aka_tom_w

you might try this offer to pay the shipping and the GOOD folks at BFC just might send you the REAL version as sales of the CDV version in North America are illegal and in material breach of the CDV distribution agreement. there is a REAL problem here. -tom w

bump

this would only be a guess BUT given the high standards BFC likes to hold their games up, to I would GUESS this issue ALONE should prompt a v1.02.01 release (that would be a very minor .02.01 version update) I would think for the sake of tournements this should be addressed. -tom w [ February 17, 2003, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

check out this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=23&t=005944#000009 -tom w

found on page 2 :eek: needs a bump -tom w

I think that would be VERY cool some form of "in game note pad or scratch pad" feature that would allow the player to make "notes to self" like "stickies" in the Mac OS (don't know what have like "stickies" on the PC side) that you could put ANYWHERE on the map. It should be like labels on the map now that you can do the map editor only the player would do it on the map so that ONLY that player himself would see the note. This would be VERY handy for bigger scenarios and Maps in CMBB. -tom w

stay tuned for CM II the engine rewrite it might address those issues and it is at least 2 years away -tom w

?k?i?riginally posted by Pvt. Ryan: "I tell you, it's not the gas. Gas is outside the scope of our conflict. If gas were a concern we would all be riding motorcycles. Do you see any motorcycles around here?"

this is interesting because I have been playing v1.01 against a beta tester who told me he was using v1.02 for more than 5 weeks now. I figured the v1.02 he was using must have been a pre-release beta version specially enabled so he could test it against others playing v1.01. I find this interesting because I recently upgraded to v1.02 and we are still playing the same game and he is still using v1.02 but now we both run and "crunch" or turns in v1.02 instead of him only crunching in v1.02 and me crunching in v1.01 the way it was when we started the PBEM this is very curious :confused: has there been any official BFC comment? -tom w [ February 17, 2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Currently the turn calculation takes under 10 seconds on a 1 GHz CPU (of course depends on the scenario), this seems very quick to me, and I wouldn't mind a 20 second calculation if it did this dynamic LOS. Or 30 second. Should do the building LOS correctly as well. But this affects the plotting response as well, it jumps even now, it would be much worse I guess. </font>

did this thread just degenerate in "The Cesspool II" while I was not looking? :confused: -tom w

