Midnight Warrior

This is most fascinating! A couple of questions though in how all this would actually be translated into CMSF game mechanics (since it is a squad level game and these tatcics are sub-squal level tatcics): 1. I wonder how long it took them to clear a building one the breach was made compared to the standard 1 minute CM game turn? Are we talking less than a minute of multiple minutes? If it is less than a minute then how much of these tactics will be explictedly modeled in the game verses abstratced.. particualry since as I understand it the level of control will be at the aquad level? Thus it seems that the player will NOT be ordering the individual pairs of soldiers to rush rooms or even commanding the assualt, support, and security teams as individual units but rather giving orders at the squad level. 2. Given that the answer to question 1 above is that most of this action is not directely controlled by the player and takes place within a single game turn will the player have different commands that he can call such as top down attck, bottom up etc. If so how will the TACAI execute these commands? Will it have pairs of soldiers forming up in a stack and pealing off in different rooms and execute a fire fight as a series of local firefights in each room or will it just abstract the whole encounter? If it is the former will we see these detailed tactics being inacted by the 1:1 unit graphics and will the combat be evaluated as twoman pairs fighting in each room? If so this will be quite a big step up from CM! 3. Will the attacker be able to define breach points and the method for breaching (e.g. sledgehammer vs shooting off locks, or using explosive devices, etc)? If so how will these decisions affect combat? 4. From the defender's standpoint what options will he have in defending a buidling? Will the defender have commands such as defend against top downattacks, etc? If not then how will this need to be unpredictable be simulated in CMSF? 5. How will unit experience level affect these tactics. Will more experienced units have more "tricks" in their "bag of tricks" or will they just execute them better? Or will all units have the same level of experience? Or will it be just an abstraction?

in fact the question in general is how will data link targets be treated in CMSF? This could be one of the more intriguing questions to explore in that (as said in another post) some units will have data links (like a Stryker ubnit) as soe won't (like the Syrian units and perhaps some leg US units). The data linked targets can be used for both targeting and situaional awareness (SA). One of the big questions in DoD today is the value of what they call Network centric warfare (verses platfrom centric). CMSF has the potential to explore some of the isuues of Network centrik warfare a he tactical level. Actually BFC doesn't have to invent these TSD dispalys and the mechnaization to handle data link targets in that this capability is part of the Stryker's (and other platform's) design. Thus all BFC needs is to get access to a Strkyer user's manual and see how they handle it. And even though CMSF is not a FPS game (and hence does not habe to imulate the crew station operation like say a combat flight simulation) it could be argued that it does need to address how data linked targets are treated in that these affect tactical C2. My thought is that a generic TSD with data linked targets and/or a common "shoot list" of the data linked targets where if one clicks on a sysmbol or a data link targte in the shoot list would cause the viw of the selected vehice to pointto the selected target would be sufficient to apporximate the employment of data linked targets. This is not too radically differet than the "next target" command in CM1

That makes sense. Even so it would be cool eye candy. Perhaps more importantly will CMSF provide tactical situation dislays (TSD) where data linked targets (as symbols) can be displayed (perhaps overlayed on a digitized or digital map. This would be a "legal" way of providing the US forces a form of Borg spotting in that whatever one unit sees (and choses to eneter into their fire control computer as a target) can be shared with the other platfroms in the unit as symbols on the TSD.

Here is another link web page

Here is a link that talks about how fire support may be done in a Stryker BCT web page

Since Night Vision Goggles (NVG) and IR thermal sights play such a large role in modern combat will CMSF simulate these displays? They also have different properties from normal viewing from the Mark I eyeball. For example IR thermal sights can see through most smokes and NVG's might be able to see laser spots. I would imagine that this in all likelihood would be abstracted. However, it could be treated in he game more explicitedly for example when selecting the zoom view (the "[" and "]" keys in CM1) one could show NVG or thermal sight view instead of a normal visual view. This might require having NVG or thermal imaging textures which I would imagine would cause all sorts of probems.... But it woud be cool and would give a unique look and feel to the game. Maybe it can be fudged with the normal textures with the dynamic lighting capabilities or something like that.

