c3k

Gents, All commonwealth references aside, grazing fire can be very effective. I'm speaking to those who contend that just by ducking under the height of the graze-line, one may render it ineffective. If the trajectory extends from knee high to waist high, yes, you can get under it by crawling. As a defender, sure, I'd love to mow down row after row of onrushing attacker. If they resort to crawling, well, so much the better. Now they've stuck themselves in my kill-sack. (Self evident due to the fact that my machine guns have been sighted into that zone for grazing fire.) Now all I need to do is call in some arty, or let my armored support take them under fire from the flank, or etc., etc. You get the picture. If grazing fire immobilizes an attacking force, it achieves a great deal of the defender's purpose. Enfilade, Defilade, Grazing, Plunging: all different words for different concepts. Regards, Ken

Hey, Dorosh: Is it possible for you to limit your postings of nasty words? You know, the four letter variety starting with an "F", ending with a "K" and having a "U" and "C" arranged in the midst? I realize you may be unable to limit yourself thusly, due to an overabundance of sensitivity to criticism and an underabundance of verbal acumen, but it a weak form of debate to resort mere curses. Forum etiquette and all. Ken

Gents, Two points: First, maps in the Soviet Union were regarded as top secret documents. This is from a former air attache who spent many Cold War years seeking ground truths. Second, on stairs and building modelling, I suggest a player aid to locate stairs in a building to be a simple white block. (ASL humor) Ken

Gents (and anyone else), I've decided to start this thread to try to examine the differences in force responsiveness as enabled by doctrine or technology. In CMx1, we're quite familiar with the use of accumulating delay to replicate the difficulty of transmitting complex commands. In various, highly appreciated, bones, Steve has hinted at a system in CMx2 of simulating radio networks. What of the differences in unit doctrine? The obvious example would be a comparison of the decision loop of a German infantry company versus a Soviet infantry company. The German was trained to take action; to show initiative, not try to devise a 'perfect' plan, but to act on a 'good enough' plan. The Soviet commander would be expected to stick to the pre-planned, err, plan. (At least until late '44. Even then, Soviet flexibility was more at the Operational level, not the tactical.) (The U.S. model, based on British tenets, was to train leadership to find the 'perfect' solution.) Now, having carried that paragraph a bit too far, here's my question: given the same level of technology available to both Soviet and German infantry company commanders, how will CMx2 simulate the difference in command flexibility?

Gents, There are a lot of good ideas floating around in this thread. Steve, I'm glad to hear your views on the focus of CMx2. Like Kip, I get my enjoyment from CMx1 at the small unit (squad, gun, vehicle) level. Thanks, Ken

Gents, I've got a great understanding of the 'borg' concept. That's when every unit in play has all the information available to any other unit. Hence, the isolated, dismounted crew in the enemy's rear is able to ensure that every other unit knows what's on the other side of the hill. My confusion arises from the 'god' concept. I've always thought that the 'god' concept is when the player is allowed to roam the battlefield at will and drop down and control each of the various levels of command in his force. (Note that roaming the battlefield at will does NOT imply gaining intel. It merely allows a bird's eye view.) The crux of the 'god' concept, to me, is being allowed to intervene at the different command levels. Now, having read all 2,361 pages of postings on CMx2, I seem to have misunderstood this term. Can anyone (Steve?) define the 'god' concept to me? Thank you. Please do try to keep this thread on topic. I'm not looking for pro's and con's, merely a working definition of the 'god' term. ('Borg' is quite well understood.) Thanks, Ken

A/C

Steve, Regarding PBEM, market niches, and advice from Vadr, you wrote, in part(edited for brevity): Obviously we don't agree. There are games that sell hundreds of thousands of more games than we could ever imagine selling, and yet they have HORRID AI (almost none) and no PBEM functionality. The overall game, therefore, is what is important. Steve [/QB]