got it: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008989.html Here it is.. The MotherLoad with comments by BTS ..... Read the posts closely about Method 1 vs Method 2. This game was abstracted from ideas and tank battle simulations like in the old Avalon Hill game Tobruk. Due to CPU limitations we are told that live AFV's cannot block LOS, this is not news. Here are the relevant threads: All new players to this game should read them: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004083.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004572.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004048.html "Big Time Software Moderator posted 04-29-2000 02:17 PM I see what Lt. Bull is asking. Easily cleared up (I hope )... There are two ways, in theory, that we could simulate a round leaving a gun, its eventual path, and where it lands: 1. Use a whole bunch of variables (like weapon accuracy, guner training, suppression, etc) to determine a trajectory to the target. The trajectory would then be "traced" and wherever the shell hit damage would be done. If the hit whacked a vehicle then CM would go through all the armor pentration stuff to figure out what the impact did. 2. The trajectory itself is only a binary LOS calculation. Either the shooter can, in theory, get a round from the gun to the target or it can't. A whole bunch of constant and situationally unique variables (like LOS quality, weapon accuracy, guner training, suppression, etc) to determine the chance of the target being hit. If it is a hit then various equations determine where and HOW (angles) the shell strikes its target. Then damage is calculated based on the physics for the particular situation (HE blast near infantry, AP shot hitting sloped armor, etc). If the round is a miss there are equations to determine how badly the shooter missed based on several variables (i.e. a bad unit will miss by a LOT greater margin than a good one). Then the shell trajectory is calculated to the predetermined location (either the hit or miss one). Colateral damage is calculated based on the detonation of the round where it hits. Terrain is checked along a "miss" vector to see if it strikes something along the way. Hits don't need to check because they have already been calculated to be hits based on a clear line of fire. WOOOOO!! That took a little longer to explain than I thought OK, now what are the real world difference between the two... Method 1 -> as real as you can get! Unfortunately, it is also a CPU cruncher from Hell. If we had one or two vehicles shooting in more sterile conditions it wouldn't be a problem. But when you have letterally dozens of shots being made on a somewhat average turn, this becomes a HUGE problem. Method 2 -> On average will come up with the same results as Method 1, but only spews out a realistic number of calculations on the CPU to crunch. What you lose is the ability for the shell to accidentally strike something between A and B other than terrain. As the link Iggi gave will explain a bit more. Thankfully, the cases where this matters are few and far inbetween. So there you have it Method 1 and 2 yield pretty much the same results, with the exception of variable blockage (i.e. vehicles). Oh, well, the other difference is that Method 1 would make CM tedious to play and Method 2 works just fine. (tom w opines: I interpret this to mean that Steve is saying that CM was designed to use Method 2 to save time to process or "crunch" the result of the round being fired, hence it does not, and cannot account for live or dead vehicles which are not smoking and burning in between the shooter and the target. It should also be noted that Pillboxes and bunkers are treated as vehicles and do not offer any form of cover and do not block LOS or LOF). When you get CM take a dozen vehicles for each side, plop them on opposite sides of a level battlefield and see how slow the turns calculate. Now do that until one side is wiped out and you will notice how much faster each turn becomes with the elimination of each vehicle. Then remember that this is using Method 2 in sterile conditions with no blocking terrain or vehicles (especially not ones in motion!!) to bog down the LOS calculations. Steve P.S. Grazing fire for MGs is in fact simulated. Charles found that the math to simulate just this one feature wasn't too horrible for the CPU to deal with. [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 04-29-2000).]

Rune in correct THere was a GREAT thread in which Steve Posted about "Method #1 and Method #2" I cannot find the thread now. But what Rune said is correct. can anyone find that old thread in the CMBO archives about Method #1 trajectory calculation vs Method #2 calculations? Thanks -tom w

me too same problem (I thought Oh Damn Downloade the wrong version of the patch) but then it worked out to be v1.02 when I opened the game. -tom w

The way I understand it, the slope degrees shown in the armour stats for a unit is what is generally presented at a round that is fired horizontally at that part of a horizontally level tank?? Yes, I agree. Grog please?!! Front and centre!!! AJ </font>

I think the "feather" feature in Photoshop creates them when you are not careful it edits the numeric value of the pink to a different (but similiar) value that then is NOT transparent. So you see it as pink near the edges. There is only one value of pink that is transparent. I don't know its RGB value but I am sure someone here can post it. any pink pixels in a mod that are NOT the exact numeric value of the "transparent pink" value are then visible and give you the ugly pink fringe. What are the RGB values of transparent pink in CMBB? anybody? -tom w

Well actually.... I thought this was "Just Another CMII Feature Request list thread " -tom w

I agree too "I decided to use his approach of setting general orders and let the AI fix the details. While not always perfect, I have found this a most useful philosophy, as well as much less stressful." do you mean Box Banding (Band Boxing :confused: ) Everybody off the start line and asking them all to "Move to Contact" straight ahead for the most part? Then tweaking move orders later after contact. Is that what you are talking about? -tom w

Yes please, and I'll have mine with the "Whole Enchillada" if you don't mind (Thats EVERY WWII theatre except the PTO in CMII ) its nice to dream -tom w

