Cid250

Understood. Mainly i was thinking in the broad AI available in COTA (Conquest of The Aegean), that game was done by only 2 coders, and handles the concept at the "operational" level in a 2D map with abstract elevation model and lines of sights. The feature is very usefull to avoid micromanagement when you still doesn't expect contact with the enemy... what is enought usefull when you have more than 20 units in the field and you want to move them in an organiced way without selecting all to give a general comand. Selecting all units to give a "move" comand, doesn't allow to keep correct spacing between squads and slowly support weapons. And by sellecting all you also can't expect to draw a "90 degree turn" in a move comand, keeping a good shaped formation (with the units in the inner side of the turn, being intentionaly slower than the units deployed in the outer side of the turn path) Can we simplyfy it to just one "move" comand at the platoon level that allows us to keep current spaces between fast squads and slowly support weapons (attached to that platoon)?. Is a syncroniced turning in formation too much code?. Keep in mind to be used only in the early stage of any battle... when there is no contact, or when you get reinforcements that need to travel a long distance to reach the main action zone. As player, you can use this feature at your own risk if micromanagement of paths is boring for those first minutes, or when reinforcements enter far away of the zone already controlled by your troops.

Hi. One of the things that worked worse with any AI design, is the handle of the bigger units as a whole, like Companys and Platoons on the field. May be is too much complex to develop "platoon" AI, or "company" AI... but you can't expect good results with AI in attack missions if all the AI weight his options based on the squads paths as individual units. That's not only a benefit for the Computer AI, but it also can add more to the players that doesn't want to micromanage everithing at any time (specially if the unit is not involved in combat). The system can be built with a new and different set of comands only available to the Platoon HQs and Company HQs. If you give a platoon level comand to a Platoon HQ, then all the units attached to that platoon will move and follow the general objetive. Examples of Platoon Comands: March: Squads are moved as a single row, one after another, with a separation of 50 meters between squads. The advanced guard is formed up by detaching a squad, and that half-squad moves ahead for recon aproximately 600 meters ahead (as a patrol). Any attached HMG goes to the rear of the column. Aproximation: Squads increase security and deploy in a wedge formation, increasing the separation in between squads in depht and width to aproximately 150 meters. The recon advanced guard is increased/reinforced adding the second half-squad as a second element in the forward, but with enought separation to the first patrol. Any attached HMG or mortar increases his separation to at least 200m in the rear of the formation for security reasons. Air warning / Artillery danger This comand makes that each man in a squad doubles his separation, and also the squads double his separation, due to possible enemy air presence, or for security reasons when you expect to cross an area beat by enemy artillery or mortars. (This comand works just like a switch, or the button up comand in tanks, but for infantry). Attack Any attached HMG or mortar finds a place in the rear with line of sight of the target waypoint (and maximun terrain height), if that is not possible within a circular area of 100 meters (with his current position as center), then those heavy weapons deploy close to the starting path of the attack (at the maximun terrain height possible at that place). Once the heavy weapons are in position, the squads starts moving in bouncing and overwatch, providing cover to each one (if one squad moves the others fire). When the full platoon sucess in moving forward... If the heavy weapons attached are more than one, they also proceed to move forward half of his strenght to a new position as soon as the platoon is about to reach the maximun effective range of those weapons, or also in the event of a new attack order placed over a terrain that has no Line of Sight from the current deployment. Assault Is an Attack but the bouncing overwatch is modified to keep more squads on the move simultaneously, and less squads in the firing support role. The intended result is a faster move but with less firepower. And much more... Delaying action, Pursuit, etc. Overview The current 1:1 model, handle each individual soldier of a big group, that's already Done by the Tactical AI. This is the next step up, considering each squad as an element of the platoon. The benefits are that you can use this new option at your risk, some player will love the micromanagement, but other will delegate responsibilities in the platoon HQs at least in the earlier phase of any battle... you can do micromanagement again when the situation doesn't fit to any of those platoon comands. You add a new depht to the value of HQ units, since if they are destroyed, you lose the chance to use those platoon comands. The computer AI, can use those new commands to a better result of the support weapons in attack... and AI can easily switch automatically from March to Approximation when the advanced guard meets the enemy. And if an enemy mortar barrage starts, your platoon then turn "ON" the Artillery Danger to spread out more in the Approximation... and finaly when more enemies are spotted, they can launch an Attack. The comands can be chained in a natural order, and can be scripted with triggers, switching from one comand to another when an event happens. That can make the AI plans look more natural, like a real unit following his training regulations or combat experience. If you can go even more deeper in the simulation, then you can go straight to the historical national training manuals or field regulations, to handle different options for british, germans, americans, etc... Please, discuss....

