A little bit about buildings

[Battlefront.com]

Hi all,

I don't want to get into too many details about buildings just yet, but I do want to hit the high points (in no particular order). One thing to keep in mind is that the scenario designer has a lot of flexibility when it comes to what a specific building will be like. So anything in the following list that hints at choices means a choice for the scenario designer.

1. Many stories (levels) now possible. I don't know what the limit will be, but we'll probably cap it at 6. Anything above that is problematic and quite useless from a game standpoint. These will be directly simulated, not abstracted.

2. Roof tops can be used if there is access to them.

3. Basements are an option for a building now. If I get my way there will be two types... one that has windows and one that does not. Up to Charles :D

4. Stairs are directly simulated. However, stairs are somewhat abstracted still. There is somewhat of a choice about where to locate them.

5. Interior rooms are abstractly simulated. There is a choice about how this is simulated.

6. Buildings are deformable. Yes, this means specific, individual walls can be damaged. Not quite sure how far we'll be able to take structural failures in the first game. Buildings in general are something we expect to improve from title to title (especially because of the hardware issues).

7. Windows and doors are directly simulated. Walls can have either doors, windows, doors and windows, or nothing at all. This affects entry/exit possibilities as well as fighting positions.

8. Mouseholing is now possible.

9. Building variety, in terms of shape and size, is pretty much up to the scenario designer. Want buildings all mashed together with doors and windows on the same sides? Done. Want buildings that are long and short next to ones that are tall and skinny? No problem.

10. Buildings can now be placed on two different axis... 90deg and 45deg. We had wanted to make it four different axis (90, 22.5, 45, and 67.5) but Charles nearly had a stroke when we talked about this. His last words before passing out were "dude... you're insane! Do you know how much code and computer power that would take?!?". Then there was silence over the phone and later I could hear his wife giving Charles' jar an emergency boost from one WineCape's best bottles of vino. With his ability to think restored I promised to never mention it again (well, at least until the second game ;) )

11. Surrounding terrain can now be pressed right up against a building, or extremely near to it (depending on circumstances). This means you can have small alleyways, streets right in front, trees right next to, etc.

12. With the 1m x 1m terrain mesh underlying the terrain, there should be no major problems with putting buildings on slopes. Not quite sure if it is a foolproof thing, but hopefully it is.

Hmmmm... I think that hits the big points.

The one downside of this is that making urban areas in the Map Editor is going to involve a lot more work than CMx1. But that is to be expected. CMx1's buildings were highly abstracted and therefore it didn't take much time to mess with them because there were so few options. With the extra details comes more choices which means more "responsibility" for the designer. The interface is designed to make this as easy as possible, but all the new power will mean some extra work. Players will, of course, only notice the end product :D

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
The one downside of this is that making urban areas in the Map Editor is going to involve a lot more work than CMx1. But that is to be expected.

Steve Will we have the much anticipated "cut and paste" option in the editor itself?

Otherwise, cue aka_tom_w for some cheerleading. Sounds good.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Will we be able to place AT guns inside buildings?

[Battlefront.com]

I hope we can get in Cut/Paste. If not for the first game, then perhaps for the second.

I don't see any reason why AT guns can be placed in buildings in theory. Specifics are not yet worked out and won't be for some time. We know what we have to do to make this realistic, just have to see how it is we're going to do it.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:
Will we be able to place AT guns inside buildings? We discussed this with Lewis a while back. :D

How common was this, really? I mean, outside of ASL?

[Pvt. Ryan]

It happened a lot in my CC games. :D

Ok, then can we place tanks inside buildings that don't have basements? smile.gif

[Mord]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
The one downside of this is that making urban areas in the Map Editor is going to involve a lot more work than CMx1.


Steve That's not a downside brother that's a selling point!

Mord

[WindyCity]

Thanks for the reply Steve smile.gif

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Otherwise, cue aka_tom_w for some cheerleading. Sounds good. Ooo. Let me take care of that part : w00t. And I mean it real bad.

Seriously, all these options and new possibilities are a real treat. I was never quite fond of urban combat in CMx1but this... this is sooo promising ! Michael, I hope you are bracing yourself for a second edition of Ortona.

Wait. What's the theater again ? redface.gif

[Nelson 1812]

No offence ..

