Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Jock Tamson

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    443

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Jock Tamson

    WeGo TCP/IP - hurrrrah

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Yes, a dedicated server does fix a lot of issues. Unfortunately it causes a lot of major development problems for us. Again, it all comes down to "how much is this feature worth". To all of us, conceptually, the feature is worth a lot. Nobody disagrees about it. But when it comes to figuring out what we're going to spend our time on, it ranks very low compared to the other things people want. Which means the will is there, the technical solutions exist, but given our limited work capacity it's not practical.

    Steve

    Understood. Maybe in the next generation of the engine it would be seen as a worthwhile project that might extend the appeal of the series to people who are drawn to games like Men of War Assault Squad - RTS, yes, but groggier than most and with good multiplayer arrangements.

    0

    WeGo TCP/IP - hurrrrah

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    What I'd like to see is at least 10-15 seconds worth of running data stored in RAM for instant replay. This would be true for single player and TCP/IP in either mode. I don't know if it is technically feasible, but after we move to 64bit (which will happen) it might be doable for people with significant RAM to spare. Right now we're pressing up against the 4GB limit so that right there nixes it for now.

    Steve

    Hi Steve, isn't this where the dedicated server exe could come in? What I am envisaging is a server interface similar to that on, say, Arma to allow easy hosting of a scenario.

    One player hosts the dedi server and all players persistently connect to it to submit moves and receive replays. It calculates the outcome and produces files for the players to replay.

    As it would be an additional process, it has its own 3GB address space on a 32 Bit OS.

    Obviously there is a similarity to PBEM in terms of data transfer, but the significant advantage is that all players can plot their moves at the same time. Additionally, future developments might be:-

    - provide a means in the future for more than 2 players to take part in a mission

    - multiplayer combined arms scenarios could be built where the designer allocates particular units to player 1, player 2, player 3, etc

    - each player only has spotting info for what his units can see. But if players' units share a net then some "?" spotting info is made available between commands.

    - server parameters such as move submission time limits could be set by the host, to keep the flow of the game going eg 6 player game, platoon each, 15 minute limit for reviewing replays and and submitting moves - could be a lot of fun.

    0

    WeGo TCP/IP - hurrrrah

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    It plays basically the same as it did in CMx1, but without the ability to replay combat.

    Player A and Player B individually plot out their moves, the Orders Phase ends, combat is resolved in realtime, turn ends, players plot their moves, the Orders Phase ends, combat is resolved in realtime, turn ends, players... so on and so forth.

    When you save you save the current state of each others' orders, the map data, the unit data, etc. There is no history of the last 60 seconds saved into the file, therefore you can't replay the combat. It's simply not available.

    Just so you know Charles has always said it would be a major (massive) project to get replay to work. I believed him, however when Phil set about doing the code work I asked him to see if there was a sly way to make it work. Phil looked at the code and agreed with Charles that it would be a huge hairy monster to tame. I gotta go with what the smart guys say ;)

    Steve

    Hi Steve

    I wonder if ultimately (CMx4) the answer to this might be for a server exectuable to be shipped with the game, so that when two players play TCP/IP one connects his client game to the server locally ie running on his PC, and the other connects remotely. Then have the server executable produce the file for the clients, containing all the necessary detail for each client's replay.

    0

    AAR - Wittmann's Demise - The German Perspective

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I started this scenario a few days ago against the Allied AI, and am about 45 moves in. Fantastic map with lots of possibilities, I'm glad I didn't read the AAR before playing it.

    Recon, careful probing, and using Regular or Veteran crews to spot and engage at range has been critical, as has careful scouting out of decent HD positions on the approaches. Where possible I have steered clear of trees and used lanes and hedges for covered observation. There are also some useful elevation changes within the wheat fields to allow a bit of room for manoeuvre.

    I've knocked out 3 Fireflys and 4 Sherman Vs and have captured Gaumesnil which provided some very entertaining moments, not least of which was stalking a Sherman V with an Aufklärung team in the woods only to see them hit a tree right in front of them with their Panzerfaust, the projectile rebounding and suppressing them. They later disabled it with AT grenades.

