1:1 Representation in CMx2

[David Chapuis]

I was thinking about this and trying to imagine some of the different features this could bring to the game.

This first that came to mind was squad medics/taking care of casualties. Imagine a squad taking a casualty, and then two or three of his buddies shouldering their rifles and bandaging his wounds. Or maybe a squad is advancing and somebody gets hit, so they pause for a moment to pick him up and drag him to rest of the way. BFC could add huge play features around this concept alone.

[Other Means]

I'm more interested in seeming them take available cover. If BFC can pull that off it'll look amazing. Seeing where casualties were actually taken will improve gameplay a lot IMHO.

One issue is what will happen when you zoom the scale? Will they 1:1 continue or will they coalesce into squads & then into platoons? I think that would be the best idea with the squad being represented by a corporal & a squad by a sergeant.

All the rest of the possible animation doesn't really mean much to me but yes, it'd be nice.

[aka_tom_w]

I am not sure I have the same expectations.

I would be happy to see only %10 - %20 of them firing there weapon or doing anything but cowaring when they are under fire.

AND I would be surprised if that would even be modeled?

MY biggest question would be how will casualties be handled?

I am guessing that we won't see a body for every KIA but I could be wrong?

I don't expect the kind of detailed modeling David is refering to.

-tom w

[Sirocco]

Make no mistake, just having each man find the best available cover while being in a position to put out effective fire is a huge task. I wouldn't expect them to spend much time on extra details.

[Sergei]

I think this game will inevitably flop. The AI of individual soldiers just can't be much better than that in Close Combat series (due to larger scale), and in those you could at least hold the hands of your squads on a second by second basis, but here only minute by minute. Seeing that CMBB is the ultimate pinnacle of wargame development, I'm happy with what I have had to date and will now sell my PC and move to Nepal to herd goats. Come for a cup of tea if you happen to wander to Kathmandu some day!

[YankeeDog]

Well, one obvious advantage of 1:1 representation is that different men in squads and weapons teams have different jobs, and 1:1 representation would allow for more detailed representation of what happens when a specific member of the team goes down.

This is represented in a very abstract manner in the current CM -- there is a random chance that squad LMGs, demo charges and/or AT weapon get lost when the squad takes a casualty.

However, if you were actaully representing 1:1, you could model in more detail what happens, for example, when the LMG gunner gets hit. If the squad is stationary or not moving quickly and in good order, someone else in the squad probably picks up the LMG and assumes the role of gunner. But there would be a period of time, ranging from a few seconds to perhaps as long as a minute or two, during which the squad LMG would not be available. Depending on the situation, this could be relatively unimportant, or disasterous. Imagine, for example, what happens if a German Rifle 41 squad loses its LMG for 15 seconds right in the middle of trying to repel a Soviet Human Wave attack.

It's easy think of other examples where losing a certain squad member at a certain time could be really bad. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Other Means]

The last thing I would want is the kind of juggling you had to do with squads in C&C. I well remember sending them from one room to another trying to bubble sort the squad members to get the most useful in a firing position.

So yes, 1:1 representation needn't mean detailed animation of each character but it would be cool and I think cool sells games, which is what BFC is ultimatly about.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

It's easy think of other examples where losing a certain squad member at a certain time could be really bad. . .

That is what shock and suppression is for. You don't have to show the soldiers crapping their pants to simulate the effect.

[YankeeDog]

Yep. The current modeling of suppression, morale, and shock do a pretty good job of abstractly modeling these effects.

But the model could be further refined with the ability to actually track who gets hit. I would wager, for example, that a tank with a badly wounded driver acts very differently than a tank with a badly wounded gunner. . .

To me, actually "show[ing] the soldiers crapping their pants" is nice eye candy, but such graphic bells and whistles are ultimately secondary to the more desirable goal of a more detailed model of what individual squad/team/crew members actually *do*, and what happens when that functionality is lost, either temporarily or permenently.

