Inferior to CMBB

[Battlefront.com]

Obviously I'm coming in a bit late. Not that it matters since the first few pages look identical to every thread started by "this game sucks"

I find that playing the big scenarios is more intimidating than it is actually hard or too much work once I get into it.  For me a doubling in size of the force does not mean a doubling of work, the bigger the size, the less the extra work per size.  The bigger the force, the larger the portion that is in the back not requiring any complicated moves.   I also do a lot of group moves for front lines guys, but for them they are placed in small groups in nice formations and the waypoints get adjusted as needed and a lot of pauses get placed at way too many waypoints individual.  That's the most painstaking part for me in the larger battles, going through the group orders to add pauses at the right waypoints.

While there was no deliberate intention to make this happen, it is actually a GOOD thing from a realism standpoint. Wargamers way, way, way, WAY over micromanage their forces for the most part. This results in micro coordinated actions that could never have happened in real life, which in turn produces unrealistic results. Likewise, the certainty that comes along with the player's overview of the battlefield allows for a higher degree of certainty than a real commander would have, and that in turn produces worsens the time compression problem that all wargames experience.

I play exclusively in RealTime. I don't play as much as I would like, but I don't have a problem working a multiple battalion sized battle. Heck, I made a few of the ones that come with Red Thunder. If one takes into consideration that in real life units spent a great deal of their time doing nothing proactive, therefore having an entire company sitting around doing nothing because you're concentrating on something else actually increases the overall realism of the game (in most cases, most times).

That said, I do understand that it requires a major mental sift for wargamers to have this mindset. But it is possible and there are big benefits that come along with it if you can do it. If you can't, then definitely smaller battles are the way to go.

 

A lot of players here argue for splitting squads all the time.  I don't think that's the best way, unless your force Is so limited you need to.

 

We had the same issue in CMx1, BTW. The first thing the "squad splitters" would do upon starting up a game is split all squads proactively because "that is the only way to play the game". They could not conceive of it being any other way. There is a time and a place to split Squads, otherwise we wouldn't have included it as a feature, but the notion that it is mandatory requirement or victory is just nonsense. Not surprisingly I find that those who habitually split squads are also the ones who don't view larger battles as viable. Understandable since splitting squads dramatically increases unit counts, and there's only so many units that can be controlled even with my above mentioned hands off approach.

hmm, I seem to be in the minority on this one, but that's really what I think.  I agree that borg spotting has been eliminated on a "micro" level, ie individual units/vehicles can survive longer because of it, and that is helpful to some degree, but "macro" borg spotting remains, and that to me is a bigger problem.  My units might not know what is going on, but I do, and I am the one telling them what to do...

Ooooooo... huge disagreement there. The Yellow Lines of Death did not get their nickname for nothing, you know The tactical use of Borg Spotting has vastly more impact on the gameplay than the player use of Borg Spotting. Vastly. Did I mention vastly? No? Well, it does have vastly more impact.

Remember that player leveraging of Borg Spotting in CMx1 was absolute. If your unit had LOS to a target you could always, always, assign it a Target Order that stuck to the target unless LOS was broken. In CMx2 that is not possible unless you your unit ALSO spots the target unit. That neuters a huge swath of player abuse of Borg Spotting right there. On top of that, if the unit loses sight (spotting) of the target it is stops firing. In CMx1 there was no concept of 1 to 1 spotting and therefore that never, ever happened. Ever.

So the elimination of tactical abuse of Borg Spotting is massive. Not only does it thwart the TacAI, but to a large extent it thwarts the player too since overrides are possible and workarounds minimal.

Obviously there still remains a problem with leveraging Borg Spotting for decision making and indirect fire. Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about that except to remove the player from the game completely. Not a very good prospect for a wargame

Steve

[kevinkin]

Perhaps players feel at a disadvantage if they do not micro manage - realism be damned. More true in ladder fights. But even against the Ai the will to win produces a paint by numbers approach to executing the players plans. Taking 30 mins to plot a one minute turn is counter intuitive - but we all do it at times with large OOBs. Everyone has their threshold on when the plotting become just too much.

