CMX2, 1:1 Representation and Soldier Attributes

[Cpl Steiner]

Hi,

As we all know, CMX2 will model soldiers on a 1:1 basis. This means the game engine will now treat each individual combatant as a unique entity. This raizes the prospect of each soldier having unique attributes or characteristics, a bit like in a Role-Playing game. How do people feel about this?

Here is a list of possible attributes a soldier could have: -

Swimming
Driving
Using Enemy Weapons
Initiative
Bravery
Marksmanship

I don't suggest any of the above is a good idea, just that it will now be possible. What attributes, if any, do people think would be a welcome addition to the game?

[37mm]

Pengnossity

[juan_gigante]

I think that trying to model lots of attributes for each soldier might be kind of tough on the engine and the computer running it. And besides, those first three attributes wouldn't have that much of an effect.
Swimming - if I'm ordering a squad to swim across something, I want them all to make it. So you might as well have everyone in the squad at the lowest common denominator. Besides, your men will probably be laden down enough they won't want to swim much at all.
Driving - I don't we'll see regular infantry hopping into tanks to take over after the crew has taken casualties. So for much of the force, driving skill wouldn't matter. For the real drivers, it wouldn't neccessary to model that skill 1:1; after all, in nearly all vehicles there is only one driver.
Using Enemy Weapons - Infantry now have no handicap when using captured weapons that came with the squad. I like that. But I don't like the idea of enough mid-battling capturing going on that would make such a skill helpful.

I like the other three though.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:
As we all know, CMX2 will model soldiers on a 1:1 basis. This means the game engine will now treat each individual combatant as a unique entity.We don't know that and I for one find it highly unlikely, at least any time soon. As j_g astutely observes, that would entail an awful lot of CPU effort that might be better expended elsewhere. Unless I am mistaken (a possibility since I have not studied the threads on this subject closely), the sole reason at this point for graphically modeling individual soldiers is to allow us players to see on the screen what's been going on inside the box all along.

Michael

[hellfish]

I'm pretty sure Steve said that soldiers, at least initially, would only be graphically simulated at 1:1, but would still operate as a collective entity. Essentially, a CMBO/CMBB/CMAK squad with 8-13 soldiers as opposed to the current three.

[stoat]

In setup will each soldier have a foxhole? You would think with each soldier represented the squad would be more spread out, and thus either individual foxholes, one huge hole, or some soldiers not in the communal foxhole.

Or am I just making things up and each soldier already has one, but it is only viewed as one squad foxhole?

[Michael Emrys]

I believe the foxholes represented in the game are intended to be fighting positions occupied by two or three men. Perhaps in CMx2 then we will see from 3-5 on the screen for each squad.

Michael

[stoat]

Other things that would be nice to see would be working gun crews, and perhaps individual casualty markers.

Maybe not the markers: keeping track of each one, especially in large battles, might be too taxing on the engine, and may or may not look to good.

[aka_tom_w]

Steve's recent bone thread has been bumped if you care to check it out...
smile.gif

Does this help:

"OLD bone update from Jan 2005

Battlefront.com
Administrator
Member # 42
posted January 31, 2005 04:05 PM

(from HUGE old 1:1 Representation thread)

I have to close up this thread due to its size. Feel free to start up another one. However, keep in mind that we (Battlefront) need to design something that is pleasing to both the eye and the grog. We'll be torn to pieces if the 1:1 representation looks silly or woefully incomplete, even if eveything is neato mosquito under the hood. Likewise, grogs will tear us a new one if the important 1:1 simulation aspects aren't done well enough.

In other words... there is no one right answer to this debate you guys are having. We need to have a balance between the two, and that balance is in part determined by how easy/hard it is to program and/or how well it functions from a performance standpoint (eye candy and underlying sim stuff BOTH!). Not even we have the answers to all these questions at this point, so I might suggest that both sides of this debate keep that in mind. NOTHING is decided except for the fact that we are seeking a balance, which inherently means some grog stuff and some eye candy wish list items won't be happening.

Steve

Battlefront.com
Administrator
Member # 42


posted January 30, 2005 08:48 PM

The 3D environment of CM does offer us some challenges in terms of where to draw the line between a simulation of the individual soldier and larger groups of soldiers (i.e. units). It's something we've all be struggling with since the early days of CMBO's design.

Back in the old days of wargaming you'd have a cardboard chit with some numbers and a shape on it. Nobody called for more than that simply because the system was so abstract probably nobody thought of it (at least not thinking it possibly practical).

The first couple of generations of computerized wargames fell into the same category. As time went on and technology improved wargamers wanted better looking maps, more attractive looking units, and of course more under the hood. But again, for anything but the smallest scale wargames nobody thought about simulating the individual soldier to any significant degree. Until, that is, Close Combat came out.

CC was the first commercial wargame to model the individual soldier in detail and in substantial numbers. And for all its flaws, the game worked very well and people saw the value in having the 1:1 soldier simulation. Then CMBO came around...

Our problem, from the beginning, is our chosen scale. MUCH larger than CC's, yet not so much that individuals ceased to matter. But due to technical limiations we never once thought about doing 1:1 because it simply wasn't possible. However, the desire has always been there, at least to some extent. Now comes CMx2...

What we are doing now is giving the individual soldier a place on a larger scale battlefield (larger than FPS, CC, etc). That is the right thing to do. However, there are limits. We must make sure to not lose sight of the fact that this is a larger scale wargame and not a FPS of even Close Combat scale game. Therefore, when push comes to shove, decisions are made which favor the larger scale wargaming environment. Clutter, unnecessary development distractions, big hits to the CPU for little simulation gain, etc. are all bad things for CMx2.

In short... we know what CMx2 is supposed to be and what it isn't. We have this vision very clearly laid out and will not waiver from it. There will be no mission creep.

Steve"

[securityguard]

I at least hope that the minimal of 1:1 will be ammo count, morale status and maybe something like 'current action' similar to CC. IE, 'unjamming', 'can't see enemy', 'confused'. At least I hope for something like that. One thing I loved about CC was all the different things that could happen at any given time.

