Combat Mission future

[Gkenny]

Would love to see a combat mission Korea... even if just the first year. They even already have most of the equipment and vehicles modeled in the other WW2 titles.

[LongLeftFlank]

(Oh Gawd, not another bloody Korea/Fulda/Vietnam/PTO thread!)

For Future Combat Mission, here are my thoughts, fwtw:

Combat Mission 3 would look and play a lot like ARMA3 does now, though hopefully with more ambient smoke and grit.

Interface and camera views would be different of course, appropriate to a wargame not a FPS. 

1.  CM3 would support full multiplayer online, perhaps with WeGo mode giving way to a 'chess clock' providing a finite pre-agreed volume of 'time outs' where players can confer, review replays (and bleed the Monster), then resume. Or sumfink.

2. Next gen TacAI would improve autonomous pathing, cover seeking, awareness and tactical movement of individual pixeltruppen/ vehicles. BFC would also introduce basic battle drills and formations at squad/team level that units would execute automatically, depending on: unit orders, in command status, casualties, morale, training, experience and doctrine.

This would return most player micro to platoon level and up, restoring the wargaming 'command' experience and making RT play much less of a clickfest.

3. Concealment (spotting), fog of war, terrain cover and damage models would be brought up to fidelity with the ballistics models. HE would no longer have to be nerfed.

....What else?

Edited September 29, 2018 by LongLeftFlank

[c3k]

7 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Sounds like a Bush War would be something to consult @c3k's old roommate about. I'm sure the stories he has to tell about fighting the giant crabs in the bush are both fascinating and terrifying. 

There was one skirmish involving ignited aerosol cans and flushing the roommate from under a bed.

[IICptMillerII]

9 hours ago, Mord said:

According to his barber, it was more like a skirmish on a golf course.

The things that poor barber must have seen...

 

2 hours ago, c3k said:

There was one skirmish involving ignited aerosol cans and flushing the roommate from under a bed.

Now I'm not sure whether you were fighting giant evil crabs or the VC...

Either way this is relevant:

 

+1 for a 1950 Korea game from me as well. 

[Bulletpoint]

3 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

....What else?

Persistent map damage.

[Michael Emrys]

Guaranteed Victory option at set-up.

Michael

[Erwin]

Don't we already have that, Michael?  (Alt: I must be a great player!)   

[Kuderian]

2x2m Action Spots.

Dynamic non-scripted AI a la Armoured Brigade.

False enemy unit identification a la CMx1.

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, Kuderian said:

2x2m Action Spots.

That's been suggested/requested a bunch of times and I've wished for it too, but that would mean four times as many AS for a given map and probably sixteen times the computational load. I don't think any home computer is up to that yet.

Michael

[Kuderian]

55 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

That's been suggested/requested a bunch of times and I've wished for it too, but that would mean four times as many AS for a given map and probably sixteen times the computational load. I don't think any home computer is up to that yet.

Michael

Good point Michael. But the first iteration of CM 2 was released in 2007.

Surely, there is a strong correlation between  Moore's Law and Computer Wargame fidelity granularity(and don't call me Shirley)?

[Michael Emrys]

Well, Shirley , I have to wonder if Moore's Law applies with as much force as it did when he formulated it. I don't know because I haven't gone over the numbers in a long time. But I know as a general rule things like that often mushroom at the beginning but then stabilize around some limit. Take for instance high performance aircraft. From about the mid-1920s until the end of WW II their top speed increased dramatically and then with the introduction of jet engines really took off. By the mid-1950s it was normal to be able to go over Mach 2 and in some cases Mach 2.5. But in the 60+ years since then, except in rare instances has not gone any higher for a whole constellation of reasons.

Computer engineers speak of such exotic things as quantum computing, and that may indeed remove some of the current limitations on speed. Whether such equipment can be made economical for the average user remains to be seen.

Michael

[Dynaman216]

moore's law has been undone for years now.  I don't think he ever said it would be forever anyway - just till a certain level of miniaturization was reached.  CM however only uses one computer core where multiple action spots could make use of multiples so all is not lost.  In my opinion there are still too many issues with the current action spot implementation for me to want them to go even finer grained - the number of times my tank shell hits a tree right in front of it (the only tree mind you) or my MG has no LOS but my rifle guy next to it does for instance.

[ncc1701e]

11 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

For Future Combat Mission, here are my thoughts, fwtw:

....What else? 

Introduce some delay between the time an order is given to a unit and the time the order is executed by this unit.

Introduce what I would call the "fear concept". A veteran/elite unit knowing what they are doing (they have been trained) may refuse to do an order, risking their lives.

[Erwin]

4 minutes ago, ncc1701e said:

Introduce some delay between the time an order is given to a unit and the time the order is executed by this unit.

We had this for movement orders in CM1 - time delay depended on experience level of unit.  I quite liked it as it added an interesting challenge which seemed realistic.  But, the feature was despised by many opinion makers and so not implemented in CM2.

[MOS:96B2P]

10 minutes ago, Erwin said:

We had this for movement orders in CM1 - time delay depended on experience level of unit.  

CM1 was before I discovered Combat Missions and it often surprises me when I read how many cool features CM1 had.  That time delay depending on experience is kind of interesting.  Do you remember roughly how long the delays were?   Elite = 0  Conscript = 30 seconds?  Or were they much longer delays? 

[IICptMillerII]

25 minutes ago, ncc1701e said:

Introduce what I would call the "fear concept". A veteran/elite unit knowing what they are doing (they have been trained) may refuse to do an order, risking their lives.

This is already in game. The morale system is very robust and does an excellent job of simulating combat psychology. In fact, the morale and experience system in CM is one of the primary systems (among many) that I think make CM so exceptional. 

