Small Bone [Archive] - Battlefront Forum

Battlefront.com

10-01-2006, 02:46 PM

Sergei, we have to limit the features of the Editor at first. It is, already, far easier to use than the CMx1 Editor and far more powerful at the same time. The sort of stuff you're asking for is icing on the cake stuff that we will likely add over time. Personally, I hope that we can allow for direct 3rd party digital map importation (there is a specific formt we have our eye on).

Kineas,

I guess I'll delay my purchase to see if any user-made support materializes. It would have to be huge, though, to make up for no random maps.Looking at the support for CMx1, I personally have no fears that the support for CM:SF and its sequels will be nothing short of "huge".

BTW, few games have supported randomly generated maps. The last time I remember it being remotely close to "common" was in the early SSI days when they were doing 48k games for things like Apple II, Atari, and the 286 line of Intel systems. Since then it's been pretty uncommon to find such a feature. The reason for that is pretty obvious ;)

Kineas,

Random maps need not to be randomly generated but randomly picked from a builtin list. (Like in the Rise of Legends RTS game). This way you can randomize the outcome so there would be no cherrypicking for a known map.This is something we hope to support after the release. It is not simple to do from a logistics standpoint, but it is a very good way to go.

Maybe instead of selecting one map to play, you could have the option of selecting several maps and the game picks of those at random. It's a possibility.

Steve

PSY

10-01-2006, 04:57 PM

I assume real-time is pausable? Can we give orders while paused when playing single player?

Also can we switch between real-time and turn-based. Say for example using real-time until contact with the enemy and then switching to turn-based. Or maybe using turn-based and then switching to real-time to speed things up after most of the enemy has been destroyed?

Battlefront.com

10-01-2006, 10:53 PM

PSY,

I assume real-time is pausable?Yes.

Can we give orders while paused when playing single player?No. You can move around, check out units, etc. but not change what any unit is doing. This blurs the line between RealTime and WeGo and we think that's not in the best interests of the game. It is, however, something that can be revisited later.

Also can we switch between real-time and turn-based. No. This is not something that can be done easily from a code perspective. All sorts of things have to be set up one way or the other depending on which mode you select. Therefore, it is one or the other only.

Steve

aka_tom_w

10-02-2006, 07:36 AM

Q: Can we give orders while paused when playing single player?

A: No. You can move around, check out units, etc. but not change what any unit is doing. This blurs the line between RealTime and WeGo and we think that's not in the best interests of the game. It is, however, something that can be revisited later.

GOOD!

Q: Also can we switch between real-time and turn-based.

A: No. This is not something that can be done easily from a code perspective. All sorts of things have to be set up one way or the other depending on which mode you select. Therefore, it is one or the other only.

Steve

GOOD!

All is right and well in the World of CM:SF at BFC Central !

-tom w

Scipio

10-02-2006, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Just thought I'd let you know that as of last night CM:SF is now both RealTime and WeGo ...

Steve http://cm.petzi-mg.de/juchu.gif

http://cm.petzi-mg.de/selfmade.gif

http://cm.petzi-mg.de/laola.gif

MikeyD

10-02-2006, 09:05 AM

Forgive my confusion - by no maps at all do you mean no generation of 'landscapes' to put our buildings on? Or do you mean no setting-up of game maps, no placing of buildings, etc.? Your previous bone about building construction - was that a feature for in-house scenario designers to build the maps or was that something the players could tinker with?

The nearest equivalent to 3rd party map design that I can think of comes from the Drop Team 'mods' forum. You guys might be getting tired of me always trying to compare Drop Team to CMSF, but would map design for CMSF follow a similar course? :confused:

Sgt Joch

10-02-2006, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Scipio:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Just thought I'd let you know that as of last night CM:SF is now both RealTime and WeGo ...

Steve http://cm.petzi-mg.de/juchu.gif

http://cm.petzi-mg.de/selfmade.gif

http://cm.petzi-mg.de/laola.gif [/QUOTE]I concur :D , now when is the d*** game coming out!

Sergei

10-02-2006, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by MikeyD:
Forgive my confusion - by no maps at all do you mean no generation of 'landscapes' to put our buildings on?He said 'no random maps'. There's going to be a map editor.

Thomm

10-02-2006, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
Q: Can we give orders while paused when playing single player?

A: No. You can move around, check out units, etc. but not change what any unit is doing. This blurs the line between RealTime and WeGo and we think that's not in the best interests of the game. It is, however, something that can be revisited later.

GOOD!Good?! Did you read that statement properly?!

I trust BFC on their good judgement and I certainly believe there are good reasons for not allowing orders when paused, but for me the real-time option has just lost some of its inherent appeal ...

Maybe the game is slow enough per default due to order delays and some-such, but I can imagine that pausing with orders (implemented to the high CM standards) would convince a lot of turn-based players to switch sides.

Best regards,
Thomm

Battlefront.com

10-02-2006, 10:33 AM

Correct. No ranodm map generator only. The Editor in fact is quite powerful.

Steve

aka_tom_w

10-02-2006, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Rollstoy:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
Q: Can we give orders while paused when playing single player?

A: No. You can move around, check out units, etc. but not change what any unit is doing. This blurs the line between RealTime and WeGo and we think that's not in the best interests of the game. It is, however, something that can be revisited later.

GOOD!Good?! Did you read that statement properly?!

I trust BFC on their good judgement and I certainly believe there are good reasons for not allowing orders when paused, but for me the real-time option has just lost some of its inherent appeal ...

Maybe the game is slow enough per default due to order delays and some-such, but I can imagine that pausing with orders (implemented to the high CM standards) would convince a lot of turn-based players to switch sides.

Best regards,
Thomm [/QUOTE]I am hoping there will be an extreme FOW or Ironman setting for RealTime play that will NOT allow any pausing or stoppage of play!

If there is a pause allowed in RealTime then it should obviously be a setting both players agree to.

If you are playing RealTime is should be full NON-stop IMHO.

If a pause in the RealTime action is allowed that means you also force the pause on your opponent. (in head to head play)

Now what about no pause in RealTime against the AI or the computer oppoenent. Is there any chance a "clever" and unexpected human tactic or strategy could "overwhelm" the AI ??
(I doubt it, but Tom Clancy once wrote something about the only way to defeat the anti missle defences on US Navy ships was to overwhelm them with WAY more incoming missiles then they were designed or programed to defeat, the idea being that only one good one needed to get through and all the rest of the inbound missiles were sacrificed so one would sneak by).

that sort of thing only in RealTime agaist the AI while playing the Syrian side against the US and launch all available missiles and RPG's at the same target at the same time? (or something?)

OR I am completely mistaken and it does not really matter much anyway because most of us old timers still enjoy WeGo and figure that is a good and normal pace at 1 min per turn smile.gif

-tom w

c3k

10-02-2006, 11:32 AM

Steve,

Thanks; both for the bone and for including wego.

Regards,
Ken

dalem

10-02-2006, 12:00 PM

Wow, no more random maps means that we can lose the "Quick" from the "Quick Battle". This is extremely disappointing for me.

-dale

aka_tom_w

10-02-2006, 12:59 PM

Hi dalem

Would a random map (not on the fly generated) help you?

I think that Steve said if there were LOTS of random maps available for the game to select from, the "Pick Random (premade) Map" option might put the "Quick" back in Quick Battle?

No?

I can see why there are clearly technical reasons why "quick maps" can no longer be auto generated. That factor does not really bother me because I have always preferred premade scenarios and maps with that "human touch". smile.gif

-tom w

MikeyD

10-02-2006, 01:31 PM

I won't miss random maps.
These days in CMAK when I've called up a random QB map I've stared at it, sighed and quit out, then restarted the QB with a properly designed map in the QB maps folder.

For some unfathomable reason I still don't mind random CMBB maps, though the differences between them and CMAK are negligable.

Dirtweasle

10-02-2006, 02:01 PM

Given a decent pool of pre-made maps Dale, I think QBs ought to still be fine. ...possibly a lot better.

Noiseman

10-02-2006, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by dalem:
Wow, no more random maps means that we can lose the "Quick" from the "Quick Battle". This is extremely disappointing for me.

-dale The map generator was what gave CMx1 its' longevity and replayability for me. I never cared much for scenarios and played almost exclusively QB's on random terrain. I made some of my own maps, but this quickly becomes 'work' and that was with using the map generator to make the 'base' map.

Even if the new editor is far easier to use, it's a bit of a wash at best because every map will have to be made from scratch. Not to mention that there will always be the lingering doubt that a multiplayer opponent 'just knows the map better' for now on.

I always felt that the random map generator was CM's strongest feature, and it's disappearance in CMx2 is a big disappointment.

Battlefront.com

10-02-2006, 03:03 PM

Some people find making maps "work", others find it "fun". If you look at the number of maps that have been made for any one CMx1 game you'll find that they number in the many thousands. Any one of those scenarios could have the units stripped out and be played as a QuickBattle. So I have no fear that QBs will still be "quick" and varried.

Steve

flammenwerfer

10-02-2006, 03:10 PM

The main reason I never played quick battles was because of the poor quality of the random-generated maps.

Noiseman

10-02-2006, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Some people find making maps "work", others find it "fun". If you look at the number of maps that have been made for any one CMx1 game you'll find that they number in the many thousands. Any one of those scenarios could have the units stripped out and be played as a QuickBattle. So I have no fear that QBs will still be "quick" and varried.

Steve I've downloaded many maps over the years, but I've actually only bothered to play a handful. They always ended up being too big or too small, and that's if I could remember what type of terrain they were of (the file names tend to be cryptic, a nice feature for CMx2 might be a map previewer).

I liked making maps for a while, but I certainly wouldn't want to have to create one for every single battle. And while there will certainly be many excellent stock and user made maps, it just doesn't have the same longterm appeal. Inevitably there will be popular and unpopular maps as often occurs in FPS's... I'm sure the new editor will be much easier to use than the one now, but no way do I want to be putting in every fold in the ground, on this small a scale, for every battle.

The old random map generator certainly wasn't perfect, and I wouldn't expect the new one to be perfect either, but I don't think it's value should be underestimated. That element of randomness fires the imagination. Once the scope of a game becomes more limited, so does its appeal.

Of course the new campaign system may make this all a moot point, but does a campaign have the same sales appeal as being able to open-endedly make your own battles? The fact that one could easily generate a map and type of battle was what got me to buy CM in the first place...

Battlefront.com

10-02-2006, 04:28 PM

Noiseman,

t I don't think it's value should be underestimated. Check back a few posts and you'll see that I certainly am not underestimating the appeal. Look for where I said I played CMx1 games nearly exclusively using QBs and Random Generated maps. However, being in the driver's seat here I also can not underestimate the development realities of making such a feature for CM:SF. It's just too much to take on, so as nice as it would be to have it simply isn't practical.

Of course the new campaign system may make this all a moot point, but does a campaign have the same sales appeal as being able to open-endedly make your own battles?It was never a choice between the two systems, but if we were put in a position of having to choose between Campaigns and Random Maps based on sales projections alone, we'd have chosen Campaigns even though it is the tougher of the two to do. A well done Campaign has a lot more sales potential than randomly generated maps for Quick Battles. The latter adds to longevity for some, but it isn't a requirement. If it was then practically no game would be on any of your harddrives :D

Steve

Lars

10-02-2006, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
A well done Campaign has a lot more sales potential than randomly generated maps for Quick Battles. The latter adds to longevity for some, but it isn't a requirement. If it was then practically no game would be on any of your harddrives :D

Steve Er, I only have three games on my harddrive. Two of them are yours.

Go with the random map, campaigns are only really fun once.

Now, if you could do a randomly generated campaign... :D

Bruce70

10-02-2006, 06:04 PM

I don't understand the 'no orders when paused' decision. AIUI BFC have always been about realism, even when this was to their detriment IMO (I am refering to the 'no campaigns' argument - which thankfully has been dropped, at least partially).

So why make the decision to not allow orders while paused?! If you were only issuing the orders that would be given by one officer then this would obviously be realistic. But do you really think it is realistic to give the orders of every officer in real time??!!!

I was planning to play in RT even if there was a WeGo option, now I fell very relieved that RT isn't going to be the only way to play the game.

Sirocco

10-02-2006, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Lars:
Go with the random map, campaigns are only really fun once.I'd have to agree with that. I never really played scenarios or operations with CM. I couldn't never really get into them. QB's were just much more fun.

Battlefront.com

10-02-2006, 07:54 PM

Lars,

Go with the random map, campaigns are only really fun once.As I said, we never made a choice between the two. Random map generation was cut for reasons entirely on their own. But, if I had to make a choice now, it would be to go with Campaigns. Sorry, it really is a no brainer decision for us. And this is coming from someone who has already twice said that this is the primary way I used to play CMx1. So obviously no amount of "I really like random maps, keep it" arguing is going to get anywhere because I obviously understand why people like the feature.

Bruce 70,

So why make the decision to not allow orders while paused?As I said, that's the way it is now. It might change, it might not. We'll see.

But do you really think it is realistic to give the orders of every officer in real time??!!!Who said anything about it being more realistic? I certainly never did because it has nothing to do with it. I'll quote myself here from the top post in this page:

This blurs the line between RealTime and WeGo and we think that's not in the best interests of the game. It is, however, something that can be revisited later.Steve

Bruce70

10-02-2006, 08:48 PM

Steve, I certainly wasn't implying that you said it was more realistic - I am sure you can see that it plainly isn't. What I wanted to know is why this decision has been made (since it clearly wasn't for realism). I agree that it blurs the line between RT and WeGo, but I don't see that as a bad thing - can you elaborate?

If you intend the game to be played as WeGo for those wanting a realistic amount of time to issue orders, and RT for those wanting a click-fest (order-fest might be more appropriate), I can live with that... I just don't understand it.

dalem

10-03-2006, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
Hi dalem

Would a random map (not on the fly generated) help you?

I think that Steve said if there were LOTS of random maps available for the game to select from, the "Pick Random (premade) Map" option might put the "Quick" back in Quick Battle?

No?

I can see why there are clearly technical reasons why "quick maps" can no longer be auto generated. That factor does not really bother me because I have always preferred premade scenarios and maps with that "human touch". smile.gif

-tom w As I understand the concept so far, my answer is "no". The CMx1 map generator, while not perfect, actually does a better job than all but the very best folks making maps for CM.

Also, nowadays I can set up a QB and in 1 minute be looking at my starting forces to see if they're interesting to me. Adding in time for a "map search" or whatever displeases me.

-dale

dalem

10-03-2006, 12:40 AM

Thomm

10-03-2006, 02:06 AM

Giving orders when paused should be pretty much standard nowadays, especially in a serious wargame like CM:SF, where delays are enforced by the game, anyway.

I know there where times when I used it in EYSA, especially at the beginning of the battle, when you draw your initial plan out. The problem there was the implementation: there was little to no visual feedback about the given orders ... it was very confusing and in no way comparable to the excellent CM plotting system (that obviously remains for the turn-based part, so why not reuse it??!?).

For multiplayer, implement it any way you want; I do not care, because I do not play multi.

But obmitting orders on pause in single player mode will draw serious critisism, I do not have to be a prophet to predict this!

Best regards,
Thomm

Thomm

10-03-2006, 02:09 AM

The cool thing about the random battle generator was that I could easily produce very small battles that could be played through in one hour or less. And with the most obscure equipment, too (who would by a platoon of tankettes, hehe).