First thread I have enjoyed reading on CMx2, starting to have real bones in it..

and having details to it that I understand!

[kipanderson]

Steve,

You seem to have every box ticked smile.gif

I fully understand that with the leap in detail, will come a leap in the time required to take advantage of all the possibilities in designing urban environments.

All good fun,
All the best,
Kip.

[dalem]

Anyone want to take a bet on who will be the first of us to post a whine about getting some FO keyhole-sniped through a window while he's "hiding" against a back wall of a 3rd story room?

I predict the working title written on Steve's white board is "Combat Mission II: That'll Teach the Bastards to Keep Their Effing Heads Down".

Here endeth the predictions.

-dale

[Steiner14]

Once again, i'm extremely impressed. Thanks for the infos!

[SuomiKp]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:


8. Mouseholing is now possible.

Steve :confused:

[Salkin]

This will truly be a game rich in features :D .

I'm looking forward to some splodey urban combat that's for sure.

Steve, will all this detail be a problem when generating random maps? Will houses be simplified in the random maps ?

//Salkin

[Salkin]

Oh , and you missed a few things from Windy citys thread.
I'm guessing there wont be any simulated furniture but howabout lamp-posts.
These could definitely be a gameplay factor during night combat. When the enemy sneaks into a village they will be caught in the light from the lamp-posts.
This will make them an easier target , unless they cut the power to/destroy the lamp-posts.

Steve, any comments ?

//Salkin

[Edited because I can't write in english...]

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by SuomiKp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:


8. Mouseholing is now possible.

Steve :confused: </font>[/QUOTE]Instead of using doors and windows, you blow a hole in the wall.


Steve...I just want to say WOW. Cant wait to get my hands on this game.

[SuomiKp]

Now I know what mouseholing mean's smile.gif
I cant wait for this game either

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by SuomiKp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:


8. Mouseholing is now possible.

Steve :confused: </font>[/QUOTE]Mouseholing is where you want to get into the next building, (where buildings share the same walls) BUT you don't want to go OUT into the street and get mowed down be MG fire.

SO you blow a hole in the wall and burst (in dramatic fashion) into the next building!

and YES the BFC faithful just can't wait to play with this fun new toy!

:D

-tom w

[Thomm]

Windows and doors are directly simulated.That's the hottest news of all!!

Cannot wait to see how CMx2 soldiers arrange themselves around windows (one left, one right, ... or an MG on the window sill ...).

I am tempted to conclude from this that internal doors are simulated as well. Will that be the case?

Best regards,
Thomm

[Salkin]

I'm guessing internal doors and walls is a no, no.

//Salkin

[Panzer76]

Yay!

[Boris Balaban]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

8. Mouseholing is now possible.

Steve [/QB]When setting up your units can you add Mouseholes to walls only in the room where you have a unit set up. :confused:

I stress only in the room where a squade is set up in the set up phase. :cool:

[Battlefront.com]

Interior stuff, such as furnishings, debirs, doors, walls, etc. are handled abstractly. Again, more settings for the scenario designer to play with. However, sometimes internal walls and doors are simulated directly. Depends on how scenario designers want do it.

You can put two building right up against each other. Set the common walls to have doors and bingo... a way to get from one building to the other without going outside or blowing a hole in the wall.

Put a 2 story building adjacent to a 3 story building, give the 2 story a flat roof and the 3 story a door on the common side on the 3rd floor. Now your guys can walk out onto the roof of the 2 story building.

I could go on and on about the possibilities now, but I think you guys get the drift... urban warfare is going to be a whole new experience in CMx2. Personally I feel that CMx1 did a better job with buildings than most, but CMx2 will likely be better than any other game out there. And I am including FPS games as well.

The only downside, besides the more involved scenario making, is that there will be a bit of a generic feel to the buildings from a graphical standpoint. Far less generic than CMx1 for sure, but not as rich as something like BF2. But then you have to consider that other game's maps are hand built, limited in size and scope, and often don't allow units to enter them... so like everything in life, there are tradeoffs.

Steve

[Mord]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Interior stuff, such as furnishings, debirs, doors, walls, etc. are handled abstractly. Again, more settings for the scenario designer to play with. However, sometimes internal walls and doors are simulated directly. Depends on how scenario designers want do it.
Steve I pretty much get the gist of what you were saying with the rest of your post but are you saying that designers will be able to place walls and the like if they want? or Just walls and doors?


