Wartgamer

Most of the suggestions we've seen here involve "rules." And I hate rules! And so I think does BFC. LOL! In my business they are called specifications. You know, a couple years in the Army just might do you some good.

Well you can call me Mr. G. Wartham. Close friends call me WartGamer. Or Gilbert. I have not been 'giving' ideas here. These are actually specifications. More on this later. One of the problems with what I do, relations with the private sector, is that the personalities do not pass the 'professional' test that is expected when negotiating strict developmental guidelines. The only immediate problem that anyone in my position would have with dealing with your company is the reliance you have on only one programmer. If cmx2 was a finished/documented product; you could be a candidate for competition. As it is now, you would have to show acceptable documentation with at least a backup programmer (that can demonstrate following that documentation). Imagine how odd to shop a research grant and find that a company is probably 92% towards meeting the specifications that it calls for but still having to waste money allowing other people to be competitive. If there is anyone in your company that would like to persue this matter (hopefully with a technical background in dealing with this kind of opportunity with specification comprehension), give me an email and I will have preliminary information sent to them by my staff. Best of Luck. [ March 03, 2005, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Yes I would like to read the abstract at least! Here's an order.. Summary: Shrapnel Games announced that the United States Military Academy at West Point has ordered 1,040 copies of the tank simulation Steel Beasts. Full Story: Shrapnel Games announced that the United States Military Academy at West Point has ordered 1,040 copies of the tank simulation Steel Beasts. According to Shrapnel, this order indicates that the Department of Military Instruction Warfighting Center sees the educational use that the true-to-life tank simulation can provide. Shrapnel has had discussions with West Point representatives concerning the use of the game in the classroom. The use of electronic games in military training is not unheard of; back in March, it was announced that the US Army planned to use the squad-based action game Delta Force 2 in a training program. And I believe the Danes and other countries have simulator training programs that use this programs also [ March 03, 2005, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

But one thing I find myself wondering about lately is just how instantaneous battlefield communication actually was in WWII. Surely they didn't all have radios tuned to the same frequency all the time did they? I would imagine it might take a good half a minute just to get their dial-ups to work. So I guess what I'm asking is how much better is WWII communication at this geographic scale than 19th century communication in real practise? In many early cases, field phones with secure wire communications were more common. This was gradually taken over by wireless as the war dragged on. Getting radios netted up takes some time and is prone to jamming, heavy traffic and breaking down (no transistors). But when they worked provided a revolution in the speed of battle. From a Battalion HQ standpoint, getting wired field phones to all company HQs and critical observation points was crucial to fight the Battalion.

http://www.esimgames.com/comparison.htm Here is what Steel Beasts is doing. Going after the recreational treadhead as well as the military market. Why does BFC have to go to Market with self-imposed blinders on? Its somewhat limiting to say "I don't want to play that so why should I make that?". If you were in the Automobile inductry and said "I don't want to make SUVs cause I don't like SUVs..", you would not be very competitive. Is there a Marketing person also? From what I gather its still one or two designers/programmers (1?) and a loose staff of artists, etc.?

Options, Options, Options... And yes as a military product, its been mentioned in that other thread. As the game is now, you would have to be hard pressed (or some Kind of Australian) to believe it can be a training tool. If CMX1 was sold to a military Org, and cmx2 is going to push the reality barrier, why the heck not a market for the game? Isnt that Tank Sim doing the same thing and asking big bucks?

The Borg Problem now is mostly a function of both the MoviePlayback and the Absolute Spotting. But there are many subtle Borglets in the game. An example is knowing the exact 'realtime' state of your own troops. Thats uberinfo that forms a Borglet. Reinforcements coming in on turn XX with YY? Thats a Borglet. An infantry Platoon on your flank has been ambushed and you get to know how many guys got greased and how many grenades got lost and the state of each one? Borglet, Borglet, Borglet.

My opinion is largely concerned with having a realism setting that will capture the multifaceted dynamics of battle at the proposed cmx2 level (read Battalion or less). While that may be viewed as a self serving 'bother' to a busy designer, the fact that it can propel the product into a true military worthy training aid should not be lost. And, if you have ever been in the military, they are no so concerned with Funso factors. So, my ideas and opinions, while seemingly rigid and unfunso on the surface, could yield another market besides the yappy diehard 'Grogs' and the casual (read really poor players) wargamer.

