aka_tom_w

Even within the confines of this online poll the folks here that have Voted for B (Won't Buy) are in the minority. There is one thing for sure about this issue there is a VERY vocal, irrate and persistent minority. Just look at how many A or C votes there are here and look and see how much ranting and bitching those folks did when they posted. Maybe we should keep a running total In the 107 posts in this thread (including RANTS that are NOT votes) There are only 12 B votes that I could find. I did not count the A votes. But the B votes look to be about %10 of this voting audience and (sorry) but to be honest that was about Steve's guess, maybe %10 would not buy it because of no PBEM. (DId he say that or am i confused with his statement that for everyone sale that is lost do to no PBEM he was get 10 NEW sales? dunno :confused: ) Oh well, there is one thing we know for sure, its a DONE DEAL, they will not compromise the game to MAKE sure PBEM will work. I think they have been clear about that. -tom w [ March 04, 2005, 06:24 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I think Mr. Spock had something wise to say about this Spock is explaining his actions to James Kirk. The Vulcan entered a radiation-filled section of the U.S.S. Enterprise, even though to do so meant certain death. It was the only way to bring the main engines back online in time to save the lives of his shipmates. Fighting the effects of the deadly radiation Spock rasps, "It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Kirk finishes the statement for his friend, "Or the one." I guess that just about sums it up. Even within the confines of this online poll the folks here that have Voted for B (Won't Buy) are in the minority. There is one thing for sure about this issue there is a VERY vocal, irrate and persistent minority. Just look at how many A or C votes there are here and look and see how much ranting and bitching those folks did when they posted. -tom w [ March 04, 2005, 06:14 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

YES to THAT! I like this part: "CMx1 was good because it wasn't what we would have come up with, and CMx2 will probably be better, and for the same reasons. (ONLY More So!)" Please surprise us! -tom w

Sure your opinion matters that's why I was requesting to chat offline -tom w

OK sorry I just wanted your opinion offline on something I thought you would be interested in given how closely you have followed these threads and this one in particular -tom w

Sure Just friendly off line chat really you will like what I have to say trust me -tom w

Hey Wartgamer... would you consider sending me an e-mail? please -tom w

That's OK I would be more than happy to discuss them in private ! -tom w

OK Thanks Was that the offical: "It is the policy of this department/administration/office to niether confirm or deny any such rumours, allegations or speculation on these matters" ??? Well its better than saying NO it won't work and we are not doing it! Thanks for all the hints and bones! -tom w

