CM:B4N Abstracting

[Mad Russian]

Remember there is a difference between Squad and Team. A Squad is a "container" for between 1 and 3 Teams, each with between 1 and 7 men. So when you deploy a US Rifle Squad (3x Teams) you will need 3x Action Spots with Foxholes in them to get everybody into cover. IIRC there are 4x Foxholes per Action Spot, each one ideally suited for 2x Soldiers.


Yes and no. Passenger and crew positions within vehicles aren't necessarily final. That's stuff is for a final round of tweaking. However, their position shouldn't matter because the ballistics have to interact with the vehicle in order to hit anybody. Which means if a seated passenger is protected in the code then it doesn't matter what the graphics show because the vehicle's protection overrides everything else. That being said, we are probably going to have the graphical side of things fixed soon.

Steve

Man, that's a lot of abstracting going on. Don't worry what your eyes tell you, let us worry about that. Don't worry that it looks like you can shoot through walls; it's just invisible doors and windows. Don't worry that your men have their heads above the side of the HT the code takes care of that for you.

Be worried that a squad won't fit in a foxhole container and that the designer should have given you three foxholes per squad.

Good Hunting.

MR

 

[Elvis]

Man, that's a lot of abstracting going on. Don't worry what your eyes tell you, let us worry about that. Don't worry that it looks like you can shoot through walls; it's just invisible doors and windows. Don't worry that your men have their heads above the side of the HT the code takes care of that for you.

Good Hunting.

MR

MR, you did read this part of the quote too didn't you?

That being said, we are probably going to have the graphical side of things fixed soon.

 

[thewood]

Yeah, way too many people get hung up on graphical stuff that shown before release, even when caveats galore are thrown out by BFC. It's one of the few disparaging remarks that Steve makes about customers that I might agree with.

 

[Mad Russian]

MR, you did read this part of the quote too didn't you?

Yup, I saw it.

The graphics don't need to be all that great for me. But I do much prefer to have the graphic representation be 'what you see is what you get'. Otherwise the realism part goes out the same window that I can fire through but not see.

This comment, "if a seated passenger is protected in the code then it doesn't matter what the graphics show because the vehicle's protection overrides everything else." is absolutely wrong from my own POV. Maybe I'm in the minority here. But I want to be able to see what I can do without the code overriding my choices or not showing me what my choices are in the first place.

Do you see anywhere in that statement that it will be fixed? I don't. It says some things aren't set in stone yet. It doesn't say what things. Maybe this will get fixed and maybe it won't.

Good Hunting.

MR

 

[slm]

Yup, I saw it.

The graphics don't need to be all that great for me. But I do much prefer to have the graphic representation be 'what you see is what you get'.

This comment, "if a seated passenger is protected in the code then it doesn't matter what the graphics show because the vehicle's protection overrides everything else." is absolutely wrong from my own POV. Maybe I'm in the minority here. But I want to be able to see what I can do without the code overriding my choices or not showing me what my choices are in the first place.

I agree. For me it's more important that gfx show for example which units are protected than whether the 3d model has a huge amount of polygons. So I hope they can get those seated soldiers fully inside the HT if that's how the code thinks they are.

 

[Redwolf]

I would be totally impractical to have this resolved based on the 3D object drawn and 10 little helmets. This abstraction is good. An abstraction can be adjusted when the values come out wrong in practice. You just change the values.

 

[slm]

In CMSF they've solved many of these "soldiers inside vehicle" drawing problems by simply not drawing the soldiers.

 

[dalem]

In CMSF they've solved many of these "soldiers inside vehicle" drawing problems by simply not drawing the soldiers.

Love that 1:1.

-dale

 

[wengart]

Well you don't really need to draw the soldiers if they're inside a BMP/Stryker/AAV/ any closed top transport. I mean when would the player see them?

 

[slm]

In some Strykers, LAVs etc. there are places for rear guard? soldiers. They can view vehicle surroundings and help defending against RPG teams etc. Those soldiers CAN be killed with infantry fire and what you see outside the vehicle is pretty much soldier's head and maybe shoulders/arms if he shoots.

