Wartgamer

What has he been doing with a 37mm APCR shell no less? Those things be pointy.

OH! I only play TCP/IP so I don't need no dirty stinkin' email.

Joe Shaw reminds me of Piggy in 'Lord of the Flies'. Or maybe Ginger on Gilligan's Island????

My concern, as stated in the PBEM in CMx2 thread, was that all the cpu cycles would be spent on LOS checks and overhead such that not enough attention would be spent on the AI (tactical and strategic). I suppose that is very low level but you bring up a 'point'. A game, like CM 'WEGO', is unique from something like an aircraft control algorythm. In something like an aircraft, you have one second to crunch numbers and then put that 1 seconds worth of cpu cycles into actuating something. In a game, one second of game time can be crunched in as long as it takes. Its open ended but the only consideration is the acceptable amount of time a customer can wait, the amount of programming/testing you can do and ingenuity. An AI that can only play low realistic settings in some competant manner will drive the desire for more human opponents. That is, the only way to enjoy the realistic settings will be against humans. This will intensify a desire for TCP/IP if that is the only option. A game like Close Combat was more 'aircraft' than CM. It had a time budget to get many things resolved in a time constrained fashion. [ March 02, 2005, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Steve said all players, at ALL times, under ALL settings will ALWAYS have to deal with the limits and restrictions of Relative Spotting and to be honest I think that GOES DOUBLE for the AI and I think that Relative Spotting code will hobble the AI worse than the clever player, BUT I TRULY hope I am dead WRONG about that FWIW -tom w I don't want to rehash some arguments but I have my doubts. How and If the AI can play under the most realistic settings will be interesting. Does the game 'hobble' the human enough under the most 'realistic' setting? Can the AI get a battlefield 'picture' in its 'head'? Lets take the case of the No-God movie setting. How does the AI develop a concept of where the enemy is? He is staring at a blank battlefield except for his guys? Does he start cranking out a perception by jumping from unit to unit and 'building' a database from all those perspectives? Is he insane?

Nahh - my best friend before he realized that he didn't have to eat everything his new wife cooked him. Fun pics though, huh? </font>

Want to buy my CMBO? Hasn't been used in a couple of years?

I believe that BFC said they want to get the AI to utilize more Borg/God info correctly. This means to me that they just want the AI to abuse uberinfo just like the human. Hopefully, I am wrong because I do not like uberinfo to begin with. One of the things I tried to impress upon the designer in the other thread was the concept of HQ based relative movie playbacks. The goal of the playback was a realistic situational report from the company commander's perspective. Its not just his POV but also all the info feed from his underlings in a slightly less detailed form than they are experiencing it (they see what they see during the order's phase but what they can convey to the company commander's movie may not be as 'fresh' or detailed). The overall 'God' movie could still be displayed in a watered down form OR (for more realism) not seen as an option. So what is the effect of just seeing Company HQ relative movies? In some cases, you might have sections of your line 'go dark' (heavy attack/lost commo, etc). This means that you do not get to have a breaking news story at that section of the line. You got a problem. A realistic problem. Suddenly, you have Battalion commander headaches. The game has managed to force you to think like a Battalion commander for at least part of the turn. Do you commit reserves? Create reserves? Send one of your staff there? Call for support? Having a Battalion HQ 'movie' may not be a bad idea. The movie is actually dominated by sounds in some cases. I have read of many accounts where the sounds of grenades (they all sound about the same) was a good indicator of proximity to the enemy (either they are on your door step or you have got real close to them). High velocity guns are unmistakable, the intensity of the 'crackle' of mixed small arms indicates direction, etc. A Battalion Commander (or overall force commander) can be abstracted. [ March 02, 2005, 07:51 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

And yes, 'dumbing' down the player means he is just too info smart. He is at a level of intel gathering not matched by any technology let alone WWII technology. He has a video network feeding him hyperinformation. Combine this with even normal human intelligence and the AI stands no chance. An interesting thought is that if you make the game turns shorter, in the present CMX1 form, you just make the AI worse. Why? Because the superhuman gets to jump in and supermaximize all the uberinfo twice as fast. Want a better AI in the present game? Have yourself 'skip' a turn. Plan moves for 2 minutes length using the delay. Watch movie every turn but only give orders every other turn.