Best regards,
Thomm

Kineas

10-03-2006, 03:09 AM

As you can read above there is a small chance that the map format will be open, so you can have a fan made random map generator.

The problem IMO is that random map generation is applicable for 'tile-based' games, and the CMx2 maps will be rather FPS style maps. Like what you can see in the Battlefield series. Writing a random map generator for those is quite challenging, and the quality gap between the human made maps and the generated maps will be far wider.

Mr Shirt

10-03-2006, 04:06 AM

I think the idea with real-time not allowing you to make orders is so that you can't just pause, give orders, pause, give orders, etc. Keeping the real time aspect involved.

Salkin

10-03-2006, 04:11 AM

Ok, I'll chime in even if I know it means nothing to the legends that are BFC.

I'm really dissapointed that you took out the random maps. I only played random maps. I needed the unrealistic hills to give me cover in dangerous situations. I always got my ass handed to me in user created scenarios also blablabla blablabla...

There...just my 2 cents.

Oh, but I will still buy CM:SF regardless smile.gif .

//Salkin

Sergei

10-03-2006, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by Salkin:
I'm really dissapointed that you took out the random maps. I only played random maps.Sure you did, you good-for-nothing Swedish asswipe! :mad:

Scipio

10-03-2006, 06:27 AM

In my opinion, random maps had the big pro that you don't need to search a map first.

The big contra of random maps are of course that they are simply poor, with senseless placed VLs, unrealistic cities, no rivers, and a serveral of errors.

Sergei

10-03-2006, 07:16 AM

A handy thing would be if you could tell the game that you want a map with "large hills", "village" and "open ground" of "medium size", and the game would randomly pick a map from your map folder that fits these requirements (these parametres would either be flagged by map makers, or automatically set by the map editor - perhaps the latter is better).

That way, you would get the type of map that you wanted (if you had that type on hard drive), without having to preview each beforehand. In essence the same functionality as before, but with better maps.

Thomm

10-03-2006, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Mr Shirt:
I think the idea with real-time not allowing you to make orders is so that you can't just pause, give orders, pause, give orders, etc. Keeping the real time aspect involved. May as well be the case, and I think it would be strange reasoning for developers who built their fame on a turn-based game!

Best regards,
Thomm

Kineas

10-03-2006, 07:40 AM

Actually this can be done easily with an external tool. Only thing you and your opponent need is a true random number smile.gif

Originally posted by Sergei:
A handy thing would be if you could tell the game that you want a map with "large hills", "village" and "open ground" of "medium size", and the game would randomly pick a map from your map folder that fits these requirements (these parametres would either be flagged by map makers, or automatically set by the map editor - perhaps the latter is better).

That way, you would get the type of map that you wanted (if you had that type on hard drive), without having to preview each beforehand. In essence the same functionality as before, but with better maps.

aka_tom_w

10-03-2006, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by Mr Shirt:
I think the idea with real-time not allowing you to make orders is so that you can't just pause, give orders, pause, give orders, etc. Keeping the real time aspect involved. I think Mr. Shirt has it nailed.

[Rant On]

If you could pause and give orders, oh say, EVERY 60 secs, (!) why not play we go???

RealTime means nonStop REALTIME action, no whimpy pauses for orders. Its a good call, and it makes sense because if you want to pause to give orders play WeGo and be done with it!

[/Rant off]

Lars

10-03-2006, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
As I said, we never made a choice between the two. Random map generation was cut for reasons entirely on their own. But, if I had to make a choice now, it would be to go with Campaigns. Sorry, it really is a no brainer decision for us. And this is coming from someone who has already twice said that this is the primary way I used to play CMx1. So obviously no amount of "I really like random maps, keep it" arguing is going to get anywhere because I obviously understand why people like the feature.Oh sure, I understand why you're going the way your going.

Campaigns = Sales.

But,

Random Maps = Longevity

Which, at some point, has to translate into sales after the initial buzz of the release wears off.

Perhaps throw in the horse**** random map generator. Better than nuthin if you can just dust off some old code. ;)

Thomm

10-03-2006, 09:05 AM

Oh my Lord, now all of a sudden some of us become die-hard real-time fanatics!!!

Brrrrr.

Noiseman

10-03-2006, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Lars:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
As I said, we never made a choice between the two. Random map generation was cut for reasons entirely on their own. But, if I had to make a choice now, it would be to go with Campaigns. Sorry, it really is a no brainer decision for us. And this is coming from someone who has already twice said that this is the primary way I used to play CMx1. So obviously no amount of "I really like random maps, keep it" arguing is going to get anywhere because I obviously understand why people like the feature.Oh sure, I understand why you're going the way your going.

Campaigns = Sales.

But,

Random Maps = Longevity

Which, at some point, has to translate into sales after the initial buzz of the release wears off.

Perhaps throw in the horse**** random map generator. Better than nuthin if you can just dust off some old code. ;) [/QUOTE]Longevity is the key word here. Not just the game on our hard drives, but for the series as a whole.

The random generated battle is what made CM unique and gave it it's greatest appeal. Sometimes what you imagine you can do with a game is as much fun as actually playing it. The open-endedness of CMx1 was it's biggest appeal, just as important as the gameplay IMHO.

I think the campaign is a good idea, a much needed addition to the series. And for the first module I understand the logic of putting all BFC's resources behind it. But if making a campaign is more time consuming than a generator, as Steve mentioned in his post, it would seem to me to be a wise investment to develop a generator for future modules to be used in conjunction with shorter campaigns. Win-win.

Lazy Gun

10-03-2006, 09:10 AM

Not sure if this has been posted before but here is another, very , small bone from Armchair General magazine (September 06 issue I think).
http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/1076/image1pn6.jpg

It was sent to me by a friend and this was the biggest he could get the picture. It was part of a one paragraph preview of the game which I don't think said anything new.

aka_tom_w

10-03-2006, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Rollstoy:
Oh my Lord, now all of a sudden some of us become die-hard real-time fanatics!!!

Brrrrr. Hey smile.gif

I think it great there is an option!

They have made what appears to be a breakthrough in a game offering.

Giving us BOTH WeGo and REALTIME in the same game!

I don't know of any other game that does that and it should be getting great deal more "hype" and attention that both styles of play are offered instead of the now routine complaining that you can't pause and give orders in RealTime ("because that's the way every other war game works"). :rolleyes:

-tom w

aka_tom_w

10-03-2006, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by MikeyJ38:
Not sure if this has been posted before but here is another, very , small bone from Armchair General magazine (September 06 issue I think).
http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/1076/image1pn6.jpg

It was sent to me by a friend and this was the biggest he could get the picture. It was part of a one paragraph preview of the game which I don't think said anything new. are there any other pics?

Have we ever seen this one online before?

sure its a month old, but I don't recall if I have seen this one before or not, it does sort of look familiar.

-tom w

Lars

10-03-2006, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by MikeyJ38:
http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/1076/image1pn6.jpg
Sheesh, they sure get pissed if you miss the target. :D

Kineas

10-03-2006, 09:16 AM

erm... X-Com 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-COM:_Apocalypse)

but it doesn't really count smile.gif

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rollstoy:
They have made what appears to be a breakthrough in a game offering.

Giving us BOTH WeGo and REALTIME in the same game!

I don't know of any other game that does that and it should be getting great deal more "hype" and attention that both styles of play are offered instead of the now routine complaining that you can't pause and give orders in RealTime ("because that's the way every other war game works"). :rolleyes:

-tom w

MikeyD

10-03-2006, 09:21 AM

"Have we ever seen this one online before?"

If by 'we' you me me, no I haven't. S'matter-o-fact doesn't this count as only the 3rd or 4th picture we've ever seen of the game?

Mortar definitely looks cooler than the CMx1 mortars. I'm a happy man! :eek: :D

Thomm

10-03-2006, 09:41 AM

Apologizing in advance for being an annoyance, I give it another try.

What was it again, that was so great about the one-minute turns? Surely, that you could take as much time as you wanted to give orders to your troops. Furthermore, the replay feature was great, because you could re-watch the action ad nauseum. This features are important for large battles!

What was bad about it? Well, the interruptions were kind of artificial and the game was not "flowing" properly. Also, there was no opportunity to make good use of game-time by leap-frogging squads to their objective, a behavior that emerges naturally in real-time. Moving to contact was simply boring, often taking too much wall-clock time before the actual action started.

What is good about pure real-time: the game is flowing along without interruption and consumes very little wall-clock time (important for real-life constraints). The stress factor is high.

What are the downsides of real-time: one gets lost in large battles and potentially misses important actions. Some front sectors are neglected while others are micro-managed, depending on where the gamers focuses his/her attention.

What happens if one allows for a hybrid design? The benefits of both methods are combined!

With regards to orders, the benefits of being able of giving orders when paused should be self-evident!

The optimum would of course be to have unlimited replay at any time during the game, probably coupled to a messaging system that notifies the gamer of important events or even pops up a hot-spot camera window!

Best regards,
Thomm

PS: Good one, Lars smile.gif

Ace Pilot

10-03-2006, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Lars:
Oh sure, I understand why you're going the way your going.

Campaigns = Sales.

But,

Random Maps = Longevity

Which, at some point, has to translate into sales after the initial buzz of the release wears off.
Don't most game companies want to avoid longevity? If you are still happy playing the game 12 months later, you have less desire to buy the company's next game version that was cranked out 6 months ago. I thought this was one of the fundamental business problems of the CMx1 series - the long-lasting popularity of the early versions cut into sales of later versions.

Lars

10-03-2006, 10:00 AM

Dunno, we've never seen the sales figures.

But I did buy all three of the CM series, and would have bought another if they had made it.

Whoops, forgot CM Campaigns. Looks like it's gonna be four after all. :cool:

aka_tom_w

10-03-2006, 10:04 AM

I did not like CMBB at all (no english speaking nation) but I bought all three as well. I did like playing the ETO scenarios in CMAK the best however. smile.gif

-tom w

Scipio

10-03-2006, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Lars:
... Perhaps throw in the horse**** random map generator. Better than nuthin if you can just dust off some old code. ;) I'm pretty sure it ain't that easy.

Maybe it's a good idea to use a basically standardize & exchangeable CM2 map format, so it finally doesn't matter if the map was created in CM2:SF or in CM2:WWIIwhatever. So the pool of available maps would get bigger and bigger with & for each future title.

Lars

10-03-2006, 10:42 AM

That would work too.

But, since Battlefront is relying on others to make all these maps, it would be nice if they set up a server host.

Remember when the Scenario Depot crashed?

MikeyD

10-03-2006, 10:47 AM

About replayability and the random map generator.
Remember guys, BFC isn't planning an everlasting game this time around. The CMx1 games had such looong development times that something pretty close to 'everlasting play' had to be designed-in to keep people interested & around from one title to the next! Theoretically with the modular x2 game engine, by the time we start to get bored with the initial release of CMSF a cool new module will show up, and when we start to get bored with that a new title will show up, etc., etc. That way we keep enjoying new aspects of the game engine and they keep collecting money from us.

From the perspective of BFC's bottom line, perhaps built-in eventual boredom is a good thing. if the first game released is all things to all people what's their incentive for anyone to buy the second game? ;)

[ October 03, 2006, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

Ace Pilot

10-03-2006, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Lars:
Dunno, we've never seen the sales figures.
True, but Steve gave a pretty strong indication in this post (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=003874;p=12#00 0283) that sales have declined from CMBO to CMBB to CMAK, despite your, my and aka_tom_w's efforts to the contrary. ;)

Lars

10-03-2006, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by MikeyD:
if the first game released is all things to all people what's their incentive for anyone to buy the second game? ;) That's a no brainer.

Given BFC's track record, it's pretty obvious you might just be missing out on a great game. ;)

dalem

10-03-2006, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Kineas:
The problem IMO is that random map generation is applicable for 'tile-based' games, and the CMx2 maps will be rather FPS style maps. Like what you can see in the Battlefield series. Writing a random map generator for those is quite challenging, and the quality gap between the human made maps and the generated maps will be far wider. I'm ignorant of the different styles of map you refer to above. I thought the CMx2 maps were just going to be roughly the same idea but with smaller tiles and therefore finer resolution. Are FPS style maps different than that?

-dale

aka_tom_w

10-03-2006, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by dalem:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kineas:
The problem IMO is that random map generation is applicable for 'tile-based' games, and the CMx2 maps will be rather FPS style maps. Like what you can see in the Battlefield series. Writing a random map generator for those is quite challenging, and the quality gap between the human made maps and the generated maps will be far wider. I'm ignorant of the different styles of map you refer to above. I thought the CMx2 maps were just going to be roughly the same idea but with smaller tiles and therefore finer resolution. Are FPS style maps different than that?

-dale [/QUOTE]Its more like Sim City if you know what that is like.

It is a Wire mesh in a real 3D rendered world. I thought Steve said there are no tiles.

Its might be more like Bryce 3D.

this might be "pushing it" but I am thinking of something like this:

http://homepages.compuserve.de/matop123/bryce/Bryce2_pr.jpg

Bryce image with Terminator robots and a yound lady with a gun and another one with an RPG:
web page (http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/814/thelaststand9gj.jpg)

-tom w

[ October 03, 2006, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

dalem

10-03-2006, 11:47 AM

Thanks, Tom.

-dale

Sergei

10-03-2006, 11:56 AM

Uhm..? I thought Steve said at one point specifically that there WOULD be tiles (of something like 8 metre size). Tom, where did Steve say to the contrary?

Well, never mind, it was easy to find what Steve said. Here (http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000015):

1. The grid size is now 8m x 8m vs. CMx1's 20x20m.

2. Now even an 8x8 item can be put at a 45 deg angle, unlike CMx2 where 45 deg angles were only possible if they were smaller than 20x20m. This allows you to have, for example, a row of adjacent "row houses" running at a 45 deg angle to another row. This was not possible in CMx1 because diagonal lines never allowed things to be truly adjacent.

3. Terrain is in layers, allowing you to mix and match stuff within the 8x8 areas. This was only possible in CMx1 if we had hand coded the 20x20m tiles ahead of time. We still have to limit how much stuff you can pile up in one spot for code reasons, but it is possible to do more combos than was possible before.

4. Because the grid is now 8x8m, you can pack a lot more terrain features into a smaller space. For example, in CMx1 you could have a house on grass as one of the 20x20m tiles. Now you can have a 8x8m house with trees around it, or a wall running right up to it on one side and a road right along on the other.

5. Problems inherent to the 20x20m terrain mesh are most likely all solved. Things like not being able to have a house in the side of a hill... no problem now. I'm sure there will be some limitations here and there, but not the routine ones experienced by map makers in CMx1.

6. Buildings are so different from CMx1 that I'll have to start up another discussion about them. Suffice to say that we designed buildings with urban warfare in mind. Yes, that means you can have dense, multi-story structures with roof access, basements, specific entry/exit points, and a host of other features. Graphically buildings will look a lot better than CMx1, though they won't match the sort of fine details seen in games like BF2. That's the trade off one gets for flexibility... function over form :D

[ October 03, 2006, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Sergei ]

YankeeDog

10-03-2006, 12:04 PM

Ya, there's an 8x8 grid, but as some of the stuff you just quoted implies, and if you read Steve's other posts on the matter, it sounds like terrain modeling is considerably more complex, beyond just using a smaller grid resolution, especially WRT how the engine handles objects and elevations within the 8x8 grid.

