aka_tom_w

1b) some peoples variant of the above, in which all the areas that can be seen from any spot on the map are shaded, regardless of whether you have a unit there or not I have utter and complete confidence Steve and Charles will NEVER let this(1b) be a feature or an option in any game like CMxx or CMX2 that they release. (for clarity see my signature line and Steve G's quote) -tom w

Thanks Mr Cater "As it is now the game does allow reloading but it will be flagged as reloaded and by the number of times it has been reloaded. While this can always be circumvented with the redownload method," that sounds good... at least then you can tell how many "times the other guy tried" to get the desirable out come in combat. Thanks again -tom w

"for future releases is that they implement a realistic C&C system and much improved orders and TacAI; then add the grid lines as optional for the player to use. " Add to this some SOP orders for the attacker and defender so that units could in some way be "programed" or "SOP'd" with a perdetermined type of response (if all goes well and they don't break or rout) to contact or enemy fire. I would be surprised if the Steve and Charles have not AT LEAST thought about such considerations and design elements of the game as they are working on CMX2. -tom w

Dear Mr. Cater I would like to applogize if the tone of my posts was overly critical. Thank you for your straight forward and prompt reply. I am sorry that my past experience with cheaters of all stripes may have colored my posts in a less than flattering light. My applogies. I appreciate your efforts and I am sure you are also keen and clearly interested in designing a game system as "cheat proof" as possible. I have been playing war games for over 25 years and it seems to me someone ALWAYS cheats or tries to cheat. Or some players turn into rules lawyers and cheat by bending the rules or totally exploiting gamey loopholes in ANY rule system or gameing system. My experience with wargamers in general is that instead of tyring to win the battle they are in fact far more interested in finding the loopholes in the rules or exploiting some "crack" or weakness in any game system to gain the advantage. It is sad but true I think. I am hopeing that as a game designer you are more than aware of the tendency amongst keen gamers to exploit every possible crack/hack/weakness or loophole in the system to their advantage because as I am sure you are more than aware we are ALL very competitive about winning! So my point was; if re-loading the turn is not actually "cheating" and it can be done over and over again until the desired combat result is achieved why would any player believe his opponent was NOT doing it when in PBEM play it would appear it is IMMPOSSIBLE to get caught doing it and there is no possible way to detect if it is being done? If I am mistaken about the facts in that last part: " if re-loading the turn is not actually "cheating" and it can be done over and over again until the desired combat result is achieved why would any player believe his opponent was NOT doing it when in PBEM play it would appear it is IMPOSSIBLE to get caught doing it and there is no possible way to detect if it is being done?"...... I hope you will correct me, because I fear I may be overstating the problem or not understanding the issue suffciently to comment on how it might be prevented. Thanks again for your very prompt and insightful reply. -tom w

"Sure but I really think that if a good system existed it would have been done by now. Good news is that I haven't completely ignored the cheating issue and have even added some improvements/encryption that should make TCP/IP as well as PBEM games slightly more secure from basic cheats but unfortunately I still think the PBEM reloading issue will always be with us no matter what we do." I find that VERY regretable. Are there other PBEM war games out there that PREVENT the reloading until you get the desired result problem? I could be wrong and I know CMxx is a different type of game but its PBEM system prevents "reload until you get the desired result" does it not? (it also has a slow multi step PBEM cycle involving mulitple e-mail transfers but as far as I can tell you CANNOT reload the turn in PBEM CMxx to get the desired result. Is the solution NOT just as simple as a multi step PBEM transfer sequence that does NOT let the player see the result of the turn in which the result one turn that player can "reload". Why is it that one player gets the "opportunity" to see the result of something they might not like and THEN can simply re-roll or reload the turn? Why does a PBEM player have that much choice or control over the "PBEM system"? There ought to be a better way? If all you have to do to cheat is reload the turn and keep looking for the improbable outcome (whatever is good .... snake eyes? box cars?) and there NOTHING but the honour system to prevents it this, then GUESS WHAT amongst war gamers EVERYONE will be or "should" be doing it because they are figuring why not reload until I get the result I want "Because I KNOW my opponent is doing it too!" If the reloading/cheating issue is not addressed, all PBEM players "should" be (will be) wondering if their opponent is reloading the turn and thus re-rolling the dice or combat odds outcome until the prefered result is obtained. IMHO this makes PBEM games somewhat tainted or "objectionable" (sadly) Is there not a secure "tournement PBEM protocol" that could be offered? -tom w [ May 07, 2004, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