More to your point, there are plenty of times where the TacAI "takes over" due to circumstances. Sometimes it's for the better, sometimes it's not. A scout team taking heavy machinegun fire displacing on its own is an example of the former. A conscript squad breaking cover and running after a few shots fly overhead, just to be gunned down in the open is an example of the latter. I have seen both happen plenty of times in all CM titles. 

[Erwin]

"Do you remember roughly how long the delays were?   Elite = 0  Conscript = 30 seconds?  Or were they much longer delays?"

Even Elite had a time delay but much shorter (maybe <10 secs for the first waypoint). 

The more waypoints one used in movement the longer the delays were - ie: the delay added for each waypoint increased exponentially the more waypoints one plotted.  That may have been one reason many players didn't like it.  A lengthy road convoy with many waypoints could easily take more than a minute to get moving. 

One got very creative in figuring how many waypoints to use before it became better to just let the existing ones play out, and then make new waypoints.  But, I liked the concept that conscript units took much longer to get moving than more experienced units.  Didn't see it as a problem and IIRC I won over 90% of the CM1 H2H games I played.

Edited September 29, 2018 by Erwin

[Mord]

26 minutes ago, Erwin said:

We had this for movement orders in CM1 - time delay depended on experience level of unit.  I quite liked it as it added an interesting challenge which seemed realistic.  But, the feature was despised by many opinion makers and so not implemented in CM2.

Doesn't fit the fidelity of CM2 in my opinion. What might seem cool for 3:12 isn't the same on a 1:1 scale. Smacks of game board stuff to me. Plus, we have other factors that will delay men, such as what @llCptMillerll pointed out. And I'll guarantee you, you'd like it for about five seconds. LOL. We know you too well, Erwin!

 

Mord.

[Erwin]

 

11 minutes ago, Mord said:

And I'll guarantee you, you'd like it for about five seconds. LOL.

Yes it's definitely best to never try anything new.  Why take the risk?  

Edited September 29, 2018 by Erwin

[Mord]

It's not a risk. It was tried. It was dismissed and rejected. And it doesn't really fit the 1:1 scale or real time play. I am sure there are all kinds of RT guys out there that want to issue orders and not have any of their units move for 10-30 seconds, kinda defeats the purpose of RT.  Besides you could create your own command delays right now, just give all your units pauses for whatever time you think each experience level deserves. You are the one always talking about wasting coding time on such and such feature, that would be a waste of coding time. It can be reproduced right now if it is that important to you. I can think of half a hundred features that I can't reproduce, that I'd rather see. Play one game like that and be honest with yourself and see how much you like it. Then imagine it in EVERY single game you play (just without you having to manually do the pausing). I just don't think it would be a good match for 1:1.

I think WEGO is enough of a command delay.

 

Mord.

Edited September 29, 2018 by Mord

[Erwin]

I was not advocating that BF suddenly put delays in CM2.  Just responding to a comment by NCC1701e and then MOS.  

[IICptMillerII]

Parroting some of what @Mord said; in CM you do not only play as the Company Commander, but every leader at every level. A command delay would make sense if you only played as the Company Commander, or the highest leadership position on the battlefield. But that isn't the case. Is it realistic that the scout team magically knows exactly what their battalion CO wants them to do? Not unless they have a direct line to him, which they wouldn't. However it is equally unrealistic for the scout team to be completely immobile and dumb just because the Bn CO isn't telling them what to do every second. 
"Hey Pvt Snuffy, I know we've been getting shot at by that tank for a few minutes now, but we can't leave until we get an order to displace from the Bn CO." Doesn't work. 

In order for a command delay system to work in CM, the TacAI would have to control much more than it currently does. You would have to be able to tell the TacAI of a platoon for example, to attack a barn, and then the TacAI would have to be able to handle everything by itself. The movement of squads and teams, scouting and assaulting the barn, etc. If that system were in place, then you could introduce a command delay. If the platoon was in the middle of attacking the barn, it would take a bit for it to extract itself from the attack due to C3 delays.

As it stands, I prefer the CM system. Yes, it involves much more micromanagement, but it is also more realistic in the end. If you really want a command delay, there are a few special rulesets that some here on the forums have created that restrict what the player is able to do per turn. I would advise trying those systems out first before asking/hoping for BFC to add a new mechanic to the game engine.

P.S, my name is spelled with two upper case "I's" for those of you who have trouble tagging me. 

[Mord]

Ahh, well when you said this, I figured you wanted it added to the game.

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

Yes it's definitely best to never try anything new.  Why take the risk?  

Anyway, you still have the option as I stated above, to try it out.

 

Mord.

Edited September 29, 2018 by Mord

[ncc1701e]

7 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Parroting some of what @Mord said; in CM you do not only play as the Company Commander, but every leader at every level. A command delay would make sense if you only played as the Company Commander, or the highest leadership position on the battlefield. But that isn't the case.

I see your point. It is true that, while playing, I am identifying myself as the commander of the highest HQ deployed on the battefield. That is why I am confused about the fact my radio order is a kind of mind transmission. And, I did not see the impact on RT as @Mord pointed out.

[Erwin]

16 hours ago, Mord said:

Ahh, well when you said this, I figured you wanted it added to the game.

Anyway, you still have the option as I stated above, to try it out.

 

Mord.

If folks want to try playing with command delays, as well as some of the other neat CM1 features like the Campaign mode with Bn, Regimental and Divisional reserves etc. the best and easiest way is to play CM1. 

The CM1 games are dirt cheap nowadays and many people still enjoy them due to the much larger maps and Regiment+ on each side scenarios that are easily possible to run on an old machine.