Terrain modeling in CMx2

[Battlefront.com]

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.

What does this mean in terms of making realistic looking maps in CMx2? In no particular order...

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

Oh, probably lots of other things, but I think I've hit the high points.

Steve

[ August 25, 2005, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Andreas]

Sounds excellent.

[jim crowley]

Superb!

To what extent will terrain be deformable? I'm thinking particularly of the "indestructible" walls and fences in CMX1.

[Sergei]

Steve, that sounds cool. Especially #2 and #5. However, may I ask, could not at least the roads (or other such linear forms of terrain) be made non-block based? Well, I suppose not, because otherwise you'd have done that.

QUESTION
Can you think of any automated way to utilize old CM maps as a basis for CMx2 map? Let's say, for example, if you allow grayscale BMP's to be imported as heightfields (there's a utility which allows 'Mapping Mission' maps to be exported as a .BMP files, so it'd require just stretching the file to get the basic contours done) - not to mention that the possibility to import heightfields would be useful for other purposes as well.

[Sergei]

Have you seen Mapping Mission, anyway? Do you think that any features from would be taken to the new map editor (like auto-drawing roads/walls/fences, or having pictures of maps as backdrops)?

Also, in CMx1, if you place a building in a tile that doesn't allow buildings, it simply won't be displayed. Could this kind of stuff be shown right at the Map Editor display in CMx2?

[76mm]

Thanks for the info, sounds like a big improvement.

I have one question though--all of the new detail, especially for buildings, makes it sound like it will be absolute hell creating any large maps, particularly something with lots of buildings--creating multiple entry points for every building alone would probably drive me crazy...

How will it be possible to create maps with the new 8x8 grid without spending ungodly amounts of time?

76mm

[Sergei]

Not that hard.

This is what Rune's new Stalingrad scenario (http://www.about.ch/cantons/graubuenden/guarda/dorf.jpg) will look like.

[Jack Carr]

This sounds great!

[securityguard]

This is an unbelievably massive improvement, sounds like a map makers dream come true.

Does the new map engine have a limit of tiles?

[Salkin]

Steve Rocks !

(posts like this probably makes Steve ignore any and all sugestions I may have :D )


//Salkin
Shameless fanboy

[dalem]

Originally posted by securityguard:
This is an unbelievably massive improvement, sounds like a map makers dream come true.

Does the new map engine have a limit of tiles? Yes, four.

-dale

[Philippe]

This is probably the wrong place for this, but I hope this means that fortifications like bunkers and pillboxes (what are wooden pillboxes, anyway?) can be treated as terrain that gets moved into, used, and moved out of -- rather than as a unit.

If my squad happens by a previously abandoned concrete bunker that is facing in the right direction, the concrete makes great cover even if the machine gun/anti-tank gun is out of action. Same goes for whatever those wooden pillbox things are supposed to be. The guys defending it should panic, grab their machine gun, and abandon that weird piece of lumber. But later on it should be possible to reoccupy it, even if it is shot full of holes.

And it has always annoyed me that I can't figure out the firing characteristics of the inherent machine guns/anti-tank guns of a fortification.

So can we have proper entrenchements, foxholes and trenches that actually make a dent in the terrain?

Can we have built-up firing ramps as independant terrain so that dug-in vehicles don't have to spend the entire scenario immobile? I never dig in my tanks -- but I would dearly love to play a shell game with a fast tank and a few pre-prepared firing positions. Unfortunately the only historical example that I can think of off the top of my head are the old Israeli defenses along the Suez canal. But I'm sure they had things like that in WWII.

And yes, I want the Maginot line ! I want multi-layered underground forts with many layers of sub-basements. And the reason I want it is not to play Maginot line scenarios, but for the eventual WW I fort-storming scenarios. I want to see a whole expansion pack built around Verdun !

I'll be quiet now.

[Mace]

Great stuff (especially layers), however I'd be interested to know of the improvements made to the actual terrain builder interface as well.

For example, In CMx1 one had to place 100 tiles to populate a 200x200m square area, and doing that and then adding the elevations was somewhat clunky.

With the new engine the builder would need to place at least 625 tiles (at 8sq mtrs a tile) to populate the same area, and that's not including the placing of additional components added through the other layers.

So it's my guess builder interface itself has been improved to help expediate the process?

[juan_gigante]

Yes! This r0ck0rz! Especially the layers.

I do wonder how fortifications will work. I think they are similar enough to terrain to be mentioned in the same thread, so I ask the BFC gods: how different will fortifications be?

[Battlefront.com]

Glad you gusy like it so far! Here are some quick answers...

Fortifications are terrain now. They are simply a structure that can accept certain units or not.

The map Editor is not done except as it exists on paper. The concept I have should make it easier to make large maps than CMx1. However, dense urban maps will likely be more time consuming to make. But that is the tradeoff one must accept. CMx1 was extremely simplistic so it was fairly easy to put down buildings. Everybody wants more complicated structures, and that means more effort on the part of the builder. I've got the UI about as slick as it can be, I think, but there really is no way to have CMx1 urban creation simplicity without simplistic structures.

Terrain is deformable... cripes, I can't believe I forgot to mention that! I'm not exactly sure how far we'll take this in CMx2's first release, but buildings will be deformable visually as well as structurally. I think walls and fences should be no problem too. More details will have to wait for another day.

We have no plans on making any sort of import tools for CMx1 maps. Far too difficult and not a good use of our time.

Roads and other linear things must still conform to the grid. You can not freehand them. This is for code reasons, in particular LOS which absolutely hates creativity :D

Steve

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Fortifications are terrain now. They are simply a structure that can accept certain units or not.Splendid. I sensed you had your tinfoil hat off for a while. The mind control rays obviously worked.

Splendid. Splendid splendid splendid.

Erm, presumably, despite them now being terrain, players will still be able to 'buy' fortifications?

[juan_gigante]

I re-read that part about buildings... so will each little building we place have its own entry-exit, etc.? Or will all "small diagonal house type A"s have the same points? Or will we be able to set them ourselves?

This is all so cool.