This is actually the part that confuses me;

"Interior stuff, such as furnishings, debirs, doors, walls, etc. are handled abstractly. Again, more settings for the scenario designer to play with."

The "abstract" and "more settings to play with" has me scratching my head.


Mord.

[RCHRD]

Why not make several buildings of identical physical properties, say, Large stone 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, etc and let the modders make the skins.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Mord:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Interior stuff, such as furnishings, debirs, doors, walls, etc. are handled abstractly. Again, more settings for the scenario designer to play with. However, sometimes internal walls and doors are simulated directly. Depends on how scenario designers want do it.
Steve I pretty much get the gist of what you were saying with the rest of your post but are you saying that designers will be able to place walls and the like if they want? or Just walls and doors?


This is actually the part that confuses me;

"Interior stuff, such as furnishings, debirs, doors, walls, etc. are handled abstractly. Again, more settings for the scenario designer to play with."

The "abstract" and "more settings to play with" has me scratching my head.


Mord. </font>[/QUOTE]You can set the density of internal furnishings, so as to differentiate between a townhouse and a barn?

[Cull]

Just wanted to further the opinion (or uh, fact I guess, since Steve said it) that the urban fights will be much more interesting now.

I've rarely designed or played them with the current games, and I think the reason is that they just lacked personality. Without the little details and urban detritus, various states of building damage, etc, the environment was just sterile. Also something about the visual aspect I found slightly annoying. I'm not really sure what it is, to be honest, nor am I sure how to get the right balance of eye candy and "playability" from the graphical standpoint with urban settings.
Actually, maybe that's it: more "doodads" and unique visual cues around the dense areas should help alot, I think.

Urban fights should be some of the most intense and dramatic, but for some reason that I obviously can't quite put my finger on, they just aren't with the current games. I just never get that immersion that I get with more rural battles.

I'm pretty sure that will be corrected for me in CMx2. :D

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cull:
Just wanted to further the opinion (or uh, fact I guess, since Steve said it) that the urban fights will be much more interesting now.

I've rarely designed or played them with the current games, and I think the reason is that they just lacked personality. Without the little details and urban detritus, various states of building damage, etc, the environment was just sterile. Also something about the visual aspect I found slightly annoying. I'm not really sure what it is, to be honest, nor am I sure how to get the right balance of eye candy and "playability" from the graphical standpoint with urban settings.
Actually, maybe that's it: more "doodads" and unique visual cues around the dense areas should help alot, I think.

Urban fights should be some of the most intense and dramatic, but for some reason that I obviously can't quite put my finger on, they just aren't with the current games. I just never get that immersion that I get with more rural battles.

I'm pretty sure that will be corrected for me in CMx2. :D Which CMAK scenarios have you played that featured urban fighting? Maybe the scenarios just sucked. :D

I think what bothered me about them was the difficulty of maneuvering the camera in and out of buildings. That might be made even worse with internal walls and stuff. I suppose urban battles are supposed to be chaotic, but that doesn't mean the interface should be, too.

I've been left cold by some of the urban fights in CMBB and CMAK also - I liked Skulpturny Park by Charlie Kibler, was mildly wild about the factory fight on the CMBB CD (two factories and that's it, with tanks playing ring round the rosie on the outside), and call me biased, but am enjoying Little Stalingrad for CMAK, mostly because it is just plain chaotic. Was getting regular email reports from one playtester who looked like he was having a wild time in Ortona as well.

The fight in Vienna (?) on the CMBB disk was not bad either. The fight in Paris in CMBO, however, left me cold.

I think designing an exciting urban battle may well be a case of luck - but for me, it was always the interface that killed it - though I guess its my own fault for not taking the walls option off.

[76mm]

Wow, these new building options sound pretty cool, although I don't look forward to building urban, or even village maps. Two questions:

1) Will the random map generator do a decent job of building towns & villages at least? I guess it would be too much to expect for it to build decent cities.