place holder for future thoughts [ March 03, 2005, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OH YES! Lets work on this I think this needs a whole NEW thread These are some points taken from Philippe's comments in the previous post: 1) A rather useless impressionistic comment that it is a bit clunky and hard to use. 2) Maybe a discussion of march column and vehicle column commands (but I really hope you're going to do something about that, Steve) 3) what might help a bit would be a few command shortcuts, maybe sequences of hotkeys that don't appear in the main menu. 4) I can't control the camera well enough at FPS eye level to give reasonable commands in a reasonable amount of time, even though I would dearly love to operate in that kind of information deficit. 5) I think it's areas like this that Tom's uncorrupted CM player would pick up on right away -- the rest of us are too used to the status quo to even remember why the interface didn't seem natural too us the first time we used it. AND yes I agree with #5) especially. The CMxx games ARE GREAT games but they LEAVE a great deal to be desired from the point of view of the user interface. I am VERY sorry to be critical but the user interface for the scenario editor and the Map builder is somewhat akin to using a chisel and a stone tablet to carve out your idea's on BUT Wargamer GEEKs don't really seem to care and to be honest I have not heard or read about any other bitching or moaning about how horrible the UI on the Map Editor is. We just seem to use it and deal with it and carry on! -tom w One area of the game that would benefit from a rethink is the mechanism by which commands are given. The problem is that, as Tom is suggesting, at this point we're all too inured to the current system to be able to imagine another way of doing things. But another way of doing things is exactly what I'm hoping for from CMx2. Blinkered by the past I can't make as incisive a commentary as I would like, and, in any case, a detailed commentary about what orders should be different, or how going about giving them should be done differently, is meaningless at this point, especially if you can't see most of what is going into the game. Thinking back to what I don't like about the user interface in CMx1 (besides a more rousing victory screen sequence that presents the opportunity to mod some naked elves cavorting -- screenshots of 19th century painting on this topic available on request), what it comes down to is the rather useless impressionistic comment that it is a bit clunky and hard to use. Leaving aside discussions of march column and vehicle column commands (but I really hope you're going to do something about that, Steve), I think what might help a bit would be a few command shortcuts, maybe sequences of hotkeys that don't appear in the main menu. For example, I don't use the group command because it doesn't really do what I want it to do, but it's a neat idea. Unless there's something about it that I don't understand (and there's a lot I don't understand, including why there's air) it would be really nice to be able to set waypoints with it. That way you could navigate a platoon around an obstacle (like avoiding a clearing that would be suicidal to enter, or moving around a flank keeping a small hill as cover between you and the enemy), and then go in and shift a few waypoints on individual squads which you noticed were slated to move in less desirable patterns. Something like this is not unrealistic, it's simply the mechanistic version of the captain telling the lieutenant to walk his platoon around that hill, or to take his fully deployed platoon across the river over that bridge (try that one with the current group move command !). I'm not trying to turn this into a discussion of what features would be neat to add to the interface. Neat is not the point. I still fume that I think it makes no sense to even attempt to use Franko's rules because the interface simply isn't designed to allow it -- I can't control the camera well enough at FPS eye level to give reasonable commands in a reasonable amount of time, even though I would dearly love to operate in that kind of information deficit. But I think this brings up another aspect of the God-like knowledge problem. As things stand, one of the unspoken roles of the human player is to repair gaps in the interface by human intervention. The problem is that to be able to intervene effectively, you have to know too much. The ideal would be not having to intervene at all, but that will mean shifting the mechanical burden back to the TAC AI. Is it up to it? One of the things I like about not having a waypoint-linked movement penalty in CMBO is that it allows me to assign what I consider to be a realistic movement path to my units. Left to my own devices my troops and vehicles in CMBO move somewhat more realistically than in CMBB (especially when they go around bends in the road). I think it's areas like this that Tom's uncorrupted CM player would pick up on right away -- the rest of us are too used to the status quo to even remember why the interface didn't seem natural too us the first time we used it. </font>

inured adj : made tough by habitual exposure; "hardened fishermen"; "a peasant, dark, lean-faced, wind-inured"- Robert Lynd; "our successors...may be graver, more inured and equable men"- V.S.Pritchett [syn: enured, hardened] I figure I as have a pretty good vocabulary but I had to look it up because I have never heard the word before. But I am happy to learn a NEW one here today AND inured is IT! -tom w

Hi My understanding of the "Player as God" issue is that in the game the player is not confined to any one role. The Player has a GOD like presence in the battle and Knows ALL and Sees ALL. In this GOD like way,the player, with instant access to ALL intel and spotting ALL the time, has an understanding and unrealitically HIGH situational awareness of the battle that no single commander in WWII ever had. I think the "God" thing is mostly a reference to the problem that the player simply HAS an unrealistically HIGH situational awareness of ALL things at ALL times on the battlefield AND can command EVERY unit independently as though he were the commanding officer of EVERY friendly unit on the battlefield. How's that? Did I miss anything? -tom w

I concur here. I know quite a few people who are wrestling with the AI and get it bad every now and then. Not to say things cannot be better, but certainly to put this in perspective. Cheers. </font>

So far I have not seen any comment or confirmation or denial that they will or can enable assymetrical FOW such that the human player can have a more realistic FOW level and the AI can be "granted" a less restrictive or less realistic FOW. There as been no official comment as to whether this is workable or even actually helpful for the AI. Just that one hint tha the AI can be granted intuition about the pt level of the scenario and suspected force size of the human player. -tom w

