Fan-Made Points System

[Falconander]

Team Class Group Unit

Us Army Stryker Infantry Stryker Infantry Battalion Headquarters

-----

Base Cost Total Cost Experience Fitness Supply

50 89 Veteran Fit Full

-------

Equipment Motivation Leadership

Good High +1

------

Stryker Infantry Battalion Headquarters

Experience

Base Elite Crack Veteran Regular Green Conscipt

50 120% 110% 105% 100% 90% 75%

Fitness

Fit Weakened Unfit

100% 90% 80%

Supply

Full Adequate Limited Scarce Severe

105% 100% 95% 90% 85%

Equipment

Excellent Good Normal Fair Poor

110% 105% 100% 95% 90%

Motivation

Fanatic Extreme High Average Low Poor

115% 110% 105% 100% 95% 90%

Leadership

+2 +1 0 -1 -2

125% 110% 100% 90% 75%

[Falconander]

Anyway,

Trying to put an excel sheet into this format sucks but you get the drift. The upgrade to the unit would be based on a relative factor depending on how important that feature was to the unit. So a veteran upgrade for a sniper or FO will be more expensive than a veteran upgrade for say an XO.

The system I am working with uses drop down for your selections and solves based on the exisitng table.

It will not factor in 'actual' weapons nor 'actual' ammo count as these numbers lie within the 'excellent' equipment and 'full' supply.

[Battlefront.com]

Heh, but not all of them (although I have tried to support you guys by buying most of them--Dropzone or whatever it was called I never even played once). The point is if you give the games more of a shelf life I will buy modules/expansions for the games I buy as long as you crank them out, otherwise I wont.

Which is the way it should be CM:SF's two Modules are selling well enough even 2 years after the initial release to show us that our basic formula is very sound. We don't foresee any problems unique to Normandy or other settings that would derail things. A better QB system, in fact, will likely increase shelf life.

The problem with finding a partner who can make a "viable commercial product" is that there is a good chance that no strategic layer will be a viable commercial product for the reasons you have already pointed out

Likely true.

creating an "import/export engine" would have two advantages: (1) it would give each game a longer shelf life and thus result in more module sales;

But only if someone built the code necessary to make use of the data. And if someone is going to put the time into doing that, they are likely interested in getting some form of compensation. Which in turn limits the amount of interest in someone working on speculation for something which isn't likely to reward them sufficiently for their time. We're not convinced that OpenSource efforts will do much to help the situation.

(2) I would expect that you'd be able to sell this import/export engine as a seperate product to a subset of the player base, especially once players have used it to create and distribute metacampaign sistems. And presumably once you had coded this for one of the games it would be easier/cheaper to roll it out to others in the series as well.

No, I don't think we could sell it as a separate product. It's also putting the cart before the horse, which is what we keep saying we can't afford to do.

Anyway, just trying to encourage you guys to draw distinctions between: (1) modding, (2) data import/export, and (3) creating a full-blown strategic layer and to give another thought to (2)!

Yup, these are three different concepts for sure. #1 will never move beyond artistic modding only. #2 is not going to happen unless we are properly incentivized to distract ourselves into adding that functionality. #3 is not ever going to happen from us directly. If someone can prove to us that they are capable of doing #3 then we'll do #2. That's the way it has been for the last 10 years and I expect it will remain that way for the next 10.

Steve

[Lee]

I think the main reason to not open in-game unit combat/armor values to being changed is that that would open the game up to cheating (or at least make it a lot easier). In IL-2, the famous Russian WWII flight sim, Oleg has kept the aircraft data locked down for years, and as a result it's my understanding that to this day there is basically zero cheating in multi-player in that game.

Some sort of point system to help decide what's a fair unit balance for each side in a quick battle is another matter, of course.

[Redwolf]

I think the main reason to not open in-game unit combat/armor values to being changed is that that would open the game up to cheating (or at least make it a lot easier). In IL-2, the famous Russian WWII flight sim, Oleg has kept the aircraft data locked down for years, and as a result it's my understanding that to this day there is basically zero cheating in multi-player in that game.

Some sort of point system to help decide what's a fair unit balance for each side in a quick battle is another matter, of course.

I don't think so. When doing multiplayer somebody goes first and sets up the game. He/she includes certain config files. Doesn't matter what they are, armor values, unit prices, bogging rates - whatever.

Whoever is second gets to see these values as stored in the game setup, reviews them and complains when the files loaded aren't what was agreed on pre-game.

The IL-2 example is invalid since the game clients are much more independent.

[76mm]

Whoever is second gets to see these values as stored in the game setup, reviews them and complains when the files loaded aren't what was agreed on pre-game.

