aka_tom_w

Hi Jaws Some of us here might not be as video game savy as your self and I be very interested in hearing MORE about what is specifically so unquie or wonderful about Steel Beast Pro? I assume it is a windows only game and I don't know anything about it? can you tell us more about your experience playing this game: and more about this: "In Steel Beast Pro it is possible to delegate individual vehicles to even a complete company to a human or AI in a multiplayer game. It is even possible to switch platoons between company’s." I am guessing it is an RTS game? thanks I look forward to your reply -tom w

Yes thanks I meant Video RAM and your guess of 128 megs might be more middle of the road than my lower 64 meg Minimum Standard perhaps? as for over all RAM yes I agree I would not be surprised to see it as high as 1 Gig. (I think you meant 1 gig yes?) thanks -tom w You mean on the graphics card? If so, my guess would be 128 as middle of the road. As for main RAM on the machine, I'm guessing 1 mb is going to be the standard soon, if it's not already. </font>

that is a very good question I have been wondering about that my self I am guessing that maybe about 1.5 gHz or great processor speed should do it. The REAL question is what is the Minimum RAM requirement? My guess would be 64 megs? good question thanks -tom w Steve, can you share what the target PC type system is you have in mind for tthe first release is please? Even though it's still aprox. a year off I'm just wondering what you're projecting as the average machine. 3.00 ghz processor 1 gb RAM kind of thing with a pretty advanced graphics card? tia </font>

Hi Kip If the design choice has to be made for Single player vs multi multi-player and it is a black and white either or choice I am afraid my vote would be for single player with all its limitations based on the single hard wired FACT that one player MUST play all roles. I must show my own prejudice here as I would like to speak for most Mac users with new computers running OS X. NONE of us are player CMxx games anymore on the computers we use EVERYday. Playing CMBB or CMAK for fun on an OLD OS 9 Mac does not cut it for me and I am not interested in only playing CMx2 when I can join a group and play in huge multi-multi-player scenario or campaign. BUT am of course lobbying for the OPTION to join multi multi-player play when time permits. We Mac users are just dieing to get a NEW game (a NEW GREAT BFC game like Cmx2!) to play on the latest hardware with the latest graphics that will be an experience akin the FUN and excitement of playing CMBO for the first time! I am REALLY hopeing CMx2 will be available on the MAC (OS X) and it will let me, first and foremost, play strictly vs the AI (for warm up) and it will let me play head to head against at least one other human player. Team play would be GREAT but I am sorry, its not a show stopper for this Mac user. BUT I totally agree the multi-player team play is ONE good way to reduce the Borg problem. -tom w

that sounds good I think that Steve is saying we need to reduce our expectations about what game designers can feasibly do/design/develop around a single player assuming the role of all commanders.... I have read and re-read this section of the treatise (above) a few times now and thats what it sounds like to me.... We should not waste time trying to discussion solutions for the fact that one player MUST play all the roles in this wargame simulation: "The possibilities open to us are mandatory multi-multi player or mandatory control of most forces by AI players or a combo of both. In all cases a single player would have a restricted role in the game. Additional players and extensive AI are both impractical (especially the latter), which means even if a player agreed to play in a highly restricted capacity there would still be significant problems for the sim (i.e. a shortage of players means no game, less than near Human competent AI means frustration). However, few players want that type of restricted environment in the first place so it makes the rest rather moot. And so there we have it. The level and scope of CM's combat environment requires many commanders in order to be more realistic than it is right now. But players by and large don't want this. Therefore, players are going to have to accept that they are getting what they asked for, limitations and all. The only thing we, the designers and developers, can do is attempt to minimize the negatives of having a single player in command. And that means approaching designs that recognize the limitations of what can be achieved so as to not get into a situation of spending time on ideas that offer diminishing returns on development resources." Note the suggestion in the LAST sentence we do not want to "get into a situation of spending time on ideas that offer diminishing returns on development resources." so.... where does that leave us? :confused: -tom w

