CMX2 and Vehicle Passengers

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You keep saying that, but I think you're being narrow minded about it. Yes, it is exceedingly rare that troops in an assault or move to contact will be anywhere near trucks.

But what about special circumstances? Ambushes, specifically. When the 82nd Airborne was in it's first tour in Iraq, the standard unit SOP was to dismount and assault enemy positions when their patrols or convoys were ambushed. You've got to have a functional, flexible mechanism for disembarking - even if it does involve your dreaded trucks.

To simply write off a possibility because it isn't used in the traditional view of close combat is asinine. Most modern wars involve lots of patrolling and reactions to ambushes, especially when you compare it to the number of 'traditional' fights a unit experiences. A game set in Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq, Korea or any number of places could very realistically utilize trucks on the battlefield for some scenarios.

If the DoD were ever interested in a training module based on CMX2 and they saw that there was no provision for a convoy fight, they'd walk right out.

So please.. stop simply dismissing them. It's stupid and it's tiresome and you're not adding anything to the existing issue at hand when you bring it up. </font>

When they stop banging the "realism" drum, I'll stop dismissing them. It is okay for them to cry "unrealistic" but what they advocate is actually far LESS realistic. Drivers in CM can't get lost; they do in real life all the time. Since you bring up modern examples, there is a very famous truck convoy in Iraq that comes to mind. So should that be in CM also? If so, how to implement it? Would be a boring game if your convoy of reinforcements never showed up at all.

But - we can already do that one in CM with a low percentage chance of showing up. Unfortunately that chance is per turn, not per game. If CMX2 can give us a 50/50 chance of reinforcements not showing up at all within a 30 minute timeframe, now THAT would be realism.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

I don't mind having to exercise caution and not being able to drive my halftracks all over like they've got 100mm armor. I do mind the inconvenience of many unloading commands, the risk of mess-ups and the fact that nearly all the annoying hassle that we could deal with is not included - except for this. I am willing to accept how this is in CMx1, but I merely hope that another embarking/disembarking system will be in CMx2. Steve said there will be changes in CMx2. I am looking forward to seeing what they are when the time comes.

I think that this is one of those issues that poeple can become very, very polarized on. I know that I'll never convince Dorosh and the "it's good" crowd that I'm right, and it would take a hell of a lot more from them to convince me. I've said my piece several times already, and I merely hope that BFC will consider my opinion when deciding how to do things in CMx2.

I don't disagree that the orders are not "working" well from a gameplay standpoint in CM. I just think it is silly to holler they are "unrealistic". (I'm not saying you've done that yourself.) Change the commands to make them easier (gamey, if you will), just don't try to convince people that it is more "realistic" because it isn't. A truck driver picking out a spot on a 9 square kilometre map with precision is something of a fantasy, but then again, so is a lot of what we do in CM. It's what makes it a fun game, not a great simulation. That's my only major criticism of some of the conversation here.

I heartily approve changes that will make for a fun game - but balk at calling it "realism" when it clearly is not. That just weakens the argument, from my perspective. And apparently from Steve's also.

[RMC]

So would this be a good time to bring up having a unit report screen?

[aka_tom_w]

It sure is hard to agree with Dorosh but I would have to say he as got this part right:

"Maybe it will even be worse. I remember the same discussion came out when squads were not permitted to advance to/from passenger status in SL. The cry went up that a squad could move 40 metres out of a building, up a hill through trees while carrying a heavy machine gun, but could not jump down from a truck in the same alloted timeframe.

The reply from the developers was that co-ordinating movement "should have been easy" but frequently was not.

Ever ride in the back of a military truck? They're loud, noisy and bounce around, especially going off road. Communicating with the driver of a seperate cab is often impossible. You need to co-ordinate where you want to be dropped off ahead of time. Sometimes you do that from a map; sometimes the platoon commander rides up front and where three trucks worth of men disembark is up to his whim. Driving over terrain you've never been to is a challenge; so is recognizing landmarks. I've done it - but never under fire.

I hope that these problems are reflected in CMX2 in some way, shape or form and that the player can't just transport his troops anywhere on the map he likes - it would be unrealistic in the extreme. In a way, the inelegant way CM does these things now actually represents - not deliberately, I think - the burden of co-ordinating the movements of vehicles and men."

-By M Dorosh

AND having had personal experience with this aspect of military transportation his opinion with regard to realism "should" ( this time ) carry some wieght. (or something)

The game is fine the way it is and it should be more challenging (NOT easier) to co-ordinate in CMx2 IMO

-tom w

[ July 28, 2005, 05:03 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[PLM]

Its just the way its portrayed thats frustrating

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by RMC:

So would this be a good time to bring up having a unit report screen?

