aka_tom_w

OK! that sounds good use MORE false spotting for bailed crews, while it is not entirely realistic if you ask me it "should" have a positive effect and impact to add more uncertianty to the game. -tom w

OK BUT but... I sure am hoping if CMBO is not redone as the first CMx2 engine title it WILL be the SECOND title released COMPLETE with great new fetures we have not even thought of yet and the EVER popular multi -multi player "multi play" new fancy command structure allowing multiple teams of players on each side to do virtual combat in the ETO. PLEASE let it be! thanks for the insight MikeyD! (I missed Moon's post, where he is posting to now a days?) -tom w

I agree completely.. Variable random AI game personallities would be a dream come true. I have NO idea how one would program random and variable AI "personalities" or agreesiveness..... BUT I would say that kind of feature would be a HUGE bonus for the game if the AI was NOT in anyway predictable from game to game or scenario to scenario. Even it if just meant the player could adjust a few sliders or scales or imput some variable (like an agression scale or better yet a "shrewd" scale or something ) that might give the AI some variability. BUT I have NO idea what I am talking about when I suggest anything for the AI so I will just take their word for it that it will be way too hard and not worth the effort to make it any better or more variable or random than we see in CMxx.... -tom w [ February 09, 2005, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I have NO doubt that this is NOT easy at all. BUT I like this idea: "AND it is fun to test whose AI fights best! " My AI vs your AI and just sit back and watch! this is like a two scenario designers planning the whole battle and just letting the AI duke it out. BUT I don't think that is the direction they are going in..... oh well -tom w

if you are REALLY keen you can play ZORK here online and it actually works for free: http://www.xs4all.nl/~pot/infocom/zork1.html -tom w

I would guess that some folks here will be watching closely for the mistakes that are the exceptions and hoping they are few and far between. The obvious issue that comes to mind is half the squad in moving into the cover you want (BEHIND the wall) and the other half appearing in the game NOT to be in the cover you order them to be in (stop and go to ground in FRONT of the wall appearing exposed to enemy fire). -tom w [ February 08, 2005, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I wonder about this myself. One way would to this ( the only way I can think if right now) would be to let the player use LOTS of pre designed "formations" or templates ALONG with SOPs. I can think the you would issue the "move as a long line one after the other" order/formation with an SOP to spread out like a straight line behind the wall at the end of the "move as a long line one after the other (column march)" order when they get to the wall. So that would obviously put the onus on BFC to give us LOTS of SOPs and many choices for templates or preset "formations" or SOMETHING (or JUST trust the AI :eek: ) for moving or deploying. Having already said that there WILL NOT be 1:1 control, they must have something pretty convincing up their sleeve to pull this off. (at least I sure hope the have something clever in mind! :eek: ) Sorry I don't play or "sample" as many other games as many of the other readers on this forum. How do other games do it? Are there other games of the same scale as CMx2 that use 1:1 respresentation WITHOUT 1:1 control? (NOT FPS games they are not the same obviously) thanks -tom w [ February 07, 2005, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Bump because I am still curious about this aspect of the whole 1:1 concept.... -tom w </font>

Well from the sound of the this the NEW and IMPROVED volutary dismount looks like it could be a feature in CMx2. AND that would sure make things interesting... -tom w