More (random) thoughts on CM:SF (or comparisons of a tactical Syria 2007 setting veses a WWII setting) 1. Play Balance Since WWII was in part between 1st world powers there typically was a training and technology balance. However, this is not liley to be the case in a Syrian 2007 setting. To even out the trainng and technology imbalance I would imagine one could define scenarios where the US is outnumbered. Perhaps reminescent (sp?) of Gulf War II the Syrian war starts before all the US forces can deploy or something similar to that causes the US to launch an attack with insufficient numbers to make the outcome neither a cakewalk nor a sure thing. Thus we mght have some quality verses quantity considerations. 2.War in the 21st Century It will be interesting to be able to "try out" all the new technology in a highly realistic wargame engine as CM:SF likely will be to see where warfare in the 21st century may be heading. Part of the interest in the CM1 series was to see tactics that one read about actually come to life in the CM game. Perhaps we can see future tactics emerge where one can get a preview of what the next war (where ever and with whomever it may be) might look like. That is not to say that CM:SF will be 100% spot on but I would imagine that with all the research and attention to detail that will go into this game that many things will be really close. Drama and Historical Significance Another element that makes WWII so interesting is the drama of the events and their historical significance. At first glance a invasion of Syria might seem to be lacking in this respect. However, if one puts oneself in the perspective of the person getting shot at al combat becomes high drama and significant. Thus at the tactical level the drama can be just as high even if at the strategic level a tank fight in Syria may not be as high drama a say a Kursk. Higher Lethality Weapons Systems Where WWII saw many desperate battles that where savagely fought in the backdrop of national survival a Syrian 2007 will likley more often feature lethal technolgy over desperate fighting. The leathality of combat system since WWII continued to increase with new technologies. In a Stalangrad scenario street fighting was desperate but was mostly dne with samll arms. In a modern urban environment a 2000 lb JDAM or LGB bomb can be precisely dropped on a designated building that wouldblow it to pieces. Thus the terror factor would not be so much on despearte men slugging it out but on horric weapons powered by advanced technology. How this plays out in a CM WEGO setting remains to be seen but it could be awesome. Thus as a minimum one would think that it is worth giving CM:SF a chance and actually I for one can hardly wait. Warfare keeps on changing. It was one thing to hack men to pieces in close quarters with swords in ancinet times, another thing to line up shoulder to shoulder in the age of muskets and quite another to fight in the empty battlefield of WWII where most of the targets are behind cover. Future wars will have its own brand of combat but in general the lethality of the weapons will be such that if you can see it you can kill it. I would think that from a wargamng experinec it could be just as interesting if not more so for with al the new technology there may be more decisions to make. Also, as war gets more high tech it might better lend itself to computer simulations. Thus a modern CM may not be any less enjoyable to play than a WWII version.

Here is a link that discusses some of the night fighting issues night fighting I wonder how laser designators and pointers will affect borg spotting (or the lack there of)?

Oh, one more question on CAS. Will cluster munitions that have indididual bomblettes such as WCMD and DPICM be included? If so will each bomblette be modeled (both graphically and its weapons effects) or will the bomblette graphics & effects be abstracted? Also, will CAS include Hydra rockets. If so what type of warheads, will they include flachettes.

Bravo! Super! When can I preorder!!! A few questions: Will any of the modules have tactical UAV's such as a Dragon Eye? Dragon Eye Photos How about the bigger UAV's like hunters and predators. Do they play a role in a CM sized fight? Will the game include ground based laser designators for CAS delivered LGB's and artillery laser guided rounds such as Copperheads and Helo launched Hellfires? Will the laser designation time be modeled so the laser has to be kept on the target for the entire time of flight of the weapon? If so can the guy with the laser be suppressed (sp?) with counter fire? Will CAS aircraft also carry JDAMs, Maverick Missiles? Will there be just A-10's or also F-16's for CAS. Will they be able to use employ their Gatlin guns? What about AC-130's. Will they be included for CAS? edit: corrected a couple of typos [ October 08, 2005, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Midnight Warrior ]

