Kip Watson

As you say, the hard part would be the algorithm that determines whether a 'unit' order conflicts with a 'company/battalion HQ' order. CoBa HQ orders could consist of very simple elements such as: - broad/narrow vectors of attack* - target areas and target points* - a list of general directives, 'observe', 'engage', 'suppress', 'attack' *Players should also be rewarded with improved command and morale response for using narrow vectors and small areas/specific targets (ie. clear and concise orders)

As you say, the hard part would be the algorithm that determines whether a 'unit' order conflicts with a 'company/battalion HQ' order. CoBa HQ orders could consist of very simple elements such as: - broad/narrow vectors of attack* - target areas and target points* - a list of general directives, 'observe', 'engage', 'suppress', 'attack' *Players should also be rewarded with improved command and morale response for using narrow vectors and small areas/specific targets (ie. clear and concise orders)

Seriously, I think it would work. The company level orders would need to be generalised and simple. Any platoon level orders that didn't conflict with them would incur only a brief command delay. I think it actually overcomes the 'abstracted' mid-long command delay which currently applies to every order (especially those with multiple waypoints). Say for example you wanted to change the orders of platoon 1 to race to the other side of the map and deal with a threat. It could be designed so that orders in serious conflict with company level orders would be very slow to implement and might even incur a big morale drop (cf. BoB attacking Foy "A flanking movement - what's he talking about, our orders are to attack"). A change in company orders themselves need not require much more of a delay - complicated ones would: 'regroup your platoon and proceed to...and coordinate with...etc etc' might add a full minute (and the company HQ could be limited to how many orders they could issue in a game-turn). Comprehensive orders - or perhaps ones that include a 'regroup' command, or coordinated orders that make use of siignals - should also give a slight boost to morale (on the premise troops like the firm hand of a strong leader), but there should be the option of simple ones too - 'get the hell out of there', 'all platoons attack', 'get over to the other side of town' - which could be issued/amended in the heat of battle and add just a few seconds. I think something like this would be a lot less abstract than the current system. Anyway, this is just fantasising (and an excuse to play around with screenshots) - BFC probably have something much cooler in store.

Seriously, I think it would work. The company level orders would need to be generalised and simple. Any platoon level orders that didn't conflict with them would incur only a brief command delay. I think it actually overcomes the 'abstracted' mid-long command delay which currently applies to every order (especially those with multiple waypoints). Say for example you wanted to change the orders of platoon 1 to race to the other side of the map and deal with a threat. It could be designed so that orders in serious conflict with company level orders would be very slow to implement and might even incur a big morale drop (cf. BoB attacking Foy "A flanking movement - what's he talking about, our orders are to attack"). A change in company orders themselves need not require much more of a delay - complicated ones would: 'regroup your platoon and proceed to...and coordinate with...etc etc' might add a full minute (and the company HQ could be limited to how many orders they could issue in a game-turn). Comprehensive orders - or perhaps ones that include a 'regroup' command, or coordinated orders that make use of siignals - should also give a slight boost to morale (on the premise troops like the firm hand of a strong leader), but there should be the option of simple ones too - 'get the hell out of there', 'all platoons attack', 'get over to the other side of town' - which could be issued/amended in the heat of battle and add just a few seconds. I think something like this would be a lot less abstract than the current system. Anyway, this is just fantasising (and an excuse to play around with screenshots) - BFC probably have something much cooler in store.

I would love to see the 'destroy something' (commando type) mission option. This is actually perfect for company-sized engagements, and I think this would work particularly well with really mind-blowingly-huge-and-cool explosions. 'Pin down the enemy for ten minutes while we lay the charges' then.... B-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-M!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Really, what could be more fun than that?

I like the idea of some kind of ammo re-supply, small ammo dumps (some sort of bunker?), ammo carrying vehicles - as an aid to verisimilitude and as additional potential targets, and I can see the potential for some really really cool explosions... But the actual act of resupplying troops I would strongly prefer not to have to think about - ie. as long as I look after the asset/s and prevent my squads getting cut-off, the pixel-guys take care of distributing ammo themselves. It doesn't have to be 'abstract' - just hands-off.

