Mac Version
Our expectation is that Normandy will have a Mac version for sure… We're definitely going to have a Mac version at some point. I can't say when, other than it's an ongoing effort.
Trenches, foxholes, slit trenches
Getting back to what specific defensive stuff we'll include in CM: Normandy... too soon to say. Definitely a lot more variety of bunkers than we have now, for example wood. Bunkers big enough for AT Guns is also going to happen. Barbed wire is a sure bet. But beyond that, I can't say.
OK, so what do we have for defensive objects and how are they handled? We basically have three types:
1. Those that rely upon the terrain to give them definition (both visually and game properties).
2. Those that do not rely upon terrain to give them definition, but modify the terrain if needed.
3. Those that do not rely upon terrain to give them definition and do not modify the terrain.
Starting with the last first, things like barbed wire obstacles, roadblocks, sandbags, and other things which sit on top of the terrain mesh, and don't dig into it ever, can be treated like units. That means they can, theoretically, be spotted/hidden.
Bunkers are similar in that they are separate from the terrain and therefore can be spotted/hidden. However, bunkers are often "cut into" terrain and therefore the terrain has to be modified. Trees can't be growing up through a bunker, for example. When a bunker is put on the side of the hill, having it conform to the contours of the hill would be visually ridiculous, so the hill's terrain mesh is conformed to allow the bunker to remain horizontal. Since terrain, once modified, must be shown that way all the time you get a situation where the bunker can be shown/hidden, but the bits of terrain removed to allow it to be where it is must be shown "as is". This means you can use the camera to hunt around and possibly find where the bunkers are without actually having spotted them. The possibility depends completely on how obvious a bunker modifies the terrain (it might not modify it at all, remember).
And last but not least... things which are defined by the terrain itself. Specifically, trenches and foxholes. As is, these things can't be spotted/hidden, but instead must remain visible at all times once the game starts. The work arounds for this are not practical to achieve, for one or more reasons.
In CM: Normandy we'll add functionality that allows people to place trenches and foxholes using 2D representations (similar to CMx1). The difference is these 2D representations have NO GAME ATTRIBUTES and are, instead, identical to the little 2D icons in the Editor in terms of their functionality. As soon as Setup is exited the 2D icons are translated into 3D modifications and the changes are permanently made to the map used for the game.
It may be possible, and I stress POSSIBLE, to have foxholes retain their 2D representations in the 3D environment and then add hacked in 3D properties for them. Meaning, the foxholes will look pretty much like CMx1 foxholes, but will behave correctly in the 3D environment. This is something Charles will look into at a later date prior to CM: Normandy being complete. No promises, other than we'll give it a shot. I'm hopeful that it will work, and IF it does then foxholes will have at least some degree of FoW.
Trenches, unfortunately, are out of the question. They are too deep and too complicated to even consider making bloody hacks to get them to work in 3D without a 3D representation. Plus, on top of that they would look like crap. Based on feedback over many years from dedicated CMx1 players, and a sense of what the wider audience wants, looks do matter. But as I said, the looks are coming for free with the 3D game engine so this isn't about sacrificing spottable trenches for visual reasons, it's about the impracticality of having significant 3D objects represented in 2D.
And finally...
The realism problems associated with not having spottable trenches is, I think, overblown. Sure, the attacker will always know where trenches are once the game starts, and act accordingly, but I will remind you in CMx1 we had the opposite problem. That was where the attacker was always denied benefiting from intel gathered by previous encounters/attacks. Even if the attacker shouldn't know exactly where the trenches, he most likely would know a) that the fortifications existed, b) roughly where they were, and c) roughly how tough they were. Sure, units bumbled into thick defenses all the time, but usually those engagements were short and the attacker withdrew so that it could come at them again with a plan. Extreme circumstances, such as the Hürtgen Forest battles, this was done over and over and over again in fact.
My point here is to remind you guys that this isn't a one sided thing. In CMBB/AK trenches were unrealistically favorable for the defender to some extent, in CMx2 they are unrealistically favorable for the attacker to some extent. If you're displeased with one because it is unrealistic and has an effect on gameplay, keep in mind that you've somehow managed to live this long even though you've already experienced something similar in reverse Therefore, perhaps the negative effects aren't nearly as game wrecking as some think they are.
