Michael Dorosh
-
Posts
13,938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Michael Dorosh
-
-
Or d) you don't use tactics that involve units doing stuff at two different places on the map at the same time(and good tactics very often fall into this category). This is the most obvious reason why RT does not work; a player can only focus at one part of the map at any given time. Attacking the fort in the first campaign mission from two sides for example, is simply impossible in real-time, without taking lots of casualties solely because of your inability to coordinate two groups of units at the same time, or at least not without moving your forces in a way that would severly reduce the benefits of a two-point attack. </font>Originally posted by Northman:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
In that case, in answer to your question "why can't I bear to play WEGO anymore", which I attempted to answer, the answer would be one or a combination of the following:
a) you don't play CM anymore
you don't play anything more than a couple of platoons at a timec) you con't play against other humans
-
No it wasn't. There were no doors and windows, IIRC, and the fidelity was easier to achieve. The vehicle pathing was still poor and heavily criticized. As you point out, the scale was smaller - units and maps both. And the map elevations were so hard to see, that LOS was just kind of assumed, at least by me, to be hit or miss at the best of times and part of the challenge!Originally posted by Blackhorse:How do we reconcile the popularity of the Close Combat series games to this topic?
Weren't they the same, conceptually, in terms of 1:1 representation, generally the same number of units the player had to control, RT, etc.
What was different was MUCH Smaller maps and an overhead view allowing the player to see everything as well as a bar along the bottom that reflected the status of every unit, thus helping to deal with some of the span of control overload.
You did have goofy stuff like chasing down single routed men and having to kill them at point blank range. That all said, I liked it because there was nothing better at the time out there. It was groundbreaking with respect to 1:1 modelling, but individual morale was actually tracked, and individuals split from the squad if they had seen too much. That too is not shown in CM:SF despite the 1:1. I understand the reason for the abstraction, but that just argues against 1:1 at the company level.
CC was a platoon level game at best in any event.
It's 3D version, GI Combat, was panned and went quickly to the discount bin. It's follow up, EYSA was more successful, in its second incarnation. I haven't followed it's current popularity - perhaps Eric can weigh in here.
[ August 11, 2007, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
Well stated, acrashb. CM:SF has been stated to be the "cup of tea" of many people. I think that's great. I enjoy working in the editor, and I do enjoy playing the game. I also enjoy discussing design issues, which I've been saying for months now, and so now that the opportunity is here, I'm glad that there are well spoken people to do that with. Those not capable of participating in such a discussion are free to - well, go enjoy the game or something. We don't need to hear from them, because frankly, it is possible to enjoy the game at the same time as question some of its underlying assumptions.Originally posted by acrashb:Firstly, faith is not a plan.
Second, these aren't bugs, they're design issues - especially when you read MD's original post, which you admit you haven't because it caused your head to explode.
Finally, you said you loved the realism, I pointed out some highly non-realistic elements, you respond with faith. Some people find it difficult to say "I'm wrong".
And edit to say - well stated GaJ, and changed as per your suggestion.
-
Ok - I agree with you. Yes.Originally posted by rlg85:Wouldn't you prefer 1:1 assuming terrain fidelity and AI issues could somehow be solved?
The reason I bring this whole point up is to re-examine some of the criticisms outside the plane of "CM:SF sucks" "No it doesn't". We've mostly done that, for which I'm glad. As stated, I don't mean to by perceived as critical, but I think it is useful to look constructively at how we perceive the game beyond just telling each other we "don't get it."
So I agree with Hoolaman - most of you, I guess - that IF 1:1 modelling could be done with a Tac AI appropriate to the level being modelled, it would be great.
I'm just not sure that is BF.C's bread and butter - it hasn't been in the past - and the perception at present is that attempting to do so has simply dropped the CM line into mediocrity.
Now, IF they pull this off - and I'm not convinced one way or another it can be done - it will be cutting edge once more. I don't believe just making the attempt entitles anyone to assume that mantle, no matter how valiant the attempt is, if the attempt is perceived to have failed.
But then again, if the Tac AI is making SO many decisions that it is playing itself - you get to the point that there really is no point. I guess I'd have to know just how many decisions are really in the tree at 1:1. The tree in CMX1 was pretty good. In CMX2 we now have four command panels, and we don't even have stuff like surrendering units and guarding prisoners and hand-to-hand combat and captured weapons/vehicles, or climbing or swimming or scaling chain link fences, driving over foxholes, digging foxholes in the first place... This is all stuff that "deserves" treatment in a game. Does it not? If not, then where do you draw the "abstraction line" once the barn door is open?