"You're right and I would further agree that such a game would likely not be a great deal of fun. But the question is how far should CM go in allowing to be an all-seeing eye of god? It gives us some latitude in that area at present. Some players would clearly like more, which would I suppose make CM more like a game of chess: a pure test of tactical and strategic skill. Others—and I must declare myself in this camp—want to retain some degree of the wonkiness and unpredictability that we see in real life. Too much of that would just reduce the game to a crap shoot. Not enough would destroy its credibility as a representation of an actual historical event, which is an important factor contributing to immersion of many of the players who have flocked to this game and thus their pleasure in playing it." OK sorry this thread was supposed to be about contour elevation lines on the map. Since the title looked interesting I poked my head in. I have wanted contour elevation lines on the map since I saw the Gold Demo of CMBO. But all we ever got was shades of green grass light for higher and darker for lower, (same for snow or desert) So I was interested in the Topic then terrain FOW came up and I was interested in THAT too And this more question about this kind of thing came up: " But the question is how far should CM go in allowing to be an all-seeing eye of god?" This is also an issue of relative spotting and absolute spotting and borg like knowledge of the commander to see and KNOW all things at ALL times on the battlefield. One thing Redwolf said sometime ago was "How can you reduce the impact of the Borg spotting and the "swarm" response" Meaning that once the Player has one unit that spots one threat anywhere on the map that player can then direct the actions and the fire of ALL other units towards that threat even if those units have not spotted the thread or COULD NOT KNOW it even exists in the VERY NEXT minute of combat. So I posted some of Steve's comments about the Borg Swarming Response issue. And since some people who were posting here were commenting and discussing game design and game design philosophy issues here I thought it might be ok to re-post some of Steve G's juicy quotes about how and why the game is the way it is. So back to contour elevation lines YES I would like to see them on the map. Terrain Fog Of War Hell YES! .... Some form of recon in the game would be more fun so a player would have to have units with LOS to specific parts of the map so that player could "actually" see what his units see on the REAL battlefield as opposed to what the player "thinks" he sees on his 2D map of the area. (There could and should be a difference between what is really on the 3D battle field and what the player sees on his 2D map from view 7 or 8) I hope that was not too confusing or too contenious OK? -tom w (aka_tom_w has been a vocal contributor on this forum since before CMBO (yeah the FIRST CMxx release) was released)

did the projectile strike the turret plate on an angle? -tom w

Lets not forget Steve was involved in that discussion and it took place over two years ago I am hopefull they have not missed "details that are the shades of omnispotting" . So far there has been ALMOST no disscusion about these issues in the next big thing CMX2 so I am always happy to try to sneak in a few questions about what's happening with the game design for CMX2 any time these issues come up. he he -tom w

OK sorry thanks for your reply I do indeed understand your point now and you do make a good point! I am done now that I have all that game design philosophy/terrain FOW stuff out of my system. ahh.. that feels better now back your regularily scheduled thread... sorry for the rants and the long reposts -tom w