Kevin

[J Bennett]

What I can't understand is why someone would post that CMBB is superior to CMRT on the CMRT forum.   Most of the people who are reading this thread probably also played CMx1 and those who didn't probably aren't going to pick up a game as old as CMx1 if they already have CMx2.  So really, what is the point of this thread?

 

   Well personally, I dont see why some are so touchy about it. He did say they are both good games. CMBB is an ancestor to CMRT and I might say Squad Leader and Advanced Squad Leader board games are perhaps ancient ancestors. I don't think it is neccessarily a bad thread. Seems like an interesting discussion to me. Is CMBB better than CMRT? No I dont think so, except in a few areas where CMRT will probably catch up.

 I admit I havent played CMBB  since way before CMRT came out. I can think of ways that I think the ASL board game is better than any computer game. I think it is the expereince that counts. If a particular war game has a certain "Magic" for you and sparks your imagination, there is somethig to be said for that. 

[Mord]

Obviously I'm coming in a bit late. Not that it matters since the first few pages look identical to every thread started by "this game sucks"

 

 And like most of these threads the guy that starts them disappears. I sometimes think they do it just to stir up **** more so than to start a discussion but I will admit this thread has actually been very tame and civil compared to other ones we've had.

 

Where am I?

 

 

Remember that player leveraging of Borg Spotting in CMx1 was absolute. If your unit had LOS to a target you could always, always, assign it a Target Order that stuck to the target unless LOS was broken.

Steve

 

 

95% of the time you didn't have time to issue anything because every dude that could draw an instant bead on the spotted unit (especially if it were a vehicle or AT gun) let loose an avalanche of lead death. AT guns probably had a life span of about thirty seconds in CMX1 once they fired a couple shots. I have had them plague me like crotch lice in a couple CMBN games, never having seen where they really were.

 

I don't get what 76mm is thinking but I think there is a complete 180 degree difference in Borg spotting in CMX1 and the spotting we have now.

 

 

Mord.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Mord

[A Canadian Cat]

   Well personally, I dont see why some are so touchy about it. 

 

Ahhhh, touchy?  I don't see anyone being touchy.  Asking what is the point of this thread based on what the OP said is totally legit.  It is a very strange thread but we have some how managed to have a somewhat interesting discussion anyway.

 

I have had them plague me like crotch lice

 

Should we be concerned that you have that as a point of reference

[Mord]

 I have had them plague me like crotch lice

 

 

Should we be concerned that you have that as a point of reference

 

That would all depend on how far inside the LZ you are...

 

 

Mord.

 

Edited May 27, 2015 by Mord

[Battlefront.com]

I also don't see anybody being touchy. Confused, curious, a bit shocked? Sure. Understanding some of the OP's comments? Yup, that too. But not touchy.

Another part of the OP's point is one that's been an issue for many CMx1 fans since the start of CMx2. And that is quantity vs. quality, breadth vs. depth. This we totally understand because we deliberately made CMx1 one way, and we deliberately made CMx2 almost the total opposite way. For someone who values quantity vs. quality or breadth vs. depth, then CMx2 is definitely lacking in their eyes. And I'd agree with it from their perspective. But we made CMx2 the way we did because people kept telling us they would rather have higher quality and deeper depth than quantity and breadth. We agreed, and so we are where we are.

Steve

[Mord]

Another part of the OP's point is one that's been an issue for many CMx1 fans since the start of CMx2. And that is quantity vs. quality, breadth vs. depth. This we totally understand because we deliberately made CMx1 one way, and we deliberately made CMx2 almost the total opposite way. For someone who values quantity vs. quality or breadth vs. depth, then CMx2 is definitely lacking in their eyes. And I'd agree with it from their perspective. But we made CMx2 the way we did because people kept telling us they would rather have higher quality and deeper depth than quantity and breadth. We agreed, and so we are where we are.