OK, I get it. Thanks for the clarification -tom w

I must completely agree with Kip when he suggests Multi-multi-player (mulitple players commanding each sides forces) would be one good way to reduce Borg Like spotting effects and make the game feel more realistic. I suspect this feature is widely viewed as a good and desireable concept by many players here. BUT here is the question.... Can the good folks at BFC design CMx2 to work well BOTH for single player head to head action AND multi-multi player?? This quote suggests to us that Steve sees it as an either/or situation.... "The possibilities open to us are mandatory multi-multi player or mandatory control of most forces by AI players or a combo of both. In all cases a single player would have a restricted role in the game. Additional players and extensive AI are both impractical (especially the latter), which means even if a player agreed to play in a highly restricted capacity there would still be significant problems for the sim (i.e. a shortage of players means no game, less than near Human competent AI means frustration). However, few players want that type of restricted environment in the first place so it makes the rest rather moot." Steve's philosophical treatise above was very interesting and after having only read it once I am not sure the game can be wisely designed or developed to "swing" both ways (GOOD at single player vs single player AND multi-multi-player battles. I know we are a terribly demanding bunch BUT according to Steve's Philosophical treatise above I think that dual capability is a heck of a lot to ask. "And so there we have it. The level and scope of CM's combat environment requires many commanders in order to be more realistic than it is right now. But players by and large don't want this." I think you might accurately conclude that players by and large want this option (mulit-multi player battles). How and when we all find time to play is our problem BUT you KNOW we (the faithful) will ALL buy the game anyway even if we only find time to play it in all its true multi-multi player GLORY only occasionally! Thanks for the post, the new thread and ALL of the clarifications Steve! (I could NOT believe my eyes when I woke up this morning, NOW look ! I am late for work Again!) -tom w [ January 17, 2005, 06:07 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

EXCELLENT !!! Bring on the Paradigm Shift! the game needs it!!! GREAT NEWS! "CMx2 will have a ton more uncertainty due to a greatly reduced Borg problem, even if the God perspective remains an issue. But we have ideas on how to reduce the God's Eye influence too, though not to the point of removing player control (see earlier comments)." Can anyone else here refer me or direct me to the "earlier comments" Steve is refering to? I like to think I have been following these converstations and discussions fairly closely but I am pretty sure I don't recall reading anything from Steve about reduceing the "God's Eye influence" in the new engine in any way? (or I am just to THICK to see the hints? thanks -tom w

I agree with this philosophy, but I would not mind a game system that stops me from making a unit do something spectacularly unrealistic. My ideal C&C/spotting system would involve: </font> The player can see all his own units and everything that any of his units can see at all times.</font>The situational awareness of an individual unit is simulated individually. ie. For a unit to be aware of an enemy, it has to see it or hear it itself, or get some sort of simulated delayed action "report" from another unit.</font>The player can not *always* control his entire force without any penalty, but there should be some system to account for where an order is coming from, ie. different command levels.</font>It seems to me that the current squad-based command delay system is upside down. A squad NCO can react the fastest of any of the chain of command to changing situations, and yet in CM the squad gets command delay as if every single move it made was based on an order from an officer. I would like to see the squad able to act as an independant entity, but still be prevented from making unrealistic grand tactical moves without input from an officer. In the current CM officers above platoon level are basically just decoration. </font>

I think this idea still has some merit and should be off interest here: From the last big spotting thread here "If there is a unit, perhaps pinned AND beyond C&C or shocked.. and you want to give him a movement order so you can see how long it will take (and then master mind a coordinated assault with other units). Firstly, there are no movement orders in his menu! You are restricted to firing and hiding and withdrawing. This "soft failure" isnt a total loss of control but a shade of loss. Half squad out of C&C and out of its platoon HQ visual LOS. You give a sneak order and want to see how long it will take. Sneak is an option and you select it and draw a line. A ? shows up in the delay time. You dont know how long it will take. He is also, by the way, taken some fire the previous turn and may be under strength. Since he is out of C&C and LOS, those losses are not reported to you. The info pool is shrinking again. The attacker is slowly losing his borgiosity. A defender has a cutoff a HMG. He is out of C&C and LOS of ALL friendly units. The player wants him to target a particularly bothersome enemy squad that he fears (its a russian guards PPSH equipped unit that is getting too close). The player opens the HMG menu and selects a fire command. He draws a line but a covered arc appears instead! He can not guarantee that the HMG will select the bothersome squad because other enemy units also occupy the covered arc. Damn, he says and decides to withdraw and makes a note to keep HQs near HMGs in the future. " I really like the idea of varying levels of "soft failure" and changing the available options in the orders menu seems like a GREAT way to manage this in the interface. I think there are a few things we can count on in the new game engine, individual units will have "unit memory" of what has happened in the game, AND individual units will (if Relative Spotting works the way they have hinted at) will do their own individual and automous spotting checks, AND that should mean a unit should only be able to target a unit it has autonomously spotted. With individual memory for each unit and individual spotting for each unit and a few other tweaks and enhancements I think we should realistically expect the Borg Spotting problem to be drastically reduced. NOW the real trick is HOW will they do it and what will the interface and orders menus look like??? -tom w