Cheers,

YD

[David Chapuis]

I was trying to think of what extra play features 1:1 could add to the game - and then the visual representation that would be exciting to see. I am hoping that it is not merely a graphicaly representation of what already exists in CMx1 - that would seem to just add clutter. And I know it is not, because in the other post they said they were going to have individual unit stats.

The play features that could be added with medics/casualties are pretty deep.

I am assuming all of this would be calcualted abstractly at the squad level but played in detail in the 'movie'. The way I imagine it, if a squad were to take a casuality, here are examples of possiblities - depending of an array of variables:

1. Bandage script (light wound) - squad firepower drops for 30 seconds (that is CM bandage time) while two guys quickly bandage their friend

2. Checks man who is KIA

3. Pick up comrade - squad halts its move/advance to gather their friend

4. Call for medic (serious wound) - firepower drops for longer as men treat a more serious injury. An medic appears and takes over.

5. Retrieve wounded man - (this could happen when a unit starts advancing but then becomes pinned and a casualty happens at same time)

6. Wounded man left behind (when squad routed)

7. Man wounded but dies while being treated

8. Man wounded and then helpers get wounded

Other than handling casualties and keeping track of indidual ammo, what other play features does 1:1 add. Watching a 6 man MG team operate would be fun to watch, but there is no new play involved - that I can think of.

And I know it probably wont be included, but it is fun to suggest.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

Make no mistake, just having each man find the best available cover while being in a position to put out effective fire is a huge task. I wouldn't expect them to spend much time on extra details.

I hope the movies try to show this, but that the actual squad level AI does not try to calc this. I was under the impression that the squad will still be the low-level unit, but visually represent each man 1:1.

And what I am hoping for is visual details that represent only abstract calculations. But I am thinking that a few new play features, still squad level, not individual level will be added because they can show them.

Some more I just though of:

Assualts on buildings/MG nest/bunkers or advancing cover to cover with 3 men vs 10 men. I would assume (having never been in the military), that an assualt on a building with 3 men would be much different than one with 10 men. Since CMx2 could show the difference graphically, maybe they will have a calculation for each also.

[GSX]

As far as Im concerned Im happy with the way combat is moddled in CM now. I would just like to see an increase in graphics to the standars of the other games around today. Full squads with individual members would be great, Im not bothered about watching medics treating wounds etc. Also after 30 secs or so a dead guy could just fade away as in other games to save PC brain power drawing 600+ casualties (well in my games anyway - LOL)

[YankeeDog]

Even considering only the case of rifle squads, there are a whole variety of tactical movements and deployment that could be better represented with a 1:1 model.

One small example: Rifle squad on defense. At present in CM, there is no difference, graphically or ACAICT in the model, in how a rifle squad digs its foxholes and deploys to defend. The closest you can come is cover arcs, which aren't really the same thing.

IRL, the actual formation of the foxholes (and, of course, the soldiers in them) varies dramatically depending on the nature and direction of the expected threat.

For example, a squad expecting enemy contact to the front *only* deploys to maximize all of its firepower in that direction, while a squad with unprotected flanks deploys very differently, with less firepower to the front, but more to the sides. This has a direct effect on the amount of fire the squad can output in any given direction. Of course, the squad can change formation if a threat shows up from an unexpected direction, but doing so takes time, and is difficult to do under fire.

Similar effects come in to play with squads on the move. For example, A squad expecting enemy contact only to the front moves in a formation very different from a squad concerned about enemy contact from all sides.

IMHO Game engine modeling of such "expected threat direction" would dramatically improve the realism of the combat model. However, when and if this functionality is added to the game, I also think it would be important to graphically model these formations so that the player could see, *at a glance* what a given squad's deployment is. While it might be techically possible to graphically represent squad formation with the current 3 men = 1 squad representation, it would be a lot clearer and easier to read what a squad's deployment is with 1:1 graphic representation.

The possiblities are endless. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

[...] the model could be further refined with the ability to actually track who gets hit. I would wager, for example, that a tank with a badly wounded driver acts very differently than a tank with a badly wounded gunner [...]