Kinda like comparing a Horse-drawn wagon and a Ferrari. Yeah, they both got 4 wheels, but the similarities pretty much end there. . .

aka_tom_w

10-03-2006, 12:09 PM

"In CMx2 things are very different. The CMx2 concept of tiles is gone. However, there is still an underlying grid and a separate terrain mesh. Unlike CMx1, the two can contain different sized blocks. This allows us to independently control the volume of data for the game engine and the graphics engine."

this is what I was talking about, and I may have been mistaken, there are still tiles, but the are superimposed on top of a 1m x 1m mesh.

correct?

from the same Post by Steve:

Battlefront.com
Administrator
Member # 42

posted August 25, 2005 04:17 PM
Since I've seen a lot of questions about terrain, I figure a quick compare/contrast with CMx1 is in order.

In CMx1 we had a fixed grid of 20m x 20m. This grid determined both the terrain data as well as the graphical appearance. We called these 20x20 spaces "tiles". CMx1 resolved the location of a unit down to fractions of a meter within a tile, however all units within that tile were treated as being in the same terrain regardless of position. Well, except for a few hybrid tile types, such as roads and small houses (i.e. things that were not 20x20, but instead contained within a 20x20 tile). The relative position mattered for LOS/LOF, explosions, movement etc. and therefore it did matter what your relative position was.

In CMx2 things are very different. The CMx2 concept of tiles is gone. However, there is still an underlying grid and a separate terrain mesh. Unlike CMx1, the two can contain different sized blocks. This allows us to independently control the volume of data for the game engine and the graphics engine. Say for example we find that the game data is a real pig in terms of RAM and CPU usage, but the latest graphics hardware can handle the graphics just fine. Well... we can tweak the fidelity of the terrain mesh without increasing the size of the blocks for the underlying game grid. Or perhaps it is the other way around... the CPU and RAM can handle more game data, but the graphics bottlenecks require a lower resolution of the graphical terrain mesh, so we increase the fidelity of the underlying game data. Whatever the case is, the sizes of these blocks can be adjusted by us, quite easily, as hardware becomes more powerful in years to come. That means we're not locked into one way of doing things for the next x number of years.

Why not just resolve everything down to individual pixels and be done with meshes and blocks of terrain? Hardware limitations. Unless we employ pathetically small maps with simplistic units this is just not possible. That means a certain amount of "grid" behavior will continue to exist for some time to come. Good news is that over time the grids will be smaller and smaller. web page Steve's post and entire thread about terrain it is a long thread (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000015#000000)

The 2D Editor UI will be a lot easier to use than in CMx1. Even if Charles winds up refusing to code 90% of the stuff I came up with, I can assure you it will still be better

No, you will not be able to cut and paste parts of one map into another, no matter how the mechanics work. All you can do is download someone else's map, bring it into the Editor, and work on it as you would do in CMx1. In order to do more than that we'd have to support the concept of placing "assembled" stuff instead of just creating it. It's not going to happen simply because it isn't necessary (it is also a time sink we ain't touching). If someone makes the Reichstag, then why wouldn't they also put the neighboring terrain around it? And if the person doesn't do that, why can't you just import the map, increase the size, and then work on it yourself? Piece of cake.

Steve

Battlefront.com
Administrator
Member # 42

posted August 26, 2005 09:33 PM
Oh yeah... I keep forgetting to mention that the terrain mesh is 1m x 1m. So even though the terrain itself is measured in 8x8 pieces, the underlying shape is significantly more flexible. This is why you guys don't need to worry about houses in sides of hills and whatnot

Steve

AND

Battlefront.com
Administrator
Member # 42

posted September 04, 2005 06:49 PM
Correct about the TacAI. It can figure out "I am here, the enemy is there. I need to find some cover. That trench looks good". It is the StratAI that needs to say "I don't know where the enemy is, but I suppose he is over there. Ah... a trench runs in just the right spot for defensive line. Let's see... the enemy's approach path is level so the trench actually will provide some cover. I think I'll put 2 platoons along this trench and my heavy wepaons behind it." Two different concepts. The TacAI is the easier of the two to do in this case.

Terrain grid is 1m x 1m, but every 1m a height can be assigned of between 1 and 100mm. This means that you can have a 100m long slope with the high point being 1m.

For every one tile you had in CMx1 you can have roughly 4 tiles. So even if there were no mixing of terrain within a CMx2 8m x 8m tile, you will still get (roughly) 4 times the varried terrain as you could get in CMx1. In reality, over a larger space of map, you get a little more than 6 tiles for every 1 of CMx1. That's a pretty huge jump in variety all on its own. However, we will allow some mixed tiles in CMx2. Some of the mixing will be dynamic, but some of it will have to be hand coded by us. In the latter cases we'll have to go easy on the variations simply because there is only so much time in the day

Steve

[ October 03, 2006, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Battlefront.com

10-03-2006, 12:20 PM

It's been too long since a car analogy...

Trying to take the CMx1 map generator and putting it into CMx2 would be like taking a truck engine and putting it in a BMW. Not only would one be stumpped as to how to physically connect it, but the performance of the BMW would suck even if one could get it running.

There is nothing similar between the CMx1 terrain system and the new CMx2 system, therefore there is no possibility of code sharing. Period.

The added complexity and refinement of the CMx2 terrain system is the reason why we are not doing a random map generator (remember, not a random BATTLE generator.... that we still have). It would take a ton of time and effort and likely produce a result that pretty much nobody would be pleased with. It just isn't worth it. We realized this probably 2 years ago, and nothing today makes us regret the decision from a development standpoint. From a game standpoint, I've already said that in theory we would want it in there. It's just not practical.

BTW, it is true that Longevity does not equal Sales. "When the novelty wears off" is not a concern since it will wear off AFTER the purchase. Most games are playable only for a few weeks, tops. For $45 that is a pretty good deal when compared to other forms of entertainment. The fact that you guys have been getting YEARS off of a $45 or less purchase is nothing short of highway robbery :D Sure, our egos are nice and stroked by the fact that we have broken pretty much all records in the wargaming niche, and a few game wide, but that's about it. So arguments for us to slave away to give you things for, basically, free don't go over too well :D

Steve

kgsan

10-03-2006, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by MikeyD:
About replayability and the random map generator.
Remember guys, BFC isn't planning an everlasting game this time around. The CMx1 games had such looong development times that something pretty close to 'everlasting play' had to be designed-in to keep people interested & around from one title to the next! Theoretically with the modular x2 game engine, by the time we start to get bored with the initial release of CMSF a cool new module will show up, and when we start to get bord with that a new title will show up, etc., etc. That way we keep enjoying new aspects of the game engine and they keep collecting money from us.

From the perspective of BFC's bottom line, perhaps built-in eventual boredom is a good thing. if the first game released is all things to all people what's their incentive for anyone to buy the second game? ;) OK, so let me understand; having a much narrower focus for their games and much more limited replayability, without random maps, is going to increase sales? :rolleyes:

Sergei

10-03-2006, 12:26 PM

Of course, what with new separately sold modules coming out every week, and so forth. Start digging your wallet!

Lars

10-03-2006, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
So arguments for us to slave away to give you things for, basically, free don't go over too well :D Back to work you!

Btw, my point on longevity was that latecomers to the party buy on word of mouth. You're still selling a few of the CM series, aren't you?

Battlefront.com

10-03-2006, 12:35 PM

As for the issuing of orders when PAUSED in RealTime... as I said, we do not want to blur the lines between it and WeGo. If you want to slow things down and plot deliberately, then play WeGo. If you don't, then play RealTime. If you re schizophrenic, seek medical help tongue.gif

One practical issue is that there are no Command Delays in RealTime Mode. So a Pause would allow you a completely unimaginable amount of precision control over what happens, even more so than WeGo. So if we are going to allow Commands during a Pause in RT we are also going to have to put Command Delays in place for the entire RT environment. We don't think that is a wise idea.

I'll head off this likely response..."WHAT? No Command Delays in RealTime Mode? Are you insane?" Nope, logical. Think about it... in WeGo we have Command Delays in there so that there is some simulation of the difficulty of getting Commands issued exactly when you want them whever you want them executed. RealTime has this built in as an inherent part of the system. The fact that the game continues as you move around checking on things and what not means that there is already plenty of delay happening. So adding MORE delays would be a bad thing as would unlimited ability to plot without any delays.

As I said, in theory we can change things to allow Comamands to be issued during Pause, but at the moment we see this as highly detrimental to the game. Therefore, for now, it is completely out of the question. When we get major testing under way we will reevaluate our options to make sure we're going forward with the best system.

Steve

Battlefront.com

10-03-2006, 12:42 PM

kgsan,

OK, so let me understand; having a much narrower focus for their games and much more limited replayability, without random maps, is going to increase sales?No, having a lot more depth, far more detailed game experience, and a lot of brand new features will increase sales. Adding more features to something that people will already happily buy and enjoy far longer than other games is not going to increas sales at all.

Lars,

Btw, my point on longevity was that latecomers to the party buy on word of mouth. You're still selling a few of the CM series, aren't you?Sure, but if we were able to put out a new Module every 6 months and a new game every year we wouldn't need the extremely small number of highly discounted sales we get of aging products just to keep the lights on, now would we? :D

Remember folks... this is all part of a much larger strategy. In order to do some things we can't do others. On balance we know, for sure, that everybody will be a lot happier with the new strategy we have. However, that doesn't mean that it's got a perfect mix of things for everybody. Just know that there are practical limitations, therefore we expect some sighs and curses along the way. Doesn't bother us because we know the cheers will drown them out.

Steve

Lee

10-03-2006, 12:44 PM

Steve: Would it be possible to take advantage of the We-Go game mode to let CMII calculate all the complex math under the hood of the actual combat resolution all at one time for the whole one minute of game time, and then play back the 3D visual combat results afterwards, like it works in CM now?

This would allow for much larger numbers of units in a battle without the frame-rate going down because the computer could devote all it's processing power to calculating the combat results (the PC could use 30 seconds or a minute or whatever amount of time it needed to process the math) before watching the video of what happened. And then devote all it's processing power to rendering the 3D battlefield results at a good frame-rate. smile.gif

Battlefront.com

10-03-2006, 01:04 PM

Lee,

In theory we could simply have the first pass of the turn hidden and then you would see the replay, so to speak. This would mean always having to wait 1 minute to see a new turn executed. If there was some major benefit to this it might be worth it, but I don't see that being the case. Under your scenario, any possible speed increase you might see would be more than offset by the extra weight of polygons. Calculations don't kill framerate, polygons do. Hey, sounds like something that could go on a bumpersticker ;)

Steve

Lars

10-03-2006, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Sure, but if we were able to put out a new Module every 6 months and a new game every year we wouldn't need the extremely small number of highly discounted sales we get of aging products just to keep the lights on, now would we? :D Hear they're doing great things with LED's and fluorescents these days.

Ok, good enough. Back to the realtime/wego debate.

dalem

10-03-2006, 01:13 PM

Thanks Steve.

-dale

Lee

10-03-2006, 01:15 PM

Well, if the math of the combat calculations takes up so little processing power that it's not even worth worrying about as it relates to frame-rate, then I guess it's no big deal. smile.gif But I'm surprised to hear that. Charles is always talking about the incredible amount of processing power it takes to calculate this or that realistic combat resolution feature. So I thought that even on the faster PC's we have now, it would take up a major slice of the computer chip's processing time just to figure that combat stuff out while still having to render the great looking 3D graphics that CMII has in real-time.

Kinds of makes you wonder what kind of math-intensive realistic combat calculation features Charles had to leave out due to frame-rate considerations in a real-time game, as opposed to We-Go, knowing the PC could spend all the time it needs calculating the combat results, and then could focus on just the 3D graphics separately. Hmm...

As far as the bumper sticker, let's no get that started again. hehe ;)

MikeyD

10-03-2006, 01:28 PM

I'm happily playing my CMx1 games at home on a semi-ancient 300 mhz G3 mac (a system that'll definitely need to be upgraded to play CMx2). By way of contrast, my current computer at work is a 1.8 GHz dual processor G5. Now THAT's the kind of exponentially faster speed available these days to handle realtime combat calculations!

As to what Dan had to leave out of the game to keep the frame rate up, I think he already mentioned the days of vast Russian steppe maps are over, we're going to be playing 'up close & personal' on more reasonable size CMBO-scale maps, at least until the next generation of super CPUs come out. I can't help but notice everybody's still making assumptions and suggestions largely based on a CMx1 mental picture of the game. I suspect all our jaws will drop when we finally get to see the new engine in action.

Salkin

10-03-2006, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Sergei:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Salkin:
I'm really dissapointed that you took out the random maps. I only played random maps.Sure you did, you good-for-nothing Swedish asswipe! :mad: [/QUOTE]Steve, in your next car analogy can you have a huge truck run over a Finn ?
Thanks, that would mean alot ;) .

//Salkin

Battlefront.com

10-03-2006, 02:59 PM

Lee,

But I'm surprised to hear that. Charles is always talking about the incredible amount of processing power it takes to calculate this or that realistic combat resolution feature.Charles was talking about this 4-8 years ago... a lot has changed since then ;) When we first released CMBO people were using Pentium I systems running around 166 MHz, or 604s in the same range for you Mac guys. RAM was 64MB to 128MB. Graphics cards had 8MB of VRAM, maybe 16MB if they had shelled out some serious dough.

All of that has changed dramatically, but CPU power is where things really increased. With the sort of CPU and RAM available to us these days lots and lots of things are now possible and possible a lot quicker. Graphics are still the bottleneck.

Think about it... the basic needs of CM are the same now as they were 8 years ago. That means a great amount of the stuff that CMx1 struggled to crunch are over and done with without the hardware even noticing something happened. This has allowed us to add more stuff, like higher terrain resolution, more detailed LOS/LOF, Relative Spotting, etc. and still have CPU power to spare. Not so for graphics. We still have to watch what we do VERY carefully. Of course, this is after we bumped the polygon counts up by a factor of 10 or more :D

My point is that right now we find it difficult to bring the system to a standstill to get the game itself to work, but we could crush framerate with about 5 minutes work. All Charles would have to do is compile the current code without certain graphics optimizations on and you'd probably experience FPS in the single digits no matter how high end your system is.

Steve

Lee

10-03-2006, 05:58 PM

Steve: Oh, I'm sure that Charles is having a field day with all the processing power that he now has at his disposal to calculate the wargame itself that is running under the hood. smile.gif And I'm certainly glad to hear that CPU power has gone up so much that it has made the combat calculations not much of a problem. I understand that stuff as it relates to 3D, since I play FPS's all the time and know what kind of power it takes to run those games, but it's much harder to guess how much processing power combat-related algorithms that were previously out of reach take unless you are very familiar with exactly what's involved in that sort of thing.

One of the things that Charles pointed as being particularly costly in terms of CPU power was accurate calculation of machine gun grazing fire. Have CPU's gotten to the point yet where he has included that in the CMII engine? smile.gif

By the way, the graphics do indeed look great. From the few screenshots I've seen, it looks fairly close to Battlefield II graphic levels, but in a intricate wargame with a super fine level of granularity in a highly realistic combat model. Which is a very impressive feat! smile.gif You'll need those graphics optimizations, I'm sure. ;)

Battlefront.com

10-03-2006, 07:32 PM

LOF is traced for each shot, so yes... grazing is inherently in already.