Steve

 

 

And that was the part I edited out of my first post. If one thinks about it, using CMBN as a gauge, it's actually kind of bogus when players make this argument. We have depth as well as breadth, quality and quantity, more so than in CMBO. Yeah, CMBN doesn't cover June 44 to May 45, but what it does cover, June 44 to Sept 44, has more units/vehicles (minus the French), more terrain types, and even country specific buildings, than CMBO had for the same time span. And once The Bulge title is completed the full CMBO experience will have been replicated, bigger and better. And that's how I feel about RT. Yeah, okay we don't get everything at once, but so what, if we get everything eventually, and you guys make money, it's the same result (but better 'cause you are still in business). Saying RT doesn't have this or that isn't being completely honest (or is ignorant) if anybody has been paying attention to what BFC has been up to since 2011 because it's not done. And until things change, that's how I am viewing it.

 

 

 

Mord.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Mord

[76mm]

 AT guns probably had a life span of about thirty seconds in CMX1 once they fired a couple shots. I have had them plague me like crotch lice in a couple CMBN games, never having seen where they really were.

I agree that AT guns now  have a purpose, which is great.

 

But for the second time someone is pointing out that removing borg spotting is great because they don't spot the enemy; again, that has nothing to do with borg spotting, which refers to the fact that once one enemy has seen you, all of them have.  If you don't spot the enemy at all, that is because of new spotting rules/routines, not because borg spotting has been removed.  

[Mord]

Yeah, I get what you are saying but the "where they really were" part is what's important. I saw enough to know they were there, what they were, but the spots disappeared quickly and it didn't result in every guy in the immediate vicinity auto targeting them when they were seen, which is what would've happened with Borg spotting. That's what I was trying to say, anyway. I didn't mean it to come off as didn't see them once or at all. Actually the particular battle I am thinking of DC kept moving them back and forth so it really screwed with the spotting. He couldn't have done it CMBO 'cause they would've been pounded.

 

 

 

Mord.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Mord

[76mm]

I agree that the fact that units don't stay spotted is a big advance, I just don't think it is the same thing as Borg Spotting.  

 

And even though you never really got a good spot on the ATs, once you'd seen where it was, unless your self-restraint is much greater than mine, your entire force would act as if it knew where it was.  As Steve says, there is no real solution to this issue, but it is what it is...

 

For me anyway, maybe the lack of Borg Spotting will be more obvious when CMRT moves out of Belorussia--where most of the scenarios I've played have featured very broken lines of sight (brush, trees, buildings, etc.)--into the open country around Kursk, etc. 

Edited May 28, 2015 by 76mm

[Battlefront.com]

But for the second time someone is pointing out that removing borg spotting is great because they don't spot the enemy; again, that has nothing to do with borg spotting, which refers to the fact that once one enemy has seen you, all of them have.  If you don't spot the enemy at all, that is because of new spotting rules/routines, not because borg spotting has been removed.

This is not correct, IMHO. And I think, but am not sure, that I'm the one that coined the term Borg Spotting I also coined a separate term which is "Player as God". They are sorta related, but they are different. Borg Spotting was explicit to the game mechanics and the chain of events coming from them. Player as God is what the player is able to do with that information that a real commander, nor the AI opponent, can do with the units under his command.

Borg Spotting is the concept that when one unit spots an enemy, then all friendly units are instantly able to act on that information without regard to the real life chances they would be able to. In CMx1 the milisecond a single unit on your side spotted an enemy unit EVERY SINGLE one of your units also spotted it. In CMx2 the player definitely gets that information, but the units do not. This is extremely important because the majority of targeting and TacAI counter measures are automatically triggered by the spotting information. This is a massive difference and I am baffled as to why, after all this time, I have to point it out.