Are you refering to contour lines like on a standard topographic map? If so I think some of us have been asking for that elevation line feature/overlay on the map since CMBO I would think that would be a welcome feature if it was an optional overlay on the map that the player could toggle on and off! Good Suggestion -tom w

This one post by Steve pretty much outlines their design goal (I think). it is almost 3 (!) years old but I am guessing from Steve's hints that they are still heading in this direction: Steve Says" Big Time Software unregistered posted April 27, 2002 12:53 AM Tom, quote: (tom says:) ...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? Steve says: 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: (tom says:) 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. end quote Steve says: 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 Please notice the date: that was from April 27 2002 AND still there is a reference to the "new engine" here... "The engine rewrite will be even more towards the REALISM side of the equation by reducing the effectiveness of the Borg aspect." I think that according to that old post NO ONE should worry about the direction that Relative Spotting is going in (except for Jim C and myself of course !) he he -tom w [ January 16, 2005, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hi Kip I sure would not want to be known as the guy that is advocating "breaking the magic" of CM REALLY BUT there really ought to be some workable solution to the "problem" a balied isolated vehicle crew (any bailed or isolated crew or unit without a radio will do) presents when it is 500m away from he nearest friendly unit and can spot and relay all that "gamey" info and intel to the player who can respond to this information ALL his other friendly units could NOT ever possibly know about, other than through the BORG like flow of spotting intel, telepathically between all disconnected friendly units. For the record, I do NOT want to break the Magic of CM . Honest! I just want it to work a little more realistically with regard to Relative spotting. Steve has already said the goal is to have each unit do it OWN spotting check individually, (Relative as opposed to Absolute (in CMxx) spotting) the trick will be to see how this works into the interface of the game and how it will impact what AND when the player knows about the enemy on the battlefield... -tom w [ January 16, 2005, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hi Jim One possible answer to this question is that they are JUST tracking numbers and stats (text files and a really large in-game memory database for the most part) and that should not take up too much RAM game memory. The game is a year away and perhaps they are counting on players having hardware that (I am GUESSING) by that time is not more than (maybe) 1-2 years old... (maybe three years old in Jan 2006?) Have they commented on the minimum computer hardware requirements at any time? (not that I know of) :confused: (JUST guessing) 1 : 1 representation should not be too hard (otherwise I am guessing they would NOT be doing it) with any somewhat current computer hardware. But I too am curious if there would be an upper limit on the number men and units the in-game database can (will, is planned to...) accomondate??? GOOD Question! -tom w

