Wartgamer

OK! I like that one I HOPE this nugget REGISTERS with Steve.... Speed up the playback!! YES yes yes..... !!!!! There should be a "speed watching" setting to let us see the playback a double time or 4 times as fast! Please make this one work. Some folks might like Slow motion replay but I would really like to see at the very least a double speed play back so that a one minute turn could take 30 sec or EVEN 4 times and it would take just 15 seconds!! NOW that would be a GREAT and welcomed feature for all players with VERY little free time to play! That is the BEST I idea I have read so far this week on this forum! -tom w </font>

For very small games, like a platoon vs platoon type vignette; I would want unit based relative movie playbacks. But there is a very good reason for this, its a small venue. There is no company/Battalion C&C considerations. Intel at this level could be shared and not gamily abused. But even still, if I sent a squad around a flank and he was so much as pinned, his relative movie playback would be 'scrogged' and a realistic detriment. And again, If I viewed a units relative movie, it should be given orders right after and those orders are not editable till the next turn.

Having lack-of-time-in-your-life as a reality driver will just make people with no obligations the best players out there. I respectfully find it not a good design hinge. Many games utilize an accelerated playback feature. This saves time in games where not much is happening yet. Why not just unaccelerate time so that the playbacks are even slower and the unobligated lifeless player is even restricted (insert smiley face). Hopefully you get the point. Another 'low-level' problem is that all that unit relative data will need to stream back and forth. Perhaps nailing the coffin on PBEM games. But having the player watch each each individual unit based relative movie and not forcing him to at LEAST order that unit after that movie given that info feed really shows that you are not grasping the fundamentals of what is being proposed here. And these are not low-level fundamentals. They are game wide reality impacts. Why would you go and view all the movies and THEN come back and order the individual units? There is only one reason and effect. Thats to gamily abuse all that info.

Just as on the battlefield there are 'Force' multipliers, in wargames, there are Reality Multipliers. That is the interelationship I see between things like introducing Relative Spotting, HQ_C&C, Unit_Order_Sequence (giving orders to units with least intel first), 1:1 Representation, etc. is one where each complements the other and the sum of the effects is greater overall than each seperately. One badly modeled can undo some of the benefits of the others.

The number is not correct, only used to communicate that very few of the customer base use PBEM, and even fewer would base their buying decision on its inclusion or lackof. Most customers does not frequent these boards (in fact, VERY few do so) or recives emails from BFC. Those that do are more likely to be playing the game with other humans. So, any poll would be skewed. </font>

In its present form, CMx1 is only realistic at very small formation levels. At a single squad formation level, the FOW, relatively relative spotting, C&C, etc are realistic. If you bump this up to a scenario with a platoon, and keep the platoon in a tight overall formation, its still somewhat realsitic. But when you incorporate spread out companies and battalions, mixed armor/infantry forces; you rapidly fall off the reality meter. In addition to the often discussed culprits like absolute spotting, God problems, there is also lack of modeled C&C decisions at a company/battalion level. This is what I am trying to model when I bring up the'Command-Crossroads' AFTER the HQRBMP and BEFORE actually issuing the orders to all the subordinate units of that HQ. It is NOT giving anyone direct orders. Its a command order that effects how the individual units react to the selected menu orders they are given. It also acts as a menu-limiter in that WHAT orders are seen in those little menus are a reflection of the command order. Example. Just viewed HQRBMP movie. HQ C&C menu pops up. I choose Attack from list of options. Troops have assault/advance in most menus of all subordinate units under that HQ. Troops react quickly to these type of commands. Its just a raw germ of an idea at this stage but I want the reader to think about its real world reflections. In a game that does model Comapies/battalions; How can you not interject this level of command into the game?

Realism is a REALLY hard thing to define when the GAME (at least as it origins were in CMx1 ) was/is all about the player a playing ALL the roles of ALL the units? So, REALISM is really hard then to say we need more of, if the game is clearly NOT going to be a "command" game where you only get to play the role of the highest HQ. So maybe the challenge is to make the game fun while still letting the player play ALL the roles of all the units AND introduce Relative Spotting and some new C&C model and then let the player figure out which FOW realism options they want to play under... (sorry I too am not really sure what my point was there... Sorry I think I was just rambling....) -tom w </font>

Why the assumption I haven't read your posts? I am simply proposing a different idea, without commenting on what I think of your idea. </font>

The Goal is realism. I believe Andreas spoke up on this point. And, yes, certainly Options/Options/Options. Its the mark of a good game design when the highest reality setting is played by just a minority. As it is now, I believe MOST people (a bad thing to say lately given the PBEM fiasco) play the game at the highest level of FOW?