Maybe wait until the dust settles a bit.

Michael

[Cpl Steiner]

This seems to me to be an issue more about game design than realism.

If it is unrealistic for a vehicle to pick up troops and move off in under 60 seconds, then fine, it shouldn't be possible. The truck should have all move orders disabled once a squad has been ordered to embark onto the truck. Likewise, if it is unrealistic for a squad to disembark in under 60 seconds, the squad on the truck should have all move orders disabled whilst the vehicle is moving.

However, how realistic is it that all troops embark or disembark on the very same second, just because the action phase is 60 seconds long? Wouldn't it make more sense to have conditions attached to waypoints to achieve the same thing? The game engine could still add in some delay to account for the guys loading on equipment and arguing about who sits where.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it that a half-track crew ordered to transport a squad across some open ground is going to set off with an empty passenger compartment, needlessly braving enemy fire, just because the squad was late. The game engine should prevent you from causing this to happen as, guess what, it's unrealistic!

[JonS]

... or, since you didn't make your intentions (read: orders) clear to the drivers, they set off with an empty passenger compartment, needlessly braving enemy fire, because the squad was late. Sounds realistic to me.

[PLM]

How is it the tank commanders in CM dont misinterpret my orders when I order them to exact coordinates in the best possible positioning? Oooh lets not go there but lets pick on the poor transport guys all the way.

It doesnt add up in any way shape or form. Are we going to take a jab at everything to do with coordinating or just transporting because there's a load of coordination that goes in CM yet for some reason we're going to brush off the lack of specific commands with transporting for realism as if it was ever seriously intended. I dont think so. It doesnt match up with the rest of the game. Why dont they make the unit pauses approxomate then? Or how about a chance of the unit not executing orders at all because they 'forget' or 'misinterpret'

[JonS]

Lets see: Tanks go to the exact coords I give them, and hey, waddayaknow, Trucks go to the exact coords I give them . Where is the problem again? :confused:

[CobaltTiger]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Think about command delays. We got a rash of crap about that using the same exact argument that ColbaltTiger is using. i.e. "you can't make the game absolutely realistic, so cater to requests for less realistic game features". Instead, we need to see arguments that counter ours on the Realism standpoint if that is what is to be affected. Realistically you guys shouldn't have trucks and rarely HTs, so understand that you're on shakey ground already

I'd just like to restate that I'm in favor of more command delays when we're dealing with transporting units. And you have to admit that it's a bit hypocritical to say that we're making weak arguments and then turn around and say something along the lines of "Oh, they shouldn't be there anyway so you guys should be happy with what you have." Dismissive answers like "Your arguments are weak" or "You shouldn't have transports anyway so be happy" are not real answers.

I'm also not in any way saying that if it can't be realistic, why bother trying. Please. I'd be off playing one of the Command & Conquer games if that was the case. I understand that the realism line has to be drawn somewhere, and I'm glad it's as high as it is. What I'm getting at is that if we're able to give "unrealistically precise" commands for other vehicles, why the double standard with transport? If we're able to give targeting commands to AFVs, why not transport commands to transports? Cpl Steiner summed it up beautifully. Rather than just telling me I'm wrong, please explain to me why a "wait for troops to board before moving" order is so over the line?

[JonS]

Originally posted by PLM:

Why dont they make the unit pauses approxomate

Actually, I hope BFC do do this, with more variation for units out of command, and less variation for units under command of 'good' HQs.

I'd also like to see speeds vary, and especially with environmental conditions. Speeds 1/4ed at night, trucks driving far more slowly in rain, or fog, etc. Variations in reload times, with occasional inexplicably long delays for when some numpty drops a round on his foot. Variable opaqueness of fog, night, rain, or smoke from turn to turn, so units that were right-at-the-limit suddenly become completely exposed, then completely obscured, even if nobody moves. Buildings that take longer to move through as damage accumulates, not just a sudden step-function when they get rubbled. Shall I go on?

[PLM]

How about you explain the difference in the scenerio of a tank commander understanding and executing precise orders and a truck driver udnerstanding and executing precise orders before I even feel the slightest urge to defend my views.

I was just talking with a tanker last week and we talked about an occasion in the Persian Gulf when one tank split from its unit and went off to the right with permission, the other tanks ran into the enemy and had to hault. When the other tank was ordered back that tank got lit up accidently by its own unit because they didn't realize how far ahead they were even they knew a friendly tank was heading back.