I also hope you can see when someone goes 'bezerk' or 'brave'. In CC it wasn't abusable (unlike CM, where knowing something is fanatical could be abused) becaus you had no direct control of bravery in any shape or form. In CC I've had a sharpshooter go beszerk and melee 5 guys who charged him. You just can't create better drama than that.

[Battlefront.com]

Well, it's about 8 months from the time of the posts Tom reposted above. The short answer is... we still aren't sure what we will simulate. Oh sure, we have a design that says what will be in, but this is something that hasn't been coded yet. And coding is where it counts due to the potential for CPU and memory overload.

What I can tell you, for absolute sure, is that very few of the individual soldier attributes will be known to the player. As a couple of our military experienced testers have said "I don't give a crap if Pvt. Pyle has a +2 strength modifier and 3 more rounds than Pvt. Jones. All I care about is if the unit is functional and can it get the job done." This is our philosophy too.

The player simply does not have the time to be obesssing over the minutia of individual soldiers. There is a battle to be fought! Plus, all that crap takes up a crudload of screenspace to display attributes because of the compounding nature of it. For example, 5 attributes for a 12 man Squad means having display space for 60 bits of text or icons. Egads!

Currently the only displayed attributes for an indvidual soldier are weapon, specialty, and physical condition (tracks wounds). All the rest of the attributes are displayed in unit fashion. We tried to squeeze names in there too, but for several reasons (mostly UI space) we dropped them. Only the Leader of the unit has a name.

Now, don't confuse informtion displayed with the ability to treat the soldiers of a unit uniquely. We can still do that, you just won't get a laundry list of stats to show why.

Steve

[Denwad]

i think what we all want is a turn based Close Combat III in 3d, with maybe a bit bigger scale ( instead of 2 platoons with support a full company with support elements )

[flamingknives]

I don't. I want a better version of CM.
I'd like the capability to do a full battalion attack or a platoon patrol.

And lots of cool tanks. Because I like tanks.

[Bonxa]

Hey, I now regularly fight multi-battalion actions and want to be able to do that in CMX2 as well. :rolleyes:

I realize I may need an above average rig to do it but I concurr about the lack of meaning for displaying details. The only time I would want to know the names of my privates is when one brave digital soldier runs up to a big menacing tank and places explosives on it in a nifty spot. :D

Edit: added an s.

[ August 20, 2005, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Bonxa ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Bonxa:
The only time I would want to know the name of my privates is when one brave digital soldier runs up to a big menacing tank and places explosives on it in a nifty spot. :D :confused: I thought we all have given names for our privates?

[Bonxa]

So, what do you call yours? tongue.gif :D

(No, you don't have to answer the above question...please.)

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Currently the only displayed attributes for an indvidual soldier are weapon, specialty, and physical condition (tracks wounds). All the rest of the attributes are displayed in unit fashion.Sounds fine to me. (I'll find something to gripe about later.)

;)

Michael

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Bonxa:
So, what do you call yours? tongue.gif :D Pocket Monster, or just Pokemon for friends.
(No, you don't have to answer the above question...please.) But the public must know... :D

[Gromit]

The player simply does not have the time to be obesssing over the minutia of individual soldiers. There is a battle to be fought! Plus, all that crap takes up a crudload of screenspace to display attributes because of the compounding nature of it. For example, 5 attributes for a 12 man Squad means having display space for 60 bits of text or icons. Egads!

Currently the only displayed attributes for an indvidual soldier are weapon, specialty, and physical condition (tracks wounds). All the rest of the attributes are displayed in unit fashion. We tried to squeeze names in there too, but for several reasons (mostly UI space) we dropped them. Only the Leader of the unit has a name.Makes good sense to me Steve- anyway, everything I have ever read or seen points to the realization that men rarely knew anyone outside their own company (or platoon sometimes) by name alone... they just didn't spend enough time together. For example:

Winters: "Guarnere, you and Hall up front".
Guarnere: "Who the hell is Hall?!"
and...

Winters: "I lost a man today... Hall."
Nixon: "I never knew him."
Winters: "Yeah you did; radio op, 506th basketball team, Able Company."
Nixon "..."

Now, the Company/Platoon Commanders like Winters were expected to know all of their men and I fully expect Leaders in CMx2 to have as many if not more "attributes" than they had in CM1. It makes a lot of sense to have a certain amount of detail in CMx2 with regard to your Leaders, after all, that is the level that you as a player are dealing with more times than not (as noted by others above). It really doesn't matter who your individual squad members are unless they are a leader of some kind (mortar, mg, squad, a/t, etc.).
It would be a waste of CPU cycles and I think a case of "information overload" even if you could do it.

[aka_tom_w]

I would expect that each individual data base for each soldier might also (for sure smile.gif ) track that soldier's morale, perhaps with some "critical mass" scenario in mind that would tip the balance and send the whole unit into a shocked or paniced or broken state.

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
What I can tell you, for absolute sure, is that very few of the individual soldier attributes will be known to the player. As a couple of our military experienced testers have said "I don't give a crap if Pvt. Pyle has a +2 strength modifier and 3 more rounds than Pvt. Jones. All I care about is if the unit is functional and can it get the job done." This is our philosophy too.

Currently the only displayed attributes for an indvidual soldier are weapon, specialty, and physical condition (tracks wounds). All the rest of the attributes are displayed in unit fashion.
Steve

[ August 21, 2005, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by flamingknives:
I don't. I want a better version of CM.
I'd like the capability to do a full battalion attack or a platoon patrol.

And lots of cool tanks. Because I like tanks. Absolutely!

Better terrain; much better infantry. But keep those tanks rollin' as well.

[Turnberry]

Has a decision been made about spotting yet?

There was some talk earlier in the year of being able to spot an entire squad if one individual was visible.

[Skolman]

I would love a game with individual soldiers !
But then the battles must be much smaller. Squad sized I think...
I´m thinking back to X-com/UFO and how I would love to see a game like this in a WW2 setting !

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Turnberry:
Has a decision been made about spotting yet?

There was some talk earlier in the year of being able to spot an entire squad if one individual was visible. That issue (I would guess) is a really BIG can of worms, (kettle of fish, pick one).

