 2011 Author Share Posted May 9, 2011 I play CM from the first days too. In CMBO an CMBB we have fire. But I will not bluster, CM is a outstanding tactical simulation! an now, I will have the CMBN Demo:D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wodin Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 CMX2 is a WIP game engine that over time will be able to do it all...CMSF played very well indeed (an all time classic to me now and I' ve been playing computer games since 82). So even though CMBN wont have all the features what it does do it does better than anything else...and we know it will get more features and better and better over time...the beauty of them making a modular core game engine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 As a side note, because I do like having things light up . I never noticed fire missing when I played Close Combat, only realizing that can happen with CMx1 and never notice it gone while playing CMSF. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 CMX2 is a WIP game engine that over time will be able to do it all...CMSF played very well indeed (an all time classic to me now and I' ve been playing computer games since 82). So even though CMBN wont have all the features what it does do it does better than anything else...and we know it will get more features and better and better over time...the beauty of them making a modular core game engine. Does that mean we are finally at the holy grail of buying a base game once, upgrading it over time and having a series of modules that allow us to maintain a library of game components? Like the old ASL days where you had a cupboard full of cardboard that covered the entire war ? (Sold it 2 years ago -sniff-) Or will I have to buy it all yet again in 10 years time ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faelwolf Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Does that mean we are finally at the holy grail of buying a base game once, upgrading it over time and having a series of modules that allow us to maintain a library of game components? Like the old ASL days where you had a cupboard full of cardboard that covered the entire war ? I hope so, that would be pretty awesome! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerner Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Well, this is covered in other threads, but we will have several games (Normandy, Bulge and East Front), each with 3-4 modules. As I understand it, you'll have to buy each game (and modules, of course). What I'm not clear about is if the games will be integrated; that is, if I buy Normandy and all the modules, then buy the Bulge game, will those two games be "together" when I fire up either game on my 'puter? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Does that mean we are finally at the holy grail of buying a base game once, upgrading it over time and having a series of modules that allow us to maintain a library of game components? Not to its complete extent, no. BF release new games with a few modules per game. SF had Marines, Brits and NATO, IIRC, and BN will have Brits and their chums, Market Garden and 'odds and sods' pack, then there will be a new game for Bulge, which will only cover its period. How much of the BN-plus-three content will be rolled through into Bulge, I have no idea. Same, once the Edit: first East Front game comes out: how much of the Western Allies TO&Es, for example, and the equipment to support them that wasn't the sort that got lend-leased, will be available, is a great unknown. But the fact remains that for each of the selected punctuation points, you'll be required to buy a new 'game' rather than an add-on module for BN. Or will I have to buy it all yet again in 10 years time ? I don't imagine I'm the only one who fervently hopes we won't have to wait quite as long as that for Bulge... Even the gap between SF and BN would probably have some of the refreshmonkeys certified. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Well, this is covered in other threads, but we will have several games (Normandy, Bulge and East Front), each with 3-4 modules. As I understand it, you'll have to buy each game (and modules, of course). What I'm not clear about is if the games will be integrated; that is, if I buy Normandy and all the modules, then buy the Bulge game, will those two games be "together" when I fire up either game on my 'puter? No. Normandy + all modules: mix and match anyway you like. Normandy and Bulge not compatible however. I believe one of the reason for this is that they can make big changes between the titles without having to worry about compatibility (and make money of course ). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat Johnston Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 no one is going to get back in a burning tank "Damnit, Audie Murphy was modelled correctly back in CM:BO!" Burning houses would be nice to see though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadekster88 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 IF...they ever do add fire I would be fine with it just being confined to certain objects if that's what holds up whether to add it or not. It's nice to have fire and then also have it jump from a building to the grass and so forth but I am also perfectly fine with a house collapsing from HE or whatnot and then the fire just sticking to that. It's not 100% realistic but to me having a chance of certain things catching on fire and not spreading is more realistic than everything being 100% fire retardent I've been to A LOT of fires and not all of them spread like everything is coated in lighter fluid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I don't imagine I'm the only one who fervently hopes we won't have to wait quite as long as that for Bulge... Even the gap between SF and BN would probably have some of the refreshmonkeys certified. It's not so much that I am talking more about how it went last time. Buy CM:BO then buy CM:BB then buy CM:AK and you have just about everything covered, if you give up in despair for the PTO. Then you get CM:SF et'al so You build up a good modern set, annoying that it is not compatible with the earlier stuff. Then all that goes in the bin and we start back at the same place that CM:BO did just with less stuff. And I am expecting that I will by Normandy and Modules, Bulge and Modules, whatever is next and modules ........ then throw them all away and get CM3. It has always irked me a bit that I can have a single program for work (AutoCAD) that lasts for in excess of 20 years and a file from 1990 I can open today with the 2010 version but the games industry is very much "disposable". Is it impossible to have a base game engine that does all the working bits and have add ons that take us to different theatres? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ng cavscout Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 It's not so much that I am talking more about how it went last time. Buy CM:BO then buy CM:BB then buy CM:AK and you have just about everything covered, if you give up in despair for the PTO. Then you get CM:SF et'al so You build up a good modern set, annoying that it is not compatible with the earlier stuff. Then all that goes in the bin and we start back at the same place that CM:BO did just with less stuff. And I am expecting that I will by Normandy and Modules, Bulge and Modules, whatever is next and modules ........ then throw them all away and get CM3. It has always irked me a bit that I can have a single program for work (AutoCAD) that lasts for in excess of 20 years and a file from 1990 I can open today with the 2010 version but the games industry is very much "disposable". Is it impossible to have a base game engine that does all the working bits and have add ons that take us to different theatres? I would rather have the CM system, realizing that I get hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of game time out of each title, than most disposable games that you pay the same price for and after 10-20 hours (if lucky) of game time, they sit on your shelf collecting dust. Wow, that was a really run on sentence. I can think of 5-8 games I have bought in the last 5 years that I got less than 10 hours of play time out of before getting bored with them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 And I am expecting that I will by Normandy and Modules, Bulge and Modules, whatever is next and modules ........ then throw them all away and get CM3. Ah, I get you now. I don't think we'll ever have that situation. It has always irked me a bit that I can have a single program for work (AutoCAD) that lasts for in excess of 20 years and a file from 1990 I can open today with the 2010 version but the games industry is very much "disposable". I think CAD save-files had a better-defined set of parameters whe AutoCAD was first being designed. BFC haven't had the resource to design a truly open-ended save-game format. I'm not sure that's even practicable, given the material. And I would hazzard that major 'version releases' of AutoCAD have been relatively pricey 'new buys', even with an 'upgrade discount'. Is it impossible to have a base game engine that does all the working bits and have add ons that take us to different theatres? I think that's not impossible. It seems to be what CMx2 is working towards, but the resources available mean that if we had to wait until it was all done from East to West, North to South, start to finish, we'd all be old and grey (at least) before we started to play. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I think CAD save-files had a better-defined set of parameters whe AutoCAD was first being designed. BFC haven't had the resource to design a truly open-ended save-game format. I'm not sure that's even practicable, given the material. And I would hazzard that major 'version releases' of AutoCAD have been relatively pricey 'new buys', even with an 'upgrade discount'. Sure CAD files are fairly standard but then again the files for a wargame are pretty straight forward too I think. I am guessing the file is just this unit moved from here to there and did this, got shot at received X damage etc just a simple log file of sorts I guess. Thing is old Acad files don't have half the stuff that is in new Acad files, it is just that the new Acad program knows what to ignore. You are right with the versioning tho'. The way it works now is you pay the purchase price, for my set up it is $9000 and then you pay a subscription of $600 per year and that gets you the upgrades to new versions and there is a new version every year. So you pay about 7% of the purchase price every year. So for Battlefront that would mean we would pay $60 at the start and maybe $5 - 6 each year for the upgrades. I think that's not impossible. It seems to be what CMx2 is working towards, but the resources available mean that if we had to wait until it was all done from East to West, North to South, start to finish, we'd all be old and grey (at least) before we started to play. Aren't we that already ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Sure CAD files are fairly standard but then again the files for a wargame are pretty straight forward too I think. I am guessing the file is just this unit moved from here to there and did this, got shot at received X damage etc just a simple log file of sorts I guess. I think this would be an oversimplification of things. Just the conversion from borg spotting to relative spotting would make keeping the same file formats very impractical. 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.