-
It's funny that you say you disagree with me, and then prove my point with everything else you say.Originally posted by Hoolaman:I disagree with MD's essay on the design of the game.
There's no difference between a computer game and a board game at the design level - in the end, they are numbers and tables. Imagination fills in the blanks.So you own a lot of boardgames? I know there is a rich history of military boardgaming, but to be honest I don't think a game of CMSF's complexity is really comparable to those dice and counters.
Let's back up a second. I'm not "complaining" about anything. I'm presenting the idea that 1:1 modelling is a faulty groundwork on which to lay a company-sized tactical game on. We do that by investigating how CM handles specific design issues. Which is the same thing you're about to do.There is nothing inherently wrong with trying to simulate 1:1 everything, and a lot of the stuff MD complains about are actually quite trivial bugs, not problems with the concept itself, although they are there and do hinder the enjoyment of the 1:1 concept.
And these are all related to the underlying 1:1 question.I tend to agree with kipanderson on this one. I think there are a few shortcomings in the game as it stands.
Wait a minute - I thought you said 1:1 was irrelevant. Now you're saying it isn't working. Which is it?TACAI. the TacAI is not working as it should. I know this will be tweaked and tweaked over time, so maybe in a year's time the TacAI will be great. With this fixed, when soldiers behave like they "should", suddenly 1:1 is not so bad.
In CM:BB, there ARE no windows. Again, at a 1:1 rep, there are. So yes, this is very much related to 1:1 representation.LOS/LOF issues. The issues put forward in the OP are not a function of the 1:1 design. If your area fire hosed down the building or area instead of firing at a point there would be not be a problem. If your grenades were programmed so they went in the window or over the wall there would be no problem. All of this is a problem with the TacAI or the implementation of certain features.
We agree on all this so I won't quote it.Missing SOPs and UI.
NO. No more commands! The Tac AI is supposed to be doing this stuff. In 1:1 that means we have to see it. At a more abstract level or reprsentation, we can comfortably ignore it, or "factor it in." You see the problems we create when we go to 1:1?There are many more commands and interface refinements that would make the game easier to play and produce much more realistic and believable outcomes, and in addition if something dumb happened you would only have yourself to blame!
Or just leave it as it was and there is nothing to fix....Terrain Fidelity. To my mind this is the worst design issue as far as the abstraction/CMBB-is-better argument. Not only was the infantry highly abstracted in CM1 but the terrain also was highly abstracted. In CMSF I don't see that this terrain abstraction has changed. There is still not a perfect match between the ground itself and what a bullet does when it hits. The buildings are still angled at 90 or 45 degrees. The buildings are abstracted although less so. The roads must be angles just like CM1. The terrain is not high fidelity, and not exactly WYSIWYG.CM1 dealt with this by making sure the player knew what each piece of terrain gave you via cover % and LOS degradation, along with tiles of a certain terrain type. But CMSF makes you guess, and all those undulations and rocks and logs and ridges you imagined in CM1 are not represented in nearly enough detail compared to the high fidelity troop models.
Part of this terrain issue is again LOS/LOF problems which could be fixed, but part of it is inherent to the new game engine.
Despite you citing half a dozen reasons why it isCONCLUSION
The 1:1 representation is good,
not and not a single reason in favour!
I'm willing to believe 1:1 is the way to go, but no one has championed convincingly why this would be so for a company level game.
-
Usually an email to the designer will get you permission though, especially if you promise a credit in the scenario briefing.
-
Don't get me wrong, I like RT and use it exclusively against the AI. But I'm not a good CM player, am not looking for a huge challenge, don't play as much as I would like, don't play more than a couple platoons at a time and don't play RT against humans.
-
Exactly right on all counts. Like Steve said back in 2000 - that's a LOT of very specific programming (and animations) to be done.Originally posted by KNac:The AI has to do it w/o you telling to do it. There is no other work around. I don't want to look obtuse about this, but is the only way.
Is really difficult, for an action that seems so simple, to be performed right at the moment that is neccessary by the TacAI. But it can be done, is just like "the squad should be shooting the AT-4 at the BMP" or "this tank should use this kind of shell for this type of target". We know it can be done, cause in CMx1 was done to a degree, only than for 1:1 virtual world, all is more complex, and it will take more time until all feels right
-
I don't wish to appear overly smug, but isn't that the problem? Having a game that looks like it is 1:1, but isn't? I think at some point, there is a desire to have one or the other.Originally posted by KNac:I don't know the inner game mechanics, so I can't say to what point is 1:1 graphical representation equal to 1:1 calcs.