Steve, As for PBEM, I'm for some form of implementation of it. It is the closest way of replicating the single player fun of CM. (The way you can put the game down for a few minutes to a few weeks and then start the battle right where you left off.) With a PBEM system, you can let the turn sit until you've carved out some time to play, even if it's just a few minutes. The benefit is the friendship of your PBEM partner, and the better experience playing versus a human instead of the A.I. With TCP/IP, you lose that flexibility. You MUST sit and play at the same times, coordinating turns. Through PBEM, I've convinced two casual wargamers to buy your products. One is only at CMBO, the other has CMBO, BB, and AK; just like me. That's a benefit of PBEM. Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, Okay, for Wartgamer, two points: what if I watched the playback from my Panzer platoon first? (You know, the one from your example which would let the rifle platoon know what was on the other side of the ridge.) Secondly, REALISM is __NOT__ the goal. Not for me. For the record, I have been shot at, I have gone weeks without bathing, I've eaten nothing but cold rations for days on end, being cold, wet, tired and hungry the entire time. I have experienced, in the most infinitesimal way, what the REALITY of the game must be like. The goal is - wait for it - A FUN GAME!!!! Okay, the whole God thing: Steve, when I play, I AM GOD! I NEED to float over the battlefield and survey my domain. I command my units - all of them, like the god I am. Their weaknesses and confusion may prevent them from carrying out my desires, but, as a benevolent god, I understand. I merely repeat my orders a minute later and force them to comply. Any restriction on my god-powers would not enhance the experience. If I wanted that, I'd play some sort of "iron-man" rules. As a voluntary option!! Restrictions on my style of play are bad. Thank you, Ken

Zitadelle, First, if you DON'T go to Bovington I'll start a campaign to have you permanently banned from these forums, to the extent of precluding viewing privileges. My job takes me over the pond frequently, and I've been to London and done the Bovington trek. Here are some pointers to help you out. I won't address the militaria on display. Simply one of the best I've ever been to. Now, go to the Bovington web-site. Good. See the picture of the snack-bar? Don't even think about getting food there. (Very small, very limited, possibly very crowded.) You'd be well advised to pack a lunch - and, depending on appetite, dinner, as well. The train ride from London is hours long. (The stop is a small place, Wool. It has several benches along the rail and a window with limited hours.) The museum is just a few miles away. A taxi was conveniently waiting when the train arrived. (When I was done touring the displays, instead of calling or using a cab, I walked back to the station. Nice stroll, about 30 minutes.) Other than the VERY limited snack bar, the only other place I found that had ANY food was a gas station near the train station. It's in sight, just to the north of the tracks. Yes, a gas-station food-mart was where I found my dinner. I had a relaxing ride there and back, enjoying a good book. I remember taking an early train, around 7 a.m., from London. I didn't return until later that evening, about 12 hours, or more, later. It's long day. Did I mention limited food choices? Do yourself a favor and grocery shop the day before. After all, an army marches on its stomach! Enjoy, Ken

Just my thoughts, but I feel the entire map is open to play. If it's a custom made map, then the designer should've limited the edge use through terrain (swamps, rivers, too rough, etc.). As for reality arguments about secured flanks, I would think a continuous front, ala WWI, rarely existed. Most defensive "lines" consisted of strongpoints which secured decisive terrain and used interlinking fire/observation to secure the open areas. In the game, an edge-creep attack will, if detected and swiftly countered with defensive reserves, pin the attacker and lead to units being lost off the edge. It's a risk. However, if you're playing someone who's style is abrasive (for whatever reason), finish the game - sportsmanship and all - and then decline to play again. Regards, Ken

I think the manhours idea is fantastic! The scenario designer could allocate how much time the defender was able to improve his position prior to the battle. The player could customize his defenses to the terrain. Kinda like a closer SIMULATION leads to a better GAME. As well, this idea would fold in nicely with a campaign level. There would be a reward for leaving a company in place for half a day. Just a thought.... Regards, Ken

On Arty, Didn't the Soviets work on the whole quantitative school of effectiveness for artillery? Meaning, they determined, based on target type and position, EXACTLY how many rounds of a given caliber would result in a specified casualty level to the target. Using their theories, they'd assign different tubes/shots to targets. That was for pre-planned missions. I'd imagine as they gained flexible comms with FO's that the Soviet FDC would maintain the tight control over # of rounds fired based on target type. Cull - that was a nice anecdote you shared. Thanks. Regards, Ken

