Wartgamer

I would like to suggests more folks are not posting to comment here because the suggestion and EXACTLY who it would work in the game is very difficult to understand or at least to understand correctly, in my opinion. thanks -tom w ?

Here's another example: We have a 3 tank russian early war platoon. The commander has a T34 with a radio but the other two tanks have recieve only radios. We click on the HQ tank (always first). He sees what he sees (infantry moving in the distance) but there is no 'extras' because the subordinate tanks have no way of communicating what they see (they are out of LOS lets say). We give the HQ tank orders. We select one of the subordinate tanks and Ho!, we see an enemy tank (he gets relayed a spook about some infantry out of his LOS from the HQ tank). We give the best orders we can. But, now the fun part, we jump to the last subordinate tank. We see what he sees (nothing much) but what is to stop us from acting on the information we just aquired about the tank out of LOS? That is why I want the game to present the player with units to issue orders that have the least intel first. The player does not get to choose units to order for a good reason. [ February 28, 2005, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Heres an example of how I would like your idea to play in (if you don't mind).. I have a Tank Platoon. Its the orders phase so I click on the platoon tank HQ vehicle. I get a relative spotting/info picture from his perspective with extra info from his other 4 tanks added in. The level of detail/accuracy of those extras is not as precise as it would be if we were to click on those individual tanks themselves. But the platoon HQ vehicle has radio comminication with all 4 other vehicles so some data is being uplinked. His 'database' is therefore larger than any of his vehciles then. Studying the situation, the player then gives the Tank Platoon HQ vehicile orders. He then proceeds 'downward' to the individual tanks to issue the orders. The next vehicle is selected. His 'sitrep' consists of those vehciles he has spotted but not everyone that the HQ vehicle is aware of. He may have some extra spooks showing enemy out of his LOS. So the effect is not to just limit to what can be seen by the unit OR the HQ. Its sort of a sharing situation. If the HQ vehicile were KOd or lost radio communications, the individual tanks would not get any downflow of information and the HQ vehcile would also get no upflow. [ February 28, 2005, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

I think I see where we part ways. The issuing of orders to units (be they squads or fireteams. HMG, etc) MUST use the individual unit's relative spotting information. Period. The whole point of it is so that targetting shared spotting enemy units ceases. If the game determines that some sharing may actually be realistic, like within a tank platoon with two way radios, then that may actually use something like your idea. Is this the intent of the idea?

So this is somewhat related to what I am proposing also (I think). But its a HQ based 'sitrep' (situation report) of sorts. By clicking on the HQ, you get a 'snapshot' intel report based on his own actual relative spotting, plus relayed intel from his troops under his command? I do not understand some of the dynamics of it though. My own philosophy at this point is that its a top down flow of gameplay. The initial 'Grand' Movie is just an overall picture with few details. Its function is to rough in what happened the last turn without detailed information. I woudl even go so far as to say it should only be viewed in 2 D mode. The relative spotting based 'Petite' movie playbacks based around the HQ units (not ALL HQ units by the way) supplies the player with situational awareness. Its his Command Fog of War filter. In some cases, the FOW will be stifling (Company HQ blasted by 150mm). Thats where I think your idea may come into play. If platoon HQ can be selected during the orders phase, and a small sitrep can be displayed to the player, then the actual orders issued to all units under his command only becomes more realistic. In a case where the company HQ has just been KOd AND the platoon HQ is broken/pinned, the platoon HQ sitrep may be useless or even detrimental. But the point is that its all flowing downhill towards the units. I really do not like the current system that allows players to jump around and inspect all minutia on the battlefield and THEN decide what orders to give/modify/etc. [ February 28, 2005, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

You seem to be in the orders phase? Am I correct? You are not talking about the movie playback?

So Solo testing would not be done by you? The logic being that since you have no test to run, there would be no solo testing? Hmmmmm?? So you admit to being a PBEM junkie???!???!!! ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!????? Andreas: YES! YES!! YES!!!! (sobs) sniff, I am a PBEM junkie...sobs

How would you feel, and be honest, if BFC determined that since scenario designers are such a small minority, and they themselves could perhaps make a market from scenario design products (packaged with mugs or other sought after items), that there will be no scenario editor for the new cmx2?

Thats good news. A little off topic but will radios/walkie-talkies be modeled? transferable?

I think any numbers on how many people play which way belong in the stats thread. Truth is we all don't know, but it is reasonable to assume that most games are solo games. Then there are the unhinged like me or Kip Anderson, who spend 85% of game time in the editor, 5% in solo-testing, and 10% in PBEM. Some would say you actually 'play' the game PBEM 66% of the time! Are scenario designers more than a few percent of the owners of the game?