2) How will geographic fog of war be handled, if at all, with the new building options? For instance, units facing a building would have no way of knowing if mouseholes have been blown, what kind of windows/doors, etc. exist on the back side, or if the alley they are heading down has an exit or not. Will it be possible for players to zoom around and scout out the whole city in unrealistic detail? Ideally, the parts of a city outside the LOS of your units would be sort of "fuzzy" and not reveal certain crucial details. Any plans for this kind of thing?

76mm

[Cull]

I think that is the crux Michael. I originally rambled in my previous post about the interface, but then decided I was rambling...

I just realized which scenario you're talking about when you say "factory fight". I did like that one pretty well, maybe because the big open square was really the focus there, rather than the buildings.
Mainly I think it's the dense areas---with large clusters of nearly identical two story buildings---that I had issues with.

You're right also that more walls and such could well make it worse, but I am hopeful that the additional visual cues and the diversity that the smaller tiles will allow will be the ticket.

[Michael Dorosh]

I always rated scenarios partially on how much I would like to live on the map, were it a real location. Sometimes a map is so absolutely interesting, despite the limited palette of terrain, that you could zoom the camera down to ground level and just "go for a walk". I've never seen a computer generated map do that, but there have certainly been some human created ones that hold that much interest. Given a wider palette of building types, and talented scenario designers, this should get even better. But I still won't hold my breath waiting for the computer to do it.

However, I would also hate to see a situation like Close Combat - where the maps are 100% individualized and interesting, but are the only ones you get to play on because they are hard coded.

Tom Grace had a battle of the bulge scen for CMAK that had a map such as I'm speaking of - and you don't need to have huge elevation changes to make something interesting, either. Sometimes wide open spaces just seem more realistic too.

I was always disappointed with the random "cities" in the CMAK editor though - certainly the hardest thing to get realistic. With the addition of narrow alleys and buildings up to 6 stories, I can only anticipate much more realism in maps. Just not by the computer drawn ones.

But - we shall see, won't we. Personally, who wants to see human scenario designers put out of business? Even if a computer could draw a map, it still takes a human to balance a scenario, research the history (and the map if it is historical terrain), and give the scenario "heart" for lack of a better word.

[Battlefront.com]

Mord, the designer will have the ability to set the type of interior for a building, but it will not be represented in a direct 1:1 way. For example, a densely cluttered room might have some graphics to show you that, but they will be like Doodads in CMx1 (i.e. eye candy).

Random map generation is a key feature of CMx2 as it was for CMx1. We will do the best we can to make randomly generated stuff be appealing to you guys. We've got some ideas on that, but they're not fit for public consumption just yet ;)

Camera controls... well, there ain't much we can do to improve this. If you don't want to play with drop down walls/roofs, you're pretty much insisting on a hard time.

It would be nice to hide building details from units, but really... they already know so much more than they should what would this accomplish? I mean, you shouldn't even know if there is a house on the next block at all, not to mention if it has windows with green shutters :D Fogged out Terrain was something we tossed around as an idea a long time ago. We decided the cons outweighed the pros so that concept is not in the game.

Steve

[Mord]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Mord, the designer will have the ability to set the type of interior for a building, but it will not be represented in a direct 1:1 way. For example, a densely cluttered room might have some graphics to show you that, but they will be like Doodads in CMx1 (i.e. eye candy).

Steve Awsome! Good enough for me. Some items here and there would do just fine to fill in the empty looks of the buildings.

Thanks!

Mord.

[legend42]

6 levels for bldgs, thats sick(cool),imagine Stalingrad now!

[British Tommy]

Can't wait to get my hands on that editor! :D
This is the sort of thing I've been waiting for, lots of details to add to the terrain to make the maps look more natural.
You guys must be up to your neck with work so the question is, who will be making the scenario's to go with the new game? ( on the disc ). If your too busy then I'm sure some of us out here would love to step forward! ;)

[Gordon]

From the description of how buildings can be specified within the scenario editor, is it safe to assume that the building graphics will consist of a blank wall and one or more door graphics and one or more window graphics that are placed/generated by the graphics engine? As opposed to the way that the building's walls are drawn now.

[Hat Trick]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com (snipped):
Fogged out Terrain was something we tossed around as an idea a long time ago. We decided the cons outweighed the pros so that concept is not in the game.

Steve That's a shame. I'm sure that it will be a great game, but one of the biggest (remaining) hits to realisism is the perfect knowledge of the map that both sides have; I was really hoping for terrain fog of war. It would have taken the game to a whole new level.