The relationship between the new Relative Spotting paradigm and the 1:1 relationship of showing individual soldiers modeled on the battlefield will be an interesting "thing" to see how they work all that out!

I am not sure if Steve has commented at all about the relationship between how spotting will work and how the game will show player's their soldiers with 1:1 representation?? :confused: BUT I am pretty sure we are all curious to see how it all works out in the end!

-tom w

[kenfedoroff]

This question is waaay off-topic for this thread, but maybe one of the CMX2 Thread Grogs is lurking about...

I'm wondering if the "Snow" and "Deep Snow" ground conditions would be affected by vehicle traffic?
In other words... Would my infantry tire less easily in Snow and Deep Snow if there was a tracked vehicle leading the way, at the front of the column (breaking a trail)?

Any other ideas for vehicles affecting the game environment? ...busting through fences and hedgerows? rutting the roads to inhibit wheeled vehicles? etc.?

Thanks in advance,
Ken

[Panzer_M]

Didn't CloseCombat do the 1:1 well? I thought so.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
The short answer is... we still aren't sure what we will simulate. Oh sure, we have a design that says what will be in, but this is something that hasn't been coded yet ...This does not sound very encouraging!!!

Does this mean that the little guys are not already running around in your alphas?!

Best regards,
Thomm

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Panzer_M:
Didn't CloseCombat do the 1:1 well? I thought so. So did Sims, but Combat Mission is neither Close Combat nor Sims.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, the figures are running around shooting stuff, reloading, chucking hand grenades, crawling, etc. What I was talking about is the stuff going on behind the graphics. We're not sure how many little details we are able to track without bogging down the system. I'm pretty sure we won't have a problem because we have a rather modest list of things to track that aren't already coded. Things like "SGT Johnson has a hangnail" are certainly not going to be tracked. If it isn't of central importance, there is no point in even putting it in.

Steve

[hellfish]

One thing that has my vote is ammo consolidation - the ability to pick up ammo from dead squad members or, (if you wanna be super cool) to have one squad consolidate ammo with another squad.

[juan_gigante]

When guys get into hand to hand combat, will we get to see them hitting each other on the heads with rifle butts and such? Will the uber-Finns do wire-fu?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Things like "SGT Johnson has a hangnail" are certainly not going to be tracked.Quite right. But what about "Corporal Gruntz is taking a whiz so his alertness and reaction times are effected."?

Michael

[Cpl Steiner]

Currently the only displayed attributes for an indvidual soldier are weapon, specialty, and physical condition (tracks wounds). All the rest of the attributes are displayed in unit fashion. We tried to squeeze names in there too, but for several reasons (mostly UI space) we dropped them. Only the Leader of the unit has a name.This seems a bit unreasonable. I would prefer it if you could view an information window on each combatant, like you can now if you hit return when a squad or vehicle is selected. I would be quite upset if one of my soldiers performs some heroic deed and I don't even know his name.

I would code it so there is a list of say 100 first names and 100 second names for each nation, and the soldier entity stores a lookup index to both a first name and a second name. The storage requirement would be minimal, but we could then identify just a little bit more with our virtual soldiers.

You could even do some sort of post battle roll call screen showing the names of the dead. I'm old enough to remember when they read out the names of the Royal Marines killed at Goose Green over their freshly dug graves. It was very moving. Something like this would add to the game, in my opinion.

[Cpl Steiner]

Further to the above, The Falklands War would make a great module for CMX2 (I'm British, if you hadn't guessed).

[Battlefront.com]

We have to limit the amount of information that is available on a soldier by soldier basis. Not just because of code related issues, but also UI. With a few hundred guys under your command, few will care anyway. Even when it is a campaign, but especially when it is a quick battle and you know you'll never see those guys again.

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

Steve, thanks for your response.

I concede that most people won't give a damn what any particular soldier's name is, given that CMX2 will hopefully handle several dozen soldiers a side at the very least. I suppose once you give guys individual names, then the next thing you'll have is individual portraits etc., and the whole thing could get out of control.

However, it will be interesting to see what you actually call each soldier. Will they each have a rank, such as pvt for the average rifleman, and cpl or sgt for machine-gunners etc? Maybe even this is too much info. I suppose it might be easier to just use the unit name, e.g.: -

Designation: US Mechanized Infantryman
Health: OK
Fatigue: Tiring
Status: Pinned
Equipment/Ammunition(%):-
1x Browing Automatic Rifle (BAR) (70%),
1x M1911 Pistol (100%),
2x M1 Fragmentation Hand Grenade,
1x M2 Smoke Grenade,
1x F1 Flare

Or is even this list too much?

By the way, I'm not trying to nit-pick here. I'm just interested to see how much info 1:1 rep is going to mean.

[Michael Emrys]

Just throw in my 2¢, I don't particularly care to know what my men's names are or how they are feeling or how much of what kind of ammo they have left. I am very much interested in how companies, platoons, squads, and crews are doing. That's because the important work in armies is done by organized units, and only very rarely by individuals. If the AAR tells me that Cpl. Gruntz performed heroically once he got it back in his pants, I'll be happy to hear it and even recommend him for a commendation. But don't bother me with that while I'm trying to manage a battle.

Michael

[Cpl Steiner]

People play games for lots of different reasons. Some play a game purely to win. Others like to see the game as a simulation of reality, which is a fun experience in and of itself. Many, like myself, enjoy the detail as much as the bigger picture, and like to review battle AARs etc. I might not care what a guy's name is during play, but knowing it in the AAR might be fun.

From my own programming experience (not games programming I hasten to add) I have seen lots of projects run into problems because some element of information was not thought to be necessary when the system was designed. Later on, some tiny detail becomes crucial, and has to be retrofitted to the whole system.

I would think a sensible approach would be to include absolutely every detail that might one day be required, and just hide the majority from the user. If you need it later on, then it is a simple matter to "reveal" the information that is already there. In terms of computer resources I doubt this is much of an issue anymore, when every computer comes with a huge amount of RAM as standard.

I think the "Soldier" entity should be treated the same way in CMX2.