This thread just would not be complete without this feature request list The NEW CMII engine possible new features like: * NO more Borg Spotting (Relative Spotting somehow in some GOOD/REAL way implimented ) * Toggle on/off Contour/Elevation lines on the Map *Terrain Fog of War, (if you don't have friendlies looking at it you don't know if it is there) *Make the Map Editor WAY more user friendly, incorporate things like the new Mapping Mission app (only on the PC so far) into the new game engine. Why not try to make the Map Editor in CMII more like the GREAT interface in Sim City. Maybe hire one person JUST to do the Map Editor as it needs a complete overhaul and rewrite from the ground up IMHO * LOS & LOF blocked by LIVE AFV's (i.e. infantry have "some" cover behind live and dead vehicles that are not burning) * Same as above, vehicles and other units CANNOT shoot through other live or dead vehicles that are not burning. (Dynamic LOS) * Full movie replay * Roster (for those would think they need it) * Multi-turreted vehicles like the Allied Grant and Lee * Amphibious units * Realistic modelling of visibility at night * Dynamic lighting effects (two fold: i. As visual effect and more important ii. Integration into fire- and detection algorithms *Change PBEM format to only require two e-mails per turn * Collision detection for all projectiles, even those that would hit *Smaller terrain tiles ( 10 x 10 m or better ) *Risk of bogging calculated and determined by greater fidelity in Mean Maximum Pressure theory (Model?) (Note: One example he gives is the Elephant having only 12% heavier nomimal ground pressure (NGP, weight per track area) than a King Tiger, but having a mean maximum ground pressure (MMP) approx double, at 370 compared to 184. They more or less have the same weight and track area, but the suspension designs are quite different.) From: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=003157;p=1 * Programable SOP's for all units: (e.g. "Wouldn't it be great if an order could be given to the commander of company "A" to "take that hill" or "move to that position and set up a defense" and watch as the orders are dissiminated down throught he ranks and the varios platoons begin to try and carry out your orders. Yes, much as it happens with "Airborn Assult".) "with a little help from my friends" -tom w AND TSword Member Member # 7457 posted October 25, 2002 08:00 AM 1. It is absolutely necessary to give the Scenario-Designer more control over AI behaviour and setup. Example: AI in Operations usually does a very poor setup (If there is wood AI will cramp everything in it), true one can work around, but with open maps this becomes a problem of first order. Solution: The designer can suggest zones of terrain suitable for setup. Also some guidelines for attacking/defending AI would be great, like areas of approach, objective zones, type of general AI behaviour like stubborn defense, counterattack, timings and the like. This is a wide field but in general leave AI as is (No hope of much improvement in this field) but enable more options during scenario design All this together would enable much more challenging AI-battles and more possibilities to generate more historic acurate battles (I mostly play the AI, since PBEMs go forever and need a lot of discipline especially for the loosing side...). Covered arcs set by scenario designer would be great. 2. Atleast direct firing Artillery pieces should be able to fire delayed fuzed shells (when firing a flat trajectory shell bounces off the ground, at first impact fuze is activated). This was done very often on the german side with tanks HE, 88 AT, and all Artillery pieces. If used correctly this results in devastating fire. 3. It is principally wrong not to enable on-board artillery to fire indirect. In the case of german heavy howitzers (150 mm) the guns were very seldom placed farer away from the front then 4 km and often relocated only below 1 km. This of course fits into the dimension of CM. Again this would allow for additional realism and more possibilities in scenarios (Gamey inbalances can be corrected by purchase prizes easily). 4. More terrain types with variyng degree of concealment together with further refined LOScalculations. More possibilities for open terrain battles. More terrain which give Inf concealment when being prone while only partly restricting LOS for AVFs. 5. Active visible camouflage of all sorts of weapons for same reason as point 4. 6. Ability for mounted troops to shoot from vehicles, and proper loads for trucks (much more then 1 Squad infact). 7. Dynamic lighting visible and taken into LOS calculations 8. Turret down for tanks or generally fighting vehicles for observation purposes. 9. "Debug"-Mode to check AI-behaviour for scenario designers. Simply an additional battle parameter where the player can see all the AI units all the time while AI behaves according to set FOW settings. 10. Vehicle crews can remount an abandoned vehicle 11. Horses, bicycles, bikes 12. A small API-set: - To read unit database (all values currently visible during unitselection) - To write to the map generator or map selection (All the values currently editable by the user) - To write to the unit selection Thus allowing 3rd party extensions for campaigns and the like 13. Correct representation of relative plate sizes on AFVs for hit determination. (eg. Large T-34/85 turret, small T-34/76 turret). 14. Option to allow same "casualty"-rules as in night battles also for daylight battles. They are obviously much much more realistic then the daylight rules. 15. More finetune options for Operations in determing new setup zones for next battle. (For instance in the "Assault" mode the possibility to determine the weight of flank and middle and treshold for cutoff units), now it's easely possible to have the whole force being cutoff although not a single enemy unit was behind their line when previous battle ended). 16. New operation type "mixed" where scenario designer can determine the sequence of attacker (thus operations where attacker can actually change from battle to battle) either unknown or known to the player. To simulate counterattacks something completely missing now. Actually the same should also be possible in battles where a certain formation (for instance reinforcments) event triggered would counterattack. 17. Moving vehicles produce dust dependend of region and groundconditions. Heavy weapons like tanks, artillery shells and the like produce a lot of smoke which could change a battlefield dramatically LOS wise..., nice to see in open terrain battles... Greets Daniel [ February 16, 2003, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hi Proton I have requested contour (evelvation) lines on the map (like a REAL topographic map) from WAY back. I think I asked way back when CMBO was in the Gold Demo state. At that time it was clear from their response that the game engine that CMBB and CMBO is based on would NEVER support elevation contour lines. BUT there is an opportunity here to lobby for an OPTION of contour lines in the New Engine Rewrite (does it have a working name?) game engine. Idealy the contour lines would be toggle-able, to keep everyone happy. Are contour/elevation lines (toggle on/off on the map) on "The List" for the rewrite???? :confused: -tom w