To make it even easier, you could presumably automate it pretty easily to show any deviations from default set-ups.

[Lee]

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the in-game combat capabilities of the units running under the hood. Not the general conditions of the quick battle setup.

[JonS]

... only if someone built the code necessary to make use of the data. And if someone is going to put the time into doing that, they are likely interested in getting some form of compensation.

Unfounded, and in fact demonstrably false, assumption.

CMMC1, 2, 3 all say you're wrong, as does Mapping Mission, as does PBEM Helper, as does numerous CMx1 tournaments, as does numerous extensive mods for things like HPSSIMS Pz Campaigns, as does SP W@W, as does ... you get the idea.

Compensation takes many forms. For a significant number of people, financial compensation for activities relating to a hobby is incidental.

[Redwolf]

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the in-game combat capabilities of the units running under the hood. Not the general conditions of the quick battle setup.

The same principle applies to pre-combat values such as purchase prices and to in-combat values such as penetration and armor values. In a CM style game this is comparably easy to support since you have a clearly identified side that sets up the game, then the other side can review and the game then runs with those values (they aren't any different from the hardcoded stuff at that point).

In a FPS or a game like IL-2 there is true simultaneous execution of game mechanics code in the clients, and they usually have a server also running the same thing, all hoping to come up with the same results. It is actually not that rare that minor differences occur (floating point rounding, slightly broken computers flipping a bit here and there) which the server is supposed to override at some point. But in IL-2 you could run with entirely different values for things and if you studied what and when the server overrides you would get away with the values slanted towards your benefit.

[Lee]

But it's easier to cheat if the units themselves are open to being changed, if they are fixed and not subject to modding of any kind, then it's a lot harder to cheat. From what I've heard, cheating is not a significant problem with IL-2 and the reason for that is that the aircraft specs and performance characteristics are not subject to being altered in the first place. This is hugely important in a multi-player game, to know that any cheating is highly unlikely to be taking place.

In a wargame as complex as Combat Mission, I doubt it would be practical to try to show everything in the game engine to each side to see if anything had been changed to give one side an advantage. What if a shell penetration math formula had been slightly altered? Are you going to study the equation to see if it's the same as what's on your computer?

This, of course, is entirely unrelated as to whether some sort of point system can be come up with for purposes of having balanced sides in a quick battle match. Steve says they have something in the works even better than a straight point system, so that will be interesting to see.

[Redwolf]

But it's easier to cheat if the units themselves are open to being changed, if they are fixed and not subject to modding of any kind, then it's a lot harder to cheat. From what I've heard, cheating is not a significant problem with IL-2 and the reason for that is that the aircraft specs and performance characteristics are not subject to being altered in the first place. This is hugely important in a multi-player game, to know that any cheating is highly unlikely to be taking place.

I'm afraid this is glibberish and not founded in technical reality.

The values are in the CM game executable. You can attach a debugger and snoop around until you find where it's stored. Remember the location. Wait for the PBEM turn where your computer will do the combat computation, change the value in your favour, send the PBEM move.

You wouldn't make this much easier or difficult by being able to load values.

In a wargame as complex as Combat Mission, I doubt it would be practical to try to show everything in the game engine to each side to see if anything had been changed to give one side an advantage. What if a shell penetration math formula had been slightly altered? Are you going to study the equation to see if it's the same as what's on your computer?

Of course you couldn't load actual code for a new mathematical formula in this scheme. Just plain values.

This is distracting from the original topic. Nobody wants to change the armor values that we don't even know the original value of in CM:SF. People want to have support for a shopping system.

[Battlefront.com]

JonS,

Unfounded, and in fact demonstrably false, assumption.

OK, good counter points. I guess my presumption is that the scope of work needed for the sort of strategic layer that would get people's hearts racing is probably too big a project. But then again, I could very well be wrong about that. Unfortunately, it's still a matter of us not wanting to put in the time to create, document, and ultimately support something that we personally see no value in. If we had free time to burn, fine, but we don't. Everything we do comes at the expense of something else.

Steve

[76mm]

Unfounded, and in fact demonstrably false, assumption.

CMMC1, 2, 3 all say you're wrong, as does Mapping Mission, as does PBEM Helper, as does numerous CMx1 tournaments, as does numerous extensive mods for things like HPSSIMS Pz Campaigns, as does SP W@W, as does ... you get the idea.

Compensation takes many forms. For a significant number of people, financial compensation for activities relating to a hobby is incidental.

Would have to agree on this. Look at the massive modpacks people have created for games like Civilization, Total War, Mount & Blade, etc. etc. etc., in addition to the CM-specific apps that JonS mentions. If similar things have not emerged for CMSF, maybe fans of modern-day combat sims lack the unbalanced, nutty enthusiasm of many WWII (and probably Napoleonic) grogs.

