I meant Steve's writeup, not the DAR people.They are gagged by the NDA. Pity really because it's a good way to showcase the game.
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.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 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.It still maintain that modeling concealment from vegetation will be the biggest challenge for CMBN.
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.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 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.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
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).LOL, still obsessed with your political hot chick eh Leto? I'm not so sure she knows how to be subtle though.
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
"1:1 Abstraction"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......................
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.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.
I think you have it a little bit wrong there.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......................
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 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.
oh, SNAP!I think it is a lot less cobbled together than some here are implying, not that those people care to listen.
We are hanging on your every wordnot 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 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.
I can feel the love.We are hanging on your every word