[hellfish]

All exceptionally positive information. Thanks, Steve.

Looks like all my architecture books will come in handy now... smile.gif

[Battlefront.com]

There were two options for doing the wall graphics and I can't remember which one Charles used (he only finished the code a few days ago). One was to have a single, blank, texture and have the code put in windows/doors as needed. The other was to premake the 4 options as separate textures (blank, with windows, with doors, with windows and doors).

It would have taken the game to a whole new level.It's already going to a whole new level. With terrain fogging it would go even further, if we could pull it off. We figured we couldn't pull it off (yet) so we crossed it off the list. Since we're not known to shy away from challenges, and can't think of any other similar game that has terrain fogging, that should make people say "ah... guess it's one of those easier said than done things". Cuz it is indeed MUCH easier to say than to do. It really is a bear of a feature. And not the Winnie the Poo kind either... we're talking about pissed off momma grizzly variety.

Steve

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
There were two options for doing the wall graphics and I can't remember which one Charles used (he only finished the code a few days ago). One was to have a single, blank, texture and have the code put in windows/doors as needed. The other was to premake the 4 options as separate textures (blank, with windows, with doors, with windows and doors).Steve,
am I correct in thinking that the windows - and doors - themselves are abstracted. So, if a wall has windows, then great, it has generic "windows" and graphics to indicate that, but it doesn't have a Window 2m wide by 1 m high, set 2.5m in and 2m up from the NW corner of the bldg, represented by the exact placement of the window on the bldg skin.

The reason I ask is because I'm trying to get a handle on how the units will interact with the openings in the walls. IRL(tm), for an individual looking out it makes a huge difference whether you are close to the window, or far away, or if you are in the left of the room, or the right. The field of view in each of those situations is completely different. Presumably worrying about that is well below the bar for CMx2(?), particularly since we won't (and mostly don't want to) be able to control where individual soldiers go. Based on that, I'd expect that we'll get something similar to CMx1, in that if a wall has generic "windows", the unit can see out through the entire wall, rather than out through a specific Window opening. And presumably if there are no windows, then nada - no visibilitry out that wall ... unless it gets damaged to * or ** level maybe?

Also, while I'm thinking about it, how are windows, (internal) doors, and damage handled for multi storey bldgs? Is there one setting for the entire wall from ground to sky, or will the wall on each storey have it's own setting?

Cheers
Jon

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
2. Roof tops can be used if there is access to them.:cool:

8. Mouseholing is now possible.:cool:

12. With the 1m x 1m terrain mesh underlying the terrain...Way cool! That means realistic looking road and railway cuts and fills, elevated roads, dams, viaducts, berms, dikes, ditches, the works.

:cool:

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
Mouseholing is where you want to get into the next building, (where buildings share the same walls) BUT you don't want to go OUT into the street and get mowed down be MG fire.

SO you blow a hole in the wall and burst (in dramatic fashion) into the next building!It doesn't have to be an interior wall. Lots of industrial buildings, warehouses for instance, have blind walls facing out. Approaching from the blind side and mouseholing could be a cheap and easy way of getting in as long as that approach isn't covered from some other location. In that case, it would get complicated...

:D

Michael

[kipanderson]

Steve posted,

“The only downside, besides the more involved scenario making, is that there will be a bit of a generic feel to the buildings from a graphical standpoint.”

Is this not where the advantages of the more focused, narrower setting for each game will kick in. i.e. the buildings for a Normandy game will look very different, have very different skins on them, when compared to the buildings for an Ardennes game. That is what I am hoping anyway.

I was not much interested in graphical changes, but am now a full convert to the idea of far more focused settings for each game, but also more games/modules to give variety.

One of the downsides to CMX1 was that the graphics, buildings and such, had an identical look to them for all of NWE or Eastern Front. With the modular system I am hoping that, say, an Eastern Front game set around Kharkov will have a different look to one set in East Prussia. Similarly, greatly looking forward to more heavily weathered AFVs to suite the climatic conditions of a given module.

All good stuff,
All the best,
Kip.
PS. More games/modules each with different graphics does give us more toys to look forward to smile.gif .