Since Steve had so much to say on this issue and posted answers to some questions that have come up a few times I though I would repost his comments and answers to questions that came up in "Relative Spotting Revisited": "Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 08:51 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tom, quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I think it has been a positive and constructive discusion with several different points of view represented. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I agree, but I must also point out that this discussion is not that different than a 1/2 dozen other ones held in the past. That is not to take away anything from anyone who participated here and not in the others, but rather to point out that the CM's borg problems are pretty well established by now. They are also not inherently different than those of other games, although we would argue CM deals with them better. The ideas people are kicking around in this thread are also ones that have been kicked around in other threads. Specifics might not be exactly the same, but the core motivation behind certain lines of thinking are surprisingly similar. Some people think the key to better realism is to have a sort of "you got it or you don" system of C&C where units not in C&C sit around dumbly until they are contacted again. A variation on that is that the AI somehow handles these units while you are not in command of them. The former is utterly unrealistic, the latter so difficult to program effectively that it is not the best design to pursue (i.e. spending a year making the AI for this means a year of doing nothing else ). Others think that the way to go is to simulate "orders" down through the chain of command. This is something that most people would find about as exciting as watching paint dry Watering this idea down to make there be more game also means watering down the potential realism and reintroducing the Borg problem. Believe me, I am not trying to ridicule people for their theories on how the Borg issue should be dealt with. I'm just trying to point out that some "cures" will actually kill the pateient before the operation is even over Others suggest things which will leave nasty scars and open up the doctors for lawsuits (or rather unpleasant commentary on BBSes ). But in general, I think most people understand the basic issues and some even see very simple solutions to some of the problems. Or at least can see how a huge problem can be tackled by several smaller, comprehensive changes. I think that once people see CMBB they will understand how the Big Problems can be tackled by smaller, perhaps even subtle, changes. Not completely, of course, because to do that the human player would have to be removed almost completely from the game. Later, I think people will see that Relative Spotting (as we have discussed it in the past) they will understand that it reduces or eliminates most of the Big Problems in CM that remain after CMBB's changes. Will the future CM be perfect? From a realism standpoint, of course not. But I can assure you that we will get damned close. Close enough that people will probably ask for Relative Spotting related features to be optional Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IP: Logged aka_tom_w Member Member # 1515 posted April 26, 2002 09:17 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thanks Steve I think you and everyone else here has figured that this is the basic summary of my position on this issue: "...even if the BTS idea of Relative Spotting were implimented, in that each and every unit makes it own spotting check and cannot target (but MAY be ordered to use "area Fire" at) enemy units it has not spotted, (BUT the player KNOWS where those enemy units are he can order or direct EVERY unit, irrespective of whether it has spotted the enemy unit or not, or whether it is in C&C or NOT, to fire or move in that general direction (NOW thats a "BORG Like Swarm" ™ to use Redwolf's term ), what would that solve? I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat." sorry to repeat that. From what I understand, yourself (and Most folks here it woud seem) will be comfortable with the Player responding to an enemey threat that is only identified and spotted by one friendly unit by directing all other friendly units in the vicinity to fire at that location or start to move toward that location, (EVEN from WAY across the map) if this is an acceptable situation as a result of the NEW Relative Spotting protocol, to most folks here then I should simply agree to live with it and retire back to that old gunnery optics discussion that was so much fun. (Posted in the very BEST of humour) Thanks again its a GREAT game and chatting about it on this forum is even MORE fun than playing sometimes -tom w [ April 26, 2002, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] -------------------- "So if a player's idea of fun is to use "gamey" tactics to beat the other guy, I guess we did "remove" some of the "fun" in CMBO. But in doing so we made CMBB more of what CMBO was always, ALWAYS, supposed to be. And the next game will continue that trend of improvement towards the unobtainable goal of perfect simulation of tactical warfare. And in our opinions, perfect means most realistic." -Steve of BFC Nov 1 2002 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IP: Logged Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 09:53 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tom, quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ...even if the BTS idea of Relative Spotting were implimented, in that each and every unit makes it own spotting check and cannot target (but MAY be ordered to use "area Fire" at) enemy units it has not spotted, (BUT the player KNOWS where those enemy units are he can order or direct EVERY unit, irrespective of whether it has spotted the enemy unit or not, or whether it is in C&C or NOT, to fire or move in that general direction (NOW thats a "BORG Like Swarm" ™ to use Redwolf's term ), what would that solve? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Uhm... A HECK OF A LOT Area fire is useless against a moving target and has reduced accuracy and effects against a stationary one. If you think that Area Fire is a fine and dandy substitute for direct targeting, might I suggest booting up CMBO and playing a game on the defensive only using Area Fire commands. I think that ought to get you to see that you are taking a rather extreme and unfair look at what ONE ASPECT of Realitive Spotting will do. quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In a black and white world, where there is only Borg and Not Borg, you would be correct. But that is a world I don't live in As I described above, there is absolutely NO solution to the Borg problem except to remove the human player from the game. Do you really want that? If so we could easily make CM play so that you deploy your troops (which CM buys for you) by simply clicking down the HQs at the next level lower than your own (i.e. if you are the Major, you can only click on the Company HQs). CM would then deploy all the rest of the units without you even seeing them. Yup, you wouldn't see anything except what was around your HQ unit, which would be set up and unmovable (for the most part) after the Setup Phase. Then the game would start. You would issue a couple of vauge orders to your next lower HQs and then sit back and wait. From Turn 1 on all friendly units would disappear from the map. Every so often a Spotted icon would appear where MAYBE one of your directly subordinated HQ was. At this point in time you might get back some meaningful information from the HQ, or perhpas not. Depending on if the HQ is in radio contact or not, you could issue orders to the HQ along the vauge lines of Turn 1. You will have no idea what that HQ does with them until the next time he resurfaces. If there is no radio contact, runners would be necessary and that means instant communication would be impossible, thus making that Spotted icon appear less frequently and even more prone to error. After the shooting would start you might have a rough idea about where and the nature of the shooting. But until one of those ghost icons popped up, you wouldn't know much more than that. And even when that does happen, you would only get back snipts of text about what was going on and you could still only issue a few vauge orders. Gee... DAMN does that sound like fun! Whoopie Cripes, we wouldn't even need to program in anything except some sort of ZORK like text adventure script engine and a few generalized combat resolution equations. You see.. THAT is the be all, end all Black and White counter balance to the RTS type Borg system. CM is already somewhere inbetween the two, and CMBB is a bit more towards the realism side. The engine rewrite will be even more towards the REALISM side of the equation by reducing the effectiveness of the Borg aspect. But no way, no how can we eliminate it. So why bother having such a black and white set of standards when one side is available and not liked (i.e. RTS with no C&C rules at all) and the other would be a yawner to even those who THINK they want it (i.e. human player almost totally removed from even watching the action)? Wouldn't it be more interesting and productive to focus on practical ways to make the game more realistic without all the hoo-ha about it not going far enough? Hmmm? Tom, I know you have been a participant in many of the previous discusions. I would have hoped that you picked up on the fact that Relative Spotting is only the underlying mechanism, not the solution. In other words, there are all SORTS of things we can do once Relative Spotting is in place that will increase realism, decrease the Borg, and at the same time make CM more fun. Having restrictions on targeting is just ONE feature made possible by Relative Spotting. A better system of artillery requests is another. More accountable and detailed C&C delays is yet another. There are LOTs of possibilities made possible because of Relative Spotting. So again, don't think of Relative Spotting as the solution, but a part of the underlying foundation for other features which in turn will do lots of things to improve the game on all levels. When we get into this phase of design we should all have a nice group think about ways we can leverage Relative Spotting and other systems to make CM more realistic. But at this point, we don't have the time to do that. Already spent too much time on this issue as it is Steve" End Quote -tom w

