aka_tom_w

I found a flow chart for this idea see below.... -tom w ooda loop page from that web page: "The OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act) is an information strategy concept for information warfare developed by Colonel John Boyd (1927-1997). Although the OODA model was clearly created for military purposes, elements of the same theory can also be applied to business strategy. Boyd developed the theory based on his earlier experience as a fighter pilot and work on energy maneuverability. He initially used it to explain victory in air-to-air combat, but in the last years of his career he expanded his OODA loop theory into a grand strategy that would defeat an enemy strategically by “psychological” paralysis. Boyd emphasized that strategy should always revolve around changing the enemy’s behavior, not annihilating his forces. The parallel between Boyd’s ideas and Sun Tzu’s masterpiece, “The Art of War,” are obvious. Both Boyd and Sun Tzu advocate the ideas of harmony, deception, swiftness and fluidity of action, surprise, shock, and attacking the enemy’s strategy. Colonel Boyd viewed the enemy (and ourselves) as a system that is acting through a decision making process based on observations of the world around it. The enemy will observe unfolding circumstances and gather outside information in order to orient the system to perceived threats. Boyd states that the orientation phase of the loop is the most important step, because if the enemy perceives the wrong threats, or misunderstands what is happening in the environment around him, then he will orient his thinking (and forces) in wrong directions and ultimately make incorrect decisions. Boyd said that this cycle of decision-making could operate at different speeds for the enemy and your own organization. The goal should be to to complete your OODA loop process at a faster tempo than the enemy’s, and to take action to lengthen the enemy’s loop. One tries to conduct many more loops “inside” the enemies OODA loop, causing the enemy to be unable to react to anything that is happening to him. Colonel Boyd stated that the the enemy’s OODA loop can be lengthened through a variety of means. Boyd’s aim is to generate “non-cooperate” centers of gravity for the enemy through ambiguity, deception, novel circumstances, fast transient maneuvers, and the use of Sun-Tzu’s idea of Cheng and Ch’i. By isolating the enemy’s centers of gravity and developing mistrust and cohesion within the system (making them “non-cooperative”), friction will be greatly increased, paralysis in the system will set in, and the enemy will ultimately collapse. By attacking the thought process of the enemy / competitor, his morale and decision process can be shattered." Does that have any relevance to CMx2 game design? I wonder? -tom w

more here flashpoint germany sadly I guess it is "just" a command game. and the fact that it uses SQUARES and not hexes just seems WRONG. but it looks like what Steve talked about when he refered to Command level games.. From the screen shots I would say that looks like one. -tom w

I don't know..... :confused: This sounds good to me: "Obviously, if you are smart you'll see that we're not going to implement 1:1 control, but are going to do 1:1 visual and 1:1 modeling. " -Steve "Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 21, 2005 12:15 AM 1:1 representation sure does open up a big can of worms. It's one of the reasons why we did not attempt it for CMx1 (though hardware wouldn't have allowed it anyway). However, as has already been pointed out one should not confuse 1:1 graphical represenation with 1:1 modeling or 1:1 control. Three different concepts. From a GAME standpoint, 1:1 graphical representation is the most important. If I were to make a Top Ten list of complaints from general gamers about CMx1, this would probably be the #2 complaint (#1 is the lack of ridiculously detailed and textured models) constant throughout all three games. From a REALISM standpoint the most important thing is the 1:1 modeling. Though it is very difficult to do this without the 1:1 graphical represenation, it is certainly possible to do. We could have had individuals run away from generic 3 man squads or more detailed soldier stats. But without 1:1 representation this all seemed kinda hollow so we kept the level of modeling in line with the degree of visual representation. Now that we are increasing the latter, we will also be increasing the modeling to stay in balance. There will still be abstractions, just not nearly as many as there are now. The interesting thing is that most "gamers" and "grognards" is that they probably pretty much agree that 1:1 control is undesirable. There is already enough to pay attention to without having to get Pvt. Pyle to move 0.5 meters to the left of the tree he is behind so he can get a shot off. It also turns the focus to individual soldiers instead of units and the formations they belong to. Obviously, if you are smart you'll see that we're not going to implement 1:1 control, but are going to do 1:1 visual and 1:1 modeling. The results should make the game more fun to play and also far more realistic. There will be issues we need to work through to make sure it all works happily together, but that's the sort of thing you guys pay us for when you buy the game " Steve