Some of the speed benefits come from the new underlying way the map works. I've outlined this in other threads. Um... try searching for "Action Spot". I'm pretty sure that should do it.

Yes, we think our graphics will look pretty good compared to BF2. In fact, in some ways we expect it will look superior.

Steve

C'Rogers

10-04-2006, 05:47 AM

In order to do some things we can't do others.But I was told I could have my cake and eat it too tongue.gif .

Like everyone else here sad to see random maps gone. But after crying myself to sleep ... I mean thinking on it overnight, don't think it will be a huge deal.

However is it possible that random maps will make an appearance in future titles?

Battlefront.com

10-04-2006, 10:28 AM

C'Rogers,

But I was told I could have my cake and eat it tooActually, you will get to have your cake and eat it too. However, the little frosting decoration you were hoping for is not there smile.gif

However is it possible that random maps will make an appearance in future titles?I'll never say never on this one, but honestly... I doubt it. I know how much work it would take to get even a crappy random map generator going and that just seems to be a bad investment of our time.

Steve

Other Means

10-04-2006, 06:02 PM

Steve, permit me to copy this from one of my posts in the ToW forum about pausing in RT

{quote}

The arguments go..

Against pause: Could you do this in real life? Not with the amount of co-ordination you have, therefore you should not have a pause and you have to give orders to each unit.

For pause: Could you do this in real life? Not with the amount of co-ordination you have, but yes, you could give orders to the section leaders to do something at a specific time, and each man thinks for himself so you don't have to give everyone orders. Therefore introduce a different mechanism to ensure real-life results.

I'm in the "for pause" camp, as I think although we're in an un-natural situation by being in a gods eye view, limiting what can be done by how many units you can click in a certain time is a bad counter to it, so another mechanism should be introduced.

If it was a perfect world, this would be limited by the command net, or by being able to make a plan where you have all units do certain things at specific game times, however, this may not be a fun dynamic and is already too complex for the player and game system. So introduce command delays for units, based on the units morale and experience, while allowing as many orders as you want to be given by having a pause.

And of course, this means you can get another beer or have a pee.

{end quote}

So my basic point for ToW and CM:SF is that the mechanism of not being able to give orders when paused being *also* used to create a command delay for your units is an artificial conflation of 2 very different things.

You can't give orders becuase you can't assess the specific units needs and needed orders fast enough, i.e. clickfest

And

The real life situation of the unit not knowing what to do within the time frame.

It leads to situations where a real-life unit would know *exactly* what to do, but you as the player cannot do it as you're doing something else.

It does depend an awful lot on the AI, but programming an AI for a dynamic system is extremely difficult, you know this better than us.

Therefore, there should be a mechanism to assess and give correct orders, while introducing a mechanism to ensure the real-life time-frame for order propagation is in place.

IMHO :D

Of course, you're goign to play test it and follow the path you've described anyway, but please keep this argument in mind.

Cheers.

Bruce70

10-04-2006, 06:22 PM

From the beginning I thought that moving to a RT engine was the wrong move for a number of reasons. However, bit by bit Steve and others convinced me that RT was the way to go and I was really looking forward to it and even thought that it was unlikely I would play WeGo even if it was included.

Now in the space of one thread my opinion has once again completely reversed, and I believe that my initial opinion was correct. At least WeGo is in so hopefully the compromises that have been made for RT wont impact too much on the WeGo game.

Bruce70

10-04-2006, 06:34 PM

Other Means: I think the idea is that with no pause during RT you can only give the *direct* orders of one officer. Obviously when you give an order in RL there is no command delay. In a multiplayer team game there where there is a player for each significant officer, no command delay is needed as this will be a fact of RL (i.e. imperfect communication between players on the same team).

However, in a single player game (or 1-on-1) the "no pause / no delay" argument is just plain ludicrous. The player is expected to play the part of on officer for a short time, giving orders in RT, then flit across the battlefield to another officer and give their orders. The problem is that while you are issuing orders for one officer, all the others are doing nothing! To make this work you either need 16 players per team, or a VERY good AI that can handle things when you are not in direct command. Battlefront do not seem to be especially interested in improving the AI, and AIUI it will be a while before the game supports 16 players.

Battlefront.com

10-04-2006, 09:46 PM

Other Means,

It leads to situations where a real-life unit would know *exactly* what to do, but you as the player cannot do it as you're doing something else.There is no way around this at all, except by taking the player out of the loop entirely or giving him such a tiny number of units (like 1 or 2) that it isn't noticable most of the time. Therefore...

People that have trouble letting things go will not like RealTime Mode in CM, just as the likely don't like it in general. There isn't anything we can do about it. At least not fundamentally. Giving people the ability to issue orders during a Pause is exactly what WeGo is. So if that's what you're after, then play WeGo and leave RealTime to people who want to play it that way.

Bruce70
Now in the space of one thread my opinion has once again completely reversed, and I believe that my initial opinion was correct. At least WeGo is in so hopefully the compromises that have been made for RT wont impact too much on the WeGo game.On the contrary, the underlying RT engine makes WeGo a LOT better than it was in CMx1. For example, no artillery strikes coming as your guys are frozen in time at 60+ seconds, no difficulties for us to carry over effects from one turn to the next, no limitations on a myriad of other things that we ran up against when trying to make improvements to CMx1.

What we are trying to NOT do is "pollute" RealTime with WeGo conventions. Trying to make one behave more like the other is counter productive.

The player is expected to play the part of on officer for a short time, giving orders in RT, then flit across the battlefield to another officer and give their orders. The problem is that while you are issuing orders for one officer, all the others are doing nothing!Allowing people to issue Commands during a Pause doesn't inherently fix that. All it does is turn RealTime into WeGo with variable length turns and no Command Delays. The latter we could fix, but why bother? Then it is exactly like WeGo.

Battlefront do not seem to be especially interested in improving the AI,No, Battlefront is not capable of improving the AI without a couple million Dollars in R&D funds and probably 5 years to do it in. Then, when all of that money and time is behind us, we'll have a game that won't need the player at all. Not sure what the fun in that is :D

Guys... this all comes down to this. We are offering two flavors of cake... chocolate and vanilla. You have your choice about which one to eat, on a meal by meal basis. Anybody arguing that we should make the chocolate cake taste and look like vanilla cake, or vice versa, is missing the point of having a choice to begin with.

Steve

dan/california

10-04-2006, 10:33 PM

Please add chocolate, vanilla, and caffeine to Charles's IV/nutrient solution and finish the &*(&*(&*&(()%#@#())(^&$ game!! tongue.gif

This will be an outstanding argument to have with module 2 on my hard drive. then we can argue about what is wrong with how it actually plays. All effort at this point should be for a great player matching server that will ensure that there are lots of people to argue with. :cool:

aka_tom_w

10-04-2006, 10:33 PM

We are offering two flavors of cake... chocolate and vanilla. You have your choice about which one to eat, on a meal by meal basis. I'll have BOTH, with thanks ! :D
(one at a time of course, may I have the chocolate first?)

-tom w

Bruce70

10-05-2006, 01:06 AM

Steve
No, Battlefront is not capable of improving the AI without a couple million Dollars in R&D funds and probably 5 years to do it in.Well I did send you guys an email a while back about possible research collaboration on AI that wasn't going to cost you much at all, but I didn't get a reply. :D

As for the RT/WeGo situation, if RT has added to the WeGo experience then I will be very happy, thanks.

metalbrew

10-05-2006, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Guys... this all comes down to this. We are offering two flavors of cake... chocolate and vanilla. You have your choice about which one to eat, on a meal by meal basis. Anybody arguing that we should make the chocolate cake taste and look like vanilla cake, or vice versa, is missing the point of having a choice to begin with.

Steve I don't want to try and chase the analogy, but I do understand your point.

If BFC posts an announcement that PBEM is definitely included, then I don't so much mind that effort was put towards realtime gameplay. However, if the opposite is true, it bugs me. How much it bugs me I don't want to say, but it's a lot and I don't want to lose PBEM to make room/time for BFC to implement a game mode I'll never play (realtime).

In another thread I read a post from Steve @ BFC in which he said PBEM was a feature used by a small number of game fans. I can't guess what the number is, but I guarantee that the fans that PBEM are your core fans - the same guys/gals that take the time to fawn and flex over a wargame with a total of 5 screenshots released in a 2 year period.

I hope this makes a point without sounding rude but I'm just frustrated reading all the "maybe we'll include PBEM" posts.

Steve

Thomm

10-05-2006, 02:21 AM

*Sigh*

So no orders during pauses.

Anybody thinking about the restrictions this places on the unit count and size of the battle??

By the way: the game below claims that one can play it both in RTS and FPS mode ...

http://www.fieldopsgame.com/screenshots/1151940695.jpg

Other Means

10-05-2006, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Other Means,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />It leads to situations where a real-life unit would know *exactly* what to do, but you as the player cannot do it as you're doing something else.There is no way around this at all, except by taking the player out of the loop entirely or giving him such a tiny number of units (like 1 or 2) that it isn't noticable most of the time. Therefore...

People that have trouble letting things go will not like RealTime Mode in CM, just as the likely don't like it in general. There isn't anything we can do about it. At least not fundamentally. Giving people the ability to issue orders during a Pause is exactly what WeGo is. So if that's what you're after, then play WeGo and leave RealTime to people who want to play it that way.
[/QUOTE]But there is a way to get around the players attention being split over time, and this is to let them spend as much time as they want to give orders, i.e. pause the game and give orders.

The thought that it's then a type of we-go with variable turn lengths is said like it's a bad thing. To me, this would be the ideal way to play. Let the game go on while nothings happening, pause it when you need to to give a lot of orders and introduce command delays that mirror the command net.

Sounds ideal to me.

Not that that means a whole hell of a lot ;)

aka_tom_w

10-05-2006, 06:38 AM

yup that's interesting: (PC only)

web page field ops (http://home.nestor.minsk.by/game/news/2006/03/1302.html)

Strategy Informer: We are really interested in the main feature for Field Ops, where you are able to jump from RTS mode to FPS mode at any given time. Could you please give us some information about this feature and let us know what it's like?
Mourad Majeri: This feature is very easy to use. The first time you play it, you won’t believe it! When you are in RTS view with one of your units selected, you simply have to press one key whenever you want to switch the camera/mode in FPS views (the camera slides in real time into the first person perspective). The player decides when he wants to switch in FPS view or RTS view depending on the situation/event that he has to handle, but also depending on his own skills and preferences.hmm

web page Field Ops Previoulsy known as "Ghost Wars" so said the web page that had it listed (this link is the official home page of Field Ops) (http://www.fieldopsgame.com/contenu.php)

-tom w

[ October 05, 2006, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Kineas

10-05-2006, 07:47 AM

A wargame publisher company, similar to BFC categorizes their games by "play style". They have 4 categories:
- turn based igougo
- turn based wego
- realtime
- realtime pausable

The 4th is a distinct genre, and you can check the cool games using that design. I don't know whether it can work in multiplayer.

undead reindeer cavalry

10-05-2006, 09:44 AM

in hot situations, or with more units, players will just have to:

1. hit pause.
2. check the situation of the first unit while game is paused.
3. unpause and issue the command(s) for the unit as fast as possible.
4. pause the game as fast as possible.
5. navigate to another unit and check its situation.
6. unpause and issue the command(s) for the unit as fast as possible.
7. pause the game again as fast as possible.
8. go back to number 5 and repeat until there are no more units that need change of orders - you can now let the game run free for at least 15-30 seconds.

sounds like fun!

Battlefront.com

10-05-2006, 11:05 AM

Sumac,

If BFC posts an announcement that PBEM is definitely included, then I don't so much mind that effort was put towards realtime gameplay. However, if the opposite is true, it bugs me. How much it bugs me I don't want to say, but it's a lot and I don't want to lose PBEM to make room/time for BFC to implement a game mode I'll never play (realtime).I won't revisit the 50 pages of discussion about this point. Simply put, you're oversimplifying the argument (just as the PBEM bigots did back then smile.gif ). The entire game, as a game and as a sim, has been VASTLY improved by making the core of it RealTime. Allowing people to actually play it in RealTime is a freebie feature. The point is that we did not make the decision to structure the game like we did so we could get a RealTime option... we structured it so that we could get the best game and sim possible.

In another thread I read a post from Steve @ BFC in which he said PBEM was a feature used by a small number of game fans. I can't guess what the number is, but I guarantee that the fans that PBEM are your core fans - the same guys/gals that take the time to fawn and flex over a wargame with a total of 5 screenshots released in a 2 year period.I can say for sure that we'd have more customers (and make more money) by having a RealTime game without PBEM than having a WeGo only game with PBEM. Sorry... that's just the way it is. I don't care now, as I didn't care when we had the first bunch of contentious debates, if you believe this or not. What you believe doesn't matter to us as a game designer and publisher. Our sweat, labor, and future are on the line here, not yours.

Now, does this mean we are purposefully ignoring what you core guys want? Absolutely not. We're just not going to be convinced that you are the most important thing to consider. If you guys were the only ones that bought the original CM we probably wouldn't be in business right now. So instead of complaining about the fact that you are a minority customer (and you are), you should be expressing thanks that we have figured out a way to give you the best wargame experience AND attract a much larger audience that makes it possible for you to have it in the first place. So yeah... if we have to make a decision that is going to disappoint one crowd or the other, the choice of which way to go is plainly obvious. Fact is, however, that the game (with or without PBEM) is far better than CMx1, so I don't see any reason for complaint. Especially because PBEM is likely to be included anyway.

Steve

Battlefront.com

10-05-2006, 11:11 AM

OtherMeans,

But there is a way to get around the players attention being split over time, and this is to let them spend as much time as they want to give orders, i.e. pause the game and give orders.Otherwise called WeGo :D This is the point I've been making since the start.... you guys are asking for us to turn RealTime into WeGo and you already HAVE WeGo. So what's the problem?

The thought that it's then a type of we-go with variable turn lengths is said like it's a bad thing.It is, because it destroys what RealTime is all about to give you something that you basically already have with WeGo.

To me, this would be the ideal way to play. Let the game go on while nothings happening, pause it when you need to to give a lot of orders and introduce command delays that mirror the command net. I don't think this is nearly as fun as it sounds. It is also impossible for anything other than single player mode. Therefore, we're not interested in supporting this at the moment. However, as I've said before we'll see what happens when we start Beta testing. For now all I can say is that based on my experience with other games and CM:SF in its current state that this sort of thing is not necessary.

Steve

Battlefront.com

10-05-2006, 11:15 AM

Kineas

The 4th is a distinct genre, and you can check the cool games using that design. I don't know whether it can work in multiplayer. Correct, it is a distinct type of game. It requires a lot of "artificial" game constraints and tons of play balancing all on its own. That's why we aren't considering it smile.gif I theory it can work in multiplayer too, but it is a lot harder to do that than single player. With single player only there is a lot more flexibility in how things are done than when you have other people sitting on the other side waiting for the other player to do stuff.

undead reindeer cavalry

sounds like fun!Which is why you'll probably only play the game in WeGo. Some people simply don't like RealTime... that's fine. Don't forget that a lot of people don't like WeGo. Probably more people hate turns than hate realtime play, BTW. We're including both so neither should be unhappy.

Steve

Darkmath

10-05-2006, 11:41 AM

Will there be any restrictions on the number of units available on the battlefield?

I mean, large scale battle or Op. (more than 1 battalion with support elements) will be possible?