sorry please indulge me with one more I promise it is the last: Kallimakhos Member Member # 5131 posted May 07, 2002 09:56 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Of course I'm sure we would all like to find a solution where we could "Have our Cake and EAT it too!" I'm always wondering if we have over looked something... What about keeping all these ideas in mind: "So my point is that it isn't so much the SPOTTING but rather the IDing. This is especially true for the attacker, the attacker gets WAY too much information regarding targets. The ability of all units to ascertain exactly WHAT it is they are spotting is as much a problem as sharing spotting because that is the intel they are sharing that is SO valuable. A game suggestion then is to bring down the IDing level but keep the spotting the same. This could be an extreme FOW option (cause theres always some that like it just the way it is)." And add some of these ideas: The idea of ONLY seeing enemy units from view 1 (ONLY) while your friendly unit is selected) is a novel approach to the problem. This suggestion does not limit ANYTHING else to view 1 it only limits the ability of the player to see opposing units (which should be VERY poorly ID'd to prevent positive intel info) that his friendly units are in contact with or have LOS to from their unique perspective in view 1. All other views work fine (but you can't see any opposing units unless you are in view 1 and have the unit selected that has LOS to the opposing unit). Combine this suggestion with a few of Ceasar's proposals: "1. Every unit had to individually spot a unit. Obviously if the enemy unit fires, it will be easier to spot as all units will turn to the sound of fire. Fuzzy logic should determine spotting i.e you get x% chance of spotting in the given conditions (depending on the unit quality as now), with this chance increasing with sound and other factors drawing units attention to that area. 3. FOW applied to the map. The map should only initially give broad information (the sort you could get off a map and with general info from the local populace) The map should only get updated as units within CnC (up to at least the Co level if one is present). If a player gives an order, that as a result of ignorance of the map, cannot be obeyed then the unit will stop and behave with normal TacAI behaviour. This will cause the unexpected delays that would happen in real life. Spotting from a distance should have fuzzy logic applied that causes inaccuracies such as incorrect elevetions, missing small copses, ditches etc. The map updating should suffer the same CnC delays as above. 4. Allow normal squad level delays to be applied to small movements and 5 - 7 waypoints for those in local CnC, but much greater delays related to the above CnC delays for large movements or higher numbers of waypoints. This would force players to maintain realistic command structures and more importantly slow down the current almost immediate response to a significant threat. 5. As CnC would be much more important, units that lose their HQ should be able to attach to other HQs with reduced performance (and none of the modifiers)" Or the AI could Grow or spawn new leaders from the ranks of the non-coms. Sorry I don't have source on that it was someone elses idea to provide an option for short term leadership (depending on mitagating circumstances) as an emergency measure so that there would be a chance the Player would not instantly loose ALL control over all units not in C&C after the loss of their HQ unit. -tom w ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ha! I knew I was NOT going to be the first one to think of this. Now that I've read all (well, most) the previous posts I see that my thinking is going along same paths with Tom on many issues, but maybe there are some original ideas in my innocent little suggestion. So, where to go if we want to avoid both the Borg and Gods view problems as much as possible, and at the same time give the player control and ideally right amount of information at the squad/vehicle level, platoon/company commander level and at the supreme commander level? This is indeed possible and as additional bonus your troops can get lost or end up in wrong place both at middle and squad level, in a very natural way, which was before just a distant dream for Steve G. The solution could be called simply Iron man Immersion (bit easier than the IMSRS-FOW ) which naturally should be optional "ultimate ffow", meant only for the groggiest and the most anal gamers (which could very likely make the majority!). This is a solution to most if not all major conserns raised before, not perfect but closest I can concieve. This gives also answer to the question which role does the player take. A dual role. On the one end supreme commander, with the cumulating knowlegde of the overall situation on an evolving 2D map, being able to give direct and more general orders to platoons and companies. On the other hand the role of each squad/vehicle with very limited visibility (only level 1) and limited info (relative spotting). There is also the intermediate level, platoon/company commander, which would be some sort of mix of these two, and needs lot more thinking. One of the good points is that there is clear distinction between different roles, and player can choose by the size of battle, individual tastes and other factors weather he prefers giving the "planning orders" (2D) or "control orders" (limited 3D). Nothing good comes without cost, in return we must give up some of the fun, no unlimited movie watching (only level 1 and not even for every unit) until the end, and assigning individual orders to squads/vehicles could be bit tedious, as it must be done in a certain order and cycling through units without mouse pointing (unless there is a good roster which BTS might oppose). Even though this model greatly reduses the available information, I don't