Steve has been VERY clear on this issue: "Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 08:27 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ U8lead asked: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do units in C&C spot and ID better then the same units out of C&C in the current game? And if so, do any of the HQ bonuses (possibly combat bonus) apply to spotting and ID? If units out of C&C had a substantialy reduced positive ID range would that help Borg ID? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ No, no, and no Why should a unit out of C&C be able to see less far? How is that more realistic? And if it can't see out as far, but in real life should, how does that affect the realistic ability of that individual unit to respond to the oncoming threat? Should a Tiger Tank with a Crack crew sit around NOT spotting an ISU-152 which it should plainly see, just because it doesn't have radio contact with BN HQ? I think not I also think we would have people screaming at us until we "fixed it or did somefink" This is one of the fundamental problems I have seen in discussions like this. And that is thinking that unrealistically penalizing an individual unit somehow makes the game more realistic. At best it is a wash. At worst, it makes the game on the whole less realistic. For example, not allowing a unit out of C&C to do anything until it is in C&C is totally unrealistic. Such a system simply swaps in one Borg behavior for another. It doesn't make the game any more realistic, but instead hobbles real life flexibility to the point of making the game unplayable and a joke of a simulation. Don't believe me? Try this one out... Let us assume that units have to be in C&C with their higher HQs to pass on information and receive orders. OK, can anybody tell me what would happen, under this system, if the BN HQ unit got whacked on the first turn by a lucky artillery bombardment? Would the player just sit there staring at a screen totally lacking friendly and enemy units? Or would all the friendly units show up but the player couldn't do anything or yield any information about themselves or what they see? The above situation illustrates why removing realistic tactical control is not the right direction to go towards. Because if you follow it to its logical conclusion (i.e. the ultimate realistic state), this is what you wind up with. Honestly folks, your feedback is appreciated. But I for one am very glad some of you are gamers and not game designers -Steve" END QUOTE