On top of this, we have the fact that in WW2 the options for attacking trenches were somewhat limited. Or at least vastly more constrained than they are in CM:SF's modern setting. Artillery was slower, less accurate, and less effective. Look at WW1 for Pete's sake... every inch of the enemy's trenches were known and attacked for MONTHS by heavy artillery and raked with MG and sniper fire... yet the side getting hit more often than not was able to fight off a massed attack against it. Which just goes to show that seeing the enemy's positions is not the same as being able to eliminate them.
It's also true that the more involved the defenses are, the more likely they are to get spotted. Therefore, the degree of effort to mask the defenses was somewhat proportional to the effort involved in creating them. Massive, well hidden fortifications like the Maginot Line, the Atlantic Wall, and even the Siegfried Line are outside of CM's scope and aren't part of the equation. Neither are defenses built in other epochs under similar long term conditions (like Pacific Islands, for example). The majority of defenses in CM: Normandy, therefore, should be of the hasty type that aren't heavily camouflaged. The big exception to this would be the Hürtgen Forest battles which are not within the timeframe of CM: Normandy and are, for now anyway, not relevant. Trenches in Normandy shouldn't even be that common, from a realism standpoint.
A reminder... there was aerial recon in WW2, in case you guys forgot. Not only from specialized aircraft, but also each US division had a dedicated aircraft at its disposal to check things out for themselves. Which means a field with a lot of trenches in it could indeed be known to the ground troops long before they got there. Not as likely as modern days, for sure, but definitely not impossible.
Now, don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that having trenches shown all the time isn't a break with reality. It most definitely is, no argument about it. What I'm saying is that we need to be careful about the Chicken Little effect that is so common about stuff like this. The downsides of the system, as we have it, are often highlighted, taken out of context, and blown out of proportion, while the upsides are downgraded and often cast aside. Others, like the problems CMx1 had with fortifications (like no trenches at all in CMBO) are even forgotten about because they really complicate the arguments that the sky is falling.
Terrain mesh & Foxholes + Trenches
Actually, terrain mesh deformation has nothing to foxholes or anything else. The problem is that the terrain mesh is complex and not easily modified on the fly. So yes, we could have no deformable terrain while in the game (no shell craters), but it wouldn't change a thing regarding trenches and foxholes.
Now, we can theoretically have 2D foxholes and trenches and not run into the terrain mesh problem. It wouldn't mean we would have to get rid of deformable terrain, it would mean we'd have to fudge a 2D environment into an inherently 3D environment. You're a programmer, so I'm sure you can imagine that this could get really ugly fast :d
Charles is pretty sure he could fudge 2D foxholes and I'm definitely in favor of that. They are fairly shallow and don't have issues with direction like trenches do. In other words, they rely less on the 3D world compared to trenches, therefore they are easier to fudge compared to trenches. Charles doesn't think fudging trenches would work out very well, not even considering the damage to the 3D visuals that would come from that.
Out of the two I've always considered the foxholes to be the problematic one worth trying to solve. Trenches... I'd like to have that one solved too, but technically it's not practical. Fortunately, trenches aren't all that important to either the game (CMBO had no trenches, people complained, people survived) or to the overall realism of the theater. This is not as true with foxholes.
Put another way, no FoW trenches is probably 20% unrealistic to 80% acceptably realistic, foxholes are probably the inverse of that. The idea of cramming a 2D simulation of foxholes into an inherently 3D game system is probably practical, not practical for trenches. So I'm focused on getting FoW for foxholes and not concerned about trenches.
The complexity of the mesh is the issue. Or more exactly, the limitations of the computer handling dynamic deformations and "undeformations" (I like that new word!). CMx1 wasn't able to deform terrain at all, for any reason, including things like trenches. It was just too much for the computers of the day to swallow. Now we can have a vastly more complex terrain mesh, complete with dynamic deformations... but "undeformations" based on circumstantial reasoning is not within the computer's grasp.