I know in BFC terms this probably counts as a cup-holder, but I always thought the command-delay was a clear, simple and efficient way to model LOS,FOW and all the rest (and one that doesn't force me to play the whole game at zoom level one - yikes!). In my fantasy world, a further level of realistic command delay could be effected (as in the picture below) by having generalised company or battalion orders, issued in the setup phase - to which platoon orders have to broadly adhere - that can be overridden but only with an additional delay.

I know in BFC terms this probably counts as a cup-holder, but I always thought the command-delay was a clear, simple and efficient way to model LOS,FOW and all the rest (and one that doesn't force me to play the whole game at zoom level one - yikes!). In my fantasy world, a further level of realistic command delay could be effected (as in the picture below) by having generalised company or battalion orders, issued in the setup phase - to which platoon orders have to broadly adhere - that can be overridden but only with an additional delay.

Cold War to 1980s would be very cool - huge period though, it could easily subdivide several times into still-complex games. I was just joking about the nuke - but how spooky would it be to have a 'max damage' terrain setting that was 'after nuclear blast' - yowch! (with your troops all suited up in radiation suits and tanks permanently buttoned). Imagine that with hi res CMX2 terrain and a nuclear twilight backdrop. --- As well as the difficulty factor, it seems a bit unethical to model contemporary warfare (eg. up to Iraqi Freedom) - even if the specs were just best-guess, the bad guys would almost certainly get their hands on it and probably learn a lot that they don't know.

Cold War to 1980s would be very cool - huge period though, it could easily subdivide several times into still-complex games. I was just joking about the nuke - but how spooky would it be to have a 'max damage' terrain setting that was 'after nuclear blast' - yowch! (with your troops all suited up in radiation suits and tanks permanently buttoned). Imagine that with hi res CMX2 terrain and a nuclear twilight backdrop. --- As well as the difficulty factor, it seems a bit unethical to model contemporary warfare (eg. up to Iraqi Freedom) - even if the specs were just best-guess, the bad guys would almost certainly get their hands on it and probably learn a lot that they don't know.

Yeah, I have to admit, post-war/cold-war would be my second favourite after WW2, especially 50s-70s real-plus-hypothetical. 1973 Yom-Kippur would be an intense and quite closely matched battle - 6 day war would be a challenge too. Vietnam would be very intense with every type of terrain, urban, jungle, wet and dry farmland, urban... How about a 'Swift Boats in Cambodia' scenario (JUST KIDDING!!!!) But playing Nato v. Warsaw Pact around the 1970s would be unreal (remember the board game Fulda Gap?). As kids in the 70s we were quite sure there would be a WW3, so it almost seems real to me. Leopards, Centurions, T72s, chemical reactive armour - how many points for tactical nukes in a company-level game though...? It might be hard to model though, are the exact specs for that gear still classified? And if such a game was super accurate, could it be a national security problem for countries that still use that equipment?

Yeah, I have to admit, post-war/cold-war would be my second favourite after WW2, especially 50s-70s real-plus-hypothetical. 1973 Yom-Kippur would be an intense and quite closely matched battle - 6 day war would be a challenge too. Vietnam would be very intense with every type of terrain, urban, jungle, wet and dry farmland, urban... How about a 'Swift Boats in Cambodia' scenario (JUST KIDDING!!!!) But playing Nato v. Warsaw Pact around the 1970s would be unreal (remember the board game Fulda Gap?). As kids in the 70s we were quite sure there would be a WW3, so it almost seems real to me. Leopards, Centurions, T72s, chemical reactive armour - how many points for tactical nukes in a company-level game though...? It might be hard to model though, are the exact specs for that gear still classified? And if such a game was super accurate, could it be a national security problem for countries that still use that equipment?