[Battlefront.com]

The player can be in command of a small force or a large one, much like CMx1. The top end will likely be less than CMx1 for performance reasons, but this still puts you in command of more than a hundred individual soldiers. You should not be focused on the individuals but the units that they belong to. Any heroics you see can easily be attributed to that unit and therefore the need to see the individual that did it is unnecessary.

On the previous page I outlined what we're showing for individual Soldiers -> Weapon, Speciality, Condition. That's it. And it takes up plenty of UI space as it is. The interface will only look more cluttered and more daunting if we add more stuff. Pushing things off to a secondary screen is possible, but that in and of itself shows the data to be relatively unimportant. Secondary screens should never contain critical info because they are used so infrequently. One of my biggest gripes with Steel Panthers when I got it was the leadership element being hidden in a secondary screen. Never used it.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Pushing things off to a secondary screen is possible, but that in and of itself shows the data to be relatively unimportant. Secondary screens should never contain critical info because they are used so infrequently. One of my biggest gripes with Steel Panthers when I got it was the leadership element being hidden in a secondary screen. Never used it.

Steve Amen - good to hear. The coloured lines in CM work amazingly well, hope they will be retained - unless you have something even better cooked up.

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
The player can be in command of a small force or a large one, much like CMx1. The top end will likely be less than CMx1 for performance reasons, but this still puts you in command of more than a hundred individual soldiers.

Steve One hundred plus, as opposed to two hundred or more, would make the top end a company level game?

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Yes, the figures are running around shooting stuff, reloading, chucking hand grenades, crawling, etc.That is great news indeed!

My current "personal benchmark" for soldier behavior in a wargame is the AI of my Brothers in Arms teammates (moving in groups, taking cover, peeking around corners).

Assuming that you are familiar with this game: can you comment on whether behavior like that found in BiA will be feasible in CMx2, or will the action be more "generic"??

Best regards,
Thomm

[Tero]

What about individual vehicle stats and data ?

IRL crews would report all sorts of things which may or may not influence the way you give them tasks and missions.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by jim crowley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
The player can be in command of a small force or a large one, much like CMx1. The top end will likely be less than CMx1 for performance reasons, but this still puts you in command of more than a hundred individual soldiers.

Steve One hundred plus, as opposed to two hundred or more, would make the top end a company level game? </font>[/QUOTE]That sucks.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Sergei:
That sucks.How do you know?!

Never forget that CMx2 most likely will not erase any CMx1 games from your hard disc, thus you can fall back to that engine (which, apparently, was designed for larger-scale battles)!

Keep the faith,
Thomm

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei:
That sucks.How do you know?!

Never forget that CMx2 most likely will not erase any CMx1 games from your hard disc, thus you can fall back to that engine (which, apparently, was designed for larger-scale battles)!

Keep the faith,
Thomm </font>[/QUOTE]How do I know? Because I like battalion level fights. I don't need another EYSA, I want a better CM.

This, and that there might be no PBEM, gives the whole affair a rotten stink.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Sergei:
How do I know? Because I like battalion level fights. I don't need another EYSA, I want a better CM.Hmmmm. I think we must accept that battalion level and 1:1 representation are not compatible (would be cool to be proven wrong).

So, in order to interpret your post correctly, I assume that you would prefer the current "lumped squad" concept over 1:1 representation if the former comes with new features like formation movement, convoy commands, S.O.P.s etc.

Right?!

Best regards,
Thomm

PS: Personally, I think that EYSA scale and atmosphere combined with CM sophistication will be excellent fun!

[Tero]

Why does the 1:1 representation have to include individual men ? Why not make the cut for, say, half squads. There will not be graphical 1:1 representation for each and every men so why not limit the data displayed and processed to the next manageable sub-unit ? AFAIK such things as morale resolution could be made as a subprocess for the half squad. This way the representation would be an average of 5 men.

There will no doubt be individual vehicles in the game and the unit morale is calculated from the crew. Is that so incompatible with a half squad when it comes to 1:1 representation of the more intangible qualities ?

[Sergei]

To me, 1:1 has never been a desired improvement. Actually, I believe it will be very problematic and harmful for suspense of disbelief, because the AI of the soldiers will do even more stupid things on its own than the TacAI ever has; just think of those suicide Lemmings in Close Combat series who'd crawl to front of wall while taking fire, all the while you're yelling "NNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!" and thus waking up the neighbours.

I can't take another warning or I'll be evicted. :mad: ;)

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Tero:
Why does the 1:1 representation have to include individual men ? Why not make the cut for, say, half squads. There will not be graphical 1:1 representation for each and every men so why not limit the data displayed and processed to the next manageable sub-unit ? AFAIK such things as morale resolution could be made as a subprocess for the half squad. This way the representation would be an average of 5 men.

There will no doubt be individual vehicles in the game and the unit morale is calculated from the crew. Is that so incompatible with a half squad when it comes to 1:1 representation of the more intangible qualities ? Showing 7-12 men per squad shouldn't be a problem nowadays by itself, like it was back in late 1990's. But modelling the exact position and actions etc. for every man is different.

You can't just do with "even though it's open, you can assume the men to be taking cover from ditches, slight dents in the ground, behind rocks etc." No, you have to have FPS rate representation of everything, or you are back to abstraction.

Having a 10 man squad represented by two half-squad, each showing five men, or maybe three teams as 4-3-3 (sic) would go away from the "squad standing on the point of a needle" phenomenon, would allow for more advanced tactical thinking (squad formation line, column, 'screwball' (häröpallo) for routed units, and how spread they are).

I'm not saying that a good platoon/company level game couldn't be fun, but I feel that it takes the focus away from what is important for me - the bigger picture. I want to model the whole Tali-Ihantala fighting in a single scenario, goddammit!!! :D

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Denwad:
i think what we all want is a turn based Close Combat III in 3d, with maybe a bit bigger scale ( instead of 2 platoons with support a full company with support elements ) You are wrong, that's not what 'we all' want.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Currently the only displayed attributes for an indvidual soldier are weapon, specialty, and physical condition (tracks wounds). Steve

You have me a bit worried now. Why do you track specialty and wounds? Maybe define 'specialty'?