PBEM is hard to code for several players... The only way to do it, is to build a dedicated server with your mail box... Then if 8 players send his move by PBEM, the mail reach to the dedicated server, that does the maths to run the next 60 seconds of game, and send the results in separate mails to each one of the players. Ofcourse, it's needed that the server removes all the mails after being procesed, to minimize the cost of space of the player mail box. To complete the feature, will be nice to be able to enter your mail box data and the server inside of your game client, so when you send the e-mail, you can do it straight from the game. And also will be nice to be able to download the new mails hosted in the server with your game client. This means to build a SMTP/IMAP mailing service in the game client, and also a dedicated server to host the mail comunications and run the turns in a centraliced way. Other posibility, is avoid the PBEM concept... and use the style of data used in the TCP/IP games, split in WeGo pieces... i mean: When you send a WeGo turn, the server caches it, and store it for a unlimited time... so this allows the same fuctionality than PBEM without email traffic... the server stores the full TCP/IP "transmission" and stores it in a database on the server, so the players doesn't need to be Online... they can lauch his game client and check the new data stored in the server, to proceed to download. In short... e-mail technology can be discarded, and replaced by a better one... but you must take the time to build that kind of dedicated server. But if that kind of server exist, it seems reasonable to pay a monthly substription fee to pay for the cost of development and maintenance of the service... so it can be billed as an "optional" game feature, if you become a suscriber. This solves all the problems... since hard core players will pay for a different service that satisfy his more advanced needs. If that service is built, i will sign-in as the first suscriptor, provided that there are discounts for annual subscriptions at a reasonable price.

Next Question... How much complex is to include this feature with RealTime support in mind, versus only WeGo?. I bet that WeGo can minimize the number of issues, since all players send his orders to be executed simultaneously... more players in real time looks like a more complex development. If this guess is true... will be possible to drop the cooperative-play feature from real time to make it available at least in WeGo mode?. Something is better than nothing. In other words... if the development of cooperative-play for both: RealTime and WeGo, means that we can't expect it until year 2014, will be possible to develop cooperative-play in WeGo (only) if this choice push the release date of this feature to year 2011?. As a side note, at some point, if RealTime grows in the number of possible players... it will reach a point where the development of a dedicated server software to host the battle, will be more than "interesting".

Even few data, gives a lot for the modders!. The input/ouput for basic SDK is limited to: A) Import input (before PBEM Quick battle starts): a.1 Kind of deployment: Meeting Engagement, Blue Attack Prove, Red Attack Probe, Blue Attack, etc... a.2 Enumeration of the Unit List in the starting battle with the following attributes for each unit listed: a.2.1 Attribute for each unit about damage status/killed a.2.2 Attribute for each unit about ammo available a.2.3 Attribute for each unit about fitness/fuel supply. a.2.4 Unique Id for the unit a.2.5 Class of Unit a.2.6 Attribute for each unit about parent unit link (for chain of command pourpouses, if needed). a.2.7 Attribute for each unit about special gear/loadout (if needed) a.3 Terrain: At least size, and general type, like urban, small hills, etc. (Other terrain details aren't needed for a basic implementation). Export output (after PBEM Quick battle finish): b.1 Kind of Victory: Minor, Complete, Draw, etc... b.2 Enumeration of the Unit List in the finished battle with the following attributes for each unit listed: b.2.1 Attribute for each unit about damage status/killed b.2.2 Attribute for each unit about ammo available b.2.3 Attribute for each unit about fitness/fuel supply. b.2.4 Class of Unit Import/export data can be done in a similar way than the PBEM format, as file... or as another kind of file like plain text (no need to avoid possible file hacks, since fair play in campaigns can be granted by players/managers). Isn't that much, for even not considering that option in the next 5 years time frame... if you plan to build a beter Quick Battle generator, to extent the functionality to allow input/output from a file isn't much more complex in development time.

I've opened this thread to request a better interface for CMx2 WWII: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=86360 If a lot of future customers are interested... may be, we will be lucky with the next attempt of CMC.

I want command delays back!... even if they are just an option in WeGo, because WeGo fits better the realim conditions for a field commander, and i love to play only that way. In short: Add another supporter of commands delays.

Combat mission Campaigns was cancelled!. Will be possible to include in the design of CMx2 WWII a new interface to export/import data to/from an external third party application?... May be that will make possible a new CMC or other future associated products under the license of Battlefront. Will be nice that each CMx2 WWII scenario gets an "input" and "output" interface of data at the beggining of a mission and at the end of it, with a good SDK provided by Battlefront under license. Things like the number, and class of units and his status in supply, hurt, deaths, etc... and also some inputs about terrain features generation. How many players, modders, and developers are interested in such thing?. Then, feel free to post here to give your support and comments to this possibility

I hope that the design of CMx2 WWII take into account this... for a possible new external CMC development. They are in time...

