CMX2: Can we get back to fantasising now?

[Kip Watson]

All those CMX2 hints have been absolutely wonderful, but I got a bit bogged down with the stuff about cup-holders and PBEM files (I understand the deeply held feelings and stuff, but that combined with tempers frayed was like Christmas Dinner with my family - except for not being mercifully brief and only once a year...)


Anyway, now that we are armed with so many great and tantalizing hints, can we get back to a bit of innocent fantasising again now? (Like the 'what would you like in...' thread, that was great).

To get the ball rolling:

I am imagining night battles with muzzle flashes and star shells, shadowy sillouhettes briefly illuminated by exploding vehicles - and a window that shows me what I see though the slit of a buttoned up tank ('I can't see a damn thing')

I am also imaging a later CMX2 release* set sometime in the late 19th Century. (It could be the Spanish American War, the Franco Prussian War, the Boer War - or so many other 'small' wars in that period). The mix of cavalry and rifles, early machine guns, powerful field guns (but no spotters), guys in khaki or bright colours (how would that effect spotting?). And formations ranging from modern dispersed formation to Napoleonic column. Command delays of up to several minutes (runners required). Redcoats, Zouaves, Injuns, Rough Riders...

...yeah... that would rock.


[* after the cold-war-goes-hot hypothetical of course!! ]

[Michael Emrys]

Yeah, let's have the Crimean War! I've always wanted to obliterate a cavalry regiment by firing batteries of grapeshot through them. Oh boy!

Michael

[aka_tom_w]

Ok

I fantasize about TRUE LOS and LOF being actually blocked by AFV's and vehicles in motion. (So that units can take cover behind vehicles!)

I fantasize that the BORG is dead and each unit spots ALL on its own. (Relative spotting evolves as the dominant aspect of the game and becomes an significant foundation on which most other game design concepts and principles are based!)

I fantasize that each unit has some form of memory for what has happened previously in the game

(Most of this, above, has already been hinted to be in the game so there is no real thinking out of the box there.)

I fantasize that the new AI is VERY challenging, cunning, unpredictable and shrewd, due mostly to the fact that in each scenario the designer will have some new and more robust tools to "program" the units SOPs or hint the game AI (all 4-5 levels) with better tools than JUST CM1 like victory flags and this wonderfully entertaining new scenario-designer hinted "uber" AI opponent beats me routinely in a fair fight without cheating or any artificial computer aided advantage.

(PLEASE note for the new comers here, unlike most other computer games the AI from BFC in Combat Mission NEVER cheats or uses ANY form of unfair "computer" advantage (its NOT RTS so it does not for instance think faster or click faster than you!) so we SURE do want to keep that feature in the new game!! ) :D

(OK that last one was fantasy as far as I can tell smile.gif )

-tom w

[ February 13, 2005, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Salkin]

I wouldn't mind several different death animations and dramatic combat animations from the guys battling it out in the field. Just to make the battle come alive so to speak.
If the little guys use cover and similar stuff , that would be cool too.

Just imagine it:
You see the sarge barking orders , a fire team laying down some fire while a tank crew crawls away from the burning tank...
Suddenly one of the guys in the fireteam is hit and tumbles to the ground. A stray mortar shell rips apart the ground next to the officer who flies 3 metres into the air (maybe he's missing a leg :D ).

Well I suppose Gpigs drawings illustrate this stuff better than me but what I'm saying is that it would be nice to see the battle come alive with a few more animations then the 5 necessary ones smile.gif .

//Salkin
This , off course, is only window dressing that take a back seat to actual gameplay-programming smile.gif .

[David I]

Kip,
Zulus, Dervishes, Sepoys, front rank kneeling, rear rank standing, bagpipes skrilling, "The Company will fire a volley at 600 yards. For volley. Present!" Bringing the light of civilization to the 'eathen.
Yeah, I could dig it.
DavidI

[Hamstersss]

Full movie playback.

With dramatic interludes for operations.

And civilians.

And entrance and exit animations for units getting into trucks, halftracks.

And hit-specific graphics on tanks. That stick with the tank through an entire operation. That come back when a tank is knocked out and repaired.

Turrets flying into the air from an exploding tank. Tanks flying into the air from a 16".

Background chatter, that you can turn off, but that gives you a running, commander-level audio account of the turn.

Multiplayer co-op campaigns.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:
Full movie playback.

Background chatter, that you can turn off, but that gives you a running, commander-level audio account of the turn.

YES

Like a radio chatter audio track as if you were listening in on the events in the battle like Carroll O'Connor over hearing the "action" in Kelly's Heroes.

All I can think of when I hear is idea is:

"This is Big Duke6 Assume Attack Formation!"

he he

smile.gif

-tom w

[flamingknives]

Tracer represented by points of light rather than coloured 'bullets' (I think this might just strain the dynamic lighting system)

Sabot peeling off the core as it leaves the barrel

Different muzzle blasts depending on the gun, muzzle brakes etc.

Modelling and providing a visual impression of night vision/thermal imaging

ATGM smoke trails (This assumes that cold war is in there somewhere. Go on, you know you want to.)

Telegraph poles/lines (if you've got wire-guided missiles, this is important.)

Large variety of defensive positions.

WP and Base-bleed smoke, plus better modelling of smoke duration.

[Sergei]

I hope the hole in the CD will be a lot bigger than previously.

Uh... so this is not about *THAT* sort of fantasizing? redface.gif

[Kip Watson]

Yeah, I have to admit, post-war/cold-war would be my second favourite after WW2, especially 50s-70s real-plus-hypothetical.

1973 Yom-Kippur would be an intense and quite closely matched battle - 6 day war would be a challenge too. Vietnam would be very intense with every type of terrain, urban, jungle, wet and dry farmland, urban... How about a 'Swift Boats in Cambodia' scenario (JUST KIDDING!!!!)

But playing Nato v. Warsaw Pact around the 1970s would be unreal (remember the board game Fulda Gap?). As kids in the 70s we were quite sure there would be a WW3, so it almost seems real to me.

Leopards, Centurions, T72s, chemical reactive armour - how many points for tactical nukes in a company-level game though...?

It might be hard to model though, are the exact specs for that gear still classified? And if such a game was super accurate, could it be a national security problem for countries that still use that equipment?

[flamingknives]

As long as you stop about 1980, the specs can be had. When you start on the gear that is still in use, it all goes a little pear-shaped. Prior to the '80s, ERA isn't a problem, all the armour is RHA steel, and the weapon data is reasonably well known. It's in the public domain so can't pose any more of a security risk.

Tac Nukes are an oxymoron. You don't use heavy bomber in CMX1, and you wouldn't use nukes in a cold-war game.

Leo 1s, Cheiftains and M60s would be in, and so would up to the contempary T-72.

[Kip Watson]

Cold War to 1980s would be very cool - huge period though, it could easily subdivide several times into still-complex games.

I was just joking about the nuke - but how spooky would it be to have a 'max damage' terrain setting that was 'after nuclear blast' - yowch! (with your troops all suited up in radiation suits and tanks permanently buttoned). Imagine that with hi res CMX2 terrain and a nuclear twilight backdrop.