[Tarkus]

I must say I read every bit of this particular thread with immense joy. I really sounds promising. Flexibility, functionnality, more powerful tools. This sounds good. Can't wait to see glimpse of actual capabilities of this engine.

Cheers

[Pzman]

Yes it does give the impression of more creative maps and terrian. Even if roads have to stick to the grid, that does not mean they cannot be more flexable than they are in CMx1 though.

The thought of having to put entry + exit on houses does have its downs for the creator, but will create more challenges when playing. So a map will take a little longer to create than it is in CMx1, not a big deal in my books.

[Battlefront.com]

Players can purchase fortifications. The scenario designer can also designate some of them to be instantly spotted, so as to simulate pre battle knowledge. That means no matter where the defender places them, the attacker will know exactly where they are all the time every time. The defender, however, won't be aware of this :D I'll post an expanded tidbit in its own thread.

Building details... that will have to wait until I start up another thread. I'll try to get to it tonight. Short answer is... there is no short answer ;)

Steve

[Pzman]

Steve the bit about known enemy fortifications sounds great; something I think we really missed in CMx1, that is without putting text on the pillboxs location, and padlocking it.

[Delyn]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
The map Editor is not done except as it exists on paper. The concept I have should make it easier to make large maps than CMx1.Could you explain this concept of yours?

Would it include using larger "tiles" when needing to cover more ground? 16x16 32x32 64x64?
Keep in mind I am not familiar with the CMx1 Map Editor.

[Battlefront.com]

We'll just have to see what Charles let's me get away with :D I can say that the Editor will still be in 2D. We wanted to do a realtime 3D Editor... but that is a heck of a lot of coding and testing time (I've worked on these in a "past life"). Every minute we spend coding the Editor is one that is not going into the game itself. Since CM is marketed as a game and not an editor, obviously we need to keep our priorities straight ;)

Steve

[Pzman]

As much as the 3D Editor would be nice/great, the thing that costs you guys less in that regard will always be best. After all the editor is a kind of freebie expansion pack. ;)

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

Thanks very much for listening. You guys amaze me at how well you understand where your customers are coming from. If only the rest of the world was like you...

How will cover density work? If you take the example of trees, will the density be limited by the type of trees you can plop down, same as before? (Scattered woods here, regular woods there). Or is there going to be some way to toggle/slide bar the density?

[HarryInk]

Ooooooh...the editor STILL in 2D!! *bangs head on desk several times*

*sobbing*

OK. I can live with 2D if you could adjust the presentation of it (is that UI in the language of them that know?). How about full-colour coded contours rather than the clunky/ugly numbers in the current CM games. The closer it can look (during development) to a topo map the better.

The rest of the news here sounds fabulous and I can hardly wait to start making maps...

[Liebchen]

Will people be able to design a terrain feature (such as particularly interesting buildings) and save it independantly of a scenario or map?

In other words, I can imagine modders and designers creating models of, say, the Reichstag, and offering them for DL. Scenario authors could then insert that terrain feature -- predesigned -- into their map.

This could both reduce the turnaround time (potentially) for scenario design and increase the variety of terrain features we'd see. I could just imagine scenario designers shopping for just the right model tavern, for example, with the 'shopping list' growing exponentially as terrain features and their variants appear.

[Battlefront.com]

Tree density is the same as CMx1. This is necessary because we still need to have straight forward terrain types to work with. "more trees than that place over there" doesn't work well for the game or the player :D "Heavy Forest" vs. "Sparse Forest" (or something like that) is muuuuuch better for everybody :D

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 smile.gif

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

[JonS]

What if someone makes a nice ridge, and someone else makes a nice village, and you want to combine them?

Not a piece of cake ;)

Will the file formats at least be 'open'?

[Thomm]

Thank you very much for the new info.

The new system sounds a lot like evolution (as opposed to revolution) of the old system.

If I understood correctly, buildings and roads can still be placed only facing (N,S,W,E) or diagonal (NW,SW,NE,NW)? Is that correct?

For me as an observer it is interesting to notice that tile-based systems still cannot be replaced by vector based systems in this field of gaming (or any other, it seems).

Another question: Will individual trees be accounted for when simulating the actions of individuals or will they be "smeared out" LOS-wise and it will be possible to see guys run through trees?

Best regards,
Thomm

[Battlefront.com]

Sure, and what if someone bakes a cake and I can't get to eat it. Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too. Life can be so cruel sometimes :D

No, the file formats will NOT be open. All the same reasons as CMx1 still apply for CMx2 to keep it this way. CMx1 enjoyed (and still does for the most part) a long period of cheat free gaming. Now, even with cheating, the effects are far less pronounced and more obvious than if the file format was open.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Thomm, that is correct about the directions. If the game were on a smaller scale, and used hand built maps, we could have things be more chaotic. But probably still not freeform. The grid would just be less noticable. Computer code hates disorder, and freeform placed items is about as disordered as you can get.

Good question about trees. I'm fairly certain they can't be run through. I haven't thought to check :D My PC is disconnected and Charles is not around to ask. In fact, it is 4am and I should be going to bed. G'night!!

Steve

[Thomm]

Good night!!

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
I'm fairly certain they can't be run through. I haven't thought to check :D ...Do you remember whether they block LOS?

What I think that should be prevented is what could be called "Freak LOS": With an array of individual trees and empty sub-tiles in between, you can occasionally get very long LOS-paths, which is probably realistic, but can be frustrating at times, when you thought your troops are well hidden!

Clearly such a problem does not happen in a smeared-out wood ... I am curious where you guys drew the abstraction line this time around!

Best regards,
Thomm

[Bonxa]

Grr, I'm so angry about the not open file formats! Even more so because you are correct Steve. :mad:

The one thing that should not be of any use to cheaters though is the endgame file (the very last one that player two gets to look at). Could you please make it possible to save that one and load it in the editor? :rolleyes:

[Gryphon]

Deformable terrain? :eek: This is going to be good :D

[Ron]

Tree density is the same as CMx1. This is necessary because we still need to have straight forward terrain types to work with. "more trees than that place over there" doesn't work well for the game or the player "Heavy Forest" vs. "Sparse Forest" (or something like that) is muuuuuch better for everybody This is something I don't understand. Are we going to have more variability, when reason dictates, in each terrain type where finding uniformity is the exception not the rule? For example, a "Heavy Forest", or "Sparse Forest" for that matter, could have a 'range' of values for sighting, cover, and movement but still be a "Heavy Forest" visually and for ease of use.


