Uh-oh

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
I guess some of us are out for CMx2:Normandy.

Steve said:
Quote:
In defense... will be available again the "fox holes" for individual soldiers?. A soldier can dig-in in less than one hour, will be that option available for scenarios longer than that?.
Already possible in CM:SF in terms of existing, but we were not planning on having units dig-in on the fly for WW2. The very long scenario times are supported because it is easy to do if we ignore all kinds of combat factors that start to creep in for such long periods. In other words, longer scenario times are not specifically supported just like we've never supported battles with extremely large amounts of forces.
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1123703&postcount=5

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=86260

Very disappointing.

They put in into their year 2000 game, but not the 2009 game, and it ruins gameplay elements that are critical for my wargaming enjoyment (setting up or rolling up creative defensive setups).
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
Its all the usual pattern. All that good stuff in CM1 was bad for you and we know better than to give you what you want. And as a bonus, we'll rationalize it away so you look stupid for asking.
 

McIvan

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
193
Reaction score
1
Location
Auckland
Country
llNew Zealand
So what is being said is that foxholes are just very small trench/ditches a la CMSF. That seems a bit lacking. At the very least you could have a little foxhole style terrain deformation that looks like a foxhole....surely that could be done? I think the only thing he really ruled out was digging foxholes over the course of a scenario.
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
Yeah, what's the deal with him sneakily trying to mix up actual play scenario length (of course we don't want to literally watch them dig in during play time) and the setup-done, assumed to be from a couple hours earlier, digging in in shallow foxholes and rudimentary trenches.

I challenge all BFC defenders of the faith to show me one single autobiography were stationary units in frontlines in Normandy did not dig in at least for an hour.

No foxholes in attack/defense is the realism problem. If you tell that to a real soldier, much less one who has seen combat, he'll tell you that you are an idiot for playing that "toy".
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
So what is being said is that foxholes are just very small trench/ditches a la CMSF. That seems a bit lacking. At the very least you could have a little foxhole style terrain deformation that looks like a foxhole....surely that could be done? I think the only thing he really ruled out was digging foxholes over the course of a scenario.
No, he ruled out doing anything that would be done during setup time. All trenches or other fortifications will be put into the map by the scenario designer. And are visible at scenario start to both sides.
 

KenRich

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
35
Reaction score
1
Location
Australia
Country
llAustralia
Here's a simple solution based on that known constraint. Call all of these pre placed "foxholes", shellholes much like you can have with existing CMx1 premade scenarios but have plenty of them as if the area has been extensively shelled. Then the attacker wont know which "shellhole" to area fire since there are simply too many to choose and ammo. is finite.

This way you could have your guys in improved positions without screaming out to the attacking player...HERE I AM!
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
Here's a simple solution based on that known constraint. Call all of these pre placed "foxholes", shellholes much like you can have with existing CMx1 premade scenarios but have plenty of them as if the area has been extensively shelled. Then the attacker wont know which "shellhole" to area fire since there are simply too many to choose and ammo. is finite.

This way you could have your guys in improved positions without screaming out to the attacking player...HERE I AM!
I was thinking about this solution but I don't believe that CMx2 does have or CMx2:Normandy will have small enough "crater" terrain elements. Also, they would have to be placed by the scenario designer, at least semi-carefully, so that they are at the right depth of wood, far enough in to provide concealment, near enough to the edge to have a good field of vision and fire. That would get MIGHTY tedious.

Oh that's right, we don't get real protection for wood patches anymore in the first place...
 

Rocket-Man

Space is only 100Km up
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
473
Reaction score
67
Location
EST
Country
llUnited States
My reading of Steve's response is the same as McIvans. What he is saying is that there will be no option for troops to dig foxholes during the game. How foxholes will be handled during setup is not referenced in that quote.
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
My reading of Steve's response is the same as McIvans. What he is saying is that there will be no option for troops to dig foxholes during the game. How foxholes will be handled during setup is not referenced in that quote.
You don't have much experience listening to Steve, right?

Steve deliberately chose these words to confuse pink glasses younglings into assuming what you just assumed.

Most here have seen it too often to even find it entertaining anymore.
 

Rocket-Man

Space is only 100Km up
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
473
Reaction score
67
Location
EST
Country
llUnited States
You don't have much experience listening to Steve, right?

Steve deliberately chose these words to confuse pink glasses younglings into assuming what you just assumed.

Most here have seen it too often to even find it entertaining anymore.
I can honestly say I have read very few of Steve's posts. In fact, I have read more of his posts here at the Gamesquad forums than I have ever read on the Battlefront forums.
 

KG_Jag

KG Vice Kommandir
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
180
Location
New Braunfels, TX/Reno, NV
Country
llUnited States
Looks like evasive action by Steve to me. If initial setup foxholes will be in, why not just say so? Of course he doesn't.