I think this is very similar situation to a squad being transported inside a HT. If in one case the visible head can be shot at, why not in both?

and: I like CMSF (excluding QBs) and CM:BN seems to be a nice step forward. I just wish the visual representation would be consistent with how the game engine works. That you can shoot at units you can see etc. Much easier for the player when you don't have to think what kind of exceptions to this basic rule there might be.

 

[Elvis]

In some Strykers, LAVs etc. there are places for rear guard? soldiers. They can view vehicle surroundings and help defending against RPG teams etc. Those soldiers CAN be killed with infantry fire and what you see outside the vehicle is pretty much soldier's head and maybe shoulders/arms if he shoots.

I think this is very similar situation to a squad being transported inside a HT. If in one case the visible head can be shot at, why not in both?

and: I like CMSF (excluding QBs) and CM:BN seems to be a nice step forward. I just wish the visual representation would be consistent with how the game engine works. That you can shoot at units you can see etc. Much easier for the player when you don't have to think what kind of exceptions to this basic rule there might be.

Either something is getting lost in the translation or I'm getting lost in the conversation.

Units inside a vehicle can and do receive damage (in all CMx2 games. And in many vehicles they can even fire out. What Steve is talking about is the grapgical representation of the unit in a vehicle and the added protection a unit gets for being in the vehicle compared to standing in the open.

 

[slm]

If that means the soldiers inside a HT are more vulnerable because their heads are visible, then I see no problem.

So is it so that the game thinks the soldiers are 100% inside a HT, even though to player it seems they are not. So if you shoot at the HT with some weapon that cannot penetrate HT's armor, does that mean the soldiers inside cannot be hit, even though to player it seems heads are partly visible and should have less protection.

 

[Elvis]

If that means the soldiers inside a HT are more vulnerable because their heads are visible, then I see no problem.

So is it so that the game thinks the soldiers are 100% inside a HT, even though to player it seems they are not. So if you shoot at the HT with some weapon that cannot penetrate HT's armor, does that mean the soldiers inside cannot be hit, even though to player it seems heads are partly visible and should have less protection.

I think it is the last part that Steve was referring to. Any unit in a vehicle that is open, fully or partially, is susceptible to taking losses regardless of armor protection and rounds being fired.

 

[Rule_303]

If that means the soldiers inside a HT are more vulnerable because their heads are visible, then I see no problem.

So is it so that the game thinks the soldiers are 100% inside a HT, even though to player it seems they are not. So if you shoot at the HT with some weapon that cannot penetrate HT's armor, does that mean the soldiers inside cannot be hit, even though to player it seems heads are partly visible and should have less protection.

I think it's simply that BFC deemed it overcomplicated to show vehicle passengers doing anything other than sitting quietly in their seats, even if in reality the pixeltruppen might be hunkering down inside or twisting around to look for / shoot back at incoming. That would create a pretty complex animation workload and would vary from carrier to carrier.

It all gets back to the Dorosh "Uncanny Vallley" thesis -- when you create hi-res 1:1 animated soldiers you create a default player expectation that these guys will act like people or at least "be" where they are shown to be. In fact, this is not possible for this generation of video games to accomplish. (For the record, I like 1:1 in spite of these disconnects).

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I think it's simply that BFC deemed it overcomplicated to show vehicle passengers doing anything other than sitting quietly in their seats, even if in reality the pixeltruppen might be hunkering down inside or twisting around to look for / shoot back at incoming. That would create a pretty complex animation workload and would vary from carrier to carrier.

It all gets back to the Dorosh "Uncanny Vallley" thesis -- when you create hi-res 1:1 animated soldiers you create a default player expectation that these guys will act like people or at least "be" where they are shown to be. In fact, this is not possible for this generation of video games to accomplish. (For the record, I like 1:1 in spite of these disconnects).