Ron

[Gromit]

Originally posted by Ron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Tree density is the same as CMx1. This is necessary because we still need to have straight forward terrain types to work with. "more trees than that place over there" doesn't work well for the game or the player "Heavy Forest" vs. "Sparse Forest" (or something like that) is muuuuuch better for everybody This is something I don't understand. Are we going to have more variability, when reason dictates, in each terrain type where finding uniformity is the exception not the rule? For example, a "Heavy Forest", or "Sparse Forest" for that matter, could have a 'range' of values for sighting, cover, and movement but still be a "Heavy Forest" visually and for ease of use.


Ron </font>[/QUOTE]If I follow what Steve was talking about with trees guys, we are going to have to be happy with 8m x 8m tiles of basic tree types and will need to place them as required to achieve the "look" and effect of moving through a series of forest/woods/scattered etc.

Essentially, it would be very similar to CM1's tree placement, but better, because you can get much more detailed with placement and look at 8m x8m versus the old 20m x 20m.
Well, that's my guess fwiw...

[Battlefront.com]

Gromit is almost correct. We will likely have a few 8x8 "tiles" of tree types and densities. So if you want to put down closely packed 50m trees... you can do that in one spot or many. Your choice. If you want to instead put down sparse 50m trees, you can do that too. Picture making a 50m x 50m spot of dense trees of type x. You can then "paint" a path through using sparse trees of type x winding through the middle. This simulates a wooded path through a dense wooded area. You could alternatively make it open ground and get a small open trail instead of the 20m x 20m open swath in CMx1.

LOS blocking of individual trees... no, I don't think that is possible due to CPU/RAM issues (see the thread on units for a similar answer, but more detailed).

Steve

[Gromit]

URRRKK!! :eek:

I just realized we are asking Steve about...

TREES!! Aaaaaagggghhh!!

** runs away screaming **

:D

[kipanderson]

Steve,

As usual all sounds great.

Just a few quick points.

1)Allow us to build “huge” maps. I know there will be server limits on what any current PC could handle in a game, but technology moves on ;) . In short-hand I am such a fan of CM because it is “almost” optimised for platoon v company play, yet I am still able to play near operational, brigade v brigade battles smile.gif . Thus the wish for the freedom to build vast maps. I have read all your comments on CMX2, but I do expect to still be playing versions of CMX2 that particularly appeal many years after their release. (And enjoy new modules as they come along.)
2)Try to find time to take a look at the Uber nature of some obstacles; mines, wire and such. Yes, this does relate to my wish to play huge/operational games ;) . I am also a big fan of games with 90 odd turns, thus giving time for realistic breaching operations and such. Fully understand that the first version of CMX2 will just concentrate on getting the basics in place. But if Uber obstacles were “on the list” to be looked at in later versions, I would be happy chap :D .


Fun stuff,
All the best,
Kip.

[Sequoia]

Minor detail but will we have a seperate "orchard"
terrain type?

[Battlefront.com]

Trees are a personal hobby of mine :D

Kip, map sizes and troop density are probably going to start out being a tad bit smaller than what CMAK was capable of. It will likely increase over time, just as it did for the CMx1 family of games.

Orchards are doable now. Depending on the type (grape, apple, date, etc.) all it means is supporting an 8x8 tile with the correct density and spacing one would expect for tht type. We could have done this in CMx1 if making new terrain wasn't such a pain in the rump. Which is why CMx2's terrain system is significantly different :D

Steve

[juan_gigante]

Wait, wait. Did I understand that right? We'll get to choose the crops grown in our orchards & fields? All right!

[junk2drive]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:
Wait, wait. Did I understand that right? We'll get to choose the crops grown in our orchards & fields? All right! You'll be able to change the skin on the grape form purple to green, but not from seed to seedless.

Oh, and each grape will be represented, but will fall off the vine in a "bunch".

[Salkin]

Hmm...you said fortifications was terrain now, and you said the terrain was deformable .

If I purchase sandbags , can the enemy blow them away with a well placed blast from a Tiger ?

//Salkin

[RCHRD]

This all sounds just great. I want buildings and more buildings. With different skins I'll draw myself, if I have to.

[Mace]

Just thought of a couple of more terrain related questions.

IIRC dynamic lighting was discussed some time back so that means that the CMx2 representation of 'height' by the shaded grass/snow bitmaps/skins would be replaced by a dynamic light map?

And...what are the limitations (if any) on altitude? Could we build a better representation of, say, Monte Cassino which we couldn't really do with the CMx1 due to the height limits.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, dynamic lighting has been in and working great for a long time. Time of day is set by the scenario and that changes, obviously, how things are lit up.

Altitude limitations... don't really know. I assume we'll be able to do a lot more, but not sure about the extremes of something like mountains.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

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 :D

Steve

[Gordon]

Will trenches, foxholes, craters etc. be 3-D?

[Battlefront.com]

Yes

Steve

[Noba]

With the current game, if for example you place a foxhole IN a Tall Hedge your troops pay the penalty of the hedge in the form of movement penalties if they try to leave "out the back door". This makes it very difficult to use a skirmish line defense allowing troops to pull back before being overwhelmed. They usually get pinned in the high movement cost terrain, whereas a defense would have been constructed with escape routes under cover.

Will a scenario designer be able to specify entry / exit points for fortifications ? And likewise, do buildings have specific entry / exit points ?


Noba.

[Battlefront.com]

No, there is no ability to create safe lines of passage. I shudder to think of how complicated that would be from a coding standpoint. And hedges are about the only thing I can think of that really is an issue, which I'm not even sure is an unrealistic issue. Afterall, if the soldiers hacked holes big enough for them to get through with all their gear on, the enemy would have a nice way of spotting where your exit routes are.

