Jump to content

Combat Mission future


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, domfluff said:

That's an opinion (not an invalid one, but opinion nonetheless) - you could take exception with a number of unit parameters, and others do.

My opinion is that you are not seeing the bigger picture here: the Combat Mission series is one of the few games available that attempts to model military conflicts in such detail and fidelity. Of course, some people take exception with some of the unit parameters. The bigger picture is that CM does the job better than most. If your opinion is to the contrary, I'd like to know which titles do it better (with such detail). 

1 hour ago, domfluff said:

The lack of detail firmly works in it's favour when it's used to model things that traditional wargames find veyr difficult - hidden information, random events and complex socio-political leanings. They are therefore a powerful tool for modelling speculative or hypotheticals, since the fine details are unimportant.

I still don't understand. For example, in all seriousness, what does modeling of "hidden information, random events and complex socio-political leanings" have to do with what we are talking about here? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm suggesting that attempting to model something entirely speculative using an explicit model might be the wrong kind of solution - if you have to make everything up, you're not simulating anything. This is why something like CM: Forever War would be better than something like CM: 40K or CM: Battletech. Decent simulations of high levels of speculation are generally better done with models which are less concerned with details. This is even true in military exercises - making assumptions that tech will exist, without being too particular about the whys and wherefores, but generally modelled in abstract, broad terms rather than specifics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, domfluff said:

I'm suggesting that attempting to model something entirely speculative using an explicit model might be the wrong kind of solution - if you have to make everything up, you're not simulating anything.

I believe that one can use the term "simulate" in the context of the development of a game that models future military units. 

1 hour ago, domfluff said:

Decent simulations of high levels of speculation are generally better done with models which are less concerned with details.

I don't think this is true, at least as far as video games are concerned. It seems that you're essentially saying that video games seeking to create immersive imaginary futures ought to remain coarse like obscure board games. Your evidence for this is that you can't model things that don't exist. Of course, you can. This is done all the time in research and development, prototypes, etc. etc. 

1 hour ago, domfluff said:

This is even true in military exercises - making assumptions that tech will exist, without being too particular about the whys and wherefores, but generally modelled in abstract, broad terms rather than specifics.

If CM: 2067 went so far as to model laser weaponry, I'm sure a believable model could be created using the CM frame. In my opinion you are needlessly complicating things here. You claim that it would be better to use a different type of game to "simulate" or "model" future combat. I am trying, but it just seems to be an illogical argument. None of your points have substantive bearing on the issue of developing "CM: 2067". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, domfluff said:

It's pretty cool, I'm tempted to put together some similar problems in CM really (different scale and context, obviously).

You can have a read here for free, I ordered one of those out of copyright reprint jobs on Amazon for a couple of quid.
https://archive.org/details/moltkestacticalp00moltrich/page/n7

Interesting stuff.  Thanks for sharing.  +1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with futuristic versions is that automation, AI and drone development will gradually remove the human element. What makes CM for me is the immersion in the TAC AI and seeing how my pixeltruppen react. If one need not model morale or experience, the game becomes a lot less interesting or immersive for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Pericles said:

By writing "tends", you imply that there is a chance that BF or some other group could make a solid, believable military simulation set in the not-so-distant future (e.g. 2067). So I contend that if BF really put their heart into a title like this, the resulting product would not "fly off in all directions with no validity whatsoever".

Oh, there is a chance, just as there is a chance that it will start to rain $50 gold pieces tomorrow. But speaking for myself, I am not ready yet to run outside with a bushel basket to gather them up.

8 hours ago, Pericles said:

Further, I think they do an excellent job modelling current military capabilities... describing the modeling as "borderline" is essentially synonymous with saying that it isn't done well.