My point everybody is attacking the idea of coordination between vehicles and infantry as if its nigh on impossible. I'm asking, what the hell is the plan for CM? It doesnt add up that you can expect a tank to move to exact positions but you cant expect a truck to begin moving after infantry mount up or shortly after without involving delays which can cause all sorts of problems even when fire isnt involved. If you can relay orders to a tank and guide them to precise positions, then what in the hell is so hard about other areas of coordination. And if we're going to simulate difficulty in that area, then are we going to simulate difficulties in other areas (such as moving tanks and units in general).

The idea of serious lack of coordination and misinterpretation of orders is not present in CM. But this flaw in the game regarding mounting infantry is being brushed off as if it were intentional, I dont think so. I feel really something or other when I'm complaining about something that doesnt add up in the game and get told its supposed to be like that when its not even simulated close to what the reality is supposed to be. I really dont believe, if you can give orders to trucks at all, why they cant pick up infantry and start moving without having to give them separate orders timing to take off regardless of being mounted. Do I need to go "PS. Dont leave without the infantry squad"?

[ July 27, 2005, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: PLM ]

[JonS]

No, you're wrong.

I can give a tank precise orders to move up and over a hill to a very specific location, but I can't give it targetting orders until it gets there. Or at least, not until it's clear of LOS obstructions. I can give it a covered arc, and hope that'll do the trick and it'll pick the right target, and that no other threats appear outside the covered arc. But that's it. And if I want to target something that isn't an enemy unit (say, start laying a smoke screen, or target a building) the covered arc won't even work. I'll have to wait till the next orders phase.

With a truck I can give it detailed movement orders up and over the hill to a point I designate as the PUP. And I can give the unit to be picked up orders to mount the tpt unit. Then, in the next orders phase, I can give orders for the tpt to move off. Or, if I'm feeling really cocky I can give the infantry unit 'mount' orders, jimmy around with pause orders, and give the tpt unit move orders, then hope that my timing is accurate, but that's it.

Where is the difference?

[Battlefront.com]

PLM,

I dont feel the vehicle mounting/dismounting business was intentional, I feel its a flaw in the game and if things had turned out slightly different then we'd have better coordination.

Soooooooo... what you're saying is that I'm a liar? That's a pretty bold statement. But I'm sure you have something to back that up with.

Steve

[JonS]

Originally posted by PLM:

Do I need to go "PS. Dont leave without the infantry squad"?

What about the - not especially rare - case where I'm loading an entire platoon; four carriers, carrying a total of three sections, the pn HQ, and a spt team or two. What then? Do I need to go "PS. Dont leave without the infantry squad. Oh, and wait till the rest of the platoon, including those spt wpns which aren't really part of this pn but are tagging along anyway, are loaded up the other carriers too."?

I can do that now, easily, by myself, the way everyone except you seems to have figured out. Why would I need or want another order to do it for me, just so I might save a few seconds in a turn that only has 60 of them anyway?

[Battlefront.com]

ColbaltTiger

What I'm getting at is that if we're able to give "unrealistically precise" commands for other vehicles, why the double standard with transport?

Because there is no double standard. JonS stated it quite well (and he was not the first), but I'll go one further and spell it out even more clearly. It is just as easy/difficult to order a tank and a truck to a specific spot. It is just as easy/difficult to get troops on a tank as in a truck. And it is just as easy/difficult to get them to disembark from a tank as a truck.

You claim there is a double standard... where?

If we're able to give targeting commands to AFVs, why not transport commands to transports?

Apples and oranges. A target command is a single unit deciding what it is going to shoot at. Transporting, inherently, involves the coordination of two otherwise independent entities. The actions, and reactions, of each rely upon the other's actions and reacations. They are entirely different concepts. What you should be doing is comparing how the game handles transporting on tanks vs. trucks. That is apples to apples. And guess what? They are identical behaviors.

Cpl Steiner summed it up beautifully. Rather than just telling me I'm wrong, please explain to me why a "wait for troops to board before moving" order is so over the line?

Why not have 10 dozen other orders for things like "don't fire until you have a 90% chance of hitting" or "move into this field, but only if your MG on the other side of the map isn't engaging another enemy unit" or "if someone in the unit starts to panic, shoot him as a coward". And if I thought about it long enough I could probably list at least a dozen order requests from people that actually have some merrit (like the Follow order). If we put in every last user request, regardless of merrit, we would have a game that you'd all complain was too complicated and too nitty gritty, divorcing you from the ability to focus on the Big Picture and the overall flow of the battle because you are concerned about issuing 1st Squad, 3rd Platoon the "garrotte" order to take out the enemy picket without altering anybody to your presence.

