Steve's post on Infantry

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
I stated this earlier, but I think this is a lot further from final release than most people realize. Otherwise they would be trumpeting all the new UI and features in the AAR.
 

Jeph

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
188
Reaction score
4
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
I think Steve's basic point is a reasonable one in that thread.

In CMx1 you could surround an enemy squad with a company and there were only some very coarse rules which gave maximum firepower to the stronger element through borg spotting and the way point to point firepower stats combined. There were also very few ways a small element could 100% break LOS and slip away.

CMx2 infantry in the same situation not every element can neccesarily see the enemy squad, and not every individual is neccesarily firing at the same time. Also there are terrain elements stacked in space that give various combined effects on cover and concealment.

This means there are more and varied ways to be sure you are getting 100% cover from small arms where it was not always possible before. It certainly isn't perfect but I don't think the default anti-Steve position is right either.

The cover thing is the weakest part of CM2 right now. Jason is hitting the nail on the head. CMSF's terrain seems to almost perfectly flat with little abstraction for units finding cover. I think its a legacy of the WYSIWYG thinking that permeated the design decisions in CM2. It was found pretty early in CM2 that some kind of abtraction was needed for cover. I am not sure there was ever an abtraction for concealment though.
I agree to a point but I don't see a problem with there being an abstraction for cover. Prone units seem to do pretty well in CMSF. Maybe it just needs to be higher.

It still maintain that modeling concealment from vegetation will be the biggest challenge for CMBN.
I entirely agree. The tile based LOS system combined with sub tile trees didn't seem to work nearly as well as the "cloud" based forest LOS system in CMx1. I don't think its impossible to get right, but it will be neccesary to get right.
 
Last edited:

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
I have absolutely no issue with abstraction. I have an issue with abstraction and then not telling the player what the abstraction is. Its almost impossible in CMSF to decide if one part of the terrain is better cover/concealment than another.
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
I have absolutely no issue with abstraction. I have an issue with abstraction and then not telling the player what the abstraction is. Its almost impossible in CMSF to decide if one part of the terrain is better cover/concealment than another.
I have an issue with dropping a perfectly-workable system of abstractions in favor of a system of absolutes, being unable to make the system of absolutes work without some abstractions, and then treating those who prefer a workable system of abstractions over a mishmash of absolutes and abstractions with contempt.

-dale
 

[hirr]Leto

Varmint Croonie
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
13
Location
Saskatoon
Country
llCanada
I have an issue with dropping a perfectly-workable system of abstractions in favor of a system of absolutes, being unable to make the system of absolutes work without some abstractions, and then treating those who prefer a workable system of abstractions over a mishmash of absolutes and abstractions with contempt.

-dale
I think that if Steve is comtemptable about anything, it is because of his inability to shelf his subjective from objective face: yes, people are going to complain, you will never be able to do enough, and there are going to be a select few that will declare a Fatwa on you for anything you do or say. It's the human condition and you can't fault Steve for getting caught up in it, especially when what he does is akin to artistic endeavour... there is a lot of personal stuff built in to the CM games for Steve (and I am sure others as well) that makes it difficult to handle criticism professionally.

Personally, I don't feel sorry for him as he has to lay in the bed he has made for himself... but at times, especially when I have my own work critiqued, I can commiserate with the guy. It really requires a thick skin and a confidence in yourself... otherwise, you are chasing every criticism leveled at you with snarky subtle remarks a la Sarah Palin.... (Steva Palin... lol!).

Cheers!

Leto
 

Tanker

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2004
Messages
702
Reaction score
4
Location
New Hampshire
Country
llUnited States
LOL, still obsessed with your political hot chick eh Leto? I'm not so sure she knows how to be subtle though.
 

[hirr]Leto

Varmint Croonie
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
13
Location
Saskatoon
Country
llCanada
LOL, still obsessed with your political hot chick eh Leto? I'm not so sure she knows how to be subtle though.
Indeed I am... for if there ever was a chick that I would love to engage in lubeless, deep, rough bum fun with, it would most definately be her... and no ball gag required... I would not want to shut her up (in congruence with her protestations about everyone else wanting her reitcent).

Gone too far have I? C'mon... I'm only writing what everyone is thinking.

; )

Cheers!