Steve says: Big Time Software unregistered (42) posted April 26, 2002 08:13 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh my God but this is a really big thread Folks, the crux of the issue is this... Do people want a Command Style, Micromanagement Style, or Multi-Level Style game? These are terms I made up to illustrate the three major groupings. I define each as such: 1. Command Style - you are in ONE definite position of command. You can only influence the battlefield as that one command position would allow in the real world. More importantly, all subordinate units under your command would behave 100% autonomously from your will unless you were able to realistically give them "orders". I am not just talking about radio or messanger contact, but chain of command. A Major does NOT go and order some buck private to move his MG to a better spot. He orders a Captain to set up a certain type of position in a certain location ("set up a defensive line along the north side of Hill 345"), the Captain then issues more specific commands to his LTs. ("1st Platoon go to that stand of trees, 2nd Platoon down thee road a click, 3rd Platoon deploy to 2nd's right), then each LT gives orders to his SGTs to deploy a little bit more specifically ("1st Squad, take that wall over there, 2nd Squad see if that house has a good field of fire on that gully over there, 3rd Squad go over there and see what you can do about covering that road junction"), and then each SGT in turn yells at various peeons to get moving to a VERY specific location ("behind that tree, numbnuts! Smitty!! Damn your soul... get that MG set up pronto behind that boulder facing that way or I'll tapdance on your butt for the rest of the day"). Now, in such a system the Major (that would be you!) does not know or even care about these details. That is called deligation of responsibility and initiative, which is what every modern armed force is trained around doing. The Major's responsibilities are to keep in touch with his neighboring formations and higher HQ, requisitioning stuff (units, supplies, guns, etc.) to get his mission accomplished, and making sure everything is running smoothly before, during, and after contact with the enemy. In non combat situations there are a LOT more responsibilities than that, but we are only focusing on the combat aspect. What each unit under his command can or can not see, shoot at, or deal with is NOT the Major's direct concern. It is the direct concern of the unit in question and its HQ. The Major is, of course, trying to get as much information as possible so he can best lead the battle, but he doesn't care a hoot if there is an enemy squad 203.4 meters and closing on 1st Squad, 3rd Platoon, E Company. At least specifically he doesn't care. So there you have it. This is how REAL combat works in terms of C&C. There is absolutely no way to simulate the reality of the battlefield without taking the player's mits 99% off direct control of units. 2. Micromanagement Style - You read all of the above, correct? Well, forget about it A Mircormanagement style game doesn't give a hoot about command and control aspects of warfare. You get some units, you use units as you see fit. When you click on one of the units you can order it to do whatever the heck you want without any thoughts about command and control. I would even include games with very primative attempts at C&C being lumped into this group. 3. Multi-Level Style - The player is neither a single commander nor an über micromanager. Orders can be given to any unit, but those orders and behaviors are influenced, to some degree or another, by Command and Control rules. In other words, you CAN order that individual MG to move 2.5 meters to the left, but you can not do this for "free". Some set of rules are set up to make such an order be more or less effective depending on the circumstances (in/out C&C, good/poor morale, good/poor experience, etc). The player is therefore still has far more flexability than a single commander would ever have, but not total and utter control in any and all circumstances. Examples of each game... Command Style - I know of no commercial wargame in existance that does this type of simulation. A game like the upcoming Airborne Assault comes VERY close, but even that one doesn't limit you to one command position with only the ability to see and affect the action as that one position would allow. Micromanagement Style - best example I can give you guys is something like Panzer General or Close Combat. In both of these games you could order your units to do whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted without the slightest interference in terms of command decisions. Multi-Level Style - Combat Mission and Steel Panthers come to mind. The original system in Steel Panthers was quite simplistic compared to Combat Mission's, but both sought to penalize units which lacked C&C with their higher HQs. Combat Mission took many previous game concepts a few steps further, as well as adding a few new ones of its own. Some games, like Combat Mission, lean more towards Command Style while others, like Airborne Assault go even further. Other games, like Steel Panthers, lean more towards Micromanagement Style. In terms of realism, Command Style is the highest ideal, Micromanagement the lowest, and Multi-Level somewhere inbetween. In terms of playability, Micromanagement is the highest ideal, Command Style the lowest, and Multi-Level somewhere inbetween. In terms of proven trackrecord of being fun, the pie is split between Micromanagement and Multi-Level. No wargame has ever fit the definition of Command Style, so it has no reecord. We are not going to try and be the first because we would rather watch paint dry than play such a game. And we are very sure that 99% of our customers would agree. And that 1% would most likely not really wind up liking the game anyway. Sometimes people need to be careful about what they ask for because they just might get it Command Style games do not exist for a reason. They are nearly impossible to make (the AI necessary boggles the mind!) and the gameplay value near non existant. So why bother trying? Instead we will make Combat Mission more realistic through our system of Relative Spotting. Reading through some of the posts here, I don't think people necessarily totally understand what a profound impact it will have on the game. Will it make CM 100% realistic? No, and I pitty any fool developer who attempts such a silly venture. But will CM be more realistic than any Squad level wargame yet? Well... of course we already think it is , but we know we can do better. So until we get into coding the new engine, do a search on Relative Spotting and see what has been said on the subject before. Lots of good stuff to read through. Steve