Actual technical spec. of the PC are still a problem to run those kinds of battle? ;)

About the PBEM,although I never used it, I wonder how much would be the size of a PBEM file?

metalbrew

10-05-2006, 12:16 PM

Steve, thanks for the response. Before I decided to comment, I did take the time to read all of the old thoughts about PBEM (including the ridiculously long 1:1 thread from a year ago). Please, keep in mind that all of my comments below are tempered by your comment that PBEM is likely to be included.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Sumac,

I won't revisit the 50 pages of discussion about this point. Simply put, you're oversimplifying the argument (just as the PBEM bigots did back then smile.gif ). The entire game, as a game and as a sim, has been VASTLY improved by making the core of it RealTime. Allowing people to actually play it in RealTime is a freebie feature. The point is that we did not make the decision to structure the game like we did so we could get a RealTime option... we structured it so that we could get the best game and sim possible.Well, I honestly don't think I'm oversimplifying the problem. People want their opinion heard if they chose to voice it, so please understand that I'm not happy to be brushed aside so easily and labelled oversimplifier. The difference of opinion is rooted in the level of your passion for PBEM vs. my level of passion for PBEM. To me, there simply is no game without PBEM. This degrades the CM experience to the point where it's no longer a game I'd care to play.

My feeling about the amount of time you and others have spent talking about PBEM is that it should be obvious at this point that it's something your customers prioritize very highly. PBEM as a feature stands right beside WeGo in importance, and I disagree that this can be reduced to how many customers use PBEM vs. those who don't. For every 1 PBEM game I've played, I've also played 100 quick battles. I wouldn't play Combat Mission at all without PBEM. The quick battles are just a way to model and learn more about units and behavior. This doesn't mean that my 1:100 ratio means I prefer QBs, I wouldn't take the time to QB if PBEM wasn't available to test my skills against a human player in a 2500 point battle over 2 months. TCP/IP, LAN, Hotseat do not offer the same experience.

I have read more than a few posts from you along the lines of: "are you implying we should reduce the capibilities of the game just to include PBEM?". My response would be: no. I don't see the feature set vs. PBEM as a mutually exclusive discussion. I want all the features of the CMx1 games and all the new snazzy stuff you'll give us. Customer mentality is like that, you can't take away something people already have grown comfortable with.

I can say for sure that we'd have more customers (and make more money) by having a RealTime game without PBEM than having a WeGo only game with PBEM. Sorry... that's just the way it is. I don't care now, as I didn't care when we had the first bunch of contentious debates, if you believe this or not. What you believe doesn't matter to us as a game designer and publisher. Our sweat, labor, and future are on the line here, not yours.This is certainly where the rubber meets the road. Do you feel your marketing efforts are better or worse after going through 2 years of carrying around the black-eye of "the PBEM" issue? I think it's a fair question, and I mean no malice. They say that there's no such thing as bad press, but as I get older as a consumer I realize this has caveats.

Upsetting the core fans has larger effects than you're publicly giving credit. In an imaginary world 7 years ago, do you think BFC sells games to the vast silent majority without the word-of-mouth from the fans?

Now, does this mean we are purposefully ignoring what you core guys want? Absolutely not. We're just not going to be convinced that you are the most important thing to consider. If you guys were the only ones that bought the original CM we probably wouldn't be in business right now. So instead of complaining about the fact that you are a minority customer (and you are), you should be expressing thanks that we have figured out a way to give you the best wargame experience AND attract a much larger audience that makes it possible for you to have it in the first place. So yeah... if we have to make a decision that is going to disappoint one crowd or the other, the choice of which way to go is plainly obvious. Fact is, however, that the game (with or without PBEM) is far better than CMx1, so I don't see any reason for complaint. Especially because PBEM is likely to be included anyway.I've read a few posts from the PBEM advocates along the lines of: "no matter how large the PBEM files are, please include the feature anyway and we'll figure out how to make it work". That's how I feel too, bandwidth is so cheap today that we'll find a way to make it work. BFC doesn't seem too worried about whether the fans will have the hardware to run CM:SF, you guys know people will do what they need to do to overcome this hurdle if they want to play.

Regarding expressing thanks for the games, etc... I'm a customer: my money is how I express my thanks for the games. However, I realize how much time you and other spend speaking with the fan base on the forums. I truly appreciate this time spent and I'd like to say thank you.

SteveMe too... Steve

Battlefront.com

10-05-2006, 01:15 PM

Sumac,

My feeling about the amount of time you and others have spent talking about PBEM is that it should be obvious at this point that it's something your customers prioritize very highly.Correction... it is a point that a very small, but extremely vocal, portion of our customer base wants us to prioritize. They also don't listen very well, as I will demonstrate below :D

I wouldn't play Combat Mission at all without PBEM.And we have people that screamed they won't buy CM:SF because it isn't WWII, so what's your point? If we thought we couldn't do well with a non-WWII game or a game that POSSIBLY doesn't have PBEM in it, then obviously we would have made different decisions. We don't like the thought of losing long time customers, but we aren't sorry for the decisions we've made. We can't please everybody, and we are not interested in trying. It's a fools game.

I have read more than a few posts from you along the lines of: "are you implying we should reduce the capibilities of the game just to include PBEM?". My response would be: no. I don't see the feature set vs. PBEM as a mutually exclusive discussion. This is the bit where you aren't listening :D I have said, clear as day, that to ensure PBEM we would have to cut major new improvements from CMx2. So it is a discussion about a major feature set vs. PBEM. Period. Now, as it turns out it looks like we can have our cake and eat it too... but when we had to make the call we had to take the risk that PBEM would be unsupportable. We were willing to take that risk for the greater good of the game (i.e. the feature set), some like you were not. That's what this is all about... one group wanting zero risk and not accepting the consequences of that, and us saying we have to risk a little for a much greater game.

To say it another way, you need to understand that it is a fact that the same features that put some doubt into PBEM being viable are critically important for making CMx2 a huge improvement over CMx1. I'm not talking about pretty graphics either since that has no impact on PBEM. I'm talking about core game and sim features. So to give you an iron clad guarantee that PBEM would be in we would have had to dramatically (and artificially) hobble CMx2's improvements.

Now that it looks really good that we can have PBEM in, don't you think it wouldn't it have been insanely foolish to have listened to the PBEM whiners out of panic and fear instead of going down the path of logical assessment of options and risks? Customers are often their own worst enemies.

Customer mentality is like that, you can't take away something people already have grown comfortable with.Sure you can. You just have to make sure that the customers lost are outnumbered by those that are gained. It won't stop the lost customers from complaining, but customers complain even when they are happy... so how much weight would you give complaints if your future was put on the line?

This is certainly where the rubber meets the road. Do you feel your marketing efforts are better or worse after going through 2 years of carrying around the black-eye of "the PBEM" issue? I think it's a fair question, and I mean no malice. Sure it is a fair question, but it also is a question that is phrased in a way that once again demonstrates that you're not seeing anything but what you want to see. First of all, our marketing hasn't really even started yet, so it is impossible for it to have been harmed by anything we have said or not said thus far. Second, what black eye? If you see one it is only because you took a picture of me and used a black magic marker to put one on me ;) From our perspective we have a very small, but very vocal, group of whiners that absolutely can not see the forest through the trees. In fact, I don't even think you PBEM bigots (sorry, if the shoe fits... smile.gif ) can see a tree at all, rather just the bark of one tree. We took FAR more flak, threats, and genuinely juvenile behavior for our decision to go contemporary instead of WWII. And we don't regret that decision one iota, so if you think having some people with their PBEM feathers ruffled bothers me a bit (especially since PBEM is probably a go), you're once again overestimating the importance of the PBEM or Death crowd. In the end we know it will be much ado about absolutely nothing.

Upsetting the core fans has larger effects than you're publicly giving credit. In an imaginary world 7 years ago, do you think BFC sells games to the vast silent majority without the word-of-mouth from the fans?Yes. It would have taken longer, for sure, but it would have happened. And no, I am not underestimating the benefits of core fans that are wildly enthusiastic about what we make. It is actually a key component of CM:SF's future marketing too. Having said that, typically an individual customer tends to think of himself as the lynchpin of a product's success or failure. The sort of "make me happy OR ELSE!" mentality. It doesn't matter if he represents 1 out of 10000 customers, he will think that he is the most important thing to consider. That's natural for a customer to think, just as it is natural for us to not put too much credit into such thinking. We know what we are doing and we know that PBEM is not critical for our success. Period.

I've read a few posts from the PBEM advocates along the lines of: "no matter how large the PBEM files are, please include the feature anyway and we'll figure out how to make it work". That's how I feel too, bandwidth is so cheap today that we'll find a way to make it work. BFC doesn't seem too worried about whether the fans will have the hardware to run CM:SF, you guys know people will do what they need to do to overcome this hurdle if they want to play.Which is why I've always said that we'll likely have PBEM in one way shape or form. The thing that bothers you, and the rest of the PBEM bigots, is that isn't good enough for you. You want an iron clad, 100%, absolutely under no circumstances will it be any other way guarantee. Since we don't like promising things and then breaking promises, we aren't biting on that. Even if we are 98% sure it will be in we won't bite. Unfortunately, that isn't acceptable to some. Doesn't matter because the game will likely have PBEM and it would be a success even if it doesn't.

Regarding expressing thanks for the games, etc... I'm a customer: my money is how I express my thanks for the games. However, I realize how much time you and other spend speaking with the fan base on the forums. I truly appreciate this time spent and I'd like to say thank you.Thanks, and I mean that. I also mean that you have to take the blinders off and see the world around you more. It might be that PBEM is a make or break feature for you personally, but to extend that to influence your perception of the game design and marketing is a big mistake. You're a customer, you are important to us true enough. However, making you personally happy isn't our top priority. We've got tens of thousands of other people to consider every time we make a decision. We can't forget that.

Look on the bright side... you're likely to get CM:SF with PBEM while those that won't buy anything but WWII have a long time to wait before they get what they want, PBEM or otherwise.

Steve

aka_tom_w

10-05-2006, 01:33 PM

Thanks Steve!

Thanks for all the time posting and keeping us up to date.

I think this could be repeated:

We've got tens of thousands of other people to consider every time we make a decision. We can't forget that.AND the real issue is most of those tens of thousands of people, don't post here, don't complain and the majority of them are happy playing solo against the AI most of the time. (I don't have any facts but Steve suggests most folks who buy the game, don't post and rant on the forum (like some of us smile.gif ) AND most folks play solo most of the time.)

Hey Steve I hope you are keeping an eye on Field Ops, it looks like it has a large budget and is supposedly scheduled for a Feb 2007 release, and they already have a ton of screen shots out:

Field Ops home page (http://www.fieldopsgame.com/contenu.php)

It looks REALLY good but somehow that implies to me that it might lack substance to be a good game to actually play. But it does make me curious.

smile.gif

Thanks

-tom w

Other Means

10-05-2006, 01:55 PM

I've had a thought. I've gone quite giddy smile.gif . If you're playing WEGO, you introducing a command delay of up to a minute on any actions you're doing anyway, which kind of removes some of my support for pause-able orders.

I'd still like to see what happens in the beta testing* though.

With the PBEM issue, I'm very glad to see it should make into CM:SF, it really was a big deal to me. I think you're underestimating its importance Steve. Not to your initial sales but to sales of add-on modules and games using the same engine. From what I can tell it gives a game, or series of games, greater longevity and a wider (older?) loyal fan base.

OTOH, I'm sure you've got some Garner stats or something that back up your calls and at the very least are quite bored of being asked to justify them by people who aren't getting paid out of the money it will earn. So good luck with that :D

*feel free to send me a copy Steve - I'm an information architect by trade and I'm used to analising and defining process interfaces. Ahh, go on.

metalbrew

10-05-2006, 01:56 PM

Steve,

Your response is a bit like calling me stupid and then buying me a beer. I'm OK with that, I like beer.

I can take the PBEM bigot comments with a chuckle. I think you're off the mark though to say I'm demanding satisfaction or else. As a consumer, I really only have one vote. For me it's a lot better to voice my opinion right now when it can be heard rather than griping about it when it's too late to fix.

So, as a show of good faith, I'll shut up now and let you have the last word. In exchange, the forum wants a new bone... screenshots... :D

OK, so you really owe us nothing, but still... screenshots?

MikeyD

10-05-2006, 01:59 PM

Field ops looks REAL shooter-gamey from the screenshots. You know what i mean, the kind of game where if you used it for training purposes you'd survive a real-world engagement about 35 seconds. Looks like a good game if you want to get out your aggressions killing things, though.

From Steve's post above it looks like his attitude toward the PBEMers mirrors the attitude of the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff towards Rumsfeld! From a Slate.com excerpt of Woodward's new book -

When the author asked then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard Myers about Rumsfeld:
"Myers put both his arms on the small table and then laid his head down on top of them," writes Woodward. "I could not tell if it was a sign of exasperation or despair or something in between. I had not seen this before—a senior officer cradling his head in his arms."

Of course one difference is the PBEMers aren't BFC's boss ;)

[ October 05, 2006, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

Moronic Max

10-05-2006, 02:39 PM

WineCape

10-05-2006, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
...snip...The thing that bothers you, and the rest of the PBEM bigots, is that isn't good enough for you. You want an iron clad, 100%, absolutely under no circumstances will it be any other way guarantee. Since we don't like promising things and then breaking promises, we aren't biting on that. Even if we are 98% sure it will be in we won't bite. Unfortunately, that isn't acceptable to some....snipThis was the ratio decidendi of Battlefront's argument with the original PBEM-in-or-not? thread many moons ago, repeated again here. Nothing has changed. Good. I appreciate consistency and cutting to the chase. :D

Battlefront.com

10-05-2006, 04:59 PM

I'm really not underestimating the importance of PBEM, rather I am emphasizing the importance of the things that made PBEM a possible no-show. That's the thing that I am not seeing enough comprehension from the PBEM 1st crowd (how's that instead of PBEM bigots? smile.gif ). Meaning, when we chose certain things that could have nixed PBEM we did so knowingly because we saw the possible loss of it to be worth the gain in other areas.

The PBEM 1st crowd is most upset with the fact that we would even consider such a choice in the first place. Since we don't see anything in CMx1 as a Sacred Cow, we don't share that kind of reactionary thinking. Instead we look forward and not backward. Sure, sure, sure... we want to keep as much of the stuff from CMx1 as possible. But if something old is standing in the way of something new whicih on balance makes the game better (for you guys, otherwise it doesn't matter, does it?) then we probably will break with the old for the benefits of the new. Thankfully for you guys, the list of old stuff that you like which won't be in CMx2 is relatively short while the list of new stuff that you're going to drool over is quite huge. The design decisions that put PBEM at possible risk are in large part responsible for this large list of really great new stuff.

Sumac, I don't think you're stupid at all. I just think that you are blinded by your own logic. To you PBEM is the only reason you play the game. It is true for quite a number of you guys out there. However, what is a concern for you is not necessarily a concern for us in the Big Picture. Since the Big Picture is what determines our fate, needless to say we tend to keep the attention on more than one narrow feature.

OtherMeans, we are not concerned about the longevity of CM:SF. Our new strategy allows us to give you guys a stream of games instead of a smattering every 2-3 years. The longevity of CMx2 will come from that more than anything else. PBEM, random generated maps, etc. are nice but the inclusion or lack of inclusion won't matter to us one iota from a sales standpoint.

