aka_tom_w

Something like this has come up before. The IronMan Rules, or Franko's True Combat rules are a GREAT example. Mostly they say just play the game BY ONLY viewing the battlefield from EACH one of your units at level 1 (Ground Level) the rules a more complex than that and allow for zoom magnification if the unit has binocs and such. NOW this is an interesting idea it sounds GREAT, may infact be WAY more realistic (sort of) but from the point of view of game play this is what it means: You the player can ONLY see and understand the battlefield by jumping (+/-) from unit to unit and looking around using view level 1 !!!!! (thats it!) I think Relative spotting (somehow) may be like this BUT not restricted to view level 1 (I hope) I would say the IronMan/TrueCombat rules might be more realistic to play, and some here might find it more fun, BUT MOSTLY I would suggest it would just be a tedious excersise in making the GAME not fun and REALLY hard to play. (I don't know I have never tried it) Making the game MORE realistic by making it A GREAT deal harder to play is NOT the design goal here. (I hope) I am however hoping there might be a MIA-EFOW Fog of War option in the game that may make it more uncertian and a little more difficult to win at BUT not really harder to play based on the interface. I would like the game to challenge me (especially against the AI) BUT I don't want the game or the game interface to be tedious and harder to play. When I say that I think the IronMan rules, (observering the game ONLY from your friendly unit's level perspective) would make the game tedious and A LOT harder to play. I am just hoping they can make Relative Spotting WORK but not in a way that makes the game play tedious and HARDER to play. (hopping from unit to unit to see what it can see, BUT how else do you do it? Beats me? :confused: ) just a note on TEDIOUS... FOR the record ordering a company's worth of units and vehicles to stay on the long an windy road so they don't stray off and get bogged in the mud is my idea of a TEDIOUS concept because there is NO follow or column command. :mad: Please BFC..... eliminate the tedious things about the game play, user experience and the interface! please -tom w [ January 21, 2005, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

"I don't want any kind of wounded, but hors de combat, graphics. Either they can fight or they're casualties. " Exactly! And how about something SIMPLE.... First I agree with no blood and no gore. (I am guessing the blood on the uniforms may indeed be modded in later after official release). WIA are sitting holding their knee up or ankle or something (I wish I could illustrate it like Gpig!) KIA are lying on the ground flat on their back like bodies (one knee bent) left over KIA now in CMxx. (That works JUST fine!) I would like to see maybe 2-3 wounded states at the most, something EASY, weapon NOT in hand, and the soldier holding a a knee or upper leg while sitting. Some form of sitting upright on the ground posture should indicate wounded. I guess, wounded and KIA have the same impact on the battle, mostly they are JUST out of the fight and no longer combat effective, so really WIA and KIA could ALL be just bodies lieing on the ground to keep it simple. your thougts and suggestions? -tom w [ January 21, 2005, 07:48 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OK then! can we hold you to that? because that is the kind of suggestion that makes our collective expectations go WAY UP! Now my sig line is FULL and I don't want to change but this part: " 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 " Should really be in someone's sig line so we don't soon forget it! -tom w

more later -tom w

The hardcore fans are with you! (mostly ) If you would just let us pre-order we can prove it. Thanks for ALL the updates. -tom w

That's GREAT news!! Thanks for the update. -tom w

um do mean... "While we have to be careful NOT to make 100 different games in one box, we can make some of the more controversial (see below) things optional. " Just curious thanks for the mention on the Signature line, I always felt it truly was one of the most insightful things from all these threads and posts and I include it on ever post so everyone who reads my posts will know that I agree with what you said about "gamey" game play ( and reduceing it!) %100 -tom w

I wasn't quite that irrate but I know what you mean. as you say the issue is dead -tom w No, godammit. Can't you read? How many times do I have to type the words "units remain in control of the owning player unless they are fired on, in which case they go to ground and become MIA"? I also mentioned that if in a later turn they are no longer under fire and have suffered no casualties and their morale is intact, they recover from their MIA status and return to the control of the owning player. Now stop putting words in my mouth just so you can find something to gripe about. This is a dead horse anyway since Steve has said that BFC is approaching the problem from a different angle. Michael </font>

