Wartgamer

I didnt say they were killed, just that they were hit. And its an example that shows that MG fire, which probably will be abstracted and not tracked 1:1, can lead to some non-realistic results. The squad, with its intentionally mixed cover states, is a very bad target to model. The minimum 'target' state may be a fireteam or less being the point. A possible 'solution' is to try to apply the hits against the squad starting with the cover state modeled in the MG resolution. Guys out in the open being hit first, guys in the trench negating the results due to being out of true LOS. But this just makes further LOS routines being generated being the bottom line.

Another variation is the Minor recall. Instead of the Total Recall (sorry) where tanks (assets) must leave, a minor recall might be the ordering to not lose any more tanks. This is modeled by doubling or tripling the victory point hit from any additional tanks that are lost in the scenario after the order is recieved. The tanks will be needed later but are still able to be used by the player but he must be extra careful. Again, forcing the player to take on a different character with those units.

The LOS tool, if any, will certainly not be 1:1 during the orders phase...or will it? I think we all are assuming that it belongs at the squad/vehicle/gun level? For weapons like tanks, I certainly hope that there is some LOS tools so that I can make assesments of what it sees at least during the orders phase. This is because a tank is a concentrated weapons system. But a squad with 12 seperate weapons systems is another matter.

Heres another anomaly. A squad is spread out and the game determines that this squad is in LOS of a HMG (even though only 4 guys are actually in true LOS..the rest are over behind a hill in a trench). The HMG fires and 8 guys are determined to be hit. So the HMG is shooting soldiers completely out of reach of the weapon. I am assuming that the MG bullets are not being represented 1:1 of course [ February 21, 2005, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

It would probably be best used in very long/large scenarios (if they exist in the new game) or for 'campaigns' or whatever campaigns are in the future. So on the second leg of a campaign game, you might start the game with a tank platoon recall, how fast you act on that will be in the back of your mind that whole 'scenario' of the campaign.

It is OK that we discuss this amongst ourselves? I have read all the posts and there do seem to be people (not sure if they are Grogs to be honest) that certainly grasp the 1:1 implications/problems and some people seem to have some programming/systems engineering experience. In many designs, its very difficult to go for an absolute feature especially when so many implications from using that feature have not been explored. It can end up that the tail gets to wag the dog. A major improvement in the overall game experience must be the Borg problem. How 1:1 representation factors into that will probably depend on LOS.

An alternative assets example could also be: Your core force is 2 panzergrenadier platoons with several halftracks with 75mm (long and short). The assets include two panthers from a panzer battalion within your division and a smattering of infantry from another division. The loose infantry are the remains of a battalion that has just been ousted from a village you must retake. They are very vulnerable to 'recall' in that they will not withstand losses for very much longer. The panthers are assigned to help you take the village but just as far as defeating armor/ATGs. They may recall if you have taken the objective or there are no heavy opposition. Or if they lose a vehicle.. But the panzergrenadiers, being trained the the cooperation with armor, and having some integral 'armor' (HT), would not take a hit on its 'core' unit gloabal morale than the scattered infantry (who will bolt for any reason) when the Panthers leave. [ February 21, 2005, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Offsetting the player from his assets could also mean other things. Simple example is a sherman attached to my platoon. I give him fire orders but do not designate the actual target itself. Maybe I get to just rotate the turret and he will pick targets himself and not even let me know what they are. Same with movement, if there are delays, the delays are not shown in the info box like they are for my core units.

Its almost impossible to stop thinking about the 1:1 LOS/LOF. Please let me add some more. The concept of update rate, database and proximity weigh heavily on this. By update rate, I mean the actual time in between LOS 'checks' that any unit, 1 man or a squad performs this function. Database is the actual list of spotted units. As it is now, its a shared database for all. As it is now Anyone with an LOS to a spotted unit on the spotted list gets to share the info. The new database may actually also be modeled at the squad level or lower, more on this later. Proximity is actual distance from the spotter to the spottees. When doing 1:1 spotting/database, the update rate may not be as fast as some may think. For a soldier with no spotted units in his database, it may actually be every second or so. If the same soldier has already 'filled' his database (more on this later), he may actually NOT do any LOS checks, ESPECIALLY if he is firing (target fixated). How the soldier 'scans' for enemy might best be handled by a concentric function that has ever increasing diameter. Closer units being spotted first and databased in that priority. The database may actually be as low as 8 or 16 enemy units. The database limit could be variable, more for better soldiers, but models the fact that a soldier can not process that many units. So the actual crunch time for CPUs may not be as bad as thought but will be considerable or at least much greater than for the present system. [ February 21, 2005, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Another characteristic modeled in CM1 is being rattled. This is when a squad has a red dot assigned to it and it effects the squad adversely. This was brought up in another thread. Will this also be a 1:1 characteristic? can this spread from NCO to non-coms?

What mode are you in Dale?

Interesting idea. Also, tubes could be lost as weapons/crews are knocked out. Reaction time could be longer as plotters/commo is also taken out. Ready rounds could also be damged and they would not be used.

I am close to WI the 20th thru 22nd. Very interested in T72.

Never knew that. Thanks. Perhaps this should also be 'recoverable' in that there is achance the red dot disappears over time. With 1:1 modeling, this addds another 'state' the individual soldier might carry.

I dont think you understand the implications. If a squad is spread out and you claim that some of it has LOS, that means that LOS is being done on a 1:1 scale.

When you say rattled, is there any indicator of this besides breaking easily? Is this somewhat realistic in that fear spreads?