I will also admit that I, who knows nothing about programming, spent a couple of years (!) coding an application that allows me to track CMBB data at the campaign and CMBB levels. Works great for me, other than the fact that I have to import and export all of the data manually, which is a major pain.

[Battlefront.com]

Well, there is a big difference between Mods and what amounts to a computer game. Big difference. The things JonS listed aren't in the same ballpark as writing what I can't conceive of being less than a full fledged computer game, however something like PBEM Helper is at least in the same technical range.

Put it this way. If we want help testing CM there'd probably be 100 people here that would do a good job. If we want help making textures there's likely 2 dozen guys here happily working away AND doing a really good job. If we want help making 3D models we're down to probably 2 or 3 guys, and we'll probably burn out all of 'em before they make their first model. Maybe 1 will survive If we want help making animations we got zero people lined up. At least for a while. Then one of the times I came on this Forum sobbing about how we couldn't find anybody to help us out we got one guy who raised his hand. And he followed through and produced great work despite the learning curve. We lucked out there!

What I'm trying to say here is that the more specialized and technically troublesome something becomes the less likely the right person will be around to do something with it.

Take a game like Total War, which has literally millions of customers, and the % chance of finding the right person for a particular need goes up dramatically.

The bottomline still is the same regardless. And that is to support an external campaign game we have to put in significant effort. For sensible business reasons we aren't interested in doing that on raw speculation that the work might be worth doing. In this case we're not interested in "build it and they will come". We need to have someone come to us and then we'll decide to build it or not.

Steve

[JonS]

Well, there is a big difference between Mods and what amounts to a computer game ... writing what I can't conceive of being less than a full fledged computer game ...

Only if you think there is. Perfect is, as they say, the enemy of good enough. An import-export for an undocumented CSV that included all the variables that can be set in the editor would be enough for folk to be going on with. The CMMCs are primarily pen-and-paper affairs, plus a LOT of tedious putzing about copying stuff down after battles, and re-entering it for subsequent battles. Compared to that, editing a CSV in NotePad would be luxury, with no requirement for "a full fledged computer game" built by anyone.

... If we want help testing CM there'd probably be 100 people here that would do a good job. If we want help making textures there's likely 2 dozen guys here happily working away AND doing a really good job. If we want help making 3D models we're down to probably 2 or 3 guys, ...

The number of people who know - or can learn - Reg Expressions, or use Excel, or heck can hack stuff by hand in NotePad is quite large. Also, it doesn't much matter if only one or a dozen folk produce something useful and workable, because the nature of the beast is that countless people will be able to use and benefit from it.

Scenario design is a perfect example of this. At an informed guess, the proportion of folk who use the existing editor to create 'real' scenarios (as in, full and complete battles, rather than little test scenarios, or incomplete battles that started with a hiss and a roar then petered out when their enthusiasm waned) is quite small, probably well less than 50%? And of the people who *do* use the scen editor in anger to create full scenarios, the majority of scenarios are created by only a few highly prolific designers.

But that's ok, and it seems to work out fine overall. Suma suma with actually making use of a CSV - it only takes one person or team to create something useful, then all the other folks who want to be able to use import/export - for whatever reason - but don't have the technical savvy are set. And you, BFC, don't have to do anything. Apart from generate the CSV.

Yes, the format of the CSV will change from time to time as attributes get added to or removed from the editor. Big deal - it just means that any 3rd Party tools making use of the CSV will have to play catch up. As long as you don't fundamentally change the structure of it within a family (i.e., one base game plus its associated modules), and it's the change is done for good reasons, then the howls of outrage are likely to be reasonably muted. From most. But, lets face it, some will cry like little girls, regardless.

... to support an external campaign game we have to put in significant effort. ...

Steve, no one is asking you to support an external campaign. In fact, I don't want your support. What is being asked for is an import-export function, and associated standardised file format.

By the by, import-export could be used for lots of reasons other than an external campaign. Off the top of my head, it would make doing compare and contrast of a particular force in different terrains or tactical situations (such as, a specific UK company group in city, mountains, open, rural, forest, attack, defence, meeting, etc) a lot easier, or alternately, different forces in the same tactical situations (a UK company group, or a USMC company group, or a German company group, or a US army company group, in city, mountains, open, rural, forest, attack, defence, meeting, etc). It would also make force generation from fan-made points systems for QBs a doddle, and allow players to have their custom QB Army (c.f. Flames of War Armies) saved as a CSV to be imported whenever they wish. Or, heck, people could import their custom QB Army into pre-made scenarios, to see how their force goes and to extend the life of the extant scenario pool.