In a typical german squad, there are atleast 2 persons that work as "ammo carriers" of the LMG... just because the MG42 is the main weapon in firefights and it needs lots of ammo, there is an ammo carrier, and an LMG assitant (that also has a spare tube and more ammo). Will be designed in that way for the future WWII module?. What happens if the LMG gunner is killed in combat?... will be posible that another soldier in the squad take this important weapon (that was normal practice in WWII). What about "runners"?... at platoon and company level there is also some soldiers that are "runners" to give contacts and other coms... Will be that fact "abstracted"? or there will be "visible runners" when radio coms aren't available?. In heavy MG platoons there are also infantry "telemeters"... will we see those specific soldiers in the field? Will be possible to give fire orders for an MG company to "reverse slope" (without line of sight) as area target?... that was common practice in WWII even at ranges of 2000 meters. In some mountain units, horses were used in the long range recon patrols, because horses are more silent than motorbikes and can bypass very rought terrain. Will be any mountain unit equiped with horses in CMx2 WWII eventually?. (keep in mind that those recon infantry dismount from horses when it's needed, to finnish recon on-foot). Will be any chance of a return of light and medium mortars to the in-map area? (off-map has no sense for the range of those mortars). In defense... will be available again the "fox holes" for individual soldiers?. A soldier can dig-in in less than one hour, will be that option available for scenarios longer than that?. Will be possible to call for a typical artillery rolling barrage?... this artillery mission drops the shells in a line that is moved forward in attack and backwards in delaying actions... was common practice since WWI to drop also a mix of smoke & HE rounds in the flanks of that rolling barrage to aid in the attack or defense. (well the flank barrage can be just a "fixed" line target wit mixed ammo defined as separate artillery missions from the main "mobile" rolling barrage "). Will be available in defense the "pre-defined" target ranges?. When a WWII unit was in defense was a normal practice to use their infantry rangefinders to find the range to any terrain feature to aid the aim of MGs and Mortars. Will be available this feature, again?. Which tools if any, will be available for infantry to cross rivers and other water obstacles?. Barbed wire... can you "cut" them with regular infantry to open a path?, will be available "bangalore torpedos" for engineers?. Mines... will engineers be able to detect and mark them?. Can they setup boby-traps on urban areas?. Explosives... will engineers be able to use them to blow bridges, or tall trees as improvisation of a barrage for vehicles over a road?.

Gruppenführer is not a rank... is a task!: NCO squad leader isn't a US rank either, but means the role or possition in charge The german manuals speak also about Zugführer when they explain the roles of the Platoon comander, because a platoon commander doesn't need to have the same rank in every platoon of the Heer... it depends!... casualities, etc...

That ftp, seems to not work for me, can somebody host it on www.tynipic.com or something?

Umm... more detailed account about US squad: The 12-man squad itself was divided into 3 distinct parts - a 2-man scout team, a 4-man support team including the BAR, a 5-man assault team, and the squad leader. The system was supposed to work like this: the squad leader advances with the scout team to locate the enemy, then direct the fire of the support team on their positions before joining the assault team in order to lead them in to wipe them out. This seemingly simple system placed a lot of faith in the GI and that indisputably fabulous weapon, the M1 Garand. From: http://www.dererstezug.com/TacticalPhilosophies.htm

A good example of this at the squad/gruppe level is... Germans considered their LMG as the main weapon in firefights... while their bolt rifles act as "support" of the LMG providing security. At long ranges they even avoid to use their rifles (taking cover in the fire action), because the LMG is a smaller single target with much higer rate of fire. If the LMG crew is dead... any other soldier in the squad takes this main weapon with an immediate change of position when it's possible. US doctrine used the semi auto rifles to lead their firefights, while their BAR was the "support" weapon of the squad. German gruppe usually was leaded in terrain recon by the NCO gruppenführer (squad leader), he usually goes forward with only one or two guys to find the correct spot to move the LMG forward, and he take an active part in aiding to the LMG crew with range setting, selection of targets, and spoting with his binocs (as side note they provide close combat security with their MP40 in desesperate situations)... so the german NCO squad leader takes a bit of more risk in the combat. German squads had also a role for the second in command or Truppführer, that was usually in charge of the riflemen and checking the sides and rear to provide security in support of the LMG main action. US squad has more firepower distributed in more men with their semi-auto rifle, so those riflemen were the main element of fire in combat, keeping the BAR as a support weapon for the advance and combat of the full squad. The NCO squad leader, takes much less risks in combat since he doesn't need to do recon to move the BAR first into good position because it is the "support" weapon. He can send a patrol of 2 or 3 men with garands instead to do the recon for the full squad, providing security with the BAR for their moves and maneouvers. This description is only "approximate", there are much better accounts on the official training doctrines of each army. So take this post only as an example.