Yes, the mouse wheel to too valuable for it just to control one thing (or no thing at all as it does now!). What I would like to see are some buttons on the control panel that with one click would configure the mouse wheel to control a specified parameter. Something like this: HEIGHT TILT ZOOM AZIMUTH UNIT HQ FO NEXT VRP For example if one clicked on TILT the mousewheel then would control the tilt up and tilt down which would be quite useful for fighting in mountains (or cities with multi-story buildings). If you clicked on UNIT the mousewheel would step up and down from the current selected unit (one unit for each click of the mousewheel(like the + and - keys). Click on HQ an the mouse wheel would step up and down from HQs. Select FO and the mousewheel would select between FO's. Select NEXT and the mousewheel would step not from the current selected unit but from a fixed list so that one could systematically step through all their units and even if one clicks on other units in the process the pointer to the NEXT unit would not change. Select VRP and the mousewheel would select between user placeable visual reference points (VRP's). VRP's could be placed at various places along the map so that one can quickly change the camaera view between them. As it is in CM this is very tedious to do and thus destracts from the enjoyability of the game.

The other thing unique about WWII is that it was a battle for national survival fought as a total war. Nations, governments, ways of life, and even populations were fighting for their very survival. You don't get this at a global scale in other wars (even WWI).

Perhaps division level fire could be controlled by the scenario designer such that at certain times programmed artillery fire would impact and the Bn commander and below would be aware of this planned fire but could not directly control it. This then could be another tool the scenario designer would have to make a battle play out the way he wants.

BTW. For an interesting look at where mapping technology is going one might want to go hereand download Goggle earth. It allows both a 2D and a 3D view of terrain over the entire earth. It includes aerial (sp?) photographs, Digital Terrain Elevation Data (DTED), and map data (streets etc), plus 3D buildings (for the downtowns of the big US cities). It seems that this technology would be useful in building maps for wargames (even if the maps and photos are contemporary and not historical. For intance go look at Sicily. It is quite awesome to see how detailed the terrian data is by combing the 3D view with the overhead photos. The only catch that I know is I don't know how well Google earth will work over a slow internet connection (I've only tried it on my machine at work that has high speed internet connection). Also, I know some people have trouble getting it to run. But if you have high speed internet and the software runs on your machine it is pretty awsome.

Ah! Do we now know the name of the first CMX2 module...the Chosin Few... or perhaps the Frozen Chosin [ August 27, 2005, 07:16 AM: Message edited by: Midnight Warrior ]

The reindeer sleds sound pretty good to me but I have to admit I am torn between them and George Clooney!

Arguments for why the first game may be Korea 50-53 1. Even though there were not a lot of big armor vs armor battles both sides had lots of different vehicle types (even if the the Communist didn't have large numbers of them). However, there are not so many vehicle types as to take forever to develop them. And more polygons mean longer time to develop a given vehicle. Thus in Korea there can be a lot of vehicle types but not too many so that the time to market gets too long. 2. These vehicles once developed can largely be reused on both sides for WWII scenarios since most of them are WWII era vehicles. 3. Korea gives a welcome break from WWII burn out but still allows them to take advantage of their WWII data bases. 4. Some of the late war cool vehilces and weapons that didn't see much action such as Pershings, recoiless rifles, etc. get a chance to be more prominent. 5. Though there are lots of different nationalities for the UN there is only North Korean and Chinese units to worry about on the communist side so that there aren't as many nationalities that have to be modeled that would increase time to market. 6. The infantry oriented nature of the conflict shows off the 1:1 better than heavy armored engagements. 7. Pitting US vehcles against Russian is intriguing and has lots of intellectual appeal. Potential for lots of what if scenarios. 8. Lots of historical data available in addition to the reuse of WW2 data 9. A really good game on the Korean war would probably get rave reviews from the gaming community 10. Korean War title is not a good title in a Best Buy sales environment but there is a glut of WWII games in that market and CMX2 is not trslly competing in that market. The Korean war title plus good reviews, cool graphics (but probably not that much better than the RTS out there), plus the CM 1,2, & 3 reputation should not only generate sales but whet people's appetite for the next modules that might then go back to WWII for both ETO, East Front, Med, and PTO. 11. Perhaps helos might be included in that they did make a debut in the combat roles in Korea. 12. This would provide a spring board in which to spring back to WWII or spring forard to the Middle East, Nam, etc. 13. The two company sized battle limit would fit in a Korean war scenario better than many WWII scenarios except early PTO like Guadacanal, Philippines, Indonesia, etc. 14. Not too many different types of terrain to have to initially model. 15. It would be fun to play! 16. It's time for the "Forgotten War" to be remembered!

