Matrix Games Forums

That's a bummer Erik and I'm afraid you are gonna get a lot of flak back on that feature or in this case non-feature. Having a unit up with full units after it's taken heavy fire and step reductions is gonna look and be kinda ghey. It's the eye feedback that puts the player into an immersive and reality feeling, and seeing my infantry take hit after hit and reduced to nothing and not a single man falls to represent some form of step loss until the whole unit is decimated is gonna kill that immersiveness totally.
 
You're telling me it's that hard and alot more work to animate a couple of soldiers falling or even disappearing from the stand at each step loss? Funny when playing CM it just doesn't look that complicated that 1 man on the stand represents about 3 people and when 3 people get shot/dead one of the lil infantrymen disappear.

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
That's a bummer Erik and I'm afraid you are gonna get a lot of flak back on that feature or in this case non-feature.

So far, only one flak gun is firing. [;)] Again, seriously, please play the game before pre-criticizing it. I think you'll have few complaints on the look of things. Once you are actually playing the game, I think you'll find it to be quite immersive.

You're telling me it's that hard and alot more work to animate a couple of soldiers falling or even disappearing from the stand at each step loss? Funny when playing CM it just doesn't look that complicated that 1 man on the stand represents about 3 people and when 3 people get shot/dead one of the lil infantrymen disappear.

I'm telling you it didn't make the cut for this release. We did a lot, but we couldn't do everything that came to mind. It's not an issue of "hard" it's an issue of time and budget and trade-offs.

It's interesting that you can understand the concept of a "game buying budget" but not a "game development budget". Why don't you own more games? Surely there are other good games out there that you haven't bought? Why would you possibly not buy them?

On the one hand, you're criticizing us for not already having the game out, on the other hand you're upset we haven't added more features. <sigh>

Dang right I'm a prospective customer so I have a right to pin point things that are in or out of the game not to my liking. That's what you put the forum up for didn't you for FEEDBACK and what the consumer wants? Now you sound like it's a pain to get feedback, make up your minds what you want this forum to do for you. You don't have what I hoped the game would have in it what do you expect me to react like? Oh that's nice Erik oh you dah man oh Erik the great let us all [&o]&nbsp;because Matrixgames makes wargames. lol Well you ought to know me better than that by now I don't [&o]to any game company or developer. I tell em what I want to see and if it ain't got it welp then they get the consequences of my feedback. Sounds to me now you just want to sell the game and don't really care for the feedback or MY feedback rather.
&nbsp;
Thing is I have no doubt that this point didn't come up during or after PC:OWS production/release and it should have been one of the top priorities. And you ought to know the consumer could care less about what expenses or budgets you incur while producing a game. I'm sure everyone that shops at walmarts is really worried if Sam is meeting budget and how much it costs him to ship goods from point a to point b or if his printer broke. lol
&nbsp;
It's going to be an issue, because when the game is released I'm going to make it an issue. It might be only one bullet firing atm, but, where one bullet flies others are soon to follow. PING PING BANG POWIE!

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Sounds to me now you just want to sell the game and don't really care for the feedback or MY feedback rather.

I appreciate feedback, but have you noticed that you've switched over to asking a series of "is this in there" questions and when the answer is a predictable "no" (because it wasn't that way in Winterstorm and isn't listed as one of the improvements) then you decide that it should have been a top priority. While I listen to all feedback, that particular tack does get a little exasperating.

Thing is I have no doubt that this point didn't come up during or after PC:OWS production/release and it should have been one of the top priorities. And you ought to know the consumer could care less about what expenses or budgets you incur while producing a game

It came up during development. It was investigated and it was decided that given the time it would take to do it right, other improvements which _are_ in the game were more important. So if we had done this, you can probably pick two or three other things from the list which you like and remove them in order to have had this in.

It's going to be an issue, because when the game is released I'm going to make it an issue. It might be only one bullet firing atm, but, where one bullet flies others are soon to follow. PING PING BANG POWIE!

Feel free, but it's not going to change until the next release, when we have time and budget to add more animations and effects.

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
It's the eye feedback that puts the player into an immersive and reality feeling, and seeing my infantry take hit after hit and reduced to nothing and not a single man falls to represent some form of step loss until the whole unit is decimated is gonna kill that immersiveness totally.

Just trivial. You pay attention to the unit's status on the lower left. Tells you all you need to know. Actually when you play it is better to get a birds eye view of the battlefield rather than get so low you miss the big picture.
If you want to kill immersiveness there's always bases.[:'(]

Shaddup Mobius![:D]&nbsp;All your bases are belong to US/ME.

[blockquote]quote:

It's going to be an issue, because when the game is released I'm going to make it an issue. It might be only one bullet firing atm, but, where one bullet flies others are soon to follow. PING PING BANG POWIE![/blockquote]


Feel free, but it's not going to change until the next release, when we have time and budget to add more animations and effects.

&nbsp;
That's fair I expect you to&nbsp;say that, all I'm saying is I'm not going to let you forget it .

I'm absolutely delighted that Panzer Command will not have 1:1 representation - Combat Mission: Shock Force went 1:1 and I feel that was possibly the wrong direction for that franchise to go, at least at this point in time. It really has, in my opinion, little to do with a company-level, squad-based game. Jamming a bunch of useless data about individual rates of fire is great, but I think you reach an "uncanny valley" level where the extra detail simply detracts from the realism rather than adds to it. I'm looking forward to the Kharkov game - I'm also looking forward to Combat Mission's next Second World War title, hoping that their 1:1 experiment will pay off. Done right, perhaps PC will even surpass the mighty CM franchise as the number one 3D WWII company level turn based tactical game. Should be interesting in the next couple of years.