From one of the links in the first post, another step backward from CM x 1:

Quote:
Which tools if any, will be available for infantry to cross rivers and other water obstacles?.

Probably none. The assault boats in CMx1 were a horribly rough hack which we don't want to repeat again. Other types of water crossings are outside of CM's scope and won't be simulated.
 

McIvan

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
193
Reaction score
1
Location
Auckland
Country
llNew Zealand
They can't do it with decals because they're tracking every shot....either it hits or it doesn't and a decal would stuff that system up; you'd have to fudge it completely.

So a foxhole has to be built into the terrain somehow.

I don't think the quote is saying you can't deploy foxholes in your setup. I dunno about the technical difficulty of putting that option in. But, given you can't hide them, would it actually be of any use to you anyway?

If we can't fix visibility of trenches and foxholes even in concealing terrain then I agree we have a major problem.
 

McIvan

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
193
Reaction score
1
Location
Auckland
Country
llNew Zealand
Looks like evasive action by Steve to me. If initial setup foxholes will be in, why not just say so? Of course he doesn't.

From one of the links in the first post, another step backward from CM x 1:

Quote:
Which tools if any, will be available for infantry to cross rivers and other water obstacles?.

Probably none. The assault boats in CMx1 were a horribly rough hack which we don't want to repeat again. Other types of water crossings are outside of CM's scope and won't be simulated.
He is right about the CMx1 assault boats though. Don't do it if you can't do it properly.
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
But this begs the question of why in 2009 (or 10) and a decade of CM development: why can't/won't they do it properly?
In CMx1 both foxholes and trenches were not 3D models in the terrain, no holes in the terrain. They were just "carpet", graphically, and then protection was added in an abstract model.

In CMx2 they figure this looks too ugly for the new fidelity model.

And doing 3D is too hard if you want to show it to one side and not the other.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Wait for it, before going off the rails. Sheesh.

I do hope that foxholes will be in the game. They have to be. The first thing any unit did was to entrench, no matter where they were or how long there were in a position. And it could be done in less than an hour. Shellscrapes took less time, overhead cover took more time, but slit trenches/foxholes were necessities.

There are separate issues being discussed here, let's not get confused:

  • foxholes being available at all
  • foxholes being dug during game play
  • foxholes being spotted in the same manner as units, or as terrain
We know definitely that foxholes will not be dug during game play. The other two points are still speculation.
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
You don't have much experience listening to Steve, right?

Steve deliberately chose these words to confuse pink glasses younglings into assuming what you just assumed.

Most here have seen it too often to even find it entertaining anymore.
Then why not just ask him the straight question, 'will foxholes be represented in CMN, and if so, will they be visible to an attacker from the start of the game?'

Then ask him to simply answer yes or No.
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Wait for it, before going off the rails. Sheesh.

I do hope that foxholes will be in the game. They have to be. The first thing any unit did was to entrench, no matter where they were or how long there were in a position. And it could be done in less than an hour. Shellscrapes took less time, overhead cover took more time, but slit trenches/foxholes were necessities.

There are separate issues being discussed here, let's not get confused:

  • foxholes being available at all
  • foxholes being dug during game play
  • foxholes being spotted in the same manner as units, or as terrain
We know definitely that foxholes will not be dug during game play. The other two points are still speculation.
Have to agree with MD, even today if you go out on exercise or even Ops and your walking or driving, if your going to stop for more than about an hour its either a foxhole or more often a shell scrape. Its just common sense in any warzone and even more so for Normandy terrain. Stop and dig, that way the Jerry mortar wont get your whole platoon. Same for the Germans, maybe even more important on the defensive to hide in foxholes and not lie out in the open.
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Now this from Mickey D is what I like

No, what affects sales is a newbie visiting the game sight out of curiosity, finding a bunch of grogs on the chat board complaining bitterly about missing Bren tripods or lack of working wristwatches, and mistakenly concluding that the game is too flawed to bother with. When all that was really wrong was a few obsessive-compulsive types forgot to take their meds.
So in essence, Foxholes dont matter, what matters is that everyone on the message board only says really nice things about the game so that BF can sell more games that may, or may not be fundamentaly flawed, or not.

I personally dont subscribe to keeping quiet on an issue or subject just because it may put off some 'newbie' from buying it. Imagine what tripe SF would have been if this were true on its release.

Im beginning to think that some fanboi's are starting to lose touch with reality. Was Mickey D always like this?
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
MikeyD may not always have been like that, but as a beta tester, he's been like that for a long time. It creeps up on you once you sign on the dotted line. There are no "codes of conduct" in the contract, you just do what you think is best for BFC, and there are no guidelines presented to you, really. He thinks he's doing the right things for BFC by acting that way.
 
Top