[Philippe]

Steve mentioned randomly generated doodads. I just want to mention that I've never been very fond of the random crates graphics. I like the idea, but I find it disconcerting to see a blatantly two-dimensional object filling in for a three dimensional object. So please make your crates out of cubes this time around, and not out of two flat surfaces arranged in a cross.

I also have a similar problem with graveyards -- some of those headstones look really weird. I'm hoping that the extra polygon count possibilities will allow you the time to do away with this kind of shortcut. (You haven't heard me say anything nice about vinyards, but that's because I don't have CMAK yet. I love vinyards.)

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
It really is a bear of a feature. And not the Winnie the Poo kind either... we're talking about pissed off momma grizzly variety. Quality sig material, that.

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by JonS:
The reason I ask is because I'm trying to get a handle on how the units will interact with the openings in the walls. IRL(tm), for an individual looking out it makes a huge difference whether you are close to the window, or far away, or if you are in the left of the room, or the right. The field of view in each of those situations is completely different. Presumably worrying about that is well below the bar for CMx2(?), particularly since we won't (and mostly don't want to) be able to control where individual soldiers go. Based on that, I'd expect that we'll get something similar to CMx1, in that if a wall has generic "windows", the unit can see out through the entire wall, rather than out through a specific Window opening. And presumably if there are no windows, then nada - no visibilitry out that wall ... unless it gets damaged to * or ** level maybe?

Cheers
Jon Steve said in another thread that LOS would be for the unit, not for the individual. Based on this, I think the abstraction has to be that everyone in the unit has LOS out of a window, regardless of how they are depicted.

Or were you thinking there would be some way to account for each individual's position relative to the window while still modeling a single LOS for the unit?

[Jack Carr]

WOW! That's unbelievable! I'm starting to picture CMBB and CMAK with some of these improvements and the picture in my head is blowing my mind.

Great job, Battlefront!

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
Mouseholing is where you want to get into the next building, (where buildings share the same walls) BUT you don't want to go OUT into the street and get mowed down be MG fire.

SO you blow a hole in the wall and burst (in dramatic fashion) into the next building!It doesn't have to be an interior wall. Lots of industrial buildings, warehouses for instance, have blind walls facing out. Approaching from the blind side and mouseholing could be a cheap and easy way of getting in as long as that approach isn't covered from some other location. In that case, it would get complicated...

:D

Michael </font>[/QUOTE]Also, in Fallujah the insurgents would mousehole garden walls to create escape routes when fleeing the Americans. I hope walls would be mouseholeable.

A question for Steve - what kinds of weapons could create mouseholes? Rifle grenades? AT weapons? Tank guns? Demo from engineers?

[YankeeDog]

I obviously can't say what BFC is planning to do with the game, but strictly speaking, most shaped charge weapons -- Rifle Grenades, Panzerfausts, etc. shouldn't create mouseholes.

The hole that a highty focused shaped charge (such as is used in an AT weapon) creates through the surface it detonates on is very small -- only a couple of CM wide in metal, and not that much larger in concrete or brick. Of course, the plume expands on the other side of the wall, and so can do quite a lot of damage inside the building, but usually not to the wall itself, unless the overpressure is enough to actually cave in the wall, but this would create more of a general collapse than a mousehole.

Depending on the size, HE shells might create a hole you could step through, but they would be just as likely to bring the whole darn wall down; this should be a very unpredicatable way of creating a useful mousehole.

IMHO, mouseholes should only be able to be reliably created by placed explosives, i.e., demo charges.

Cheers,

YD

[Philippe]

This perhaps a bit naive, but I thought mouseholes were made with the Mark I pickaxe.

[YankeeDog]

Yep, they were sometimes prepared ahead of time using hand tools.

But they were also created in the middle of battles using explosives. In fact, this is one very good way to storm an enemy-held building -- create a mousehole into the building where he doesn't expect it, and charge in. If done correctly, the explosion used to create the mousehole has the added bonus of ending a lot of force into the room on the other side, incapaciting any enemy in the immediate vicinity of the entry point.

This tactic is sometimes used by modern SWAT and SF teams. IIRC, a ring-shaped charge created on the back of a tire inner tube filled with water is very efficient at creating a mousehole.

