No collision detection in M2tw.

[IceTorque]

I was just reading an interview with ken Turner lead programmer and Dan Toose designer in PC Powerplay (http://www.pcpowerplay.com.au/games/index.php)


Do big battles coupled with individual unit textures and one-on-one fighting mean we'll need a massively powerful PC to run the game?

KT: Not at all. All the effects in the game use Shader Model 2.0 and while we've raised the minimum spec considerably, you should still get good performance from a pretty average PC. If you look closely, you'll see most of the fighting is what we call "Hollywood fighting". Weapons don't actually connect and soldiers don't actually touch. There's no collision detection at all which saves use hugely on CPU overhead. The combination of good art and clever camera angles means the game can look awesome and not choke your PC.

I thought I read somewhere that M2 soldiers would actually hit each other, not that I'm complaining as I love how smooth it runs on my old PC.
What excites me most about the no collision detection is that I was under the impression that the biggest obstacle to putting even larger armies on the battlefield was collision detection. Does this mean that the next TW game will maybe have much larger/realistic sized armies?

[alpaca]

Isn't there a 2d collision detection? Like, when two soldiers try to stand in the same place they can't?
Anyways, what would much larger units do for realism? If you play on huge, you already get very large armies and it doesn't change that much during a battle

[shaggy1973]

There is no need for collision detection as the game decides on hits from it defence vs attack stats engine. Collision detection is very resource hungry, imagine having to cheack 6000 soldiers for collision detection each cycle.

They may actually hit each other graphically, but "collision detection" is a graphics computing term and means something specific.

[Phalaxar]

Isn't there a 2d collision detection? Like, when two soldiers try to stand in the same place they can't?
Anyways, what would much larger units do for realism? If you play on huge, you already get very large armies and it doesn't change that much during a battle

Yes, I believe they do have a footprint (a 2D collision area on the ground). But seeing if corners overlap is much easier for small, simple (mathematically simple) 2D shapes than for 3D shapes with hundreds of verteces and a lot of weird angles.

I think it's great that CA are throwing thinking at this, rather than just brute computing power. :yes:

[IceTorque]

what would much larger units do for realism?

Realistic numbers = more realistic set piece battles and tactics with much greater game immersion, imo. In RTW in an attempt to immerse myself in the game, I imagined I was a lowly legion commander, albeit in charge of an under strength legion.

[Puzz3D]

Yes, I believe they do have a footprint (a 2D collision area on the ground). But seeing if corners overlap is much easier for small, simple (mathematically simple) 2D shapes than for 3D shapes with hundreds of verteces and a lot of weird angles.

I think it's great that CA are throwing thinking at this, rather than just brute computing power.
It's an octagon unless that's been simplified along with all the other simplifications made in the new battle engine. The thing I find strange is that in the M2TW demo it seems men are taking turns fighting. I see extra men who could be striking at an enemy waiting until the two men fighting finish. In the earlier games such as STW, extra men would crowd around a lone enemy, and they would all be striking at him within a single combat cycle.

[Censor]

I've seen that too, and it is frustrating seeing my guys get slaughtered one by one by King Francis when they could all bum rush him and take him down in a glorious melee.

[shifty157]

I see extra men who could be striking at an enemy waiting until the two men fighting finish. In the earlier games such as STW, extra men would crowd around a lone enemy, and they would all be striking at him within a single combat cycle.

Thats not good at all and should be fixed in a patch as soon as physically possible. Taking turns to fight in little duels completely removes any advantage numbers may have given.

[Puzz3D]

Thats not good at all and should be fixed in a patch as soon as physically possible. Taking turns to fight in little duels completely removes any advantage numbers may have given.
It does remove a lot of the advantage of having more men because the lone man can only strike at one of his attackers within a combat cycle, and with battlefield upgrades you can see how a man could become almost invincible as he kills one man after another if the other unit is of a weaker type. To be fair, I have seen double attacks by men, but my impression from watching a couple of encounters is that they are hesitant to do it. It seemed to me that unengaged men should be more aggressive about striking at an enemy man. I suppose it's possible this is one of the mechanisms that CA used to slow down combat resolution.

[anders]

In medieval 1, if my memory is right, only two troopers could gang up on an other trooper. this, of course led to powerful generals being able to hold out for an insane amount of time even when completely surrounded by infantry who hould be able to drag him down from the horse and finish him quickly.

[doc_bean]

It does remove a lot of the advantage of having more men because the lone man can only strike at one of his attackers within a combat cycle, and with battlefield upgrades you can see how a man could become almost invincible as he kills one man after another if the other unit is of a weaker type. To be fair, I have seen double attacks by men, but my impression from watching a couple of encounters is that they are hesitant to do it. It seemed to me that unengaged men should be more aggressive about striking at an enemy man. I suppose it's possible this is one of the mechanisms that CA used to slow down combat resolution.

I'm pretty sure there was a similar mechanism in RTW. I think at most two men engaged a single opponent at a time.

[screwtype]

Thats not good at all and should be fixed in a patch as soon as physically possible. Taking turns to fight in little duels completely removes any advantage numbers may have given.

Yes, I agree, this sounds like a very cheesy game mechanic. I hope it's not how the game actually works.

[Phalaxar]

I do think that it's sensible for there to be some upper limit, probably depending on the unit - more than two ponies against one ickle soldier probably won't fit round (if they've only got swords), and maybe three or four infantry against like? Maybe 5 or 6 halberdiers/pikemen.
But it is a pretty low number that can properly engage just one opponent at once I reckon.

[hoom]

I'm pretty sure that STW had a limit of 2 vs 1 per combat round.
Same with MTW as mentioned, it is the reason for Jedi Generals; a general can only be attacked by 2 of the weaker unit at a time so it is very hard to actually get a kill.

[Tamur]

Try dismounting while playing Mount & Blade and see how long you survive in a melee against even three opponents (or two in many cases). Numbers and position definitely decide infantry battles. What's the good of flanking if the flankers have to wait for the pinning melee to finish? hmm.

Anyone with very definite information on this for M2TW please do post it.

[econ21]

Try dismounting while playing Mount & Blade and see how long you survive in a melee against even three opponents (or two in many cases).

I agree with the general point, but I think Mount and Blade overdoes the advantage of numbers. Multiple enemies attack you so quickly and recoiling from their blows make you unable to strike back, so it's almost hopeless even against two opponents. I think grappling should give numbers an advantage but without grappling, one would imagine weapon skill counts a little more than it does in Mount and Blade.

[Tamur]

Just got back to this thread after losing it for a bit. Good point econ. The recoil from a strike in M&B is rather overdone now that I think of it. Though I have found that a balanced cavalry sword in the Last Days mod makes a world of difference ~:)

On the original question, now that the game has been out a bit, does anyone have more to contribute on this question (i.e. how many attackers a single soldier can have at one time?)

[AussieGiant]

Just a question to PUZZ and Screwtype...

...have you two gentlemen got the game yet!!??

[Akka]

Isn't there a 2d collision detection? Like, when two soldiers try to stand in the same place they can't?
I'm pretty sure that, by "collision detection", they mean "weapon and target collision detection", like, in RTW, hoplite would actually aim and touch their ennemy with their spears, and the spear would connect.
As I understand it, in MTW2, there is simply one animation for "attack" for the attacker, one animation of "defense" for the defenser, and the weapon of the attacker isn't detected for collision (which means it can sometimes be a bit off-target).

If I guessed correctly, it's a minor graphical change of little impact that save a lot of computer power, and it totally unrelated with actual unit collision detection.