see how it would be possible to totally avoid some "unrealistic" bits and peaces of info spilling from the order fase and limited movie whatching for the perceptive human minds. E.g. whatching from a hill can give you clues how not to get lost with a unit. Also, it is actually quite hard to imagine how and if this would really work in actual game, for one I've never played with Iron man rules and this is quite different. I'm sure there must be something very wrong with this suggestion, because it sounds too good, and I'm sure these will be pointed out. But now to the details: 1. As the supreme commander HQ ('you') you have the 2D map of the battlefield, and on that map you see your troops in C&C and the cumulating info on the enemy positions and map details. This info can also be false. On the map you can give more complicated movement orders (many waypoints) with shorter delays to co's and platoons with established communications. This of course requires improving the AI, to handle formations with some skill. Changing these orders before the object has been reached or contact made with the enemy means long delays (getting the orders to all concerned, regrouping etc.) Once in contact (ie fired at) unit should respond with more autonomy, so shorter delays. In other words, now the player is in a way in the shoes of the platoon commander. Many intermediate C&C issues still need a closer look at this level. - 2D map can contain also some prebattle recon info, not necessarily allways true, on enemy troops and positions, depending on the type of the battle and randomized or bought before the battle. - Recon order, as somebody already suggested. On the 2D you can give orders to appropriate units to recon in a certain direction, and if succesfull and not dying, after a while, depending on communications, you get more info on the 2D map. Special AI routines needed of course. This way if a recon unit with no radio and out of C&C is totally destroyed, no info is given, except getting meeting enemy somewhere along the route. If crew or stragler survives the more accurate info comes after long delay if at all. - Same way all info from units encountering enemy units and in C&C, end up eventually on the 2D map, after certain delays which also take into account info going from up to down to all subcommanders, which then naturally happens "instantaneously" because they are your 'alter egos'. But because they can "see" only at level 1, in game terms they only know there is something in that direction, and their movement is more limited than when given orders on 2D map. - artillery: spotters in contact with higher headquarter units, especially 'you', mean shorter delays. - If the 'you' HQ is lost, also much of the information on the 2D map is lost. - giving a order on 2D map includes random risk that the unit gets lost or ends up in wrong location. This won't be presented on the 2D map, but if you notice something is wrong in the level 1 view, you can reorder with considerable delay. 2. Level 1 view, commanding individual squads and vehicles. First, different set of orders from the 2D map which represent "planning orders, and include only various types of movement. These control orders include also targeting, searching hull down positions etc. There could also be some special orders for midlevel HQ's. Relative spotting, only enemy units you see here are those spotted by the selected units and those spotted by units in close contact or good communication line, with a certain delay. The "send runner" command suggested by someone sounds also very good. - a big handicap is that to keep it realistic, control orders should probably be given in certain order (which?), after planning orders, to get no extra information from other units, and could be given just once in every turn. But maybe with the more flexible and easier "planning orders" on 2D map this could be avoided, if the biggest problem in "Gods view" is moving all the troops you want to handle a situation those troops should have no knowledge of. Also although the level 1 view would give you more info on enemy troops than the 2D map, it would be much harder to grasp and put to context. Anyway, there is a real problem here. - giving movement orders only in visible boundaries preferred, but it should be possible to plot also into "grey" areas, with considerable risk and delay. The system should be flexible enough to work well in all wheather conditions. - general "battle sounds this way" markers. - if unit out of C&C, only generic markers for spotted enemy units to avoid unrealistic ID'ng. - suppressed units available info even more limited. - unit can get lost relatively easily in the "natural way", as prescribed earlier. - possibility for enemy units to go back to totally unspotted under certain circumstanses. 3. The movies. Only level one and 2D map. Ideally the map shows "hotspots" which you can click and see when something worthwhile is going on, so you dont have to go through each and every unit, although this would still be possible, starting with HQ's, spotters etc down to ordinary units, except for units out of C&C (panic, too far etc), so no info can be gained from those. Unlimited movie wathcing after the game has ended obligatory reward after getting through the hardship! - units coming back to C&C could show their earlier movies (battlestories for mates ) at that point, if necessary. Underlying the whole system individual unit communicative abilities as has been suggested,(depending on technology, experience etc.) which affect information delays and accuracy, spotting aid for other units etc. Well, now that much of my original hybris has worn off I see there are many unsolved problems, programming difficulties, gameplay could perhaps get too complicated, so maybe this is not worth while (the price is too high?). Still, hopefully there are at least few good ideas to add to those presented earlier. " (End Quote) -tom w