Excellent Post! I agree with those thoughts completely! ALL of it! -tom w

This Bone Thread is where this one started and there were 300+ other posts and bones there as well. Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted February 14, 2005 03:26 PM In another post I had talked about many of the people here not thinking about CMx2's potential to be much more than CMx1, rather than to be a modestly refined sequel. I was a little surprised to see that since the discussions I've participated in were about fundamental aspects of difference between the two game engines. But enough people seemed to not understand what CMx2 is supposed to be, I figured I should make a single, clear statement so there will be no more confusion. Most wargame developers are more about making a better wargame, not making a better simulation of warfare. When they look for ideas they tend to look at how other games have modeled things, tweak it as necessary, then implement it. Because of this wargame designs over the years have been fairly consistent and incremental in their improvements towards modeling warfare. Very few games broke the fundamentals known to core wargame designs, and therefore wargames have remained largely unchanged for decades. CMx1 was a ground breaking game system because of how it was designed. Instead of looking at what other wargames did, or did not do, Charles and I instead looked at real warfare and tried to model it in game format. Some wargaming conventions were retained, but only because they were consistent with the design philosophy of "model warfare, don't model wargames". In other words, no wargaming conventions were considered untouchable. This philosophical perspective is what gave you guys CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK. The list of wargaming conventions these games broke is far, far longer than the list of conventions it retained. Things like no hexes, 3D environment, highly realistic ballistics, no national modifiers, WeGo, etc. were all combined to create a game system that bore no resemblance to any other wargame of its day. And, I think it is fair to say, none since. Since these features are the reasons for the CMx1 success, and these features would not have been possible without the "model warfare, don't model wargames" philosophy, then it is pretty safe to say that the philosophical design position we adhered to is why CMx1 (from a design standpoint) became what it became. Obviously all game designs are only as good as their execution, so the ability for Charles and I (later a bunch of others) to turn vision into reality is equally important. So there you have it... CMx1 was made great by a combination of a design philosophy and the ability to execute it. It should be comforting to know that this combo is also the heart and soul of CMx2. Even better, our abilities to design are better than they were 7 years ago as well as our ability to execute it. We've got a lot more experience, resources, and dedicated people working on CMx2, which all translates to better capabilities to turn designs into successful games. Now, ask yourselves... was CMx1 perfect in all ways? I don't think anybody thinks that at all. Certainly we don't! Therefore, now that we are starting with a fresh slate what should we do? Cripple our design philosophy by attaching a blanket rider to it? Such as "model warfare, don't model wargames except CMx1, and in the case of the latter follow it religiously". Er... doesn't that seem to be a bit limiting? Why not keep the same philosophy that proved itself so important in getting you guys something superior to all that came before it? This is where the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude should be applied, not to specific features of CMx1. Regardless, Charles and I aren't changing our philosophy. CMx2 is being designed from the ground up to be an improved simulation of warfare, not an improved version of Combat Mission. Having said that, we aren't chucking things out of CMx1 just for the sake of doing something different. Things that worked well in CMx1 that can work well in CMx2 will stay in. Since a lot of what was in CMx1 worked well, a lot of it will be staying in. Other things will be in, though perhaps not in a way that is directly understood by the player. Some stuff is going to be abandoned in favor of totally new things which will not only replace the old feature but allow for a better game and/or sim experience. In the end CMx2 will be recognizable as being related to CMx1, much the way that an M1 Abrams is recognizable as an improvement of the M60, which in turn was an improvement over previous tank designs going all the way back to WWI. Will the Abrams drive and shoot the way a WWII A7? It certainly should not if the point is to have an accurately modeled Abrams With all this in mind... what will CMx2 be? The whole answer can't come in one post, nor can it come for a number of more months. But for now, these are the basics (in no particular order): 1. Not CMx1 2. A game system that is flexible enough to handle many different theaters, timeframes, and game genres without doing years of rewriting for each. This does not mean that the CMx2 codebase will automatically support things like horse cavalry or Space Lobsters, rather that it will not automatically preclude them from being added in later. The CMx1 codebase was absolutely not written this way, which is why we told you almost 2 years ago that CMAK would be the last game made using this code. 3. A graphics engine that takes advantage of today's hardware possibilities. The idea is that a more realistic looking game is a more realistic feeling game, all else being equal. When combined with #2 above it also means that internally it is a lot easier for us to make cool graphical representations than it was in CMx1 (which was a nightmare ). Therefore, the development distraction to us should be less than it was in CMx1 even though there will be a big leap forward in terms of quality. A win-win situation for everybody. 4. A game that can be played by more than 2 people, with a heavy emphasis on cooperative play (CoPlay). While we can not do this feature for the first release (not practical), the game engine itself is being coded to work with many players as soon as we can code the rather difficult technological foundation to allow such play. Think of it like CMBO not having TCP/IP functionality even though the game was written to work using this protocol. 5. The plan is for unit focus (scale) to be flexible, though the tactical focus for the first two CMx2 games is the Squad/Team just as it was for CMx1. This may or may not vary from title to title afterwards, we simply aren't planning that far ahead. Just know that in theory the CMx2 code allows us to keep things a bit flexible. 6. The command level is, like the unit focus, somewhat flexible. However, like CMx1 the first two planned games for CMx2 are Battalion/Company centric. 7. Each soldier has its own 3D representation in the game. For the first two CMx2 games there will not be 1:1 control over these soldiers, but if the scale is lowered for another game 1:1 control is possible (eg. we make a Platoon level game where you only have 30 soldiers, obviously more control is desirable). 1:1 simulation is also desired, but hardware limitations will mean some carefully implemented compromises (i.e. 1:1 LOS checks are impossible). Overall the control should be roughly the same as CMx1, but the abstractions far less. 8. WeGo is not being abandoned. In fact, there will be more options to make this system work even better. 9. Relative Spotting, as described in depth over the past couple of years, will be a huge part of the CMx2 experience. This feature can not be turned off. 10. Overcoming CMx1 "Borg" problems is a top priority to us since it is one of the biggest distractions from a realistic combat simulator. However, there is only so much we can do with this, so it isn't like we can eliminate the Borg problem. It will, however, have far less influence over games than it has in the past. Some of these features can be toggled off for those who really want more unrealistic game experiences. 11. The "God" problem, which is related to #10 but is not the same, is also something we are trying hard to knock down. The player will be able to choose how much he wants to be like a real Human commander and how much he wants to be a God. 12. A tighter focus on "story" than in past CMx1 games. A lot of the previous mentioned features will add to this, but we are putting in specific features to draw them together into a more clean message for the player. CMx1 games were sometimes described as "soulless" because of how little influence we (Battlefront) and scenario designers had over the "big picture" setting. We agree with this and therefore are putting in more tools for the scenario designers as well as us the game designers. Again, these sorts of things will vary from game release to game release, being either a more or less important part of the game. 13. Much finer detailing of terrain. This means a ton more flexibility in how maps look and how units interact with them. 14. Coupled with the above, we are including a lot more stuff for making more realistic looking scenarios. In a CMBO setting this might be stuff like telephone poles, previously wrecked tanks, far more rubble options, decorative bushes, haystacks, etc. These things may or may not have much value to the game play (wrecked tanks would, decorative bushes not so much), but the atmospheric affects will help out in a major way. Hmmm.... well, there is probably a lot more stuff that I've touched on in other posts, but these are the big things I can think off right now. Hopefully the totality of the stuff in this post will give you an idea of what CMx2 is intended to be, both in general terms and in some specifics. Steve