1. Follow/convoy command 2. Better unit step commands (e.g. unit roster menu or step by HQ option, step from last unit stepped verses last unit selected option, step to next Arty Observer, etc) 3. programmable one click mouse wheel quick select buttons that allow configuring the mouse wheel to control viewing height levels, look up/look down angle, looking left/right, unit step (like hitting the +/- keys with each up/down mouse wheel click, camera range (move forward/backward, magnification, etc) 4. Better LOS rules such as AFV as cover, creeks and ditches, stuff like haystacks, sheds as cover, better modeling of walls and fences as cover. 5. Better C2 that make use of higher lvels of command and better models the human factor

Sounds like a neat feature! One very simple idea. Perhaps you can allow a player to selct a unit or two that he wants to be spotted and this raises it's probablity of being so. This would allow the players to try to employ some sort of decption plan.

I just reread some of this post and had some more thoughts to toss out. I agree that AI is not the way to fix the C2 problem. Having had some professional experience in developing AI I agree with Steve that the problem is in coding time and not run time. In general, it takes a very very long time to develop good AI but if well designed it can run amazingly fast. Also, AI takes away some of the players control and thus has the potential of lower the fun level and it is this need to preserve the fun level that is one of the things that makes a wargame so different than a real combat simulation. In a game there are two things modeled, the physics and the human element. The physics can be modeled with some reasonable expectation of being somewhat realistic. On the other hand the human element can only either be abstracted or provided by the human players. Having the human player provide the human factor could lead to the option of introducing massive multiplayer to make that part more realistic. However, as a player that likes to play solitare (for various and sundry reasons) this option does not much appeal that much to me. Also, it may not really fix all of the the problems. This brings leaves either abstracting the human element or ignoring it. Now how might one abstract it. This could be done bay either limiting information to a player or limiting his control. Limiting information (like Steve said in some post) is a good approach and I personaly applaud and look forward to what seems to be a new game feature in CMX2 where a player can only see the units that the selected unit can could see on the battlefield. This will IMHO go a long way in improving the modeling of the human element (not to mention enhancing the look and feel and drama of the gaming experience). The other option of limiting the players actions can also be used to abstract the human element but there may be better and worse ways of doing this. Limiting human action can be doen by either restricting certain behaviors or forcing others. Currently the game does this by modeling unit status such as broken, etc and by command delays. Perhaps some subtle enhancements of these can greatly increase the effect of the human element without affetcing either the fun level or the current look and feel of the game. Back in the heydays of Sqaud leader AH tried another apporach to small unit combat in the game, Up Front, that made heavy use of playing cards. While the game perhaps had many flaws it also had many innovations that could perhaps be incorporated into modern computer based games to bring in more of the human element. Now computers may in some ways eliminate the whole idea of using cards in that the computer can directly model things that the cards did in a more clumsy fashion. But perhaps the notion of playing cards can still be useful to help us get our minds around some of the problems that could be modeled in software without the use of cards. The idea of a card is to introduce either random elements that affect play or the effects of commands from higher levels. For example in the venerable game, Monopoly, whenever you draw a card it either made you do something (Go to Jail, Take a ride on the Reading RR, etc) or gave you new powers (Get out of jail free card). Perhaps it might be of some interest to see how this might apply (in theory) to a game such as CMX2.. Example one. Getting Lost. Let's imagine a rule where a platoon moving in a woods has the chance of drawing a "card" that says YOU ARE LOST. YOU CAN ONLY VIEW THIS PLATOON AT LEVEL 1; PAST MOVEMENT ORDERS ARE CANCELED. NEW ORDERS THAT MOVE YOU MORE THAN A TOTAL OF 20M ADD 60 SEC DELAY. Now suppose that Platoon has it it's "hand" a card that it drew earlier when it wasn't moving "JUST LOOKED AT MAP: USE THIS CARD TO DISCARD YOU ARE LOST CARD. Now this is type of stuff is what most computer software does automatically buried somewhere in its logic. The only idea here is to formalize some of this logic and express it in a more human assessable form such as the notion of cards. And with computers one doesn't require the human to handle the actual mechanics of the cards but one can bury the mechanics under the user interface where the user may have some indication of what is happening but does not by his actions have to implement the actions. For example when the platoon drew the YOU ARE LOST CARD the human