Yes, buildings have entry/exit points and windows. Or not. Depends on what the scenario designer cooks up.

Steve

[Lt Bull]

The new terrain model sounds good.

Will terrain like hedgerows/bocage will at last get the treatment they deserve (unlike CMx1)?

Will bocage/hedges/walls be destructible if crossed by a AFV?

Will the unit "footprint" sizes be bigger or smaller than the 8x8 terrain tile? Just wondering how determining what terrain a unit is considered to be occupying given the tiles will be much smaller.

Dynamic lighting was mentioned but will this include light sources being created during a night battle where a tank or building catches fire and lights up the surrounding area?

Lt Bull

[Battlefront.com]

Terrain is deformable. Beyond that I can't comment because we have not coded hedgerows or hedges yet. I expect that they can be damaged, along with walls and other forms of terrain.

Unit footprint is smaller than 8x8. There is no unit I can think of that would be larger than that. However, a foot unit that is on the move might be spread out more than 8x8. There are special considerations for this.

Dynamic lighting... honestly not sure. In theory we can have sources anyplace, anytime, and to any degree we wish. I just don't know what is practical at this point.

Steve

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
snip
Yes, buildings have entry/exit points and windows. Or not. Depends on what the scenario designer cooks up.

Steve a bit of explanation please
I would have thought that buildings would have distinct entry/exits points (coded into the game)
how does that change in a scenario design ?
unless of course they are rubble

[BloodyBucket]

Prehaps the scenario designer gets to tinker with doors/windows/holes in the buildings?

It would be truly great if the player got to tinker with building entry/exit points in game via a well placed explosive round...

[Bonxa]

Now that dynamic lighting has been picked up in this thread: Will the lighting be a purely graphical thing or will it affect the LOS/spotting calculations?

As an example: Will you have working flares? Or units spotted from their gun flashes?

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Steve posted,
“Kip, map sizes and troop density are probably going to start out being a tad bit smaller than what CMAK was capable of. It will likely increase over time, just as it did for the CMx1 family of games.”

I am not surprised; clearly the hardware will be under hugely greater strain with CMX2.

I was just hoping that the limits on map size could be set well above “current” hardware limitations to take into account machines of two or three years time. But I realize this could have resulted in endless complaints from customers that their current machines crash when using bigger maps.

No problem smile.gif .

All the best,
Kip.

[HarryInk]

Can you give a few hints of what you've suggested with the mad editor?

[JasonC]

I just want to "second" the request for additional height levels allowed, instead of hard capped at 20. I have often wanted to do historical fights on serious hills and 20 levels of elevation change just aren't nearly enough for realistic "relief" in true high country.

A related issue, which 8x8 may help address, is the way height difference "smoothing" happens. I find it almost impossible to get -straight- height change features (e.g. a shallow berm) without tons of "crinkling". Also, I've often wanted a way to "pin" a certain tile at exactly a specified height, without letting the smoothing routine change it. I don't have a specific solution in mind, but I thought you might want to know it is an area that could use improvement - which 8x8 might make significantly easier.

Last on height terrain issues, it would be great if they also produced cover-like effects for infantry fire. Right now, a ridgeline is too strong against HE placement (no hits on the fly modeled) and way too weak as cover against incoming infantry type fire (if you can see 'em, no cover).

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by Bonxa:
Now that dynamic lighting has been picked up in this thread: Will the lighting be a purely graphical thing or will it affect the LOS/spotting calculations?

As an example: Will you have working flares? Or units spotted from their gun flashes? Two good questions. If it isn't, then it is really just going to be even "deceptive" eye candy.
ie. in a night battle a unit may on the map look like it is illuminated by the lights from a nearby light source (a burning tank) and appear to be more easily spotted, but the LOS/spotting calcs arent taking it into consideration. :(

Lt Bull

[Sequoia]

While we're sort of on the subject of height, I wonder if we can get a word on building height as well, i.e. number of stories possible.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Unit footprint is smaller than 8x8. There is no unit I can think of that would be larger than that. No Maus then! :eek: ;)

[Philippe]

Soory if I missed this, but my mind is mushier than usual.

I'm hoping that there will be multiple image alternatives for the same building.

If you're playing a city fight scenario and it has five churches in it, it would be nice if they didn't all look the same.

And along those lines, I would really like multiple building types so that it would be easier to create the visuals for scenario-specific buildings, and mix them in with other normal buildings. Think of the fall of Berlin, or a hypothetical German capture of Moscow: you want St. Basil's to look like St. Basil's, but you only want one St. Basil's in Moscow.

There are lots of other terrain situations where that crops up besides churches, so if you have a few extra redundant terrain types, a designer can pick one of them and mod it.

By the way, that also means that if I have five models of churches to choose from (and you wouldn't have to do different images for all of them -- the modders would take care of the rest), I want to be able to say that I want model # 1 to show up here, and # 2 to show up there, etc...

[Steiner14]

That is a lot of very good news about the improved terrain!

[ExplodingMonkey]

True dat!

[Battlefront.com]

Dynamic lighting game effects -> honestly I don't know. Not sure what Charles is planning on doing. It likely is something that can be improved upon even if we don't do much with it right away.

Map size -> yes, we always have to keep in mind that when we allow something FAR too many gamers think that means they are supposed to be able to use it, even if they are still using a 486 with 32MB of RAM :( So to some extent we must hard code limitations because not doing so always comes back to bite us in the butts.

Elevations -> CMx1 was hardcoded to 20 because of limitations to both graphics and the terrain mesh. As far as I know there are no such limitations now. Haven't really discussed it with Charles though, so there might be some limitation I am not aware of. Needless to say, there is more flexibilty now.

Smoothness -> terrain mesh is 1m x 1m. That makes for extremely smooth transitions ;)

Building entry/exit -> designer can decide which side the door is on, or if it is there at all. Same with windows. Can also determine other details I don't want to get into right now. Just imagine the CMx1 system, nuke it, then imagine what you want. What you want is probably a lot closer to what CMx2 is capable of.