More from Steve this is a LONG cut and paste I post it a RE post to summarize the Design values and Philosophy as posted by Steve about 2 years ago... and as some of you here may have already noted this MAY be WAY way off topic from the original post about contour lines BUT since the discussion here started to "flow"/drift toward game design and game design philosophy decsions I thought I would take the opportunity to post Steves thoughts and remarks from 2 years ago: Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 08:51 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IP: Logged aka_tom_w Member Member # 1515 posted April 26, 2002 09:17 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thanks Steve I think you and everyone else here has figured that this is the basic summary of my position on this issue: "...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? 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." sorry to repeat that. From what I understand, yourself (and Most folks here it woud seem) will be comfortable with the Player responding to an enemey threat that is only identified and spotted by one friendly unit by directing all other friendly units in the vicinity to fire at that location or start to move toward that location, (EVEN from WAY across the map) if this is an acceptable situation as a result of the NEW Relative Spotting protocol, to most folks here then I should simply agree to live with it and retire back to that old gunnery optics discussion that was so much fun. (Posted in the very BEST of humour) Thanks again its a GREAT game and chatting about it on this forum is even MORE fun than playing sometimes -tom w ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Posts: 4902 | Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 09:53 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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

This cut and Paste from Steve's post in Relative Spotting Revisited will save you all from reading through 10 page of drivel (most of it mine in that Monster Thread. this was posted over two years ago so this is NOT a new issue! Steve says: Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 08:13 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 08:27 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

Relative Spotting Revisited this thread http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024461#000000 I think this was a LONG thread it covered all kinds of topics like Command delays and player philosophy and a game design philosophy and it speaks to the designers game design philosophy as to EXACTLY what the player is doing in the game and what place and role the player has in the game it is a LONG read but some of you here may be interested: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024461#000000 -tom w

yeah but I think BFC has already admited Command dely is a kludge (sp?) There are MANY good threads about this issue ANY thread about relative spotting gets into the heart of this issue. I will try to find the link. -tom w

yeah but I think BFC has already admited Command dely is a kludge (sp?) There are MANY good threads about this issue ANY thread about relative spotting gets into the heart of this issue. I will try to find the link. -tom w

Mr Tittles is NOT all wrong about this. If any of you remember or care to look it up (some time ago like 3-4 years) Steve G (Head Honcho and all around GOOD guy) said something to that effect before around the time CMBO was released. There was a thread about Terrain FOW. At the time he was talking about a ride in the Weasle (his tracked WWII fULL scale toy!) and getting lost in the forest and trying to simulate that experience in the game) I was HEAVILY in favour of terrain fog of war meaning if you were not looking right at it or Standing RIGHT on top of it the MAP you see in the game could be WRONG! This is STILL a GREAT idea! Steve said something about how it would be interesting (if not down right impossible) to code the game so that units might get lost in the woods at night. OR some element of terrain fog of war would entice the player to possibly send his units off on a wild goose chase only to find that bridge (upon closer inspection) has been blown up and is not there. (These are NOT direct quotes, but Steve did participate in the Terrian Fog or War thread and DID NOT completely discount the idea but may have commented somthink like "IT would be REALLY REALLY HARD to do well and since we can do it well or make it perfect we won't do it at all (or something to that effect)" SO I say TOTALLY YES to terrain FOW so that the map you see is the the whole REALITY of what is actually to be found on the battlefield. Thus some form of recon is required to determine the best tactics or the best plan to move forward and attack. OR Somthing like that! I am Sorry Mr Tittles "My point is that the game should control info-feed. If its left to the player to 'make the mistakes', the player will just take even longer to send a frikkin turn." Please clarify your point: Are you in favour of terrain FOW or are you saying NO WAY " the player will just take even longer to send a frikkin turn." ? Sorry now I am confused -tom w [ May 05, 2004, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Just as a side note I have been requesting contour lines as an off/on toggle option on the maps since the Gold Demo of CMBO. And if I recall correctly "they" (at BFC) always say you don't need them and will not get them because we CANNOT generate them in the current CMxx game engine. NOW the real issue is can we make enough noise to see contour lines in CMX2 (the Next BIG thing from BFC) I would guess by now they would know if contours lines are on "the list" for CMX2 or not. (But as always no one is talking BUT I am guessing they are listening) -tom w