Well we are not playing a game with hexes any more in fact even the tiles are gone. So what you are asking for an LOS check from one point, where you have NO UNITS to EVERYWHERE else on the map. Correct? Perhaps what you should be doing is playing with Fog of War off, because that sounds like what you want. Fog of War has four optional settings now, does it not? FOW off will show you everything, then there is partial FOW then there is (for lack of the better term) "standard' FOW then there is Extreme FOW. Why not just try Partial FOW or no FOW, then you will see what you want without having to change how LOS works to your more "gamey"/less realistic liking? The grogs on this board are looking for a Military Simulation that lets these enthusiasts simulate battle field conditions as realistically as possible without actually getting shot at So most folks here would tell you that you SHOULD NOT BE ABLE to see anything on the map that one of your OWN units does not have LOS to! (meaning No Virtual Soldier's eyes on target = NO PEAKING for you!) For many of us here this is a very big aspect of Relative Spotting and getting the "realism" in the simulation more correctly modeled than it is now. Hope that helps -tom w [ February 07, 2005, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Perhaps what Halberdiers is trying to say is the SL Rules Lawyers, board game wargames or Min-Maxers (Minimize Risks Maximize Odds for your advantage) all with only a board game background are uncomfortable, like a fish out of water, when faced with the CMxx interface because they cannot get "certianty" or complete control over all the variables (like memorizing the rule book ) or predict to the exact second how far a unit will move in a one minute "turn". AND OH MY GOD NO HEXES! :eek: "how will I ever determine optimal distances for movement or firepower??? I have seen this happen in person, for real. (I always hated hexes and rules lawyers but I have PLENTY of board game wargame experience) I could NEVER ever convince my wargame friends the hexes were articficially superimposed over the battle field as nothing more than an aid to permit the rules to be written, I tired to convince them you could play on a map board WITHOUT hexes if you used LOTS of different lengths of string to Measure every shot and every move, (they laughed at me!) So to be honest Halberdiers' point and perspective may be widely held by players who memorize rule books AND must have hexes to determine movement range. BUT while I see his point, I am deeply thankful the the BFC designers and developers have largely ignored it in their game design decisions. BFC, please do not make games that make rules lawyers/wargamers happy, or give card board chit wargame players a feeling of "comfort" in the game and interface. Hell NO! The more realism and the MORE uncertainty the better. I totally disagree with the idea that the player NEEDS to know how far a unit will move in 1 Minute with a black line the extends past one minute's worth of movement. The one minute time blocks are ARTICIFICIAL breaks in the action that seperate this game from RTS games. If there is full movie replay this will make more sense as the game SHOULD be envisioned to be an ongoing fluid timeline and the battle takes place without interuptions. My question to Halberdiers is why don't RTS wargames that may be somewhat similiar to CMxx (but inferior IMHO) show that black line you are looking for??? Well the answer is because the game is fluid and there are no breaks so the one minutes' worth of movement makes no difference because the game is REAL TIME and everything moves constantly under player control. IN the one minute WE GO system everything should move constantly from minute to minute its just that in between each minute the PLAYER sticks his head into the game to see how things are going and change the orders, but the game is actually trying to simulate fluid ongoing time and movement that idealy should not be interupted by the player (for complete realism). BUT I am in NO WAY suggesting the RTS is better but from the point of view of simulating REAL TIME pressure constraints the RTS is real time and makes the player react and think faster, BUT it is clear that the caculations needed to make Combat Mission so accurate and realistic with regard to armour penetration COULD NOT be "crunched" fast enough to make CMx2 Real time so that is NOT an option. I only mention the RTS game style as an example of a REAL TIME fluid form of game "movement" where the player does not need to "know" how far one unit moves in one minute because it does not matter in that case, and it should NOT matter in the case of CMxx where the player artificially sticks his head into the action every minute to freeze the action and issue new orders. If that makes any sense? -tom w [ February 05, 2005, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Thanks Steve BUT you have me Stumped! If you say: " But wiih a 1:1 man representation you could, in theory, have your entire 12 man squad physically spread out over 100m" How does that make sense if you tell us that in no way will the player have 1:1 control over each man (I do not want 1:1 control over each man, thanks ). The only solution that comes to mind is an SOP or a "formation template" that in effect says "Stretch it out boys!" ( 2 man fox holes 1 every 15 - 20 m) or something? VERY interesting! Thanks so much for the VERY prompt and informative post. -tom w [ February 05, 2005, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I guess the first question is why does 1:1 representation mean no more split squad problem? If you have 1:1 and you have a 12 man squad and you can see all the men, can the player no longer split them into two teams? Was this stated somewhere there are no more split squads? Just curious -tom w

