This is an excerpt from a thread, featuring posts by the mega-modder MikeyD and Battlefront:
Posted by
MikeyD (Member # 5596) ondocument.write(timestamp(new Date(2007,1,12,13,41,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); February 12, 2007 04:41 PM:
Actually, a caged Stryker isn't much smaller than a school bus! I did a size comparison awhile ago. Let me see if i can locate that old link. Oh, and I've lost weight and grown out my hair since this picture was taken
Posted by
Hans (Member # 2719) ondocument.write(timestamp(new Date(2007,1,14,10,18,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); February 14, 2007 01:18 PM:
[ February 14, 2007, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Hans ]
Posted by Battlefront.com (Member # 42) ondocument.write(timestamp(new Date(2007,1,14,11,38,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); February 14, 2007 02:38 PM:
Heh... funny pic, Mikey!
There will be no SHIFT-C behavior in CMx2. The reason is that the model size and position is now directly tied into the game engine, unlike CMx1 where it was abstractly connected. Meaning, if you doubled the size of your forces in CMx2, they would be simulated at 2x the size. Fortunately, the greater detail of the terrain and the 3D floating icons mean the problems faced with CMx1 are largely gone. I personally never used realistic scale in CMx1 because I found it unplayable, but I have no such issues with CM:SF in 1:1.
In terms of the engine simulating water and watercraft, it is true that in theory the engine supports it. It's just that the amount of coding needed to make a game focused on naval battles (as opposed to naval landings) is rather huge. Even naval landings is a significant amount of work.
Steve
Here's the link to the thread:
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=001242