---

As well as the difficulty factor, it seems a bit unethical to model contemporary warfare (eg. up to Iraqi Freedom) - even if the specs were just best-guess, the bad guys would almost certainly get their hands on it and probably learn a lot that they don't know.

[Hamstersss]

It'd be cool if you had a mini-strategic pregame, so that you could set up a regiment/batallion, purchase and perform a couple pregame moves (Scouting, et cetera) and then CM determines the specific focus of the battle at a batallion/company level. Then you could have a certain amount of strategic level assets without interfering with CM's true focus.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:
It'd be cool if you had a mini-strategic pregame, so that you could set up a regiment/batallion, purchase and perform a couple pregame moves (Scouting, et cetera) and then CM determines the specific focus of the battle at a batallion/company level. Then you could have a certain amount of strategic level assets without interfering with CM's true focus. There's a germ of a good idea in there. I like the notion of variable pregame intelligence on the other side's dispositions.

smile.gif

Michael

[Wisbech_lad]

The Indo-Pakistan wars. Pattons vs Centurians.

[Panzer76]

Vietnam would be good. Let's see if they get to that after their initial cmx2 release of modern combat.

[aka_tom_w]

OK

I have been thinking about Fog of War options and the possibility of various new levels of CMx2.....

how about:

1 No Fog of War (just a BASIC option to learn the game)

2 Partial FOW

3 CMBO Standard FOW

4 CMBB EFOW

5 CMx2 EFOW (with Relative Spotting AND the new command structure for C&C modeling battlefield communications)

6 MIA CMx2 EFOW
( units OUT of friendly LOS and WAY out of C&C are deemed MIA and replaced with a generic nationality maker or some such indication they are missing (From the player) in action)

7 MIA Iron Man CMx2 IMFOW ... Where you can ONLY see enemy units from the level 1 or level 2 (church tower) perspective of your OWN friendly units WITHIN C&C range as per Frankco's True Combat Rules. (I would guess the CMx2 AI should be able to easily beat any average player using those FOW settings for the first time!)


It would be my guess that most folks would play with CMx2 FOW #5 and be happy with that as the NEW gold standard in FOW.

However....

AS OPTIONS FOW #6 and #7 might not be the setting that most users would use most of the time BUT to add some spice to the game or VARIABILITY to the user experience they could be included as REAL Fog of War options! smile.gif

I guess Numbers 3 and 4 are not really necessary and/or advisable:
(#3 CMBO Standard FOW and #4 CMBB EFOW... NOT needed)


AND yes for the record I AM trying to think out of the box...

-tom w

[ February 14, 2005, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Michael Emrys]

If BFC does decide to take CM into the post-WW II/modern era, I would earnestly plug for starting with the Arab-Israeli wars with the Indo-Pakistan wars coming second.

Why? Because they are the only medium sized wars in this period in which mechanized forces were engaged in conventional fighting on a fairly large scale. And that's the kind of fighting that gamers seem to be most interested in. And secondly, they are ones in which there is enough historical material available to stand a reasonable chance of making an accurate simulation.

This is not to say that wars like Korea, Viet Nam, South Africa vs. Angola cannot be modeled in interesting ways, it's just that I don't know if they would fit into the CMx2 framework and can't guess until we know what that framework is going to include.

Michael

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I agree with flamingknives on just about all matters, but one ;) .

I do think that there is enough information on weapon systems of the ‘80s, including the second half of the ‘80s, to build a great CMX2 game covering that period. Thus I would like to see a Cold War game from 1970-1989. It would be a shame not to cover the first mature generation of laminated/ceramic armour. Toys as far from WWII as possible for the greatest change.

The only way I could really illustrate my point would be to launch into a “huge” rant on the subject, giving example after example and why the figures can be trusted in each case, which I do not wish to do. It would be massive waste of time and energy.

We fans of a Cold War game must not fight amongst ourselves ;) .

Fulda Gap here I come :D .

All good fun,
All the best,
Kip.

[Tarkus]

After considering all the possiblities that a new, more accurate terrain engine offers, I don't think that the theater is such an issue. Even though I would personnaly prefer conventionnal, WWII battles as suggested above, there are many things that could make me really dig the game on a grand scale while it being on another era.

The first thing I'd consider is scope. Not theater or era, but scope. CMx1 was about company up to reinforced battalion size battles, but still, small unit actions occuring on the frontline. I think the game could go way further dealing with this particular scope by adding part of the reality that's inherent to it.

There are many example of this. For example, an infantry unit may - or may not- have to stay at a certain spot for quite an extended period of time. This has more implication than just staying there. Troops get familiar with the surrounding ground, they dig slit trenches, foxholes, they register field of fires, place field telephone wire about, place mines, etc. This could translate into many more details for the players, with many more (IMO interesting) tasks.

Preparing a good defensive position would be a very interesting process as far as I am concerned. And this could start right in the middle of a battle: you could order troops to dig in and the map would be slowly modified by this action: later import of the map would still carry these works and then, why not allow the player to actually spend points completing them ? Troops being at one place for a long period of time couldbenefit from knowing the ground; Along the same line, one of the first thing a platoon does settling down somewhere is to setup a track discipline.

The same line of thinking brings me back to earlier posts about patrols and recons. Don't you think it could be pretty exciting to try to infiltrate an ennemy position in order to gather intelligence about it, later to be followed by an attack ? I think the player trying to prevent such an agenda by patrols, traps, ambushes and so on would also be in for an interesting time. And these things would be quite interesting in any era. Vietnam, for example, would be a big thrill.

Cheers

[stikkypixie]

Tarkus, you got me thinking. To simulate troops that are stationed in one place long enough might get some kind of movement bonus or some delay bonus to get around because they are familiar with the terrain and know their way around.

[Tarkus]

Right. Even after 20 minutes (or 20 hours) at the same spot, I would assume each member of a squad get to the best possible position, thus a squad would be better placed after staying longer on a position. Better field of fire, better line of sight, better concealment. Making those things dynamic would really be nice.

Another way to see it is applying this talking to a squad in a building. After 30 seconds it has the building shape figured out, but a thoughtful, deliberate and careful distribution of firepower to suit the tactical requirement at hand require more time. I'm not saying it should be left to the player to set each and every rifle position, but it would make sense to consider it in an abstracted way.

I seem to recall that Panzer General had an abstracted feature about that, like when you'd leave a unit in position, its "entrenchment" factor would rise up. Of course there is a slight difference between a single infantryman and a division, but the principle applies to both.

Also, a platoon leader at the front in a defensive position gives his men a rest. He might even not be around when an attack begins. In current CM, the main line of resistances is always assumed to be fully manned. No tactical or operationnal surprise whatsoever. But modelling an alert level within a defensive line could be interesting. Like your forces would be on a 50% alert level, with the correspondent amount of troops being off the line and a delay for manning the position fully. It would pay off to attack swiftly, and it would be worthy to cut small units off.