Thanks.

[Sergei]

'Specialty' probably means what their duty in a squad is - officer, LMGunner, rifleman, the whining guy who gets killed in the first engagement, etc.

Physical condition might have more meaning if the game will have a campaign mode, as indicated.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:
I would code it so there is a list of say 100 first names and 100 second names for each nationWhat would the first names be for? When I was in the Army, I only knew the mates in my platoon by their family names, if even that, apart from those whom I knew more closely.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Sergei:
'Specialty' probably means what their duty in a squad is - officer, LMGunner, rifleman, That would only make sense if e.g. once the lMG gunner dies for his parental country, the proficiency of his replacement is assumed to be lower, and this affects the FP of the squad?

I can see why it is necessary for officers.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sergei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:
I would code it so there is a list of say 100 first names and 100 second names for each nationWhat would the first names be for? When I was in the Army, I only knew the mates in my platoon by their family names, if even that, apart from those whom I knew more closely. </font>[/QUOTE]It's funny - at the hospital, all the nurses are oblivious to the last names of anyone else and it drives me buggy when I ask them about someone else. At most they usually know the last initial - we have a Michelle A, Michele Z, Michelle B and Michelle S, for example.

In the military, my second job, most are oblivious to Christian names - there is one fellow I know at the hospital whom is also in the Militia with me, we've known each other 10 years, and at some point he learned my first name, which pisses me off because I still don't know his, don't see him often enough to find out, and certainly can't ask him at this point!

And if your list of names is only 100 long, I can only think "how boring" - the ones in CM are repetitive and annoying as it is.

[Cpl Steiner]

Sergei, you have a good point.

Right now CM shows a squad of 9 men as 3 figures on a square base. The graphical representation is therefore 1:3, but the game sees them as a single unit.

You could increase the graphical representation to 1:1, so you now see 9 men, but game could treat them as three separate units of 3 men each. In effect, it's just like CM but with the size of the average unit scaled down by a factor of 3.

Now, when you see 3 men hiding in some woods, it doesn't matter if they are actually physically behind a tree trunk. The precise location of each man would be abstract, just as it is now. However, with smaller groups of men (3 instead of an entire squad) it would now be possible to have them "take cover" behind nearby terrain features more realistically. If one of the men is too far away from the terrain feature he could be shown as prone, even though he effectively benefits from the same cover as the other 2 men.

Would this be an improvement? It's hard to say. Personally, I'm in favour of 1:1 and will live with the odd abstraction that carries over from CM. However, I would like to see larger battles than company versus company, possibly using some sort of compromise like I've just described.

[Battlefront.com]

Quick definitions of what is displayed about each Soldier:

Weapon - the primary personal weapon of that Soldier.

Speciality - designation of special position within the unit, if any. For example, someone who is trained on an AT weapon will be identified as such. Squad Leader and Team Leader are obvious designations. Radio Man, Assistant MG Gunner, etc. These things are important to show because it tells you what the unit is inherently capable of. If a mortar round comes and takes out your AT specialist, you'll still be able to have that Squad go after a tank, but it will do so without the optimal choice. So you might want to have another unit do it.

Condition - This is simply a state of being. Right now we have 4 states, but that could change. The states are Healthy (including superficial wounds), Minor Wound (still functional, though less so), Major Wound (out of action), and KIA (completely out of action). This status has an effect on combat capabilities within the game, but it also has meaning for scoring and campaign play. Guys who end up with Minor Wounds might come back for the next battle, might not. Guys with Major Wounds will not, and could possibly be tallied up as KIA. KIA is obvious.

Onto other things...

The 1:1 representation is the way to go. We do not think there is any viable in between for a game of this scale. If the soldiers are moving around and looking like they are portraying individuals, people will be confused and pretty upset if that isn't the case. In CMx1 the soldier figures were obviously abstracted and even then we had tons of criticism for not showing every soldier (which was technically impossible at the time in any case). So there is no use whining and complaining about it... the decision was made 3 years ago, it is the right decision, and it isn't changing.

We don't know what the upper size of a CMx2 battle will be so we don't want to overpromise. Over time it can certainly go larger thanks to hardware improvements. But for the first game we are focusing on a "task force" type of organization of roughly 1-2 companies in strength. Less than a company should be viable, more than 2 companies... we aren't sure. For those of you who remember CMBO's early days we were saying the same thing, though by the time we were finished battalion sized games were possible for those with decent hardware.

The amount of animations our little guys will have comes down to time. We've got all the basics in there already, but we're not sure what more we'll put in. We could spend months putting in stuff. Unfortunately, we hit the point of diminishing returns on development effort pretty quickly since we don't have multi-million dollar budgets and a huge development team.

Steve

[ August 23, 2005, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
The amount of animations our little guys will have comes down to time. We've got all the basics in there already= translated, this means "bones are on the way!!!"

:D

[Andreas]

A good. No need for me to hit the bottle tonight then to drown my sorrows.

Although I may do it anyway just because I can.

Thanks a lot Steve.

All the best

Andreas

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
snip...but it also has meaning for scoring and campaign play. Guys who end up with Minor Wounds might come back for the next battle, might not. ...snip

Steve Did anyone else note the mention of "Campaign Play"
(for those of you lobbying for it)

:rolleyes: NEVER MIND :rolleyes:

[ August 23, 2005, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: jeffsmith ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by jeffsmith:
Did anyone else note the mention of "Campaign Play"
(for those of you lobbying for it) Old news. ;)

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We don't know what the upper size of a CMx2 battle will be so we don't want to overpromise. Over time it can certainly go larger thanks to hardware improvements. But for the first game we are focusing on a "task force" type of organization of roughly 1-2 companies in strength. Less than a company should be viable, more than 2 companies... we aren't sure. For those of you who remember CMBO's early days we were saying the same thing, though by the time we were finished battalion sized games were possible for those with decent hardware.


Steve

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We don't know what the upper size of a CMx2 battle will be so we don't want to overpromise. Over time it can certainly go larger thanks to hardware improvements. But for the first game we are focusing on a "task force" type of organization of roughly 1-2 companies in strength. Less than a company should be viable, more than 2 companies... we aren't sure. For those of you who remember CMBO's early days we were saying the same thing, though by the time we were finished battalion sized games were possible for those with decent hardware.