    I've lost 1 Tiger and 2 Green crewed Pz IVs, all around Gaumesil. The loss of the Tiger was early on in the mission, since then I have been more careful to keep a distance until I am sure the treelines are clear. The left flank now seems two thirds clear so I am sending three armoured platoons down there in a wide left hook in order to work my way up to Objective 2. One of the surprises has been the survivability of the Shermans, particularly when engaged by the Pz IVs' 75mms. This probably the largest amount of armour I have played with so I have seen more instances of the Shermans surviving 2 or 3 shots than I might otherwise be used to in my usual encounters.

    On the right flank I moved a Pz Gr platoon into the farm buildings 400m in front of their starting positions. They provided some very useful spotting of ambushing tanks in the treeline ahead, which I drove out with HE from supporting Pz IVs and then picked off with two panthers I had crept through the wheat fields.

    My plan for the right flank is a little seat of the pants. I am reasonably confident that the initial defences have been driven off so I have moved up another Pz Gr company supported by PZ IVs and am intending to probe into the gully half way to Garcelles which looks like it could be a useful avenue of approach provided it is not chock full of infantry. Hopefully this probe will also provide some useful recon of the middle approach up the map and allow me to move remaining armour up in a big push.

    I really wish conditional triggers linked to unit groups were available to scenario designers to allow the AI to pull back or launch a counter attack as the situation demands, similar to the Arma editor. It would add massively to the replayability and general dynamism of the AI. Imagine the possibilities of a trigger on Gaumesil linked to an Allied tank troop where Enemy spotted within trigger =true, Morale of troop leader > 0 , probabilty roll => 0.5.... = the AI launching an attack. It's the area of the game that needs the most love, IMO.

    0

    Hull-down spotting disadvantage

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    If having your tanks in hull-down positions entails that those tanks will require, on average, a longer time in order to spot an enemy tank, that has quite important tactical consequences. Let me go over a happening in a "CW First Clash" game I had at The Blitz with Barre (hats off to him, by the way).

    That scenario depicts a meeting engagement between a Polish and a Waffen SS recon battlegroups, where the terrain consists of a quite deep forested valley dominated by rolling hills on each side. Each force has the opportunity to deploy their armour on the high-ground, overwatching parts of the valley as well as the higher-ground on the other side. The German side (this is an subjective appraisal) offered much better opportunities to deploy armour in hull-down position.

    I was playing the German side and I kept my heavy armour in reserve - relatively speaking, as these were Mk IV's - while the faster, thin skinned German AFV's raced along the main routes in search of the enemy forces. My opponent met the light AFVs with a couple Cromwells, which did indeed have a field day. My opponent had those Cromwells sitting on the open, as he wasn't very afraid.

    I immediately ordered three of my Pz IV's to advance along a covered route towards hull-down positions slightly to the flank of the enemy Cromwells. They got there and for when the 'contact' icon solidified into an actual tank, the Cromwells - sitting on the open - had already started firing on the hull-down Pz IV's.

    That was a difference of perhaps 20 or 30 seconds, not much yet crucial, since by the time my crews were firing their first shots - and getting their shots too short or too long, as expected - the Cromwells' crews had already taken those 'off range' shots, and their next shots knocked two Mk IV's in quick succession with turret penetrations (both crews bailed out).

    I wasn't aware at the time of how important could be that difference - as in allowing the enemy enough time to get a good firing solution before my troops did. In hindsight, if I had been aware of this asymmetry in spotting - which makes perfect sense now, as the Cromwells by being on the open, had more chances to spot than my Mk IV's, by having more "Eyeball Mk I sensors" available - I wouldn't have gambled on taking out the Cromwells (and putting the Mk IV's in hull-down positions, where they're surprisingly yet historically-correct vulnerable).

    There is something else going on here other than the spotting asymmetry. The AFVs had contact with the Cromwells but the Mk IVs didn't. So when you move them into their flanking positions they are spotting without any prior knowledge of the existence of the Cromwells or their positions. It can be very easy to forget this as the player with the God's Eye View. In these sorts of circumstances I might try and get one unit in the troop to spot them before moving the others up, or even dismount one crew for recon. Also, given what we know about cumulative crew spotting, maybe try and get HD positions from the rear quarters of the targets so that the target loses some of its spotters?