This is the tricky part. Bailed crews should be next to useless, BUT a voluntary dismount by the TC with the binocs to go have a peak forward over the hill and round the bend to study the battlefield situation, while the vehicle stays back out of sight, needs to be handled and coded in a completely new way, different and seperate from the bailed crew (with no radio and no binocs) situation. I am pretty sure, from reading between the lines in Steve's posts, that they have this voluntary dismount aspect of the new game completedly figured out (at least in Steve's own mind I think), just not coded up yet. (I hope) -tom w [ February 04, 2005, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

WELL! I guess that is a pretty radical departure from the "official party line" from CMx1. I for one am looking forward to the new and positive way that this will give the player more options in the game and introduce new uncertianty into how it the oppostion maybe be confused by abandoned weapons...... he he he (did someone say Gamey?) this should be GOOD! -tom w

Dilema Greek meaning two Premises or alternatives: di·lem·ma P Pronunciation Key (d-lm) n. A situation that requires a choice between options that are or seem equally unfavorable or mutually exclusive. Usage Problem. A problem that seems to defy a satisfactory solution. Logic. An argument that presents two alternatives, each of which has the same consequence. [Late Latin, from Greek dilmma, ambiguous proposition : di-, two; see di-1 + lmma, proposition; see lemma1.] dilem·matic (dl-mtk) adj. Usage Note: In its main sense dilemma refers to a situation in which a choice must be made between alternative courses of action or argument. Although citational evidence attests to widespread use of the term meaning simply “a problem” or “a predicament” and involving no issue of choice, 74 percent of the Usage Panel rejects the sentence Juvenile drug abuse is the great dilemma of the 1980s. ·It is sometimes claimed that because the di- in dilemma comes from a Greek prefix meaning “two,” the word should be used only when exactly two choices are involved. Nevertheless, 64 percent of the Usage Panel accepts its use for choices among three or more options. Sorry Couldn't help myself.... Don't forget to toss sand in the bull's eyes when faced with the impossible dilemma of either being impaled by the left horn or impaled by the right horn (and what famous book was that from?) -tom w

I am not sure how this might be done but for the purpose of REALISM somehow maybe crew members could dismount to scout in the new game..... This is an interesting suggestion because one other new suggestion in this thread is to completely do away with crew members and any kind of crew representation in the game altogether. Voluntary Crew dismount for scouting purposes should be considered (maybe?) BUT somehow a volutary dismount for scouting purposes would have to be treated very differently than the bailed crew gamey spotting issue. BUT Steve says they think they have this bailed crew problem all figured out so, maybe we are barking up the wrong tree here. -tom w [ February 04, 2005, 06:23 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hey! New Guy! Excellent Post! Very direct and very entertaining. keep 'em coming! -tom w

Well..... If we go by their past reputation, and 3 previous game designs and the improvements in that game design over the past 5 years, I would be betting they will MORE than "pull it off". AND the whole 1:1 representational thing will be a HUGE success and combined with Relative Spotting they should be able to make more than a few claims about the new game that NO OTHER GAME can make. Steve says: "Since 1:1 representation is tied to the most inner core of the sim, and vice versa, I doubt there is a way to make the game scale down the number of guys shown in the game without undermining the game itself." That tells me they may have already, sort of, designed the rest of the game around this fundamental principle....... I am pretty confident they will impress the heck out of "most" of us with the 1:1 scaling because they want the game to be GREAT because they want to SELL lots of copies and make LOTS of money!!!! (AND they like playing GREAT games they can't get anywhere else so they have to make them for themselves, so if they are gong to get the kind of game they have been "dreaming" about playing for the past 5 years I am guessing most of us will enjoy it too! ) -tom w [ February 03, 2005, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