'Attacking' this ability to jump around, do LOS checks, inspect terrain, etc is probably like attacking Social Security. Its politically incorrect. But the main problem with 'God' behaviour is the actual human. The human will abuse any info to get to his goals. The game has to channel the player through the information, forcing him to make decisions at certain levels, and feeding him information in the least corruptible manner as possible.

Of course during the orders phase you will still get to see what each unit sees. But how to prevent the player greedy for info from clicking on every unit in the orders phase? Maybe limit the number of units you can give orders to in each phase, although this takes some control away. Will think about this more. Please read the posts in the last few pages first. This has been addressed and its a crucial point I am making. That is, the game will decide for you who to order first. The game does this by feeding you units from the just viewed HQBRMP that (pay close attention) have the least enemy intel first. So you can't jump around and must decide what to do with your units working from the ones that have the worst overall picture to the best overall picture. I am also actually altering the gameplay. What I am proposing flows like this: 1. Watch Grand movie if reality setting allows this 2. Game jumps to HQ unit. 3. Watch HQBRMP from that unit. Replay as needed from different angles as needed. 4. Hit Done 5. Units under that HQs command are fed to player by game. Least intel units being ordered first 6. Finish all units under that HQ. 7. Game jumps to next HQBRMP So you actually see movies, plan turns for subordinate units from that HQ, and then move on to another movie (if applicable). [ March 01, 2005, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

I emphatically believe that under most circumstances, giving the player the option to watch unit based relative movie playback will just defeat the reality of the game. If its an option for begginers, then fine. If the player can jump from unit to unit and playback the movie from all those units, then he will undo any benefit that relative spotting achieves.

There could be some situations where you only get a unit based relative movie playback. The one that pops to mind is the old CMBO Wittman scenario at VillersBocage. I believe the game starts with just him in his Tiger so basically, it would be a movie from his viewpoint. After the other Tigers show up, he would be the HQ based relative movie playback relative point. The othet Tigers would add to his movie's info, especially if they were in radio contact. The small infantry forces would add very little if anything. If he gets smoked, the HQBRMP would move to the next best Tiger commander. In this type of scenario, there would only be (under a high realistic game setting) just this HQBRMP. Having a viewpoint from the small scattering of infantry forces would be a designers decision. And a bad one to have IMO as it takes away from the essence of what is being depicted. Likewise, having a 'Grand' movie overview is fluff for wienies. Under a realistic FOW setting, these 'Grand' movie views are not given. Lets explore what a HQBRMP might look like/entail.. Lets say Wittman is engaging enemy armor and the other Tigers have already arrived. The movie would contain his relative spotting information. This is largely based on what He himself sees, along with his gunner and MG/RO (German tanks had sights for the bow MG). The driver and loader give very little info beyond local security. The othet Tigers are engaging the enemy. The ones in radio communication relay info to Wittman. The funny thing is, the targets of these other Tigars show detail (Firefly!) but the position is not exactly relayed. These Fireflys are out of Wittmans LOS. So we see an odd effect of knowing detail about a spook but not position detail. In another case, a Tiger has taken a ricochet off the bow armor and the RO in that tank is shook up. We have no radio communication with them but he is in our LOS. We see he is firing at something to his half right. Many generic spooks are generated to simulate what he could be firing at. Lets explore the infantry. They are not in radio contact but they do seem to be firing at something over to the left. We see tracers during the movie. This realistic info IS part of the HQBRMP because it is seen by the HQ unit. A very good leader may even be modeled by having some armor spooks showing up at the target point. This 'very good leader' may be the infantry leader actually. He is firing long/short burts in succession to signify armor (or firing a flare). [ March 01, 2005, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

So what I am proposing is a C&C menu at the HQ based level. At this point, I am thinking mostly on a company level but it could be platoon level for other type units. Yes its a new concept The reason for having individual unit viewpoints is because the player is still expected to issue commands to the individual units. If you deprive the player of knowledge that unit should have, then you are depriving the player of the ability to realistically make decisions for that unit. So, even in the Replay as HQ option the C&C quality would be ignored and all units under that HQ's command would be a part of the playback. Otherwise you will have far too many situations where the player is not getting feedback when he should from a realism standpoint. Yes I understand, and the units can STILL see what they see during the orders phase. I agree that can not be messed with. BUT the command modeling CAN effect what orders may actually do to the unit also. It may even limit WHAT orders are actually IN the units little menus. And the HQBRSMP will be not only what the actual HQ unit sees relative to himself, but also 'relayed' spotting information shared to him from realistic modeling. So units of his in LOS can signal, walkie talkie, etc. A well situated company that is not under excessive fire would produce a situationally aware HQBRSMP.

