CMX2, 1:1 Representation and Soldier Attributes

[Cpl Steiner]

Hi,

As we all know, CMX2 will model soldiers on a 1:1 basis. This means the game engine will now treat each individual combatant as a unique entity. This raizes the prospect of each soldier having unique attributes or characteristics, a bit like in a Role-Playing game. How do people feel about this?

Here is a list of possible attributes a soldier could have: -

Swimming

Driving

Using Enemy Weapons

Initiative

Bravery

Marksmanship

I don't suggest any of the above is a good idea, just that it will now be possible. What attributes, if any, do people think would be a welcome addition to the game?

[37mm]

Pengnossity

[juan_gigante]

I think that trying to model lots of attributes for each soldier might be kind of tough on the engine and the computer running it. And besides, those first three attributes wouldn't have that much of an effect.

Swimming - if I'm ordering a squad to swim across something, I want them all to make it. So you might as well have everyone in the squad at the lowest common denominator. Besides, your men will probably be laden down enough they won't want to swim much at all.

Driving - I don't we'll see regular infantry hopping into tanks to take over after the crew has taken casualties. So for much of the force, driving skill wouldn't matter. For the real drivers, it wouldn't neccessary to model that skill 1:1; after all, in nearly all vehicles there is only one driver.

Using Enemy Weapons - Infantry now have no handicap when using captured weapons that came with the squad. I like that. But I don't like the idea of enough mid-battling capturing going on that would make such a skill helpful.

I like the other three though.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

As we all know, CMX2 will model soldiers on a 1:1 basis. This means the game engine will now treat each individual combatant as a unique entity.

We don't know that and I for one find it highly unlikely, at least any time soon. As j_g astutely observes, that would entail an awful lot of CPU effort that might be better expended elsewhere. Unless I am mistaken (a possibility since I have not studied the threads on this subject closely), the sole reason at this point for graphically modeling individual soldiers is to allow us players to see on the screen what's been going on inside the box all along.

Michael

[hellfish]

I'm pretty sure Steve said that soldiers, at least initially, would only be graphically simulated at 1:1, but would still operate as a collective entity. Essentially, a CMBO/CMBB/CMAK squad with 8-13 soldiers as opposed to the current three.

[stoat]

In setup will each soldier have a foxhole? You would think with each soldier represented the squad would be more spread out, and thus either individual foxholes, one huge hole, or some soldiers not in the communal foxhole.

Or am I just making things up and each soldier already has one, but it is only viewed as one squad foxhole?

[Michael Emrys]

I believe the foxholes represented in the game are intended to be fighting positions occupied by two or three men. Perhaps in CMx2 then we will see from 3-5 on the screen for each squad.

Michael

[stoat]

Other things that would be nice to see would be working gun crews, and perhaps individual casualty markers.

Maybe not the markers: keeping track of each one, especially in large battles, might be too taxing on the engine, and may or may not look to good.

[aka_tom_w]

Steve's recent bone thread has been bumped if you care to check it out...

Does this help:

"OLD bone update from Jan 2005

Battlefront.com

Administrator

Member # 42

posted January 31, 2005 04:05 PM

(from HUGE old 1:1 Representation thread)

I have to close up this thread due to its size. Feel free to start up another one. However, keep in mind that we (Battlefront) need to design something that is pleasing to both the eye and the grog. We'll be torn to pieces if the 1:1 representation looks silly or woefully incomplete, even if eveything is neato mosquito under the hood. Likewise, grogs will tear us a new one if the important 1:1 simulation aspects aren't done well enough.

In other words... there is no one right answer to this debate you guys are having. We need to have a balance between the two, and that balance is in part determined by how easy/hard it is to program and/or how well it functions from a performance standpoint (eye candy and underlying sim stuff BOTH!). Not even we have the answers to all these questions at this point, so I might suggest that both sides of this debate keep that in mind. NOTHING is decided except for the fact that we are seeking a balance, which inherently means some grog stuff and some eye candy wish list items won't be happening.

Steve

Battlefront.com

Administrator

Member # 42

posted January 30, 2005 08:48 PM

The 3D environment of CM does offer us some challenges in terms of where to draw the line between a simulation of the individual soldier and larger groups of soldiers (i.e. units). It's something we've all be struggling with since the early days of CMBO's design.

Back in the old days of wargaming you'd have a cardboard chit with some numbers and a shape on it. Nobody called for more than that simply because the system was so abstract probably nobody thought of it (at least not thinking it possibly practical).