My opinion matters according to this equation... Opinion_Matters=1/(total_number_of_Customers) IF Sum_Of_Opinion_Matters_that_are_same_as_my_opinion>(total_number_of_Customers)/2 Then Matters_A _Lot_I _suppose

I usually just email people for PBEM games. The only 'friendly' off-line chat is in that context. Nothing personal, just not interested. I, uh, get enough 'tom' in the context of this forum.

I would consider it if you would give me a possible reason for sending it. Are you looking for an email game?

Can we knock ourselves out brainstorming? It might help someone who is developing a Wargame that you may distribute? Or we can just have fun discussing it?

Ok edited out, please do the same.

edit out [ March 03, 2005, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

As far as Delays. Do not confuse Delays, which model intra-platoon combat 'missions' coordination nicely, with delays in 'Convoy Missions'. When giving movement commands for an infantry platoon attack, the delay is also modeling the platoon coordination needed so that people get up off the ground secure in the knowledge that everyone else is on the same plan. If you have ever done this, you know its not just the time it takes a squad to stand up and move to another position. Its the time that the platoon HQ decides where he will send one of his units (or more), the time it takes to get another squad to cover them, and the time it takes to coordinate all that. The amount of delay should be a function of what SOP that platoon is under, the number of units actually moving (having one fireteam move while everyone else covering resulting in a shorter delay as an example), the number of designated targets that the covering units are given ("you shoot up that house, you shoot up that bunker, etc"), the experience/leadership of platoon HQ/troops, etc. So for a Airborne platoon that is under some Attack type SOP, with excellent leaders that wants to just give covered arcs to most covering troops and only wants to get a bazooka (that was attached to the platoon HQ) up to a crossroads 25 meters away, the delay would be minimal. But if its a conscript platoon, under a 'Hold' SOP, with a pinned HQ and wants to advance two squads (recently attached from a destroyed company)through a minefield to attack a bunker, well the delay may be substantial. If you had a truck platoon moving up a road under a 'Convoy' SOP, you should be able to give as many movement orders (all same 'speed') as you need as long as it follows the waypoint roughly. Delay would be initially minimal and then perhaps non-existant. [ March 03, 2005, 08:27 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Yes that's the problem I percieve also. Its also present on the human side. Its sort of like "Where does the rubber meet the road?". In CMX1, its at the unit level. Company command, briefings, reaction to battle, etc is all at the unit menu. Since its the human (or computer) that is allowed to micro operate at this level, the abuse is extensive. Delays, while a good abstraction, did not capture all the layers of complexity in Large infantry battles. The game does a reasonable good simulation at a single platoon level agme. It diverges from reality at company/battalion levels. Edit: Delays are still a good thing. Hopefully, they will still be used to some extent in the game. Its just they can not be used to model higher level mechanics of a battlefield IMO. [ March 03, 2005, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Good ideas. I would actually want what Warren is saying much more than something like 3 way TCP/IP. It would be cool to just 'storeyboard' with waypoints/SOP what you want the armor to do (model a briefing) and just command the infantry /arty. It would also be cool to be playing a human (thumping him) and offer "Hey!, how about the AI takes over my infantry and I just fight out the rest of the game with the Shermans?". So again we see the AI being a 'fun' factor.