Leto
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I have an issue with dropping a perfectly-workable system of abstractions in favor of a system of absolutes, being unable to make the system of absolutes work without some abstractions, and then treating those who prefer a workable system of abstractions over a mishmash of absolutes and abstractions with contempt.

-dale

Though I've learned to live with it, I hark back to 1-1 infantry being visually represented, every bullet being tracked and fed back into a system that still abstracts where those infantry might be at the time they are hit.

It seems to be, for I still can't fully get my head around it, that what you see is 1-1 representation, but, because of the action spots being smaller that an actual infantry formation, the game engine abstracts those results.

What does is mean? I don't feel I really know but I think it means that when a round hits an infantryman a die is rolled to see if he was really hit, or really there, or something. This modifier needs to be there Steve told me because infantry formations aren't there and therefore they end up more bunched up than real life.

Believe me, I've done a wee bit of infantry stuff in my day and it's not all that common to spend your whole time within 8 feet of your whole Section, constantly banging into each other.

So in CMSF and CMN, we have the 1-1 abstracted infantry model where we don't know exactly what the abstraction is made up off. However, and to give BF a wee bit credit, they seem to have arrived at a sort of realistic feeling approximation.

I'd rather be able to order a skirmish line or a simple V formation though and have a proper go at 1-1 bullet tracking etc. However, Steve says at this point in time it is not feasible in CM.

One day though.................... One day......................
 
Last edited:

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,573
Reaction score
2,484
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Though I've learned to live with it, I hark back to 1-1 infantry being visually represented, every bullet being tracked and fed back into a system that still abstracts where those infantry might be at the time they are hit.

It seems to be, for I still can't fully get my head around it, that what you see is 1-1 representation, but, because of the action spots being smaller that an actual infantry formation, the game engine abstracts those results.

What does is mean? I don't feel I really know but I think it means that when a round hits an infantryman a die is rolled to see if he was really hit, or really there, or something. This modifier needs to be there Steve told me because infantry formations aren't there and therefore they end up more bunched up than real life.

Believe me, I've done a wee bit of infantry stuff in my day and it's not all that common to spend your whole time within 8 feet of your whole Section, constantly banging into each other.

So in CMSF and CMN, we have the 1-1 abstracted infantry model where we don't know exactly what the abstraction is made up off. However, and to give BF a wee bit credit, they seem to have arrived at a sort of realistic feeling approximation.

I'd rather be able to order a skirmish line or a simple V formation though and have a proper go at 1-1 bullet tracking etc. However, Steve says at this point in time it is not feasible in CM.

One day though.................... One day......................
"1:1 Abstraction"

Excellent turn of phrase.
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
I'd rather be able to order a skirmish line or a simple V formation though and have a proper go at 1-1 bullet tracking etc. However, Steve says at this point in time it is not feasible in CM.
Couldn't do more than squad-blobs back in 1999, couldn't do more than that in 2007, and still can't today or for the forseeable future.

-dale
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
As much as some people belittle ToW, its latest iteration does a pretty good job of squad control, along with single soldier control. 95% of the time I order by squads. Every now and then, I will break off a team or adjsu an individual. It feels more like CC than CM though.
 

Jeph

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
188
Reaction score
4
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
Though I've learned to live with it, I hark back to 1-1 infantry being visually represented, every bullet being tracked and fed back into a system that still abstracts where those infantry might be at the time they are hit.

It seems to be, for I still can't fully get my head around it, that what you see is 1-1 representation, but, because of the action spots being smaller that an actual infantry formation, the game engine abstracts those results.

What does is mean? I don't feel I really know but I think it means that when a round hits an infantryman a die is rolled to see if he was really hit, or really there, or something. This modifier needs to be there Steve told me because infantry formations aren't there and therefore they end up more bunched up than real life.

Believe me, I've done a wee bit of infantry stuff in my day and it's not all that common to spend your whole time within 8 feet of your whole Section, constantly banging into each other.

So in CMSF and CMN, we have the 1-1 abstracted infantry model where we don't know exactly what the abstraction is made up off. However, and to give BF a wee bit credit, they seem to have arrived at a sort of realistic feeling approximation.

I'd rather be able to order a skirmish line or a simple V formation though and have a proper go at 1-1 bullet tracking etc. However, Steve says at this point in time it is not feasible in CM.