Cheers

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by stikkypixie:
Tarkus, you got me thinking. To simulate troops that are stationed in one place long enough might get some kind of movement bonus or some delay bonus to get around because they are familiar with the terrain and know their way around. That might be more useful for things like night navigation (though only marginally), but once the fur is flying, knowing the ground won't yield you terribly many advantages that are easily simulated.

I don't like the idea of bonuses from out of thin air - a better way to simulate these things is to have a map that reveals itself through sighting the same way that fortifications or troops do; the side with more time in an area, better maps, etc., will have less change to deal with. Would be very hard, perhaps even impossible to implement, and probably not very fun to play, but would be realistic.

Imagine your platoon going forward over billiard table flat ground, and discovering craters in the tall grass as it moves forward - or running towards a clump of trees just over the next crest, and coming to a stop at the crest of the hill to realize the map was wrong - the 3D woods have moved 200 metres farther on - and an enemy bunker is set up in it and is now firing on your men at the top of the empty hill they thought would have trees on it...

It speaks also to the necessity for true reconnaissance, and is another factor that ties in to familiarity with the ground. In CM, we have the ability to float all over the 3D battleground and even measure LOS and distances, with perfect knowledge of every inch of terrain...

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
In CM, we have the ability to float all over the 3D battleground and even measure LOS and distances, with perfect knowledge of every inch of terrain... Just for openning this to debate, but could restricting this camera all-over floating ability along certain rules (as an option) not be interesting ? I don't know, perhaps only from the player side, up to controlled zones, or tied to aerial reconnaissance/prior intelligence or the results of earlier ground reconnaissance ?

Just an idea to be sure, but still...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Tarkus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
In CM, we have the ability to float all over the 3D battleground and even measure LOS and distances, with perfect knowledge of every inch of terrain... Just for openning this to debate, but could restricting this camera all-over floating ability along certain rules (as an option) not be interesting ? I don't know, perhaps only from the player side, up to controlled zones, or tied to aerial reconnaissance/prior intelligence or the results of earlier ground reconnaissance ?

Just an idea to be sure, but still... </font>[/QUOTE]It's certainly a more palatable option than command delays or artificial restrictions (in my opinion, others would feel directly the opposite) - but it depends on how it is implemented, I suppose.

[flamingknives]

I think a level of uncertainty about the terrain would be good. Adjustable, just like the casualty settings are now. All terrain out of LoS is represented by wireframe, greyed out terrain, whatever.
as it comes into LoS, it changes, depending on the level of uncertainty. Uncertainty governs the amount of errors on the false map and the magnitude of errors.

[Jasper 2x]

Maybe what if you have a map of the area in your command wagon ?

[Aco4bn187inf]

If you have a map, maybe it could be given as part of the breifing. Then you may find out whether it's accurate...

My personal wish list-
(sure, not all original)
Streetlamps, telephone poles, civilian cars, train cars

several types of bridge structures- steel superstructure, stone wall as railing, no railing, etc.

several types of walls- tall stone walls, tall wooden fences that block line of sight even for tanks. Tank ditches impassable to vehicles.

Very short los areas, like denser woods or series of urban back yards with many high fences. (You sure you want to send troops in there?)

Several types of industrial structures- silos, cranes, etc.

several types of boats. The Germans had motorized assault boats, for example

houses on sloped terrain.

several types of victory conditions- have an amount of troops pass a line on-board. Clear enemy from a certain area. I find the focus on flags a bit gamey and unrealistic, makes it too easy to know exactly where the enemy is focussing.

Several types of SOP orders- "fire once then retreat" "retreat if spotted"(good for scout cars), etc. A combination movement command, like- "advance when in open, MTC when in cover, pause if tiring". That would save a LOT of pointing and clicking.

...hope these haven't ALL been suggested before...

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by flamingknives:
I think a level of uncertainty about the terrain would be good. Adjustable, just like the casualty settings are now. All terrain out of LoS is represented by wireframe, greyed out terrain, whatever.
as it comes into LoS, it changes, depending on the level of uncertainty. Uncertainty governs the amount of errors on the false map and the magnitude of errors. Terrain Fog Of War has been on my personal wish list since CMBO!

Sure you as the player should have a look at a 2D map or a Road Map or an image or graphic of a 2D topo map of the area, BUT thats it!.

If you do not have friendly units with LOS to a specific area of the REAL 3D battlefield that area should be unavailable to be viewed by the player.

" All terrain out of LoS is represented by wireframe, greyed out terrain, whatever." FOR SURE!

This should be do-able in CMx2

I like the idea of the sterile wireframe with NO rendered details, (for map area's out of LOS) technically this would be like asking the game code to render and skin the under lying 3D wire frame AS IT COMES INTO VIEW OR LOS OF FRIENDLY UNITS.

(is that doable? or even desireable?)

GOOD POINT smile.gif

thanks

-tom w

[Kip Watson]

I know in BFC terms this probably counts as a cup-holder, but I always thought the command-delay was a clear, simple and efficient way to model LOS,FOW and all the rest (and one that doesn't force me to play the whole game at zoom level one - yikes!).

In my fantasy world, a further level of realistic command delay could be effected (as in the picture below) by having generalised company or battalion orders, issued in the setup phase - to which platoon orders have to broadly adhere - that can be overridden but only with an additional delay.

http://www.zapwhizz.com.au/~combatkip/orders.jpg

[aka_tom_w]

I think Steve has said lately they don't want to add abstract command delays if they can help it.

"but I always thought the command-delay was a clear, simple and efficient way to model LOS,FOW and all the rest (and one that doesn't force me to play the whole game at zoom level one - yikes!). "

(or something to that effect, "If it takes 1 Minute to do or complete the task in REAL Life then it should take 1 Minute to do in CMx2")

-tom w

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
(or something to that effect, "If it takes 1 Minute to do or complete the task in REAL Life then it should take 1 Minute to do in CMx2")

-tom w It is certainly a great concept and works really well. The big challenge when applying it to issuing commands is trying to determine where the command originated. Going back to Kip’s example, the order for the 2 platoons to secure the 2-story building could have come from each platoon leader acting independently, or from the company commander. Where the order came from has different implications. Kip’s idea provides a mechanism that starts to distinguish these situations, and could allow them to be treated properly.

[Kip Watson]

Seriously, I think it would work. The company level orders would need to be generalised and simple. Any platoon level orders that didn't conflict with them would incur only a brief command delay.

I think it actually overcomes the 'abstracted' mid-long command delay which currently applies to every order (especially those with multiple waypoints).

Say for example you wanted to change the orders of platoon 1 to race to the other side of the map and deal with a threat. It could be designed so that orders in serious conflict with company level orders would be very slow to implement and might even incur a big morale drop (cf. BoB attacking Foy "A flanking movement - what's he talking about, our orders are to attack").

A change in company orders themselves need not require much more of a delay - complicated ones would: 'regroup your platoon and proceed to...and coordinate with...etc etc' might add a full minute (and the company HQ could be limited to how many orders they could issue in a game-turn). Comprehensive orders - or perhaps ones that include a 'regroup' command, or coordinated orders that make use of siignals - should also give a slight boost to morale (on the premise troops like the firm hand of a strong leader), but there should be the option of simple ones too - 'get the hell out of there', 'all platoons attack', 'get over to the other side of town' - which could be issued/amended in the heat of battle and add just a few seconds.