Steve, Thanks for the updates. Since none of us have a clear idea of HOW CMx2 will look or work, we have to guess and add what we'd LIKE in CMx2. What would I like? Well, I'm glad you asked.... Everything you said, plus: 1) Clear separation between cover and concealment, and concomittant with that, clear differentiation in the penetration statistics of the various projectiles. (An energy state, if you will. How much energy is a available, how much is required, therefore, how much energy does the projectile have if/when it penetrates.) 2) A much higher fidelity armor/vehicle model. Particularly in behind-armor effects. I assume you've looked at the "Panzer Elite" armor model. In that the various vehicle systems are represented as boxes. Hit the box for, say, "transmission", and you MAY immobilize the vehicle (or keep it stuck in gear?). Different boxes added and sized as desired. 3) Please, for the love of all that's holy in gaming design, DO NOT model Matrix-like bullet effects. That should do it. Thanks, Ken

Gents, Please read the last several pages of the "1:1 Representation in CMx2" thread, specifically pages 7 through 9. There seems to be great consternation concerning the practicality of any future PBEM feature, due mainly to file size. (Apologies to Steve et al. if this misconstrues the tempest in a teapot going on.) Anyway, I decided to test various size file transfers. First, I must admit that I am not a tech. What follows is the methodology I used to test the possible difficulties in a future PBEM file transfer. I started with a Cat 5e cable and a Gigabit rated LAN. I realized that CMx2 doesn't exist; I have no idea how to code; any test would be difficult to create. Therefore, I immediately disconnected the Cat 5e cable. I cut it apart, retaining a central section 1' long. There were a lot of twisted wires inside the tube. Obviously, even to a non-tech, they were in the way. I pulled them out. What I had left was a clear path through the 1 foot length of approximately 1/4" diameter plastic tubing. (Blue in color if that makes a difference.) Next, I needed something to simulate my infantry. I immediately siezed upon the fact that a pixel is the smallest and least detailed visual element of a computer screen. I realized at once that a grain of salt could simulate ANY pixel. So, using millions of grains of salt (and a funnel) I tested the throughput: the salt flowed through the Cat 5e cable. CONCLUSION: Minimally detailed pixel-sized soldiers will lead to a smooth PBEM transmission. What if there were more detail? I grabbed several 1" soldiers (U.S. infantry, circa late 1800's and several Native American warriors - bows and arrows) as representational of a more detailed infantry model. To get the figures to pass through my Cat 5e, Gigabit rated, cable, I had to blow - QUITE HARD. CONCLUSION: CMx2, if using moderately realistic figures, will enable PBEM transmission - with some difficulty. Well, CMx2 should have more detail than that! So, I grabbed two of my son's 6" Lord of the Rings Uruk Hui action figures. (Not dolls - action figures.) The only way to pass them through the line was to shove the heck out of them with a steel rod! CONCLUSION: CMx2, with highly detailed infantry, will require some external assistance for any PBEM functionality. Finally, seeking a state of the art in 2007 level of detail, I used one of my son's 12" tall G.I. Joe figures. (Desert Storm, equipped with body armor and an M-4 rifle.) Aye. THAT was a job. But, in the end, I got it through. Note that he was not equipped with extra ammo pouches, back pack or any other equipment other than his rifle. CONCLUSION: If CMx2 is state of the art, any PBEM game will be limited to very small ammo loads for infantry. Gentlemen, and BF.C, I will soon test various display sizes to find out the optimal scale for future battles in CMx2. I'll post my conclusions later. Thank you, Ken (Edited because even a post this bad doesn't deserve typos.) [ February 11, 2005, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]

Aye. But it'd cause an uproar if the lobsters from space were depicted with souls. Ken.

Gents, One for one representation with portraits? Count me out. I don't want to babysit every feckin' squaddie. That's the team-leader's job. I don't care that my T-34 driver is feeling low because Svetlana just sent him a "Dear Ivan" letter. Drive the tank so the Tiger will target you so the rest of the company can flank the same Tiger. That's your job. I don't care how long the stubble is on the cheeks of each of my my para's. Or, whether that same stubble color matches his hair color. I don't care. CMx1 does a poor job of allowing the PLAYER to track his OoB during a battle. (Yes, you can "+" and "-" your way through the list, but that is a poor solution.) A much better solution was a semi-transparent window with a graphic depiction of the unit hierarchy, allowing any unit to be cherry-picked and examined. How, in the name of all that's PLAYABLE, would portraits for each man in an infantry battalion, supported by several companies of armor, and close air support, help the GAME? Sure, RPG's, (the game genre, not the rocket) are fun. (Well, I'm sure the rocket style RPG's are fun as well!) But CMxX is NOT an RPG. Thank you for allowing this rant. Steve, please return to your regularly scheduled game development. Regards, Ken