Steve Oops. Hit the wrong button.

In the current CM, C&C is pretty much set at the platoon level but does, at least, have company and battalion HQ's. While the latter do not have very much practical significance (to the extent that they should, IMO), you do have the makings of a battalion level command structure.

If CMX2 is to have a more robust C&C system in place, will this be limited, at the upper end, to the "task-force" level? If so, even with faster PC's, you will still only be able to produce battles with multiple task forces, rather than an integrated battalion level formation, which would seem to be a bit of a backwards step. Or will higher echelon command be programmed from the go-get but only be usuable on higher-end machines?

[aka_tom_w]

"The amount of animations our little guys will have comes down to time. We've got all the basics in there already, but we're not sure what more we'll put in. We could spend months putting in stuff. Unfortunately, we hit the point of diminishing returns on development effort pretty quickly since we don't have multi-million dollar budgets and a huge development team.
-Steve"

If you need more cash, would opening up the opportunity for pre-orders help? (OK its not like real income but it might help a little or something smile.gif )

Some of us might be thinking "What more can I do? I have already faithfully purchased your last three GREAT games AND all the guide books and Companions? What else is there?"

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

But for the first game we are focusing on a "task force" type of organization of roughly 1-2 companies in strength. Less than a company should be viable, more than 2 companies... we aren't sure. For those of you who remember CMBO's early days we were saying the same thing, though by the time we were finished battalion sized games were possible for those with decent hardware. One thing they don't talk about is if this new game is ANYTHING like CMx1 then you "could" play the REALLY large battles if you are simply willing to wait a REALLY long time for the "crunch"

Now this is presuming of course that CMx2 has a "crunch"

In the past the deal has always been the guys that REALLY want to play the REALLY big Massive battles JUST have to wait a little longer for each turn to process the combat result, but sooner or later (even on mediocre or slow hardware) the game will do the math and show you the combat result. In the past the game has not really limited the amount of units you want under your command or the size of the battle you would like to fight. (other than the obvious and usually GENEROUS map size limitation.)

But thats JUST my take on it. :confused:

-tom w

[ August 23, 2005, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
If you need more cash, would opening up the opportunity for pre-orders help?I made an inquiry about something like this a few months back (actually the way I worded it was for BFC to offer subscriptions), and was told no that wouldn't be happening.

Michael

[RMC]

Can we get Max Payne style bullet time slow mo deaths for our little named troopies? Those that haven't run off to get bandages, water, ammo or whatnot?

That would be so cool.

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by RMC:
Can we get Max Payne style bullet time slow mo deaths for our little named troopies? Those that haven't run off to get bandages, water, ammo or whatnot?

That would be so cool. Only if John Woo gets to direct the animations. Then, as your infantry does the slow-mo charge on the enemy, the white dove of righteous vengeance glides through the flames of a torched Pz III.

[Delyn]

With 1:1 representation will we be able to see each soldier lay where he dies?

Seen this discussed before but didnt see answer.

I would assume yes but looking for confirmation.

[Bamse]

I don't belive my eyes. Campaign mentioned twice....BY STEVE! Absolutly fantastic. The one and only thing that made me stop playing all the CM games after some months each. I win a battle against all odds. I press the "look at map" buttom. Wathing one of my italian infantry units scoring 37 kills. That brave unit held of a horde of mean inbread britts. Amazed that some of my armoured cars with 20mm "can't penetrate a beercan" canon survived. Those bastards realy suck. The only thing worse than the armourpenetration is the HE blast value. Can't kill anything with those.
Opps! Im ranting...
Anyway, after klicking the go buttom you go back to the AAR and then nothing. Absolutly nothing more. What happend to my little brave unit? Did the rest of the platton run like chickens again? Did the Armour car platoon(whats left of it) actually manage to kill something before the campaign was over? I rarly played more than one scenario a day. It was boring to start again with new units and a new mission.
The total war series single battles get pretty tiresome after a short while, but i have played it for a long time in campaignmode because of the strategic map.

I have got rid of all my addictions....im afraid that i will regain one.

/BjörnE

[KG_Panzerschreck]

I think the ability to scrounge ammo/weapons off of your dead comrades and dead enemy soldiers when your ammo runs out is a realistic and viable option for CMx2. in stead of having limited "low ammo" the unit in question should be out of ammo intil it can move onto a dead unit/soldier/soldiers and scrounge up a weapon or ammo. look at all the german units in CMBB that already have russian ppsh's in them for example.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by KG_Panzerschreck:
I think the ability to scrounge ammo/weapons off of your dead comrades and dead enemy soldiers when your ammo runs out is a realistic and viable option for CMx2.Sounds like bothersome micromanagement to me.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Originally posted by Sergei:
Sounds like bothersome micromanagement to me. Not if the AI does it for you.

[Cpl Steiner]

Not if the AI does it for you.
I second the above.

So many ideas suggest themselves when thinking about what features CMX2 might have.

I think, rather than soldiers being told to do A, then B, then C, you could use an "event driven" approach (to borrow a programming term).

You could have an "SOP" dialog window that you could call up for a man (or several men, using group selection). This would have lots of entries with check boxes against them. One such entry would be "Scrounge Equipment". If checked, the man would periodically retrieve spare ammo from wounded/dead colleagues or swap his primary weapon for a better one if it was nearby.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei:
Sounds like bothersome micromanagement to me. Not if the AI does it for you. </font>[/QUOTE]Er. I don't want the AI to send my troops to see if some corpse two km's away has 50 bullets or 2 bullets. Actually, I don't wish to be forced to that either.

[Cpl Steiner]

The AI needn't scrounge for ammo at the expense of all other considerations. However, for a unit to be "out of ammo" when there are ammo-laden corpses a few feet away is equally nonsensical.

1:1 representation would imply that abstracting the retrieval of ammo and equipment is also out of the question.