Steve

Other Means

10-05-2006, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
OtherMeans, we are not concerned about the longevity of CM:SF. Our new strategy allows us to give you guys a stream of games instead of a smattering every 2-3 years. The longevity of CMx2 will come from that more than anything else. PBEM, random generated maps, etc. are nice but the inclusion or lack of inclusion won't matter to us one iota from a sales standpoint.

Steve All I'm saying is, the guys who play PBEM are the ones who would buy every single module released and every single game that uses the CMx2 engine.

But honestly, all I want now is to buy the damn thing. Hurry up and finish it, be a mate.

Bruce70

10-05-2006, 05:45 PM

Hi Steve,

One little question (I hope).

You stated (and I'm paraphrasing):

- RT with orders during pause would be just like a variable turn WeGo
- No order delay in RT

This implies that there will be no order delay in WeGo! Is this a correct conclusion?

I'm also a bit confused about how 'no order delays' fits in with earlier bones about realistic C&C modelling, can you clear this up for me? Does the new C&C system only apply to off-map support?

aka_tom_w

10-05-2006, 06:19 PM

I thought it was clear (at least to me) that Steve said there would for sure be a command delay in WeGo as in the past in CMx1, just that there would be NO command delay in RealTime mode.

Or did I miss something?

-tom w

[ October 05, 2006, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Sequoia

10-05-2006, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
the list of new stuff that you're going to drool over is quite huge. Steve So give us some more bones and tell us some of them! :D

imported_Wildman

10-05-2006, 07:14 PM

Steve,

Part of the problem in RT developing into a "clickfest" is the need to micromanage units down to the squad level.

Is there any move to send orders to a Platoon leader to:

1. Move to a location
2. Set up defensive locations against a designated compass line.

So I would click the platoon leader, move to platoon orders and click move on the location I wanted. I would then click the waypoint and hit defend with an arc that I wanted them to defend in. The AI would then move the platoon and place them into a good position without my having to do this for every squad and attached MG, TOW, etc out there.

If something like that existed then it would make RT much easier to handle and more realistic.

Is this what your version of RT will be, or something else?

Moronic Max

10-05-2006, 07:25 PM

This implies that there will be no order delay in WeGo! Is this a correct conclusion?It is not; as Steve stated earlier in the thread (er, I think it was this thread), there's no order delay in RT because order delays are inherent in the system--while you're futzing about with one unit, you're giving no input to others. A delay would be redundant.

Bruce70

10-05-2006, 07:37 PM

Can we give orders while paused when playing single player?

No. You can move around, check out units, etc. but not change what any unit is doing. This blurs the line between RealTime and WeGo and we think that's not in the best interests of the game. It is, however, something that can be revisited later.
No specific mention of order delay in WeGo, did I miss it somewhere else?

[EDIT]
OK I found where Steve said that there will be command delays in WeGo.

in WeGo we have Command Delays in there so that there is some simulation of the difficulty of getting Commands issued exactly when you want them whever you want them executed. RealTime has this built in as an inherent part of the system.Sorry for the misunderstanding.

So obviously the command delays in WeGo are built on top of the new C&C system. I am still a bit confused about the new C&C model and RT, but since I wont be playing RT I don't really care.

[ October 05, 2006, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

Lee

10-05-2006, 08:33 PM

Steve: Please bear in mind that the reason many CM fans are so big on having PBEM in CMII is because it's the only practical way they can even play multi-player in CMII. Which is a huge deal for those that like to play against a real opponent that can think creatively, be highly unpredictable and who actually cares if they win or if you beat them, something an AI, even one as excellent as CMII will have, can never do. smile.gif

What do I mean by that? Well, let's consider the multi-player options. Obviously, you can play real-time. But for anyone, and this applies to a lot of CM players, that wants to give careful consideration to a complex tactical situation and the nuances of the many tactical options that are available in a game like CMII before issuing orders, this is simply not physically possible to do in anything other than a smaller size battle when you're playing real-time. There just isn't enough time to think in-depth, let alone go around giving all the various waypoints and such to all the units under your command in a medium to larger battle. So that eliminates RT for anything other than smaller battles for many CM players.

Ok, now what? Well, we can play We-Go with 1 minute turns, which is basically just like CM. Ok, great, what ways are there that you can possibly play We-Go? Well, you can play hot-seat, which is fun, but you have to have someone at your house to do that. How many players have a fellow wargamer friend that just happens to live nearby that can come over regularly to play for hours? Not very many, I'm guessing. So that's out for most players.

Hmm, well, you can do a direct connection and play We-Go over the live connection. But the whole point of playing We-Go for many is to have time to think carefully about the complexities of the tactical situation on the battlefield. So that means you need a relatively large amount of time for each turn in medium to large battles. It's hard enough finding a reliable opponent that can consistently send 2-3 full game turns a day via e-mail in CM. How many guys are you going to find that have the time and patience to keep a live internet connection going for hours on end day after day while several turns are played a day (I've been in large complex battles in PBEM CM where it took me a solid hour of non-stop work to assess the situation and issue a full set of complex orders to the many units under my command)? Very very few players like that will you find. So that effectively eliminates that.

What's left then?? We-Go PBEM, that's what. This is effectively the only practical way for a large percentage of CMII players to play CMII against a real opponent in anything other than small battles. That is why PBEM in CMII is so terribly important to so many CM fans. To not have it would be nearly equal to the death of multi-player CMII in most circumstances. Which is a horrible thing to even contemplate. smile.gif

In light of that, thank God that Steve has indicated, even at this late date when the picture must be becoming almost crystal clear from a programming standpoint, that it's almost certain that PBEM play will work just fine with the CMII engine and will be included in the game! smile.gif

Battlefront.com

10-05-2006, 11:24 PM

Wildman ,

Part of the problem in RT developing into a "clickfest" is the need to micromanage units down to the squad level.As far as I am concerned "clickfest" is more than just the need to do a lot of clicking. It can be better summarized as "he who clicks fastest wins". This is especially true for the traditional resource gathering/building RTS games. The guy that could manage to fight a battle and keep getting resources and keep producing stuff would likely win regardless of his strategic and/or tactical abilities. This advantage is usually compounded by the well known "tank rush" tactic made famous by Command and Conquer. All a player had to do to win was click really quickly to keep things being built, then group select a mass of tanks, and send them at an enemy's location. If the enemy in question had been instead trying to do crafty tactical stuff instead of brute force things he was more likely to lose in the long run. Hence the guy that clicks the quickest wins the most.

None of us here want a game that values the speed of clicking more than any other aspect of the game. Which is why CM:SF in RealTime is not a "clickfest" in my mind. Sure, if you put two players head to head, the one that can think faster and click faster will have an edge. That's not a bad thing. In fact, it is a realistic thing. One of the reasons why I hated playing boardgames so much is that I tended to play against people that got out the ruler and tried to see what each one of his 50 f'n units could do each individual turn. No gut instinct moves, no faith in his greater plan. Micromanage the Hell out of each move and bore me to tears. Guess what though? I usually won smile.gif CM:SF RealTime will separate the intuitive players from the micromanagement players for sure. The former will love RealTime, the latter will hate it. Different strokes for different folks.

The #1 reason why CM won't fall into the "tank rush" "clickfest" combo is simple. Try taking a platoon of infantry and have them rush a single MG in the open in CM. No amount of fast clicking is going to overcome the morale, cover, and suppression problems that MG is going to dish out. Heck, the enemy player doesn't even need to be there to micromanage that MG... it's going to cut lose and chop those guys down without any need to be told what to do. In C&C, Warcraft, and other games that wouldn't be the case because units are robots and more robots win almost no matter what. And if you lose some, just build some more. In CM if you lose a platoon you might have lost 1/3rd of your force for the entire game. Not bright.

What this means is that the player that has the better sense of unit capabilities, terrain, and basic tactics will likely win no matter how fast the other guy can click. However, if the other guy has a similar level of knowledge and can click quickly, while you can't, then you are going to be at a disadvantage in some situations. Might be enough to lose the game for you, might not.

So I would click the platoon leader, move to platoon orders and click move on the location I wanted. I would then click the waypoint and hit defend with an arc that I wanted them to defend in. The AI would then move the platoon and place them into a good position without my having to do this for every squad and attached MG, TOW, etc out there.Not as such. That would involve a massive amount of AI work and we don't have time or money for that (BTW, Bruce70... I don't remember getting an email from you). What does happen, though, is when you order units close to good defensive terrain they will use it even if you didn't explicitly instruct them to. We are also trying to get in some "short cut" stuff that may or may not help.

Moronic Max ,

It is not; as Steve stated earlier in the thread (er, I think it was this thread), there's no order delay in RT because order delays are inherent in the system--while you're futzing about with one unit, you're giving no input to others. A delay would be redundant.Correct. Thanks for straightening that out :D To put in something I said earlier, if we allowed infinite pause/command combos then we would HAVE to institute Command Delays in the RealTime Mode. And once we did that we would effectively have WeGo. Since we already have WeGo we don't need a redundant feature.

Guys, keep in mind that one of the big differences between contemporary warfare and WWII warfare is troop density. CM:SF is therefore more or less optimized for a reinforced company vs. a slightly smaller force. Within the timeframe and size of a scenario, that is about right for combat these days. That should work out fine in RealTime. However, for you guys wanting to play a full Battalion on a full Battalion... RealTime is probably not the way to go.

Also keep in mind that the pace of a battle in CM should be SLOWER than what you are used to in CMx1. One of the unrealistic byproducts of turned based gaming is "time compression". Meaning, you have SOOOOO much control that you micromanage and therefore gain far greater efficiencies than you could on the battlefield. What takes you 10 turns (10 minutes) to do in CMx1 WeGo should take you 20 minutes or more to do in CMx2 RealTime and probably 40 minutes in real life. One of the reasons you'll have to go slower is because your forces will sit around while you think. Quick example:

I had one battle where my guys sat around in their jumpoff positions for 5 minutes or more. In real life they might have been there for a lot longer, but in CMx1 they would have been there for about 1 minute tops. When I started my attack (this is the one in the AAR, BTW) I was clumsy and didn't think through the tactics well enough. I got hammered and couldn't extract my forces before they were fully committed. In CMx1 I would have seen my first guy get hammered and then rethink my whole plan for 10 or 20 minutes while my guys were frozen in time waiting for the next turn. That thinking, combined with unrealistic control of everything else on the battlefield, would allow me to adjust my plan radically within seconds of game time, even though it took me 20 minutes to think it up and plan it out. This in turn would allow me to yield an unrealistic result. In RealTime, single player, I can pause and at least get in that long thinking time. But trying to change the plans would be a lot harder than WeGo because while I was changing the plans I would be experiencing the pain of a poor plan executed poorly. And THAT is what is going to make RealTime so damned exciting.

Now, I am not going to go so far as saying that RealTime is for the strong and WeGo for the weak. Not at all. What I am saying is that the two are pitched towards different types of players. The ones that thrive on quick thinking and action will do much better in RealTime than ones that feel they need to be absolutely sure about every little detail all the time, every time. This doesn't mean that the "instinctive" players are better, they are just geared differently than the "academic" players. However, in a real war I'd rather the "instinctive" type who thrives playing CM in RealTime be my unit commander over someone with a perfect record in WeGo who can't stand RealTime. Having said that, since all of you CMers would likely get me killed in the first 1 minute of combat, even if I were in an Abrams, I guess it wouldn't really matter :D

Steve

[ October 05, 2006, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

Battlefront.com

10-05-2006, 11:26 PM

Lee, all valid stuff that was brought up in the earlier discussions. However, it doesn't change anything that I've said because I've never, ever said that PBEM wasn't a good and valuable feature. I just said that on balance, even including the stuff you brought up, it isn't the most important thing for the game and its audience on the whole.

Steve

Imperial Grunt

10-06-2006, 12:44 AM

Steve, how bout tossing some really big bones now?

Thomm

10-06-2006, 01:04 AM

Steve,

do you think it would be possible to include orders in the set-up phase of the real-time mode?

Best regards,
Thomm

Kineas

10-06-2006, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />So I would click the platoon leader, move to platoon orders and click move on the location I wanted. I would then click the waypoint and hit defend with an arc that I wanted them to defend in. The AI would then move the platoon and place them into a good position without my having to do this for every squad and attached MG, TOW, etc out there.Not as such. That would involve a massive amount of AI work and we don't have time or money for that
[/QUOTE]And it's ok for me. Wildman: there's one game I know of which works this way. It's the Highway to the Reich operational level wargame, which has this feature. E.g. you instruct a leader to attack to a point on a 2000m wide front, and the leader AI will micromanage hundreds of subordinate units for you. (Of course you too can micromanage them). Even the command interface is handy.

Curiously, I realized that I prefer the conventional method...the difference is not just a new feature but the entire gameplay.

Cpl Steiner

10-06-2006, 05:52 AM

Some more questions on real-time multiplayer CM:SF.

 Will I be able to play against total strangers like in FPS multiplayer games such as "Call of Duty"? For this to be possible CM:SF would need some sort of lobby where you could see other players ready to play. This would be a big advantage for me as my main opponent at the moment is in a different time zone. If a squad comes under fire in the open due to an unexpected threat materializing whilst I'm looking the other way, will the AI order the squad (or what's left of it) to get behind the nearest cover or at least hit the dirt? This might save the squad until I notice that something bad has just happened to it whilst I was doing something else.
I think a lot of PBEM fans are concerned that they won't be able to find opponents if they have to play real-time, because their regular opponents won't be able to spare the time to play. If we had some sort of player lobby built into the game I think it would please a lot of PBEM devotees and sway them to try real-time.

Sergei

10-06-2006, 08:32 AM

I think there's enough lobbying going on in these forums already.

aka_tom_w

10-06-2006, 09:18 AM

Steve already said (about a million times) don't waste your time/bandwidth/energy lobbying for PBEM because it won't make any difference to them. smile.gif

He said if you read his posts, (about a million times) PBEM is not a 'sacred cow' and if we have to leave it behind to move to RealTime and other cool features in CMx2... "SO BE IT"
(Meaning they plan to generate more sales offering a RealTime Game then they will lose by disappointing hard core fans with no PBEM available, and that makes sense to me from a purely profit motivation standpoint. For which I respect and appreciate their logic, and clear focus and shrewd business sense smile.gif )

Since it looks like some form of PBEM will be in anyway I wouldn't worry about it. IMHO

-tom w

[ October 06, 2006, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

undead reindeer cavalry

10-06-2006, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
undead reindeer cavalry

<blockquote>quote:<hr />sounds like fun!Which is why you'll probably only play the game in WeGo. Some people simply don't like RealTime... that's fine. Don't forget that a lot of people don't like WeGo. Probably more people hate turns than hate realtime play, BTW. We're including both so neither should be unhappy.[/QUOTE]i think i will enjoy the realtime more than wego if AI can take reasonable care of the units when i am not directly overseeing them. probably i will not pause the game at all as i enjoy certain lack of control what comes to these kind of games.

i agree that in general more people dislike turns than realtime. i just fear that no-commands-when-paused creates artificial limitation that players will have to counter with repeated pausing. a good number of those players will be annoyed.

Cpl Steiner

10-06-2006, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:
i just fear that no-commands-when-paused creates artificial limitation that players will have to counter with repeated pausing.If people are going to pause for a think, go back in and do some clicking, then pause for a think again, then BFC might consider being really evil and having a big blank screen with "game paused" written on it when you hit that pause key. If you can't pause the game on a particular camera view then it will be even less useful for planning purposes.