this issue came up LONG ago in the CMBO forum so some of us have be "around the block" with this issue here is a GREAT web page: http://www.6th-airborne.org/piat.html link does not go straight to the piat page on the left side click the GEAR link and at the bottom of hte GEAR page go to: The Projector Infantry Anti-Tank (PIAT) !) I recall finding it in the days of CMBO EVERYTHING including the training manual is on that page enjoy ! -tom w [ April 29, 2004, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Does anyone else have any experience with this issue? does the fix work as expected?? Thanks for the update -tom w

Hi Steve I have been reading virtually all of the posts in this forum just because I am curious. Thanks Steve for the clarity on that issue: " The decision to go with tiles is final, and no amount of abusing Hubert will change that." (for the Rest of you, I am a hard Core Mac user and I LOVE wargames and there aren't so many good ones for OS X ) So the final decision on this hex vs. tile thing is NOT A BIG deal for me BUT it seams to be a REALLY BIG DEAL for some folks here. I would like to comment and say I found CMBO (the FIRST Combat Mission game) a TRULY refreshing wargame (that ran on a Mac) that DID NOT HAVE HEXES!!! For me this was a breakthrough and my friends (PC guys and hard core board game wargamers (since Tactics II) thought I was CRAZY! They all said Bah!!! look!! its NOT a wargame because it has NO hexes! How can it be any good!!?? BUT CMBO was GREAT and it was new and refreshing because you DID NOT SEE THE TILES OR THE Hexes! you would just see the land forms and the units and the buildings and trees and lakes and rivers. So unless you wanted to "play" with the map editor you never needed to see the hexes or the tiles or the grid. Now for my friends this was TOTAL CRAP because you could NOT COUNT hexes and figure out how far that tank you go up the road in your first move (I said it DID NOT matter becaue the other player would move simulateaneoulsy WHAT!!?? sacrilege! they cried "I can't figure out how far my tank will go because there are no hexes and I can't Move FIRST??? What kind of a crappy war game is this.?? (sadly I gave up on them and had to find NEW friends on this board who were converts to the new CMBO way!) They are of course still my real life friends but I don't bother trying to play CMxx with them anymore. SO what is this rant all about? new idea is not always WRONG and what if this game (SC2) could be played like CMxx without ANY tiles or hexes showing? is that doable? is it desirable? Why do you need to see tiles or hexes? is it possible to plot movement without tiles or hexes with the game telling you (somehow) when the unit cannot move any further? I don't know the answers to any of this but IMHO hexes are some craxy concept or idea that is hold over from board games THAT WERE SUPERIMPOSED ON THE REALITY of the map board to measure distances MOSTLY. SO why not let the computer measure ALL the distance and just say YES or NO you can go that far or you can't go that far, so all you need to see is the map, the land forms and the units? For Me CMxx was a break through in this regard, THERE ARE NO HEXES and it is the BEST small unit tactical WWII wargame I have ever played!! Bar NONE! the game is GREAT and it works fine without hexes. OK OK SC2 is NOT small unit tactics it is a strategy game but why not let the game code and the programers and the computer figure out all the relationships in distance and have it so there are no visible or tiles or hexes "littering" up the map?? (maybe that is NOT doable or desirable but I am open to the possibilty of looking at it) NOW granted, this is a radical concept because players seem to NEED tiles so badly (for what reason I DON'T know and will never understand) that there are ALL kinds of terrain mods for CMxx that put the tiles back ON the land forms so that players can superimpose their "tiled version of the distance measuring safety net" (somewhat akin to training wheels on a bicyle IMHO) BACK on to what was stunningly lovely scenary and a really nice looking map before they modified it all and messed it up with a crude vestidigial measure tool (tiles) left over from a board game when there was NO other way to measure distances. Maybe this won't work for something like SC2 on that grand scale for a strategy game but why not let the designers fool around with the idea (if it is workable and I have NO idea if it is??) that you don't need to see the tiles but they are there and all the units know where they but you the player can't see them? (sound craxy? Well it WORKED GREAT IN CMxx!!) I admit I too would love to play a GOOD (NO make that a GREAT) grand global domination strategy game (on a MAC OS X of course) that DOES NOT have hexes or tiles showing so that all I see is the 3D isomorphic units (which I like) and the land forms and rivers lakes and oceans. I think that is doable and look forward to something cool llike that that we can maybe some day play on an OS X Mac! (Rant Off) if that made any sense. -tom w Thanks for reminding me that I missed making a very important point. It is ironic that the people arguing against tiles keep talking about how Hubert did this for no other reason than looks. Ironic because looks are exactly how some of you are judging the game. Looking at screenshots and concluding that the game won't be fun is a pretty poor way to judge a game. Especially when it is coming from a game designer who has proven to you that he can deliver something you really like. I know that most of you don't understand how utterly disrespectful and insulting your outbursts are, but they are indeed. Hubert has done nothing to deserve such behavior and I ask that you reconsider your positions into a more "wait and see" approach instead of convincing yourselves it sucks before you've played it. And if you can't, perhaps your time might be better spent having different discussions about different games instead? The decision to go with tiles is final, and no amount of abusing Hubert will change that. Steve </font>

