skimbo Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Hi all Just a question: can tracer rounds (or any ordanance for that matter) set fire to corn or other combustibles in the game? Reason I ask is I remember a cool game years ago I played in CMBB where some german naughtiness was in progress. As I recall it was a few ground sloggers and a scout car. Scout car was mortared and caught fire and troops were being sprayed by HMG. The Lil' pixel fellas went to ground to hide - but this is where it got really cool/hot - the wheatfield started to burn near the mortared vehicle and began to spread. Eventually (around 3 turns later) it had spread close enough to the troopers that they decided it was time to bugger off - and so they did amid another hail of Maxim lead. I just thought this was one of the coolest things in a game ever. Despite the shabby graphics it was details like this that added such colour/life to the game. So is this propogating fire coolness still modeled? Anyone had a similar experience or seen it in action? Regards Skimbo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 There is no fire in the game as of now. There has been informal talk by Battlefront of perhaps having flamethrowers and perhaps fire added in the Commonwealth module but nothing confirmed. P.S. I suppose if you have flamethrowers you have to have fire on buildings, fields etc too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Burning is one of those 'eventual' things slated for the game. The problem is its a time-consuming monster to code and get working properly. Currently you can't set the terrain on fire, you can't target buildings with white phospherous, and flamethrowers are being held back. Just bear in mind the 'full game' is the basegame plus all the modules. So in many cased 'not in the game' should instead read 'not in the game yet.' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkelried Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 hope they give us (U.S.) napalm too 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skimbo Posted September 29, 2011 Author Share Posted September 29, 2011 Thanks for replies. Would be awesome to get this added at some later stage. Keep up the godo work BF dudes. Skimbo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 One of Steve's biggest bugbears about fire is that us gamers will abuse the potential of fire far more than was historically done. He cavails* about the times when every* QB ended up with half a dozen* deliberately set fires (meant to deny terrain or LOS to the enemy). While there were times when fires were deliberately set by combatants, the real life considerations of the act meant that it was not as common historically as us gamers made it in the game. BFC don't generally like putting things in like that, because they make the unusual become commonplace. Until they can make it so that deliberate arson isn't the first choice of anyone with a source of ignition*, I don't think we'll see it in-game. * Here be hyperbole. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Ah, you reminded me of a contemporary report that (more or less) highlighted how untrained US platoons were in the proper use of the flamethower, how it wasn't proving particularly useful in Normandy terrain anyway, and talked about stockpiles of unused flamethrowers sitting behind the lines. Normandy was not Okinawa. Of course Churchill crocodile is another matter entirely, that was a frickin' fire-breathing dragon terror weapon. I understand the chance of a Croc team being captured alive was practically nil, they'd be shot out of hand. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 I know it's been 10 years since CMBO came out and views change, but I'm surprised at the amount of things Battlefront included in CMX1 that they apparently feel is no longer a good idea to include in CMX2. Yes we have things now that CMX1 didn't, but to not want to include fire because it may be used in gamey ways is surprising. PS. I had an idea. With the flexible victory conditions we have now, it seems like it wouldn't be difficult to implement something that could penalize a player for starting fires. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmachine113 Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 oooh yeah ! I remember now those flamthrowers...I was soo good at ambushing vehicules with it lol...and it was hilarious too lol..a good all round killer if you could get close,as he was the top target for all enemies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 I know it's been 10 years since CMBO came out and views change, but I'm surprised at the amount of things Battlefront included in CMX1 that they apparently feel is no longer a good idea to include in CMX2. Yes we have things now that CMX1 didn't, but to not want to include fire because it may be used in gamey ways is surprising. PS. I had an idea. With the flexible victory conditions we have now, it seems like it wouldn't be difficult to implement something that could penalize a player for starting fires. I am not sure the issue is so much their concern at gaminess. Players are gonna do what players are gonna do. I think the issue is more a coding problem. Bridges, foxholes, trenches, fire etc etc are all apparently complex coding items and the ones that were able to be included have proven to be every bit as difficult as BFC said to get to function the way you would like or expect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 re no flamethrowers or burning wheatfields cos it "could get abused/be gamey" is an irrational reason to not include the feature in an entertainment product. We all LOVED the burning buildings etc feature in CM1. And there are plenty of CM2 features that can get abused, so...? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 re no flamethrowers or burning wheatfields cos it "could get abused/be gamey" is an irrational reason to not include the feature in an entertainment product. We all LOVED the burning buildings etc feature in CM1. And there are plenty of CM2 features that can get abused, so...? LOL I don't believe once you include fire there is any way to prevent it being used. The genie is out of the bottle again. I think this really is one of those where they may not like having something in the game used so contrary to historical reality, but their real reason for not having it has nothing to do with that. Look at bridges - they said they were a pain to code and the results speak for that. They have bad interactions with TAC AI , graphics etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Fires in vegetation take quite a while -- several minutes or more -- to get going once lit, especially in the unseasonably damp conditions that characterized Normandy in June - July '44. So you aren't going to get a lethal wildfire or even a good smokescreen for some time. Probably explains why it wasn't used as a RL battlefield tactic much. Buildings are easier to torch in all weather, but the resulting fire isn't necessarily going to spread readily beyond immediately adjacent structures. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 I was just going to say exactly this. The "apparently simple" answer to stopping it being abused is the same as the reason it wasn't widly used: it's not that easy to start a fire in damp vegitation. Model this coorectly, and it should be OK*? GaJ *Simplistic thinking alert 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 I know we tend to look at CMx1 through rose-colored glasses, but do you guys really remember fire in the game? I recall seeing Southpark episodes with more convincing looking flame animations! The quality bar has been raised considerably with CMx2. I've heard on more than one occassion them say feature/object X was not going to be included in the game until they can do it right. That's not just flames. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 I think you are missing the point Mikey. What matters for a gamer is the function first, form second. It's cool that a fire started. That is quality, just like dudes keep firing after their target disappears (as recently discussed). The fact that the representation (in both cases: fire, and shooting at disappeared opponent) was somewhat caricatured was really neither here nor there, and frankly still isn't. I would far rather BFC put in a cool feature that looks a bit wonky than leave it out, I think. OTOH I _totally_ sympathise with a policy that says they won't put in a feature till it can _work properly_. I would hate to see fire that fails to kill occupants of a foxhole, for example. GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
permanent666 Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 i think the main question is: was cmbn designed with fire in mind? So is there some value in the code that represents flammability of every ground type, building, fortification, verhicle, ... another big issue would be the tac ai - how to react proper on fire. will the tac ai run through a bush fire or leave a burning building? it would be great to see fire and especially smoke caused by fire but i doubt we will see it in the commonwealth module. but regarding the fact that mikeyd is quite positive about fire - maybe the beta testers know something we do not know yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 You're right about one, Mr Deville. Any person considering a new CMBN feature needs to consider how will the TacAI need to be modified to deal with this: to use it and to react to it - before they suggest it as "surely this would be easy and good to add". GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 It's cool that a fire started. That is quality, just like dudes keep firing after their target disappears (as recently discussed). The fact that the representation (in both cases: fire, and shooting at disappeared opponent) was somewhat caricatured was really neither here nor there, and frankly still isn't. I would far rather BFC put in a cool feature that looks a bit wonky than leave it out, I think. It's 2011. Graphics have to start mattering more at some point (not that the ones in CMBN are bad, but they're not exactly cutting-edge, either). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Sure. We all like good graphics, it's cool too. It does matter, at some "basic hygiene" level/ Just don't loose sight of the fact that if you want cool graphics there are 100's of 2011 vintage games out there to go play. What makes CMxx different is the functionality. That's what I was saying. GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockinHarry Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Burning fires belong to any battlefield. Period. We´re also speaking of high summer normandy, not winter ardennes. There´s a "very dry" ground condition setting in the game. Burning fires should start actually everywhere in these conditions. Fires is one question, but then comes all the additional smoke as well. Surely a nightmare to code, with all that constantly changing LOS/LOF situations all over the map. A big frame rate drop could be expected...at least for RT game play. Would it matter much in WEGO? Do we need graphic cards with more memory (1 Gig and more)? The AI is already "overloaded" with what we have in the game now. Additional coding efforts need to go in there, in order to have the AI deal with additional, complicating battlefield situations. Yet I want burning fires and smoke. Maybe in CMX3....:confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Yeah, I don't think it's so much a graphics "look" issue as it is a coding, AI and beta testing issue. Flame weapons will be a completely new type of ordnance in CMx2 when they are added, and a whole host of new things need to be considered to get them right. Similarly, burning terrain (which has to be added before or along with flame weapons) requires a whole new set of modeling concerns, both in terms of technical aspect of how terrain and fire interact (how easily to certain things catch fire? How quickly and easily does fire spread? How long do things burn? etc.), and also in terms of the AI behaviors required so that units to react believably to the presence of fire. And I don't think comparisons to CMx1's fire modeling are very useful -- CMx1's fire modeling is very rudimentary, and that's OK for CMx1, which is a much simpler, more abstract game. But this kind of thing just isn't going to fly in CMx2. I'm absolutely looking forward to having flame weapons and fire in CMx2 at some point. How soon should we expect it? I have no idea... it would actually surprise me if they manage to add it to CMBN and I suspect it will have to wait for a later game family (Bulge or East Front), but I'd love to be proven wrong on this. For example, once the Market Garden module comes out, I'd love to be able to properly model the Canadian 1st Army's engagements to clear the banks of the Scheldt (where Wasp Flame Carriers were heavily used). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerryCMBB Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Hello: Just reading this in Beevor about D-Day: "With the wire blown and smoke from the seagrass set on fire by naval shells, ...." "The smoke form the burning grass was so thick ..." What a coinkidink. Gerry 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmachine113 Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Why is everything that previously was in cmbo so hard to code now in cmbn....I mean..cmbo should have given them some kind of coding experience.Even if the graphics are updated..the game engine and basics looks the same to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Why is everything that previously was in cmbo so hard to code now in cmbn....I mean..cmbo should have given them some kind of coding experience.Even if the graphics are updated..the game engine and basics looks the same to me. This would be a very incorrect impression -- To name a few ways that the CMx2 game engine is VASTLY more complex than the CMx1 engine: - relative spotting (a HUGE one) - 1:1 Soldier Representation - Bullet ballistics (specific modeling of every bullet trajectory on 3D space, including small arms, ricochets, etc.) - Vehicle and armor hit modeling (every armor plate and vehicle system modeled in 3D space, hit location and effect specifically tracked) - Terrain detail and modeling (vastly more complex and detailed). - Individual soldier AI (Soldiers can react and behave as individuals, rather that always as an abstracted unit of multiple men) - Far more complicated C2 modeling, which ties into other aspect of the game model such as spotting, indirect support, and morale I could go on... but this should give you a start. 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.