Building texture variety -> yes, we are planning on a lot more variety of textures. Mind you there is a VRAM consideration, but otherwise there is a lot more flexibilty than CMx1. More stuff might happen but I don't want to say until coding is done.

Building shape variety -> we do want there to be the ability to have more specific buildings for different scenarios. However, keep in mind that with the narrower focus there is less need. There won't be a single CMx2 game that simulates structures from the plains of central Russia, the villages of Hungary, and the urban areas of Germany. Instead the game would focus on one particular region and therefore not require the variety previous CMx1 games needed. In fact, this is one of the reasons we changed to narrower settings rather than broad.


Building stories -> many :D There is also now an adstracted concept of stairs, physically represented in the game.

Steve

[Impudent Warwick]

If fortifications are terrain, and (AIUI) are unspotted by default, does that mean the rest of the map is unspotted at game start also? Or are "fort-terrain" and "ground-terrain" treated differently for spotting purposes?

[yuvuphys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Building entry/exit -> designer can decide which side the door is on, or if it is there at all. I sure hope bulidings can have more than one door :D

[Cull]

Now this is what I am talking about, my mans. Christ, I think my head is going to explode.

I have no problem with the 2D thing or the lack of freehand roads or any of the other restrictions I've heard so far. It's going to be a 1000X improved regardless.

[Battlefront.com]

Or are "fort-terrain" and "ground-terrain" treated differently for spotting purposes?Correct. At least that is the way it is designed to work. We haven't done fortifications yet so hopefully there won't be any last minute code hiccups.

Steve

[Sequoia]

Another trivial question. Can we get haystacks? What's a rural scene without haystacks.
In a WWII game the Germans can hide in them like in the movie Anzio.

Okay I'm just kidding about the last part. smile.gif
But these little touches add up to a more realistic whole.

[ExplodingMonkey]

I think they said in another thread that there would be more in-game objects (like telephone poles) to spice up the immersion factor. Haystacks would be cool, as would rail cars to place on or around (wrecked) rail lines.

[Battlefront.com]

Corect. More ingame atmospheric stuff is now possible thanks to the 8x8 size. But we won't be going nuts with the stuff.

Steve

[wunwinglow]

How 'editable' will the terrain be? Working on a beach assault, for example, a generic 'beach' tile isn't enough to reflect all the types of 'beach' one might encounter. Sand, soft sand, mud, shingle, dune, marsh, etc. Same for terrain everywhere else! In other words, will I be able to adjust the terrain characteristics independantly of the bitmap/3D stuff sitting on top of it? Either that, or a LOT more types of terrain to cover these variations?

Looking forward to version 2, but still enjoying CMAK immensly!

Tim P

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Corect. More ingame atmospheric stuff is now possible thanks to the 8x8 size. But we won't be going nuts with the stuff.

Steve So you're saying we shouldn't expect "Modd Sluts Go Nuts: Volume I".

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

By focusing on a smaller slice of a larger setting we can do things like have 10 different types of sand and 5 different types of sand dunes :D But in order to do that we would no be doing something like winter time in a deep forest. With CMx2 it is an either or sort of thing per release.

Steve

[Dogface]

Bump for Gunneroz

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
By focusing on a smaller slice of a larger setting we can do things like have 10 different types of sand and 5 different types of sand dunes :D But in order to do that we would no be doing something like winter time in a deep forest. With CMx2 it is an either or sort of thing per release.

Steve Aaaahhhh!!! Steve has told us all that the next game will be set under water!

[dalem]

Originally posted by Soddball:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
By focusing on a smaller slice of a larger setting we can do things like have 10 different types of sand and 5 different types of sand dunes :D But in order to do that we would no be doing something like winter time in a deep forest. With CMx2 it is an either or sort of thing per release.

Steve Aaaahhhh!!! Steve has told us all that the next game will be set under water! </font>[/QUOTE]I demand accurate bedforms and cross-bedding! I will accept nothing less than absolute perfection in the modeling of the water column!

Obey me!

-dale

[Andrew Kulin]

And also keep in mind that the high energy (shallow water) environments must be comprised of coarse-grained granular materials (cobbles, gravels, sands) while the deeper, quiet water environments should be modelled with silts and clays. Along with the wide range of environments in between.

Us stratigraphy grogs will be watching this closely. Very closely. ;)

[dalem]

Originally posted by Andrew Kulin:
And also keep in mind that the high energy (shallow water) environments must be comprised of coarse-grained granular materials (cobbles, gravels, sands) while the deeper, quiet water environments should be modelled with silts and clays. Along with the wide range of environments in between.

Us stratigraphy grogs will be watching this closely. Very closely. ;) Awww, now you're gonna make me regret not finishing my M.S. ;)

-dale

[Andrew Kulin]

What would your reaction have been had I used the term "facies" somewhere in my previous post?

And I should have used the term sedimentology grog instead. My apologies to all! :D

[Gordon]

Great, now the facies is gonna hit the (alluvial) fan. :rolleyes:

[dalem]

Originally posted by Andrew Kulin:
What would your reaction have been had I used the term "facies" somewhere in my previous post?

And I should have used the term sedimentology grog instead. My apologies to all! :D I would have wept enough to flood a backbeach.

-dale

[Znarf]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
...The concept I have should make it easier to make large maps than CMx1. However, dense urban maps will likely be more time consuming to make. But that is the tradeoff one must accept.... I think it is a tradeoff that scenario designers will gladly accept and look forward to. To be honest, I don't know which I enjoy most - playing the game or making scenarios. Making the terrain and the editor more detailed will likely increase the enthusiam of those of us who make scenarios for the CM community. That will only add to longevity in the CM series.

[tankboi55]

Getting back to ‘deformable terrain’; if my ‘Shermie’ knocks down a wall, troops can now utilize the gap at a much reduced movement penalty? The gap is now passable (but risky) for a halftrack to attempt?? Another thing on my wish list is the ability to cut a road into the side of a hill or simply drape it over the terrain. (Hopefully, the 1x1 mesh will take care of this?)