Linking this with the command thread, having a 1:1 representation may also change the way we see HQs. In CMx1, a HQ is basically an officer with from 2 to 8 lives and corresponding firepower. I suppose a 1:1 representation could be more realist on that count. Looking for 2iC, reforming badly mauled squads and platoons, reoginizing one's force between battle would get pretty interesting IMO.

Cheers

[securityguard]

Anyone who thinks 1:1 is a bad idea is being silly - the current CM model works great with the technology they used, but 1:1 is infinitely better and is totally the right direction. I personally loathe the way morale is handled in CM. Having a 12 man squad panic and every man panicking is incredibly bad - understandable, but unrealistic. 1:1 allows for people who just can't take the heat to run, while the others continue to fight. It allows for way more plausible situations and tones down the abstractness by a lot.

It will be interesting to see how they implement all this though. I have high hopes, considering how good Combat Mission was I don't doubt they can pull through with anything less.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:

Make no mistake, just having each man find the best available cover while being in a position to put out effective fire is a huge task. I wouldn't expect them to spend much time on extra details.

I hope the movies try to show this, but that the actual squad level AI does not try to calc this. I was under the impression that the squad will still be the low-level unit, but visually represent each man 1:1.</font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Chapuis:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:

Make no mistake, just having each man find the best available cover while being in a position to put out effective fire is a huge task. I wouldn't expect them to spend much time on extra details.

I hope the movies try to show this, but that the actual squad level AI does not try to calc this. I was under the impression that the squad will still be the low-level unit, but visually represent each man 1:1.</font>

[dalem]

I think 1:1 representation is a Bad Thing. Won't stop me from buying the game and/or changing my mind, of course, but I opine that at this point, with knowledge and experience of the issue both resting comfortably at ZERO, I think it's bad.

The good news for me is that...

Steve knows why I think that based on posts from way back in the beforetime of CM:BO where his reasoning against 1:1 CM pretty much mirrored mine. Therefore if Steve is making his next game show 1:1, Steve most probably has arrived at a solution that I will find acceptable.

-dale

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

Well, it's possible that individuals can be displayed while still calculating combat on an abstracted squad basis, but the hard work in terms of programming and processor time is probably more movement and positioning, assuming a CC model, with the possible exception of tracking individual rounds, if you're not just tracking them point-to-point.

That is basically what I am saying too.

But I am hoping that they have some graphic scripts that will run that will try to show what is only calculated abstractly - afterall they did the say the graphics would be as good are better than anything on the market today. So why not hope for a script that shows a couple men breaking windows and tossing grenades inside a building and the resulting explosion. You shouldnt have to calc each soldiers movements to show that kind of detail.

Im not bothered about watching medics treating wounds etc.

If they are trying to make a realistic combat sim, how can you leave treating casualties out? It wouldnt be a player controlled function. Or have I watched to many war movies?

[dalem]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

If they are trying to make a realistic combat sim, how can you leave treating casualties out? It wouldnt be a player controlled function. Or have I watched to many war movies?

See?

This is exactly why I am "against" 1:1 representation. Squad level combat games/sims are supposed to keep me, the player, focused on squad level combat. I'm not trying to make my own personal WWII movie with stars and extras and villains and victims and heroes. Put an abstract squad on the screen and there has been a strident cry for individual soldiers, even if the individual sprites (or whatever) are not actually affecting gameplay.

Give in that inch and put individual soldiers on the screen and there will now be raised a strident cry for medics and runners and ammo bearers and civilians and dogs and the like. Put all those in and there will be demands for realistic razor stubble, officers' mistresses, fuzing wire, clanking dog tags, oily films on gasoline spills, gruff senior commanders, and all that.

Once we get that people will start complaining that after playing the game 500 times there are clearly only 50 random razor stubble skins.

Bah. BAH! I say!

-grumpy abstract dale

[Sergei]

Not only that, but 1:1 also adds to the visual burden of the player. As if there wasn't enough action to follow on a CM battlefield the way it currently is!!! Presumably the advocates of 1:1 only play 200 point battles or something...