Maybe I am just plain wrong about this but if you can play the game with the 3 man abstracted squad and not get any of them killed because they are somehow "left out of position" why can't you do the same thing when you see ALL ten men? NOW granted sometimes you would send a 10 man unit into a house that was full and some of them got stuck outside, but the game moved on and the player learned how many units a standard house can hold. Why is it we cannot expect the game and the TacAI to take care of 10 little pixel soldiers in the same way it used to take good care of the 3 little pixel soldiers the same way all three CMx1 games did? BUT we get to see 10 pixel soldiers instead of 3 pixel soldiers. I am not so worried about this issue. I trust Steve to let us feel free to trust the TacAI when he tells us there will not be 1:1 control of ALL the pixel soldiers. -tom w [ January 23, 2005, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Nah... Don't be silly, I want a fun game to play too! the concept of a command delay for the target and open fire order does not fit in with my idea of ways to improve the game or improve realism. I am not sure there really all them many things we actually fully disagree about. :confused: Just off the top of your head what do we fundmentally disagree about? -tom w

I agree with Kip here. Mostly Hoolaman has some very interesting ideas. BUT not the one about the delay to open fire order. “Also, if you wanted a unit to target a specific enemy unit there would be a command delay.” No no no no Nyet Nine Nada never the "open fire" order should be immediate as that is something the platoon, squad, sniper or AFV will do of its OWN volition. In fact I would say that is sort of why they are there, (in the place you put them (it might take time and a command delay to get them there!) to open fire at the BEST time and that is usually right away with some urgency. The whole concept of the cover arc and the likely hood that units will open fire at the first and best opportunity could be compromised by the chance of a command delay on the target order. no thanks -tom w

OK you got me sorry I have no experience with Close Combat I have been spoiled by CMx1 and besides SimCity (which doesn't count) it is the only wargame I play on the computer. I have played (a little) or tested out several FPS games like Quake or Marathon but they don't count either. -tom w

Just to clear things out, you mean "squad" right Tom ? I ask because there is always some confusion with the usage of "platoon" vs "squads" in various language/army. Now we are controlling squads and half-squad as the smallest organic unit short of weapon teams. From what I understand, as far as control is concerned, it will remain so, no ? Cheers </font>

Um I am pretty sure this is the way Steve said it would be. There would not/will not be individual control and a 1:1 basis of individual men. My sense is that the split platoon or 5-6 man squad may be the smallest controlable element other than snipers. That is what Steve said right? So that means that the Tac AI will taking care of where each man positions himself and the player can just sit back and watch I guess. -tom w

there is a good idea JUST blow us ALL away with the Demo when it is ready to for prime-time, until then no screen shots. That might be sort of "harsh" for many here, BUT keeping the screen shots out of the public eye until the release of the demo would build excitement and huge anticipation the way no other game has ever done. (or not) -tom w

OK then! Sounds like we are about to see the introduction of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle into CMx2 Somehow a paradigm shift of uncertain proportions which may OR MAY NOT, include the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle could be something we should (or should not) look for in next game engine CMx2! (just having fun ) -tom w