Polygons, animations
Animations are a really big problem for small shops like us, unfortunately. We are working on some options already.
Renders and other visual bones are likely in the near future.
Everything that is in the game [CMSF] now will be in Normandy if applicable. Radio coms for artillery is applicable for sure. Different lingo, perhaps, would be appropriate. Not sure at the moment what the calls were back then.
The game engine is designed to handle different model states based on damage. For example, when you hit ERA armor the blocks are blown off. Unfortunately, more complex things like different destroyed states requires hand made alternative models for them to look right. The quick and dirty turret/gun things we did in CMx1 barely looked OK then, but now they would look silly. We're not sure at what point we'll start to have more detailed knocked out graphics.
We'd love to put in tons of animations. Unfortunately, we've not really found commercial samples that are worth a damned, nor 3D animators who are willing to squeeze in another couple of hours' work in a day after spending 14 or so for a day job. KwazyDog (Dan) is our internal artist and his dance card is quite full. So we're still trying to solve the bottleneck on getting more animations into the game.
Gpig knows how difficult it is to get guys to help out I also talked about this with my cousin this weekend at a family gathering. He and his wife work for big Hollywood production companies (including a certain outfit in Kiwiland). The people best qualified to help us out are the ones with the least amount of time available. Or they want Hollywood hourly rates, which are a wee bit out of our budget.
Turret numbers on the sides of tanks... eventually it will happen. Not sure if Normandy will get that or not.
Pics and what not of WW2 stuff will come around sooner rather than later. I don't think the models for Normandy will have more polygons. I can't imagine what that would even look like since the current ones are already frik'n huge!
What about how armor penetration is visually modelled?
Th[at] is called "decals" which basically are graphics laid over the model to show where a hit was registered. The second involves changes to the actual model itself. The more the damage is tied to the type of damage the more work is required. We ultimately will have both decals and limited model damage. The problem is that decals require a lot of programming work and damaged models require a lot of artist time (and some programming time). That's why they aren't high priority from a development standpoint, though I can assure you that we want both in as soon as possible.
Title vs Module vs Family and the road ahead for Battlefront.com
In another thread someone asked about our plans now that CM:SF Marines is out. This question came up in second thread, and I think even a third one, this week. So I guess I should post my response here and sticky this thread for a while.
Our plan is to release a Module every 3-4 months. This should hold true for the British Module as well, but this is the first Module that we've not done "in-house" so there are some variables. Personally, I think things are going VERY well.
There are many threads on this Forum, some dating back several years, that explain the development philosophy we now have. Here is a very quick overview:
Title Release This is a major release, such as CM:SF and the initial CM:Normandy (name is still a placeholder) game. These are full priced products ($45 most likely) that offers enough game content to warrant that price. Specifics are based vary, but generally speaking shifts in geographical setting, timeframe, major shifts in units, fairly big new features, etc. combine to create a new Title.
Module Something that builds directly off of a Title product. Usually in the form of new units only, but not necessarily limited to that. For example, a game feature may be added because a new vehicle requires some sort of behavior not present in the game up until that point. However, such game features are specific to the needs of that Module.
Family this refers to a Title and its Modules.
Updates, be they bug fixes or improvements, to the game itself are always made to the Title product. This way you will never, ever have a situation where two people are playing different games because of what Modules they do, or do not, own. The fixes/improvements may be more applicable to one Module or another, but that's incidental and not really relevant.
Bug fixes and tweaks to things specific to a Module are released as their own stand-alone patches. For example, if we find that a bit of data is wrong for a Marines only vehicle, then we will release a Marines patch specifically to address that problem. This is necessary because the Modules are separate EXEs with their own data and supporting resources. Again, such fixes/tweaks are specific to Module content and therefore don't affect gameplay in any general sense like patches to the Title do.
