Is ASl all that relevant anymore as the legacy leading towards CM?

[sburke]

He's going to be inside my OODA loop for quite a while now, as I scramble to consolidate and sort myself out. How well I can do that will determine how the next phase of this battle goes.

Oh, and we're not-quite 30 minutes into a 2hr game.

Hmmm nope no secret info here for ours. It has what 5 minutes left at least on the confirmed time. "you light up my life" - sing it JonS..

[JonS]

"you light up my life" - sing it JonS..

Well, my guys are singing it. I have a truck moving forward right now, bringing the marshmallows they're going stick on their bayonets and roast over your Churchills

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah I could have swore I read way back before Hasbro bought Avalon Hill it was you guys who got approached to make Squad Leader the computer game and you took one look at the ASL rule book and said "Forget it, We'll do it our way".

This is absolutely correct.

I believe this is incorrect - Charles (Big Time Software) was making games for Avalon Hill first and Computer Squad Leader was to be one of those, but in the end Combat Mission was to be a beast of its own:

This is also absolutely correct Notice the key ingredient here is "intention". Since this is a fun story to tell, I'll tell it again...

The intention was, certainly, to borrow heavily from ASL because that's what Avalon Hill said they wanted. So Charles went about making a 3D hex based graphical environment. No gameplay stuff at this point, just him figuring out how to do 3D since it was his first time. Behind him sat an unopened stack of every single ASL boxed game Avalon Hill had ever put out. It was an impressive stack of swag.

When he got around to thinking of the gameplay he opened up the ASL manuals and began seeing how he could make it into a game. He very quickly realized he had a choice:

1. Make a really great tactical wargame

2. Make a really horrible tactical wargame

No slight on ASL here. Some things just don't translate well. For example, I doubt a Finnish joke book would make a good basis for a Bollywood film. Just not the right match.

So Charles and I went out for beers one night and he said, basically, there was no possible way to make ASL into a computer game. He wasn't even going to try. This led to a discussion of what possible things could be salvaged from ASL's design. The conclusion was nothing. Right there and then the decision was made to base CM's simulation aspects on real world data and real world observations. The UI and game mechanics would, instead, would be a progression of computer wargame design.

The only thing that remained common was the hex system. After playing a couple of prototype battles against each other (fun stuff!) we saw the limitations of hexes on both the graphical environment and the gameplay. Since I was eyeball deep in producing a hex game (Civil War Generals 2) at the time, but had come off of a long tile based design prior (Lords of the Realm 2), we talked about the pros and cons and square tiles it became! A month or so later the game shed it's one and only actual tie to ASL.

At the same time Avalon Hill was falling apart. Charles rightly decided that this was yet another reason to not get directly tied into the ASL copyrighted material. If he stuck with Avalon Hill the game might have stayed hexes and you would have seen a lot of scenarios which were directly based on ASL scenarios. Right down to their maps. But the game mechanics, like Close Combat before it, would have been entirely different.

And that is how it happened. Timeframe was 1996-1997.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Every time there is a debate about RT vs. WeGo's realism I always say the same thing... you're both right and you're both wrong. All depends on what element you want to focus the discussion on. And that is why having a game that offers both is such a great thing. There's no need to argue... just play the way you want and that's that.

Steve

[sburke]

Let me get this straight. You two made one of the biggest decisions of your lives over beers?

note to self - get beer, lots of beer.

[mjkerner]

Provided the market is sufficient enough to cover the costs of catering to them, yes. This is the fortunate position we find ourselves in. We're not getting rich by even modest standards, but we are able to take care of business needs and not feel like we should quit and do something else.

Yes, and we actively tried to secure a contract. Came close a couple of times, but the deck is stacked against anything that doesn't fit existing specifications. It's one trick the bigger companies use to make sure competition is suppressed. And the officers who championed us found that out.

Combat Mission is designed to be a consumer entertainment product, not a training tool. Especially since their definition of what a training tool is can be dated back to the Stone Age Which means "as is" Combat Mission has a limited potential within militaries.

To make CM attractive to the military is easy. We just need to take about a year off from commercial work and implement the features they have repeatedly asked for since our first meeting in 2000 (got to see a T-72 blow up... that was worth the trip!). Because the military definitely has a "build it and we might buy it" attitude. The latter part is the aspect we find troubling.