I think something like this would be a lot less abstract than the current system.

Anyway, this is just fantasising (and an excuse to play around with screenshots) - BFC probably have something much cooler in store.

[Kip Watson]

As you say, the hard part would be the algorithm that determines whether a 'unit' order conflicts with a 'company/battalion HQ' order.

CoBa HQ orders could consist of very simple elements such as:
- broad/narrow vectors of attack*
- target areas and target points*
- a list of general directives, 'observe', 'engage', 'suppress', 'attack'

*Players should also be rewarded with improved command and morale response for using narrow vectors and small areas/specific targets (ie. clear and concise orders)

[The_Enigma]

ok hope this is the right place to post ideas, it seems it and also hope noone else has said this already. so ...
heres an idea, pontoon bridges for operations.

picture this, axis side has to hold a bridgehead over a a river and hold a bridge.
the allied side (assuming this is set in ww2 stil ;) )has to push the axis back over the bridge and cont advaning.
The axis will get more troops, enough to mount a credable counterattack in a few battles time with the obj of push the allie's back if they cross the bridge etc.

So the axis player can if he wishes to retreat from his bridgehead onto his side of the river if he think he cannot hold it and destoy the bridge with enginners/arty

now atm that would probably screw the game over ... stalemate.

So in the next battle setup both sides or just one, get the opporunity to create a pontoon bridge, thus for example the allied attack could cont or the axis counterattack could start. etc etc
Something like in the setup you cna click somewhere and the bridge would automatically be there for when the battle or the next battle starts?

How this would be managed to do and what determine which side or both can be allowed to put one in i havnt got the fogess on, but so far what you think?

Anyway i say this because i remember playing some op in cmbo, a canal crossing.
My force got massacred in there boats and i wasnt able to sucure a bridgehead by the end of the battle so i was stuck on my side of the canal for a few turns until i dont know or remember why i was able to setup on there side of the canal.

[Kip Watson]

Some other CoBa orders could work like this be....

- Support: platoon 1
- Escort: Tank platoon 1
- Escort: Battery 2
- Advance: with stealth: and assemble
- Advance: with speed: and attack

Penalties (morale, time, cohesion) on contradictory behaviour would help to impose an 'opportunity cost' on certain orders that derive from the 'God View'.

To use a fairly common example, an AT unit takes a pot at a tank, and from the 'God-viewpoint' the opposing player has every available unit stop what they're doing and open fire on it. Personally, I don't have a problem with this as such - if you order it as a player, then as a commander you would almost certainly have included that situation during training or given instructions in standing orders.

The point is, that acting in that way would have an effect on the unit in terms of delay and temporary loss of cohesion ('who's firing - is that third squad - I didn't order anyone to fire - go and find out what they're firing at' ... that sort of thing)

Soldiers are not robots, they act on direct orders as well as according to their training, instincts and according to their own best judgement (esp. NCOs). The AI can never model this, so to take too much away from the 'God view' actually could make the game unrealistic.

But a layered command system would handle a situation like that (and others) elegantly, accurately, and without loss of playability.

[Michael Emrys]

Okay, I'm sold...I think.

:D

Michael

[Bannon DC]

Someone must have suggested this in the past --

Camouflage netting. We need a better way to defend against air attacks than the sacraficial truck.

[willbell]

I absolutely love the pre-mini-scenario idea for shaping the goals of the battle or campaign.

I would also like a toggle so that you could lock the game onto ground level POV only. It would be challenging, and kind of realistic. It would be fun to play a game where your opponent was under the same restriction.

I would like to be able to record turn movies. Maybe create a method for setting up a camera POV at a few places during the turn. Or it could record what you see on the screen as you navigate around during the game turn play.

I would like to have a refined LOS so that if I get down at the ground level view and look around I will see only the stuff that is actually visible from that point. Sometimes you get down a tanks level, and you can see a tank through the trees, but only because some other unit sees it. I would like a choice of a view that shows only what that unit sees.

Forgive any idea repeats here, I just don't have the time to read every single post thoroughly.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Bannon DC:
Someone must have suggested this in the past --

Camouflage netting. We need a better way to defend against air attacks than the sacraficial truck. That's fine in a situation where they begin a CM battle camouflaged, but one didn't wait until the Jabos showed up to start throwing nets over everything. By then it was much too late. In that situation, one simply dove into a ditch and got as close to China as humanly possible.

Michael

[Stan Hope Park]

.

[ March 06, 2005, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: 1327 ]

[Wikingkopf]

Not really a gameplay issue but I've always wanted my tanks to have their very own turret numbers.You know "There goes 223 up in smoke".Individual unit markings and tactical markings would also look real nice.Being able to see your Tigers with their say 503sPzabt insignia would be so sweet.

[PLM]

The problem with this command stuff is the person in charge typically wouldnt micromanage the exact movements of any movement anyway. Then you're putting too much emphasis on who's in command range and not. The AI sucks on its own. It cant handle ANY situation. I dont want troops isolated to just be inept and be massacred by the enemy human player. I want to control unit movements completely without any sort of command delay.


One thing i've thouhgt about is a real-time CM. Would take higher specs of course and be very hard to keep up with. But if you want to add problems with command you can make it real time. Would be itneresting to have it as an option. I dont think enough comps can handle it though.


I think there aughta be some sort of chatterbox or message box. Maybe several different notifier tabs which blink when one becomes valid. One for spotting enemy. One for casualties etc.


A campaign mode would be nice. Different than the operation mode. Where your troops carry over from a battle and gain experience and stuff

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by PLM:
One thing i've thouhgt about is a real-time CM. Would take higher specs of course and be very hard to keep up with. But if you want to add problems with command you can make it real time.NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Michael

[aka_tom_w]

One thing i've thouhgt about is a real-time CM. Would take higher specs of course and be very hard to keep up with. But if you want to add problems with command you can make it real time. Would be itneresting to have it as an option. I dont think enough comps can handle it though.
Sorry

I don't think there are ANY home/consumer level computers that could handle a even a Company vs a company with Arty and Air support and tank support in REAL TIME???? :confused:

What???

are you kidding me?

Just look how long the "crunch" time is now. Any time you see a crunch that is about a minute long you know it could not show the turn in real time due to the armour penetration calculations.

MAYBE 5 years from now it might be do-able but computers are not getting faster ( like doubleing in speed every 18 months) the way they used to now-a-days!

The faithful here know that BFC will not sell out Combat Mission or any future Combat Mission Like games to the RTS market....

BUT I could be wrong.

smile.gif

-tom w

[Philippe]

I'm not sure I would want to play CM in real time even if that were possible.

[Hamstersss]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
Just look how long the "crunch" time is now. Any time you see a crunch that is about a minute long you know it could not show the turn in real time due to the armour penetration calculations.
Easy thing to test, really, you just have to see which turns take 1 minute or less to process.