I also have no doubts that 'PBEM' (or something nearly functionally the same), will be available. The state of the development of the game at this point does not seem to be that well defined, let alone close to a demo. From the discussions, its in some 'Pre-Alpha' phase and what will be in the game, and what will not be in the game, is subject to the development climb. Perhaps BFC should 'storey-board' what actual gameplay may be like. A very descriptive long post to whet appetites. This, combined with some preliminary landscape screen shots, might take the edge off the developmental phase.

True but keeping a dedicated customer base happy always helps. There will always be copying of unprotected software too. But when there is a situation where people are willing to pay for your product, and you are not benefitting from that, then its really lost revenue. My own opinion is that software, and even some sealed books, should not be allowed to be sold on ebay. Once a seal is broken, the customer has bought the item under a no-return or sale agreememnt. Ebay is making money off illegal activities and everyone knows it.

Many people sell the game after buying it. They just find over time that it is not to thier liking. Surprise! People who like email games usually do not sell the game. They are keepers. So every ebay 'sale' is another 'sale' that BFC does not realize. The ebay sale becomes the 'return policy' of the dissatisfied customer.

Mmmmmm....PBEM (or a reasonabe facsimile thereof). I tend to agree with Andreas to a point. I think that CMBO was frustrating in that you could position your troops to realistically stop any IRL infantry advance and they would still get over run in many instances. The advancement to CMBB brought more realistic 'behaviour' but it was like they were modeling individual behaviour at the squad level. The game became so 'challenging'. I remember someone suggesting that they should have used the half squad as a means to stop the 'squad-based' terror effect from enveloping the whole squad. So half squads would 'peel' off in many instances. The idea went nowhere. CMAK continued the trend. In the recent threads, in some cases started by BFC, the designer goes so far as to say he will not read the threads anymore because they will solve the dilemmas that are brought up internally. This is after claiming that the 'Grogs' can not understand the design implications, yet it is they, the Grogs, that are pointing out the issues. I have extensive customer relations experience. There is nothing to be really gained by calling customer's names. There is nothing to be gained by openly rejecting customer's input. Even if you do (and I did in many but not all cases), don't go out of your way to say so, its just not the profesional business way of dealing with customers. We are all customers or potential customers? [ February 28, 2005, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

1%???? one percent? I don't think even BFC believes that. BFC emails people don't they? With announcements and what have you? Why not just send out a poll? They would get a very good feedback as far as who plays in what modes. [ February 28, 2005, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

I heavily edited this. Please reread it if you will.

IF PBEM makes into any future products. PLEASE have some form of letting the player know that he is just viewing the movie AND should turn that 'movie' around IMMEDIATELY to the other player. Something like an auto email notice. Anything! I am so sick of people just sitting on movie turns when they could have returned the file back to the other player who COULD be planning moves. OK that was a rant. Why not have an auto return before the player can even view the movie? He sees the email. It says in the email title MOVIE TURNAROUND, and he knows that all he has to do is download it and it auto starts CM and generates a return file automatically and sends it back?

From another thread but it applys here.... This was brought up in the other thread. Basically, the 'memory' (relative spotted info list for each unit), would be constantly changing during the game turn as it is updated. Its a file that contains what the unit sees during each timeslice of the turn. It depends on how the new movieplayback will be seen by each side. If its a overview and not a relative view (basically something like we have now), then what you are saying may be true. If it has relative function playback, seeing the turn from a unit's perspective, then much more data will probably have to be sent. When playing PBEM, one machine crunches all info for both sides. It then sends that info over to the other player to be viewed first. So this may be a 'light' file if it contains non-relative playback. Its an overall 'grand' generic view. But when the file is returned, and the next player views it for his first time, he can view the turn in both a 'grand' view OR a relative view. He already has all the info needed to do that (it was generated on his sytem right?). But once he plans his turn and sends his email, he will be sending a much larger file. He must include at least the relative info for just his opponent. But he does not need to resend the 'grand' view.

This was brought up in the other thread. Basically, the 'memory' (relative spotted info list for each unit), would be constantly changing during the game turn as it is updated. It depends on how the new movieplayback will be seen by each side. If its a overview and not a relative view (basically something like we have now), then what you are saying may be true. If it has relative function playback, seeing the turn from a unit's perspective, then much more data will probably have to be sent. When playing PBEM, one machine crunches all info for both sides. It then sends that info over to the other player to be viewed first. So this may be a 'light' file if it contains non-relative playback. Its an overall 'grand' generic view. But when the file is returned, and the next player views it for his first time, he can view the turn in both a 'grand' view OR a relative view. He already has all the info needed to do that (it was generated on his sytem right?). But once he plans his turn and sends his email, he will be sending a much larger file. He must include at least the relative info for just his opponent. But he does not need to resend the 'grand' view.