The sensible option is for the AI to portray ammo/equipment scrounging within a limited range and under certain conditions (i.e. not while in the middle of a firefight when the unit in question has a full ammo load, and not when the player has expressly forbidden this behaviour).

[Sergei]

And then what? They'd have one volley and be out of bullets again? I'm not buying the suggestion.

[flamingknives]

I'd expect to see a squad running away before running out of ammunition.

Someone in the squad will always keep hold of a few rounds.

[dalem]

It might even be better to get rid of the absolute tracking of smallarms rounds entirely, even to the extent of getting rid of the "effective bursts" type of tracking that exists in CMx1.

I don't have any real knowledge of how the CMx2 fire combat system is going to work, but I make an assumption that each unit will fire AS a unit over an abstracted smear of time during each one minute turn, and not as a collection of individual barrels firing individual bullets.

If my assumption is accurate, then I think a lot of the ammo issues could be avoided by just going to "Max - Nominal - Low" states. Let the units be more likely to fire at Max, less likely at Low, (all else being equal of course), and maybe have random events or other stuff behind the scenes adjust states.

Say a rifle platoon at Max spends a few turns sitting next to a Rifle platoon at Low - maybe there is a chance that both become Nominal. Maybe you need a specific command, I dunno. Something like that. Maybe individual rounds like mortars and the like could be requested/auto-swapped as well.

With that, you could do a form of "ammo resupply" simply by keeping a platoon in reserve and moving them up (assuming they start at Max - maybe a scenario toggle). Or simplify it - give Platoon HQs an automatic Max rating, and Company HQs a "double Max".

Anyway, I'm the company commander - seems to me that Max - Nominal - Low is all I need to know, and all I would ever know.

-dale

[Cpl Steiner]

All this depends on what exactly 1:1 representation means. If you see a guy changing a mag (as has been suggested in a recent bone) then is he actually consuming personal ammo that is tracked by the game, or is it just eye candy? If it's just eye candy, then fine, abstract the ammo issue. If, however, he has his own ammo supply, the game needs to consider how ammo is distributed, conserved, and resupplied.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:
All this depends on what exactly 1:1 representation means. If you see a guy changing a mag (as has been suggested in a recent bone) then is he actually consuming personal ammo that is tracked by the game, or is it just eye candy? If it's just eye candy, then fine, abstract the ammo issue. If, however, he has his own ammo supply, the game needs to consider how ammo is distributed, conserved, and resupplied. I submit that the game engine might need to know these things, but I, as the Company CO, probably do not.

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

Indviduals fire individually, not as a unit. So if a guy with a rifle is not shooting, his firepower is not going down range.

Scrounging is something that we've gone back and forth on. Same with ingame resupply. I can not say exactly what will wind up in the final release of the first CMx2 product, but it will be more detailed than in CMx1 for sure.

As for the AI doing ammo scrounging... we nixed this idea a long ways back. Sergei figured out why;

Er. I don't want the AI to send my troops to see if some corpse two km's away has 50 bullets or 2 bullets. Actually, I don't wish to be forced to that either.When we think of the AI necessary to do this sort of thing consistently and without screwing things up... oy! It could be done, but we think it is a poor use of our time. Much better to abstract it somehow. Probably more realistic than CMx1, but not taken to the nth degree of realism.

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
When we think of the AI necessary to do this sort of thing consistently and without screwing things up... oy! It could be done, but we think it is a poor use of our time. Much better to abstract it somehow. Probably more realistic than CMx1, but not taken to the nth degree of realism.

Steve What about a chance for units in proximity to affect each others' ammo loadouts? Too silly? Too hard?

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

Dale is correct. We are tracking ammo in a detailed way, but the player will only see status bars. As a player you don't need to know more than that AND you don't really want to.

Currently all Squads track up to 3 kinds of ammo (grenades are included as ammo this time around). Teams can track up to... hmmm... 8? types of ammo (I forget). Same for vehicles. Not saying that there are many cases when you would need all 8 slots, just that we have provisions for that many.

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Dale is correct.Muuahh hhahhahahahahahahah!

Steve is my puppet!
smile.gif
-dale

[Battlefront.com]

Well, that would explain a few things :D

What about a chance for units in proximity to affect each others' ammo loadouts? Too silly? Too hard?That's the sort of thing I meant by an abstracted system.

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Well, that would explain a few things :D

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What about a chance for units in proximity to affect each others' ammo loadouts? Too silly? Too hard?That's the sort of thing I meant by an abstracted system.

Steve </font>[/QUOTE]I'm missing your point. :(

Curses! The strings must have broken!

-dale

[Emar]

First let me say that I am very excited about this new product. It really sounds like it is going to be great. But here is where I am a little confused and maybe someone can shed some light.

1:1 representation: Will orders still be given to the squad and halfsquad or will I be able to micromanage (ie when I approach a building will I be able to have 2 guys laying down supresive fire, 2 going in the front door while 3 go in the back and upstairs, or have a couple guys return fire on an ambush while the rest of the squad sneaks behind them on the flanks, etc?).

For that matter will all the 1:1 guys in a squad be able to accept seperate orders or split up at all or is it AI run or abstracted? :confused:

If orders go to the squad as a whole then I assume the AI will find the best cover for each guy.

It is shame about not having enough space for the names. At this small scale 1:1 level of combat it could provide that extra touch of realism that helps you to care about what happens to your soldiers. Maybe next time.

Looking very forward to playing with the new map editor (my favorite part of scenario design :D )

Battlefront. Congratulations and best wishes for your new products!

