aka_tom_w

Is there ANY chance that his one comment was EXACTLY ALL that needed to be said in this entire Thread???? " It's a bit like this: -"These guys made the most accurate historical simulation every, there is nothing out there" -"Yeah, but their third game really is missing some LMGs, FOs, and stuff." -"No way!" -"Way! And... and... and they promised that it all would be there. Everything. All that I ever wanted! Yes they did! Now it isn't." -"Oh boy, that really bothers me!" -"Yeah, me too. I really should be in closer proximity to the design team myself, then things like these wouldn't happen!"" I have read the entire thread and the signal to noise ratio hear is VERY high. i.e. WAY too much noise and some good info (signal) from BFC. just in case you missed it: " It's a bit like this: -"These guys made the most accurate historical simulation every, there is nothing out there" -"Yeah, but their third game really is missing some LMGs, FOs, and stuff." -"No way!" -"Way! And... and... and they promised that it all would be there. Everything. All that I ever wanted! Yes they did! Now it isn't." -"Oh boy, that really bothers me!" -"Yeah, me too. I really should be in closer proximity to the design team myself, then things like these wouldn't happen!"" this is really all you need to know about this entire thread (this note if for "quick" readers who start at the last post and the last page to see what is "new" in the thread "We're DONE here!" -tom w

Nice work I REALLY like the idea of the binocular view NOW the real question is how to intergrate it into the user interface and the playability of the game without "breaking" the game, "the FUN ™", or the user interface, which everyone is now VERY familiar with. BUT the idea of a "zoom" view with Binoculars is a GREAT idea. (the trick is how to make it work seemlessly and well in the game). -tom w

THANKS for the rant! That was Perfect! I particularily liked this part: "Battlefront would prefer to re-invent the graphic engine wheel by spending years making their own instead of adopting one of the dozens that are out there and even that won't be used to update the present Combat Mission series. Meaning: the Combat Mission series for Mac is dead - blah, blah, blah." I'm still chuckling about it. -tom w

from that old Thread: aka_tom_w Member Member # 1515 posted April 20, 2002 11:00 AM OK I see two places where there could be MORE delay. I would prefer to focus on the way the game (and your friendly units) transmits info and recon intel BACK to the player. If the Delays were long and the ability to get reliable intel from your units on the map (especially those OUT of C&C) was substantially degraded by increased FOW (and maybe the player has to see opposing units only from view one, but I highly doubt that will be a very popular proposal) THEN there would not have be the additional command delay to order units to move across the map. Two things should be considered here recon intel Moves UP the chain of command to the player (how this happens and how it is modeled and abstracted should be considered and re-considered in the new game they are developing) and... unit and movement, attack/defend orders move DOWN the chain of command from the Player I do not believe we should compromise the ability of the player (by added command delays for units IN C&C to encourage wise use of HQ units) to issue orders to units in a severely punitive way, by excessive command delays. (its good enough now, PLAY Green troops and try to make them do ANYTHING when they are out of C&C and see how far you get?) NO.. I would rather focus the effort on how the info goes more slowly up the chain of command to the Player. This means increasing FOW and decreasing what the player can know with any certianty about the opposing units strength or composition. It also seems to mean trusting the Tac AI a little more I think. -tom w (OLD post from 2.5 yrs ago pre CMBB and Pre CMAK)

"The only thing this should limit a player from doing is reacting with total coordination to a localized threat. When the threat is reported up the chain of command, then the player can react with total coordination. " I like this idea alot in fact I think it has been discussed here in the last BIG thread I refered to for me the trick is how to effectively and "correctly" model "When the threat is reported up the chain of command, then the player can react with total coordination." how to the developers do that (exactly) in the game.... modeling the relaying info about a threat up the chain of command (so it coudl or would impact how the PLAYER could issue NEW orders to other units presumably) in the game as some form of abstraction or command delay could be VERY hard to do.... (it might also be extremely unpopular amongst most players but that is a whole other issue!) interesting concept though! thanks -tom w

"The command zone concept means that a squad or tank can still move on any turn with no delay, but only in the immediate area it has been ordered to be in by a HQ. So to reroute all your forces requires the HQ to be notified of enemy contact." And in this suggestion if the HQ gets knocked out you cannot reroute or issue any other orders to its subbordinate units? is that correct? -tom w