The first couple of generations of computerized wargames fell into the same category. As time went on and technology improved wargamers wanted better looking maps, more attractive looking units, and of course more under the hood. But again, for anything but the smallest scale wargames nobody thought about simulating the individual soldier to any significant degree. Until, that is, Close Combat came out.

CC was the first commercial wargame to model the individual soldier in detail and in substantial numbers. And for all its flaws, the game worked very well and people saw the value in having the 1:1 soldier simulation. Then CMBO came around...

Our problem, from the beginning, is our chosen scale. MUCH larger than CC's, yet not so much that individuals ceased to matter. But due to technical limiations we never once thought about doing 1:1 because it simply wasn't possible. However, the desire has always been there, at least to some extent. Now comes CMx2...

What we are doing now is giving the individual soldier a place on a larger scale battlefield (larger than FPS, CC, etc). That is the right thing to do. However, there are limits. We must make sure to not lose sight of the fact that this is a larger scale wargame and not a FPS of even Close Combat scale game. Therefore, when push comes to shove, decisions are made which favor the larger scale wargaming environment. Clutter, unnecessary development distractions, big hits to the CPU for little simulation gain, etc. are all bad things for CMx2.

In short... we know what CMx2 is supposed to be and what it isn't. We have this vision very clearly laid out and will not waiver from it. There will be no mission creep.

Steve"

[securityguard]

I at least hope that the minimal of 1:1 will be ammo count, morale status and maybe something like 'current action' similar to CC. IE, 'unjamming', 'can't see enemy', 'confused'. At least I hope for something like that. One thing I loved about CC was all the different things that could happen at any given time.

I also hope you can see when someone goes 'bezerk' or 'brave'. In CC it wasn't abusable (unlike CM, where knowing something is fanatical could be abused) becaus you had no direct control of bravery in any shape or form. In CC I've had a sharpshooter go beszerk and melee 5 guys who charged him. You just can't create better drama than that.

[Battlefront.com]

Well, it's about 8 months from the time of the posts Tom reposted above. The short answer is... we still aren't sure what we will simulate. Oh sure, we have a design that says what will be in, but this is something that hasn't been coded yet. And coding is where it counts due to the potential for CPU and memory overload.

What I can tell you, for absolute sure, is that very few of the individual soldier attributes will be known to the player. As a couple of our military experienced testers have said "I don't give a crap if Pvt. Pyle has a +2 strength modifier and 3 more rounds than Pvt. Jones. All I care about is if the unit is functional and can it get the job done." This is our philosophy too.

The player simply does not have the time to be obesssing over the minutia of individual soldiers. There is a battle to be fought! Plus, all that crap takes up a crudload of screenspace to display attributes because of the compounding nature of it. For example, 5 attributes for a 12 man Squad means having display space for 60 bits of text or icons. Egads!

Currently the only displayed attributes for an indvidual soldier are weapon, specialty, and physical condition (tracks wounds). All the rest of the attributes are displayed in unit fashion. We tried to squeeze names in there too, but for several reasons (mostly UI space) we dropped them. Only the Leader of the unit has a name.

Now, don't confuse informtion displayed with the ability to treat the soldiers of a unit uniquely. We can still do that, you just won't get a laundry list of stats to show why.

Steve

[Denwad]

i think what we all want is a turn based Close Combat III in 3d, with maybe a bit bigger scale ( instead of 2 platoons with support a full company with support elements )

[flamingknives]

I don't. I want a better version of CM.

I'd like the capability to do a full battalion attack or a platoon patrol.

And lots of cool tanks. Because I like tanks.

[Bonxa]

Hey, I now regularly fight multi-battalion actions and want to be able to do that in CMX2 as well.

I realize I may need an above average rig to do it but I concurr about the lack of meaning for displaying details. The only time I would want to know the names of my privates is when one brave digital soldier runs up to a big menacing tank and places explosives on it in a nifty spot.

Edit: added an s.

[ August 20, 2005, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Bonxa ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Bonxa:

The only time I would want to know the name of my privates is when one brave digital soldier runs up to a big menacing tank and places explosives on it in a nifty spot.

:confused: I thought we all have given names for our privates?

[Bonxa]

So, what do you call yours?

(No, you don't have to answer the above question...please.)