OFP had ridiculous contact grenades but you did at least know what you were looking at, and could pretty much tell guys to do what you wanted them to do. It was a man-to-man game, though, and so the scale was appropriate to 1:1. I'm not convinced a company-level game is appropriate to 1:1 for the reason you suggest.
I guess we don't know til we try, eh?
But to go back to my grenade example, we already have a huge list of commands on four separate menus - we're not going to get a "throw grenades over tall wall" order. So how would you implement a perfectly sensible real-world order in 1:1 rep without resorting to either abstraction, or else very specific commands that will simply burden the player and an already over-taxed interface?
[ August 11, 2007, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
Poppycock. I could probably beat most people on this Forum. I just don't have time to.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Dorosh,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Because you're a lousy CM player. Like me. You'd rather design scenarios (in your case, entire games) than play them.
Right, so why are you bringing it up? I did partake in a CMBB Tourney and did quite well until I had my ass handed to me due to a design flaw, which was fixed in the next patch. Sometimes it is good to be the KingAnyway, I've never seen your name on any ladders. Me neither, not my bag, not any way to prove anything.
(the problem was split squads were just about 1 hair's width away from panic from the second they were split off. My defenses involved everybody being split!).Steve </font>
-
You are telling me!!! Try have it happen in real life... </font>Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by NG cavscout:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr Reality:
Having the uncons invisible, imho, is not fair.
I suddenly found myself surrounded by uncons which seemed to spawn in buildings.
-
Don't get me wrong - CM:SF still works as intended. I'm just discussing design philosophy here and don't mean to be too critical. I guess I've been having so much fun playing in the CM:BB meta campaign that I am perhaps a bit encouraged by those experiences.Originally posted by rlg85:So what has changed from your defense of CMSF?
CM:SF does what BF.C has set out to do with it. It's still "Combat Mission" in look and function and the stuff I championed most heavily - the editor for one - speaks for itself. There is nothing "wrong" with CM:SF but it has been suggested that by making our opinions known, we can influence the development of the series. We have in the past. Well, I think perhaps a few people are wondering if 1:1 is the right way to go. I'm not convinced either way, and the conversation here has been constructive.
CM:SF does have a lot of features that are marked improvements over the old CM - big and small, from the button-type icons replacing the bases, to 2,000 terrain levels in the editor, etc. But perhaps everyone, in all camps, would benefit from a fresh perspective and I thought the question of 1:1 might be another approach to take in discussing things.
-
Even so, is 1:1 desirable? What set CM:BB et al apart was the fact that it had such great fidelity for the level of portrayal that was selected. I think what my anonymous correspondent in the first post was trying to say was that it seemed silly, to him, for BF.C to abandon a unique niche in the marketplace just to do what everyone else is doing, and not be able to do it as well.Originally posted by KNac:So the question is: can a good enough AI be programmed to behave in a way that can make 1:1 feasible instead of following the abstraction aproach?
IMO, even if AI is the most difficult programming, it can be done (yes, not perfect, but good enough to make the game fun as well as realist). It may take a lot longer than is thought, specially with the current BFC roster.
You look at Operation Flashpoint, which is multi-player, and has a ton of money flowing into it, and it may be unfair to compare them. But you do. Automatically. Based on the graphics and the fact they are both 1:1 games.
The turnbased WEGO system seemed to go hand in hand with the level of abstraction that so nicely recalled the older board games but more importantly - THIS IS HOW EVERY SINGLE COMPANY-LEVEL GAME EVER DESIGNED HAS OPERATED. You abstract the squads.
So yeah, when Battlefront says they are breaking new ground, well, sure they are. They're the first to attempt to make a company-level game with 1:1 representation. Think of all the stuff that might reasonably be expected to impact a 1:1 modelling, that we don't see yet. No one can say for sure what NEEDS to be in. Did buddy aid HAVE to be included? There were huge debates about how to include wounded soldiers. The solution they found is okay. Haven't seen prisoners or hand-to-hand fighting yet.
Example
How about grenades? I was playing my own Meeting at High Altitude scen, and noticed when I gave an area fire order against a tall wall 10 metres away that my dudes would chuck grenades with wild abandon AT the wall - but not OVER the wall.