It's all about design choices. Deliberate most of the time, other times simply byproducts of philosophy. In the case of the way passengers embark/disembark, it was a very deliberate system. And not the first one we came up with either. The first one was too difficult to use

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

ColbaltTiger,

Dismissive answers like "Your arguments are weak" or "You shouldn't have transports anyway so be happy" are not real answers.

I already gave you guys real answers, but they are being ignored. Heck, I got one guy saying I'm lying about it being a deliberate design decision, and instead just trying to cover up some big blunder. A "blunder" that many people just don't see existing. And the people saying it exists are having a pretty darned hard time illustrating why the design is unrealistic and wrong within the context of the simulation.

I'm also not in any way saying that if it can't be realistic, why bother trying.

All I am doing is taking your logic and carrying it to its logical conclusion. Don't feel bad though... it's a common train of thought that I've had to point out at least a couple thousand times over the last 7 or 8 years. I'm not so sure I'd say that makes you in good company, but it certainly is true to say that you have a lot of company

The argument started with the position that the way CM works now is totally unrealistic and frustrating. The realism argument fell apart pretty quickly and turned into the usual "the kid next door has a choo-choo, so why can't I have a choo-choo?" type argument. And that is you want what you want and it really doesn't matter why things are they way they are. You just want it. That's what this is all boiling down to. The justifications are simply there to not make it appear that you aren't asking for a choo-choo

I'll state this very clearly once again...

I agree that the current system of loading/unloading isn't totally realistic. However, I think it is well balanced within the context of the game and to the extent we are able to simulate reality AND the choices all game designers have to make in terms of how far they are going to bend the user interface to accomodate a special case scenario that users have an unrealistic expectation about. Could we simulate passengers more realistically than we currently do? Given time and energy... sure. Same can be said for probably any feature in CMx1's three games. But do we need to? No. It doesn't even make my top 50 list of things I'd like us to do better. So no, it is not going to be a high priority to "fix" in CMx2 because it isn't all that broken to begin with. I'd rather start with modeling soldiers and artillery handling better.

Steve

[PLM]

I can give a tank precise orders to move up and over a hill to a very specific location, but I can't give it targetting orders until it gets there.

Whats that got to do with anything.

I'm talking movement orders, simple basic monkey logic movement orders that dont exist such as rendezvous. Absolutely nothing to do with ordering a unit to fire at a unit it cant see when it can see, I think thats what cover arc is for. Sure. Stuff can go wrong but it goes wrong in all the wrong areas which leads to a different outcome.

Is anybody gonna argue that the concept of rendezvous is unrealistic? Is the concept of rendezvous between vehicles and squads unrealistic? I can foresee some tankers getting impatient and moving on their own if infantry takes long enough to arrive to mount up. But I'll be darned if thats gonna rely on a timer without the ability to communicate to that tank crew that you want them to carry an infantry squad somewhere. I dont believe commanders very often give CM style orders of relying on ordering a unit to hault X time so another unit can meet up with them without either unit being 'aware' of the rendezvous. It doesnt make sense and the arguement is laughable. I know the game isnt perfect and everybody agrees but that right there me and I think a number of people despise.

Soooooooo... what you're saying is that I'm a liar?

Well I really refuse to believe you fully believe in the most realistic situation a transport vehicle would make one drop off and end there. I dont know what kind of situation you're thinking about. I've made a bunch of scenerios trying to represent a frontline with unit movements over long range in relatively safe conditions. In a way it simulates the 'rear' areas or a mini rear area. It certainly involves some risks operating transports that close to combat but I think any commander can see the advantage in speed when force is needed somewhere and its not there and you have transports available.

That's a pretty bold statement.

Oh I'm sorry I dont have the money to go to college to fullfill my dream of creating my grand strategy game which I've had drawn up in my head for years that would kickass if I had the software and the advanced programming skills that scumbags charge thousands for and publishers aquire your soul for. Maybe thats a good thing though cuz I can express distaste with any God-like creature anywhere on the interweb I want cuz I'm takin off August 2nd at noon to go spend the next several years of my life in the Army getting raped, ammassing some money to earn the divine right to put my ass in everybodys way and pretend like I know every goddamn thing. Btw I hate publishers and definately wanna see more independent developers and less of this satanist bastard publisher control treating game development as a business ruining games by early release and sometimes axing them all together. What happened to Civ War Generals III BF.com?!?!?! Smash publishers with an iron fist. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[ July 27, 2005, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: PLM ]

[CobaltTiger]

Battlefront.com

Because there is no double standard. JonS stated it quite well (and he was not the first), but I'll go one further and spell it out even more clearly. It is just as easy/difficult to order a tank and a truck to a specific spot. It is just as easy/difficult to get troops on a tank as in a truck. And it is just as easy/difficult to get them to disembark from a tank as a truck.