OK but do you need a full chain of command?? As steve says what happens when the Battalion HQ gets knocked out by a lucky hit (ALL KIA) what happens if the platoon HQ gets killed? I suport your vision and we all want a simliar more realistic system But we really have NO idea what BFC is up to at this point since they are not talking much about this aspect of the new GAME except to say they are working on it and it will be BETTER. (we all HOPE!) and so we wait.. and wait and wait for a release if we are lucky sometime around this time (or later) next year -tom w Id like to dredge up some of aka_tom_w's stuff from the depths. I have tried to incorporate all this into a command system. I think all these factors must be taken into account in a true C&C simulation. 1) This is easy. Individual per-unit calculation for spotting. I think the game map should remain "all-seeing" for the player, displaying the "most-spotted" version of every enemy contact. I see maybe a little icon appearing above the head of a unit that has spotted something new during the turn. When the player clicks on him, the LOS and units spotted by this unit are displayed. Enemy sightings a unit has been "told" about could also be marked for HQ units. 2,3&4) As I have said before, the communication options could be very simply abstracted. LOS, radios, field telephones, and distance between units translates into: A time delay for orders to be acted upon by a unit. Orders must come from a particular HQ eg. click on HQ, assign orders to platoons. A time delay for reports of enemy contact to be recieved and marked on the HQ's maps, also quality of the reports could play a factor. Like now, incorrect ID's could be made by bad reports. Clicking on a HQ could bring up the LOS of that unit, but also plots the units on the map that it has been "told" about with a ?tank? or ?infantry? marker. </font>

I would like to try to Quote this again I think this one post is specifically relevant to what we are working on here... Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 11:27 PM U8lead asked: quote: Do units in C&C spot and ID better then the same units out of C&C in the current game? And if so, do any of the HQ bonuses (possibly combat bonus) apply to spotting and ID? If units out of C&C had a substantialy reduced positive ID range would that help Borg ID? END QUOTE Steve Replies: No, no, and no Steve Says: Why should a unit out of C&C be able to see less far? How is that more realistic? And if it can't see out as far, but in real life should, how does that affect the realistic ability of that individual unit to respond to the oncoming threat? Should a Tiger Tank with a Crack crew sit around NOT spotting an ISU-152 which it should plainly see, just because it doesn't have radio contact with BN HQ? I think not I also think we would have people screaming at us until we "fixed it or did somefink" This is one of the fundamental problems I have seen in discussions like this. And that is thinking that unrealistically penalizing an individual unit somehow makes the game more realistic. At best it is a wash. At worst, it makes the game on the whole less realistic. For example, not allowing a unit out of C&C to do anything until it is in C&C is totally unrealistic. Such a system simply swaps in one Borg behavior for another. It doesn't make the game any more realistic, but instead hobbles real life flexibility to the point of making the game unplayable and a joke of a simulation. Don't believe me? Try this one out... Let us assume that units have to be in C&C with their higher HQs to pass on information and receive orders. OK, can anybody tell me what would happen, under this system, if the BN HQ unit got whacked on the first turn by a lucky artillery bombardment? Would the player just sit there staring at a screen totally lacking friendly and enemy units? Or would all the friendly units show up but the player couldn't do anything or yield any information about themselves or what they see? The above situation illustrates why removing realistic tactical control is not the right direction to go towards. Because if you follow it to its logical conclusion (i.e. the ultimate realistic state), this is what you wind up with. Honestly folks, your feedback is appreciated. But I for one am very glad some of you are gamers and not game designers Steve

Originally posted by Hoolaman: but in that proposal when does the player know about the presense of the halftrack? because the player orders all the units he wants in the direction of the threat as soon as the player is aware of the threat. that is the issue.... (is it not) -tom w