But I can't order them to do so, even if I know there are enemy soldiers there. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to chuck grenades OVER A WALL TEN METRES AWAY? I would do it in real life.
What about grenades through a house's window, before clearing the building. Isn't that standard for house-clearing? Can we do it in CM:SF?
Shouldn't we be able to, with 1:1 rep?
-
Fair enough, but the visual fidelity has to mesh with the engine. CM:BB did that in ways that Steiner and JasonC have eloquently described.Originally posted by Kineas:Future of wargaming, meaning that most computer based wargames will use 1:1 rep. Because you are a grog you still relish the eye candy, together with a lot of casual customers. And of course a huge leap towards physical realism.
I don't know what to say about CM:SF; I enjoy the visuals a great deal and I still think it is definitely Combat Mission there on the screen. I don't feel the extra eye candy has added any great realism - in fact, as stated, and as Steve himself predicted - its actually been a distraction in some ways.
Which isn't to say it can't get sorted out. I honestly don't know, but I do think it is worthy of discussion. Perhaps I'm guilty of not taking your examples seriously enough, but they really didn't speak to me of any great "need" for 1:1 rep.
-
You only say that because you've never written a bulldozer program.Originally posted by dalem:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
The people that hung around our forums blasting us daily for our "silly 3D graphics" and "unrealistic turn based game" during CMBO development were not doing anybody any favors either.
Steve
-dale </font>
-
Because you're a lousy CM player. Like me. You'd rather design scenarios (in your case, entire games) than play them.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Then why can't I bear to play WeGo any more? Because I'm fooled by my own marketing angle?
Steve
Just like James F. Dunnigan. There's worse company to be in.
Anyway, I've never seen your name on any ladders. Me neither, not my bag, not any way to prove anything. But I stand by what I said about RT - it probably appeals more for those who don't want a deep challenge. Because play against the AI will not provide that, by definition, to the degree a human will.
Which is ok - that's the whole design philosophy and the core market. I get that. CM is for solo play. Unfortunately, the closet dwellers won't be the vocal ones on the forum, so the feedback curve is skewed.
[ August 11, 2007, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]
-
Don't think me too stupid to know the difference. I'm not. And I do.Originally posted by Kineas:Don't confuse 1:1 representation and micromanagement, because they are too different things, though the first seems to imply the second.
Future of what? Company-level wargames? That's like saying that as soon as computers are powerful enough to model the invasion of Russia on a 1:1 level, that will be the future too. But I bet we still see games where players command armies and corps, and there is no need to calculate exactly where every man in the invasion front is.1:1r. is not a problem, it's the future.Your other comments are simply talking past me rather than responding to me. Your points on micromanagement are well taken, but irrelevant. To quote Steve Grammont - "you obviously don't get it."
-
And that still doesn't tell you anything?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:If we had CMx1 style QBs, WeGo TCP/IP, and no RealTime I bet you we would not have had such a negative reaction from a segment of our CMx1 customer base even if NOTHING else was different.
Steve
You mention on this page that RT is a great leap forward, but I don't see it as such. It limits the size of game to play - you admit that on this page also - and it removes the ability to play back.
What advantages, then, is it supposed to impart? Other than a nice blurb on the box and expanding the market? I can understand the need to do that, but that isn't a revolutionary change, it's just a new marketing strategy. Gamers don't care about that. Nor will they. They care about the stuff they keep whining about - QBs, purchase points, etc.
RT doesn't provide the gamer with anything but additional restrictions. Fewer units to control, fewer units to control at once, more reliance on memorization of a new UI in order to do it all. No advantages other than some quasi-"realism" of having actual chaos substitute for simulated chaos.
-
Thank you for that entire post. I obviously agree with all that you said and appreciate your clarity of expression.Originally posted by JasonC:I expect to play around with CMSF, but it won't replace CMBB in my playing time. It simply isn't as well designed a game - and I am not talking about the bugs I assume BTS will patch.
I'll quote your last paragraph. That CM:SF is not "as well designed" as other games shouldn't be made to imply that anyone thinks BF.C put little thought into the concept, of course. We know for a fact they did. Years of hard work and testing. But as I attempted to point out, and as Jason's points better illustrated, there are fundamental design decisions that don't seem to mesh with the vision. CM:BB's do, and I think that is why we see so many CMX1 fans not really embracing the new game and perhaps not knowing why or being able to articulate why. And I think perhaps it is easy to then dismiss their concerns as simply rose-coloured glasses, or unwillingness to move on.