Better with images:

The first 22'' 3D monitor now cost only $399... in one or two years it will be cheap enought to see 3D displays for games, as a normal peripherical. I post several interesting links about this technology: 22" iZ3D 3D monitor 22" iZ3D is an advanced video monitor capable of displaying impressive into-screen and out-of-screen 3D images with passive polarized glasses... it cost $399 and have support for 100 games. GeForce® 3D Stereo technology With the latest GeForce 8 series GPUs, and a 3D LCD monitor (Zalman 19'' ZM-M190, Zalman 22'' ZM-M220W) you are ready to support 350 games. ViewSonic 22'' VX2265wm ultra-fast refresh 120Hz 3D LCD This is may be one of the best 3D LCD monitors that support the GeForce® 3D Stereo technology, as was reviewed after the Nvision 2008. StereoMirror from Planar3D This is another proposal, not for the gaming industry, but for the professional market. The interesting thing is that they have already a Free Evaluation Promo of Your Display Project. A Quick Guide to 3D Displays This article is a short review in two pages of the manufacturers of 3D displays present in Nvision 2008. Another article: NVIDIA GeForce 3D Vision Review - 3D Glasses for the Masses LG joins to the 3D display technology for 2009. http://www.t3.com/news/lg-3d-tvs-will-be-here-in-2009?=37380 Seems that "soon" every manufacturer will support this tech. The best thing of some of the new 3D monitor technologies, is that you doesn't need to wear glasses!!!. http://www.alioscopy.com/ Play Station 3 also joins to the 3D gaming revolution this year... PS3 may feature stereoscopic 3D in 2009 Sony "fully intends" to move forward with support for stereoscopic 3D gaming on the PS3 http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/12/19/ps3-may-feature-stereoscopic-3d-in-2009

That's really one that i want to see.

No, i only ask for the approximate possition for this feature in the development list... i'm just curious. If it's mid-term, it can be an objetive for the year 2009. But if it's low in priority, then it will be long-term (for 2010 or later). After the new blue bar introduced in the WeGo gameplay, i consider cooperative gameplay the most important feature for the game, since it can allow 2vs2 player scenarios, or (if we are lucky) 4 vs 4 player scenarios. With this feature, you really introduce the sense of "friendly fog of war", and "friendly fire" events. Chain of command, contact reports, and comms... it matters!, in the new gameplay that follows to this "great" feature.

It's even considered after the British module release?.

Well, 1.11 is out, and 2009 begins. It's considered this feature for the 2009's development cycle?. Or maybe it will be considered well after 2010?

I'm also interested in this feature... and i got a thread with an official reply: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83563

Yes i'm really pleased!. 1.11 is the first patch that pleases me as WeGo PBEmail customer.

This sentence states how wrong can you be actually... "not unrealistic in the real world"??? In fact... on modern war, every squad commander, and every soldier, thinks by himself. The name of auftragstaktik (mission-oriented tactics) doesn't sound familiar to you?. Actually the US army has built his tactical doctrine over this concept dated much earlier than WWII, and well tested in the GREAT WAR fields from 1916 to the end... specially in itally and the easter front. Several simultaneous maneouvers, fire & moves, by several diferent units simultaneously and agressively, are "frequent" in such kind of war. So... you have one player with only ONE brain, to simulate the actions and reactions and all the thinking involved in a battle concerning to a lot of units composed by men with his own brain and instructed to react and take his own decissions in the ongoing battle... For a single player... to simulate the fact of multiple men thinking about what's the next move, it takes a bit more than 60 second of (single player) real time. In other words... is fair for each squad commander to have 60 seconds of real time for himself and his men, and it means that a single player need at least those 60 seconds for each squad deployed in the game to simulate "clever tactical moves" of all those units, and not "dumb" Real Time Strategy gameplay, based on a single player reacting to events instead of a lot of experienced men doing the task. Sorry but your point against the advantages of WeGo has no possible defense.

Wrong, i will not buy any of the CMx2 releases if the development path continues this way. Eyecandy is not enought for me to buy a WWII game.

In WWII many of the tactics were based in task-forces, or mission-oriented forces. Some units were composed entirely for the task... and CMx2 will lack of that flexibility, wich means a "fail" in undestanding WWII era tactics.