Now, if some military out there was smart... they'd float us a tiny fraction of the cash they shovel into things like VBS2 and we could give them exactly what their mid level officers keep saying they need. And we could do it fairly quickly, too, since we'd take that money and hire out the people. Maybe 1 year. Not bad, but not their way of thinking.

Steve

Too bad you didn't use some of John K's contacts!

[mjkerner]

Let me get this straight. You two made one of the biggest decisions of your lives over beers?

And over our lives. They will be prying the mouse (computer, not trouser:D) out of my cold stiff hands while pixiltruppen await further orders on the monitor when I kick the bucket.

[WriterJWA]

The intention was, certainly, to borrow heavily from ASL because that's what Avalon Hill said they wanted. So Charles went about making a 3D hex based graphical environment. No gameplay stuff at this point, just him figuring out how to do 3D since it was his first time. Behind him sat an unopened stack of every single ASL boxed game Avalon Hill had ever put out. It was an impressive stack of swag.

When he got around to thinking of the gameplay he opened up the ASL manuals and began seeing how he could make it into a game. He very quickly realized he had a choice:

1. Make a really great tactical wargame

2. Make a really horrible tactical wargame

So Charles and I went out for beers one night and he said, basically, there was no possible way to make ASL into a computer game. He wasn't even going to try. This led to a discussion of what possible things could be salvaged from ASL's design. The conclusion was nothing. Right there and then the decision was made to base CM's simulation aspects on real world data and real world observations. The UI and game mechanics would, instead, would be a progression of computer wargame design.

Ahhh.... that's a cool piece of insight!

Four questions: (I ask only for my own edification only.)

1. Do you think the decision that ASL couldn't be translated into a computer game was a direct result of programming and graphics limitations of the time period (96-97)?

2. Would that be different today?

3. Are ASL tactical aspects (flares, jams, etc...) looked at as a model for what features you might develop in the long term?

4. Does he still have all the ASL swag? That's worth a pretty penny today!

[Paper Tiger]

"The overall look is a bit like Myth, but unlike that game, Combat Mission is turn-based and fully three-dimensional.... Combat Mission is much like playing with World War Two miniatures, except these miniatures come to life and fight it out in a totally immersive, adrenaline-pumping combat experience."

I was a miniatures wargamer long before AH's Squad Leader came out. I didn't really warm to SL as it was too much like work to play and have fun. (CoD's bypass movement was a real fun-killer at that time). But I loved ASL when it came out. It was far more streamlined and the rules interfered less with the flow of the game. I had been playing ASL for a few years before I finally got my hands on CMBO in the Electronic Boutique in Ipswich. It played much more like a miniatures game because it displayed percentage to hit, percentage of firepower etc that it was obvious that the hit and casualty tables hidden within the game were more minatures oriented than ASL.

Where ASL DID, and still does, influence me when designing and playing missions was its scale. Battles were usually company to a Battalion sized and they battles usually lasted something like 5-10 turns on average. With two minutes per turn, that meant a battle of about 10-20 minutes. There were some bigger ones where the turn counter ran well into double figures but essentially, scenarios covered the climax of the action.

I don't remotely feel like I'm playing a game that was influenced by ASL when I play CMx2. It's actually quite a big jump up from CMx1. Only the writing style of the manual is the same really.

BTW, REAL Real Time players don't pause the game while playing (except to take a short break and walk around the living room to keep the blood flowing to the extremities) and so it is quite possible to get within someone's reaction loop. The AI can get inside mine when played without pausing.

[JonS]

BTW, REAL Real Time players don't pause the game while playing (except to ...

You're not Scottish, are you?

[MikeyD]

I get a little nervous comparing current historical simulations to previous games instead of simply returning to the source. It reminds me too much of Quentin Tarantino movies which too often are movies about other movies. He doesn't make a 'war movie' per se, he makes a movie that references often cheesy old war flicks. If he were to think 'war in Italy' his primary reference would be the 1970 Rock Hudson film 'Hornet's Nest'.

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, and two funny pieces of trivia. First is I heard about Charles through Keith (Atomic) who was still working with Avalon Hill at the time. "You two should meet up sometime. He's in Baltimore." Keith gave me his number and I gave a call. Disconnected! So I called Bill (head of Avalon Hill's development), whom I had met at AH HQ (that is another story!). Bill said "he moved to Boston" and gave me his new number. I called it and turns out Charles was living 3 minute walk from my apartment. We met up and the rest is history.