All those CMX2 hints have been absolutely wonderful, but I got a bit bogged down with the stuff about cup-holders and PBEM files (I understand the deeply held feelings and stuff, but that combined with tempers frayed was like Christmas Dinner with my family - except for not being mercifully brief and only once a year...) Anyway, now that we are armed with so many great and tantalizing hints, can we get back to a bit of innocent fantasising again now? (Like the 'what would you like in...' thread, that was great). To get the ball rolling: I am imagining night battles with muzzle flashes and star shells, shadowy sillouhettes briefly illuminated by exploding vehicles - and a window that shows me what I see though the slit of a buttoned up tank ('I can't see a damn thing') I am also imaging a later CMX2 release* set sometime in the late 19th Century. (It could be the Spanish American War, the Franco Prussian War, the Boer War - or so many other 'small' wars in that period). The mix of cavalry and rifles, early machine guns, powerful field guns (but no spotters), guys in khaki or bright colours (how would that effect spotting?). And formations ranging from modern dispersed formation to Napoleonic column. Command delays of up to several minutes (runners required). Redcoats, Zouaves, Injuns, Rough Riders... ...yeah... that would rock. [* after the cold-war-goes-hot hypothetical of course!! ]

All those CMX2 hints have been absolutely wonderful, but I got a bit bogged down with the stuff about cup-holders and PBEM files (I understand the deeply held feelings and stuff, but that combined with tempers frayed was like Christmas Dinner with my family - except for not being mercifully brief and only once a year...) Anyway, now that we are armed with so many great and tantalizing hints, can we get back to a bit of innocent fantasising again now? (Like the 'what would you like in...' thread, that was great). To get the ball rolling: I am imagining night battles with muzzle flashes and star shells, shadowy sillouhettes briefly illuminated by exploding vehicles - and a window that shows me what I see though the slit of a buttoned up tank ('I can't see a damn thing') I am also imaging a later CMX2 release* set sometime in the late 19th Century. (It could be the Spanish American War, the Franco Prussian War, the Boer War - or so many other 'small' wars in that period). The mix of cavalry and rifles, early machine guns, powerful field guns (but no spotters), guys in khaki or bright colours (how would that effect spotting?). And formations ranging from modern dispersed formation to Napoleonic column. Command delays of up to several minutes (runners required). Redcoats, Zouaves, Injuns, Rough Riders... ...yeah... that would rock. [* after the cold-war-goes-hot hypothetical of course!! ]

This forum certainly moved along while I was in RL... I knew my (much) earlier post about close combat and heroics would sound silly. But really I was making a feeble attempt to make a serious point. One of the very interesting things about CM, is that after the game you can tab through the 'kills' panels. In most battles, most squads will record zero or low kills, but you get occasional squads that record very high kills. This is historically right, and as implausible as it sounds, some years ago I read an article in 'Some Dashed Science Rag'* where a bunch of academics (with nothing better to do) had measured this in some way, and their concluded that in a battle, most infantrymen don't kill anyone, and that most kills are made by a relativelty small number of men. I would guess in very high adrenaline situations, such as close combat and intense firefights, this effect was even more pronounced (all the historical accounts suggest this is so). You actually 'see' this in CM, when occasionally a small squad will manage to eliminate a larger squad at close range, although currently the statistics don't record kills by individual. I'm not looking for 'Street Fighter WW2 edition', and I won't have a tantrum if it's not included, but some elegant/serious/non-gross modelling of this effect would be cool (fascinating historical/educational) as well as cool (exciting fun). ( *NewSci or SciAm...? )

I'd be interested in how you model heroics and close combat in general. It sounds like a silly statement, but seriously - 'studies have shown', as well as millenia of anecdotal, that most of the killing in infantry combat, especially close combat, is done by a smallish minority of soldiers. I'd be most impressed if this 'Audie Murphy affect' was modelled to some degree. At the moment troops in close combat just stand a few metres away and fling grenades at each other, but the willingness to engage in close combat made a big difference to the lethality of some units. It's be cool to see the Brits getting in the the bayonet or whatever, without needing to cross the gross-out-line.

I don't seek this feature, but I would like to see more elaborate briefings, that could include formatted text and graphics (eg. recon pics and maps).

I thought grazing fire was already modelled. For example, if you have the right angle and you aim area fire beyond the unit you are targeting (ie. so they must pass thru the brown area fire line), you get grazing fire. It seemed to work for me, was it just a fluke?