Bullfighters function is to put on a big show while they kill something? Get the crowd into a frenzy? Not quite what is going on here (or is it?...). Hopefully the spirit of CM will continue in cmx2. The game is promising multiplayer down the road. I can only logically think that means TCP/IP multiplayer. That means a minimum of coordinating 3 people online at the same time.

There should always be some default 'defacto-HQ' if you will. Its just a raw idea. I know that. But what needs to be changed is the expectation that the Grand Movie-View represents anything as it is now. Its a major abstraction and should be acknowledged as such. Any time you redesign something, its an opportunity to question its function, and add/modify it to achieve better design goals. The problem with conversations like this is we do not really KNOW what design goals the cmx2 is being designed under. Many new design goals, like the 1:1 representation, have major impacts on other design goals (relative spotting), and other implications that haven't even been thought of. The movieplayback 'rethink' addresses issues like God views. Info is only abused when the human gets it. By limiting/clouding the info 'feed', the game can restrict the human from being the know it all he becomes. But at the same time, it can model a battlefield reality of certain sections of the front line falling out of Command and Control intel. Lets take the example of a 2 company front with one company in reserve. One of the 2 front companies gets stonked by a 105mm barrage and multiple HMG attacks. The actual Bn commander is temporarily out of C&C of that section of the front as communications break down (wires cut), radio traffic gets hectic/garbled/lost, flares are signalling enemy but who knows how many, etc. This is what gets modeled by the HQ based relative spotting. The true Fog of Command if you will. The limited intel on a front by front basis. 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. Just spitballing ideas here. [ February 28, 2005, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

I only know of one person in my area that has CMAK and we have never played hotseat. I think it never occurs to me to want to. I plan moves while you leave the room? Seems odd. We play PBEM exclusively. I have shown the game to a number of my friends and they dislike it. Even those who like guns/war-movies/etc. It just doesn't strike a chord in them. They aren't wargamers. Many of them like those FPS games but just can't get excited about CM. I have never played TCP/IP. I hardly ever play against the AI unless its a first run of a scenario or maybe testing out some odd anomoly or tactic. Many games are burnouts on the shelf of my office. Korson Pocket is an example. Offers a limited amount of playing before it dries up. The PBEM options of CM, combined with the scenario creation aspect of the game, feeds the life into this community and anyone associated with the game, especially a developer of the game, should know that.

I would think any company would want to keep the existing customer base as much as possible. I doubt the market for any real wargame exceeds 100K copies. Losing the existing customer base (probably 25-50K copies) would not make sense. The game would have to provide a challenging, varied computer AI before I would buy it (given no PBEM).

Every new feature in CMx2 should pass the "cumbersome" test IMHO The idea that the movie play back would somehow provide a "more realistic" playing experience if the player was required to view the movie play back from the perspective of EACH individual friendly unit seems to me to be NOTHING more than a cumbersome mechanism to WASTE THE PLAYER'S time. However, if it was optional I suppose some players might interested. Please don't forget the "cumbersome" test for clunky User Interface mechanisms or design elements. thanks -tom w I do not now think that Playback movies should be from the individual unit viewpoint. Not from a cumbersome viewpoint but rather a reality viewpoint. The game must simulate/abstract the C&C that a commander at this level of war might experience. having the detailed playback at the overall level is not correct. That is why I would want extremeley generic Macroplayback to be viewed first. The HQ based playbacks are a very nice abstraction of what is going on in a certain locale. It divides up the battlefield into small venues and forces the player to realize that his battlefield intel may be very limited at the company/platoon level. The individual unit 'view' should only come during the orders phase and right after the HQ playback. This simulates nicely having C&C progressing downward through your forces. I bet the AI opponent may actually seem stronger in scenarios given that the human player has smaller info to act on.

I imagine the HQ based relative spotting playback movie to contain, of course, what the actual HQ sees and added to that what is realistically relayed from those units under his C&C. For something like a tank platoon, with its small number of vehicles and unit based radio communications, the additional spotting information is shared fairly well. For a infantry formation, that has been under fire and even the HQ itself is suppressed, the playback movie could be very spotty as far as what is going on. For many WWII infantry formations, only the Company level HQ will generate a playback movie. For formations that have excellent small unit leadership and communications, there may be platoon HQ playback. When selecting units to issue orders to (orders phase), the actual situation from that units perspective is potrayed (no playback movie though). But having a very poor HQ playback movie may inject some realistic caution and wild heroic orders may be curtailed. [ February 27, 2005, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]