Jon S
(the other JonS)

[Nicdain]

And also keep in mind that the high energy (shallow water) environments must be comprised of coarse-grained granular materials (cobbles, gravels, sands) while the deeper, quiet water environments should be modelled with silts and clays. Along with the wide range of environments in between.

Us stratigraphy grogs will be watching this closely. Very closely. I'd say more: terraforming should be closely affected by underlying geology, so the terrain editor in CMX2 should have firstly a "stratigraphic sequence builder" and secondly a "water/wind selective erosion module" in order to generate a geologically correct landscape! :D

[Tuomio]

I would like to see much improved quick-map algorithms. Ie. CMx1 random patches of sc.trees close to eachothers should be something like scattered trees surrounded by larger smear of bushes etc. I also want a lots of more water in automated maps, streams and ponds.

Streams should attract thick bushes and woods alongside of them. You get the idea.

Will there be track marks from tanks?

[hoolaman]

Steve, I would like to know what is planned with regards to different types of cover and concealment that the new terrain will provide.

This is a factor of cmx1 I ended up finding depressingly restrictive to the type of play that would occur.

What I mean by this is, there are really only three types of trees: scattered, woods, and forest/tall pines. The terrain in cmx1 was so abstracted that you couldn't really have ditches and gullies and so on to take cover in. All this made each CMx1 battle "samey" for my tastes. (only after a year or so of hard playing of course!)

So an infantry advance would more or less go through the squares of woods, making the game a little too chess-like.


Will CMx2 have more variation in tree density maybe something like "% thickness", or are you expecting the 8x8 terrain to take care of this by itself?

Will open terrain still be similarly abstracted for cover or will elevations have more practical effect?

Is the elevation grid 8x8 too, or will smaller "game-grid" elevations (1mx1m?) be possible to build ditches and gullies?

Can terrain be combined eg. "light trees and rocky ground" or "woods and brush" to give more game variation?


I personally think if the above features would be great in game terms as each new bit of terrain would be a new tactical surprise, just like it must have been IRL. In CMx1 you see the brown square of whatever treebase mod you have on and you know exactly what to expect, and I know you guys have said in the past you want to add uncertainty for the commander.

[ August 31, 2005, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

[hoolaman]

Oops, a more thorough read of this thread reveals the tree question has been partially answered, but not the others I think.

[RockinHarry]

Wow! Now that sounds promising! I see all basic stuff included for now so I keep waiting till there is something playable before I start asking for more (if ever).

Now another related question: Will the tac AI make use of the extra terrain contours with regard of what it considers "cover"? The problem in CM1 was that the Tac AI (in particular for AIP´s) more or less ignored "cover" as given by terrain contours. IE if there was patches of woods AND a seperate small valley (leading towards the enemy frontline, providing cover against direct fire and observation) the Tac AI always chooses for moving from those patches of woods to another, instead of using the small valley for its movements. That made the AIP movements almost 100% predictable. Even AIP minefields placed in those patches of woods did not hinder the TacAI much to move its troops from and into those (mined) woods.

So with regard to the new 1x1m terrain meshes, will the TacAI make use of say 2x1m ditches (IE along roads) for his movements? For maximum protection a human would creep along the bottom of this ditch, so will CMx2 troopers do the same? I would rather prefer this feature before adding more terrain types per 8x8m ground tile if there would be the choice!

Beeing a non programmer I could imagine that the map, once created (by human or auto generation routine) could undergoe an internal evaluation ONCE with regard to possible cover postions that are provided by terrain contours (terrain folds, ditches, hills, valleys ect.) and then is stored into something like a "cover map" that the Tac AI can always refer to when in need to plan movements (or deploy forces for any other reason).

A human commander with a map of the battle area would do the same: Evaluate terrain with regard to cover, concealment, traversability, commanding positions ect. and then base any battle plan upon this information. ( In real life a (german) low level commander (below divisional) would do this job on in the terrain, oftenly without help of a map)

Another question: Will there be underground stuff, like dug-outs, tunnels ect.? My imagination would be that these serve only as abstracted cover/protection (a sub class of "entrenchment" maybe) or for movement. These don´t need necessarily modelled with 3D geometry and can be handled abstractly like "sewer movement" in CM1 was, or possibly the new "basements" in CMx2?

[flamingknives]

Tac AI doesn't determine an AI attack plan, there's another level of AI for that, IIRC.

The trouble with cover provided by defilade is that it is dependant on the position of the enemy. Predicting where an enemy is likely to be is rather difficult for AI, AIUI. Certainly things as abstract as commanding positions would be very difficult to write a set of procedures for.

[Battlefront.com]

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 :D

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
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.1mm-100mm? That doesn't sound right. With that kind of elevation changes you could do a gradual slope 1km long and end up with a 1m high. And a maximum slope of 10cm of height per 1m of length which is hideously low. Or did you mean 1m-100mm in which case a 100m long slope would be a minimum 10m high. :confused:


I'm still catching a 'chum for the sharks' vibe here. ;)

***Yes, I will keep on editing my post until I can put under words what seems off. Sorry***

[ September 04, 2005, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Elmar Bijlsma ]

[hoolaman]

What seems off is that 100mm = 10cm. To get a 100m run with a 1m rise, the height division would have to be 1cm per 1m.

What would be the largest height division? A cliff may have 10m rise per 1m run.

Does that mean the height change per 1m square would be +/-10m in 1cm increments? Surely 1mm increments is unneccesarily fine, that would give 10,000 height levels in a 10m cliff which would be better than pixel sized resolution!

[ September 04, 2005, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

[Mace]

From Kwazydog elsewhere
The height grid is set at a 1m resolution across the map, but the actual height at each point on that grid can actually be set down to the millimetre I beleive. Does that make more sense?So let's see....this suggests that the variation between height elements is 1m....so the map builder nominates the contours (which vary by 1m each) and the CMx2 terrain engine then renders the slope in 3D between each.

Taking this further, rather than nominating a 'height per tile' as per the CMx1 engine, the map builder simply draws in the 1m contours using the 2d map editor?

If so this would be done by a free hand vector?

Which of course leads to another question......if there are contours of 1m variation, What's the minimum distance between contours allowed in the system?