One day though.................... One day......................
I think you have it a little bit wrong there.

Small arms hits are 100% tracked 1:1, prone infantry get a bonus for cover that makes some of those hits into misses as they hit "invisible" sub-tile cover. Complicating this is that CMSF infnatry also have body armour that turns a lot of hits into non-lethal hits.

The thing that annoys me about the model is that becasue the effects on the taget are realistic, the "realistic feeling approximation" seems to be achieved by increased innacuracy. ie There are less hits because the shooters are firing off-target.

HE is a different thing again, and this is where it has been turned down in lethality to compensate for the totally unrealistic troop densities.

I think it is a lot less cobbled together than some here are implying, not that those people care to listen.
 

Patrocles

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
6
Location
Chicago, IL
I think you have it a little bit wrong there.

Small arms hits are 100% tracked 1:1, prone infantry get a bonus for cover that makes some of those hits into misses as they hit "invisible" sub-tile cover. Complicating this is that CMSF infnatry also have body armour that turns a lot of hits into non-lethal hits.

The thing that annoys me about the model is that becasue the effects on the taget are realistic, the "realistic feeling approximation" seems to be achieved by increased innacuracy. ie There are less hits because the shooters are firing off-target.

HE is a different thing again, and this is where it has been turned down in lethality to compensate for the totally unrealistic troop densities.
Cool info about the body armor in CMSF troops. Does anyone know the protection provided by body armor in real-life? can this be quantified (?) and put into a game? Or does it have to be abstracted? I would hope not since this is 1:1.

I think it is a lot less cobbled together than some here are implying, not that those people care to listen.
oh, SNAP!
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I think you have it a little bit wrong there.

Small arms hits are 100% tracked 1:1, prone infantry get a bonus for cover that makes some of those hits into misses as they hit "invisible" sub-tile cover. Complicating this is that CMSF infnatry also have body armour that turns a lot of hits into non-lethal hits.

The thing that annoys me about the model is that becasue the effects on the taget are realistic, the "realistic feeling approximation" seems to be achieved by increased innacuracy. ie There are less hits because the shooters are firing off-target.

HE is a different thing again, and this is where it has been turned down in lethality to compensate for the totally unrealistic troop densities.

I think it is a lot less cobbled together than some here are implying, not that those people care to listen.
Im only going on what Steve replied to me, Im perfectly willing to LISTEN to any other viewpoint, especially if its backed up with solid BF quotes. I asked Steve why we didnt have infantry formations as if every bullet is tracked then proper infantry formations would do what they are meant to do in real life. Steves reply to me was basically what Ive written above.

I never implied that its cobbled together, I just stated that its still abstracted even when its 1-1 visually.

As an aside, taking a round in your body armour would make you pretty ineffective for a while, depending on where it hits. Are front and back chest plates modelled too?
 

Jeph

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
188
Reaction score
4
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
Sorry Geordie I wasn't referring to you or others who gave CMSF a fair go.

I am basing my comments on my own observations, and I have only ever seen quotes from BFC about HE being toned down, never about small arms being toned-down in the sense of "every third bullet doesn't count" or something.

Yes the infantry modelling is still abstracted, the very early comments (like 1 month after release) at BFC that suggested it wasn't I think was just Steve not knowing how Charles' game worked. But OTOH I think there is less mismatched abstractions than has been implied and maybe even less abstration than is neccesary.

But I'll try to find something from the forum so you don't think I'm talking out my arse.

I know body armour counts, and I know some hits on body armour can result in a light "yellow" wound. I don't know how detailed it is but I believe the 3D model has parts that are deemed to be body armour protected.
 
Last edited:

Jeph

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
188
Reaction score
4
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
We are hanging on your every word :)
I can feel the love.

Sometimes I see such a circle jerk going on here that I can't help myself, but of late I feel like you guys would rather not be interrupted and don't bother looking in here as much as I used to.
 

British Tommy

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
737
Reaction score
9
Location
mission control, UK
Country
ll
Jeph,
We all have our own views here. Not every one agrees with what is posted but at least we can express our views without getting ***** slapped by certain people on another message board. Consider the above post as quirky British humour. I do read everything you post here :)
 
Top