Dook, Fantastic! The link, that is. I haven't read the paper yet. Thanks for posting that. Regards, Ken

Gents, Allow me to expand on the WIA/KIA theme. I DON'T think there needs to be a difference. Settle down, I'll explain. A KIA is out of the fight. I don't think there's any debate on that. Where he falls gives a clue as to the beaten zone of an enemy weapon. So, I'd like to see the KIA positioned there. As for WIA, there are many levels of wounding. For simplicity, I'll break it down to non-combat effective and combat effective. If a man is still combat effective, I don't care about his wound. A round leaving a furrow in a chunk of meat and then bandaged? Great. Shut up and press on. Oooh - an 88 through your gut and you're still conscious? You count as a KIA. I still want to see WHERE, on the battlefield, the casualty took his hit. The final (omitted) case is someone who is WIA, but not incapacitated, but is also not able to keep up with the squad. I'm fine ignoring that case. Chalk him up as a KIA type casualty. Now, all I mean by chalking WIA's up as KIA's is ONLY for laying bodies on the battlefield. At the end of the battle, I want the KIA's and WIA's broken out. (For ops, I'd assume that the lightly WIA'd - the one's still combat capable during the game and able to keep up with the squad - would heal in time for the next battle. No need to track different categories of wounds.) Thanks, Ken

Europa, I'd recommend getting a copy of "Death by Design" written by Beale. It gives the best (IMO) presentation of British wartime tank design and development, highlighting shortcomings. It has nice charts/graphs showing how tank families developed. Regards, Ken

Guys, First, to Gpig, you have a flair for this kind of thing. I think you should pursue a career in the direction of animated artwork. (Nice films - my kids and I enjoy them all!) Okay, onto CMx2 and 1:1. I DO NOT want to have 1:1 control issues. I like the idea of 1:1 representation so I can tell, at a glance, the relative strength of a squad or how hard it's been hit since the start of the scenario. I don't want any kind of wounded, but hors de combat, graphics. Either they can fight or they're casualties. I DO want to see WIA/KIA on the ground where they were hit. Why? So, again, at a glance, I can tell where the "hot" zones are. "Wow! I've got stacks of dead over in that wheatfield. I think I'll go through the woods instead." No graphic, emotional animations with gore and blood. A simple increase to the power of the graphical representation of the battlefied which allows the PLAYER an increase in situational awareness which would've been readily available to any observer actually present. (This is similar to having vehicle wrecks staying in sight. You can tell what happened and where.) Thanks, Ken

Foreigner, I agree. In the past, I've advocated the idea of pillboxes with a "passenger" status similar to trucks. In that manner, you could load and unload different units into and out of your pillboxes. Just like you said. Cheers, Ken

Gents, Ignoring Steve's post ( ), let me address what I see as a problem with the MIA solution. I'll use my patented "Ho Chi Minh trickle of death attack". I've got a company of 12 squads with 3 platoon HQ's. I'm behind a wooded ridge. The enemy is over there somewhere. I send one squad over the top. They go WAY out of command. Then they go ground. Their job is to hide and watch. Later, they'll give an intel report. What happens to them? Are they MIA? If not, why not? If I bring them back, do I get a sudden snap-shot of enemies? Are they in command, but blind until then? Are they able to spot enemies (hence, _I_ know about the enemy), but out of my control? Why are they out of my control? Then, I send one squad at a time to join the initial squad. Spaced 2 turns apart. A steady infiltration. At what point does the MIA status change? When do I, the player, gain information on enemy units they see? Or, their information (ammo, status, etc.). I don't see how this issue was addressed. All the suppositions seem to focus on a single, out of command, isolated unit. What happens as that status dynamically changes? Thanks, Ken P.S. Hey, Battlefront (Steve), THANK YOU for the bones.

Why CMx2 will never model cavalry or any early, pre-gunpowder conflicts: the clue is staring us in the face. Go back to Steve's most recent posting. I quote, "Cavarly", "cavlary", "mideval", and, how can any ring "rull" them all? It's obvious from the above, that Steve has a mind-block in place about all these subjects. Damn. I guess I'm stuck with guns and tanks. Oh, and another just for Steve. Regards, Ken "because I've NEVER misspellled anything"