I just hope BFC spends some quality time with environmental effects, especially during operations. Seeing the same battlefield change--through terrain deformation and weather effects--from a beautiful European hamlet into a blasted-out, muddy wreck with knocked-out tanks scattered around, would be spectacular.

Plus it'd come in handy when they use the engine for WWI...

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by PLM:
The problem with this command stuff is the person in charge typically wouldnt micromanage the exact movements of any movement anyway. Then you're putting too much emphasis on who's in command range and not. The AI sucks on its own. It cant handle ANY situation. I dont want troops isolated to just be inept and be massacred by the enemy human player. I want to control unit movements completely without any sort of command delay.
Using command-zones could achieve this aim. Using Kip's screenshot, imagine if the squads were confined to the "arrow" area. Within it they could move without any delay at all. To change the company level orders (replot the arrows) would result in relatively large delay, to leave the zone on a platoon's own initiative would result in delay or some other bad effect (fragile morale, friendly fire incidents etc).

Anyhow, I have mentioned this ad-nauseum before. Just thought I would mention it again ;) , as Kip's screenshot is almost exactly what I had in mind when I mention "command-zones" or "command-radius" as in this old thread here:

C&C thread (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=002977#000001) .

Originally posted by Hoolaman on October 18, 2004 05:32 PM:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/jhool/Untitled-TrueColor-95

[Juardis]

Wow. Go away for 2 years and things change smile.gif .

Seriously, I quit playing CMBB because it ceased to be fun. I never bought CMAK. But I eagerly awaited news on CMX2 and here it is.

So if it's not too late, here are some of my wishes from 2 years ago and some new ones. I have no idea how much of what we came up with years ago has been written down, but what I'd like first and foremost is for the game to be fun. It is all well and good to be as realistic as possible, but at some point realism is not fun. The shear frustration of having your squad break as it runs from tree cover to tree cover while a HMG squad fires on it is not fun. It may be realistic (or may not, since we're talking about human reactions in the heat of the battle), but it's certainly not fun. CMBB took away the fire and manuever aspects that made CMBO fun simply because you could no longer effectively manuever. So you ordered your guys to stay in one place and expend their ammo until the time limit expired.

Certainly not all games were like that, but it happened more often than not. It was extremely frustrating.

I just read about the morale issues and I fear even more frustration. I mean, having an entire squad break on the death of the squad leader? Realistic? Who knows. Possible? Perhaps. Fun? No. So while I applaud the realistic combat simulator, is there any acknowledgement at all that this is still a game? I think the two can co-exist nicely, but it's a fine balance to be sure.

Anyway, my wish list.

1. Scalable. By that I mean the ability to model the Vietnam war and the longer ranges associated with it as well as WW I/WW II eras. My main desire is for a Korean war battlefield. But if a Vietnam battlefield can be modeled, I'd suspect a Korean war battlefield could be.

2. Passage of time. A one hour battle may start in daylight (or darkness) but surely transition to the other.

3. Borg spotting has got to go. I have an idea that I put forth a few years ago, and I still think it would work and be fun at the same time. Basically, commands can only be given to units with radios or within LOS of units with radios.

4. Ability to play the game from different perspectives. By that, I mean you are either the squad leader, platoon leader, company commander or battalion commander. How much C&C you have depends greatly on which perspective you play from. For example: If this is a platoon vs. platoon, you're a platoon leader and can issue direct commands to the squad leaders and have those commands executed in a reasonably fast time and indirect commands to the individuals in the squad after some delay (to simulate the direct command to the squad leader giving commands to his subordinates). Issuing a command to a squad leader only will allow the AI to figure out how to execute the command (perhaps using pre-determined formations or maneuvers). Issuing a command to a soldier will take longer to execute since the order has to come from me (the platoon leader) through the squad leader to the soldier. I think this would work well with the previously mentioned cooperative play mode.

5. Alternate turn time limits. Instead of 60 sec, allow longer/shorter times. Longer battles can be simulated in the same number of turns if longer turn lengths are allowed.

6. Air drops. Be they supplies falling from parachutes or men falling from parachutes. The entire battle centered around the drop zone. Plenty of battles took place in WWII and Korea and Vietnam around drop zones (The movie "We Were Soldiers" is a great example).

7. Since I'm wishing, Helicopter modeling. Obviously not for WW II, nor much for Korea, but definitely to extend the engine to Vietnam.

8. I would love to hook this into a campaign system to replace the current Operations. But if the current operation system is retained, I'd love to have truly dynamic front lines that allow for encirclement in between battles.

9. I know with dynamic lighting that a lot of cool things can be added. But I'd vote for star shells for night battles and willy pete (ordnance and lighting effects).

There are more I'm sure, but these will do for now. I'm trying to think revolutionary by the way. smile.gif

[flamingknives]

1) I would have thought that Vietnam ranges were shorter than WWI/WWII. Certainly small arms lost power and range.
2) passage of time is in
3) Relative spotting (the antithesis of Borg spotting) is in
4) Command game is out, at least for the first two games, but may come in for later games (games will come along faster than with CMX1)

8) Operations have changed into more scripted campaign battles. 'Upgrades' are unlikely though

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by flamingknives:
1) I would have thought that Vietnam ranges were shorter than WWI/WWII. Certainly small arms lost power and range.
2) passage of time is in
3) Relative spotting (the antithesis of Borg spotting) is in
4) Command game is out, at least for the first two games, but may come in for later games (games will come along faster than with CMX1)

8) Operations have changed into more scripted campaign battles. 'Upgrades' are unlikely though Seems relevant to the latest crop of "we want this for CMX2 because..." posts

[Midnight Warrior]

Since this is fantasizing....

1. Tanks don't drive through fences but over them (or through them)depending on how heavy the tank and how sturdy the wall. If they go over them they expose themsleves to belly shots.

2. Fallen tree trunks and logs to hide behind

3. Creeks and streams

4. True 3D fox holes and trenches

5. Vehicles leave tracks in the ground.

6. More interior details in houses and buildings.

7. planning map with the ability to draw phase lines.

8. Links from Plt HQ to Co HQ's

9. A way to jump around the map to preplanned sight points so that you don't have to keep scrolling back and forth.

10. Programmable mouse wheel

11. 3d Audio

12. Interface to IR head tracker (like in aircraft sims)

[Pvt. Ryan]

You forgot cows that the men can shoot for cover.

[flamingknives]

9. try Ctrl-click
12. ????

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Midnight Warrior:
1. Tanks don't drive through fences but over them (or through them)depending on how heavy the tank and how sturdy the wall. This is the most nonsensical sentence I have seen in a while.

[WineCape]

No need to fantasize. The first CMx2 release will be a WWII "slice." ;)

--------------------------------------------------------
“I am simultaneously embarrassed and proud to state for the record that only two bottles of your fine South African wines remain in my wine rack. The rest gave their lives honorably in the service of the construction of CMAK over the past several months.” -- Charles Moylan, CM programmer, 28 Nov03

[ July 21, 2005, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

[Michael Dorosh]

CMX2's first offering has to be Eastern Front 1939; Poland, Russia, Finland and possibly Japan and the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania). Looking forward to it.