GREAT Post! "The other solution is to prevent the player from performing actions that are only performed because of information that the player has, but his particular units don’t. In this case, it would mean preventing the Sherman from being given orders to go after the halftrack that it doesn’t know is there, or perhaps implementing a big enough command delay that it would make it next to impossible to execute such an order in a timely fashion. How you distinguish between the player sending his Sherman after the halftrack and sending his Sherman to the same location because that’s where he wants it regardless of the halftrack is beyond me." this part is of specific interest to me: "How you distinguish between the player sending his Sherman after the halftrack and sending his Sherman to the same location because that’s where he wants it regardless of the halftrack is beyond me." can someone tell me the answer to that?? what if you wanted your units to go in the direction of the enemy units IRRESPECTIVE of whether or not you as the player/commander know (OR COULD know OR COULD NOT know) of the presense of the enemy units in that location? Why should there be a penalty (command dely or otherwise) JUST because you wanted to send some units ALL the way across the map on a whim or a hunch???? that is a HUGE issue IMHO your comments??? -tom w [ October 29, 2004, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hi Jim its good to see you are still around too I am not playing any CMxx games now because %100 of my computer time is one Mac OS X and I no longer have a dual boot laptop BUT the other half of this great game and company is this forum and it still works GREAT in Safari on Mac OS X. SO since this Borg thing and Relative Spotting issue and this thread came along with all those suggestions about C&C and delays and the borg response swarnm I could NOT help but post about how this VERY issue was discussed to death 2.5 years ago BEFORE CMBB was released I am VERY keen to see what they can offer us in CMX2 as they claim it will run on Mac OS X so then I will have a new and fresh Fix of CMX CRACK! good to hear from you... -tom w

thanks for reading and posting MOSTLY I was just trying to draw attention to the previous dicussion around these issues in that long and OLD thread and yes it was ALL pre-CMBB -tom w

and this one... Pinned unit beyond C&C. 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 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. That Sounds GREAT! I think the focus on C&C is completely relevant here. I truly don't believe that we can really solve some of the problems of lack of Realism that Absolute Spotting creates if we don't SERIOUSLY look at C&C and who commands who and who communicates with who and who KNOWS what and how did they find out, (i.e. did the Player tell them to LOOK for it? OR did they Spot the threat themselves???) Pinned units out of C&C should be next to useless to the Player. These are ALL great ideas that will take SOME control away from the Player when the unit is out of C&C: "Pinned unit beyond C&C. 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." Who is in C&C and who is NOT should be REALLY important in the implimentation of Simulated Relative Spotting in order to add more REALISM to the game. -tom w

perhaps this will help to add some context aka_tom_w Member Member # 1515 posted April 26, 2002 01:43 PM quote: Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: quote: Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Mushkin: The hypothetical example is only showing that the PLAYER cannot target specific enemy units (But he is giving a general direction). The TACAI could. Its a subtle point but has to be understood Oh, I understand completely. What you must understand is that currently in CM the player assumes the role of the MG gunner when he gives the order to fire, so there is no logical reason why he should not be able to specify an exact target unless you are going to say that the player is the platoon LT, not the sergeant or corporal leading the squad, manning the MG. This is what people mean when they talk about making CM a "command level" game: the player gives general orders to his units and lets the TacAI carry them out. This is a different type of game than CM, and one I would not like as much for reasons I and others have explained. If the player is the MG gunner, the Squad Leader, the Jeep driver, the Tank TC, the Arty Spotter, the Company CO AND the Platoon HQ, then the player is the CAUSE of the Borg Like Absolute spotting problem because the player knows ALL, sees ALL, and Commands All. "This is what people mean when they talk about making CM a "command level" game: the player gives general orders to his units and lets the TacAI carry them out." BUT then why are there command delays in CMBO? WHY do we really want to try to keep our squads within command radius? If the folks who play CMBO insist on Playing ALL the roles then most of the Problems of Absolute Spotting (if they are problems ?) that we have been attempting to identify in this thread, cannot be solved. (except by TCP-IP multi-player TEAM play) 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? So then what has that implimentation of Simulated Relative Spotting achieved? 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. -tom w

