CMx2 thoughts

[Bammer]

Hello,

Looking forward to CMAK and hopefully a more balanced game than CMBB smile.gif

I would like to tee the new CMX2 engine have actual planes as opposed to labels. This does not seem like a major obstacle considering the amount of equipment in the game already.

For the Nay sayers that believe labels are good enough, then why not just use labels for ALL equipment. Obviously, the game immersion would not be as good.

Looking forward to some input on this smile.gif

Thank you

[ October 12, 2003, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: Bammer ]

[Martyr]

For the Nay sayers that believe labels are good enough, then why not just use labels for ALL equipment. Obviously, the game immersion would not be as good. Because it's a ground combat game.

Why not insist on maps that take place at 20,000 feet with full control of all aircraft and an out-of-the-cockpit view? Obviously, without this, immersion is not as good.

[Kwazydog]

Bammer, Id actually like to see this too in the rewrite (for aircraft performing ground attacks, etc). smile.gif

Im not sure if it will happen yet but time will tell.

Dan

[Ryan Crierie]

I'd like to see something other than a shadow, but as others pointed out, this is a ground combat sim, not a plane sim, so a low poly model that looks like the plane in question is good enough. IE, it
looks like a Ju-87, even if it isn't accurate down to the rivets...

[Snarker]

Originally posted by KwazyDog:
Bammer, Id actually like to see this too in the rewrite (for aircraft performing ground attacks, etc). smile.gif

Im not sure if it will happen yet but time will tell.

Dan Barring the actual inclusion of the plane models, being able to see the air attack from the planes point of view would be nice. EG tab lock onto the shadow and you can watch the attack as a fly by.

[Bammer]

Originally posted by Martyr:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> For the Nay sayers that believe labels are good enough, then why not just use labels for ALL equipment. Obviously, the game immersion would not be as good. Because it's a ground combat game.

Why not insist on maps that take place at 20,000 feet with full control of all aircraft and an out-of-the-cockpit view? Obviously, without this, immersion is not as good. </font>[/QUOTE]It is a ground combat game with aircraft. Currently, many of the labels are visible within the visual horizon range. I think it is doable. I believe Charles use to create graphics for aircraft software games, so I believe they have the expertise.

Seeing a Stuka come down would be fun and exciting smile.gif

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Snarker:
Barring the actual inclusion of the plane models, being able to see the air attack from the planes point of view would be nice. EG tab lock onto the shadow and you can watch the attack as a fly by. That would be cool. Might not present as many problems to implement either.

Michael

[A.E.B]

Hi all

The inclusion of aircraft models could have a dual benefit.

Not only could you look up and see that JU87 screaming overhead, but aircraft (both wrecked and unwrecked) could be included in historical scenarios, like the airfield outside of Stalingard being overrun in Dec42, or a SAS attack on an airfield in Tunisia for example.

Regards
A.E.B

[ October 14, 2003, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: A.E.B ]

[Pvt. Ryan]

If Close Combat can do it... smile.gif

[Bammer]

Forgot to mention in my original post I would like to see Landing Craft, for both troops and tanks with offboard naval fire to target the beach area.

This would bring an exciting and new dimension to the Western Front. Doesn't seem to difficult to do.

Comments welcome !

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by Bammer:
Hello,

Looking forward to CMAK and hopefully a more balanced game than CMBBCMBB is not balanced? Why not? Not picking a fight here just curious as to the reason for your remark. If I'm not mistaken, the CMAK game engine will be near, if not, identical to the CMBB engine. (Someone correct me here if I am misinformed.)

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by Jack Carr:
If I'm not mistaken, the CMAK game engine will be near, if not, identical to the CMBB engine. (Someone correct me here if I am misinformed.)I should have added, I'm counting on it being the same excellent game engine as in CMBB.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:
If Close Combat can do it... smile.gif And it looked damn stupid, quite honestly.

[-hero-]

Please explain to me the play value or simulation enhancement that comes from a graphical representation of airstrikes in a game that is overwhelmingly ground-based.

Seems like a superfluous addition when time could be better spent on other elements of the game.

[Bammer]

Originally posted by -hero-:
Please explain to me the play value or simulation enhancement that comes from a graphical representation of airstrikes in a game that is overwhelmingly ground-based.

Seems like a superfluous addition when time could be better spent on other elements of the game. Let's use CMBB for the example:

1) The planes programming is in the game;

2) They use labels instead of graphics; and

3) The Labels can be seen clearly during the game.

This being the case, the creation of graphics for a plane do not seem like the large a deal. They have people at BFC whose sole job is graphics design. So it would not take a way from other activities such as coding. The coding is already in the program for planes.

If CMx2 is to attract a more main stream audience and I think it will if the graphics are enhanced, it could mean a large market share of the wargamers market for BFC.