"A time on target (TOT) command would be an effects based order in that it doesn't specify the cause (i.e. delay) but rather the intended effect (TOT). Thus you could click an object and command hit this at 10:30. The units would then adjust their departure time and rate of advance to hit their objective at the TOT as opposed to the player having to figure out all the delays to make the units hit their objectives at the right time. This would allow the commander to issue the desired effects and the units could then use the TAC AI to figure out the causes to make it so. Midnight Warrior" Given Steve's design philosophy as seen in CMx1 game design I am guessing this is NOT something they are likely to introduce into CMx2. This part specifically: " The units would then adjust their departure time and rate of advance to hit their objective at the TOT as opposed to the player having to figure out all the delays to make the units hit their objectives at the right time. This would allow the commander to issue the desired effects and the units could then use the TAC AI to figure out the causes to make it so." In WWII if that is the period (?) this concept and suggestion would make co-ordinating a precision timed assualt down to the minute WAY too easy and I would suggest slightly unrealistic in some cases in the WWII time frame. IMHO BUT I agree perhaps they should look at the "Free lunch" in the OODA loop in CMx1 and see what can be done about that. (?) -tom w [ January 22, 2005, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I like the quote about the "Free lunch" ! " (unlike the free lunches he currently gets in CM1 during the command phase)." Slowing down the game is FOR SURE a consideration. AND don't make the game or the interface more tedious. (please) This sounds like this concept has be well researched by someone who knows about these kinds of things! "The idea is to make the game more interesting by adding yet another dimension of decision making to the player that also somewhat models the reality of having to plan and fight in real time without having to impose real time into the game (with all its bad side effects). John Boyd called this C2 process the OODA loop, Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act. Currently (other than command delays) there is no penalty for anything in the OODA loop other than the acting phase (i.e it takes time to move, shoot, load, unload, etc). " That there is currently NO penalty in the OODA loop in CMx1 is an interesting observation. I have always felt there was something missing there but I didn't know you could label it and call it "no cost or penalty in the OODA loop" THANKS! Lets see what Steve has to say about this one..... -tom w

I agree completely.... this is the tricky part: "My take on any C&C system is that it must simulate where the order came from. It is quite sound to say that an officer can only order so many orders in a turn, but it must be remembered that not every action and fire order comes from the HQ." AND that issue my be so overwhelminglly difficult to model in the new C&C structure as to be impossible to shoe horn into the game. I suspect we are completely barking up the wrong tree with this concept and that Steve and Charles have something equally brilliant and more satisfactory that will have a similiar effect on the game, already in mind :confused: (maybe?) Who knows? Maybe this concept has never crossed their minds? I don't know. -tom w

OK Lots of folks here talk about "realism" and a realistic simulation. So the idea above is to look at how much time and how many orders can the player give inbetween turns. The idea that a commander can only do so much or issue a limited number of orders per turn may have some promise. I am not real sure how to make it work. But l like the idea as a concept that could limit the player in how many orders could be issued in any one turn. "This feature would allow the human player to spend as much time as he wants viewing the battlefiled and thinking about what to order his men to do but it would limit how many commands he could give per turn." Does anyone else see anything positive or good about this concept? (the specific Details as to EXACTLY how this limitation might be implemented in the game would be the key to the whole idea, if it has chance of being something that might make it into the game). -tom w

Well Some of us are just wondering... "Seriously, the graphics capabilities of CMx2's engine are on a par with the best we've seen from games in development these days. We feel it beats games already released. So yeah, it will be pretty darn good. Steve" When Steve says that if he means as good as current FPS games because some of them look visually stunning in their promo screen shots? Just wondering? -tom w

My guess is we are not going to see something this detailed: . . Close Combat First to Fight . there are more here and they are Very detailed its Close Combat's First to Fight about Modern day USMC First to Fight for Mac OS X Screen shots but there game companies making games that LOOK this good. (but for the most part these are all FPS which is whole different kettle of fish) -tom w [ January 22, 2005, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

does it look like this: that is one heck of a lot of little individual soldier units!! LOOK Horses and cavalry nice detail: WOW. Is that game fun to play? -tom w