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Dorosh]

"Charge in"? That's two people who have said that. I thought the drill was mousehole, then grenades and/or tommy gun, THEN enter the room. Charging in was what they did on NYPD Blue with .38 Specials drawn, looking for perps. ;)

[Battlefront.com]

Generic vs. Abstract - windows and doors are generic, but they are not abstract. This means there is a window at such and such a height with such and such a size positioned in this or that spot. That is direct and not abstract. The generic issue comes in that all windows will be that size and relatively positioned whenever windows are present. You won't get narrow windows on one buildnig and big plate glass windows on another. At least not in terms of the size and position, the graphics are a different story as they can be customized for the building wall texture underneath. This set in stone, applicable to all, dimensional modeling is what is used for LOS, LOF, and movement rules. There might be other abstractions associated with windows/doors, but they are based on top of the underlying system just described.

Yes, mouseholing will only be practical with shaped charges or large caliber main gun rounds. Grenades, especially rifle grenades, are simply too wimpy to do that sort of thing. Those things are designed to fragment in all directions. AP rounds are designed to jet through metal. Shaped charges are designed for blast effect in one direction. Big difference.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh yeah... and yes, one of the advantages of going with narrower subject matter is we don't get into the problems of "we need a house that works as well for central Europe as it does for Western Russia and Germany too" problem. Now we can simply make one set of models and textures that work with a specific area without worrying about others. In that way buildings will look a lot less generic in CMx2 compared to CMx1.

However, when I said there will be a more generic feel to the buildings I meant vs. games like BF2 or any number of other eyecandy games that are out there. We can't compete with the visuals that come from a limited number of hand made buildings made by companies whose art budget is probably more than we made off of all the CMx1 games combined. These games are going towards $20,000,000 a title now... and most of that is art.

Steve

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
"Charge in"? That's two people who have said that. I thought the drill was mousehole, then grenades and/or tommy gun, THEN enter the room. Charging in was what they did on NYPD Blue with .38 Specials drawn, looking for perps. ;) Jeez, what are you expecting, a detailed excerpt from a SWAT training manual? Sure, grenades and bullets (or flashbangs, for law enforcement) often preceed "charging in", but since this threat is about mouseholing, and not storming buildings specifically, I figured a point-by-point description was unnecessary.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
"Charge in"? That's two people who have said that. I thought the drill was mousehole, then grenades and/or tommy gun, THEN enter the room. Charging in was what they did on NYPD Blue with .38 Specials drawn, looking for perps. ;) Jeez, what are you expecting, a detailed excerpt from a SWAT training manual? Sure, grenades and bullets (or flashbangs, for law enforcement) often preceed "charging in", but since this threat is about mouseholing, and not storming buildings specifically, I figured a point-by-point description was unnecessary. </font>[/QUOTE]You should know better than to think you could get away with that when there are grogs in the vicinity.

:D

Michael

[Liebchen]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SuomiKp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:


8. Mouseholing is now possible.

Steve :confused: </font>[/QUOTE]Instead of using doors and windows, you blow a hole in the wall. </font>[/QUOTE]Or you can simply use your bayonets to poke holes through the adobe walls (ala Roarke's Drift). ;)

[RockinHarry]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
3. Basements are an option for a building now. If I get my way there will be two types... one that has windows and one that does not. Up to Charles :D
Cool! :cool: Do all "solid" (brick, masonry,..) buildings have the basement option, independent from size? Many farmbuildings in europe had solid basements that made for excellent fortified cover position. The Brits "complained" a lot about these during the "Veritable" operation, but there´s surely numerous other examples where fortified farm buildings offered protection like a bunker or dugout! Oh...while at the topic, will there be another option for a building to be a fortified strongpoint? Something like a building showing extra sandbag reinforcements, locked main doors ect where a player needs some more efforts to make his way in and root occupants out! More a job for engineers so to say....hehe

Can rubbled/destroyed buildings block neighboring roads? If not, maybe a terrain type "rubble" could be invented that at least lets scenario designers place that stuff where appropiate?

Guess churches/steeples are now much more realistic with new # of possible stories available? Smoke stacks?

The generally intended level of abstraction sounds quite ok to me. Don´t go overboard! If there would be a choice between "industry standard" graphics or an improved AI/Gameplay, I would vote for the latter. No matter what the final release version of CMx2 will include, it´s already on my purchase list. smile.gif