ONE more Gem from the past.... aka_tom_w Member Member # 1515 posted April 26, 2002 01:43 PM quote: Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: quote: Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Mushkin: The hypothetical example is only showing that the PLAYER cannot target specific enemy units (But he is giving a general direction). The TACAI could. Its a subtle point but has to be understood Oh, I understand completely. What you must understand is that currently in CM the player assumes the role of the MG gunner when he gives the order to fire, so there is no logical reason why he should not be able to specify an exact target unless you are going to say that the player is the platoon LT, not the sergeant or corporal leading the squad, manning the MG. This is what people mean when they talk about making CM a "command level" game: the player gives general orders to his units and lets the TacAI carry them out. This is a different type of game than CM, and one I would not like as much for reasons I and others have explained. If the player is the MG gunner, the Squad Leader, the Jeep driver, the Tank TC, the Arty Spotter, the Company CO AND the Platoon HQ, then the player is the CAUSE of the Borg Like Absolute spotting problem because the player knows ALL, sees ALL, and Commands All. "This is what people mean when they talk about making CM a "command level" game: the player gives general orders to his units and lets the TacAI carry them out." BUT then why are there command delays in CMBO? WHY do we really want to try to keep our squads within command radius? If the folks who play CMBO insist on Playing ALL the roles then most of the Problems of Absolute Spotting (if they are problems ?) that we have been attempting to identify in this thread, cannot be solved. (except by TCP-IP multi-player TEAM play) 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? So then what has that implimentation of Simulated Relative Spotting achieved? 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. -tom w

Big Time Software unregistered posted April 27, 2002 12:53 AM Tom, quote: ...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? 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: 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. 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 [ April 26, 2002, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Big Time Software

Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 11:51 PM Tom, quote: I think it has been a positive and constructive discusion with several different points of view represented. I agree, but I must also point out that this discussion is not that different than a 1/2 dozen other ones held in the past. That is not to take away anything from anyone who participated here and not in the others, but rather to point out that the CM's borg problems are pretty well established by now. They are also not inherently different than those of other games, although we would argue CM deals with them better. The ideas people are kicking around in this thread are also ones that have been kicked around in other threads. Specifics might not be exactly the same, but the core motivation behind certain lines of thinking are surprisingly similar. Some people think the key to better realism is to have a sort of "you got it or you don" system of C&C where units not in C&C sit around dumbly until they are contacted again. A variation on that is that the AI somehow handles these units while you are not in command of them. The former is utterly unrealistic, the latter so difficult to program effectively that it is not the best design to pursue (i.e. spending a year making the AI for this means a year of doing nothing else ). Others think that the way to go is to simulate "orders" down through the chain of command. This is something that most people would find about as exciting as watching paint dry Watering this idea down to make there be more game also means watering down the potential realism and reintroducing the Borg problem. Believe me, I am not trying to ridicule people for their theories on how the Borg issue should be dealt with. I'm just trying to point out that some "cures" will actually kill the pateient before the operation is even over Others suggest things which will leave nasty scars and open up the doctors for lawsuits (or rather unpleasant commentary on BBSes ). But in general, I think most people understand the basic issues and some even see very simple solutions to some of the problems. Or at least can see how a huge problem can be tackled by several smaller, comprehensive changes. I think that once people see CMBB they will understand how the Big Problems can be tackled by smaller, perhaps even subtle, changes. Not completely, of course, because to do that the human player would have to be removed almost completely from the game. Later, I think people will see that Relative Spotting (as we have discussed it in the past) they will understand that it reduces or eliminates most of the Big Problems in CM that remain after CMBB's changes. Will the future CM be perfect? From a realism standpoint, of course not. But I can assure you that we will get damned close. Close enough that people will probably ask for Relative Spotting related features to be optional Steve