P.S. Reading the previous posts and B.F. responses to them is leading me to believe that at least 1 if not both of these new products is WWII based (perhaps wishful thinking) That would be just fine by me ;)

[Denwad]

in Close Combat the individual soldiers are tracked in all their aspects ( grenades, bullets left, morale, health status [ wounded, incapacitated, dead... not hitpoints ] LOS to enemy etc. ) albeit in a 2D fashion

also if a trooper in Close Combat runs out of ammo, he will pick up a fallen trooper's weapon, be the trooper friendly or foe.

and that was close to 6 ( more? ) years ago, I'm SURE technology has advanced far enough to power the same system in 3D

[Denwad]

Originally posted by Denwad:
in Close Combat the individual soldiers are tracked in all their aspects ( grenades, bullets left, morale, health status [ wounded, incapacitated, dead... not hitpoints ] LOS to enemy etc. ) albeit in a 2D fashion

also if a trooper in Close Combat runs out of ammo, he will pick up a fallen trooper's weapon, be the trooper friendly or foe.

and that was close to 6 ( more? ) years ago, I'm SURE technology has advanced far enough to power the same system in 3D {EDIT} also in Close Combat the moral can go above normal, soldiers can become heroic or fanatic ( depending on the circumstances ) and become unaffected by incoming fire ( to pin status at least, they still die, and usually die fast because they don't take cover )

in Close Combat you can see the one guy in the squad with the HHL rush toward the T-34 and place it on it. That would be the COOLEST thing to see in CMX2, in 3d.

[Cpl Steiner]

This all sounding very interesting. I like the fact that ammo is tracked individually but the game hides the precise details of how this is done from the player. However, I hope the game comes with a pretty hefty manual explaining what the game is doing behind the scenes. It may still be possible to influence the behind the scenes behaviour of the game somehow if we know how it works.

[Battlefront.com]

Denwad, it isn't so much about technology as it is what we are willing to sacrifice in terms of display space. First of all, a Close Combat unit was at most a half squad. In CMx2 we have to anticipate much bigger units. We have alocated enough space for up to 21 Soldiers per Squad. Many felt the CC interface was cluttered pretty badly with all the details on and showing, what, 7 men max? And if you don't believe that people felt it was cluttered, then why did Atomic code up the more reduced UI (which is what I used smile.gif )? Plus, you had maybe 30 or 40 men to keep track of... you might have 200 + in CM. Different scales mean different approaches.

What you control has been mentioned in other threads prior to this Forum getting started, but I guess I'll so up a quick post to clarify.

Steve

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by Bonxa:
Hey, I now regularly fight multi-battalion actions and want to be able to do that in CMX2 as well. :rolleyes:

I realize I may need an above average rig to do it but I concurr about the lack of meaning for displaying details. The only time I would want to know the names of my privates is when one brave digital soldier runs up to a big menacing tank and places explosives on it in a nifty spot. :D

Edit: added an s. Reading your post gave me an idea. What if at the end of a battle, the engine could somehow figure out which soldiers were eligible to be decorated.

Not important in the scheme of things but an interesting concept.

[securityguard]

I have a couple of 1:1 questions.

1) I'm assuming that each guy has his own morale, but his morale status isn't displayed unnecessarily. Like having all the menu's turned off in CC, but having color coded outlines around men when you click on them to show their morale. I can't imagine just having an ammo bar, unit type and health status. Morale is going to be somewhere indentifiable too, right?

2) Here is a more technical question. I understand firepower will work in this one like it does in previous CM's, except that each dude will have their own firepower to push around. What about solid shot weaponry? It could be abstracted in CM (you shoot an AP shot into an icon, it kills a dude), but in CMx2 that abstraction would be impossible, right? You'd have to see the AP round hit a guy...

[Denwad]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Denwad, it isn't so much about technology as it is what we are willing to sacrifice in terms of display space. First of all, a Close Combat unit was at most a half squad. In CMx2 we have to anticipate much bigger units. We have alocated enough space for up to 21 Soldiers per Squad. Many felt the CC interface was cluttered pretty badly with all the details on and showing, what, 7 men max? And if you don't believe that people felt it was cluttered, then why did Atomic code up the more reduced UI (which is what I used smile.gif )? Plus, you had maybe 30 or 40 men to keep track of... you might have 200 + in CM. Different scales mean different approaches.

What you control has been mentioned in other threads prior to this Forum getting started, but I guess I'll so up a quick post to clarify.

Steve i see

also ten people per squad max, 15 teams max so the theoretical maximum is 150 people

[juan_gigante]

Actually, I believe Steve said that the maximum number of guys in a squad was 21. I'm not exactly sure where, but did around and I bet someone'll find it.

Edit: Never mind, I'm an idiot who can't read. Steve says that number in the post you quote. Why do you say 10 men max in a squad, then? I don't really understand what you're talking about.

[securityguard]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:
Actually, I believe Steve said that the maximum number of guys in a squad was 21. I'm not exactly sure where, but did around and I bet someone'll find it.

Edit: Never mind, I'm an idiot who can't read. Steve says that number in the post you quote. Why do you say 10 men max in a squad, then? I don't really understand what you're talking about. I think he's talking about Close Combat maximums. In CC you could only buy so much before it stopped you, and that was a theoretical max per side. Usually battles weren't over 60 guys per side though.

[dalem]

Steve G.-

Is a question about "portage capacity" inappropriate at this point? Will vehicles have "man equivalents" they can carry? Will weapons be able to be left by themselves in vehicles?

-dale

[YankeeDog]

More detailed modeling of encumbrance/vehicle capacity would indeed be a great thing.

It's always been a bit hard for me to swallow that some of the small 7-man German squads (PzGren. Pioneer, I think?), can carry 2 MG42s (& ammo for same), plus a whole mess of Demo Charges and AT specials like Panzerfausts, and still run just as fast (or just as long w/o tiring) as an SMG squad with nothing more than their SMGs and a few grenades. Variable encumbrance could fix this.

As an added bonus, it also could be used give a better representation of ammo loads -- for example, I've always found the 15-ammo point Volks. SMG squad in CM right now a bit silly -- while I don't have hard evidence to support this, I really gotta believe these 2-LMG/SMG squads accepted a higher encumbrance (and moved slower) than other squads, rather than carrying such a limited ammo supply, espcially considering that they were the Volks. SMG platoon's only medium & long range firepower.

As an added bonus, combined with the separate soldier & weapon modeling already mentioned, a variable encumbrance system would allow to game to model panicked/routing units casting off heavier weapons and AT "specials" in order to move faster, which IMHO would be a really cool additional realism tidbit.

Anyway, everything so far sounds great, and I anxiously await more yummy bones!

Cheers,

YD

[juan_gigante]

Post #100 is mine!