Our plan is to make Module releases every 3-4 months, Title releases every 12 or so. Patches are released on an "as needed" basis with no hard cutoff in mind. At some point we'll say "this particular product is no longer supported" just like we eventually did with CMx1 games. However, since the basic code is going to be in use for such a long time it is possible that if someone pulls the rug out from under us that we will be able to offer a fix even if the game is several years old. In other words, if OpenGL 5 in the future breaks something we use now, we'll have to fix the code we're currently working with to use OpenGL 5 correctly. Those changes will hopefully be viable for us to offer previous customers, even if technically speaking their products are not supported. This was simply not possible with CMx1 since the code was not in use by the time various technology changes caused problems.
The second WW2 Title, [WW2 Normandy being the first] will pick up where Normandy leaves off and go through the end of the war. Because of the terrain, weather, and equipment changes in the Fall of 1944, what follows is basically an entirely different game from our perspective. Far too much for Modules to handle.
What this means is that after the initial Normandy release is out one group will be busy making Modules for it (British in Normandy, Arnhem, etc.) while the usual suspects start working on the late war stuff. This allows us to not only do the big changeover correctly, but it also gives us the time needed to continue adding major game enhancements to the system as a whole.
One of the major benefits of the new Module system is that we can stop having the grunt work (adding TO&E, models, art, scenarios, campaigns, etc.) compete with improving the game engine itself. From the customers' perspective this is great because there is both a steady flow of new stuff to play as well as a steadily improving game engine all within a fairly compact amount of time compared to CMx1. It also keeps us from burning out trying to do too much all at once, which is great for us but also good for you guys since happy developers are more productive developers.
Something new
And now for something new …
In about 2003 we set up our strategy described above. IIRC we told you guys about it in 2005, and took quite a bit of flak for it. Still do. Some people simply don't understand that the CMx1 strategy was an unsustainable concept for us and that it had to change. If we were given a choice between doing more CMx1 games, or repeating that strategy, and making no games at all... we'd make no games at all. Yup, it was far more fun for you guys playing them than it was for us to make them. Fortunately, we chose to make CMx2 instead of applying for "real" jobs.
Now that our first Module is out, it is a fair question to ask... "so, how goes the new strategy?". I'm pleased to say that the doom sayers, who predicted before and after CM:SF was released that the new concept would fail, are wrong. It was just wishful thinking on their part. The fact is that we sold more Marines Modules in the first 3 days post release than we expected to sell in its lifetime. Yup! And believe me, our sales predictions were not pessimistic. So here's a big thanks to you guys out there for the first tangible vote of confidence that we're headed in the right direction.
[note. The following two paragraphs were added on 10.7.08] The CMx2 game engine is not a monolithic product with a set of features that basically remain unchanged over the life of the engine itself. That was the way we did things with CMx1 and it was, largely, out of necessity because the code was difficult to work with. Instead, CMx2 is designed to evolve over time. Features we don't have time for today might show up tomorrow. Stuff that people aren't as thrilled about now will possibly be changed later. Things that people see as having great potential will be expanded upon, while features that don't seem to get people's hearts beating will not be expanded upon. So on and so forth.
The point is the game engine is an ever evolving platform for our wargaming hobby. It will never, ever have everything you guys want to see in it, but it will continue to have more than any other game company is willing (or even capable of) providing. Some will be unhappy with specific decisions we make, others will be overjoyed about the very same ones. The first rule of wargaming design work is to realize that you can't make everybody happy, therefore someone is always going to be upset. Focus on the wrong group and that will be the last game you make. Fortunately, we get to make that decision since it's our butts on the line.
As you can hopefully see from the above posts, we're really just starting the CMx2 strategy. By this time next year things will really be in full swing. A little behind schedule (we spent about 1 year longer making CM:SF than anticipated, 2 years if you include the patches up through v1.10), but time is on our side now. The ever evolving CMx2 game engine will keep on going, evolving and improving as we go instead of stagnating and perishing like the old inflexible and difficult to use CMx1 code.
Splitting up the Western Front via various releases
There are several reasons for this:
1. TO&E. Around the Fall and early Winter all forces in Europe underwent significant tweaking, especially the Germans. These changes varied from rather small stuff to rather large things, such as the German's late war formations which had major compromises due to shortages.