Humbug!

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by dalem:

This is exactly why I am "against" 1:1 representation. Squad level combat games/sims are supposed to keep me, the player, focused on squad level combat. I'm not trying to make my own personal WWII movie with stars and extras and villains and victims and heroes.

What I have visioned in my mind, wouldnt really change anything from a player spective. But in RL, from what I have read and talking with people in the military, killing a soldier eliminates 1 person, but wounding a soldier can tie up three or 4 soldiers. All of that is internal to a squad (most of the time), and since you could display it with 1:1 represenation (which you couldnt in the old CM), why not account for it in the calculations.

Ammo bearers, medics, stretcher bearers, and runners are outside a squad, and wouldnt be detailed in the calcs, but could be shown in the movie just for eye candy, even though they mean NOTHING to game play. I'm not too interested in those, but trying to make a distinction.

Not only that, but 1:1 also adds to the visual burden of the player. As if there wasn't enough action to follow on a CM battlefield the way it currently is!!! Presumably the advocates of 1:1 only play 200 point battles or something...

And I agree with this. So if 1:1 doesnt actually add some game play posibilities, why have it. I would argue not to.

[dalem]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem:

This is exactly why I am "against" 1:1 representation. Squad level combat games/sims are supposed to keep me, the player, focused on squad level combat. I'm not trying to make my own personal WWII movie with stars and extras and villains and victims and heroes.

What I have visioned in my mind, wouldnt really change anything from a player spective. But in RL, from what I have read and talking with people in the military, killing a soldier eliminates 1 person, but wounding a soldier can tie up three or 4 soldiers. All of that is internal to a squad (most of the time), and since you could display it with 1:1 represenation (which you couldnt in the old CM), why not account for it in the calculations.

</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

I was trying to think of what extra play features 1:1 could add to the game - and then the visual representation that would be exciting to see. I am hoping that it is not merely a graphicaly representation of what already exists in CMx1 - that would seem to just add clutter. And I know it is not, because in the other post they said they were going to have individual unit stats.

The play features that could be added with medics/casualties are pretty deep.

I am assuming all of this would be calcualted abstractly at the squad level but played in detail in the 'movie'. The way I imagine it, if a squad were to take a casuality, here are examples of possiblities - depending of an array of variables:

1. Bandage script (light wound) - squad firepower drops for 30 seconds (that is CM bandage time) while two guys quickly bandage their friend

2. Checks man who is KIA

3. Pick up comrade - squad halts its move/advance to gather their friend

4. Call for medic (serious wound) - firepower drops for longer as men treat a more serious injury. An medic appears and takes over.

5. Retrieve wounded man - (this could happen when a unit starts advancing but then becomes pinned and a casualty happens at same time)

6. Wounded man left behind (when squad routed)

7. Man wounded but dies while being treated

8. Man wounded and then helpers get wounded

Other than handling casualties and keeping track of indidual ammo, what other play features does 1:1 add. Watching a 6 man MG team operate would be fun to watch, but there is no new play involved - that I can think of.

And I know it probably wont be included, but it is fun to suggest.

I think you can simulate these aspects nicely with a set of GI Joe dolls and a bucket of red paint.

1:1 really does nothing for me; I will of course eat my words if they pull it off well, but if all they do is put 10 sprites on the map instead of 3, that is fine by me.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dalem:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Chapuis:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem:

This is exactly why I am "against" 1:1 representation. Squad level combat games/sims are supposed to keep me, the player, focused on squad level combat. I'm not trying to make my own personal WWII movie with stars and extras and villains and victims and heroes.

What I have visioned in my mind, wouldnt really change anything from a player spective. But in RL, from what I have read and talking with people in the military, killing a soldier eliminates 1 person, but wounding a soldier can tie up three or 4 soldiers. All of that is internal to a squad (most of the time), and since you could display it with 1:1 represenation (which you couldnt in the old CM), why not account for it in the calculations.

</font>