player could have been alerted to this by say a .WAVE file saying "where in the heck are we?" If the platoon had a JUST LOOKED AT THE MAP CARD it might then trigger a .wave file that says "It says onthe map we are right here!" The user interface might also even provide the user to look at some are all of the Virtual Cards by cliking on an icon that would inform him of the situation. These virtual cards could just be a dialog box are could be a rendition of a traditional playing card with cool graphics as eye candy (at the risk of changing the look and feel of the game). Now the above may be a bit of a hoaky example but the idea here is not to go and design how all this would work but to toss out the idea (which in fact perhaps this idea should be "tossed out"). The idea here is that the human element can be introduced without the use of AI. It would could largely be transparant to the user but would have an affect on play. If done rightly it could enhance the gaming experience and the drama of the game. It could require quite a bit of programming but not nearly so much as AI. Also it could be phased in gradually. Perhaps a game version could start with only a few "cards" and then others could be added in subsequent updates. If implemented on a modular fashion new "cards" could be added as expansion modules which could be used to increase the game companies revinues (for I for one would pay for new cool game cards). Example 2. Sit Tight Order. Perhaps another example might be a good way to end this. In this example the card may not be a random event but an order. Let's say a platoon receives a SIT TIGHT CARD from his company comander. This card might have the restrictions: CANCEL ALL MOVEMENT ORDERS FOR PLATOON. NEW MOVEMENT ORDERS CAN ONLY TOTAL 30M FROM PLATOON HQ UNLESS MOVING CLOSER TO HQ. Now the Platoon leader may have a type of "Get out of jail free card" that is IGNORE ORDER: THIS CARD CAN BE DISCARDED ALONG WITH ANY ORDERS CARD (or it could be specific and only allow discarding orders from the company comander but not the Bn commander). Or maybe one can have a BEND ORDER card that would say PLAY THIS CARD AND DOUBLE ANY MOVEMENT RESTRICTIONS thus if one played the BEND ORDER to counter the SIT TIGHT ORDER then the 20 M movement limit could be doubled to 40 M for one turn. Or perhaps one could have a IGNORE ORDERS FOR ONE TURN card. The idea here is that one can only disobey orders so many times without getting in big trouble. Now certain platoon leaders may be lacky's and seldom if ever "draw" and IGNORE ORDERS card. Other more platoon leaders with more pluck may be able to draw them more often. BTW. Now one might say that the platoon leader would have no use of an IGNORE ORDER card since the same human palyer is playing both the company commander and the platoon comander and he can just have the company commander rescend the order rather than ignore it. However, this might require more lags in that there may be a bigger delay for the comapnay commander to issue the rescend order of the comapnay comander may be out of communicayion or have a limited number of orders he can give or he may have gotten a card "YOU CANNOT ISSUE ORDERS" that he needs to get rid of before he can cancel it. Once again the idea is not to design how to implemnt this but merely to illustrate the concept. This would add a new dimension in the game play but would not affect the current game mechanics of single player control but would only add some minor variations that would occur beneath the surface.In affect it could add a game within the game in that the outer game would model two side shooting at each other while the inner game would model a seperate but related battle to getting other people to do what you want them to or keeping from having to do so yourself when others try to make you do what you don't want to do (like get killed). Thus the idea is that even though the human player has both a borg like knowledge of what is going on and has one mind the card in affect simulate a lack of knowledge or a difference in wills among the commanders on the field. The idea here is not to make the game more realistic (for that may be next to impossible)but to make it more representative of those human factors that affect combat so as to include the look and feel of those factors even if it is through abstractions. And just as in a game like Monopoly the drawing of cards makes the game more fun and more unpredictable so might a game like CMX2 be made more fun and more unpredictable by using a similar artifact (though in a different way). [ August 19, 2005, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Midnight Warrior ]

Since this is fantasizing.... 1. Tanks don't drive through fences but over them (or through them)depending on how heavy the tank and how sturdy the wall. If they go over them they expose themsleves to belly shots. 2. Fallen tree trunks and logs to hide behind 3. Creeks and streams 4. True 3D fox holes and trenches 5. Vehicles leave tracks in the ground. 6. More interior details in houses and buildings. 7. planning map with the ability to draw phase lines. 8. Links from Plt HQ to Co HQ's 9. A way to jump around the map to preplanned sight points so that you don't have to keep scrolling back and forth. 10. Programmable mouse wheel 11. 3d Audio 12. Interface to IR head tracker (like in aircraft sims)