Note: I heavily edited the post a few back, please reread. Assets have many good implications. Ideally, it would be great if multiplayer-sameside could have two independant players so that one commands the armor and one the inf/Arty/etc. Hopefully this will be a future feature. But in the meantime, the concepts of assets almost forces the single player to mimick a multiplayer situation. By having him think differently for forces under his overall command, he simulates having two seperate players. [ February 21, 2005, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Its hard to believe we still have to wait almost one full YEAR for some of the answers to these questions . I think the designer has said that there is nothing else he will add at this point so maybe we should move on? From a design/test standpoint, they can ceratinly code up a force size that can be supported and determine how LOS/LOF will be modeled/abstracted etc. A related issue to 1:1 is overall force size. I would think that fans of the first three games would want at least a reinforced company type game. A platton level game is just too small. [ February 21, 2005, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Thats why I would want the assets removal to be triggered by certain events. One is the loss of too much of the asset. Suppose you have a 4 tank platoon assigned and 2 are KO and one is gun damaged. The removal trigger is excessive losses and the 'platoon' of tanks leaves by TACAI control (yes would be nice if the tank would fire lots of smoke and back away smartly). In this case, they may not leave but just have an aversion to any firepower/enemy units. But having them be TACAI controlled (no player command) models a soft failure. The other 'event' is the NOT taking of objectives yet (meaning they stay). The assets are assigned to TAKE objectives. So once you HAVE taken the objective, THEN they are susceptible to being recalled. IF recalled, its up to you to drive as many back as you can spare. The more you deliver, the more victory 'credit' you get for them. A more detailed example is: You are a CW inf comp commander (captain?). You are assigned two 4 tank sherman platoons. You take town XX and the recall for the armor is given. You pull out 5 tanks (2 sere immob and one KO) and the next turn four 6 lbrs with lorrys show up. Perhaps a section of Achilles shows up instead. So losing assets may also be tied with reinforcements also. Note that teh reinforcements are not assets per se and will stay with the player. For 'Campaigns' this could have some good effect on gameplay. The point of assets is important as it will show who the player is actually modeling. In this case, he is a CW company. As the game models smaller forces, assets can bring more realistic combat behaviour into the game. [ February 21, 2005, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

I think you summed it up correctly. Like anything, 1:1 comes along with some luggage. Maybe a steamer trunk. The intent of 1:1 seems to be to advance towards realism and remove abstractions. But you sum up the point that it seems to go over the line if it can't bring along certain traits with it. Its a systems engineering dilemma at this point and a design crossroads. National Characteristics: While I think it may be off topic a bit, national characteristics could be a group trait of sorts and not a 1:1 trait. Lets say we are modeling something like the old ASL going Berserk thing. Will every soldier need a routine every time he is under fire to determine if they go berserk? Its just more lines of code and more cpu cruch time. I would like to see aversion to casualties modeled. The US Army had the lowest casualty rate of all combatants (I think thats true) and units that had already experienced losses and taken green replacements in the line would be very iffy. [ February 21, 2005, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

A 1:1 progress could certainly be made in minefields. Minefields, like artillery, are oversimplified. With 1:1 (and non-tiled 3D surface), individual mines can be potrayed. While some might want to buy mines in loose quantities and plant them about, I would prefer to buy minefields in historical amounts and already 'planted' in correct patterns/mixes/etc. How the minefields attack 1:1 would have to depend on the individual soldiers/vehicles tripping the actual mines. Things like bounding betties might be modeled by a 'line' (trip wire) instead of a dot.

Another LOS example: A squad deploys to take a 2 storey house. One section covers while the other advances into first floor. Covering group moves up to first floor and first section advances up to second floor. The section upstairs has a better LOS and can 'see' over soem hedges into a park where some enemy are coming towards the house. But the game would have to do an LOS check from the section upstairs to actually see the enemy. It really boils down to where the eyes for the guys gets modeled. Going to 1:1 representation makes the LOS routines a major concern. Is there any justification to individually modeling soldiers and having such a fundamental need modeled at a section or squad level?

I have also read of many accounts of tanks packing it in and abandoning infantry. This includes a story from my friends father who was in WWII. The grunts went back later and found the tankers and it turned into a unit brawl. But if the size of battles in cmx2 gets smaller and assetts like Tanks CAN leave, then the player might actually use them suicidally BEFORE they can leave (or stick them very far forward so that they at least shoot on the way out). So modeling something like this ends up with gamey behaviour. The player should be rewarded with keeping his assets if his loses are low and things like victory objectives are not taken yet. A variation on this is the modeling of Orders. The player gets Orders during play directing him to send reinforcements off XX coordinate. The player may send all or some and his 'victory' assessment is factored by how much he can send. Always sending the tanks with no ammo not being appreciated by the higher ups. [ February 20, 2005, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

The LOS implications are the ones that bothers me the most. If you have two opposing squads, and they both have spread out formations, and the LOS routine is from central squad LOS point, you could have the problem of the two squads not 'seeing' each other yet there is one soldier from each squad in the same spot! LOS might have to be a fireteam level routine. Spreading out might also just mean that fireteams move apart but keep a tighter grouping amongst the team. So a 10 man squad spread out over 100 meters would not actually be a man every 10 meters. [ February 20, 2005, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Physical fitness, physical state (rested, tired, etc), weapon/ammunition, suppression level, cover, C&C level, Experience, Order (alerted, broken, etc) This is a list of things that come to mind for 1:1 individual personnel tracking. If many of these things are modified during play, the number cruching task will add up.