    Of course if I was playing "intuitively" as Steve recommends, I might slow move them into HD flanking positions and expect to get the bounce on tanks sitting out in the open...:D . Intuitively, that should work. The problem is that your tanks don't know that you are sneaking them into a HD position for a purpose. Maybe setting a narrow target arc in these circumstances should load the odds slightly more in favour of the HD units? (for the avoidance of doubt, arcs don't add a spotting advantage, I am suggesting that maybe they should add a "focus" modifier).

    0

    Hull-down spotting disadvantage

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I'm going to largely cut this down to I agree that more/better information display can be a good thing, but I doubt it will ever be to the degree you feel it should. This is the difference between your own feelings on what is a "want" and what is a "need". As with any personal opinion, and this definitely is, there's going to be a large area where agreement isn't possible in all instances all the time. Plus, we can't afford to go tunnel vision on any one aspect of the game. Not a path we can afford (literally) to go down. Which means improvements in game feedback will be, like everything else in the game, a series of incremental improvements.

    What was in CMx1 isn't really relevant so I don't want to continue spending time on that. There is almost nothing about spotting in CMx2 that is similar to the way CMx1 spotted. The most important reason is that CMx1's "absolute" spotting system made nuances mostly pointless because an individual unit rarely had to spot on its own. CMx2's "relative" spotting system, on the other hand, means that individual spotting characteristics matter a ton. Therefore, the generalized and superficial treatment of spotting inherent in CMx1 does not exist in CMx2.

    The specific properties for spotting go way beyond mere optics. Vision blocks, for example, are not technically optics but they are factored in. Individual optics systems are also explicitly taken into consideration in terms of magnification and field of view. Beyond that would be the clarity of view, which is a modifier to a specific part of a larger part of a bigger capability to spot. I have absolutely no idea what the modifier might be, or whether it is different based on nation. In fact, in all these years of development of CMx2 I've never thought to ask as it's never come up. And even if I did tell you, I can promise you there's no way you could use that information in a meaningful way.

    Best of my knowledge there is no nitty gritty presumption that a specific piece of a specific part of a specific vehicle behaves explicitly different depending on crew quality. Given how arbitrary such decisions would be, since there is no such historical reference to guide us, I think it would be a mistake to do that. The exception made for CMx1 was, in effect, "gamey".

    I doubt there are many like you amongst the entire customer base. And I weep for those of you who do play this way :D Because you will never, ever be armed with enough information to make choices like this in a way that is much better than the average gamer. That's because there is NO one right thing to choose and there is NO one certain outcome. It's all circumstantial and there's no possible way all circumstances can be accounted for.

    I understand that people who feel the need to control things to this degree take comfort in exercising as much control as they are afforded... but I don't think it makes much practical difference. The battle will still be won based on tactical prowess, and as history shows stats don't predict outcome. Which is why the various Dupuy attempts failed to work.

    If you win more than you lose it's because you're a good player. It's not because you've correctly sussed out the minor possible benefits of one particular type of vehicle vs. another.

    Steve

    Steve, the nature of PBEM H2H encourages this sort of absorption in the minutiae though doesn't it ? You may have a full day before your first turn is due, and you may only be purchasing 5 or 6 AFVs. In these circumstances I can completely understand the desire to have the detail available - what else is there to do ?

    0

    Hull-down spotting disadvantage

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Different games, different focuses, different market context. When we made CMx1 we had to go overboard to prove our "grog" credentials because at the time any game that pushed the visual envelope was viewed with massive skepticism. Since we thought the only people who would be interested in CM were the grogs, we felt we had to make sure there was no mistaking how detailed the game guts were AND how much better they were compared to contemporary games. There was also a lot less going on under the hood than CMx2 so it was easier to focus attention on a few areas of detail since there were only a few areas of detail.

    CMx2 doesn't have these sorts of problems, but does have a problem (if you want to call it that) of having a LOT more going on. Even though we've doubled our staff since CMAK, we're still spread thin. Losing focus of what people need vs. what they want is a quick way to obscurity.

    Sure you have a way of knowing. It's in there. Now you know :D

    Seriously, I've said from the beginning that there is NOTHING in CMx1 that is done in more detail than CMx2. Absolutely nothing. And when we went to go do the subsystems for WW2 equipment, where do you think we went to first for basic information? CMx1. Unfortunately the information there was often too general to use outright with CMx2's more sophisticated sub systems, which meant a ton of additional research. But at least CMx1 gave us a place to start.

