CMA out in Russia

[Michael Dorosh]

Water is just a grey material that sits at the bottom of various ravines. Bridges see represented by a strip of land crossing this.

At least I think that's what they are. This cannot happen for CMN that's for sure, I was under the impression that water would flow in this one. In CMN we are promised various differing bridges as well.

It doesn't make the game unplayable but it looks like a simple fudge of terrain to make something work.

Which continues to make me think that there is something stopping these games from coming out that we can only speculate. This one doesn't seem to have anything in it that CMSF doesn't. So why the long delays?

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=93201

Some clues as to what they were not doing, quality control-wise:

- BMD-2s fire their bow machine guns even when there are no troops inside to fire them

- BMD-2s coaxial MG fires from the ATGM position

- The top hatch on the ZSU-23-4 doesn't open, the commanders model just appears through the armour

- The ZSU-23-4 doesn't appear to have a driver when his hatch opens up

- No light texture on BMP 1D

To be honest, the light texture - who would notice? How zoomed in do you have to be to even see this? And who really cares? Hey, the lights are off. Now where do I move that platoon of infantry for the next turn...

Ditto the missing driver:

Perhaps the beta testers were actually playing the game and not zooming in to admire the rivets. I guess that's probably a good thing...

 

[Palantir]

Once again the level of detail is dependent on the scale of the game.

Playing at strategic scale with just unit symbols who'd expect to see a visible tank commander in an armored corps? However at 1:1 scale you do expect such detail since that is how the game is presented to the public.

In CMx1 I wouldn't have expected to see a visible tank commander either except that they included an "open up / button up" feature so there had better have been a way to tell the difference.

It would make very little difference to me if it wasn't included or a game at this level wasn't touted as 1:1. But once you do it should be accurate.

 

[Gary Owen]

I show up here very infrequently, and then only to vent. If you good people don't mind . . . .

Infrared night vision devices generally require an illumination source, an IR spotlight. IR lights are not visible to the naked eye, so for their time active IR night vision devices provided an advantage. One means of providing an IR light source is to place an IR filter over a regular spotlight or headlamp. The filter keeps in all but the IR spectrum of the light. These filters are common. Anyone who has been around AFVs in my lifetime has seen them. The M113 APC and M48/M60 series tanks had IR driving lamps, the later M48's and the M60A1 had IR spotlights on the gun. Soviet cold war AFVs typically have one headlamp filtered for IR, the other hooded. They've all got spotlights for the commanders and gunners. These lights are protected with an armored cover until used. They are used with or without the filter, depending on the situation. The filter, by the way, appears black in color not red.

So over at BF.com, some are upset that the BMP-1 in game is "missing textures" that make it look more realistic than the texture bitmap in the file folder, due to some mysterious error. Having been shown clear photos of what IR headlamp filters look like on a real BMP-1, still there are protestations that something must be wrong because the Battlefront bitmap must be right.

Should someone point out that that Shilka has an erroneous IR filter on its headlamp as well?

Sorry, for venting.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I show up here very infrequently, and then only to vent. If you good people don't mind . . . .

Infrared night vision devices generally require an illumination source, an IR spotlight. IR lights are not visible to the naked eye, so for their time active IR night vision devices provided an advantage. One means of providing an IR light source is to place an IR filter over a regular spotlight or headlamp. The filter keeps in all but the IR spectrum of the light. These filters are common. Anyone who has been around AFVs in my lifetime has seen them. The M113 APC and M48/M60 series tanks had IR driving lamps, the later M48's and the M60A1 had IR spotlights on the gun. Soviet cold war AFVs typically have one headlamp filtered for IR, the other hooded. They've all got spotlights for the commanders and gunners. These lights are protected with an armored cover until used. They are used with or without the filter, depending on the situation. The filter, by the way, appears black in color not red.

So over at BF.com, some are upset that the BMP-1 in game is "missing textures" that make it look more realistic than the texture bitmap in the file folder, due to some mysterious error. Having been shown clear photos of what IR headlamp filters look like on a real BMP-1, still there are protestations that something must be wrong because the Battlefront bitmap must be right.

Should someone point out that that Shilka has an erroneous IR filter on its headlamp as well?

Sorry, for venting.