UM here are some BFC answers: ig 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 IP: Logged Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 11:27 PM U8lead asked: quote: Do units in C&C spot and ID better then the same units out of C&C in the current game? And if so, do any of the HQ bonuses (possibly combat bonus) apply to spotting and ID? If units out of C&C had a substantialy reduced positive ID range would that help Borg ID? No, no, and no Why should a unit out of C&C be able to see less far? How is that more realistic? And if it can't see out as far, but in real life should, how does that affect the realistic ability of that individual unit to respond to the oncoming threat? Should a Tiger Tank with a Crack crew sit around NOT spotting an ISU-152 which it should plainly see, just because it doesn't have radio contact with BN HQ? I think not I also think we would have people screaming at us until we "fixed it or did somefink" This is one of the fundamental problems I have seen in discussions like this. And that is thinking that unrealistically penalizing an individual unit somehow makes the game more realistic. At best it is a wash. At worst, it makes the game on the whole less realistic. For example, not allowing a unit out of C&C to do anything until it is in C&C is totally unrealistic. Such a system simply swaps in one Borg behavior for another. It doesn't make the game any more realistic, but instead hobbles real life flexibility to the point of making the game unplayable and a joke of a simulation. Don't believe me? Try this one out... Let us assume that units have to be in C&C with their higher HQs to pass on information and receive orders. OK, can anybody tell me what would happen, under this system, if the BN HQ unit got whacked on the first turn by a lucky artillery bombardment? Would the player just sit there staring at a screen totally lacking friendly and enemy units? Or would all the friendly units show up but the player couldn't do anything or yield any information about themselves or what they see? The above situation illustrates why removing realistic tactical control is not the right direction to go towards. Because if you follow it to its logical conclusion (i.e. the ultimate realistic state), this is what you wind up with. Honestly folks, your feedback is appreciated. But I for one am very glad some of you are gamers and not game designers Steve from: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024461;p=7

AND this Redwolf Member Member # 3665 posted April 18, 2002 03:21 PM What I want a solution for is this: you are attacking with a wide screen all over the map. Lead elements to the left spot tanks. In CMBO you can immideately rush all your units, including all Bazookas from all over the map, to that spot. For me, that is one of the major reasons why tanks-heavy CMBO forces have few chances of winning against infantry on any map with decent cover. In reality, the tanks would first have more time to munch at the infantry in front of them, then they could prepare for the enemy armored reserves to arrive and other infantry would follow much later, piecemeal. In CMBO, you get a concentrated overrun from enemy infantry in a very short time. Any idea how to solve the latter?

bump

there is MORE here: (check out the date of the post) for more on Borg spotting its origins and possible "fixes" you might be interested in this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024461;p=1 James Crowley Member Member # 5698 posted April 18, 2002 02:53 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I have recently been giving the matter of relative spotting, a concept apparently consigned to the “re-write”, some thought and believe that the current engine already contains the necessary elements, by and large, to produce the desired results. Before I expand on the above it might be a good idea to reiterate what “relative spotting” is and, more importantly, what impact that it’s implementation could have in more realistically portraying the realities of command and control. This is perhaps better done by example. Picture an infantry platoon, consisting of three squads and an HQ, moving in formation, all in command control range. As it approaches a belt of trees the lead squad comes under fire from an unidentified enemy unit, takes two casualties and is pinned. The platoon HQ immediately orders the second squad to open fire on the enemy position and the third squad to move off to the right and using a gulley for cover, to advance and attack the enemy position from the flank when in a position to do so. The third squad moves off as ordered and, as it has no radio (in common with the vast majority of units at that level in WW2) is soon too far away from its HQ to be in command control. It proceeds along the gulley until it reaches the belt of trees, moves toward the enemy position but then runs into another, as yet unseen, enemy squad, comes under fire, takes casualties and is also pinned. The reality of that situation is that the HQ is unaware of the third squad’s current status, is unaware of the existence of the second enemy unit and cannot issue any further orders to that third squad. Why? Because the third squad and the HQ have no means of communicating with each other; they are out of the C&C radius. The same situation in CMBO is very different. As soon as the third squad spots the second enemy unit and gets fired upon the player knows it’s status, can still give it orders (although they will be delayed) and, more importantly, is instantly aware of the existence and position of an enemy which, in reality, would be unknown and can react to that unrealistic situation accordingly IMO that is essence of relative spotting. There are probably very many ways of over-coming this problem but I am looking at the simplest way, which introduces the least number of changes, at least IMO (without, it must be admitted, any programming knowledge) Using the above example, let us first look at the second, previously unspotted enemy squad. It has always been there but with FoW on, does not show up on the map because it has not been spotted by a friendly unit. It is now spotted by a squad which has no means of conveying this information elsewhere but, in CMBO, its’ presence is still revealed. Suppose that the spotting unit is flagged as “out of CC” and therefore, as a result, the enemy unit is not revealed. This seems reasonable in that you, the player, are not given the “all-seeing eye” over the battlefield. However, what about the spotting squad, which obviously can see the enemy unit? This squad is still providing visual info. But not if you are no longer given access to that squad. Instead, that spotting squad becomes flagged as “out of CC” and is treated like an enemy unit as far as visual displays are concerned i.e. you can only see it as a “last seen at” marker and when that marker is clicked on the display only shows the name and type and its last known status (or maybe just “unknown” status.) Nothing new here in the visuals department, except you now have generic country markers for friendly “out of CC” units as well as for previously spotted enemy units. The primary and probably the most controversial departure from the norm is that there will possibly be more units over which you, as player, do not have control. But this seems entirely realistic to me. After all we accept that squads which are in certain states cannot be controlled; pinned, panicked, broken…. why not out of command? In previous threads on this forum, this type of suggestion has led to protests from those who say they do not want a command level game; they want to control all of their units all of the time. Well, as I have said you cannot control all of your units at all times anyway. Also who gains from the current “all knowing, all seeing” status of CMBO. Those who set-up their forces in non-historical, un-military fashion, scattered as they please, without due regard to staying in command control. Those who set up a few half-squads or MG teams or jeeps to act as unofficial “scouts,” relaying back intelligence of spotted enemy positions whilst they are way out of realistic command range. And so on. The only other change would be that the order delay function, still present for in command units, would be relegated for out of command units altogether as it would no longer be needed. Surely the trade-off in having, perhaps only temporarily, a few more units not in the players direct control is amply repaid by the great reduction of the “god” factor and by the fact that it would encourage players to adopt a more historical and realistic approach to keeping their platoons (and this could be extended to companies and battalions) in command and control range. It would also tend to amplify the role of HQ’s to something like that of their real life counterparts. Just a few thoughts. -------------------- Cheers, Jim.

