CMX2, 1:1 Representation and Soldier Attributes

[Panzer_M]

Didn't CloseCombat do the 1:1 well? I thought so.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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 ...

This does not sound very encouraging!!!

Does this mean that the little guys are not already running around in your alphas?!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Panzer_M:

Didn't CloseCombat do the 1:1 well? I thought so.

So did Sims, but Combat Mission is neither Close Combat nor Sims.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, the figures are running around shooting stuff, reloading, chucking hand grenades, crawling, etc. What I was talking about is the stuff going on behind the graphics. We're not sure how many little details we are able to track without bogging down the system. I'm pretty sure we won't have a problem because we have a rather modest list of things to track that aren't already coded. Things like "SGT Johnson has a hangnail" are certainly not going to be tracked. If it isn't of central importance, there is no point in even putting it in.

Steve

[hellfish]

One thing that has my vote is ammo consolidation - the ability to pick up ammo from dead squad members or, (if you wanna be super cool) to have one squad consolidate ammo with another squad.

[juan_gigante]

When guys get into hand to hand combat, will we get to see them hitting each other on the heads with rifle butts and such? Will the uber-Finns do wire-fu?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Things like "SGT Johnson has a hangnail" are certainly not going to be tracked.

Quite right. But what about "Corporal Gruntz is taking a whiz so his alertness and reaction times are effected."?

Michael

[Cpl Steiner]

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.

This seems a bit unreasonable. I would prefer it if you could view an information window on each combatant, like you can now if you hit return when a squad or vehicle is selected. I would be quite upset if one of my soldiers performs some heroic deed and I don't even know his name.

I would code it so there is a list of say 100 first names and 100 second names for each nation, and the soldier entity stores a lookup index to both a first name and a second name. The storage requirement would be minimal, but we could then identify just a little bit more with our virtual soldiers.

You could even do some sort of post battle roll call screen showing the names of the dead. I'm old enough to remember when they read out the names of the Royal Marines killed at Goose Green over their freshly dug graves. It was very moving. Something like this would add to the game, in my opinion.

[Cpl Steiner]

Further to the above, The Falklands War would make a great module for CMX2 (I'm British, if you hadn't guessed).

[Battlefront.com]

We have to limit the amount of information that is available on a soldier by soldier basis. Not just because of code related issues, but also UI. With a few hundred guys under your command, few will care anyway. Even when it is a campaign, but especially when it is a quick battle and you know you'll never see those guys again.

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

Steve, thanks for your response.

I concede that most people won't give a damn what any particular soldier's name is, given that CMX2 will hopefully handle several dozen soldiers a side at the very least. I suppose once you give guys individual names, then the next thing you'll have is individual portraits etc., and the whole thing could get out of control.

However, it will be interesting to see what you actually call each soldier. Will they each have a rank, such as pvt for the average rifleman, and cpl or sgt for machine-gunners etc? Maybe even this is too much info. I suppose it might be easier to just use the unit name, e.g.: -

Designation: US Mechanized Infantryman

Health: OK

Fatigue: Tiring

Status: Pinned

Equipment/Ammunition(%):-

1x Browing Automatic Rifle (BAR) (70%),

1x M1911 Pistol (100%),

2x M1 Fragmentation Hand Grenade,

1x M2 Smoke Grenade,

1x F1 Flare

Or is even this list too much?

By the way, I'm not trying to nit-pick here. I'm just interested to see how much info 1:1 rep is going to mean.

[Michael Emrys]

Just throw in my 2¢, I don't particularly care to know what my men's names are or how they are feeling or how much of what kind of ammo they have left. I am very much interested in how companies, platoons, squads, and crews are doing. That's because the important work in armies is done by organized units, and only very rarely by individuals. If the AAR tells me that Cpl. Gruntz performed heroically once he got it back in his pants, I'll be happy to hear it and even recommend him for a commendation. But don't bother me with that while I'm trying to manage a battle.

Michael

[Cpl Steiner]

People play games for lots of different reasons. Some play a game purely to win. Others like to see the game as a simulation of reality, which is a fun experience in and of itself. Many, like myself, enjoy the detail as much as the bigger picture, and like to review battle AARs etc. I might not care what a guy's name is during play, but knowing it in the AAR might be fun.

From my own programming experience (not games programming I hasten to add) I have seen lots of projects run into problems because some element of information was not thought to be necessary when the system was designed. Later on, some tiny detail becomes crucial, and has to be retrofitted to the whole system.

I would think a sensible approach would be to include absolutely every detail that might one day be required, and just hide the majority from the user. If you need it later on, then it is a simple matter to "reveal" the information that is already there. In terms of computer resources I doubt this is much of an issue anymore, when every computer comes with a huge amount of RAM as standard.

I think the "Soldier" entity should be treated the same way in CMX2.

[Battlefront.com]

The player can be in command of a small force or a large one, much like CMx1. The top end will likely be less than CMx1 for performance reasons, but this still puts you in command of more than a hundred individual soldiers. You should not be focused on the individuals but the units that they belong to. Any heroics you see can easily be attributed to that unit and therefore the need to see the individual that did it is unnecessary.