Gpig's sketches: So how do those look? (you should always START with sketches and story boards ) -tom w

"And real infantrymen did not have to call back to battalion to get the major's opinion on whether they should sneak up the trees on the right or the trees on the left...or whether they should perhaps move, advance, assault, or run. Those decisions are left to the NCO, and the NCO is - in my example - already there. " yes and most of us here (me anyway) would agree with that. the whole MIA idea is dead now, BUT was a suggestion that would leave BAILED-OUT crews without radio and OUT of friendly LOS, in an MIA state where the SOP and the TacAI would take care of them. If an infantry squad was SO far out of C&C and out of any friendly LOS (Preferably some form of HQ LOS but that is just being picky) then if the squad had no radio and no HQ AND if it started taking fire I was perfectly fine with the idea that it would go MIA and it would end up relying on its own TAC AI and SOP. BUT none of this matters because Steve says we are wasteing our time and energy on the whole MIA thing Oh well, I am quite confident Steve knows what he is talking about with regard to this issue because I know he has read all about all the bitching a complaining there was about the "gamey jeep recon" and bailed crew recon in CMxx and I suspect his solution will be even better in every way then the rather "blunt" instrument of the half baked "MIA state" (I say half baked only to disparage myself since the MIA thing started with me ) ok? -tom w So your idea is that all units not in C&C will be controlled by the AI? That's a bad idea because the AI just isn't good enough. SOPs ar a great idea, but they won't make the AI better in this instance because (assuming the SOP is to stay and fight), SOP's won't help with the tactical fight. And real infantrymen did not have to call back to battalion to get the major's opinion on whether they should sneak up the trees on the right or the trees on the left...or whether they should perhaps move, advance, assault, or run. Those decisions are left to the NCO, and the NCO is - in my example - already there. </font>

OK I agree with you logic I just don't have very high expectations around this one issue because it "sounded" like they made it out to be next to "impossible" to fix or "re-code" the last time the discussion came up.... " because the trajectory of small arms fire was not calculated by the program," I am not sure they really want to calculate AND trace in the game, the ACTUAL trajectory of EVERY round in the game, because I think that's what it would take. it would be great but my expectations are not high. I would be happy to be wrong -tom w Why? We already have a situation where friendly fire falling on ground occupied by friendly units is apt to cause casualties and disruption. So that's in. The only thing that needs adding is fire passing over ground occupied by friendly units. This couldn't be done in CMx1 because the trajectory of small arms fire was not calculated by the program, but if the code is being rewritten from scratch assuming greatly increased computational capacity, how hard would that be to include? Granted it would have to compete for CPU cycles with the other demands of the game, but this strikes me as a priority item. Michael </font>

yes very good it is the same sort of issue as the LOS through AFV issue Line of Fire through friendly units is something you don't have to think about or consider AT ALL in CMxx. oh well (I suspect that one and the LOS through AFV's might be hard if not impossible, to fix oh well) -tomw

Not to worry we are told in a bone in the original bone thread (now locked) that it is their plan and intention to give units some form of memory of events from a previous turn in the game (ONE single game) this regurgitated "bone" may be TOO specific but to answer your question they have stated they will hope to have a solution for the "lack of memory for units" problem you have stated. I think (correct me if I am wrong) they have that one covered and have told us they are working on it and it is on "the list" of planned or intended features. -tom w

OK RTS is Real Time Strategy. FPS is First Person shooter. thanks How about some new Bone information: Does anyone know if there has been any mention of shooting and getting LOS Straight through Vehicles and bunkers like in CMx1? In the past (CMxx) infantry units were not in any kind of cover behind a tank or bunker because you could shoot and target and get LOS right through it. (its true no need to question this) Same for AFV's behind other AFV's for instance a BIG tank (like a Tiger 1) could never cover a smaller tank by being up front because you could get LOS and target right through AFV's UNLESS they are burned out and smoking then the smoke was known to block the LOS. (BUT provide NO cover) Anyone know anything about this question in CMx2? -tom w

Doh! thanks , sorry I don't play the RTS style so, yes I totally forgot about the "Shooter" part. (focused here on the "simulation" part) -tom w Real Time Shooter sorry </font>