I would be very interested in hearing some details about the C&C model they are improving for cmx2. The present model in CMX1 is really just a squad/platoon model that has been blown up to multicompany/Battalion sized games. The fact that a player can gather information from each of his individual units, either from the 'God' movie or from individual units views and LOS during the orders phase, and then order individual units in any order he pleases and then even go back and edit those orders in light of further detailed info gathered from ordering orther units (delay time, LOS, etc). is mind boggling unrealistic. There is no Company/Battalion HQ command decisions modeled or consequences. There is no Command FOW. The product is a near simulation at small force levels and just a big game at large force levels. I would like BFC to describe what they have in mind for C&C if they feel they are not giving away too much. I do not think that they are very receptive to ideas shot out in threads like these unless they describe where they want to go first. [ March 02, 2005, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

http://208.42.140.79/dalem/pics/bay-hr/bay-h2-tnail Dale is this you in these pics? Man Wonders: "I wonder what it would be like to eat a whole Hedgerow..?" [ March 01, 2005, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

I'm largely in agreement with Kip. However, please consider the pros and cons of including spooks in each of the 3 options - there is some good in presenting confusing information. Also, would it not be possible to use all three at the same time, with the option being spooks/no-spooks? So, depending on what you'd clicked on, you'd get that units playback (or view during the orders phase), that HQ and all sub-callsigns playback (or view during the orders phase), or if you'd clicked on nothing, the force playback (or view ...). Jon </font>

I suppose testing will flesh out the value of many design changes in cmx2. It may actually spark a rethink on what it is that is being modeled. What is the big movie you see in the present system? Does it really represent anything? A Bn level map? A large display of microinformation? Yes? Well thats what is is. And it is not a battlefield reality as much as a game aid. In cmx2, what is a HQ based relative movie playback? Is it not the actual company commands experience of the immediate battle situation with abstractions? What would happen in real life? Surely the actual men in the HQ unit would have a actual view of the battlefield, so thats good they get to see what they see, but the relayed information is really just abstracted info that is passed on. Its a voice on a field phone, a squad NCO waving hand signals frantically while trying to stay low, etc. So while still a game aid, its an abstracted view of the battlefield from the most important command in the game. That is, the company commander's. Note that the commander's own HQ unit's own battlefield disposition (pinned, broken, etc) plays into how the HQBRMP actually plays out. Its gone from a heavily abstracted playing aid (what wwe have now) to an actual battlefield group perception. The game does not model Fog of Command. That is my main issue with not having some decision based entirely on the post viewing of the HQ movie. The game MAY have some tricks up its sleeve since C&C improvements have mostly just been mentioned but not discussed. I do not want cmx2 to be the same dog with different fleas. [ March 01, 2005, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Not true at all. I am resistant to ideas that I would take the game in the wrong direction if implemented. You don't want to consider that your ideas could possibly fall into that category, so who is really the defensive one? Luckily, I caveated my ideas as Options. I do not want to enforce my will on anyone, just have another level of play to experience. One of the ramifications of having many levels of play is that the replay value of scenarios goes up. It can also force one side to handicap the other (given side settable levels of play) and perhaps even get the AI to throw on a good show. One of the implications of all this relative spotting is hwo the AI is going to manage. Most chess games use brute force to go through all moves (they are insane!). What will the AI do? Can it hang in a relative world?

Will you distribute the game? And Tom, If I can't even remember my own name, think I care about someone I thought was so wrong and misinformed? Tom do you have other interests? Do you belong to other boards and do stuff? I can't make CM a focus of my life. But I do want improvements to get into the game and things like Options to be available. Believe me, once the development climb starts, that is not the time that ideas are going to get into the game.

? Download the demo. Nothing else would determine if I would buy it.

You are, get ready, actually wrong. I remember having a name way back but I lost it in one of those meltdowns. I did not like the atmosphere and was particularly annoyed with someone who was not an employee of yours but some sort of advisor (Irish guy?). I never got another post meltdown name. I kept up over the years and even once got a new name (lost in a computer hardrive crash) to express an idea that people liked but it was shot down. I then saw the CMBB/CMAK design level out and knew that no great changes were coming forth. I actually do not recall the time period you complain about where 'everybody' resisted the 3D/WEGO revolution. I mostly recall the horror of the CMBO modeling. You were very defensive and resistant to most suggestions. Since I have many interests and belong to many diverse boards and am not one of these CM-centric personalities that carrys on about how low his number is (I mean get a life), I find the atmosphere very stifling and uncreative. It is funny, after all these years, you are very resistant to other peoples views and ideas unless they remind you of something you already thought up. Good Day.