Directly related to this is that in CMx1 the player could 100% translate that Borg Spotting information into a Targeting action provided LOS exists and the TacAI hasn't already engaged. In CMx2 that is absolutely not guaranteed because units have to individually spot or they are not allowed to Target.

Coupled to the above, TacAI defensive behavior kicked in instantly in CMx1 for all units that were in LOS of the newly spotted unit. In addition to targeting it could mean rotating, popping smoke, reversing, etc. In CMx2 a unit must first have spotted the enemy unit before any of this can happen.

All of this is separate from the Player as God problem. That is where the player has too much information and flexibility to exercise it on the battlefield. CMx2 only degrades this ability a little by preventing manual targeting by units that have LOS to a desired target but have not spotted it yet. That's a big improvement, but granted it is only a chip off the big stone. A improvement is that any actions, or even inactions, planned based on the excessive information may not work because if your units do not spot the enemy their TacAI might not act optimally. Another chip off the big stone is the introduction of multiple spottings of the same enemy unit. Meaning, you may see 3 "?" icons and a vehicle, but it turns out there is only one enemy unit and it's not where the vehicle is (i.e. that's outdated intel). In CMx1 these limitations did not exist, so for sure the Player as God problem in CMx1 was greater.

Sooooooo... let's stick to the facts in this discussion. Compared to CMx1 it is correct to say that CMx2 largely kills the Borg Spotting problem, but only chips away at the Player as God problem. The only real way to tackle the Player as God problem is to remove the player. Since that's not a desirable remedy, the Player as God problem will persist for all future CM games.

Steve

[76mm]

This is not correct, IMHO...Borg Spotting is the concept that when one unit spots an enemy, then all friendly units are instantly able to act on that information without regard to the real life chances they would be able to.

****

Coupled to the above, TacAI defensive behavior kicked in instantly in CMx1 for all units that were in LOS of the newly spotted unit. In addition to targeting it could mean rotating, popping smoke, reversing, etc. In CMx2 a unit must first have spotted the enemy unit before any of this can happen.

I always hesitate to debate with Steve--best case any time he spends responding is time away from work on the upcoming CMRT module (ahem), worst case he can make me look like a dummy...but that's never stopped me before, so:

 

1) I'm not sure that I understand your first point--you disagree with me, but then admit that Borg Spotting only applies once one unit spots an enemy, which is exactly what I'm saying...

 

2)  On your second point, I think it would have a big effect if you're playing real time; but if you're playing WEGO, as I do, the impact of this lack of defensive behavior is more limited, because within a minute at most I'll be able to cause the unit to take defensive measures myself, and moreover, even if I can't spot the enemy units, there are plenty of things I can do to supress/mask them:  I can have tanks fire smoke, fire HE near the enemy, fire at their building, etc.  Gamey?  Yes, but I and probably many other players tend to do what they can to keep their pixeltruppen alive.

 

I seem to be the only one with these opinions, so I'll shut up at this point, but wanted to get my two cents in...

[ASL Veteran]

I always hesitate to debate with Steve--best case any time he spends responding is time away from work on the upcoming CMRT module (ahem), worst case he can make me look like a dummy...but that's never stopped me before, so:

 

1) I'm not sure that I understand your first point--you disagree with me, but then admit that Borg Spotting only applies once one unit spots an enemy, which is exactly what I'm saying...

 

2)  On your second point, I think it would have a big effect if you're playing real time; but if you're playing WEGO, as I do, the impact of this lack of defensive behavior is more limited, because within a minute at most I'll be able to cause the unit to take defensive measures myself, and moreover, even if I can't spot the enemy units, there are plenty of things I can do to supress/mask them:  I can have tanks fire smoke, fire HE near the enemy, fire at their building, etc.  Gamey?  Yes, but I and probably many other players tend to do what they can to keep their pixeltruppen alive.

 

I seem to be the only one with these opinions, so I'll shut up at this point, but wanted to get my two cents in...