I was going to point out that the AA vehicle also had a "black" light bmp as well. Thanks for the knowledgable post, jj. I was going to post your photo from that thread here; I wish I would have now.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

View attachment 31147

Note the IR cover on the light. And the following exchange after that picture was posted.

jjhouston: "Perhaps that's the way it's intended to look, and in fact may look 'in real life' when the light has an IR filter installed."

Mord: "Not according to the bmp texture...bmp shows a red light and two white lights on the BMP 1D."

jjhouston: "Well then that must be right. The texture would never get a detail like that wrong."

:laugh:

 

[Geordie]

Just goes to show that a little bit of knowledge really doesnt go a long way.......

 

[Geordie]

There's some discussions ongoing at BF about Soviet 80's equipment. Seems like the mixed squad weapons we see in CMA weren't the norm, also, seems like the Soviets had body armour. Oh and something about greatcoats.....

As this was designed by the Russians, why didn't they get these small things right?

 

[dalem]

There's some discussions ongoing at BF about Soviet 80's equipment. Seems like the mixed squad weapons we see in CMA weren't the norm, also, seems like the Soviets had body armour. Oh and something about greatcoats.....

As this was designed by the Russians, why didn't they get these small things right?

Vodka?

-dale

 

[Amadeus]

There's some discussions ongoing at BF about Soviet 80's equipment. Seems like the mixed squad weapons we see in CMA weren't the norm, also, seems like the Soviets had body armour. Oh and something about greatcoats.....

Some equipement issues are due to the fact that the current (i.e. CMSF and CMA) version of the CMx2 engine is not able to keep track of different availability and TOEs for different periods. This will be changed starting with CMN, although I presume that it would have been a good idea to implement this feature for a game depicting a ten years (but, may be, it's not really a relevant issue with the current CMx2 style QBs... so I presume BFC decided to implement the date availability check with the new QB system).
For what concernes the greatcoats... well, it was me that pointed out the problem. The point is that mid-late '80s Soviet winter uniforms allowed for a gray (nor khaki!) long greatcoat with no fur collar or a khaki jacket with a fur collar but not longer than the standard issue summer tunic (see image).

In the game we have khaki greatcoats with fur collars and they are also of a never seen above-the-knee length, so they are not simply moddable to the correct standard but require a change of the current 3D models.
There are also other inaccuracies in the uniforms department but they are more or less easily moddable.

As this was designed by the Russians, why didn't they get these small things right?

Exactly my thought!

 

[Geordie]

As a war gamer I'm prone to say that these small uniform glitches don't matter, but, as a player of a 1-1 game, I'm bound to say that accuracy does matter.

1-1 to me means an accurate representation of things and if you choose to make a1-1 war-game then you should accept that it does matter when little details are missing.

In this case it may be the Russian makers of the game but when it comes to CMN there's a lot more guys that know WW2 than do 80's Soviets and so inaccuracies in uniforms etc will detract from the overall experience. Well, for me it will, for others it may not matter.

I didn't even know about the IR BMP thing and so it didn't bother me, actually the makers got it right there didn't they and some guys on the BF forum say it was a missed graphic.

Strange beasts war gamers.

 

[Gary Owen]

In this case it may be the Russian makers of the game but when it comes to CMN there's a lot more guys that know WW2 than do 80's Soviets and so inaccuracies in uniforms etc will detract from the overall experience. Well, for me it will, for others it may not matter.

I think that Battlefront does much better with the Second World War material than the modern because there isn't anybody around anymore who REALLY knows that stuff. I played a short quick battle before going to bed almost every night the first couple years I owned CMBO/CMBB/CMAK. I enjoyed it so much because I was able to suspend disbelief. I was able to suspend disbelief because I've never crewed a Panzer III or carried a BAR. It's easier to believe that BF is doing a good job accurately representing the material when there aren't any Panzer III crewmen left around to dispute BF's best guess as to how things should be.

CM:SF is completely the opposite for me. I cannot suspend disbelief, knowing how bad they screwed up the Bradley model. Given their stated reasoning for doing so, I believe that they are incapable of getting any of it right. My disappointment in the Bradley model extends to the rest of the armor modelling. I cannot believe that the new NATO tanks are anything other than reskins of the generic western tank substrate for the M1 models. BF doesn't have the expertise to model the 'under-the-hood' differences; not that they'd matter anyway, given the design limitations of the map sizes, et cetera.