[edited to add...reading above it looks like the minimum is 1m per 1mx1m 'tile' so that's a slope of 45 degrees maximum?)

OOOOH. With all the possibilities I think I just wet my pants as well. Must ask Mord for that depend back.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mace:
Must ask Mord for that depend back. You'd take a used Depends from Mord? Eeeewwwwww.

[shudder]

Michael

[Mace]

Hey, I'm frugal!*

* Aussie for tight b*stard.

[Battlefront.com]

Let's see if I can do a better job at explaining this smile.gif

Start Point height is 1000m above sea level.
End Point height is 1001m above sea level.

End Point is 1000m distant from Start Point.
There are 1000 possible Points inbetween (1m x 1m grid).

A meter is 1000mm. That means to get an elevation difference between Start and End Points each Point inbetween needs to rise by 1mm.

That make sense?

This is not to say that the player specifies this. The system figures out how it will slope things (and it probably won't stretch the slope that far). The reason for this degree of granularity is so the terrain looks smooth when random heights and other terrain features are tossed in. For example, a foxhole might need to be 50cm deep while a shallow crater might only need to be 20cm deep, but a big crater 70cm. The granularity of the system allows us to do all of these things.

Steve

[Soddball]

That's hot.

[dalem]

Sunken roads.

Rail cuts.

Raised causeways.

Proper hedgerows.

Streams.

Peeing Soddy's pants now.

-dale

[aka_tom_w]

bump

[Sequoia]

I'm resurecting this thread because I've searched for an answer and couldn't find it.

Will there be more then two different road types in CMX2? I.E. will there be more than just "paved" and "dirt" roads? Other examples are "gravel", "poorly paved", and tracks (little more than ruts in the grass but used by local farmers). This may be more important in the WWII games than CMSF.

[Battlefront.com]

Currently for CM:SF we are only planning on dirt track and pavement (with urban pavement being a variant). Gravel roads are pretty rare. They are extremely expensive to make and they only last a very little while before the gravel is pushed under and the road becomes dirt again. Perhaps a bit better in rain, but not visually very different. In areas with a lot of grass and rural modes of transportation, a nice visual difference would be a dirt track with grass growing up in the middle. That's not very applicable to the Middle East.

We can change road types at any time in the future. That's the beauty of the new engine smile.gif

Steve

[Kilroy Lurking]

Steve Hi!

By focusing on a smaller slice of a larger setting we can do things like have 10 different types of sand and 5 different types of sand dunes But in order to do that we would no be doing something like winter time in a deep forest. With CMx2 it is an either or sort of thing per release.Your planned "Expansions ', "Modules " whatever, will they be "stand alone" or additions to the basic game? What I am getting at is if for example your second release is Special Forces in the NW Frontier in Winter will the winter textures, units etc be available for scenarios in the original game and vica versa?

David

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by Kilroy Lurking:
Steve Hi!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> By focusing on a smaller slice of a larger setting we can do things like have 10 different types of sand and 5 different types of sand dunes But in order to do that we would no be doing something like winter time in a deep forest. With CMx2 it is an either or sort of thing per release.Your planned "Expansions ', "Modules " whatever, will they be "stand alone" or additions to the basic game? What I am getting at is if for example your second release is Special Forces in the NW Frontier in Winter will the winter textures, units etc be available for scenarios in the original game and vica versa?

David </font>[/QUOTE]If I may answer as I understand it.
The modules will not be stand alone but add ons to the base game. For example if BF releases CMSF:USMC you would need the base CMSF to play the Marines. Additional terrain textures in a module to the extent of adding a whole new set of terrain for winter will not occur. That would be a whole new game. Limited new features introduced in modules such as, for example, if the USMC module introduced bridging vehicles (I know that's not likely to happen) then the US Army troops from the base game would also get bridging vehicles.
The plan as of now is after CMSF is to release a USMC module down the road. If sales go well we'll see another CMSF module featuring another nation with the British as a strong candidate. Soon after or perhaps concurently with that we'll get a whole new stand alone WWII game featuring U.S. vs Germans probably in Normandy. Would anyone like to correct me on this?

[Battlefront.com]

Sequoia is correct. The Modules are not stand-alone and they do in fact build upon what is already available. You can mix and match between old and new stuff without it even seeming like you bought things at different times and added them together.

For example, CM:SF's first Module will likely be USMC. This will add an entire new force to the Blue side of the equation. A few new units will be added for the Syrians (Red side) and a couple of bits of terrain that we didn't have an opportunity to complete for the initial release. Oh, and probably some slight feature enhancements, but I do mean slight. For example, like the ability to pop smoke in some different way, not adding something like multi-multi player.

Of course scenarios created using features from a particular Module will require that Module to work. For example, you buy the base game and the USMC Module. You make a sceanrio that has a single Marine Sniper helping out a Stryker Rifle Company. People without the USMC Module will not be able to play that scenario. Obviously this applies to multiplayer as well. Same two people, same scenario, but without the single Marine Sniper... no problem... the scenario can be used by both and both can play head to head because only the base game's stuff is being used.

When you boot the game you will see an icon which represents which Module/s you have active. We will probably institute some sort of interface that allows you to toggle off a Module so you can be assured that you won't accidentally put something in that would require that particular Module. Say you go to play against a friend who does not have the USMC Module, you toggle yours off so you don't create problems between the two of you. That sort of thing. We'll work on this interface stuff when we introduce the first Module, because right now it doesn't matter :D

Steve

[Kilroy Lurking]

You mean that with each new module purchased the game will be bigger and better..........

David

[Scipio]

Steve, will CMx2 maps be compatible in different moduls?

[MikeyD]

I'm not concerned about incompatible maps after loading modules. BFC must realise that would wreck the whole game if they did that. But there is the question of 'PATCHES' as opposed to 'modules'. Nobody will be surprised if CMSF v1.0 will need a few fixes once it gets handed over to the masses. If over the next 6 months we see 'Patch-Patch-Module-Patch' then things might start to get complicated compatibility-wise, depending on what feature got fixed in what order.