[Pzman]

I highly doubt that MD, who would buy it? Lamo. Also keep in mind that BFC has repeatedly said they will not do that large a scale, rather more along the lines of "Americans battle of the Bulge" or "Americans at St.Lo." I wouldn't expect a very large area of operations.

[juan_gigante]

Remeber that the first one pretty much has to be a big-money setting. After the first release's success and BFC has made billions of dollars, they can start dabbling in the weirdo crap that only grogs would want. After all, the whole point of modules is that they can do many different settings with less time between them.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:
Remeber that the first one pretty much has to be a big-money setting. After the first release's success and BFC has made billions of dollars, they can start dabbling in the weirdo crap that only grogs would want. Thank God! So all the speculation about Korea 2006 is officially over, then?

Right - now the thing about Finland is that they pretty much kicked ass, took names, and all the ladies love them. Since BF.C has already done the research on their order of battle, I can't see anything holding them back. They even have that great soundclip of Hitler talking to Mannerheim that can be converted into a rap music track for the intro movie.

[Pzman]

So you are switching to the life style of a troll now are you MD? I'm not sure whats worse, you or gunny bunny. tongue.gif

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Pzman:
So you are switching to the life style of a troll now are you MD? I'm not sure whats worse, you or gunny bunny. tongue.gif Now, now, why be offensive? I am simply championing my point of view - the crystal clear if byzantine logic that propels me to conclude that the only suitable topic for CMX2's first release is East Front 1939. I can't understand why the Finns have abandoned me in this one. It makes far more sense than Korea 2006 or Cold War 1985 or any other conflict that never really happened save in the hearts of the Cold Warriors who trained for it but never got to play.

Really, what could be better than Polish naval infantry storming ashore at Helsinki and battling up the mountainous spine of the country into the land of the midnight sun? Think of the weather effects alone.

[Pzman]

I don't think that even deserves an answer. :D

[hellfish]

I'm beginning to think Dorosh is talking out of his derriere to sound like he's more grog than any other grog in the world.

I'm sure the unwashed hordes will be lining up for that version of CMx2, MD. Nevermind the fact that most people can't even find Finland on a map. Way help out BFC. :rolleyes: tongue.gif

[juan_gigante]

Maybe if we ignore his crazy ravings, he'll stop, or at least go to another thread.

I would be interested to know if anyone has seriously thought about a pre-modern times CMX2. Would Napoleonic wars or the like work well with CMX2? What would it be like? Would the lack of tanks make everything way worse? What about pre-gunpowder? The Crusades or even farther back, with Genghis Khan or something? I'm not recommending that as an excellent idea, I just wonder how well that would work in a CMX2 engine. Thoughts? Comments? Pie?

[hellfish]

I'm no student of pre-modern warfare by any means. I've always been under the impression that ACW and Napoleanic battles were massive in scale - thousands of people packed into relatively small areas to fight at very close quarters. I'd be interested to see how the CMx2 engine would deal with that. Were company/battalion sized battles frequent, or were they usually corps-on-corps sized fights?

[juan_gigante]

I too know little on the subject at the tactical level, so I would really be interested to know what could be done. Would there be enough skirmishes that a game do them, or would CMX2 work at more of a "Total War" series level? Really, what limitations are there on the engine? BFC, any clues? If I had a super incredibly powerful computer and a lot of time, could I actually run, say, all of the battle of Kursk?

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, the numbers of guys is a real killer. Three ways around that:

1. Limit the number of pollies on the soldiers, horses, guns, etc. This probably means restricting the camera to higher altitudes so you don't notice.

2. Use 1 figure to represent 5 or 10 men. Whatever seems right for the particular battle.

3. Use 2D sprites instead of 3D characters. Doesn't look as good when you get up close, but from a distance it's very hard to tell.

I think the main problem with these games in 3D is actually the best asset from a technical standpoint. In Napoleonics you really CAN'T care what an individual Grenadier looks like because, well, there are tons of them and any single one doesn't make a hill of beans difference for the game. So inherently you are more focused on The Big Picture as a gamer. That means you won't notice a drop off in rendering as much as you would in a game that focuses more on the individual. Like a Special Ops game where you only have dozen dudes under your command. In that case low rendering is not needed nor will it pass muster these days.

Steve

[juan_gigante]

I've heard mention of on huge battles, having distant figures 2D sprites, and then as you get close they turn 3D. Is that sort of thing in for big battles? And I assume that there might be some way to switch 1:1 representation to 1:3 or 1:5 or even 1:10 representation for those monster fights (like the 3 or 2 men per squad now).

I understand the ideas that you list as solutions to the problem, and they're good ones, but can you give us a clue as to which ones specifically (if not all) are probably going to be put into place in the game?

[Pzman]

I think doing that would take a lot more VRAM. Having different sets of graphics for each level would be killer in that regard.

[Battlefront.com]

I've heard mention of on huge battles, having distant figures 2D sprites, and then as you get close they turn 3D. Is that sort of thing in for big battles? If you are talking about LODs, all 3D games use it. The screen's pixel resolution sucks so why bother trying to display 10,000 poloygons at 1000m distance when you might only have 10 pixels to display them in? :D CMx1 uses at least three levels of LODs IIRC.

Same with terrain. As terrain gets further back from the camera's point of view the terrain mesh and features are generally boiled down for the same reasons as the models. In CMx1 when you see a forest 2000m away you are looking at a smear of texture, not invididual trees like you see at 20m. Remember, even flat billboard objects (2D in 3D environment) take up polygons, and they add up quickly when you're talking about things like trees.

So yup... my comments were made assuming LODs since it isn't possible to make anything 3D environment of even minimal complexity work without 'em.

Steve

[hellfish]

My thing is that I like small unit (company and below) fights - anything bigger than a battalion tends to get too overwhelming (at least it was in CMx1). That's one of the reasons I didn't sign up for the second CMMC - in the first one I frequently found myself commanding more than one and often two battalions in combat against a similar sized force. I'd easily and rapidly lose track of my units, not to mention that the PBEM battles could take nearly a week per turn.

My worry is that with Napoleanic or ACW battles that there wouldn't be sufficient material for small unit actions or a proper feeling of the larger battle with a Napoleanic/ACW game that involved more than about fifty controllable units.

And if I wanted to play at that kind of scale where each moveable unit was a regiment, I'd probably go for the Napoleanic mod for the Total War games.

[juan_gigante]

I very much agree that CMX2-based game probably wouldn't work as well at a massive scale than on a small one. I was just kind of wondering. I think that a Napoleon or before era game would not be fun because it would not have tanks. Tanks, as I see it, are pretty integral to the CM games, and I can't envision a CM without tanks or a tank-like thing (in the case of SLoD).
Right now, I'm wondering when BFC will announce at least the top five topic choices, if only so Dorosh might shut up, and we can narrow down the things we argue about. Plus, all the grogs will probably want to get a head start on reading up on everything there is to know about the topic.