I think plane graphics are a win win situaltion for everybody smile.gif

Cheers smile.gif

[Pvt. Ryan]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:
If Close Combat can do it... smile.gif And it looked damn stupid, quite honestly. </font>[/QUOTE]It used to scare the crap out of me if I wasn't paying attention. I don't really need to see the plane, but it would be nice to know what kind of plane is attacking without having to find a target line from an AA gun. I like to know if the enemy is shooting at me or my own airforce is bombing me. smile.gif I think an easy solution would be to have some sort of identifier attached to the shadow - something that could be toggled.

[Oddball_E8]

well i seem to recall reading something along the lines of "CMX2 will look similar in graphics to the IL2 games".
then (in my mind) it shouldnt bee too hard to implement some graphics for the airplanes...

right now i am annoyed by the fact that there is no "free" label on planes... you have to select a unit targeting it or being targeted by it to see if its a stuka, il-2 or whatnot...

[Kwazydog]

This being the case, the creation of graphics for a plane do not seem like the large a deal. They have people at BFC whose sole job is graphics design. So it would not take a way from other activities such as coding. The coding is already in the program for planes.
Yup, thatd be me ;)

As I mentioned above, it is certainly something we will investigate. We can do it and as you suggested bammer, on the suface it appears it probably wouldnt be too hard to do. Time will tell though, and time to implement it will probably be the deciding factor smile.gif

Dan

[ October 13, 2003, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Bammer]

Originally posted by KwazyDog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
This being the case, the creation of graphics for a plane do not seem like the large a deal. They have people at BFC whose sole job is graphics design. So it would not take a way from other activities such as coding. The coding is already in the program for planes.
Yup, thatd be me ;)

As I mentioned above, it is certainly something we will investigate. We can do it and as you suggested bammer, on the suface it appears it probably wouldnt be too hard to do. Time will tell though, and time to implement it will probably be the deciding factor smile.gif

Dan </font>[/QUOTE]Hello Kwaxy,

I will quarterback the scenario for u:

1) Matt does the research for input data and begs and cries for planes smile.gif

2) Charles surrenders and writes the script;

3) Kwazy does the graphics, and does a particularly good job on the Stukas smile.gif

smile.gif smile.gif smile.gif

[Pvt. Ryan]

Originally posted by Bammer:
Hello Kwaxy,

I will quarterback the scenario for u:

1) Matt does the research for input data and begs and cries for planes smile.gif

2) Charles surrenders and writes the script;

3) Kwazy does the graphics, and does a particularly good job on the StukasMatt doesn't do research. He just records sounds of people in pain. smile.gif

[Hawk]

Since we're thinking CMx2 thoughts...

I'd like to have some method for easier building scenarios from "outside" the system. E.g. you have a file or set of files with all the units that will take place in a scenario, and you either choose a pre-made map or have one generated for you by the system (again, perhaps using stats from a file).

The reason for this is of course better support for campaign gaming. smile.gif I know BFC don't want to focus the development effort in that area.
I also know that quite a few players want to use CM to play campaigns, and after having been involved writing support software (i.e. Cocat) for CPX, CMMC, CMMC2 and about half a dozen other campaigns, I would just love to be able to fire up CM and have my battallion appear with all the correct stats. smile.gif

With an automated function like that the possibilities for campaign gaming would increase a lot, I think. Also, the need for a large GM corps would decrease dramatically!

Oh well, a man can still dream, can't he??? :D

[Ant]

I'd like the option of being able to see the aircraft too. I've seen lots of WW2 footage of German soldiers watching their own stukas at work and it'd be fun to see that in a CM game as well........until your stukas come down and start bombing your own positions :mad:

Oh, and can we tweak friendly fire a bit please ;)

[ColumbusOHGamer]

The airplane thing would be cool, but I'd REALLY like to have:

1. A way to watch the entire battle movie form start to finish, including tab-lock-on ANY unit and showing all units from both sides.

2. A simple tools that will show the units in 3D mode with thier unit info. Just like hitting enter in the game, but being able to run it outside of the game and to select the units from a list.

My CMX2 .02............
COG

[Thorgrim]

Originally posted by Jack Carr:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bammer:
Hello,

Looking forward to CMAK and hopefully a more balanced game than CMBBCMBB is not balanced? Why not? Not picking a fight here just curious as to the reason for your remark. If I'm not mistaken, the CMAK game engine will be near, if not, identical to the CMBB engine. (Someone correct me here if I am misinformed.) </font>[/QUOTE]

[Thorgrim]

Sorry 'bout that previous message, I hit the wrong bloody button. I'm just wondering what it is about CMBB (as opposed to CMBO?) that many people feel is so unbalanced. Curious is all.

[Snarker]

Originally posted by Thorgrim:
Sorry 'bout that previous message, I hit the wrong bloody button. I'm just wondering what it is about CMBB (as opposed to CMBO?) that many people feel is so unbalanced. Curious is all. Most people who feel it is 'unbalanced' are really lamenting the change to a more realistic modeling of machine guns and suppression. They still haven't figured out you can't walk across a field in full sight of a MG position and come out relatively unscathed. Hint, hint! ;)

[Madmatt]

Okay, it is MUCH too early to have CMX2 discussions, so until we open up a dedicated forum about it, lets hold off on the questions and comments.

Madmatt