I get what you are saying, but at the same time you should understand that with CMx2 an opponent can use your ability to area fire and react to spots against you.  For example, if you are someone who area fires a lot at spots, then if your opponent uses a lot of dexterity in repositioning his units you could spend a lot of time wasting ammunition blasting nothing but empty space all the while making incorrect assumptions about the intentions of your opponent.  In CMx1 deliberately repositioning forces in an effort to create uncertainty and confusion in your opponent is something that couldn't be done. 

[Los]

I do believe that these very small amounts of time that designers give for scenarios (this goes for lots of wargames as well) contributes to feeling you have to play in WEGO and to micromanage everything. Even in these platoon battles you get sometimes 30 minutes. I like to make my scenarios a little longer and play them in RealTime so it's not a click fest. Not every tactical battle every fought in the history of mankind is the last half hour of little round top where the fate of the nation is at stake. 

 

Like I used to tell guys before rushing into a house to clear it: "Hey, you've got the whole rest of your life to get in there so do it right... "

 

Los

Edited May 28, 2015 by Los

[Melchior]

Wargamers way, way, way, WAY over micromanage their forces for the most part. This results in micro coordinated actions that could never have happened in real life, which in turn produces unrealistic results. Likewise, the certainty that comes along with the player's overview of the battlefield allows for a higher degree of certainty than a real commander would have, and that in turn produces worsens the time compression problem that all wargames experience.

FO REALZ. This is the biggest problem wargaming has had since it has existed. (Seriously, read about the US Navy Fleet Problems sometime, you'd be amazed how old these problems are.) This is why I cringe everytime I see another "how do i micro the inf for the win guys" topic.

Wargamers are so used to the micro-management sims of the last 20 years of poor game design that it's become the norm for them. It's why the term "realism" on an internet forum does not mean "how it would actually happen" and really means "what I expect to see." You can't even tell some really nutty guys about "realistic" things like how Companies would blunder into machine gun positions or make a wrong turn at the t-junction. Because few wargames of the past decades have actually been about making decisions and suffering consequences. They've been about fantasy fulfillment.

The problem of micro-management comes from entitlement. Gamers believe they deserve to win if they tick the right buttons and that's that. If you don't do that than you deserve to lose! That war has really often been about things like luck, misinformation, and mistakes has no bearing on popular perceptions.

[womble]

I do believe that these very small amounts of time that designers give for scenarios (this goes for lots of wargames as well) contributes to feeling you have to play in WEGO and to micromanage everything. Even in these platoon battles you get sometimes 30 minutes. I like to make my scenarios a little longer and play them in RealTime so it's not a click fest. Not every tactical battle every fought in the history of mankind is the last half hour of little round top where the fate of the nation is at stake. 

 

Like I used to tell guys before rushing into a house to clear it: "Hey, you've got the whole rest of your life to get in there so do it right... "

 

Los

Chicken? Or egg? Or Lizard...

 

Often the only way a given scenario can be a "challenge" for a human player against an AI opponent is to give a short time scale in which to complete the objectives. Perhaps it's a lazy way out, but it's a common method of bringing some tension to the narrative of a scenario. The "Buying the Farm" scenario that IanL and MethodGamer are playing "face up" over in the BN forum is an example of this: the German defenders are so seriously outnumbered and outgunned that it is only a matter of "when", not "if", the Americans can dislodge them, even with a human defender. If the time limit were an hour, it's entirely possible the Amis could achieve a total victory with only trivial casualties; in my run-through, about half the casualties  suffered were from friendly fire because I was rushing. That's the "lizard" bit...

 

Whether short timescales encourage time compression or are a natural consequence of the inevitable "God's Eye View" of the player, that's the Chicken/egg argument. I'd argue that the "doing in an hour or two in-game what might be expected to take 3-6 hours IRL" artefact is simply a consequence of the simulation's parameters and limitations. And frankly it doesn't matter a jot if some of the boring "waiting around" is excised (so long as you're not trying to tie it into a "realistic" operations layer where things like resupply and "offmap movement" are at RL speeds and according to RL timetables...).