You claim there is a double standard... where?

The double standard is that it is possible to give a stationary AFV a precise order related to its primary function: "Fire on that house over there" but it is not possible to give a stationary transport (regardless of type) a precise order related to its primary function: "Don't move until the troops are on". The potential ramifications of the first are much greater than the second, so why must the second be brushed aside? Comparing the transport capabilities of a tank or a truck is irrelevant. They are both transports and they should both be able to wait until the troops are on before moving.

Apples and oranges. A target command is a single unit deciding what it is going to shoot at. Transporting, inherently, involves the coordination of two otherwise independent entities. The actions, and reactions, of each rely upon the other's actions and reacations. They are entirely different concepts. What you should be doing is comparing how the game handles transporting on tanks vs. trucks. That is apples to apples. And guess what? They are identical behaviors.

You make a good point, but "Wait for troops" has nothing to do with a second unit. There might not be a squad coming. The vehicle might sit and wait indefinitely if the player forgets to tell a his squad to hop in the truck or if the squad gets shot to pieces on the way there. The vehicle simply checks a flag -- Am I loaded or am I not loaded? Don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.

Why not have 10 dozen other orders for things like "don't fire until you have a 90% chance of hitting" or "move into this field, but only if your MG on the other side of the map isn't engaging another enemy unit" or "if someone in the unit starts to panic, shoot him as a coward". And if I thought about it long enough I could probably list at least a dozen order requests from people that actually have some merrit (like the Follow order). If we put in every last user request, regardless of merrit, we would have a game that you'd all complain was too complicated and too nitty gritty, divorcing you from the ability to focus on the Big Picture and the overall flow of the battle because you are concerned about issuing 1st Squad, 3rd Platoon the "garrotte" order to take out the enemy picket without altering anybody to your presence.

Now you're just being silly. Nobody is asking for those things and nobody in their right mind would expect them to be considered. All of your examples are talking about a much much finer level of control than I am proposing. I doubt I would be playing CM if it was that complicated.

It's all about design choices. Deliberate most of the time, other times simply byproducts of philosophy. In the case of the way passengers embark/disembark, it was a very deliberate system. And not the first one we came up with either. The first one was too difficult to use

Steve

Just because it's deliberate doesn't mean it is the best way to do something. Did you forget all those posts you made about how the grogs will hate it but the change is for the better?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

It sure is hard to agree with Dorosh but I would have to say he as got this part right: **three paragraph long treatise in its entirety snipped**

Gee, Tom, I feel so....validated....somehow that you agree with me. And thank God you repeated my entire post with those vague quotes so it looks sorta like you are the one saying it. Now that my post has your seal of approval, I guess the other kids will just plain old have to like me now...

Hey...

waitaminit....

That's completely at odds with my quest for a Mortal Enemy! :mad: You fool! You've - quite unwittingly I'm sure - undone years and 18,000 posts of prepa

Aw, shucks. Who can stay mad? You're back on the Christmas card list, now that we're both sitting at the sycophant's table. Pass the Kool Ade.

Hugs

MAD

[JonS]

Originally posted by PLM:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I can give a tank precise orders to move up and over a hill to a very specific location, but I can't give it targetting orders until it gets there.

Whats that got to do with anything. </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Heh, heh. Reading some of these posts reminds me that it is almost August, and we know what that means, don't we kiddies?

:eek:

Michael

[PLM]

Originally posted by JonS:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I can give a tank precise orders to move up and over a hill to a very specific location, but I can't give it targetting orders until it gets there.

Whats that got to do with anything. </font>

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Drivers in CM can't get lost; they do in real life all the time. Since you bring up modern examples, there is a very famous truck convoy in Iraq that comes to mind. So should that be in CM also? If so, how to implement it? Would be a boring game if your convoy of reinforcements never showed up at all.

But - we can already do that one in CM with a low percentage chance of showing up. Unfortunately that chance is per turn, not per game. If CMX2 can give us a 50/50 chance of reinforcements not showing up at all within a 30 minute timeframe, now THAT would be realism.

With a little knowledge of statistics, you can do that in CMx1.

For example, giving reinforcements a 3% chance of arrival on Turn 8 of a 30 turn scenario gives an approximate 50% chance of the reinforcements arriving at some point in the game. If the reinforcements won't do any good if they arrive after, say Turn 25, then change the first turn of entry from Turn 8 to Turn 3. The total chance of the reinforcements arriving during the scenario is above 50%, but the chance of them arriving between Turn 3 and Turn 25 is about 50%.