3D view: Which approach do you prefer?

[Dragnaath]

Option 2 would be my preference.

[flex0r]

Option 2

I have TacView, but I never use it because it runs bad and slows down by game to a crawl. I also don't need it to play the game, just ocassionaly watching some engagements in 3d would be cool.
So for me, the perfect option would be something that has same interface as TacView (separate window, so I can still play the game while I watch some 3d stuff) and also because it can be moved to a 2nd monitor. I just hope that would run better and have nicer models then the TacView.

[sfbaytf]

I never thought I would see this day. Years ago-probably over 10 years I mentioned a move to some sort of 3D representation making comparisons to Combat Mission. Nothing was done and looking back it was probably the right decision to focus on other things, but here we are.

I have Tac View, but rarely if ever use it. I would if I had the ability to use replays after the fact to analyze what took place, but the version of CMO I have doesn't allow for that.

During actual game play a lot is going on so unless it’s a small battle zooming in is often not practical. Even in games like European Escalation, Red Dragon, Steel Division it’s hard to zoom into just one sector when a lot is going on.

Where I think CMO gets around this is having robust mission and other editors. You can have units do things without having to micromanage. I've often spent hours in the editors setting up mission and less time actually playing the actual mission-that where a replay feature would really be useful to me-to see what took place after the fact. Spending hours of work editing missions and to not be able to replay and see what took place is a letdown.

It is intriguing to visualize some sort of 3D representation of your hours of work in the editors in a replay but use of NTDS during the actual battle especially with the larger scenarios is going to be wanted by many.

If you’re going to go 3D would it be easily modable? I think I mentioned on the Armored Brigade 2 and its move to 3D is to make it easily modable. I would think making good and highly accurate 3D models takes time and time is money when developing software so why not let enthusiasts do the work for you?

Someone mentioned the lack of accurate 3D models in Tacview. I don't know what their policy on modding is. I do recall they were asked to not port over a replay feature to CMO for the non-professional version.

I'm going to guess that any move to 3D would require a rework of the current maps. Losing the free use of the Stamen was a big blow. 3D models on a bad background is a recipe for disaster. Curious as to what degree of detail maps would be for 3D implementation. Would terrain features like mountains have gameplay effects and would they be mapped? What about undersea terrain. Subs hiding in underwater caverns. Urban areas accurately mapped?

I don't have a problem with 3D hardware requirements. I'm going to assume any move to 3D would probably require a dedicated 3D graphics card, although some of the integrated graphic CPUs would work in a pinch.

One other thing in my mind is CMO is really no longer just a naval and air simulation. Alot of land elements have made its way into CMO and its a far cry from the old Harpoon days. I would think a move to one of the above mentioned 3D ideas would facilitate larger and more expansive land operations.

If I had to choose between 1 or 2, I vote for both...but either way the one thing I feel strongly about is it should be moddable and I should have a replay feature. If you are going to go to 3D and want it usable in battles would wego be a consideration?

3D or not I would be satisfied if a suitable replacement for satellite imagery was found and a replay system-tacview or otherwise was implemented.

[PeekingDuck2]

For me, the only limiting thing with TacView are the object masks. I would prefer to see a more 'realistic' view of the battle, or possibly the option to use the current TacView presentation, and the one I described above. I also like having a separate window for this view, however, I only use it for replay. I like both options you presented as I'm comfortable with each. My main suggestion is to make any 3D presentation look more realistic so we can make interesting videos and spread the word about CMO, and hopefully bring in new players for the upcoming PVP addition.

[thewood1]

"I only use it for replay"

What do you mean by replay. Do you mean recording the battle and playing it back?

[baboeska]

I would really like to see Integrated 3d with a minimum threshold of an HD 620, with the default view being a faux-2d top down world representation as the game is currently represented, with minimum requirements being approx equivalent to 7th gen i5's/15nm chips as per embargo limits.

Considering the current setup, well, external detailed 3d view could be done via a secondary window of exactly the same data, different perspective.

Re camera control, I would like a hot key that switches camera control modes, and view that as a valid area of research.
If you have a working Homeworld style camera interface that is fluid and intuitive, that would be awesome, less clunk is better.