The documentation of the game - or rather, user feedback (because it also affects the UI) is the stumbling block here as much as the graphical representation. Actually, the human brain is the problem, as the player has to remember what is and is not "really" happening on the screen. If you have an MG and are given a choice of targeting a broken crew that has lost its bazooka, sitting on the ground, and a squad in a halftrack, what should you choose? If your MG has 0% chance of penetrating the halftrack, you would probably not waste it on the bazooka team that has now lost its weapons and is broken anyway, unless there was no other target - but if you "think" that those heads poking up over the armour are somehow vulnerable, you will target them.

It is up to the player, in other words, to remember that the depiction is lying to you. It is up to the game's documentation to explain that in this specific instance, you can't hit the infantry. And it is up to the game's interface to visually show somehow that the infantry can't be hit - targetting line changes colour, pop up window with a reminder would be even better (click here if you don't want to see this reminder in future), but I doubt we'll see that.

 

[Mad Russian]

Well you don't really need to draw the soldiers if they're inside a BMP/Stryker/AAV/ any closed top transport. I mean when would the player see them?

I don't think you need to draw the soldiers in an SdKfz 251/1 if they are below the level of the side either. Only from the top down. That's the entire point of my comment.

Now, in BFC's defense they are trying to give out some screen shots of the new game and not everything is going to be perfect. The proof will be in the final game play.

Good Hunting.

MR

 

[Redwolf]

If that means the soldiers inside a HT are more vulnerable because their heads are visible, then I see no problem.

So is it so that the game thinks the soldiers are 100% inside a HT, even though to player it seems they are not. So if you shoot at the HT with some weapon that cannot penetrate HT's armor, does that mean the soldiers inside cannot be hit, even though to player it seems heads are partly visible and should have less protection.

The point is that it can go either way. Charles can set how vulnerable the soldiers are directly in the code, without having to mess with the 3D model. He can also make it as smart/complicated as he wants (say more vulnerable when firing back or when shot at from higher elevation) again without having to touch 3D code or models.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The point is that it can go either way. Charles can set how vulnerable the soldiers are directly in the code, without having to mess with the 3D model. He can also make it as smart/complicated as he wants (say more vulnerable when firing back or when shot at from higher elevation) again without having to touch 3D code or models.

But what good is that if there is no way for the player to know what is going on? That's why I miss the "exposure" ratings from CM:BO; such a device would be a convenient stand-in in this instance: a label saying "PASSENGERS 12% EXPOSURE" while they were firing from the back or "PASSENGERS BUTTONED 0% EXPOSURE" while travelling would make up for the abstract nature of the actual depiction.

Or, like I said in an earlier post, a pop-up window activated by rollover.

 

[Redwolf]

But what good is that if there is no way for the player to know what is going on? That's why I miss the "exposure" ratings from CM:BO; such a device would be a convenient stand-in in this instance: a label saying "PASSENGERS 12% EXPOSURE" while they were firing from the back or "PASSENGERS BUTTONED 0% EXPOSURE" while travelling would make up for the abstract nature of the actual depiction.

Or, like I said in an earlier post, a pop-up window activated by rollover.

You would need the game to tell you either way. You couldn't accurately estimate the threat to your soldiers just based on the 3D model even if the 3D model was used for exposure. Because just line of sight doesn't tell you enough.

The decision that CMx2 does not disclose this information to you anymore stands regardless of what computational model has been chosen.

I find it interesting that even a game like LOTRO has the tooltips with those numbers although they would have good reasons to hide their combat model from competitors. I have never seen two wargame developers remotely enough in agreement that they would even consider pirating each other's WW2 wargame code

 

[slm]

You would need the game to tell you either way. You couldn't accurately estimate the threat to your soldiers just based on the 3D model even if the 3D model was used for exposure. Because just line of sight doesn't tell you enough.

The decision that CMx2 does not disclose this information to you anymore stands regardless of what computational model has been chosen.

While playing I rarely need accurate estimate, but more like a yes/no result. If my unit shoots at a tank with MG, can that immobilize/destroy it? What if I shoot at a HT with soldiers inside? The 3d model or the tooltips or some other way could help the player making decisions.