[A Canadian Cat]

This is extremely important because the majority of targeting and TacAI counter measures are automatically triggered by the spotting information. This is a massive difference and I am baffled as to why, after all this time, I have to point it out.

 

Oh, lots of us get that and do not need to be told.   I would be baffled if you thought that there is more than a handful of people who didn't notice

[J Bennett]

I did not realize  the "Borg spotting" was that omnicient in CMBB. I understood the phenomenom but I never kew it had been given a name .

I guess the "player is God" factor is present in all wargames as far as I know. I remember discussing it with guys  I played CM, Steel Panthers, ASL, etc.

Maybe to reduce this it is better to play realtime? ( i almost always play wego).  But you can still "cheat" in realtime by pausing the game to give orders.

Should one never pause the game in realtime? But then as a player said earlier its a brutal clickfest and its like the commander has no time at all for strategy and tactics.

[slysniper]

FO REALZ. This is the biggest problem wargaming has had since it has existed. (Seriously, read about the US Navy Fleet Problems sometime, you'd be amazed how old these problems are.) This is why I cringe everytime I see another "how do i micro the inf for the win guys" topic.

Wargamers are so used to the micro-management sims of the last 20 years of poor game design that it's become the norm for them. It's why the term "realism" on an internet forum does not mean "how it would actually happen" and really means "what I expect to see." You can't even tell some really nutty guys about "realistic" things like how Companies would blunder into machine gun positions or make a wrong turn at the t-junction. Because few wargames of the past decades have actually been about making decisions and suffering consequences. They've been about fantasy fulfillment.

The problem of micro-management comes from entitlement. Gamers believe they deserve to win if they tick the right buttons and that's that. If you don't do that than you deserve to lose! That war has really often been about things like luck, misinformation, and mistakes has no bearing on popular perceptions.

There is way too much truth in this comment.

Having grown up playing war games and then also having served 8 years in the Marine Corp in combat units I will add my two cents as to how little the two things are alike.

A game is just that, a game. Wargames are like any other game in that you have one player making all the decisions and dictating the actions within the game to meet his desired goals. It is a united front with all choices trying to lead to the same end result. I think that is enough to show that no wargame will ever be close to what happens in real conflicts.

Now of course I served from 1980 to 1987, so there has been many advances in communications to try and coordinate units in Battle since I was in. But when I was in, I was shocked as to how even simple battle plans could get all unorganized in very short periods of time and that was in conditions normally where your life was not truly in danger.

I saw things like, units attacking incorrect objectives, units getting lost, Units miss their jump off times because of not being able to cover the distance needed in the preplanned times.

Misunderstanding instructions from leaders and preforming incorrect acts.

Commanders not able to correct incorrect actions of units under their command in time because of the time it takes to recognize, contact and communicate the issue, all of which prevents them from communicating to anyone else at that same point.

lack of information as to what the goals are and then lack of action by unit leaders because of it.

Now get real bullets flying and add in , units and individuals actions that do not perform their orders but do more to protect themselves and stay alive, Not really trying to engage the enemy.

And the list goes on, and on and on.

So you find, how little you control the events because it is a action of that decisions of hundreds and thousands of people playing out on a field of battle and the leaders are doing nothing more than trying to coordinate their small portion of command, and generally they are doing it with very simplistic commands.

So I always smile when I see players wanting as realistic as possible wargames. Because the truth is, it will never be close. And if for some reason, someone did make something close to the real thing. Almost ever wargamer would hate it and it be a flop

Edited May 28, 2015 by slysniper

[Battlefront.com]

I always hesitate to debate with Steve--best case any time he spends responding is time away from work on the upcoming CMRT module (ahem), worst case he can make me look like a dummy...but that's never stopped me before, so:

 

1) I'm not sure that I understand your first point--you disagree with me, but then admit that Borg Spotting only applies once one unit spots an enemy, which is exactly what I'm saying...