    Steve I'm not a grog by any means, but the people who want to play these sorts of games generally want to know that there is lots going on under the hood. And they want to know what it is. And the more realistic it sounds, the better. I just don't see the harm in making the detail available - big it up!

    If you look at any of the big titles that fall into the strategy genre, the most popular mods - hundreds of thousands of downloads - are realism/authentic detail mods to make up for perceived deficiencies in those areas in the base game. Fundamentally that is what appeals to that market.

    0

    Hull-down spotting disadvantage

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    The game would be unplayable with that philosophy.

    There is a difference between overwhelming the player with information during gameplay, and making the information available.

    Having the information available, and knowing that the stats are used in game, adds massively to the immersion and draws the player in.

    The game begs for an armoury of some sort where the interested player can browse the detail of the units at their leisure. See Wargame Air Land Battle, for example. Yes it's an RTS, but all the units and all their stats - the ones that are used in game - are available to the player.

    0

    Hull down test (PzIV H, M4A1)

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Interesting, that would be do able in game as well. I have done it from time to time. Must make it more of a staple tactic.

    I have dismounted my troop leader's tank and had the crew observe the battlefield from a crest or a building. Not against a human though.

    Probably a waste of a tank as I guess that takes them "off net", so it would be a task better served by a cheaper unit?

    0

    First impression

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Hmmm, I look back at how popular Close Combat was back in the day. The principles of pinning the enemy [remember the shaded suppression area?] and manoeuvring, recon, scouting by fire, morale, cover, command radius etc were fundamental.

    I don't remember people finding these ideas difficult to get to grips with, even outside of typical wargamer circles. I am not suggesting for a minute that the series had CM's depth, but successful play required a similar approach to most common situations in CM.

    0

    First impression

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Then you haven't read all the posts. I have posted in the past remarking that I don't think additional commands are necessarily a good idea, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

    But there might be room in the UI for a few more commands. There are probably also ways of modifying the current commands in the game to get more out of them -- e.g., the "Assault" command, which has very limited utility for a human player and perhaps could be changed to make it more useful (though AIUI the Assault command is important to the way the Computer Player controls units).

    But in general I think BFC has to be very careful about additional commands; This game has a high enough learning curve as it is.

    I said I hadn't read any posts suggesting we had too many commands at the moment. It doesn't sound like you have posted to that effect either.

    If that is the case, then presumably there is room for x number more up to a point where it would be felt we had hit the maximum.

    So the question is, what is x?

    As for the learning curve, I am not convinced it is steep. Generally this series attracts people who have played wargames in one form or another so most of the concepts are familiar, and it can be played in a form - WEGO or paused RT - where there is time for contemplation.

    The much lauded Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations has a relatively steep learning curve and yet the clamour from the community has been for more commands. Which they are getting in the next patch.

    Maybe that's where all the grogs are these days ;-)

    0

    First impression

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Not true. The number and variety of commands have practical limitations for WeGo as well. That's because few people want to be confronted with a spreadsheet's worth of Commands. I know some people have no problems with quantity and variety, but any experienced game publisher will tell you from experience the number of such people is quite small.

    When we agonize over Commands and Command behaviors we never, ever, even for a split second think of WeGo or RealTime. We only think "is it REALLY necessary to have something new, or can we somehow utilize something we already have?". We try very hard to say NO to the first question simply to avoid the game becoming Combat Mission: A Command Too Far :D

    So this is yet another example of an imagined WeGo limitation that I can say, without hesitation, has absolutely nothing to do with CM's core engine being RealTime.

    I'm not sure, because I haven't counted, but I think CMx2 has more Commands than CMx1 had Orders. If not, they're not too far apart.

    Yup, and we had the same issues with CMx1 when it first came out. People, by and large, didn't like the camera controls then either. That's not surprising to us because CM's needs, be it CMx1 or CMx2, are very different from other games. Gamers tend to not like learning new UI.

    Steve

    There are never any posts complaining about there being too many commands Steve. But there are often posts suggesting there are not enough. Which suggests maybe that we are still well short of the tipping point ?

    0
×
×
  • Create New...