that line and thought ALL By its self almost deserves as WHOLE NEW thread! "Not so in CM. The orders are somewhat inverted, since there are no junior officers to grab your orders and carry them on. You, as a commander, carry your own plan in all its details. " I think that is BRILLIANT insight into what happens in CMxx and we could chat about how it could be changed or improved OR even if it should or could be changed or improved this is not so much a Borg Spotting issue (although that contributes a little) BUT a huge philosophical discussion as to how to make the game BOTH fun to play and perhaps more realistic,,, "You, as a commander, carry your own plan AND all its details"down to every unit and every squad so the player is really playing ALL the roles and all the positions on the battle field. interesting comments? -tom w

Hi Steve is it reasonable to expect there will be ANY possibility of conversion of ANY CMxx scenario into the CMX2 engine.. I guess if you had all the details and unit types you might be able to make a WHOLE new scenario but I cannot image that any old (legacy) maps or scenarios will be able to be imported directly into the new engine. In fact I hope they won't be directly importable into the new engine. -tom w

that is a HUGE issue now lets start by agreeing to the fact that we don't know which time frame or theatre of operations they plan to simulate in the game.... Lets talk about the Eastern Front in Russia for a Moment consider what they did in CMBB to deal with this issue: "Also, to reflect the variable degree of initiative shown by Junior officers and NCOs, a leader bonus like "initiative" could induces some boundaries flexibility and variations. Some leaders would react/adapt better to change." in that case they did in fact deal with the issue as well as possible (given the current limitations of the CMXX game engine)... this is a HUGE issue in a game seeking to be a truly historical simulation of a specific time and place... this issue alone "the variable degree of initiative shown by Junior officers and NCOs" as well as the organizations differences both philosophically (German Army vs Russian Army) and technologically make this issue VERY very difficult to code into a game that is fun to play while still rendering is "somewhat" historically accurate and realistic. Lets wait and see how they do it in CMX2 BUT lets not forget they are designing the NEW game engine from the GROUND up with things like this in mind given ALL the things they have learned from trying to patch and re-release CMBO for the Russian Front (where this sort of issue WAS clearly a priority if you want to have a historical representation of squad level combat on the Eastern Front!) I am SURE they are losing sleep RIGHT NOW trying to figure out how to code this into CMX2 so that it is BOTH fun to play AND a GREAT combat simulator that is ALSO historically accurate, with this in mind.... "the variable degree of initiative shown by Junior officers and NCOs" Good point! -tom w [ October 19, 2004, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]