hoolaman

My take on a game like CM is that the player NEEDS to control lowest level formations with the greatest degree of control. It is here where the simulation is most complex and most requires immediate human contact. IRL, a platoon is also the highest level at which all elements should be in nearly immediate contact with each other. The command level you play when you command a squad to do something is a hybrid of the squad NCO and the platoon HQ. Shouldn't command delay somehow be placed on a whole formation, rather than its individual parts. So for the platoon HQ to gather up all his squads and shift position would require a significant command delay, but for only one squad to get up and shift position reflects more of the will of the NCO rather than the officer. That is why I think it must be simulated WHERE an order comes from. CM is a squad level game, dashing from building to building is how you win battles, not by putting a company in the right place. If a C&C system "forced" your formations to be in the general area where the highest level HQs had told them to be in the early stages of a battle, it would be possible to "be" the high HQs and struggle with rerouting formations, while simulataneously "being" the men running from foxhole to foxhole. No AI required. No co-op multiplay required (although a good C&C would put the broad pieces in place for multiplay). I see this as the only way to go.

As for me, I vote to not relegate any more control to an AI. I do not want to be in a battle where the other companies are AI controlled. If I wanted to do this, I would set up a company size battle. Steve, how do you see the co-op multiplaying (I'd propose "Complay") being implemented ? Now that I think about it, and judging from Sirocco comment on what works and what doesn't, it raises some questions about way of making this work effectively and interestingly. For example, the coop multiplayer feature can be integrated in various organic or systemic fashions. Case A, horizontal cooperation: all players gets a purchase screen and pick units they want, roughly like a superposition of QBs on a map in simultaneous time, fighting side by side and cooperating as they wish while pursuing their own objectives. Might be an option to consider for those who might want to try limited cooperation while keeping control on their own things. Case B, vertical cooperation: players fill positions within one main force along the organic structure of the command. X would play the battalion commander, Y coy A commander, Z coy B and so on. I suppose it could look like a game hosted with slots (commands) to be filled by joining players. Soon enough we would see whole armies forming up and competing against each other. A player joining a game would take over all units under his command. This call for effective definition of HQ role and responsabilities in the game even though the co-op multiplaying wont be in the first time around. How does a battalion commander act differently than a coy commander ? What would be the advantage of filling this seat rather than another ? As it was pointed out earlier, in CM1 there is little differences between a platoon HQ and a battalion HQ. But in theory, the battalion commander has overall command, and thus it must take effect at some point. Another question is whether to separate complay between commands along doctrinal lines to further simulate those doctrinal differences (combining infantry and armor or keeping them separated for example) or to make one generic setup. I suppose the latter is more effective from a gameplay stand point. Cheers </font>

Whether they are illegal and whether the US used them in vietnam are not neccesarily related issues . I thought I had seen footage of US troops in Iraq now with shotguns as well. I was pretty sure they were not used in WW2 due to treaty issues. But I am always willing to entertain the possibility that I am totally wrong!

Whether they are illegal and whether the US used them in vietnam are not neccesarily related issues . I thought I had seen footage of US troops in Iraq now with shotguns as well. I was pretty sure they were not used in WW2 due to treaty issues. But I am always willing to entertain the possibility that I am totally wrong!