This is a VERY good point many players may not care or know that their bailed crew spotting activity may be considered unrealistic or distastefully "gamey" to some other players. Bailed crews are special because they always seem to end up bailed out RIGHT in a GREAT spot to play the role of gamey spotters for the player. (maybe without intention but you can never be sure ) Why is that? Well it might be because players send fast cheap vehicles on suicide missions straight up the gut, KNOWING full well at least one or two crew members will survive the wreck and bail out provideing invaluable spotting info. Bailed crews are specfically the topic of choice on this issue because the player KNOWS they will bail out and survive the destruction of the vehicle (if they are near cover) and STILL provide spotting info back to the player NO MATTER how far away they are from the main body of units. I am suggesting this should be looked at because Ace Pilot is RIGHT ON! when he says the player "will continue to gain intel on the situation from the bailed out crew, whether the player had a gamey intention or not. " This aspect of unintentional gamey spotting behaviour should be considered (somehow) in the CMx2 game design. Agreed Good Post Ace Pilot! -tom w [ February 03, 2005, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Well.. Just to be fair, the original MIA unit proposal was that any non HQ unit way out of friendly LOS, way out of C&C and without a radio was originally suggested to just turn into a nationality marker, indicating to the player its last known position before it was deemed MIA. (out of sight and out of player control) Of course I am still hoping that in very limited circumstances, some variation of this concept may still have some potential. -tom w

That sounds GREAT! Thanks Steve As for Bailed Crews and the MIA idea I would be thrilled if the player could see them, (that would be great) JUST show their status to the player as MIA or simply "Bailed Out" in their status window, let the self preservation SOP or Tac AI control them and make good and SURE they don't communicate ANY spotting info or intel back to the player in anyway. If all the player gets to see is these guys trying to hide or scramble or sneak back to the nearest friendly unit or back toward the friendlly end of the map, while completely OUT of the player's control, I am sure that would solve the gamey bailed crew spotting problem. -tom w [ February 02, 2005, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

If I were to guess I would say any high end to mid level computer system that was purchased BRAND NEW in the past 6-12 months would be something like the minumum standard. ANY new computer bought between now and the time the game is released should be fine as long as it is not a bottom of the line bargin bin clunker. The only real issue here will be the minimum megs of VRAM needed for the game and my guess it will either be 64 megs or 128 megs. Processor speed will only speed up your "crunch" time to run the calculations for the turn so even slow computers will always work if you don't mind waiting, but you will need to have the NEW minimum VRAM requirement or the chances are the game won't look good or won't run. Not much to go on I know but I would guess those are half decent ball park estimates. -tom w

Hi Dook I am not all that concerned about half squads, all of your suggestions and points sound valid. My specific concern is gamey intel spotting info from bailed crews. Bailed crews that are so far away from all other friendly units that they could be considered "cut off" , surrounded or MIA. Hostile contact or not (they bailed and STILL don't know what hit them) WHY do they still represent a source of spotting information to the player when they have NO radio they are out of LOS of any frinedly unit and they are WAY outside ANY command radius, AND I am refering here to any balied crew but I thinking about truck or jeep drivers specifically. -tom w [ February 02, 2005, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Thanks Steve GREAT comments I would like to add one more possibility in the Same way that we have command delays would it be possible in the new game to implement a "Spotting Delay" In Fog OF Game "Positive - player retains control of his units but does not get information he "shouldn't" have." Let the player have the information he should have just make it maybe 1-3 minutes late EVEN 1 minute of spotting delay would impact the game. "Difficult for the player to understand what is known but hidden from the unknown and not yet discovered." This sentence could inspire more thinking about a BETTER solution, what follows is not the best or perfect solution but like the Command Delay , to let a player know (what is known but hidden) when the unit out of C&C and OUT LOS of friendly units spots something... let the interface start a count down timer, (a variable random time between 50secs - 200 secs starts a count down) when the timer gets to 0 the OLD spotting information shows up on the map and is relayed to the player, in the mean time the player sees the count down and suspects some intel is on the way. (Granted its NOT perfect, but lets think about this problem: "Negative - player's orders for the unit are lacking information that unit SHOULD have. Difficult for the player to understand what is known but hidden from the unknown and not yet discovered.") Please consider Spotting delays as maybe one part of the solution for units OUT of LOS of friendly units and out of command, and without a radio. If units have memories AND if command delays can also be an important part of the game why not introduce a "Spotting Delay" which would let the player have the information that unit can see or spot BUT NOT instantaneously. ( a random 1-3 minute delay factor could keep things interesting) -tom w [ February 02, 2005, 05:37 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]