2. Equipment. Most vehicles that were still in use by the late war period in the exact same form as they were in Normandy, others were completely new. Some were fairly minor variants, such as adding armor to a Sherman or Panther, others were brand new, like M36 Jackson or M24 Chaffee. To a lesser extent this is also true for some non-vehicular weapons, such as the Panzerfaust 100 and of course the more exotic stuff towards the end of the war (like the Pak44).
3. Weather. Winter weather effects and graphics are, of course, a completely different thing from Summer and Fall. Spring is similar to Fall for the most part, though there are some differences. Textures for vehicles also need to be different, so even when we reuse the same models we have to at least change the textures.
4. Architecture. Buildings encountered along the border of Germany, and on either side, are very different than the ones found in Normandy. These things involve not only new textures, but new models AND likely new coding (though probably not much).
5. New game features. New Titles mean we have to put in new game features. If we don't make any new Titles, then you don't get any new game features. Simple equation So it makes sense to us that by the time 12 months post Normandy rolls around you guys will want some new game features to play with. The logical place to do that is with this Title.
6. New "in the box" battles and Campaign. These would go into a Module, of course, but will also go into a Title.
In the end it is no one single thing, rather it is a combination of everything. What you basically get is more content than you would with a Module, by far, plus new game features. So you can think of it as a $25 Module with $20 worth of new features and graphics that we wouldn't put into a Module.
Battlefront HAS a strategy!??
One of the best things about our strategy is that it is not dependent upon every customer buying every single Module. In fact, we definitely expect people to be choosy. That would suck for everybody if we didn't offer many things to choose from, hence why we're determined to not let that happen. If Modern isn't your cup of tea, or the thought of British tanks in Normandy bores you to tears, no problemo. Just sit back and wait for something that gets you excited.
I should have added that we will release a Demo for each Title and each Module. We're a little behind on doing that for Marines, but we will get to it very soon. This is still a learning process for us in terms of how to juggle the various needs of a Module.
Over time we will take the Modules and bundle them in with the base game or with each other. We've already done this with CM:SF and Marines. Over time the pricing will drop somewhat, though not the way the cutthroat retailers do it. As many of you might remember, there was one British retailer that was selling CM:SF at the wholesale price before we had even released the game! We still don't know how they can make out on doing that, but that's their standard MO. It is so much fun being involved with retail where you're product is like a new car... worth less than you paid for it before the ink is even dry on the contract. Grr!!
On that point, retail is not something we've completely written off. We had great success with it in the past, including a simultaneous release of CMAK. But things are changing for the worse in retail. Publishers are paying less for product and yet demanding more from them. That is in part because retail is even less interested in keeping full price point than they were before, which is really hard for us to believe. Today only a few products manage to stay away from the bargain bin for even a small amount of time by wargame standards. Our games are strong for years, but retail measures strength in weeks. Not good.
Back to the specific question about what vehicles we might throw into WW2 Modules... too early to get specific, however I will say that YES... the Module system was very much designed so that we can afford to offer wacky stuff. We've always heard from people "damn, I'd pay all kinds of money to play around with a Maus or an E-100!". Well, although we have made no specific selections for any WW2 release outside of the initial Normandy game, I can say that you guys will get your wish in at least a general way (i.e. wacky stuff).
The point is the game engine is an ever evolving platform for our wargaming hobby. It will never, ever have everything you guys want to see in it, but it will continue to have more than any other game company is willing (or even capable of) providing. Some will be unhappy with specific decisions we make, others will be overjoyed about the very same ones. The first rule of wargaming design work is to realize that you can't make everybody happy, therefore someone is always going to be upset. Focus on the wrong group and that will be the last game you make. Fortunately, we get to make that decision since it's our butts on the line.
Russions? Do I hear the Red Tide coming?
CMx2 will head East after the 2nd Western Front Title. The first Eastern Front Title will be centered around
Bagration. How much the Modules will expand upon that is unknown at this point. Too early to say. What will happen after Bagration is also not known because it is too far down the road, though it will likely be a second Eastern Front Title.
Link here to post #11:
http://www.battlefront.com/index.php...per&Itemid=259