If there is NO mac version for this game :-( What games are there for the EVER popular "Global Domination" theme that will run on a Mac under OS X??? I ask this seriously because its REALLY hard to find a GOOD global domination Multi player STRATEGY game for OS X. There is a GOOD free online version of Supremacy, (with Nukes Mushroom clouds Star Wars type L-Star defenses, K-Sats AND ALL!) but the game needs a few tweaks and bug fixes. BUT its strength is that it is available via web browser and Mac and PC players can PBEM (there is no live TCP/IP option as the game is turn based) (the game is FREE and it does work right now!) what other MAC based OS X games allow for multi player Global Domination in any era. your comments are most welcome -tom w

correct me if I am wrong but one of the simple things sand digger asked for was to SEE THE CONTOUR elevation lines as you might on a regular topographic map. Is this an unreasonable request? or just technically impossible (as has been hinted) in the current game engine. I have been posting here to request contour/elevation lines on the maps (or at LEAST an optional MAP overlay of a semi transparent grey contoure lines that you can toggle off and on) since CMBO was released. FORGET all the LOS and FOW issues here for a moment. Can we not JUST HAVE MAPS with the ability to see topo map LIKE contour/elevations lines? There is NOTHING gamey or unrealistic about wanting to see contour lines on game maps IMHO FWIW -tom w

Those mods are Brilliant!!! Just Stunning! where are they? are they posted up yet? where can you find them to download them?? VERY very nicely done!! Many thanks -tom w

OK then! So where are all those Normandy Scenarios we've all been so looking forward too!?? -tom w

"State of the art grahics is good for everybody,even the chart loving data freaks like myself(everyone likes eyecandy),it will increase the amount of dollars for BFC,with those dollars they can produce better games for all. ( I like this part: ) Remember, a finely tuned Mercedez will not sell without an excellent paint job." Good Point!! I totally agree! -tomw