In this case we're not interested in "build it and they will come". We need to have someone come to us and then we'll decide to build it or not.

This thread has several people coming to you asking for it. Countless threads before this have had people coming to you asking for the same or substantially similar functionality.

Does that not count?

[Pinetree]

Great post Jon. I totally agree with you.

[Thomm]

I want better flavor object manipulation functionality before data import/export!

Ha!

Best regards,

Thomm

PS: Do you see the dilemma?

[JonS]

PS: Do you see the dilemma?

Yes. Of course.

Do you understand what that whooshing sound over your head signifies?

[Scipio]

Interesting. I wonder what they used as a basis (as far as points) for calculating the results. Looks like Syrian Tanks are all worth a set # of points (i.e. doesn't distinguish between T-55 and T-72's).

What indeed doesn't seriously makes much sense. Tank vs Infantry is always the same story as well as US/UK tanks vs Russian tanks, no matter if it's a T-55 or a T-72. US tanks can destroy them all with one hit.

[Apocal]

US/UK tanks vs Russian tanks, no matter if it's a T-55 or a T-72. US tanks can destroy them all with one hit.

I've had a T-72 survive 3 frontal hits from a Challenger 2. Then knock it out. And this with minimal damage, I think the coax was broken and the tracks and optics were somewhat degraded.

[c3k]

What JonS said.

Heck, I'd be happy with a method to capture end-game screenshots and have them posted on the quick description of the battle; that way, when I select a battle I can see at a glance that I've played it, how many times, and how I've done.

A higher layer of play is something a LOT of players would like...

Thanks,

Ken

[76mm]

I could not agree more with JonS post...we're not asking for a complete strategic layer, just a tool that would make it 1000% easier for players to create various kinds of campaign system.

Would import/export really be all that complicated (certainly not a whole new computer game), or just time-consuming and kind of tedious? I understand that you may not want to devote resources to this right now, but I think some of us (me!) would be willing to help.

[Redwolf]

Put it this way. If we want help testing CM there'd probably be 100 people here that would do a good job. If we want help making textures there's likely 2 dozen guys here happily working away AND doing a really good job. If we want help making 3D models we're down to probably 2 or 3 guys, and we'll probably burn out all of 'em before they make their first model. Maybe 1 will survive If we want help making animations we got zero people lined up. At least for a while. Then one of the times I came on this Forum sobbing about how we couldn't find anybody to help us out we got one guy who raised his hand. And he followed through and produced great work despite the learning curve. We lucked out there!

What I'm trying to say here is that the more specialized and technically troublesome something becomes the less likely the right person will be around to do something with it.

Take a game like Total War, which has literally millions of customers, and the % chance of finding the right person for a particular need goes up dramatically.

Panzer Command did succeed in having people make 3D models for them. Very high quality, too.

As a matter of fact, PzC was also released without an editor, in the intention to give one in a patch. Before it came to it somebody built one (thanks to the specs for the map formats being open). That editor is now the official editor. I forgot whether the original guy still maintains it and/or whether he's being payed now.

This isn't to say PzC hasn't it's problems, but they successfully used the open game design that allowed people to plug in all this stuff to be more successful than they would have been without.

[Lee]

Redwolf: Oleg, lead designer for IL-2, said specifically that keeping the aircraft performance aspects of the sim un-moddable was a major reason why cheating was so rare in IL-2 to this day. He made the sim and talks to active players all the time, so he ought to know.

And if I recall correctly, one of the reasons (there were others) Steve gave for not allowing players to modify the unit stats (in case a player might disagree with some tank spec, for example) was to make cheating more difficult. I'm not a programmer, but obviously there are technical reasons why he stated this.

Steve: Perhaps you can briefly comment on this?

In any case, I stated repeatedly that this issue (modifying in-game unit stats) is separate from applying some sort of abstract point system when purchasing units for a quick battle to try to keep the sides even and fair.

[Battlefront.com]

JonS,

This thread has several people coming to you asking for it. Countless threads before this have had people coming to you asking for the same or substantially similar functionality.

Does that not count?

Sure, just like Thomm's post counts. But that doesn't mean that because some people want something that we drop everything, rearrange the development schedule, and then do everything in our power to do whatever is the Request De Jour. We'd NEVER get anything done if that's how we operated. So I'm going to say this again, very clearly...

We are NOT going to support an export feature for CMx2 any time soon. We don't have the interest in devoting time to it at this stage. It does not matter how badly you guys want it, it doesn't matter how simple you think it is to do. It's not going to happen any time soon.

Please, just get over it.

Steve