Hi Steve thanks for all the posts and news updates.. "In a way minimizing the Borg (as I said, there is no way to eliminate it) means less control over units." The rest of you who fear a "command game" should not worry... the game ALREADY takes away player control over units when they break or route, this normal and healthy and part of the game and I have not heard other players complaining that it has been modelled incorrectly so far. (with the possible exception of Redwolf IIRC ) "Mostly because there are other game elements that require more realistic Command & Control treatment. " This is ALSO very welcome news. For me it suggests the possibility that orders down the chain of command will be delayed and spotting info UP the chain of command could be incorrect, misjudged or delayed. Many other players might not like this and I am not sure if it would really be fun but the game should model the Fog of War in the BEST and most plausible realistic way. Given that we are talking about (I am guessing here) a WW II era game there should be lots of confusion and a massive level of SNAFU on the ground. I am wondering out loud if the game should play (if you will grant me this poor analogy) a little like trying to hit a mosquito with a sledge hammer, meaning that command should be (in the appropriate circumstances) somewhat "unwieldy". I am sure this is "do-able" because that "feel" came across VERY well in CMBB if you have ever had to play green or conscript Russian units. Remember CMBB was only their second release after ground breaking CMBO, so I am very confident they do know how to make the game and the game play somewhat unwieldy so the player may feel on the "edge" or verge of total dicatorial (micromangement style) control. AND for me that should mean taking away MORE player control and degrading AND removing MORE spotting info the player receives. NOW of course the REAL trick here is to get the ballance JUST right to make the game fun. So the question is "Who thought is was "FUN" to play green and conscript Russian troops against veteran German units?" ( Now I personally did not think that was much "fun" but the game was VERY WELL done, and enthusiastically received by fans of the Eastern Front and was VERY favourably reviewed! BUT just because I didn't find playing Russian units FUN doesn't mean I think BFC didn't do a GREAT JOB with CMBB, NO in fact the improvements from CMBO to CMBB were quite dramatic and made the game play MORE realistic IMHO. I am SURE CMx2 will also include equally spectacular and dramatic impovements over CMBB and CMAK. -tom w [ January 16, 2005, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

These are all interesting idea's and deserve a bump to keep them in the forefront of our collective (game design) consciousness.... -tom w

THANKS Steve!!! The bones are going over VERY well! I am now comletely hooked and addicted to the info leaking out of this thread!!! aaaahh! To be honest I the whole "campaign thing" is a non issue for me and my Lowest priority, BUT I can see it is very important to lots of other folks here so I am glad there have been a few bones to keep everyone else on the edge of their seat and (mostly) happy! BUT for me this the BEST bone yet: "Beating the Spotting Borg into the ground is still a primary design goal. I'd say on a feature by feature basis it is still #1 priority. " Now Steve did not exactly say HOW they are going to make this ACTUALLY work in the game but the fact that it is their "#1 priority" thrills me in a way no other bone of tidbit of info every could, unless they could spill the beans on exactly how the new "Anti Borg Spotting System" will be fully implemented in the new game that we won't get to play now for about another year! ahhhhhh! (A year !! I can't wait 12 months!) TWELVE more months of hints and bones like this and I will probably need to be sedated and/or institutionalized way before Jan 2006! oh the agony ahhhhhh! can't hold out much longer... -tom w [ January 16, 2005, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hi Jim to follow up more specifically.... " HQ losses will be automatically replaced, but with delays, so that a chain of command always exists." This makes sense, it would have to be that way. I think (IMHO) the real trick to making this new Relative Spotting Paradigm work in both a realistic sense and FUN game playing sense (there MUST be a blend here) would be to degrade info BOTH ways UP and down the chain of command. I would hope there are will ALWAYS be command delays in orders given to units. As it stands now the player can lose control of units that break, and desert, that is a VERY positive precedent because it means that there are and will ALWAYS be (we hope) times when the game WILL and should take away control from the player. (spotting info for these broken units should ALSO be significantly degraded). BUT also (equally important) is that the game must take away information flowing up the chain of command (spotting information) from the player when the aformentioned bailed out tank crew is 500m from the nearest friendly unit without a radio. (!) If in CMx2 that unit can still let the player know about ALL the enemy units it can still see and report, then the whole "Gamey Jeep Recon Thing" is back in the game! (with avengence) Command delays to units out of C&C is something they have worked on and they did real good job simulating the Russian command structure and war effort on the Eastern Front (no radios' no rifle for every soldier, no commander in the tanks, e.i. only a four person tank crew) so they can do that kind of thing. I am also hoping that Relative Spotting will delay or significantly degrade the info the player receives from units WAY out of C&C. I would like to see the player receive WRONG spotting info. OR Wrong spotting info any where from 2-5 minutes delayed in the game. Spotting info that the player receives could be degraded in a mirriad of creative ways so that isolated units would be wrong and or delayed in what useful spotting info they could pass on to the Player. If they can implement a command delay for sending orders for the player down the chain of command to the unit, then I hope a "spotting delay" (somewhat akin to the Death clock innovation in CMBB where the shooter did not know if the tank being shot at was KO'd or not) so that the player would then (somehow AND yes this is the TRICKY part) not see or know EVERYTHING his units on the ground might know, see or encounter. This might lead to tricky issues where by your isolated (?) units might somehow get whacked and disappear of the map and you the player would never have any idea what happened to them. But I guess we will have to wait and see how they tackle this in CMx2 -tom w [ January 16, 2005, 06:23 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hi Jim I understand that the Standard response to that is "What if the battalion commander HQ unit was destroyed by a lucky Arty hit"? I like your thinking and for the most part I agree but I am pretty sure MOST folks who play the game would be somewhere between profoundly dissappointed to downright IRATE that a broken radio would lead to the complete LOSS of contol of an entire company. What of vehicles or units that never historically had radios? What of snipers operating in recon roles? (gamey? perhaps I understand and totally appreciate your position and suggestion but my guess is Steve will not ever design a game system that will remove from the player's control an entire company's worth of units because somehow the game simulated that the radio failed. What if ALL company HQ's where destroyed by arty stikes or HE? -tom w