OK ok The MIA thing was not the solution they are working on or looking for. no problem. I know Steve is wise and correct when he says: "CMx2 is sooooooo different from CMx1 that even if I were to say "yes, CMx2 will have the player in a fixed command position and units out of C&C are out of control" there is no way you guys could envision how this would work without knowing dozens of other things. Doesn't mean you've got bad ideas, just that you are missing too much information to come up stuff." Steve I am sure he is correct, its sort of like that anology where these beings that live in a 2D world where all things are EITHER up or down or front or back that when they meet a sphere that tries to interface with them or meet them in their only world they know (2D) it looks like nothing more then a wierd circle that gets bigger then smaller as it tries to interface with their limits 2D world! BUT My hope is that if the MIA status idea is not something they are interested in,then there is some mechanism to avoid bailed crews from reporting spotting info to the player, when they are 500m from the nearest friendly unit, OUT of LOS and without a radio. If that gamey aspect of play as been dealt with then I don't really care what ingenious solution they have as long as units out of LOS of friendly units OUT of C&C command range and without a radio are NOT relaying spotting info to The PLAYER. But that is JUST my personal quest.... -tom w

Great news Steve THANKS! Many wargamers (even my old friends in their 40's now) still think it is NOT a wargame because the "hexes" are GONE! I could NOT tell them that the hexes were ARTIFICIAL in the first place and should NEVER be there, but they didn't get it. You could say the same about the 1 minute turn time, except we all know we don't want to turn this thing into a Real Time Simulation (RTS what does the S stand for?) so there must be a pause somewhere to issue orders, I think that is a fundamental FEATURE of the Magic of CMxx. Yes any turn length is "inherently unrealistic" but even though you say this we KNOW you don't mean it would be MORE realistic if there were no turns and the game evolved into a RTS military SIM? (right? ) "One should instead be thinking about how to make turn length irrelevant, not more relevant, in terms of impacting realism." Would the RTS (no turns) make the turn length more or less relevant? Since we know the game will NOT be RTS I guess this question is not worth asking.... So carry on... sorry for the addition of more "noise" to this thread. -tom w [ January 20, 2005, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I am not sure if the is the right place to ask this given the 1:1 representation theme/title here... BUT Does anyone know if there has been any mention of shooting and getting LOS Straight through Vehicles and bunkers like in CMx1? In the past (CMxx) infantry units could get NO cover or anything behind a tank because you could shoot and target and get LOS right through it. (its true no need to question this) Same for AFV's for instance a BIG tank could never cover a smaller tank by being up front because you could get LOS and target right through AFV's UNLESS they are burned out and smoking then the smoke was known to block the LOS. (BUT provide NO cover) Anyone know anything about this question in CMx2? -tom w

OK ok you got me -tom w Now why would that be ... And why did you post "me" instead of "be"? mmm... </font>