On the previous page I outlined what we're showing for individual Soldiers -> Weapon, Speciality, Condition. That's it. And it takes up plenty of UI space as it is. The interface will only look more cluttered and more daunting if we add more stuff. Pushing things off to a secondary screen is possible, but that in and of itself shows the data to be relatively unimportant. Secondary screens should never contain critical info because they are used so infrequently. One of my biggest gripes with Steel Panthers when I got it was the leadership element being hidden in a secondary screen. Never used it.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Pushing things off to a secondary screen is possible, but that in and of itself shows the data to be relatively unimportant. Secondary screens should never contain critical info because they are used so infrequently. One of my biggest gripes with Steel Panthers when I got it was the leadership element being hidden in a secondary screen. Never used it.

Steve

Amen - good to hear. The coloured lines in CM work amazingly well, hope they will be retained - unless you have something even better cooked up.

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The player can be in command of a small force or a large one, much like CMx1. The top end will likely be less than CMx1 for performance reasons, but this still puts you in command of more than a hundred individual soldiers.

Steve

One hundred plus, as opposed to two hundred or more, would make the top end a company level game?

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yes, the figures are running around shooting stuff, reloading, chucking hand grenades, crawling, etc.

That is great news indeed!

My current "personal benchmark" for soldier behavior in a wargame is the AI of my Brothers in Arms teammates (moving in groups, taking cover, peeking around corners).

Assuming that you are familiar with this game: can you comment on whether behavior like that found in BiA will be feasible in CMx2, or will the action be more "generic"??

Best regards,

Thomm

[Tero]

What about individual vehicle stats and data ?

IRL crews would report all sorts of things which may or may not influence the way you give them tasks and missions.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by jim crowley:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The player can be in command of a small force or a large one, much like CMx1. The top end will likely be less than CMx1 for performance reasons, but this still puts you in command of more than a hundred individual soldiers.

Steve

One hundred plus, as opposed to two hundred or more, would make the top end a company level game? </font>

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Sergei:

That sucks.

How do you know?!

Never forget that CMx2 most likely will not erase any CMx1 games from your hard disc, thus you can fall back to that engine (which, apparently, was designed for larger-scale battles)!

Keep the faith,

Thomm

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

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

That sucks.

How do you know?!

Never forget that CMx2 most likely will not erase any CMx1 games from your hard disc, thus you can fall back to that engine (which, apparently, was designed for larger-scale battles)!

Keep the faith,

Thomm </font>

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Sergei:

How do I know? Because I like battalion level fights. I don't need another EYSA, I want a better CM.

Hmmmm. I think we must accept that battalion level and 1:1 representation are not compatible (would be cool to be proven wrong).

So, in order to interpret your post correctly, I assume that you would prefer the current "lumped squad" concept over 1:1 representation if the former comes with new features like formation movement, convoy commands, S.O.P.s etc.

Right?!

Best regards,

Thomm

PS: Personally, I think that EYSA scale and atmosphere combined with CM sophistication will be excellent fun!

[Tero]

Why does the 1:1 representation have to include individual men ? Why not make the cut for, say, half squads. There will not be graphical 1:1 representation for each and every men so why not limit the data displayed and processed to the next manageable sub-unit ? AFAIK such things as morale resolution could be made as a subprocess for the half squad. This way the representation would be an average of 5 men.

There will no doubt be individual vehicles in the game and the unit morale is calculated from the crew. Is that so incompatible with a half squad when it comes to 1:1 representation of the more intangible qualities ?

[Sergei]

To me, 1:1 has never been a desired improvement. Actually, I believe it will be very problematic and harmful for suspense of disbelief, because the AI of the soldiers will do even more stupid things on its own than the TacAI ever has; just think of those suicide Lemmings in Close Combat series who'd crawl to front of wall while taking fire, all the while you're yelling "NNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!" and thus waking up the neighbours.

I can't take another warning or I'll be evicted. :mad:

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Tero:

Why does the 1:1 representation have to include individual men ? Why not make the cut for, say, half squads. There will not be graphical 1:1 representation for each and every men so why not limit the data displayed and processed to the next manageable sub-unit ? AFAIK such things as morale resolution could be made as a subprocess for the half squad. This way the representation would be an average of 5 men.

There will no doubt be individual vehicles in the game and the unit morale is calculated from the crew. Is that so incompatible with a half squad when it comes to 1:1 representation of the more intangible qualities ?

Showing 7-12 men per squad shouldn't be a problem nowadays by itself, like it was back in late 1990's. But modelling the exact position and actions etc. for every man is different.

You can't just do with "even though it's open, you can assume the men to be taking cover from ditches, slight dents in the ground, behind rocks etc." No, you have to have FPS rate representation of everything, or you are back to abstraction.

Having a 10 man squad represented by two half-squad, each showing five men, or maybe three teams as 4-3-3 (sic) would go away from the "squad standing on the point of a needle" phenomenon, would allow for more advanced tactical thinking (squad formation line, column, 'screwball' (häröpallo) for routed units, and how spread they are).

I'm not saying that a good platoon/company level game couldn't be fun, but I feel that it takes the focus away from what is important for me - the bigger picture. I want to model the whole Tali-Ihantala fighting in a single scenario, goddammit!!!