No, I think they do about as well as a private company without access to lots of classified data can do. What I am saying is that modeling anything as complex as combat is inherently shot through with imponderables and difficulties. Even trying to model wars that have long histories of examination and analysis is a tricky proposition. I've seen many models of WW II battles or campaigns, whose first draft seemed quite reasonable, produce wildly inaccurate outcomes when playtested. Fortunately in this case there was a historical record it could be compared to and necessary adjustments made. In a case of a future, even a near future battle with weapons and tactics not even tested in battle, there is no reality to compare the model to, so no way to check whether it holds water or not. That by definition means that it is not a reliable predictor of future outcomes. Not being reliable, it is of no interest to me.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and there you have it. If most customers of CM have a strict preference for historical simulation, then perhaps the first CM3 release should include two titles, one that is futuristic and marketed so as to expand the customer base, and another that is historical (or "what-if" historical) that caters to the existing base (or those out there who are history buffs but who have yet to learn of CM). 

As for your gold coin rain analogy, it is far more likely that a future futuristic CM scenario would be done right. You will agree if you are sane. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said:

I've seen many models of WW II battles or campaigns, whose first draft seemed quite reasonable, produce wildly inaccurate outcomes when playtested. Fortunately in this case there was a historical record it could be compared to and necessary adjustments made. In a case of a future, even a near future battle with weapons and tactics not even tested in battle, there is no reality to compare the model to, so no way to check whether it holds water or not.

Actually I disagree at two different levels Michael. Models go wrong for very clear reasons (imo) and most of the time is for the better (gameplay wise) not to fix them. This is informed by my experience both playtesting and working on building sims. 

I think it is very safe to say that like 90% of the time that you see a reasonably well designed model go off the rails is because you're not capturing a human factor. For instance, you can work out a very reasonable and detailed model of logistics, combat and transport to portray a campaign like Typhoon or the Bulge. But if you don't have in your system something, mechanics or rules, that either create certain incentives or compel the players to employ their forces in a manner consistent with that documented for their historical counterparts, you can kiss goodbye to "reproduce" a historical outcome or anything resembling it.

A typical example is having an operational representation of Barbarossa where the Red Army player isn't compelled to behave as if he thought his forces had a chance to defeat the German Army anywhere, anytime. Otherwise you'll get the STAVKA playing the part of Brave Sir Robin. Another typical example are games where the Allies player can evacuate the Dutch East Indies, the Malay peninsula and Burma in a game covering the initial steps of the Japanese offensive in early 1942 without any kind of repercussion.

In the CMx2 games, and as @slysniper said on the recent thread on how to use snipers, for all its realism, is still a game. We do all kind of crazy things since pixeltruppen aren't real people. If they die, due to our stupidity or our excessive optimism or our timidity, we're fine with that and don't have nightmares, develop PTSD or feel compelled to write to Steve letters expressing our condolences. There's no consequence to our acts.

Unless one day the pixeltruppen escape the computer and decide it's time to do like their Westworld colleagues and have some fun too.

Edited by BletchleyGeek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

I think it is very safe to say that like 90% of the time that you see a reasonably well designed model go off the rails is because you're not capturing a human factor. For instance, you can work out a very reasonable and detailed model of logistics, combat and transport to portray a campaign like Typhoon or the Bulge. But if you don't have in your system something, mechanics or rules, that either create certain incentives or compel the players to employ their forces in a manner consistent with that documented for their historical counterparts, you can kiss goodbye to "reproduce" a historical outcome or anything resembling it.

I absolutely agree and that is an important part of why I posted what I did. That's why some very good games have had the "irrational factor" designed in. The French 7th. Army and the BEF must go charging into Belgium on the first turn even though any player with any historical sense knows that is virtual suicide.

Absent that hindsight add-on, you could never get a historical outcome. I can't think of any other way to get the player into the mindset of his historical counterpart. If you can, more power to you. I'd love to buy your game.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

I absolutely agree and that is an important part of why I posted what I did. That's why some very good games have had the "irrational factor" designed in. The French 7th. Army and the BEF must go charging into Belgium on the first turn even though any player with any historical sense knows that is virtual suicide.

I seem to remember in AH's France 1940, that was called "The Idiot Game".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Warts 'n' all said:

I seem to remember in AH's France 1940, that was called "The Idiot Game".

An even better example was GDW's Fall of France. I always wanted to try the sane option where the charge into Belgium was not obligatory to see if the Germans would still win anyway, but the damn game took so long to set up and play, and took up so much room in my apartment that I never got around to it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...