I agree that's the definition of Borg Spotting, but disagree with you that there's a Human element in the equation. That's the Player as God aspect. As I said, the two are distinctly different from each other. CMx2 largely squashes the Borg Spotting problem, but it only scratches the Player as God problem. As I said, the former is a technical issue the latter is a playability issue. Which is why we've largely solved one and not been able to do much with the other.

 

2)  On your second point, I think it would have a big effect if you're playing real time; but if you're playing WEGO, as I do, the impact of this lack of defensive behavior is more limited, because within a minute at most I'll be able to cause the unit to take defensive measures myself, and moreover, even if I can't spot the enemy units, there are plenty of things I can do to supress/mask them:  I can have tanks fire smoke, fire HE near the enemy, fire at their building, etc.  Gamey?  Yes, but I and probably many other players tend to do what they can to keep their pixeltruppen alive.

For sure there are SOME work arounds (gamey, mostly) to the technical side of things. No, we can not prevent Player as God behavior directing Area Fire where it should not be. But as ASL Vet rightly points out, it is a work around that comes with a lot of downsides. CMx1 didn't have those downsides. Therefore, it's still a major improvement even for those who wish to undermine the game's realism safeguards. But you're still missing a big point.

OK, so you play WeGo. Tell me, for 60 seconds worth of combat... exactly how many opportunities do you have to implement gamey micromanagement Player as God stuff? Once every 60 seconds? Yup. So what happens for the other 59 seconds? Are you able to do things like pop smoke, issue/cancel Area Fire, affect new movement orders, etc.? No. Can the TacAI? Yes. The same was true in CMx1 as it is for CMx2 in this regard, but not in how each functions.

In CMx1 if on the 1st second of Playback your little pixel truppen see a new threat, all of them within LOS respond to it pretty much instantly. Yes or no? Yes. How about in CMx2? No. Now it's the 2nd second of the game and a new threat appears. Same thing as the 1st second? Yes. What about the 3rd second and the other 56 seconds? Same deal.

So you see, the TacAI's ability to respond instantly in CMx1, but not CMx2, radically alters the gameplay and therefore the outcome. Even if the player was allowed to micromanage to the same extent in CMx2 as in CMx1 (and that is definitely not the case), the fact that the Player as God is locked out of manipulation for 59 seconds matters a lot because a huge amount of new information is gained and lost in those seconds and there isn't a thing the player can do about it at the time.

Ironically, RealTime allows for vastly more Player as God interference because they can pause and intervene at any time for as long as they wish. In theory. In reality people who play RealTime don't exercise that ability because it is in conflict with the concept of RealTime play. In fact, many RealTime players (such as myself) have unwritten rules about when to pause and not pause. For me, I only pause if the battle is big and complex and I need occasional time to handle two divergent tasks at the same time. One of those tasks might be to get a beer or go to the bathroom Otherwise I stay off the Pause button.

 

I seem to be the only one with these opinions, so I'll shut up at this point, but wanted to get my two cents in...

 

It's OK, because whether you understand or appreciate it or not, CMx2 is neutering the Borg Spotting problem. And there ain't a darned lot you can do about it either

 

I do believe that these very small amounts of time that designers give for scenarios (this goes for lots of wargames as well) contributes to feeling you have to play in WEGO and to micromanage everything. Even in these platoon battles you get sometimes 30 minutes. I like to make my scenarios a little longer and play them in RealTime so it's not a click fest. Not every tactical battle every fought in the history of mankind is the last half hour of little round top where the fate of the nation is at stake. 

 

Like I used to tell guys before rushing into a house to clear it: "Hey, you've got the whole rest of your life to get in there so do it right... "

 

Los

Yeah, the time limits are definitely artificial and, in part, a means of combating player micromanagement. We know players are going to do it, so there has to be some sort of counter balance. There's also other reasons for time compression, mostly due to Player as God problems, so not taking that into consideration does neuter the realism to some extent. Note that scenario time constraints and time based objectives are up to the designer and, therefore, are inherently optional.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

There is way too much truth in this comment.