My guess would be that eleminating turns all together is not on the table and will never be an option. BUT that is just my guess. Turn Length could be a set-up setting JUST like Fog of War (Standard, NONE or EFOW) or a set-up setting like setting the time for turn time to complete the turn in TCP/IP like 5 mins, or for quick play 1 min. In the game both players would haggle back and forth and agree to these settings. The variable turn length would NOT be optional for both players it would be a GAME setting Like this Game type = TCP/IP TCP/IP timer setting = 5 min (for the player to make all the moves) FOW= EFOW Turn Length = Pick one: 30 sec, 1 min 2 min or 3 min BOTH players start the game with that setting and it is SET for the entire game like EFOW and it cannot be changed in the middle. These longer turn times (2min - 3 mins) might be appreciated by PBEM players because it would mean MORE action and fewer e-mails swapping back and forth. Shorter 30 sec time limits might be good for newer players, playing FAST against the AI for practice or for a QUICKY against a human playing via TCP/IP. With the possibility that some SOP's will be available in the new engine I would like to think it might be fun to let the game run for 2-3 mins and watch and see (BIG leap faith in the TacAI and SOP's AND the new engine there!) and then trust what happens, rather than intervene every darn minute to reissue new orders. I guess I think I might like to sit back and watch for a longer period in between orders, mostly just to be entertained. Remember this is the guy that set up the ONLY AI vs AI battle in CMBO I have ever heard about. By setting up two laptops face to face via tci/ip and setting the time at 1 min and issueing 30 mins worth of orders to each side on turn 1 (playing my self) I managed to hit GO on both sides and sit back and watch the game for the next 60 minutes. IT would automatically start the next crunch exactly one min after it showed the movie. We were all 5-6 of us playing a board game at the time and we would check in every now an then inbetween board game turns to see how each side's AI units where doing against each other. I only ever did it once but it was entertaining to watch. (sort of) I would like to lobby most vociferously for some expanded options with regard to turn time ( I figure options are always good for ALL players as long as the changes are optional ) -tom w [ January 20, 2005, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Some folks here have indicated the new CMx2 bones are hard to locate sometimes because maybe there is so much other "noise" in the 300 posts + threads that the good new bones are hard to find. Since I may be one of the ones responsible for some of that "noise" (degrading the signal to noise ratio) I hope no minds if I post Steve's lastest bone here: Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 20, 2005 12:57 AM Since real life isn't done in turns, ANY turn length is inherently unrealistic. Therefore, arguing about this or that turn length being more or less realistic is missing the point. One should instead be thinking about how to make turn length irrelevant, not more relevant, in terms of impacting realism. Variable turn length is possible in CMx2 because we aren't using assumptions of 1 min turns as CMx1 did. That being said, it is unclear to us if we will allow the user to adjust turns length. There are a lot of issues surrounding such a feature that we simply don't have answers to at this point. One way to make turn length rather irrelevant is to put more restrictions on plan changing. If you issue an order that can't be changed for 5 minutes, what difference does it make if the turns are 1 minute, 30 seconds, or 2 minutes? In that instance that unit is locked down for several turns no matter what. Now... is this realistic or good from a game standpoint? Depends on how it is done. And that is always the tough part SOPs, more realistic fire control, better simulation of C&C, more detailed objectives, etc. are all helpful in reducing the dependency on turn length for realism. Steve I have been watching pretty closely (I think) and this is the FIRST indication that we may see Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's) as a feature in the new engine. For me this is every bit as big as Relative Spotting being introduced eliminating the total lack of realism of Absolute Spotting and the Borg Collective Conscious in the spotting and reporting paradigm! The introduction and implementation of SOP's into the CMx2 engine should welcomed my most here as a HUGE step forward in MORE fun and we all hope MORE realism. -tom w [ January 20, 2005, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OK! I will be watching EVERYDAY for that announcement! The MIA status thing was just one "hairbrain" scheme to deal with (mostly) bailded crews that find them selves OUT of LOS and Out of any meaningful C&C radius. From the sounds of Steve's post they already know where they are going and exactly how they are going to deal with the gamey jeep recon trick and bailed crews. My guess is there is a solution to this and with our limited thinking (with only experience from CMx1 ) we cannot see all the other new things and features in CMx2 that will help deal with this "gamey" aspect of pre-CMx2 play. My hope is that if the MIA status idea is not something they are interested in there is some way to avoid bailed crews from reporting spotting info to the player, when they are 500m from the nearest friendly unit, OUT of LOS and without a radio. If that gamey aspect of play as been dealt with then I don't really care what ingenious solution they have as long as units out of LOS of friendly units OUT of C&C command range and without a radio are NOT relaying spotting info to The PLAYER. But that is JUST my personal quest.... -tom w

HEY! WOW! Is this the first official suggestion that the Holy Grail of FUN and Programing (the ever popular SOP option ) will be available in CMx2??? -tom w

That is exactly what I was thinking.... "some of us are trying to do is to find a reasonable and playable way to represent those roles in a tangible way in the game. In other words, to give company and battalion HQs some function besides spare platoon HQs" To be honest that is what I figured their role always was in CMxx... Company and Battalion HQ's really ONLY serve as BACK-up HQ's to bolster morale (and little else) and step up when a platoon HQ gets wacked. What other meaningful role do they play? -tom w

I hope the movies try to show this, but that the actual squad level AI does not try to calc this. I was under the impression that the squad will still be the low-level unit, but visually represent each man 1:1.</font>