As for individual animations, if I cared about them, I'd play Call of Duty - I'd far prefer to see more unit capabilities in-game, even without animations, than the ability to come down to the lowest camera level and watch 3D robots doing stuff. To play the game properly you need to be up at the highest levels anyway; if you want to make movies, there is always Theatre of War or Activisions "The Movies".

For my personal preferences I think that 1:1 modeling at this level isn't necessary. As the company commander you wouldn't see each soldier fall just as you wouldn't know what ammo load each tank has in it.

With PC taking a higher level approach at the company and battalion levels rather than the lower level approach of platoon and squad I think 1:1 modeling could be left out without any adverse effects on game play.

For me it could. I would rather seen the resources used for things like realistic night combat and a map editor.

Good Hunting.

MR

I was just reading the interplay between Mad Russian and Erik in the CMX1 vs PC thread - excellent info there. Very glad to hear about the scene decorator being released, and the priority on a true map editor. Also some hints at stuff like more dynamic terrain effects (fire, destructible buildings, etc.) and a delinking of weather effects from the map, as well as fortifications, etc. Seems unfair to come onto the forum and complain about what a game doesn't have instead of lauding it for what it does have, but I guess there is nothing new under the sun. Will definitely watch the release of this and the growth of the series with anticipation. Anyway, glad that there is an alternative to CM - there were so many people up in arms about this being a "rip-off" of CM, and then CM abandoned what to a lot of people were the core features it valued the most, that this is most pleasant to read about.

Hi Michael,

Very true, very true indeed.

Regards,

Grell

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Just trivial.

I agree... a total non-issue. "Kill immersiveness totally" my arse.

Combat Mission Shock Force transitioned into 1:1 representation from squad counter pieces and it was a disaster.
Perhaps it was a case of over modelling.&nbsp;

ORIGINAL: jomni

Combat Mission Shock Force transitioned into 1:1 representation from squad counter pieces and it was a disaster.
Perhaps it was a case of over modelling. 

Yes, the move to 1:1 has taken Battlefront over six months and six or seven patches, from the release date to now, to try and get right. Arguably it still isn't done.

While 1:1 may suit modern squad level combat (with defineable fire teams and more potent weapons systems) it seems entirely pointless with WW2 tactical combat which was really only ever centred around the platoon. As attrition took it's toll on both the East and West fronts that may well have changed to the company.

Having said that, I am not averse to seeing the squad representation diminish as casualties are taken (i.e. three men drop to two with light casualties and to one with heavy casualties etc.) In fact, the more I think about it, the more appealing that idea is because it gives an instant, on map, visual clue to the status of your forces, without having to consult the info box for each squad.

ORIGINAL: James Crowley
Having said that, I am not averse to seeing the squad representation diminish as casualties are taken (i.e. three men drop to two with light casualties and to one with heavy casualties etc.) In fact, the more I think about it, the more appealing that idea is because it gives an instant, on map, visual clue to the status of your forces, without having to consult the info box for each squad.

That’s a good idea and would be consistent with the step casualty system.

ORIGINAL: James Crowley
Having said that, I am not averse to seeing the squad representation diminish as casualties are taken (i.e. three men drop to two with light casualties and to one with heavy casualties etc.) In fact, the more I think about it, the more appealing that idea is because it gives an instant, on map, visual clue to the status of your forces, without having to consult the info box for each squad.

That's definitely on our to-do list, it just didn't make it for this release. I agree that it's a good visual method. For the next release I'd also like to start out by showing full strength (i.e. 8-12 men) squads rather than the max 5 we have now, assuming we can make some performance improvements and that hardware performance continues to improve. That will make the eventual display of casualty effects more effective.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: James Crowley
Having said that, I am not averse to seeing the squad representation diminish as casualties are taken (i.e. three men drop to two with light casualties and to one with heavy casualties etc.) In fact, the more I think about it, the more appealing that idea is because it gives an instant, on map, visual clue to the status of your forces, without having to consult the info box for each squad.

That's definitely on our to-do list, it just didn't make it for this release. I agree that it's a good visual method. For the next release I'd also like to start out by showing full strength (i.e. 8-12 men) squads rather than the max 5 we have now, assuming we can make some performance improvements and that hardware performance continues to improve. That will make the eventual display of casualty effects more effective.

Thats good to know.

Given the likely development time of another full release (1.5 - 2 yrs?) is it possible that you might go down the extension route, i.e. an add-on with some of the potential new features included and maybe some new battles/campaigns and additional models?

We haven't made that decision yet (expansion or sequel).

We would like to add more resolution in a variety of areas, we just want to be careful to not go overboard. There are many ways we can improve infantry modeling even further without necessarily going to the point where we're counting each individual soldier's bullets or checking his state of mind.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
That's definitely on our to-do list, it just didn't make it for this release. I agree that it's a good visual method. For the next release I'd also like to start out by showing full strength (i.e. 8-12 men) squads rather than the max 5 we have now, assuming we can make some performance improvements and that hardware performance continues to improve. That will make the eventual display of casualty effects more effective.

Wow nice to hear. That will looks like Close Combat in 3D.

ORIGINAL: James Crowley
Given the likely development time of another full release (1.5 - 2 yrs?)

If things are linear. OTIH they could be geometric. 2^2=4 then 2^2^2=8....[:D]