I can see where Steve is coming from, especially regarding the degree of abstraction vs realism. I don't envy the guys working on a new game where each man is accounted for. When you account for each man, you then have to calculate where each tree or piece of cover is, exactly where bullets are going etc. etc. In current CM the abstraction of squads and teams and cover means that although the simulation is less thorough, it is more likely to coincide with reality and no doubt far easier to program. Making the environment smaller makes for more nit-sized pieces for people to pick. I would put forward another option, whereby a single player is able to take on the role of the several command levels sequentially. As in on every turn, firstly the player plays battalion CO and gives orders to formations XYZ. Next the player plays company CO, and gives orders to formations ABC but the game system binds him in some way to the orders that he gave (himself) at battalion level a second ago. And so on down to individual men if you are that dedicated/anal. This seems to me the only way to simulate a chain of command which should have twenty different decision makers and yet still allowing a single player per side, which is what a PC game must primarily be. I sure don't want to have to find six other players to be able to play a good PC game. It doesn't *need* AI to control friendly forces, and it allows the player to take on several roles which are separated by the game design. You restrict the player, but don't remove him from any of the decision making process. Tedious and cumbersome? Maybe, but I think it *could* be made to work. I suppose you could use a "broad strokes" AI in the initial stages to plot the micromanagement of squads etc. So you may only use above company level orders in the the first few turns of the initial advance, relying on an AI to plot the moves of lower level elements just like a group move in the current CM, but when the action starts you may want to get down in the dirt to squad level. What does this achieve you may ask? Well when the fighting starts, making batallion level adjustments stick would get much harder and slower, and squads at the front would be the most responsive element to adjust to new situations. [ January 17, 2005, 03:41 AM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

I think if you invert your pentagram it goes from being a lucky charm to a very unlucky charm.

Hey thanks! I don't know if any of this was explained very well, but there is still some good stuff from others in this old thread.

Shotguns are illegal in wartime applications are they not? Geneva convention, like dumdum bullets, too hard to pull the bits out of someone.

Shotguns are illegal in wartime applications are they not? Geneva convention, like dumdum bullets, too hard to pull the bits out of someone.

It is of course a very difficult thing to determine. How do you differentiate between a unit sent over the other side of the map to meet some borg-spotted threat and a unit sent over the map because that happens to be where you wanted it to go? As I understand it, there are a few levels of "Real World" command missing in the current CM engine. 1. Battalion HQ and Company HQ's cooperate to plan company level activities. 2. Company HQ and Platoon HQ's cooperate to make platoon level moves. 3. NCOs and platoon HQ's cooperate on the ground to plan squad moves. 4. NCO's move their squads as they see fit to keep them alive. Now number 1 and 2 are only present in the game as far as the battleplan in the players head. The player can make changes to a high level battleplan without command delays because these levels are not translated into game mechanics. In reality, changing the axis of a whole battalion would be absolute chaos. Number 3 is the only command system in the current CM. Every movement comes via communication between a squad and a platoon HQ. Sure higher HQ's can do the same job, but when they do, they are only "playing leiutenant", not doing their real job. Number 4 seems to be handled by the TacAI. When that squad is routed as a single entity and spins around twice before running toward danger, that is the NCO's contribution, and he does it with no command delay. I would like to see a system that allows each level to be played by the player at the same time. Something where the higher HQs are participating in the game engine in some way. Not a command level, "you are Major Smith and see only what he sees", but simply a CM where units must follow a chain of command and yet allow for small units to act on their own intiative. I don't ask for much do I ?

Firstly, the quote above from my old thread is from Dennis Grant: I agree with this philosophy, but I would not mind a game system that stops me from making a unit do something spectacularly unrealistic. My ideal C&C/spotting system would involve: </font> The player can see all his own units and everything that any of his units can see at all times.</font>The situational awareness of an individual unit is simulated individually. ie. For a unit to be aware of an enemy, it has to see it or hear it itself, or get some sort of simulated delayed action "report" from another unit.</font>The player can not *always* control his entire force without any penalty, but there should be some system to account for where an order is coming from, ie. different command levels.</font>It seems to me that the current squad-based command delay system is upside down. A squad NCO can react the fastest of any of the chain of command to changing situations, and yet in CM the squad gets command delay as if every single move it made was based on an order from an officer. I would like to see the squad able to act as an independant entity, but still be prevented from making unrealistic grand tactical moves without input from an officer. In the current CM officers above platoon level are basically just decoration. [ January 16, 2005, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

Thanks Steve and Co. for some bones, there are quite meaty, and if you boil it all down you will get a hearty broth! Anyhow, it would seem that my wishes of sexy new terrain and 1:1 man graphical representation are going to come true. As for the ol' borg spotting issue, well... Firstly I would like to humbly (or not so humbly) add this for your perusal: Old thread And on the same subject, I would like to say that it is not impossible to have a playable, intuitive command style slanted CM. The current incarnation of CM is very good, but it seems to me fixing borg spotting is impossible without slanting the whole works towards a command-style game. As battlefront have stated their intention to improve borginess as a number 1 priority, I am guessing that they have invented a very clever new command interface.