Either that, or the game will be perfect straight out of the box. :D

[hoolaman]

Steve states above that a scenario with a Marine Sniper will be incompatible to someone without the USMC module.

I take this to mean that a map made with the "scattered olive tree" tile that comes with the module will not be compatible.

So someone with all the modules can make rich scenarios and maps that nobody can use, or else they just limit scenarios and opponents to the base game to ensure compatibility, making the purchase of the modules slightly pointless.

This will get extra complicated by the fourth WWII module. Your friends might each decide to buy a different modiule. Although collectively you own all there is to own, the only games/maps/scenarios you can be sure of playing together will be whatever is bundled with the original game.

[Schrullenhaft]

WWII will not be a module; it is a new game (much like CMSF will be the 'mother game' to its modules). It will still be based on the CMx2 engine as CMSF is with maybe some enhancments here or there (potentially multi-multi-player, but that may not be decided yet).

As Steve has stated so far it will be WWII Normandy focusing on US-German actions. Further modules will bring in British and potentially other CW nations.

Anyway, yeah, that's the rub with a series of modules that add on to a game. Of course that would provide incentive for people to purchase them if they want all of the bells-and-whistles. You may feel a bit nickel-and-dimed by this approach, but at least BFC/BTS aren't pulling a 'Talonsoft' by coming out with newer games that fix bugs from the previous incarnation (rather than releasing effective patches to correct the problem with the previous incarnation).

[MEYER_1944]

Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:
WWII will not be a module; it is a new game I think he meant that after the initial WW2 CMx2 game release and its consequent modules...

He wasnt refering to the WW2 game simply being a module CM:SF...

Personally I wasnt at all interested in CM:SF but of late have been learning more and more about the conflict in the middle east and Chechnya... So will most likely be getting this title now...!!!

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:
WWII will not be a module; it is a new game (much like CMSF will be the 'mother game' to its modules). It will still be based on the CMx2 engine as CMSF is with maybe some enhancments here or there (potentially multi-multi-player, but that may not be decided yet).

As Steve has stated so far it will be WWII Normandy focusing on US-German actions. Further modules will bring in British and potentially other CW nations.

Anyway, yeah, that's the rub with a series of modules that add on to a game. Of course that would provide incentive for people to purchase them if they want all of the bells-and-whistles. You may feel a bit nickel-and-dimed by this approach, but at least BFC/BTS aren't pulling a 'Talonsoft' by coming out with newer games that fix bugs from the previous incarnation (rather than releasing effective patches to correct the problem with the previous incarnation). Yep I used that example because there will very likely be a lot more modules (4-5?) for the WWII game, and they will probably cater to a variety of tastes. So there is a possibility of having scenarios and maps compatible with 24+ different module combinations

And we have yet to see whether BFC wraps up bug fixes with paid modules. While I can't see them doing that exclusively, for non-essential patches, its not beyond the realms of possibility.

[Battlefront.com]

Hoolaman,

So someone with all the modules can make rich scenarios and maps that nobody can use, or else they just limit scenarios and opponents to the base game to ensure compatibility, making the purchase of the modules slightly pointless.Actually, it makes the purchase of modules more pointfull (hey, I invented a word smile.gif ). But like any upgrade to an existing technology there will be a time of transition when the numbers of older tech users outnumber the new ones. If the new technology is worthy of adoption then the newer tech will become the standard and those without it will be left out. For example, how many of you are still using software that was written for a 266 P2 computer? smile.gif

This will get extra complicated by the fourth WWII module. Your friends might each decide to buy a different modiule. Although collectively you own all there is to own, the only games/maps/scenarios you can be sure of playing together will be whatever is bundled with the original game.This isn't a likely situation, but even so it is unavoidable. Just as it is for any "addon" product. I remember having to purchase some version or other of Command & Conquer 2 to play against guys in my office. That's the way it goes and gamers should be used to it by now

--------------------
I only have a signature to give my posts a little more "real-estate"

Posts: 868 | Registered: Feb 2003 *|* IP: Logged
Schrullenhaft ,

You may feel a bit nickel-and-dimed by this approach, but at least BFC/BTS aren't pulling a 'Talonsoft' by coming out with newer games that fix bugs from the previous incarnation (rather than releasing effective patches to correct the problem with the previous incarnation).Talon who? Oh yeah... the guys that nickled and dimed their customers to death, then sold out, and then nothing more was heard from them. Yeah, we won't be going down that corporate strategy road ;)

Hoolaman,

Yep I used that example because there will very likely be a lot more modules (4-5?) for the WWII game, and they will probably cater to a variety of tastes. So there is a possibility of having scenarios and maps compatible with 24+ different module combinations Not really. We're only planning on perhaps 3 Modules. We'd like to have more, but we're not sure how practical that is. In any case, the combo thing really isn't relevant. Either you have the Module or you don't. If you are missing 1 in 4 Modules you will only be out of luck for scenarios that use that one missing Module. Plus, I think you're overestimating how much mixing of Modules there will be. I see no reason to expect that scenario designers will be Hell bent on focusing on scenarios that have as much improbable stuff tossed into one scenario as possible. Sure, some will be like this, but not the bulk. Plus, I do think that scenario designers who like to make stuff for wider audiences will keep Module compatibility in mind.

And we have yet to see whether BFC wraps up bug fixes with paid modules. While I can't see them doing that exclusively, for non-essential patches, its not beyond the realms of possibility.Only when a bug is specific to a feature in a Module would the fix (obviously) be limited to that Module.

Steve

[Sequoia]

Again as I understand it, if I had to guess, the modules for the first WWII game would be something like

Base game: U.S. vs Germans Summer 1944

Module one: Brits and Canadians (maybe Poles too) vs Germans.

Module two: Airborne U.S. and Brits Summer 1944 (now including Market-Garden).

Once we venture into Battle of the Bulge and winter terrain we're talking a whole new game, so WWII "games" really won't need that many modules.

[Battlefront.com]

That's pretty much right on the money. However, we may or may not make something like the Bulge into a new game or a Module. It really depends on a number of factors, though you are correct that the amount of work needed to make a Bulge setting happen is almost equal to a full game's worth of effort.

Steve