So how about it, BFC? Just a top five list? It would make us all ever so happy.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:
I very much agree that CMX2-based game probably wouldn't work as well at a massive scale than on a small one. I was just kind of wondering. I think that a Napoleon or before era game would not be fun because it would not have tanks. Tanks, as I see it, are pretty integral to the CM games, and I can't envision a CM without tanks or a tank-like thing (in the case of SLoD).Again, you're looking from a graphics standpoint rather than gameplay. Tanks look more interesting, even when closeup, because they are inanimate. You can't animate 100 guys in a Civil War company because they won't look realistic. Three tanks sitting in a field do, because they don't have to look different or do all kinds of idiosyncratic things like blow their nose, check their watch, hike up their pants, spit, rub at a mosquito bite or all the million things 100 guys standing in a line would be expected to do.

They "got" tanks pretty well down in CMX1, and luckily the other post of Steve's has the priorities down to terrain/infanty/vehicles in that order. Good job!

Tank vs. tank (only) combats involving large numbers of vehicles were rare indeed and rarely decisive...the true challenge will be modelling infantry vs. armour and vice versa - overruns, close assaults, etc. CC tried to do that but didn't seem to me to be too successful. CMX1 is a little better, albeit abstracted.

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh is correct about why infantry based games have been so long in coming compared to vehicle based games. The first 3D games were... vehicle based :D Even as technology improved it took a long time for 3D games to come out with more than just a few figures in them. And it is still the biggest problem for 3D games even today. Look at BF2... how many guys are visible in that game at any one time? Maybe a dozen or perhaps two dozen? How about the now defunct WW2RTS? Hard limits on the numbers of units and soldiers. Even our own T-72 doesn't simulate a "typical" modern battlefield scenario that would find tanks outnumbered 20 or 100 to one. It's just too brutal on the processor.

So how are we going to do it in CMx2? Well, because we're making design decisions that will allow us the processor and graphics power to show lots of guys (meant to add that we are also making decision decisions to allow us terrain detail as well). BF2 made design decisions that favored pretty looking terrain (and it is VERY pretty) and T-72 obviously is about the tank simulation so that is their emphasis.

Yup, it's still all about tradeoffs :(

Steve

[ July 22, 2005, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[juan_gigante]

I was just thinking about how cool it is that we, the customers, have an open forum like this to talk with the people creating the games we love. BFC, thank you so much. Few other companies who do or produce anything, from games to music to food, offer this kind of customer service and feedback. It's amazing.

Anyways, I find your comments interesting, Steve. Dorosh mentioned hundreds of guys on screen, all with their own little behaviorisms and thngs going on. You said nothing to contradict this. Am I correct in thinking that your silence is consent, that the CMX2 engine will be capable of modeling the, say, 300 guys on a battlefield ALL doing their own things? All taking cover where it appears, dragging wounded, firing, moving about, shouting orders, etc.? If so, wow.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:
Anyways, I find your comments interesting, Steve. Dorosh mentioned hundreds of guys on screen, all with their own little behaviorisms and thngs going on. No I didn't. I mentioned that it CAN'T be done.

You said nothing to contradict this. Because I wasn't talking about CMX2

Am I correct in thinking that your silence is consent, that the CMX2 engine will be capable of modeling the, say, 300 guys on a battlefield ALL doing their own things? LOL. You didn't see the sad face and the comment about tradeoffs?

All taking cover where it appears, dragging wounded, firing, moving about, shouting orders, etc.? If so, wow. And you didn't see the other comment about processor power?

Good Lord, man, he also said no release until at least the end of the winter. Why not just wait happily and take the info as it comes in. I suppose you open your Christmas presents on December 1st, too.

Seriously, are you one of those people that sees the face of the Virgin Mary on grilled cheese sandwiches?

[CobaltTiger]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
[QUOTE]No I didn't. I mentioned that it CAN'T be done.Ever heard of Rome: Total War? If you turn off synched animations it's rather easy to see hundreds of little guys each locked in their own little battle on the screen at one time, or randomly fidgeting a bit while standing in formation. Sure, you can argue that since they're just sharing around animations it doesn't count as each doing his own thing, but if it's good enough to fool the eye what's the difference?

[a1steaks]

Cobalt, you're right, it's just eye candy. There is no simulation for each individual in the Total War series. They are treated as a group. You cannot control each individual. It's realatively easy to randomly assign animations to a large group of agents. All this requires is storage space for the animation date. Simulating the actions/thinking for each of them is a whole different story.

[juan_gigante]

Michael, I'm sorry if I didn't make my comments clear enough - I was responding to Steve, not to you. It seemed to me that Steve's reply to your "each soldier can't have own movements" comment was "not necessarily". I thought that that would be really cool, and I wanted to know if that was really what he ment. And I think that it is perfectly reasonable for BFC to make a game that requires at least a pretty good computer to run it. Technology marches on, and I don't think BFC should waste their tme trying to make a game that would run on an old, 733 Mhz computer with 128 megabytes of RAM. (no offense to those who have that computer; until recently, I was one of you). Do I want the game to run on something less than a fairly new machine? Yes. Am I willing to sacrifice that ability to maximize gameplay? Yes.

Cobalt makes a good point. I had never heard of that feature in Rome: Total War, but its a cool one, and there's no reason that an idiot like me can think not to have at least the visual effects for individual soldiers moving in CMX2 scalable.

And Dorosh, what's Christmas? When I was a kid, I noticed that all the stores were different during December, and lots of other people put trees in their houses, but whenever I asked my mommy or daddy about it, they would hit me. Can you explain?

[Colonel_Deadmarsh]

I want the use of smoke grenades in at least a small supply to use for cover. I think it is the major thing missing in this game. And pu-lease, don't tell me they weren't used on the battlefield...


AN-M8 HC Smoke Grenade

The AN-M8 was the standard U.S. smoke grenade during World war 2. It has a cylindrical body and is a burning type smoke grenade, the smoke is created by burning a chemical composition. This is a safer type of grenade than white phosphorus type grenades and produces a longer lasting smoke screen.


M15 White Phosphorus Grenade

The M15 was used primarily for creating smoke to screen troop movement, the effect of the white phosphorus however also gave this grenade a useful anti-personnel and incendiary effect. As with other white phosphorus munitions this grenade was often called "willie peter" after the letters WP.


M18 Colored Smoke Grenade

The M18 was introduced in 1942. It is similar to the AN-M8 but produces brightly colored smoke, it was generally used for signalling or target marking purposes, although it is fully capable of being used to screen troops like other smoke grenades. The M18 is available in Red, Green, Yellow and Violet.

U.S. Infantry Grenades During WWII (http://www.geocities.com/area51/comet/6498/t2000ww2ussupportweapons.html)

.....

"The Germans have been conducting experiments to test the effect of smoke weapons used at close quarters against tanks. No information is available as to the type of tank and the type of grenade employed in these tests. However, it is known that the results convinced the Germans that smoke can be an important factor in combatting tanks."


Use Of Smoke On Tanks (http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/misc_mar43/)

.....

"Of the other types of hand grenades issued to GIs in Europe, the two most common were smoke and phosphorus grenades. Both these grenades were used to mask movements or mark artillery and ground-support aircraft targets."