I will go out on a limb and say that 80-90% of people play CMx1 on Extreme FOW right now. I guess MOST game designers use this as a default setting for their creations. While not a 'true' poll, it really is an indication that Realism, as a wargaming feature, is desirable if so many people are playing at one end of the spectrum. Who is to say what the diminishing returns are when you haven't even pushed the envelope yet? The real issue is that not everyone will like the proposals I am making. But they don't have to play that way. But they don't want to feel like less of a CM citizen by not having the amplifiers set to Eleven. [ March 01, 2005, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Um I must be confused ?? Is this the Admistrator post that is alleged to be some form of trolling? Tom. Let me clear on this. You are confused. No. Its not about that rebuke. But thanks for the suggestion about accelerated movie viewing in cmx2. I also think its long overdue.

Good question. If the game did not let you watch the Panzer Platoon first, then you would not have to ask the question. I get your point, and it brings up the crux of the change, that is; what if you were not allowed to choose what units to view/command first. The game would decide which units based on its overall communications capability with higher command, number of enemy units spotted, etc.? And it is not perfect. There will always be a sequence where you will carry over some uber info from one formation to another. But an effort to limit it should be taken. Point taken. Thats why there are options. Things should be optional. Some people play those FPS games in some God mode and they can't die and they evidently like that.

Am I supposed to be one or amongst a number of people or what? Trolling was brought up by the designer and what are these little snippy posts but Trolling? Since the Administrator is also partaking in this behaviour, what option is there for anyone who wants to discuss issues? And anyone that can not illustrate what they have to say with examples, or can only look for strawman arguments is not discussing issues. So he is right; he wastes his time.

Then the chances are they wouldn't have spotted anything because their attention isn't focused on the backside of that hill. So you are, in effect, creating a problem in theory that shouldn't happen in reality. In fact, this sort of thing is already up and running in CMx1 games... but it is far less effective because of Absolute Spotting. Just replace the Panzer Platoon with a Forward Observer group. He has no FFE at the time. He is scanning for targets. He has no possible way of relaying any info to the infantry platoon. You can say the Panzer Platoon is under a covered arc 'attack armor' order then (not shooting at anything at the time). They arent firing. They would be scanning that terrain and see the eneemy infantry. [ March 01, 2005, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hopefully you get the point. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I do. Apparently better than you do, in fact. You pointed to an idea I came up with and said how it could be abused. I showed, using hard numbers, that in order to abuse it you'd have to be insane. And since insane people don't tend to play well with others, who cares what they do with the game? If they want to spend 40 minutes watching a 1 minute turn... I don't give a hoot. They're not harming anybody but themselves, which is the opposite of your claim. Those 'hard' numbers can easily be refuted. Want me to show an example? Here's one... I need to know whats on the other side of a hill. I quickly look around and judge a neighboring unit to have possible LOS. I grab one of its units, do an LOS check to verify that indeed he can see the ground in question, start his movie and fast forward through it to see what he sees. Your whole insane time theory has been shot up. It would not take as long as you imagine. Thats the whole point of people. They are smart. They will maximize whatever info they get.

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One badly modeled can undo some of the benefits of the others. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Absolutely. But don't assume that your solution isn't one of the things that can undo some benefits of the others. The God/Borg can not be defeated... attempting to do this, without keeping in mind diminishing returns (in all its forms), will harm the game itself. Probably in excess of whatever it sought to solve and likely in areas that the original problem didn't manifest itself in. Not assuming but rather opening it up for discussion where it can be shown to do so (undo others). Can you show how it it does undo any others? I have shown examples. Can you show an example? As far as your speculation about diminishing returns, who knows? Can you really quantify many statements you make? Even you admit the game is, at best, in a very early phase of being coded. But you seem to be throwing in a defeatist attitude if you want to give in to the God/Borg so easily. It doesn't have to be defeated completely, it just needs to be curtailed sufficiently.

Heres a quick 'abuse' example. I have a platoon on the reverse slope of a hill. Need to get to the top. Can't see over it. Its an infantry platoon form the 716th inf division. I would like to see on the other side. I watch all the unit based relative movie playbacks in the platoon. Huh. nothing. I jump over to the 3rd platoon of the Panzer Company of the Panzer Lehr division (500 meters away). Just happen to be in the nabe. They can see on the reverse slope. So I watch thier movies. Hey! Seems theres two enemy platoons scrambling up the other side! But funny thing, the panzer platoon is firing at some ATGs that are over 1000m away and not really paying any 'actual' attention to that hill. But what the heck. Back to the infantry platoon. Get them to cover and hide and give covered arcs. Thanks Panzer Platoon! Now IF the inf platoon HAD to give orders after viewing its individual movies, and did not benefit from the gamey sharing of info from the Panzer Platoon, he may have made a very realistic mistake. [ March 01, 2005, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]