Since the scenario designer can waypoint and give a starting plan to the AIs forces, I wonder if that is also going to be done by the human player for his forces. Not only in the beginning of the game but also during the game. Perhaps that is the new C&C BFC is talking about? So you have to give waypoints, SOPs to platoons or companies and these are restricted in how they can be edited (hopefully). An example is a platoon that has been given a waypoint through a woods with a 'contact' type SOP (as soon as any unit in platoon reports contact, stop moving ie waypoint ceases and SOP changes to observe or defend). The platoon has lost LOS to other forces (due to woods/smoke/etc) and has also lost radio communication. So changing that SOP and waypoint can not be done. What effect this has (perhaps not being able to cancel any move orders for each unit?) would remain to be seen. This is certainly realistic. Perhaps after viewing a HQ based movie, that would be the time to give, waypoint/SOP 'orders'? This could even model delay in those Waypoint/SOP changes taken effect (using realistic parameters like communication/runners/etc). Here we see another way to model company command at this level. In front line battles, infantry platoons are typically not Command points. Think of units as tools. Platoons are toolboxes. Companys are mechanics and the Battalion is the shop owner. Battalion HQs are typically removed from front lines. Company Command IS the reality of front line infantry. [ March 03, 2005, 06:44 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Many people criticized the Close Combat series as being a click fest rewarding people with fast relexes,etc. I really don't want some memory game either. Rewarding those with Rainman tendencies. But I suppose it can also be an option. And I don't want to read what appears to be a weathermap either. Why is it that it is OK to limit/restrict/time-out/etc MovieTime but anyone can just jump around and view orders-snapshots (unit view during the orders phase) unmolested? Why would it possibly be OK to jump to another unit in the orders phase, harvest that info, and then come back to a previously viewed unit's view? This has nothing to do with Fun. Its all about reality. [ March 02, 2005, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Take someone else's scenario, pop it into the Editor, change the parameters around, and there you go... same thing that you are asking for without any additional work on our part. Steve There was more to it than that. There could be intragame Human update to the 'Master-Plan'. And another option is the AI takeover of a game. In many cases, its clear that one side in a human to human game is disinterested or just getting thumped. It would be nice if he could just let the AI play out his side instead of quitting. [ March 02, 2005, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Since I do not like being one upped by Tom, here is another new way to play the game. 4 man Human to Human Each side two teams. One guy in one team does the waypoints,overall plan, etc. The other guy does all the microwork. Same for the other team. What's the rub? The two guys on one side do not know each other. They have no clue who the other guy on thier same team is! Why come? Cause they have signed up through the BFC server to be in a competition and the actual games are routed through them. So you may be limited to just message boxes that you send back and forth. How's the competition work? Its a new scenario and each person participating gets to play in two games. In one he is the overall commander, in another he is the 'grunt' player doing all the legwork. So he plays the same scenario from two perspectives while still on the same side. He never does both positions on the same game. Why? Because while BFC is charging to play in this manner, they are secretly using fuzzy-logic monitoring to use the game play to test scenarios to develop the best overall AI in this scenario. The AI is being adapted for individual scenarios! Soylent Green is PEOPLE!! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPULLLL!!!!

Neat idea. But just like my idea, its off topic. The thread is supposed to be about FOW anyway. I find it hard to discuss the game WITHOUT other issues popping in. And ideas as well. Talk about Spotting, and C&C comes up, talk about FOW, and a new way to play the game pops up. It is fun.

So there will be a scenario editor for cmx2? You seemed to have missed the main idea of the post. A new form of Human-Human play.

I must have missed that also. But it does, just like tying my shoelaces and picking my nose, sparks me up another idea. What if there were another new form of human-human play? What if the human on one side just outlines waypoints, suspected enmey positions, sequence of victory condition 'takedown', FO waypoints/release (he don't move till 'Flag' one gets taken down,e ct). In other words, interject soem good old brains into your buddy's solo games? Even if the Human just gave the overall starting strategy, and since the games are not going to be that 'strategic', this may be enough to get some competitive play going. Another alternative is to have the Human jump back in after a victory location has changed hands and a new 'gameplan' needs to be interjected. You email your buddy and ask "Will you please tie my AI's shoes and blow his nose pleeez?" If its left up to just the scenario designer, it may get stale and predicatable. I would personally like to see the interim movies and how my AI game plan panned out against the other guy. [ March 02, 2005, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

If there's anything I remember from way back when was that BFC denounced other companies that had games that used cheating AI. While having async FOW levels is not really a cheat, it may be needed so that the AI is not forced to be some insane info hound looking at everything it can. If it does that, it will, in effect just reduce its FOW level through intelligent examination anyway. So cut to the chase perhaps?