Hi Caesar. I agree if there could be a FOW option (say "MIA-EFOW" ) I would fully support this definition: " an MIA style of system where units are taken out of your control, then IMO it should apply only to units isolated that have been broken or routed or bailed crews. " Meaning that if any NON HQ unit (usually a bailed crew) is OUT of LOS of all other friendly units, and way out of any realistic (hard to code into the game, granted ) C&C range AND they don't have a radio, then the player IMHO deserves to loose that unit to MIA status, and the Tac AI and last known SOP takes over and the unit will rely on self preservation code/instincts only and be completely out of the player's control. But I would be more than happy to learn how bailed crews will be otherwise handled in the new CMx2 to prevent the "gamey jeep recon" ?? -tom w

I would say this whole issue is a VERY big can of worms. Please Please I hope BFC will keep it SIMPLE. I don't want to have to micromanage all the WIA on the ground. That in itself could be a WHOLE NEW game (or their NEXT game "MedicEvac Mission" "Save as many as you can before they end up KIA"). Oh no put me down to let the Tac AI deal with my WIA and keep it simple. They are combat effective or they aren't. If they are KIA they are lieing on the ground, if they are WIA then they stay with the squad at all times and don't fire their weapon, whatever, JUST KEEP it simple and don't add the tedious frustration of having to micromanage the WIA to the game. I amd pretty confident in BFC that this is really a non issue, I am guessing Steve has a plan for this one and it will completely eliminate the possibility of having to make the player micromanage the WIA. (I hope) -tom w

They are not ready yet. From the hints and bones in those two BIG threads the engine may NOT be completed far enough actual be able to render a sceen shot. Mostly Steve is just talking about IDEAS and their desire to design and develop the game along some specific lines of development and evolution. (THAT does not sound like something you can render a screenshot off and show to the forum ) BUT they do keep saying it WILL look gorgeous by about this time NEXT year. (I think) -tom w

I would agree.... I just want to know where the KIA or WIA occured. BOTH KIA and WIA could be bodies lieing flat on the ground. c3k makes some very good points about how wounded are the wounded? Wounded that are out of the fight and can't keep up with the squad could just be bodies lieing flat on the ground, that way it is easier and black and white, combat effective (everybody still in the fight) and combat ineffective (ALL KIA and WIA just lieing flat out on the ground. Maybe the wounded that can keep up with the squad just tag along and don't fire their weapons(?). I think that would just keep it simple. KISS is better in this case for sure. -tom w [ January 22, 2005, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

there's some animation at its VERY finest! VERY nice Hey Steve HIRE us ALL! we will work for a copy of the up coming CMx2 and be HAPPY! There are some VERY talents fans of this game out there. I am dissapointed that the only "talent" I can offer is that I "yap" and bitch too much on the forum, (I rather doubt that qualifies for a free game, But I think Gpig should get ONE! (Just having a little fun!) Those run cycles REALLY look good! -tom w

Ok that sounds good When I am feeling confident that everything will turn out right and I am NOT thinking to hard about HOW I WOULD do it, I am guessing it will be a fun game.. ON good days I believe you are correct about this part: "I’m fairly convinced that BFC will be able to make Relative Spotting work, and probably in a way that does not make the game harder to play." But when I think about the problem of how to make the interface of relative spotting work in the game and make it fun and easy to play AND make Relative Spotting take the borg consciousness away from the view of the player (!) my head starts to HURT! But as Steve says... "Thats why we (collectively) pay him the BIG BUCK$!" he he -tom w

More Sketchs by Gpig. Gpig and I have been chatting and working on ideas and what those idea's would look like. Gpig learned to animate at the place where I now work so we have been chatting (we talk about an idea, he makes a sketch or two, sends them to me I post them on a webserver (easy for me, no hassle) and then we post them to this forum and chat about them !!! ) I LOVE it when a plan comes together he he !!!! He is REALLY good at making idea's into pictures you can look at!! Steve should REALLY start to use his talents and sketchs !! check this out!.. WIA sitting... KIA flat on the ground: . . Tank Support idea and sketch: . . Machine Gun support idea and sketch: . . your comments gentlemen.... Art work (Fan Art and idea's ) sketched by Gpig! [ January 21, 2005, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]