The second funny thing is Charles and I spent a lot of time in a bar that doesn't exist any more (and more time in a bar that does) talking about this stuff and the industry in general. One night he said "I think it would be really cool to make a 3D wargame". I said I didn't see what the benefit of that would be. He then proceeded to draw it out on a Guinness stained cocktail napkin. That and a bunch of hand gestures convinced me that he was onto something. Now the funny part. MikeyD lived 10 minutes down the street and drank at the same places we did. That was many years before we even knew he existed and several more years before we knew he lived right down the street. For all we know he was sitting one table over from our discussion.

Small world.

Answers...

1. Do you think the decision that ASL couldn't be translated into a computer game was a direct result of programming and graphics limitations of the time period (96-97)?

No, it was because ASL was designed to work without a computer. Very cleverly, indeed, but completely at odds with how a computer could do it. And of course it had the usual limitations of needing to abstract stuff because there's only so much you can do with paper games compared to computer games.

2. Would that be different today?

As computers, game conventions, and UI have evolved over time it's become even MORE difficult to conceive of doing a straight port of ASL.

3. Are ASL tactical aspects (flares, jams, etc...) looked at as a model for what features you might develop in the long term?

ASL tried to model real world combat, and that's what CM does. Which means any element in ASL that is tactically valid is something we're interesting in doing. Unfortunately one benefit of paper games is they can say "+1 for spotting if you use a flare". For us we have to visually simulate it, have very complex systems for the behavior, and also have TacAI designed to act accordingly. Not as simple a thing.

Then again, pretty much any honest ASL player will admit that plenty of those little cool features were overused and perverted by those who played the rules and not the game.

4. Does he still have all the ASL swag? That's worth a pretty penny today!

Sold on eBay for lots of money many years ago. He did that before he moved. Most were unopened. They would have gone back to Avalon Hill but they were gone by then.

And finally...

Heh... that "no true Scotsman..." line is classic! But this one is better...

Steve

[womble]

I agree that you get a more adrenaline-filled time-pressured experience of the game in RT that more closely resembles that physical/mental/time stress aspect of trying not to let the enemy get inside your decision cycle.

[Cogent thought with which I agree completely snipped]

People who say RT is more realistic often overlook that while they're busy twitching and zooming and mimicking a more realistic subjective experience of the commander, they're making their individual squads and teams behave less intelligently -- hence less realistically -- because the player in his haste is missing information that IRL the squad or team leader on the ground would know and be reacting to.

More agreement here too. I think also there's an additional abstraction of the player from the putative leadership role in that they don't have to worry about their own situation as much. In a lot of ways, large shooters like BF3 and MMOFPSs like Planetside, where the commander is actually down there on the ground might give a perspective that a top down game like CM can't approach. The upcoming Planetside 2 is apparently developing ways of communicating high level objectives to the gropos and squad/platoon/outfit leaders.

[Paper Tiger]

People who play WEGO think they're playing the game in the most realistic manner while others playing in Real Time think they're getting the more realistic experience. I play RT because I KNOW I'm getting the most enjoyable experience for me. Perhaps it's not to your taste but it's the best for ME! Really, who cares as long as you're enjoying yourself.

[WriterJWA]

People who play WEGO think they're playing the game in the most realistic manner while others playing in Real Time think they're getting the more realistic experience.

I think this sums up the WeGo v. RT debate really well!

[Lt Belenko]

....

Then again, pretty much any honest ASL player will admit that plenty of those little cool features were overused and perverted by those who played the rules and not the game.

......

Steve

Well said. My gaming partner spent more time reading and digging those "gottchas" out than moving counters. Had we played with a timer I might have stood more of a chance.

[sburke]

Well said. My gaming partner spent more time reading and digging those "gotchas" out than moving counters. Had we played with a timer I might have stood more of a chance.

A hammer might have helped as well.

Another aspect of the promise of the Internet. I have PBEM partners literally around the globe. Makes it a might bit easier to find the style of opponent you prefer. One of the reasons I took so long to get into human opponent play is exactly what you describe. I figured I'd get stuck in some awkward situation of having the only opponent I knew end up being someone who took all the fun out of it. Finding out that not only could I find an opponent I really enjoy playing against/with but that I could find several has made a huge difference in my level of appreciation of the game.

Anyway the point of this thread wasn't to argue which style of play RT or WeGo is more anything, nor to decide whether playing the AI or Humans is the way to get the most out of the game. As had been said, the best way to play the game is whatever way you enjoy most.