This is from an earlier post... Lets say the game FORCED you to watch the HQ based relative movie playback with the least intel first. You have to watch from the company HQ perspective of the stricken company. The movie shows very little enemy troops but many spooks. You also have little indication of what effects the barrage/HMG have had on your troops (the actual company HQ is pinned). You are not being updated as far as casualties. At the end of that movie, you are menu asked "Commit reserves? Retreat? Hold?". You must decide if the reserve components must be committed BEFORE selecting units in your company for issuing orders to. Why? Because when you select each unit, you will gather individual pieces of the puzzle and these 'snapshots' will reveal to you much more than a company commander/Bn Commander could know. What you decide at this 'command-crossroads' effects how the individual orders impact the troops under your command. War is Hell. The command decision at this point will effect the individual orders you give to all the units under that command HQ. So you still get to give all the individual units orders after selecting them and seeing their relative info, but the command decision made previous has implications on those commands. Example: You are company HQ and the whole company has been hit by arty and MG fire. You get a very poor HQ based relative movie playback (HQBRMP). Your own relative spotting and 'relayed' spotting is just terrible. All sorts of spooks are reported but no definite enemy info. You decide to command retreat. This will help your guys get back in better order. When opening up each individual unit, you get a clearer picture that it was heavy arty, but there are few casualties and the MG fire is only from two guns or so. The problem now is you are under a retreat order and having your guys attempt to stay and fight may lead to men breaking (since the order came down). Best to just give hide orders or withdrawl orders to better cover if possible. Starting any fights right now is not advisable. But if the actual situation was dire, being under a retreat order could have been beneficial in extracting men without causing a major rout. [ February 28, 2005, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

The suggestion of combining #1 with #3, centered around an HQ, is an interesting suggestion since it fits sorta inbetween the two extremes. It is also something I've already thought of I was thinking of this for CoPlay (Co-Op Play) in the sense that #3 would be limited to your own force and not those of other players. However, there is no reason why this behavior couldn't also be allowed for single player (i.e. one player per side) forces. Its more subtle than that. I want to break up the force. I want to force a single player to actually behave like multiple levels of command. The heart of it is a top down info feed to the player with command implications at different levels.

I hope the designer gives consideration to the possible 'command-crossroad' I proposed AFTER viewing a HQ based relative movie playback. It nicely simulates the Bn/Company HQ relationship and implications of command. The more I think of it, deciding a course of action BEFORE seeing the individual orders phase unit relative 'snapshots, the more I think the game can abstract multiple layers of command even though the game is being 'God'd' by a single human being. It is effectively forcing a player to think at different levels.

I have to be honest. I don't really catch what Halbadiers is proposing. But I do like the idea he implied about possible sitrep snapshots during the ORDERS phase based around a small unit HQ. Not to be confused with HQ based relative movie playbacks.

In any case, I would like you to read the last two pages closely and think about the subtle implications of many of the points raised. Starting at this post.. "It isn't a test as much as personal preferences. I am beginning to think that some form of relative spotting playback is desirable. Especially if the game uses many 'spooks' or false info reports. Perhaps having relative spotting playback for just HQ type units? I don't know the inner workings of the game but I do not believe that a unique movie would have to ground out for each HQ. It would be the same movie with just his perspective acting as a 'filter'." I agree that giving the player the ability to jump around and watch relative perpective playback movies from all units is just defeating the realism that relative spotting brings. While it was initially brought up, when I thought about, theres actually an opportunity to use it to create more realism at this level of combat. See if you can catch the implications. [ February 28, 2005, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Thats quite remarkable. You call people ninnys for not reading your posts closely when its very evident that you did not read the posts about relative spotting here. You could not have read my posts if you typed the above paragraphs. The exact opposite effect is described by the use of HQ based relative spotting movie playback. [ February 28, 2005, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

And say HI to your Mom for me

Thanks for the suggestions.

I believe the present BFC proposal is to keep a 'Macro' playback movie much as it is now. BFC said they would dumb it down to reflect the change to Relative Spotting. They have also made remarks about a new Command and Control system but not many details. There are many ways to skin a cat so it will be interesting what they have in mind there.

Let me be absolutely clear about my vision of what a cmx2 product could be. If the game were to follow the realistic modeling I am proposing here, the market for the world wide 'recreational wargaming market' would be dwarfed by the orders from worldwide military orginizations. It could be part of every officer's training in most countries. And I would not give a damn about PBEM if the game were as good as I envision it (but it would be nice). A reasonably good AI could offer a challenging game once the relative spotting introduced and Borg behaviour is curtailed. The godlike view of the battlefield is just as big a problem and that is what I am addressing with my suggestions. The present movie playback concept needs a major redesign in light of improvements like relative spotting. The order in which units are given orders also has to be addressed. The curtailment of information will introduce true Fog Of War and the abuse of information will stop. [ February 28, 2005, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Do you not follow me, Halberdiers or both or someone else?