A new thing here for me today... (sorry this is more like a Blog entry than a forum post..) Its funny how many folks here beef about the AI :confused: I am one of them, (sorry sometimes perhaps without any real justification) but the AI has surprised me and has beaten me more than a few times. So as Steve will tell us its not all that bad. I am watching a totally green and inexperienced 25 year old computer game/video game player play the CMBO Demo Chance Encounter scenario for the first time as I type this... This is his first time with anything like CMBO so he is trying and keen but the AI in Chance Encounter is keeping him more than challenged. He is not good at it and he will likely lose, but it is too early to tell. (his victory rating at 20 mins (half way) is %57) Watching someone play CMBO and Chance Encounter for the first time is a VERY interesting experience. I would guess that for most players new to this game the CMx1 level of AI did in fact provide a half decent challenge. Sadly I think we may all be over looking the fact that the CMx1 AI was DAMN good when we FIRST started playing against it for the first time in CMBO. (yes I know for some of us here that was almost 5 years ago) I hope the CMx2 AI is better, I am confident it will be (if they build on CMx1 as a foundation!) as I watch the German AI opponent in Chance Encounter challenge a first time player. he he To test the new game Steve should REALLY find some folks that LOVE computer games and JUST sit them in front of a pre-release CMx2 demo and watch them play and watch what they do, (given they have NO previous experience with any CMxx product) the observations and experience for BFC could be VERY informative and enlightening. Especially around User Interface design. -tom w [ March 02, 2005, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Yeah but Sadly it is still in development and all the real fun is just about ONE FULL year away (unless you are dreaming of getting the demo before Next Christmas which would be nice but not very realistic IMHO ) -tom w