I thought grazing fire was already modelled. For example, if you have the right angle and you aim area fire beyond the unit you are targeting (ie. so they must pass thru the brown area fire line), you get grazing fire. It seemed to work for me, was it just a fluke?

Here's a cool idea. Sometimes the CM maps look a little bland (realistic maps can sometimes be quite featureless) and the thought occured that sometimes a simple map (which many good battle maps often are) would be greatly enhanced by more sophisticated backdrops. I would like to see: 1) near-distance and fa-distance backdrops. (NB the near distance being what right now is just a 'green void'). Near distance needn't be high res or anything, just a hint of a landcape would do. 2) Scenario designer can pick N,S,E & W near and far from a menu. For instance on a Winter 1941 battle you could pick 'Spires of Moscow'; in a Stalingrad you could pick 'burning city'; in a desert battle at night you could pick 'Artillery flashes at night', D-Day to the North you have 'sea with armada' - do you get the idea? 3) And while it wouldn't need to be anything too complex, but a little bit of background animation would really be cool. eg. In the far distance: a plane flying past, the odd explosion, huge columns of smoke (depends on background of course), flashes of guns. - in the near-distance; an occasional truck or vehicle, or on the flanks the hint of a larger battle (dust explosions, flames). That'd be cool, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it just bring a map to life?!

I know this will put me in a minority, and I also would like to see more realistic infantry, but - just as a 'toggle capable' option - I still like the idea of the toy-soldiers-come-to-life look. I can't help it, with their bases on and their slightly wooden poses, it just reminds me of playing wargames as a young 'un all those years ago.

The thing is a lot of people have discussed how they would like to see a lot more detail in the game - high res graphics, every man in squad etc. Which does sound cool, but actually I also really like the concept as it is now of the 'war game come to life', with units on bases etc. In a big battle it can be hard enough not to lose track of units simply by overlooking them - I mean does anyone actually play whole games at 'actual size'? And the fact that squads a limited in what they do on the map (the way they walk etc). makes unit recognition easier - eg. the more 'realism' you add, the more difficulty you get in picking the HMG from the bazooka from the 'God's Eye' view. But still it would be incredibly exciting to see all the members of a squad blasting their way into a building, advancing by bounds, or the complete team of an MG or gun doing their thing. Which may be completely impractical - but if it weren't, it would be better not to handle it in the main window (IMO) which works great being nice and clean. The 'binocular' thing already exists, in the way you can go to zoom level 1 and use the zoom-in key. I love this feature and use it all the time, but it takes a bit of navigation - so if you were to have a window for one animation, why not have a window for this as well, with a bit of extra 3D attached.

Sorry for this, but I was having a quiet morning so I decided to waste my time and your bandwidth with this mockup of an earlier post I made. The idea being the main window stay much as it is and to have a smaller window for animated 'renderings' of individual units (eg. higher res, every member of squad etc). The mind boggles with what you could do with the squad/unit one, but basically the sort of things that would be impractical to apply to the main window. The binocular one would be cool too and you could go nuts* with dust, wavy-mirage-distortion (hot weather), grey curtains of rain, huge night-time muzzle flash, that sort of thing. And by being much less than full screen and affecting only one or a few units they shouldn't max out CPU power. (not that I know much about such things) And note also the slow motion button!! (* or alternatively you could go "Nuts!" )

Here's a cool idea. What about a timer on the movement phase of game moves. One that was fairly flexible and that applied even to PBEM. Maybe even one that could be paused... It would be cool, it would limit the amount of orders to something similar to what a commander could truly give, and it would mean in an engagement between a large low quality force and small high quality force, the low quality force would by necessity be working with simpler commands.

That sounds interesting. But then you would need 'terrain-avoidance' or some-such built into the AI. The point being, I thought, not that the field commander would have detailed knowledge of the whole terrain, but that the vehicle commander would know, when he nearly on top of it, what terrain to avoid. In that sense the skill/knowledge of the gamer in effect represents Standing Orders or prior training rather than the 'God's eye view'. (having saud that there was a much earlier suggestion re: map FOW that came with illustrations that is quite brilliant and a must read)