Since this is fantasizing.... 1. Tanks don't drive through fences but over them (or through them)depending on how heavy the tank and how sturdy the wall. If they go over them they expose themsleves to belly shots. 2. Fallen tree trunks and logs to hide behind 3. Creeks and streams 4. True 3D fox holes and trenches 5. Vehicles leave tracks in the ground. 6. More interior details in houses and buildings. 7. planning map with the ability to draw phase lines. 8. Links from Plt HQ to Co HQ's 9. A way to jump around the map to preplanned sight points so that you don't have to keep scrolling back and forth. 10. Programmable mouse wheel 11. 3d Audio 12. Interface to IR head tracker (like in aircraft sims)

OK, I'll take a guess. Perhaps they will do a Solomons campaign. You get Marines and US Army and Japanese infantry and light tanks on both sides. You don't have to worry about heavy fortications and caves such as in the later war such as at Iwo. You can then add a British module and add a Singapore and Hong Kong and Burma module and then add a Chinese module. This could be done in a year with a module comming out every 6 months. People would buy the first module becuase 1. its CMX2 2. It covers the PTO 3. Infantry battles would showcase the 1:1 units 4. It has Americans (for the American market) 5. It has Marines (for Marines fans) 6. It cool to fight in Jungle terrain People would buy the 1st expansion module because 1. They are tired of playing the Marines 2. They are tired of fighting in the jungles 3. They now have some urban terrain to fight in 4. They are tired of fighting with Stuart Tanks People may buy the 2nd module because 1. They are tired of playing the British 2. They have still more new terrain (Mountains, new urban areas, rice paddies, etc) 3. Wow, we really have never played a game where the Chinese fight the Japanese! 4. There probably will be some new cool features by then. Then in about year 2 the next module would return to the ETO with a Normandy US vs German module and people will buy it becuase 1. They are no longer tired of the ETO. 2. They are sick of the PTO 3. They desperate to have a big tank battle 4. Germans units and vehicles are cool 5. Other BTS chares $35 for the first module and 25$ for the expansion. They sell 1x module 1, .75X module 2 and .5X module 3 which gives them the equivalent of seeling on big module for about $65. Then they sell the first ETO for $50 and sell 1x again because the gaming community is so ready to have big tank battles again and fight the Germans that they shell out the extra bucks. This way BTS gets paid what they deserve for the quality of product they have made and the long hard work that went into it. The Grogs have plenty to complain about (which apparantly keeps them happy) And everybody wins because BTS does not go out of business trying to compete with all the myriads of the WWII FPS/RTS mega-eye candy big budget games that are flooding the market so that we still have a place to but quality tactical wargames. After another ETO module or two then switch to the Pacific and do a Korea 50-51 module and then next maybe a Arab/Israeli module (that way you get to re-use those Centurians). Then back to Europe but on the eastern front for a couple of three modules! Finally back to 1940 module (or maybe a cold war). Perhaps all this could be done in 4-5 years. We shell out about a 100 bucks a year instead of 55 every other year. We can afford it and BTS needs the cash flow. It looks like a win/win for everyone.

I personally don't like the way Bull Run does its mouse interface and think CM's is much better. I don't like coupling between axis (i.e. elevation angle and azimuth) in that if you want to slew in azimuth you don't want to mess up the elevation angle. What I think would be a super user interface is to replace the current arrows with buttons that configure the mouse wheel. The buttons might be 1. azimuth (;eft/right) , 2. elevation angle(i.e tilt), height (level), range, unit, HQ. The mouse wheel would control the parameter indicated by the last selected button. This would allow for one hand control (I hate having to type keys..I want to run things just with the mouse). The operation would be something like this. Click on azimuth button and then your mousewheel lets you look left/right. Click on the tilt and the mouse wheel lets you look up and down, click on the height button and the mouse wheel lets you go up and down in height. Click on the range button and the mouse wheel moves you closer or further in range. Click on the unit button and the mouse wheel lets you step between units (like the + and - keys do now. Click on the HQ button and you step from one HQ to the next. If these buttons are made large (like the arrows are now) they will be easy to hit quickly and it will would be very quick to reconfigure the mouse wheel.

Excellent point!