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Currently the only displayed attributes for an indvidual soldier are weapon, specialty, and physical condition (tracks wounds). All the rest of the attributes are displayed in unit fashion.

Sounds fine to me. (I'll find something to gripe about later.)

Michael

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Bonxa:

So, what do you call yours?

Pocket Monster, or just Pokemon for friends.

(No, you don't have to answer the above question...please.)

But the public must know...

[Gromit]

The player simply does not have the time to be obesssing over the minutia of individual soldiers. There is a battle to be fought! Plus, all that crap takes up a crudload of screenspace to display attributes because of the compounding nature of it. For example, 5 attributes for a 12 man Squad means having display space for 60 bits of text or icons. Egads!

Currently the only displayed attributes for an indvidual soldier are weapon, specialty, and physical condition (tracks wounds). All the rest of the attributes are displayed in unit fashion. We tried to squeeze names in there too, but for several reasons (mostly UI space) we dropped them. Only the Leader of the unit has a name.

Makes good sense to me Steve- anyway, everything I have ever read or seen points to the realization that men rarely knew anyone outside their own company (or platoon sometimes) by name alone... they just didn't spend enough time together. For example:

Winters: "Guarnere, you and Hall up front".

Guarnere: "Who the hell is Hall?!"

and...

Winters: "I lost a man today... Hall."

Nixon: "I never knew him."

Winters: "Yeah you did; radio op, 506th basketball team, Able Company."

Nixon "..."

Now, the Company/Platoon Commanders like Winters were expected to know all of their men and I fully expect Leaders in CMx2 to have as many if not more "attributes" than they had in CM1. It makes a lot of sense to have a certain amount of detail in CMx2 with regard to your Leaders, after all, that is the level that you as a player are dealing with more times than not (as noted by others above). It really doesn't matter who your individual squad members are unless they are a leader of some kind (mortar, mg, squad, a/t, etc.).

It would be a waste of CPU cycles and I think a case of "information overload" even if you could do it.

[aka_tom_w]

I would expect that each individual data base for each soldier might also (for sure ) track that soldier's morale, perhaps with some "critical mass" scenario in mind that would tip the balance and send the whole unit into a shocked or paniced or broken state.

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

What I can tell you, for absolute sure, is that very few of the individual soldier attributes will be known to the player. As a couple of our military experienced testers have said "I don't give a crap if Pvt. Pyle has a +2 strength modifier and 3 more rounds than Pvt. Jones. All I care about is if the unit is functional and can it get the job done." This is our philosophy too.

Currently the only displayed attributes for an indvidual soldier are weapon, specialty, and physical condition (tracks wounds). All the rest of the attributes are displayed in unit fashion.

Steve

[ August 21, 2005, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

I don't. I want a better version of CM.

I'd like the capability to do a full battalion attack or a platoon patrol.

And lots of cool tanks. Because I like tanks.

Absolutely!

Better terrain; much better infantry. But keep those tanks rollin' as well.

[Turnberry]

Has a decision been made about spotting yet?

There was some talk earlier in the year of being able to spot an entire squad if one individual was visible.

[Skolman]

I would love a game with individual soldiers !

But then the battles must be much smaller. Squad sized I think...

I´m thinking back to X-com/UFO and how I would love to see a game like this in a WW2 setting !

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Turnberry:

Has a decision been made about spotting yet?

There was some talk earlier in the year of being able to spot an entire squad if one individual was visible.

That issue (I would guess) is a really BIG can of worms, (kettle of fish, pick one).

The relationship between the new Relative Spotting paradigm and the 1:1 relationship of showing individual soldiers modeled on the battlefield will be an interesting "thing" to see how they work all that out!

I am not sure if Steve has commented at all about the relationship between how spotting will work and how the game will show player's their soldiers with 1:1 representation?? :confused: BUT I am pretty sure we are all curious to see how it all works out in the end!

-tom w

[kenfedoroff]

This question is waaay off-topic for this thread, but maybe one of the CMX2 Thread Grogs is lurking about...

I'm wondering if the "Snow" and "Deep Snow" ground conditions would be affected by vehicle traffic?

In other words... Would my infantry tire less easily in Snow and Deep Snow if there was a tracked vehicle leading the way, at the front of the column (breaking a trail)?

Any other ideas for vehicles affecting the game environment? ...busting through fences and hedgerows? rutting the roads to inhibit wheeled vehicles? etc.?

Thanks in advance,

Ken