At its core - and I don't like to suggest this because I'm not as willing as Jason to say this for a fact - I think perhaps the concept of 1:1 is faulty, at least with the current level of modelling. Is that patchable? Some of it may be. Jason suggests individuals seeking cover appropriately is not ever going to be possible. I don't know that, but I do think it is a core issue that is perhaps driving many of the other discussions - how much abstraction are we willing to accept, and what form does it have to be presented in?
-
And to anyone who thinks that playback is unrealistic, just remember that a company commander can get on the radio and ask one of his platoon commanders to tell him what happened in the last 60 seconds - which is functionally the same thing... </font>Originally posted by Feltan:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:
The only problem I can see with RT in favour of WEGO is the loss of looking at every 60 seconds of action from each and every viewpoint. I will sometimes pause RT to get an appreciation of what's happening and to issue more complex orders - supporting fires or assigning a spread of targets. Now if you could rewind the last minute and view the playback as you might view a WEGO playback that would be ideal. I find myself wishing for that now in RT.
-
And to anyone who thinks that playback is unrealistic, just remember that a company commander can get on the radio and ask one of his platoon commanders to tell him what happened in the last 60 seconds - which is functionally the same thing...Originally posted by Sirocco:The only problem I can see with RT in favour of WEGO is the loss of looking at every 60 seconds of action from each and every viewpoint. I will sometimes pause RT to get an appreciation of what's happening and to issue more complex orders - supporting fires or assigning a spread of targets. Now if you could rewind the last minute and view the playback as you might view a WEGO playback that would be ideal. I find myself wishing for that now in RT.
-
A fair point. The problem is figuring out why this is so. Is it because they aren't giving it a fair shake because QBs aren't what they want them to be? Is it because they haven't even tried RT and are perceiving the game based on something they haven't even tried? Is it because they don't understand modern warfare? Is it because we no longer have an ugly spreadsheet screen with lots of (fairly) meaningless numbers on it? Or is it a combination of some or all of these things?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Dorosh,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But if the customer can't see it for himself, Steve, what difference does it make?
It's pretty hard to combat an emotional reaction with a factual response. I can't convince people in my town here that our taxes are higher because we have a higher standard of services than neighboring towns do. To them the taxes are just "too high" and that is the end of the discussion. Ask them what they want to give up in exchange for lower taxes and the answer is usually "nothing", often because the person will refuse to select something to cut. Ironically, the same person that complains about higher taxes is the first person on the phone screaming at the Town Manager when their road wasn't plowed EXACTLY when they wanted it plowed.
The biggest source of complaint is about the lack of CMx1 style QBs, no WeGo TCP/IP, and the inclusion of RealTime as an option. I suspect if we had put those things in the amount of hubris surrounding the game, even if nothing else were different, would be 1/2 as much. But since "pet" features aren't in CM:SF, the net of complaints has been cast a lot wider.
Steve </font>
-
Those who are not having a problem with RT are probably not facing good human opponents, or using the best tactics possible, or playing well designed scenarios.
In my opinion. By that, I mean
* a well designed scenario gives the attacker more than one way to solve the tactical problem being presented - usually meaning more than one way to maneuver (not necessarily a frontal assault)
* a good human player will be proactive, not reactive, meaning his opponent has to be constantly on the move or at least aware of new threats. Dynamic defences are generally more effective than static ones, depending on terrain, but that takes us back to scenario design
Playing against the AI gives plenty of time to manage a company in RT; the AI doesn't do much, and if the AI plans are poorly done or non-existent, doesn't do anything. So time isn't a factor. But once you start to get into a game where the enemy is moving as much as you are, or you decide to try a flanking move by detaching a platoon, I think you will find that the more sophisticated your own tactics become, the more difficult it will be to manage in RT.
In short, to be blunt, any idiot can yell out "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle" and manage a frontal assault against the AI in RT without breaking a sweat. I wouldn't expect critics of the RT system to be players of that stripe.
-
Good link, Dale. I think we're seeing evidence that Steve was exactly right.Without putting in all sorts of very complicated and time consuming game features, 1:1 figures will actually detract from the gaming experience. This will make the people that requested it turn it off and demand that we then add in the features they previously said they don't care about.Steve
you don't play anything more than a couple of platoons at a time
(the problem was split squads were just about 1 hair's width away from panic from the second they were split off. My defenses involved everybody being split!).
The Wrong Left Turn and the Uncanny Valley
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
What part of that didn't you read? </font>