Smoke And Phosphorous Grenades (http://www.ramskov.nu/krih/marketgarden/american_weapon.htm)

.....

"By World War II, the grenade inventory expanded to include smoke grenades for signaling and screening, phosphorus and fragmentation grenades to produce casualties, and gas grenades for both casualty and riot control effects."

More About Grenades (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyweapons/l/aainfantry2.htm)

[Battlefront.com]

My silence is usually because I'm not reading a thread any more :D

My comments were about the problems of 1:1 simulation were aimed at the thousands of guys that would be needed to simulate a decent ACW or Napoleonics battle. The amount of AI and grunt data crunching is not possible for a commercial game. As was stated above, Total War abstracts the behavior to the unit level and randomizes the animations within that. Big time savings.

For CMx2 you will have the ability to do battles nearly the same size as CMx1 was INTENDED to be (not the near regimental craziness that some people have done). Specifically, less than battalion for the average battle, upwards of a battalion and less than a company for exceptional battles.

Soldiers within a CMx2 unit will have a certain amount of freedom of action, but for the most part they act in concert along with the other guys of the unit. This doesn't mean they all use the same animations at the same time... far from it... it just means that when a unit goes from A to B you won't see Pvt Pyle saying to himself that he knows a shortcut and separates from the unit to get there ahead of time. That kind of thing would require 1:1 AI and that's just not in the cards.

What can happen in CMx2, but couldn't in CMx1, is for there to be more variation of unit behavior resolved down to individual soldiers. For example, one dude freaking out and buggering off. That's possible now. One guy refusing to retreat and trying his best to stick it out as Rambo should also be possible as well. We haven't got to programming that sort of thint yet. However, 2 guys going prone while another throws a grenade while 3 others are either shooting or reloating... well, that stuff is already in CMx2 and functioning great.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Getting back to my earlier comments about the graphical representations... I should have clarified that I was assuming a certain level of simulation for the characters being animated. There is a big difference between 100 figures being animated as if they are a single unit than 100 figures being animated as if they are 100 individual men. The polygon count hits the framerate hard, and so that is a big conern. The more detailed teh game, and the more refined the simulation of inviduals is, the worse the framerate gets. At least in realtime. In CMx1 hybrid turn/RT type of play there is a little more flexibility because the code can have infinite (in theory!) time to think about stuff inbetween turns.

Steve

[Pzman]

Sounds good to me. :D

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:


For CMx2 you will have the ability to do battles nearly the same size as CMx1 was INTENDED to be (not the near regimental craziness that some people have done). Regimental? Regimental's for wimps. Try divisional :D

[J Ruddy]

CMX2: Can we get back to fantasising now?

I don't recall if I posted this already:

career mode
To improve single player playability I was hoping for a career mode option.
When you start out in career mode you select your branch (Infantry/Engineer/Armoured etc..) and take command of a platoon or company etc.. You use your core troops to participate in a series of actions, supported by elements of other units in combined arms actions. Somehow the game rates your performance (Material and personel losses, objectives etc...) and tracks your success/failures until you are promoted to the next level (at which point you take command of a larger element of your branch) or are demoted - charged with dereliction of duty or discharged.

It could be as simple as a limit on the maximum points for a scenario you could play and a two step unit purchase for quick battles
For example 500 point battle
Screen 1: Pick 300-500 of core units (based on your branch)
Screen 2: Pick 0-200 supporting units

You could even track casualties and modify the number/cost of regular and veteran troops based on how many hardened troops vs replacement troops you have.

This works well for >2 player (3+ player) multiplayer, as you could have one player assume the role of Infantry commander and another take on a support role, such as Armoured or Cavalry commander.

Two Step Purchasing
The two step unit purchase is nothing new in wargaming, I'd also like to see it as an option in scenarios - here are your x points in core troops, select up to y points in supporting troops from the following available units...

Infantry Formations
Last but not least, infantry formations! I think the option for this is being included in CMX2 - I hope so anyway - because if you are trying to do anything other than 20th - 21st century warfare, infantry / cavalry formations are critical to the success/failure of the battle. In Napolionic times, French Cavalry charging the flank of a British Line is considerably less suicidal than French Cavalry charging a British Square.

[juan_gigante]

I'd like to be able to see the map when purchasing. Lots of times I'd buy a bunch of ATGs or something and realize I had no where to put them, or I'd see the map and instantly know "I should have more artillery". While you might not want to encourage that kind of cherry-picking for QBs, I think it would still be handy to have.

If I had to choose between formations and a bunch of new commands that make stuff easier, I would choose new commands: "follow" (for convoys), perhaps some kind of "semi-dig-in", for when one is advancing but wants their troops to stay in one place for a while and just find extra-good cover, firing spots, maybe move a little crap around, whatever.

Another cool thing would be to select a unit, click a button, and everywhere on the map in that units LOS would be highlighted. No more toying with the LOS tool, seeing just how much of the forest could they see, just boom and you've got it. Major help for HQs commanding on-board mortars.

And Steve, those unit animations sounded great! It is pretty unreasonable to expect to do a regimental or larger action with whate you're giving us. So, it seems that the average CMX2 battle will be on a smaller scale than the average CMX1 battle. I've got no beef with that, but it's an interesting shift, and one that perhaps limits the settings for at least initial release.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:
I'd like to be able to see the map when purchasing.But you do realize that there's no pre-orders for CM:SF? Anyway, you can see the map here (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&z=7&ll=35.012002,38.226929&spn=4.552455,7.492676&t=h&om=1)!

Happy now?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sergei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by juan_gigante:
I'd like to be able to see the map when purchasing.But you do realize that there's no pre-orders for CM:SF? Anyway, you can see the map here (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&z=7&ll=35.012002,38.226929&spn=4.552455,7.492676&t=h&om=1)!

Happy now? </font>[/QUOTE]You evil little rat, you had to keep him in suspense for a whole year? What's that called in Finland? Charity??

Why are you bumping year old threads, anyway... :mad:

[Sergei]

The flow of time is meaningless in this forum.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sergei:
The flow of time is meaningless in this forum. I know. That's why I've been bumping year old threads today too. tongue.gif

It's been a good year for us, Sergei. May we have many more just like it. Though perhaps interrupted once or twice by an actual new release or somefink. **clinks glass**

[jeffsmith]

The Forum is the REAL GAME

the Intermittant Computer Software Releases
are just the Bait

[Other Means]

Originally posted by jeffsmith:
The Forum is the REAL GAME

the Intermittant Computer Software Releases
are just the Bait Brilliant.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Originally posted by Sergei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by juan_gigante:
I'd like to be able to see the map when purchasing.But you do realize that there's no pre-orders for CM:SF? Anyway, you can see the map here (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&z=7&ll=35.012002,38.226929&spn=4.552455,7.492676&t=h&om=1)!

Happy now? </font>[/QUOTE]I see a great spot to deploy a machine gun.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by jeffsmith:
The Forum is the REAL GAME

the Intermittant Computer Software Releases
are just the Bait Thanks to the ads on the forum, they are now making more money on this forum than on CM:SF or CMC or Les Grognards or ToW or...