I feel like the UI which clearly has tactical battle origins re choices of hot keys etc, well, being able to reprogram those hot keys and move to a more standardised approach for industry standard RTS's in the civillian market, for new users, would really help game play a lot.
Ie click on an airbase, right click on a target, watch as all relevant platforms go off and hit that, would be cool.

I hope that's helpful.

[Dimitris]

I feel like the UI which clearly has tactical battle origins re choices of hot keys etc, well, being able to reprogram those hot keys and move to a more standardised approach for industry standard RTS's in the civillian market, for new users, would really help game play a lot.
Ie click on an airbase, right click on a target, watch as all relevant platforms go off and hit that, would be cool.

Ummmmm no, sorry. Not gonna happen. CMO is not an RTS game and is not going towards that direction.

[Dagoth_Ur]

I prefer the second option. I think it offers a greater awareness and understanding of what's actually happening in the game and better playability. Truth be told, even though I have 3D view, I rarely actually use it in the game because it's of such limited utility. From the perspective of game play and maintaining situational awareness in complex scenarios, the map view is clearly superior. The rest is just eye candy. Games like CMO are never going to appeal to people who are in it for cool 3D graphics. It's a more broad perspective game, that forces one to understand and employ tactics which depend on many different units all performing their roles in a coordinated and integrated manor. That makes it very different from other games, and doesn't really lend itself to 3D gameplay. I doubt it would appeal to a greater audience, or improve people's understanding of what's happening, we moved away from map symbols and towards a 3D view. That depends on having a substantial understand of the science and engineering of weapons or sensors. Once people realize that they still don't really understand how to take out an SA-21 site in 3D any better than they did in 2D, they'll lose interest. 3D views offer the illusion of undestanding.

A more abstracted view also makes it more realistic. These are the kinds of battles which in real life are fought by manipulating tracks on a radar screen over distances of hundreds or thousands of miles. You rarely actually see the thing that kills you because it's either so far away or moves so fast. In that sense 3D view feels LESS real to me, whose view of warfare is shaped less by Hollywood and more by my presence on warships or in an air operations center. I often make overlays that might correspond to real maneuver templates or satellite imagery. I think the 3D view is far less flexible in that sense. It doesn't really serve my interests, which is complex, integrated, joint tactics in the contemporary era.

Actually... if you really want to tweak something... integrate and improve GMAP.

I fully agree with you.

The 3d in this kind of game is only a fashion effect that has nothing to do there because it is not the interest of the game.

If it is integrated, it must be possible to disable it for those who do not want it.

[BDukes]

I'm cool with whatever at this point. I guess 2 is preferable.

I think the one thing I'd be concerned about is losing game performance, although given today's tech I'm not sure that's as credible an argument as it once was.

I would hope you find ways to differentiate from

Matrix's Modern Sea Power

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1816 ... l_Warfare/

or

Microprose's Seapower

https://www.microprose.com/games/sea-power/

Mike

[Mitchell_Gant]

Hello Dimitris and thank you for your question. Well, I have a simple answer to this. Let's just say Jane's Fleet Command is 25 years old this year and in my view is still the better interface today and runs at a solid 60fps. Admittedly of course, it doesn't have the same amount of calculations going on as C:MO but you know what I am saying. So, just follow the Feet Command interface model and you can't go wrong. Well, TurboTape Games went "a bit wrong" with Naval War Arctic Circle but... again, you know what I am saying haha! Cheers and all the best mate and good luck with it. Looking forward to what you come up with!

EDIT: If I have to choose an option, it is of course option 1. Unless the Fleet Command style is now option 3 haha!

[Dimitris]

Hello Dimitris and thank you for your question. Well, I have a simple answer to this. Let's just say Jane's Fleet Command is 25 years old this year and in my view is still the better interface today and runs at a solid 60fps. Admittedly of course, it doesn't have the same amount of calculations going on as C:MO but you know what I am saying. So, just follow the Feet Command interface model and you can't go wrong. Well, TurboTape Games went "a bit wrong" with Naval War Arctic Circle but... again, you know what I am saying haha! Cheers and all the best mate and good luck with it. Looking forward to what you come up with!

EDIT: If I have to choose an option, it is of course option 1. Unless the Fleet Command style is now option 3 haha!

If you like JFC's approach then you are advocating option #2, not #1.