I think however I may have answered my own question while trying to describe what it is that was causing me to feel differently about CMx2 than any previous experience in tactical gaming whether computer or cardboard. That answer is I think in the TAC AI. I also expect plenty of folks disagree with me and are more annoyed by the TAC AI than in awe of it. I doubt there is a right answer there either, but I think that may be the source of why some folks get frustrated by what they consider fanboy behavior and others sit their scratching their heads wondering what game others are playing that they always seem to find the negative. Yes I see the same oddball behavior occasionally (like that trooper of Broadswords that ran up to my roadblock and then casually attempted to stroll by as if my pixeltruppen were gonna say "hmm looks like he belongs here.." and proceeded to get shot.

I am reading Sept Hope and just read a passage about a German soldier who got hit with WP and and was so freaked out and in agony he ran around then ran straight at the American lines in the middle of a heavy firefight screaming to surrender. He was then obliterated by an 88. In battle there is no real line between logical and illogical behavior. There is just chaos. Those oddballs moments, while I know they are probably a malfunctioning pathing routine just seem to fit in. Even though I know it is probably an error, it doesn't feel wrong. Broadsword and I just shrug and mutter- damn you believe that guy? Back to the fight!

[slysniper]

I have been trying to put a finger on it, as to something that makes the game different than any I have played before.

It comes down to the infantry in the game, even though my love of war gaming has always been the tactical level. it was always focused on the armor or other major assets, Infantry in most games were nothing more than the pawns on a chess board. Inportant in their own right, but nothing more than sacrifical pieces to use to promote my powerful pieces.

CMBN has given me a whole new look at that. Much of the time now, my armor and arty and big guns are now reserved to help my infantry, they are the focus of my desire for success. though they are the weakest piece on the map, they are also the queen of the battlefield. they truely do hold the ground now, when nothing else can. They are a threat to any attacker, no matter what they ride in.

I now need to watch their ammo, their strength, their command structure, their radio communication net and so on. they have become much more real to me than in any other game. So I play them more realistically, I focus on their tactics much more than I have with other games and I feel their battle as if it was real. No other game has done that for me, the closest would be Close Combat, since it had many similar features. But Istill had a disconnect with them generally.

The battles were all about the same length, I hardly ever worried about their ammo or morale. As I watched them die it meant little most times as to if the success of the mission depended upon that one squad. Now, My lead squad means a ton to me. as they hit a objective, the enemy responce is going to tell me so much as to what the next 20 minutes might be in the battle. Companys will plan their actions from what has happened to my few first men. No ones life is taken for granted in the thought process as I play the game.

And this is even in a game where I might be commanding 400-500 men.

the game still has plenty of things it can do to improve how the infantry acts to make it more realistic. but I already think it has added what has lacked from any source before. FPS give you some of that, but lets face it. FPS generally are not very realistic to true battles, the players risk nothing, and play and tactics are not realistic in any sence to anything a real person would do in real situation. organization lacks, and many times is nothing but a free for all.

For now, this is were it is at.

[Doug Williams]

This has been an interesting thread. Thanks for starting it. And thanks, Steve, for clearing up the events surrounding the "Computer Squad Leader"/Hasbro/CM1 connection.

Like many of you, I am a former ASL player. Actually, I was more of an original SL player. I bought many ASL items, but never mastered it. Too many rules, I guess. I finally wound up selling all my ASL stuff on eBay (for a lot of money) a few years after CM1 was released and I realized that I would probably never play ASL again.

I do, however, think it would be cool to see some direct translations of some of the more popular SL/ASL scenarios into CMx2. Probably too many legal issues for that to happen, unfortunately.

[slysniper]

I do, however, think it would be cool to see some direct translations of some of the more popular SL/ASL scenarios into CMx2. Probably too many legal issues for that to happen, unfortunately.

Plenty of the scenarios were redone in CmX1, so to see some in CMX2 is not impossible, just needs someone in the community to do it. I know I did some myself in the CMx1 format, but only placed one out there for public use and changed ity enough that no one ever asked if it was based on a SL scenario.

The problem is, Though in some ways the new tools make it even better to recreate anything you can come up with, it also seems to be even more time comsuming, and getting the AI right now takes some real skills, which I know I have not wanted to invest the time into. And from what I see on the community inputed scenarios, it might be a trend. It appears as we progress, we have less and less input from communty players offering additional scenarios.