Having grown up playing war games and then also having served 8 years in the Marine Corp in combat units I will add my two cents as to how little the two things are alike.

...

So I always smile when I see players wanting as realistic as possible wargames. Because the truth is, it will never be close. And if for some reason, someone did make something close to the real thing. Almost ever wargamer would hate it and it be a flop

Yup This is the biggest impact the Player as God problem has on realism. The player not only wears dozens if not hundreds of hats at the same time, which is inherently unrealistic, but he also has a degree of certainty that no battlefield commander ever has. For example, he knows where all his friendly forces are to the man at any given second. Blue Force Tracker doesn't even come close to that (yet). That is a MASSIVE advantage for the player because he nows, for sure, that if he plunks down artillery on a specific spot that he is/isn't risking friendly casualties. He also knows not to order anybody into the danger zone while it's coming down, then knows when it's safe to move in. How many battleplans have been FUBAR'd by artillery hitting friendlies? In the game, hardly any unless you're doing something dumb. In real life it happens all the time.

The other issue is there is no map Fog of War. We would love to do it, but it's a technical issue as well as a playability one. So that's not going to happen. Which means the player has an overly accurate picture of the battlespace compared to any real life commander. This is why I don't weep any tears for players who complain that they didn't notice a small terrain detail that screwed up an ATG position or left a tank's flank exposed or hid an enemy MG. That's the sort of stuff that is normal in real life so if it happens due to player inattention, that's a good thing.

For me, I play from Camera 3 and up for the most part. That means I miss micro terrain features all the time, which also means I make bad tactical decisions based on over simplified planning all the time. To me that's a good thing because I enjoy realism challenges and that's a big one. I do understand that others disagree. For sure they complain about it often enough when it happens

Steve

[delliejonut]

We came up with one possible solution to the Player as God problem on the Black Sea thread about shorter turn times. The idea being during set up you make all your orders for the whole game and then see where the chips fall. If you wanted to get gamey with it I suppose you could change orders after 15 or 20 turns.

 

A variation on this is two players picking forces in the scenario editor and creating AI plans for their side, then watching the battle from the author test.

 

Someone needs to make the first AIAAR

 

Edit to say on the BS thread no one wanted shorter turns except the poster. By the end even he changed his mind, I think

Edited May 28, 2015 by delliejonut

[Los]

I always wanted to play this game in first person commander mode (anyone play Scourge of War Gettysburg using Headquarters in the Saddle mode?). The game could make a great Company commander simulator. Of course the single greatest thing you could do for multiplayer realism is make the game coop (Like SOW does) and then play it in realtime, so you have say a  two or three guys each running a platoon or what not in realtime, locked to their player character. Not everyone's cup of tea, but if CM did this I'd marry it!

 

Los

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, if someone gifted me a big pile of money and forced me to spend it on something that isn't commercially viable, it would be co-op mode (what we call CoPlay). That was a part of the original CMx2 design back in 2004 or so and it's just not viable, unfortunately, without a patron. The US military looked interested in it for a while, then they did an about face and told all us low cost alternatives to pound sand.

CoPlay would dramatically change the Player as God problem. It would more realistically portray the command structure of a real battle, which all on its own would have a huge impact. However, it would allow for other fun things like not allowing a player to see the 3D map from anything but a unit's perspective (probably up to Camera 3 height). Anything above that requires a 2D map. That break from 3D to 2D would also take a bite out of the Player as God thing because there would be limited details about where your forces aren't, and that means lots of things such as hesitation and uncertainty. Then, of course, players would be required to follow someone else's overall plan and that means they can only micromanage within their small slice of the battle, not micromanage the whole battle.

And more, but unfortunately not going to happen unless someone funds it in one big lump sum. It's simply not commercially viable otherwise.

Steve