Wartgamer

The designer is a busy man and can't always comment in all threads all the time. The designer also sometimes knows things that he doesn't want to get into yet beacuse it would touch on other things he doesn't want to get into yet. In fact, the designer shouldn't really be flappin his yap at this point at all I will contrast this with the 'parable' where you certainly had time to slander 'Grogs' as people who couldn't possibly conceive of all the greatness that the 1:1 respresentation beholds for the future. In any case thanks. So will Fire teams be the largest 'squad' now? Or will a Squad be composed of fire teams? Much like the present platoon is a platoon HQ with three command 'lines' coming out to three squads? Will the new squad be a 'hq' fire team with one or more possible fire teams 'connected' to him? Perhaps this answers the question we had about will individual soldiers target enemy units themselves. The fire team may be the smallest firepower application, if you will.

I wonder if 1:1 can extend its benefits to armor? What comes to mind is crew exposed being more detailed. Right now its 'binary' in that you are bottoned up or crew exposed. IRL, it can be total crew up where all hatches are open and the guys are looking out (CE crew exposed) and getting some air. It could also be loader buttoned Up (LBU), RO down (RBU), and Commander and Driver up (CCE and DCE). It could even be commander fully up or head-out (minimal exposure but he is not relying on periscopes). This is a battle posture. Rest of crew buttoned up. Just thinking outside the Hex, of course. Funny that the designer seemed so intent on that (he even wrote a parable), but has not contributed here in this thread. Edit: Cripes, it could even be part of the crew bailed (BO) and some still inside. Sort of a split-crew thing. [ February 19, 2005, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Well you could go to the 1:1 thread since people there are staying on topic.. [ February 19, 2005, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Getting back to the squad being spread out or even 'sub-united'. Lets take the example of a squad advancing in the open. They incur some light fire and one man is pinned. The squad advances on. The man is seperated now by distance and LOS (the majority of the squad is over a hill now). Next turn the squad moves again and the man is still pinned in the same spot. They are seperated by a greater distance.. So when does a individual 1:1 soldier become divorced from his squad? Will he have a 'black' C&C line to him? Will he stay put till combined with someone else? Is the divorced soldier under any player control if he becomes unpinned yet seperated?

So it seems 'personalities' or functions are also being modeled. This does seperate 1:1 modeling from doing the more traditional detailed abstractions. More detailed abstractions could be as follows: Present system improvement.. Platoon HQ takes a casualty, random generator finds platoon NCO took it, effect; lessening of command star rating, morale heart, etc. With the 1:1, the exact person is tracked. So the radio operator could be toasted or perhaps just a runner is dead. The question is, is it worth it? [ February 19, 2005, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

Someone said earlier that the coding is only done by one person, is that person posting anything?

Would that apply to Patents also?

"With 1:1 representation comes the ability to simulate the "jobs" within the unit. This goes beyond simply identifying the leader of a unit. I commented on this in another thread, but in short... we can now have a HMG unit have a dedicated Team Leader, Gunner, Assistant Gunner, Ammo Bearer, and Ammo Bearer (or something like that). When there is a casualty the unit loses (temporarily, usually) the functionality of the specific guy lost."-Steve

Grogachubras do

Chubacabras that live in glass hexes should't throw goats

Chubacabras needs a scalp shave

As I've said before, I realize its not my decision. But I would have preferred that CM evolve in the opposite direction-to more of a big picture game (perhaps using AI to control squads, and the player becomes more of a Brigade or even Division commander). Rather than better modelling individual soldier behavior, I would have wanted better modelling of organizational behavior (resupply, communications delays between Brigade and Battalion staff, and so on). But it doesn't appear that that is the game we are getting. Ah, well. I think it will take a great demo to prove you wrong. I also wanted the game to get away from the minutia. I prefer to just double click a platoon HQ, activate his minions and give them some waypoints/SOPs/etc. Having a TACAI that could handle the details suits me.

I think this is one of the most interesting issues for CMx2 - how will BFC handle the LOS issues of a dispersed squad? Any light Steve can shed on this issue, I think, will be most interesting. Steve’s comments have also led me to believe that: Squad member geographic positions will be modeled 1:1 Squad member movement will be modeled (but not controlled) 1:1 Cover/concealment will be modeled 1:1 Excellent post. The whole Borg/Spotting thing could also be brought in.

Perhaps we should spell it..cmx2 to designate its move to more micromatters?

They do a pretty good job now. Some of the C+C is more for playability than a reflection of RL. A BAR team would not operate independently, but rather as part of a half-squad. I think this is how it's modeled now, I don't recall any 2-man BAR teams. Theres BAR teams. Do a quick battle and look under support weapons.

Chubacabras needs a new goat

Its Think Outside The Hex

In real Life, a squad leader could try to direct the firepower of his men against a target. Since targets in real life are not as defined as they are in the game, I wonder if 1:1 firepower resolution will address this. By this I mean, the player gives the 'unit' a fire command against an enemy unit; But, would it be possible for some of the men in the firing squad to actually target other, perhaps closer, threats? Could individual firers actually 'target' individual enemy? [ February 18, 2005, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

I think a related topic is What will be the Units in the new game? Will the squad still be the largest unit represented? Is there any reason to limit the orders/actions of smaller non-nco led units? Is a BAR team really the command and control equivelant of a full squad (perhaps in an airborne unit with two years of training but not really in most units).

Hopefully, the 1:1 representation will only be 'visable' at low viewpoints (ground level/level1?). I also wonder about clutter. Its already difficult to find FOs, bazookas, etc in large games. I even hope for the total loss of figures and replacement with military symbols at birds eye viewpoints.

Morale and experience might be something that varies over more than one CM battle. Perhaps during a 'Campaign' or whatever the new Campaign will be. Having units of different Morale/Experience combine together might bring down (or possibly up) the Morale/Experience of the 'new' unit. I brought up the tracking of leaders in the other thread. The designer also made a remark about leadership loss. So maybe individual leaders will be tracked.

Even something like physical state (exhausted, etc) might even be 1:1 modeled. But at the risk of incurring someones ire, there is always a limit as to what you can add on without collapsing the game into a sub-company type wargame.

Other improvements mentioned include resupply. Anything else?

I want to start a thread specifically about the 1:1 topic and its implications on the future game. Other threads are just too easily distracted and non-moderated. So what is known so far? The actual soldier entities will be visually represented on a 1:1 basis. They will still be 'units' in that they will be squads/half-squads/etc and orders will be issued to them as before (ie a menu type system). The individual ammo and 'states' of the soldiers will be tracked. Individual weapons will be tracked. Will leadership/personalities be tracked? This was brought up in another thread. So a platoon HQ gets shot at and the LT bites it? There is a resulting loss in leadership abilities being the immediate effect? Combining of squads/units/etc was mentioned. Specifics might be nice. Is this player controlled sometimes or an effect of the TACAI? Can units be 'split' so that 'chunks' of them are broken off either under player control or as a result of firepower? (3 guys take off..either messy pantsed or 2 guys evacuating a wounded soldier, etc.) Hopefully thsi important topic can stay on track and any designers can recognize that important issues are being brought up.

edited post above Many things are artificial in the game. These are abstractions. Victory assesment based on remaining ammo is not that bad an abstraction. If I take the objective and have remaining battlefield firepower, it makes the Boss happy.