[Doug Williams]

The problem is, Though in some ways the new tools make it even better to recreate anything you can come up with, it also seems to be even more time comsuming, and getting the AI right now takes some real skills, which I know I have not wanted to invest the time into. And from what I see on the community inputed scenarios, it might be a trend. It appears as we progress, we have less and less input from communty players offering additional scenarios.

Would it be easier to make them as H2H only scenarios?

[mjkerner]

I have been trying to put a finger on it, as to something that makes the game different than any I have played before.

It comes down to the infantry in the game, even though my love of war gaming has always been the tactical level. it was always focused on the armor or other major assets, Infantry in most games were nothing more than the pawns on a chess board. Inportant in their own right, but nothing more than sacrifical pieces to use to promote my powerful pieces.

CMBN has given me a whole new look at that. Much of the time now, my armor and arty and big guns are now reserved to help my infantry, they are the focus of my desire for success. though they are the weakest piece on the map, they are also the queen of the battlefield. they truely do hold the ground now, when nothing else can. They are a threat to any attacker, no matter what they ride in.

I now need to watch their ammo, their strength, their command structure, their radio communication net and so on. they have become much more real to me than in any other game. So I play them more realistically, I focus on their tactics much more than I have with other games and I feel their battle as if it was real. No other game has done that for me, the closest would be Close Combat, since it had many similar features. But Istill had a disconnect with them generally.

The battles were all about the same length, I hardly ever worried about their ammo or morale. As I watched them die it meant little most times as to if the success of the mission depended upon that one squad. Now, My lead squad means a ton to me. as they hit a objective, the enemy responce is going to tell me so much as to what the next 20 minutes might be in the battle. Companys will plan their actions from what has happened to my few first men. No ones life is taken for granted in the thought process as I play the game.

And this is even in a game where I might be commanding 400-500 men.

the game still has plenty of things it can do to improve how the infantry acts to make it more realistic. but I already think it has added what has lacked from any source before. FPS give you some of that, but lets face it. FPS generally are not very realistic to true battles, the players risk nothing, and play and tactics are not realistic in any sence to anything a real person would do in real situation. organization lacks, and many times is nothing but a free for all.

For now, this is were it is at.

I agree with you completely, slysniper. The game really should be named "Queen of Battle" or "Poor Bloody Infantry".

[Childress]

It's a never ending source of wonderment to me why vets who been in combat, who have 'seen the elephant', seek to re-live the experience on the computer screen. I'm not sure I would. Can someone explain the phenomenon?

[Battlefront.com]

The problem is, Though in some ways the new tools make it even better to recreate anything you can come up with, it also seems to be even more time comsuming, and getting the AI right now takes some real skills, which I know I have not wanted to invest the time into. And from what I see on the community inputed scenarios, it might be a trend. It appears as we progress, we have less and less input from communty players offering additional scenarios.

This is an interesting thing for us. With CMx1 the threshold for using the Editor was low. It wasn't a very friendly editor, but because the game's terrain and parameters were relatively simplistic a lot of people found they could make things with it. With CMx2 the nature of the game itself is more complex when it comes to making scenarios. Therefore, the bar is significantly higher in terms of who feels they are capable of using it.

The way I think of it is the difference between making 2D textures from scratch and just modding someone else's work. There's a huge, huge difference in how many people out there are capable, or willing, to make 2D textures from scratch compared to modding existing work. Many more are out there modding. And speaking about the gaming industry as a whole... I feel the majority of Mods are uninspired, uninteresting, or outright crap. Which is exactly as it should be since the lower the bar, the lower the skill/passion requirements.

CMx1 to CMx2 is much the same way. The bar has gone up, the number of people making scenarios has necessarily gone down. There is no way around this and we don't see that being a problem. The reason is the people who do make scenarios for CMx2 are really good at it, turning out excellent scenarios and campaigns. As many have commented here, that really was never the case with CMx1. Quality vs. Quantity situation.

That being said, we realize that CMx2 Editor has some procedural PITA aspects that are difficult to deal with. Which is why we made several major Editor improvements to Version 2.0. Testers making stuff for Italy are really happy with the changes. More are planned for the future.

Steve

[womble]

Given what I've read about your reckoning (AIUI) that the "core market" is largely solo gamers, would that mean that improvements to AI "scripting" might be in the pipeline?