Try this: Battle for San Pietro San Pietro Infine Thats all I could find online Actually I lie, bacuse I found these modern street maps. Modern Street Maps! Via Michelin is the best. However I think the city was rebuilt away from the location of the old city which was totally destroyed. [ January 13, 2005, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

I am hoping (and assuming) that if the new engine can be adapted to pre-vehicle eras then there will be a much better treatment of footsoldiers. I am guessing that to do so formations will form an aspect of the new engine. I always though that it was a failing of the old/(current) CM that a squad behaved and was represented a lot like a vehicle with 10-12 redundant pieces. Maybe it was convenient to represent a squad with a cardboard tile in 1970's era tabletop wargames, but not on the PC in 2006. It would be nice if a small unit action, say controlling a platoon or maybe a company of infantry, was better represented. I want to control the cohesiveness of an advance via formations and small manouvres, or send out one or two man scouts. I hope to see each man and his morale and experience. I hope (squad/team) formations are at least represented, with maybe an option for "Auto NCO" to pass such mundane details on to an AI system when dealing with larger battles. Another cool feature would be to recieve orders from the next higher command level as the battle goes on. Imagine on turn 12 you get orders to retreat and your assault turns to a delaying withdrawl.

Like others I can only speculate, but: I expect that the 3d models and combat perameters of fighting units will not be moddable. To do so would only open a can of worms about historical accuracy and combat accuracy of mods. I would like to see the ability to import 3d Structures for houses, trees etc. Being able to import new models for things which do not affect game balance, but greatly enhance the "feel" of a game would be a worthy addition to the mod community. As for the overall "modability" of the new engine, I expect there will be some. As others have said, mods create a loyal community and extend the lifetime of a game product, and I am sure BFC is well aware of the value of this.

I wouldn't have made such a melodramatic response if I detected even a shred of good humour in Mr. Emrys' post. (Which is the only one I was referring to)

Hmmmm. That was a joke in case you think irony is what you do to get wrinkles out of clothes. But anyway I think with piece of rudeness I shall retire from the battlefront forums.

I was referring to the screen where you select the battles. Instead of a WG icon it replaces ss runes. I think it also puts in new icons for FG and VS. As for the in-game unit markers, I suppose the balkenkreuz would correspond to the star and circle for US and british troops rather than a swatika.

CMX2 Reverse Psychology 101: Dear Battlefront JERKS Yeah sure you guys are making the next big thing in tactical wargames. I heard from someone who knows stuff that CMX2 is just vapourware. You lot couldn't program your way out of a wet paper bag. *steps back and waits for BFC to defend themselves with a comprehensive CMX2 development update* heh heh heh

I enjoy your prose Dandelion. Many thanks.

Don't know about versifications But I solemnly decree The thread title should henceforth be referred to As SWOTPC.

FYI: FWIW. Cheers </font>

Jan 12 2005 2:36pm What do I get if I win?

I would also point out, that if you give your tanks orders that take 2-3 miuntes, then all you have to do is hit GO again and all the orders still stand.

It would be good if scenario designers could use SOPs, designate areas of advance and lay out a few different options for the AI to produce more realistic behaviour before the AI calculations even come into it. It is possible to prod and coax the AI to attack through sensible routes now by making trails of flags or using no flags or putting reinforcements in strange unexpected places. If this could be factored in to the game properly through the behaviour of AI, the work would be half done. If you think about how a human plans an attack, firstly they will identify where the enemy will be likely to deploy. Then they will split their forces to advance through planned routes, to deal with the areas that he hopes the enemy might be in. If they see enemy units, they will try to assign them to a likely formation, and note that formation on the map. If the AI responds to all these factors, and identifies enemy units as "blocks" just like a human, then that might help simplify tactics. [ November 28, 2004, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]