I'm not the only one, I suspect, who feels this way. I recall the discussion where Steve argued about the accuracy of CM:SF's SPG-9 set-up times with several veterans who had actual experience with the SPG-9 and were even able to post from a Russian/Soviet field manual on the set-up procedures and requirements.thread here It seemed to me that BF had made a guess about the set-up time and gotten it wrong, wrong in a way that made a difference to the game play.

Unfortunately, for me, I'm not going to be able to enjoy CM:N, as much as I would have otherwise, having experienced CM:SF.

 

[Redwolf]

CM:SF is completely the opposite for me. I cannot suspend disbelief, knowing how bad they screwed up the Bradley model. Given their stated reasoning for doing so, I believe that they are incapable of getting any of it right.

Well, just don't forget that Charles sometimes just goes and fixes bugs ignoring that Steve is currently in progress of justifying them as glorious features.

My disappointment in the Bradley model extends to the rest of the armor modelling. I cannot believe that the new NATO tanks are anything other than reskins of the generic western tank substrate for the M1 models. BF doesn't have the expertise to model the 'under-the-hood' differences; not that they'd matter anyway, given the design limitations of the map sizes, et cetera.

Too bad they don't share unit data anymore.

I'm not the only one, I suspect, who feels this way. I recall the discussion where Steve argued about the accuracy of CM:SF's SPG-9 set-up times with several veterans who had actual experience with the SPG-9 and were even able to post from a Russian/Soviet field manual on the set-up procedures and requirements.thread here It seemed to me that BF had made a guess about the set-up time and gotten it wrong, wrong in a way that made a difference to the game play.

Unfortunately, for me, I'm not going to be able to enjoy CM:N, as much as I would have otherwise, having experienced CM:SF.

BFC has always pessimized all kinds of times to slow down gameplay. All the setup times for WW2 weapons are wrong, too.

Moving tanks on the other hand settle extremely quickly after moving and get the upper hand over a shooter (ambusher) that was stationary all along.

 

[Amadeus]

Speaking from a totally subjective viewpoint, the thing I found more frustrating about uniform inaccuracies (and it's not only a greatcoat thing, for example many shoulder boards and cap badges are wrong as well) is that they are a step back respect the very high standard that BFC itself set about eight years ago with CMBB. CMBB not only had accurate uniforms but introduced also different models for officers. It seems that the "problem" with CMx2 is always the same: it's not about the new features that appear but it's about the old features that disappeared!
As I said elsewhere, I wonder what would have happened if CMBB was released with QBs showing, say, Tigers in 1941, panzer troops with a wrong Waffenfarbe and early German infantry with late-war forage caps...

 

[dalem]

Strange beasts war gamers.

And if Steve had any understanding of the hobby he'd've accepted that we are a high-maintenance lot from the beginning of the relationship.

He knew what this was.

-dale

 

[thewood]

He does know that. Why do you think he is looking for a new audience.

 

[dalem]

He does know that. Why do you think he is looking for a new audience.

I just don't think he knew what he was getting into changing from a wargame focus to a computer game focus.

My opinion. My hate. My extremism.

-dale

 

[KG_Jag]

The record suggests that BF is very good at designing games that they, as wargamers, want to play.

BF is not so good at designing computer games involving combat for other markets, and/or which they believe will make them the most money. I believe that would hold true even if they had additional programming resources.

 

[Geordie]

I just don't think he knew what he was getting into changing from a wargame focus to a computer game focus.

My opinion. My hate. My extremism.

-dale

This gets me thinking. At what point does a wargame change into a Computer game, and whats the difference between them. Do hexes and grand tactical moves as in TOAW occupy one extreme and a game like Company of heroes the other? I think CMSF still occupies a slot more to the left in my two examples but possibly still to the right of CM1 games.

 

[dalem]

This gets me thinking. At what point does a wargame change into a Computer game, and whats the difference between them. Do hexes and grand tactical moves as in TOAW occupy one extreme and a game like Company of heroes the other? I think CMSF still occupies a slot more to the left in my two examples but possibly still to the right of CM1 games.

To me, the fact that there is absolutely zero "classroom" or "what if" value means it's not a wargame. I don't know if that definition applies to anyone else, and in all my hatred, vitriol, and wishing BFC to fail, I may be blinded to other definitions or indeed, classroom value in the game.

But I'd say that's the main thing to me.

-dale

 

[junk2drive]

How much money could BFC have made with a CMAK expansion for Sealion, or 1939-40, or 1946 US vs USSR?