the CMx2 forum is showing signs of activity as recently as today! look at the latest post date: Title Battlefront.com Skunkworks Secret stuff discussed by secret people.... Posts: 284 Date and time of Latest Post: January 15, 2005 02:33 PM My guess is they are laughing at us and complaining amongst them selves about all the crazy idea's in this thread from all the "arm chair video game designers" here. he he -tom w

you can count on this We WON'T be playing some text based "ZORK" version of a Command Game he he he Steve also said this: (from the last thread I posted) "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? Steve End Quote

I am relieved to learn I am not the only player (arm chair video game designer ) here who can see this "problem". The Bailed out tank crew wounded, dazed, shocked and low on ammo, WITHOUT radio, and more than a few hundred meters from the nearest friendly unit, represents a REAL design challenge if this "command game issue" means that the player should know and see EVERYTHING that units sees so that other units that are under the player's command can somehow respond to an enemy threat identified by the balied crew and reported instantaneoulsy to the player. (Ieading to the ever popular Borg Swarming Response Syndrome ) Kip's suggestion is that this problem may be reduced by a multi player scenarios/play. While this might be true to a limited degree I prefer the option of a head to head game with one player OR a one on one game against the AI (mostly due to time constraits based on domestic and family obligations). I like to practice against the AI (for fun) but for a real challenge of my tactical skill I would prefer a head to head TCP/IP match. I am TRULY looking forward to learning what new improvements we will see with regard to exactly how the NEW improved spotting paradigm works. I think we know ONE thing for sure, Steve WON'T design or deliver a command game of any kind. Note the DATE: BEGIN QUOTE: "Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 11:13 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 " END QUOTE the FULL discussion and thread are available here full OLD spotting thread discussion. -tom w [ January 15, 2005, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Good Point From within the game the player should be able to move the camera or the viewpoint to anywhere on the 3D battlefield as the action unfolds so that FULL MOVIE play back would be quite different from something that might be exported (from one camera point of view) for promotional purposes. (a VERY good idea indeed). the question would be how is it currently done in other games? I don't know enough about how full movie replay works in other first person shooter games. There have been a few noteable atempts to capture CMBO game video, but all atempts that I am familiar with were with programs like SnapzPro or some other external video capture program. thanks -tom w

Thanks for the PS I was curious as to what you were proposing If I understand your position correctly you have NO problem with the "Borg Swarming Response problem" whereby (as the player can SEE everything) when one unit reports to the player the location and compostion of an enemy threat the PLAYER can command ALL units even those ALL the way across the map that could NOT know about the threat, to proceed to engage the threat, because the player see's all know's all and commands all. (I find the Borg Swarming response somewhat unrealistic in the context of a typical WWII engagement (especially with reagard to the challenges on the Eastern Front). (AND yes I know we have NO idea which front of conflict or period or war they will simulate this time around, but I am still hoping for WWII). I am guessing that maybe this problem is not really a 'problem' for most people here and it is perhaps unrealistic to expect it my be solved or addressed in CMx2? your thoughts? -tom w [ January 16, 2005, 06:15 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hi Kip! Hey I am not worried EVERY time Steve every talks about this issue he ALWAYS say CMx2 will NEVER be a "Command Game" so that issue or possibility does not concern me. -tom w