AND just to keep this discusion interesting (all the while off topic too I guess). ONE other GREAT idea for Human to Human Play is by AI proxy ...where by I design and set up and an attack in the scenario editor and my opponent sets up the other forces in a defensive postion (in a way "programing" the AI in the editor) and we then let the AI handle both sides and sit back and watch the outcome of the battle. Hinted AI vs Hinted AI n Crazy? (oh Come on! it has a sort of Spy Vs Spy ring to it don't you think, YES that was Spy vs SPy from Mad Magazine he he) OK its out there.. But some board game wargame geeks "might" think like this and if you let the game crunch ALL night (for instance) AND if the game had fully movie play back then you could wake up in the morning and see the WHOLE movie and see how the battle plan went? It would be like a NEW form of TV (OK ok sure...maybe that was ALL crazy but I do in fact think that was a form of lateral thinking or thinking out of the box that Steve was looking for in the GRAND scheme of things? :confused: maybe? ) -tom w

I am surprised by this I think I have been reading all the threads and all the bones/hints carefully but no where did I see any suggestion about how the AI might be set by the player to use a less realistic or more favourable FOW setting, different from the player's FOW setting. Sergei, can you direct me to the thread or post where Steve said this: "giving players the option of letting the AI for example have partial information about the human player forces at start up. " (for the first time other than his post below?) Thanks -tom w

That sounds good to me. I am hoping there is a surprisingly large number of us that feel that way. (BUT I am not sure even that would help ) So far Steve as not commented at all about the possibility of assymetrical realism or FOW settings for the AI and the human player or two human players. THAT one feature alone would be a break through of magnificient proportions! -tom w

From what I understand about how computers work I am not concerned about this possible issue at all. THERE never has been a time limit on the "crunch". If there is a Crunch cycle or phase in CMx2 then it will take as LONG AS IT TAKES and any LOS Relative spotting check will just get processed along with what ever cpu cycles the AI requires to get ITS job done. I do not, in any way, see this as an "either or" problem. The Crunch will simply take longer and the faster computer you are using the better off you will be This issue does not concern me in the least. -tom w

I am not so sure that is what Steve said or meant. I have been following that discussion as well and if they could in fact hint or program the AI to use/abuse the God like player uberinfo I do not think that would be a bad thing, it should in fact make the AI somewhat more challenging and IMO more level the playing field between the "clever" human and the "clunky" AI. I don't think that is what they are intending to do however. Steve said all players, at ALL times, under ALL settings will ALWAYS have to deal with the limits and restrictions of Relative Spotting and to be honest I think that GOES DOUBLE for the AI and I think that Relative Spotting code will hobble the AI worse than the clever player, BUT I TRULY hope I am dead WRONG about that FWIW -tom w [ March 02, 2005, 07:48 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

On the negative side. 0) Can we say it is too predictable? 1) Does not use elevation 2) Poor coordination of attack (armor always goes first). 3) Does not maintain command lines. 4) Counter attacks too much when on defense (leaves fox-holes) 5) Poor use of Artillery. 6) Uses on-board mortars only in direct fire mode. 7) Has no concept of time (doesn't matter to AI the length of the scenario) 8) Has no concept of "fire-base" for heavy weapons I have NO idea how to program this but it lacks cunning, I would just like to be surprised by a really well co-ordinated counter attack! I am hoping the Demo will feature a GREAT demo scenario akin to the likes of the CMBO Meeting Engagement Demo. (5 Sherms vs. 3 STuG's), where ALL that stuff Steve talked about with regard to "Scenario Editor Tools - there are a variety of things we can offer the Scenario Designers to coax better, more scenario specific behavior out of he AI", will all have been employed MOST wisely and shrewdly by the likes of RUNE and company, to knock a blow to the unsuspecting and even the most careful and skilled of us with a cunning and stunning AI defense and counter attack. Sure it will only surprise us once BUT I sure am looking forward to it.!!! maybe? -tom w [ March 02, 2005, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]