from an old post in the above noted thread: Redwolf posts "I didn't want to imply I have a solution. My example is what I think is the upper end of the Borg problem. Why do I have a problem with this example? Because I am a tank player and people knock out my tanks! No, seriously. It breaks much realism in decision-making about the deployment of your forces. Imagine you attack with an infantry battalion, a tank platoon and you have an option for a TD platoon from regiment. You make decisions about how to deploy your forces. You send that Bazooka team "Sgt Dingo" with the third platoon from the right. You know that once you made that decision, you Bazooka is away for most practial purposes for the duration of this firefight of 45 or 60 minutes. But in CMBO, no matter where enemy tanks appear, you can run it across the whole battlefield. Instantly. A more detailed view: you commit you battaltion one company left, one right, one reserve. The tanks stay with the reserve initially. Third platoon from the right opens a gap where an enemy MG jammed and got overrun and neightbourhood platoons were confused about the direct of you attack. It reports back. You press your reserve including the tanks into the weak spot. Enemy commander Modelchen observes the scene, sees the attack commit his tanks and second echolon on the attackers right side and commit his Panther platoon against the now weak left side of the attacker. In reality, the commander of the attacking force would get the word about the panthers quite quick. But there are few thing to do with certaincy. He can call his Shermans to turn, cross the battlefield and strike against the counterattcking Panther's flank. But while he can do so in CMBO immideately, he would have lots of stuff to check in reality: - did anybody in center spot AT guns, or mines? Even if the unit there are forward enough to know, it would take time to ask them - what does he tell the tanker, exactly? The problem is even more apparent with Sgt. Dingo and his Bazooka, who would be out of question of redeployment within 30 minute in reality. In CMBO, he gets his ass off within 13 seconds. I don't say I have a solution, except for very radical ones like committing the CM player to platoon and company zones of control and heavy penalities like delays for changing them." Well we agree there: "except for very radical ones like committing the CM player to platoon and company zones of control and heavy penalities like delays for changing them" I don't think that kind of structure or rigidity would be appropriate because perhaps this is not as big an issue as you believe. "But while he can do so in CMBO immideately, he would have lots of stuff to check in reality: - did anybody in center spot AT guns, or mines? (As it is in CMBO now those tanks can and DO get Whacked in ambushes in that same sitaution by unseen AT guns and mines). Even if the unit there are forward enough to know, it would take time to ask them - what does he tell the tanker, exactly? (Are you trying to simulate command difficulities between different branches or nationalies?, In the case of the Germans I would think a strong case could be made for the fact that they had GREAT communication and co-ordination between units like that involved in a Combined Arms attack like you are describing). The problem is even more apparent with Sgt. Dingo and his Bazooka, who would be out of question of redeployment within 30 minute in reality. In CMBO, he gets his ass off within 13 seconds." (BUT who is commanding Sgt Dingo? If it is the Battelion commander than it would not be long (3 - 5 minutes maybe? BIG guess) before that order came down to haul ass over to the trouble spot.) Maybe longer command delays are in order? But I'm not sure about that one. I was just trying to determine where (exactly) you think the problem lies in relation to your (our) objections to the way Absolute Spotting works in the game." END quote -tom w [ February 11, 2003, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]