Battlefront.com

10-06-2006, 10:32 AM

Thomm,

do you think it would be possible to include orders in the set-up phase of the real-time mode?I don't know, we'll have to see. In theory there should be no difference in the setup phases between the two modes of play.

Kineas ,

It's the Highway to the Reich operational level wargame, which has this feature. E.g. you instruct a leader to attack to a point on a 2000m wide front, and the leader AI will micromanage hundreds of subordinate units for you. (Of course you too can micromanage them). Even the command interface is handy.Or Airborne Assault, which was the first game and was sold here for a while :D Making AI for tactical level wargames is a lot harder than operational or strategic. The reasons should be obvious... in tactical every meter, tree, rock, etc. can make the difference between a good position and a suicidal one because there is no abstraction of either unit or terrain attributes. As soon as you bump up a level (even to, say, Avalon Hill's PanzerBlitz level) most of these problems go away. If you go up another level, like to Highway to the Reich, most of all the remaining problems disappear. Going up another level from that is only a little bit easier than the one below it because so much has already been abstracted.

Curiously, I realized that I prefer the conventional method...the difference is not just a new feature but the entire gameplay. This is a conversation we've had here many, many times before. Some people really like a more hands off approach, others don't. We call the hands off game style "Command Level" and we personally don't have any desire to go that route, even if we could. As I said, the amount of AI and the expectations placed on it are way out of the league of a commercial wargame like CM.

Cpl Steiner ,

? Will I be able to play against total strangers like in FPS multiplayer games such as "Call of Duty"? For this to be possible CM:SF would need some sort of lobby where you could see other players ready to play. This would be a big advantage for me as my main opponent at the moment is in a different time zone.We will get a feature like that into the CMx2 engine for sure, but we are not sure when. It's a lot of work.

? If a squad comes under fire in the open due to an unexpected threat materializing whilst I'm looking the other way, will the AI order the squad (or what's left of it) to get behind the nearest cover or at least hit the dirt? This might save the squad until I notice that something bad has just happened to it whilst I was doing something else.Yes, even CMx1 had that. It was limited and had various issues due to the linkage between Morale and Suppression that made it not as good as we would have liked it. The separation of Morale and Suppression in CMx2 means we can do a lot better with it this time around.

undead reindeer cavalry ,

i think i will enjoy the realtime more than wego if AI can take reasonable care of the units when i am not directly overseeing them. probably i will not pause the game at all as i enjoy certain lack of control what comes to these kind of games.Well, the great thing about it is you can try it and decide for yourself which way you like playing smile.gif For me, I think I will play both very regularly.

i agree that in general more people dislike turns than realtime. i just fear that no-commands-when-paused creates artificial limitation that players will have to counter with repeated pausing. a good number of those players will be annoyed.The whole thing is artificial smile.gif Well, most RT games that I know of don't allow you to issue commands when paused, so it isn't like we are doing something new. Also, CM is not a game as much as it is a simulation. This means we have to pay attention to things that other RT games don't. I suspect that the type of player that would be put off by the lack of commands during pause won't be a big fan of CM anyway. No hitpoints :D

Steve

imported_Wildman

10-06-2006, 10:44 AM

Cpl Steiner ,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
? Will I be able to play against total strangers like in FPS multiplayer games such as "Call of Duty"? For this to be possible CM:SF would need some sort of lobby where you could see other players ready to play. This would be a big advantage for me as my main opponent at the moment is in a different time zone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We will get a feature like that into the CMx2 engine for sure, but we are not sure when. It's a lot of work.

[/QUOTE]There is something like this for many air simulations through a 3rd party run free service called Hyperlobby http://hyperfighter.sk/

metalbrew

10-06-2006, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
Steve already said (about a million times) don't waste your time/bandwidth/engery lobbying for PBEM because it won't make any difference to them.I'll be sure and check with you anytime I have something to say. Obviously my entire self worth is built around impressing the forum suck-ups.

aka_tom_w

10-06-2006, 12:23 PM

oh :rolleyes:

oh well I was just trying to help....

I do apologize if my comments offended you.

Sorry

-tom w

Sgt Joch

10-06-2006, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Sumac:
I'll be sure and check with you anytime I have something to say. Obviously my entire self worth is built around impressing the forum suck-ups. It's not a question of being a "forum suck-up", but of revisiting previously fought forum battles. If you look back last year, you will see there was a big row over the same issue and BFC's answer was exactly the same as now, i.e. that PBEM will be in, unless there is a technical problem.

I fully expect PBEM to be in. If it's not, then the game will have to stand and fall on it's remaining merits, although personally I would not still be playing CMBB/CMAK after 4 years if PBEM was not available.

If you want to continue posting on an issue which is a proverbial dead horse, knock yourself out, but don't attack other forum dwellers who are not interested in mounting another fruitless charge on this issue.

[ October 06, 2006, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Sgt.Joch ]

Battlefront.com

10-06-2006, 12:51 PM

And with that... let's move onto something different, eh? :D

Steve

Hat Trick

10-06-2006, 01:40 PM

Just reading through this thread Details of Air and Artillery Support (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000983) and wondering how long setting up a fire mission will take. It seems rather detailed and complex, and while I'm really looking forward to playing with it, if I have to drop everything for any extended period of time (especially if a pop-up window prevents me from seeing the map) to set up some off-map fire support, well, that could really screw things up in real time mode.

Moronic Max

10-06-2006, 01:47 PM

How long will it take me to call in a tac nuke strike?

Scipio

10-06-2006, 02:00 PM

I have read so many pros and contras about nearly each aspect of the game, and took part in some discussions, too!

I feel really pissed because everybody here is an expert in the beta team and play CM:SF 8 hours each day. I seem to be the only one who has no idea what he's talking about. :eek:

I guess the only thing I can do is to keep on waiting for the demo, than I will buuild my opinion about a real time modern warfare CM with or without (but likely with) PBEM.

Scipio

10-06-2006, 02:02 PM

MikeyD

10-06-2006, 02:28 PM

"I feel really pissed because everybody here is an expert in the beta team and play CM:SF 8 hours each day."

LOL!! :D

Reading that I got curious and checked the BFC Beta Boards at the bottom of the chat group list. Nothing I can see there that might remotely be CMSF, unless its 'Skunkworks" which hasn't been visited in awhile. Basically, while discussing this game we're ALL faking it! :D

Sergei

10-06-2006, 02:45 PM

I don't think CM:SF is quite in the beta stage yet.

I know because I'm in charge of the alpha test.

birdstrike

10-06-2006, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Hat Trick:
Just reading through this thread Details of Air and Artillery Support (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000983) and wondering how long setting up a fire mission will take. It seems rather detailed and complex, and while I'm really looking forward to playing with it, if I have to drop everything for any extended period of time (especially if a pop-up window prevents me from seeing the map) to set up some off-map fire support, well, that could really screw things up in real time mode. Aww, I bet this is only a problem in the beginning. You do that a couple of times and soon you'll know blindly what to click to get your shells flying. smile.gif

Battlefront.com

10-06-2006, 10:10 PM

Hat Trick,

Just reading through this thread Details of Air and Artillery Support and wondering how long setting up a fire mission will take.Seconds. It might be extremely realistic, flexible, and powerful... but it is brain dead simple to use. The reason why is we modeled the controls on how the US military does it in real life. The procedures are designed for speed, accuracy, and the lowest amount of training possible. I think you'll do fine with it ;)

(especially if a pop-up window prevents me from seeing the map)Trust me... I made sure there are no pop-up windows in CM:SF. Same reason why there are none in CMx1 (exception - Details Screen). Pop-up windows are a UI design crutch that usually causes more problems than it solves. The closest we have to a pop-up in CM:SF is the Support Asset Roster. When you opt for calling in Support a small window (less than the height of the main UI and 1/3rd as wide) pops up directly on top of the main UI area. You select which Asset you want and the window goes away. Then you do are walked through the Mission Parameters one at a time. You can call an artillery strike down in about 5-6 clicks (1 or 2 in the map, the rest in the main UI). The options to click on are generally the same and therefore you can concentrate on translating what mission you want into action without having to remember which option does what. That's why we don't give players direct control of things like sheafs, vollies, fuze settings, etc. That would be a nightmare.

Moronic Max,

How long will it take me to call in a tac nuke strike?Have you seen all the paperwork that needs to be filled out and filed for one of those? Heck, it takes months! And if you use the wrong type of writing utensil, or fill in boxes outside of the lines, they're likely to reject your application out of hand. They aren't quite as bad as the Department of Motor Vehicles, but they're a close second!

Scipio,

I feel really pissed because everybody here is an expert in the beta team and play CM:SF 8 hours each day.hehe... people might be imaginary beta team members playing the game in their head 8 hours a day, but it doesn't make them a beta team member :D

Sergei,

I know because I'm in charge of the alpha test.Didn't anybody tell you to look for new work? We went Beta last month :D We aren't quite ready to have outside people play the Beta yet, but we are getting pretty close to that.

Steve

C'Rogers

10-06-2006, 10:36 PM

And with that... let's move onto something different, eh? Something different ... how about an estimate on which title will be the first with multi-multi player as nothing has been said on that in awhile?

Battlefront.com

10-06-2006, 11:03 PM

C'Rogers,

We hope that it will be available for the initial WWII release, but we'll have to see how that goes.

Steve

Speedy

10-07-2006, 02:06 AM

Talking about beta testing it is my considered opinion that the beta team is in desperate need of more Australians.

Other Means

10-07-2006, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
C'Rogers,

We hope that it will be available for the initial WWII release, but we'll have to see how that goes.

Steve In that case, do you have a rough time between CM:SF release and CM:WWII release? Personally I'm thinking 2 - 3 years starting CM:SF release, which places it around 2009.

If it's shorter than that, please tell us.

Battlefront.com

10-07-2006, 10:18 AM

MUCH shorter.

The whole point of the CMx2 strategy is to get things out quicker. To do this we've focused on depth and not breadth because depth is largely reusable from title to title while breadth is generally not. From the technical side we made the new engine, from the ground up, designed to be modular. This means we can switch between time periods, theaters, etc. without massive limitations or recoding effort. The reason why we didn't do this before is we didn't know how to structure such a beast. That's 90% of the design battle right there. CMx1 gave us the experience necessary to do this. We also planned the game's future out in chunks so we didn't force ourselves to waste time writing sloppy just to have something. Lastly, the Module concept allows us to gain back much of the breadth CMx1 games had without sacrificing forward momentum.

CM:WW2 will hopefully be out roughly 12 months after CM:SF is out. We're shooting for less, but we'll have to see how that works. We hope to also ship at least 2 Modules for CM:SF during the same period.

Steve

Cpl Steiner

10-07-2006, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
CM:WW2 will hopefully be out roughly 12 months after CM:SF is out. We're shooting for less, but we'll have to see how that works. We hope to also ship at least 2 Modules for CM:SF during the same period.Wow! 2007 is going to be a VERY good year! Now get the first game out so I know what new PC I need to buy. ;)

Other Means

10-07-2006, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
MUCH shorter.

The whole point of the CMx2 strategy is to get things out quicker. To do this we've focused on depth and not breadth because depth is largely reusable from title to title while breadth is generally not. From the technical side we made the new engine, from the ground up, designed to be modular. This means we can switch between time periods, theaters, etc. without massive limitations or recoding effort. The reason why we didn't do this before is we didn't know how to structure such a beast. That's 90% of the design battle right there. CMx1 gave us the experience necessary to do this. We also planned the game's future out in chunks so we didn't force ourselves to waste time writing sloppy just to have something. Lastly, the Module concept allows us to gain back much of the breadth CMx1 games had without sacrificing forward momentum.

CM:WW2 will hopefully be out roughly 12 months after CM:SF is out. We're shooting for less, but we'll have to see how that works. We hope to also ship at least 2 Modules for CM:SF during the same period.

Steve Brilliant news. So will you be focussing on a specific operation or what? I guess the US front is kind of a given.

Battlefront.com

10-07-2006, 02:30 PM

Not sure exactly what we are going to do, but we've already stated that it will be Normandy of some flavor with the initial setting US vs. Germans.

Steve

Other Means

10-07-2006, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Not sure exactly what we are going to do, but we've already stated that it will be Normandy of some flavor with the initial setting US vs. Germans.

Steve Oh sorry, I'd missed that in all the noise.

2nd mod CW please. So nice to have a firefly.

Scipio

10-07-2006, 04:22 PM

Including beach landing on D-Day this time? :D

Battlefront.com

10-07-2006, 04:52 PM

Other Means,

Oh sorry, I'd missed that in all the noise. It was part of the original announcement and then the first couple of threads of WW2 grog complaints, not mentioned since :D

Yes, CW is the intended subject for the 1st WW2 Module. Fireflies are a nice little beasty.

Scipio,

Including beach landing on D-Day this time? Nice try smile.gif

Steve

Jarmo

10-07-2006, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
MUCH shorter.
CM:WW2 will hopefully be out roughly 12 months after CM:SF is out. We're shooting for less, but we'll have to see how that works. We hope to also ship at least 2 Modules for CM:SF during the same period.
Steve By the previous prediction accuracy track record, I'd estimate CM:SF is out sometime before the end of next year. The two modules following mid -08 and early -09. Then CM:WW2 by late -10.

Can I preorder them already? smile.gif

kgsan

10-07-2006, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
It was part of the original announcement and then the first couple of threads of WW2 grog complaints, not mentioned since :D

Yes, CW is the intended subject for the 1st WW2 Module. Fireflies are a nice little beasty.

Steve Steve, assuming the focus of CMx2 WWII stays Americans and Germans in Normandy, if BFC makes a Bulge and/or Market-garden game would this likely be a module or another "Game/series"? I know the scope of each release will be much smaller this time around but I'm hoping that one game/series would cover most of the 1944-45 Western Front (well, not including Italy) over the course of several modules. Or does BFC envision one game/series on Normandy with very narrow modules providing additional nationalities or vehicles?

Battlefront.com

10-07-2006, 08:00 PM

Jarmo,

CM:SF will be out a lot sooner than the end of next year :D Plus, our internal guess for CM:WW2 is 6 months, which means it will probably take 12 tongue.gif

Kgsan,

We have made no firm decisions. The problem with moving to Ardennes is that means we have to do a winter set of everything plus new vehicles, TO&E, and probably other minor stuff I'm not thinking of right now. It's a lot of work. However, we do have the desire to simulate this setting, so we'll have to see how it goes.

Steve

kipanderson

10-08-2006, 02:15 AM

Hi,

The Ardennes is certainly my favourite NWE setting.

I have been fortunate to visit the Ardennes four times over the last ten years, each time between the 16th December and 20th December. The atmosphere is remarkable, as you stand in the pine forests with fog in the air and an inch or so of snow on the ground you can almost hear the panzers squeaking and crunching their way over the half frozen ground and down the small tracks. The half-light of northern Europe at that time of year also adds ot the effect.

The combat power of the German army peaked in the summer of ’44 and it is true that by December’44 it was in decline. But even so the winter melancholy of the setting, with Silent Night drifting through the trees….. makes The Bulge top of my wish list.

All good fun,
All the best,
Kip.

Darkmath

10-08-2006, 05:34 AM

The problem with the module system is it could restrict "what if" scenarios .Or, for example, you can't exactly recreate , say Free French Lorraine campaign when you have an Ardennes Module (or maybe you would include this with Ardennes module? Otherwise there will be an INFINITE numbers of module ;) ))
You can just approximate , and IMSHO more than global TO&E from CMX1 series, some very specificals and/or hypothetical battles.

Bruce70

10-08-2006, 08:03 PM

One thing still worries me about RT.

Someone said earlier (can't be bothered checking who) that the restrictions imposed by no-orders-when-paused and the order delay in WeGo simulate two different things - or something like that.

I have to say that I tend to agree. The proposed RT system introduces delays to orders that should have no delay and removes the delay from orders that should have it. There are two opposing situations:

1) The player is busy issuing orders in one part of the map when another unit comes under fire. It will take some time for the player to find the unit, assess the situation and issues appropriate orders, introducing a delay that would not occur IRL (the CO on the spot would issue orders immediately and would not need as much time to assess the situation).

2) The player is issuing orders to a unit, when that unit spots the enemy they can immediately switch to other units and give appropriate orders with less delay that would normally be required (IRL the CO would have to radio up the chain of command).

The first situation can be improved through good interface design (or good AI :D ). I am thinking something along the lines of a graphical representation of radio messages that, when clicked, take you to the location of the sender - but I am sure there are other ways (pausing for example). OTOH I can't think of any better way to deal with the second situation other than order delays.

I have to admit that, now I have written this, both systems are *potentially* good at one of these two situations and poor at the other. WeGo with delays handles the second situation fairly well, but not the first. RT with no delays *may* handle the first situation well but not the second. So I guess they will be two different games in a way, and as Steve says, for small scale battles (more of the first situation) RT may be the better simulation, whereas for larger battles (more of the second) WeGo may have the advantage.

I think I understand the design decision now, or at least this aspect of it. Thanks Steve for patiently explaining things. I will still have to see for myself which system I prefer, but thankfully I will have that choice.

P.S. Steve, I'll send you another email about the AI research.

kgsan

10-08-2006, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Kgsan,

We have made no firm decisions. The problem with moving to Ardennes is that means we have to do a winter set of everything plus new vehicles, TO&E, and probably other minor stuff I'm not thinking of right now. It's a lot of work. However, we do have the desire to simulate this setting, so we'll have to see how it goes.

Steve Steve, thanks for the response. I think a concern of a lot of us old CM fans is that the game/module approach will only give us coverage of a few narrow pockets of WWII before y'all move on to space lobsters, etc. I think most of us certainly understand BFC's desire to release the games in smaller increments which will allow for a well-earned recoupment of your time and effort. The hope is that if even if you just produce a West-front and maybe East-front WWII game/series, the succesive modules for each would, over time, fill in a lot of the front's equipment and units, at least for the major combatants. However, if the scope of the modules is very narrow, and y'all only plan one or two WWII game/series, then obviously that hope is off the table. I think we are just trying to gauge where BFC envisions going. We'd love to keep throwing money at y'all for more comprehensive WWII coverage if you'll let us. ;)

[ October 08, 2006, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: kgsan ]

Michael Dorosh

10-09-2006, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
We have made no firm decisions. The problem with moving to Ardennes is that means we have to do a winter set of everything plus new vehicles, TO&E, and probably other minor stuff I'm not thinking of right now. It's a lot of work. However, we do have the desire to simulate this setting, so we'll have to see how it goes.

Steve Heh...some of the fighting in the Ardennes (notably at the end of Kampgruppe Peiper's penetration) was done with no ground snow present at all, so you'd need to do terrain for both no snow, light snow and deep snow...

pad152

10-09-2006, 12:58 AM

Which is why CM:SF in RealTime is not a "clickfest" in my mind. Sure, if you put two players head to head, the one that can think faster and click faster will have an edge. That's not a bad thing. In fact, it is a realistic thing. I know Halloween is coming but this just sounds scary! Beyond the RTS tank rush, the biggest issue I have with RTS games is if you spend time to manage unit A at one end of the map, things go to hell on the other end of the map! This to me was the big killer of Close Combat 3D, while you were trying to position a tank, your other units were being killed out of view! Most of the time you had little or no idea what happened to your units. So either you played zoomed out to see all of your units, or tried to rely on the unit AI which sucked. Made you wonder what was the point of the 3D! If you rely on the unit AI, then it's all up how good the unit AI is and not the player. Is it the player wining or the AI!

I was very disapointed with Distant Guns, the game to me played more like a movie and not a game because of the limited control over units! Point units in a direction and set weapons free, that's it, the side with more or better ships wins! It's all up to the unit AI and not the player, where's is the fun in that! The player has less control because of the limited real time.

Highway to the Reich games, you give orders to unit A, the AI orders sub-units B,C,D. Is it you in control or the AI?

I don't play games just to watch a movie!

Wolfpack

10-09-2006, 08:47 AM

I'm still waiting for the early WWII game which at one point was on the list, but apparently is getting shoved back further and further. Seeing Normandy rehashed again is nice and all, I'm sure I'll get it, but hopefully someday, I'll get to see the game I want. Oh well, I've had a pretty big run of good luck lately, and if this is as bad as the bad news gets, I'm still way ahead of the game.

Battlefront.com

10-09-2006, 10:50 AM

Pad152,

Beyond the RTS tank rush, the biggest issue I have with RTS games is if you spend time to manage unit A at one end of the map, things go to hell on the other end of the map!There's pretty much nothing to be done about that. There are two extremes and something in the middle. One extreme is the Tank Rush problem where the individual units are pretty much balanced 1:1. So if I have 4 units guarding a pass, and you come in with 20, I'm going to get slaughtered and fast. Terrain, elevation, type of unit, etc. don't matter. It's simply a numbers thing. So if you aren't there not only do you get slaughtered without the possibility of doing something useful (like targeting a specific enemy unit and hoping to at least take that one out) but you usually can't even get over there fast enough to get a good look at the attacking force. Sometimes you don't even notice you were attached (depends on the game).

The other extreme are Command style games, like Highway to the Reich. In this sort of game you, the player, are hardly necessary at all, even at hotspots. As you say, it is even difficult to know if your orders are being carried out or the AI's are being executed. So this is the exact opposite of the problem noted above.

NOTE - there is nothing inherently wrong with either of these two game styles. They are completely valid and work fine within their own style. Criticizing the game itself is like saying you don't like a particular style simply because it isn't targeted towards your play preferences. For example, singling out a type of children's game for criticism because you aren't a child, or saying you think flightsims are boring compared to tank sims. It's very much a "different strokes for different folks" kind of thing.

Now, I did say tht there is a third way that is in the middle. That's where CMx2 fits. As I've described before, the tactical problems associated with the Tank Rush tactic don't exist in CMx2. I have 1 HMG in a well hidden and well situated spot, you have 20 foot infantry units. You advance into my kill zone, I likely lay waste your original plan and perhaps dramatically reduce your ability to maneuver (broken units, casualties, etc.). And this can all be done without me being present.

What can't happen automatically in CMx2 is for a nearby tank or rifle platoon to move into position to aid the HMG in beating the snot out of the attacker. That requires the player's intervention. And that is the way it has to be in order to avoid the other extreme problem and that is having the AI controlling the game and not you. Also, as I've said before, there is a reason why there aren't tactical Command style games... the AI to do this even remotely well is just too much to even contemplate. Operational level games, like Highway to the Reich, and higher level games... completely different thing.

I know that RealTime is not going to please everybody, but neither is WeGo. What we are doing is giving players the choice and keeping those choices distinctly different from each other.

Steve

aka_tom_w

10-09-2006, 11:03 AM

I know that RealTime is not going to please everybody, but neither is WeGo. What we are doing is giving players the choice and keeping those choices distinctly different from each other.

Steve Excellent Smithers .... :D

That should keep most folks more then happy.
(IMHO)

Thanks for keeping us up to date!

-tom w

pad152

10-09-2006, 12:36 PM

I know that RealTime is not going to please everybody, but neither is WeGo. What we are doing is giving players the choice and keeping those choices distinctly different from each other.
Good luck, smile.gif I really hope you can pull this off, you know what they say about trying to please everybody! :rolleyes:

I just hope we don't have less control (fewer options in WeGo) because of the support for limited real time.

Other Means

10-09-2006, 01:40 PM

Steve, as more possible middle ground, in that it would help in most situations, is there some form of *group* AI?

The classic example is 20 PzII's hail-shooting a KV1. Will something like that be possible?

I'm expecting a resounding "NO" as I've a fraction of an iota of a glimmer of an idea of how hard it would be to do.

But if the gas has been turned up under Charles' jar, he might have cracked it - any chance?

Battlefront.com

10-09-2006, 03:42 PM

We'll see what we can get in there for tactical level coordination. CMx1 had quite a bit of it, so expect at least as much in CMx2.

Steve

aka_tom_w

10-13-2006, 07:50 AM

thanks for the update

smile.gif

-tom w

cassh

10-13-2006, 03:53 PM

Pad152 said - the biggest issue I have with RTS games is if you spend time to manage unit A at one end of the map, things go to hell on the other end of the map!Steve said - I have 1 HMG in a well hidden and well situated spot, you have 20 foot infantry units. You advance into my kill zone, I likely lay waste your original plan and perhaps dramatically reduce your ability to maneuver (broken units, casualties, etc.). And this can all be done without me being present.Regarding the issue you’ve raised in the quotes above about a friendly unit getting engaged/engaging an enemy without the player knowing.

Can I make a request/suggestion that may solve this problem/dilemma?

In real world military SOP you have what is called a “Contact Report”, whereby you call in to your superior unit HQ/CP to report a contact (an exchange of fire) with the enemy and briefly outline who what where etc. so that they can get a picture of what is going on.

Why not simply utilise this real world procedure and have a ticker-tape wire flash up in the form of a textual contact report that can be clicked on to take you to the unit.

“CONTACT: Charlie-Two-One taking machine gun fire from north-east.”

“CONTACT: Charlie-Two-One enemy infantry element platoon strength engaged 300m our south.”

It is a simple event log with variables for [FF call sign/ID], [enemy unit type?], [enemy unit size?], [direction?], [distance?], [type of fire?] with the question marks being answered when know.

Anyway just a thought!

John Kettler

10-13-2006, 04:30 PM

Pad152,

Precisely the same problem on the Amiga version of SSI's Red Lightning is what almost permanently soured me on computer wargames. The game was World War III fought in Germany with conventional and chemical weapons. The problem? The battle was fought over ten screens, and what galls you at a micro level cost me Germany at the macro level. Got so wrapped up in one screen that I won there and was completely overrun in the others. Way too much to keep track of! Fortunately, I later got into Panzer Elite and CMBO.

cassh,

Your idea has been done before, back in the Commodore 64 days, I believe. Don't recall the game's title, but it was in gray scale with little squares for units. When one took fire or something else went wrong, a message would appear as a crawl across the bottom of the screen.

Regards,

John Kettler

dan/california

10-13-2006, 07:31 PM

The single most useful thing it can have is good formation commands and route finding. All units form standard column x or line abreast y ect.

Battlefront.com

10-13-2006, 10:38 PM

cassh,

The problem with this is that it isn't so easy to do and have it work. I've played plenty of games with some sort of "report" function, either written or audio or both, and they don't work. Why? Too much information going on. You hear way too much chatter, or see too many bits of report text, that you tune them out. Especially when the stuff hits the fan.

What you want, in a game, is for a unit to report something significant. Significant in game terms generally means something you don't already know. That could be a unit showing up somewhere that you didn't think there was an enemy unit, it could be one of your guys cracking that you thought was handling itself fine, or it could be as simple as a dude having finished its movement and is now sitting around idle. We can put in hooks, very easily in fact, to report all of these things as they happen. What we can't do is figure out which ones are "old news" or "don't bug me with that!" types of information. So you instead get information overload and don't get any value from the system.

Now, this is completely different if you are in command of a very small force. For example, a platoon consisting of 3 Squads and an HQ where the smallest element "reporting" is a Squad or the HQ. In this case the information is going to be rather relevant and the volume low. It would probably work. But you're probably going to be commanding 30 units or so on average (reinforced Company). That's potentially 30 elements yapping at you at any given second. Even if one element reported only one time every minute that's some bit of information hitting you every other second.

So there is the conundrum!

Steve

hoolaman

10-14-2006, 01:25 AM

I disagree with what (I think) Steve is saying.

An audio or text cue that some thing has been spotted or even more importantly that fire is being taken, similar to the "enemy armour ahead" sounds in CMx1, would be very useful. A tiny flash of text at bottom of screen would be very helpful in RT and helpful even in WEGO.

Whether it is worth delays in us getting the game is questionable but doing it in a way the player can ignore if they choose would be quite handy.

An even better idea is to make these messages to the player dependant upon certain C&C limitations: eg. a unit out of command cannot report a text alert to the player.

An example is the myriad of alerts that come up in HOI. You can check the "don't show this type of alert" box at any time if you feel a category of messages is not important.

Kineas

10-14-2006, 03:21 AM

My idea: just report everything, and give the player filters ('log levels' if you like) with an UI so during gameplay he could change it anytime.

A scrollable text window would be fine.

Or an autoscrolling 3 line and an 'event viewer' dialog.

Sound messages are ok in the CMx1 way.

Other Means

10-14-2006, 05:59 AM

I'd much prefer audio notification. If you get jumped and suddenly you've got 30 units yammering at you, well, tough. That's exactly what *would* happen.

birdstrike

10-14-2006, 07:49 AM

Maybe something like an additional "report" command we could issue only to units we want to tell us about their information.
e.g. we could activate "report-mode" for recon squads, while units at the back, or already involved in heavy fighting could have it turned off.

aka_tom_w

10-14-2006, 08:14 AM

What about good old "warning labels".

That was the best way in CMx1 IMHO

Turn on warning labels in the first turn, but they don't actually "pop up" until the unit has something to report. When the lead starts flying warning labels show up and you see where its from from very far away, like level 5 way up over the action.

NOW true, once you get into the battle everyone is reporting EVERYTHING and they all in trouble and all the labels are useless so then you turn off warning labels. That system worked very well for me.

Thanks

-tom w

Battlefront.com

10-14-2006, 08:21 AM

Other Means is correct.

The problem I don't think you guys are grasping is that CMx1 used Absolute Spotting. Once an enemy unit was spotted we gave one shout and that was it. In Relative Spotting it becomes more difficult, because the same exact enemy unit might be spotted dozens of times. Think of it...

You are messing about with a platoon to defend against a T-72. You have another platoon which you think is not in LOS. If we have a single message for the unit being spotted then no matter what happens the other platoon won't alert you its in LOS now. If we don't have a single message then you're going to have a LOT of chatter. Way, way too much to deal with.

CMx1 also did not give any messages about outgoing friendly fire, guys reaching their objectives, or any other thing like that. Just the occasional one off message about something big coming your way. And that was just about it.

The scrollable message window is useless. You will not look at it, I can promise you that. At best it will start out as a distraction, then it will become a useless piece of UI. And there is nothing in the UI now that I would bump in favor of such a display, so it would have to be up in the 3D area, which is a bad idea since we already have a couple of pieces of UI already.

I've got some ideas how we can get you guys what you want without resorting to the stuff we've been talking about here. However, we are going to hold off until we get some real testing under our belts before we go and code it. Therefore, for now just know that I'm on the case :D

Steve

P.S. We will have some audio alerts, for sure, but you likely won't hear them unless you're close. More or less like CMx1