'Under the Hood'

[jim crowley]

In looking back over the AAR's, it strikes me that a lot of information seems to have been assumed by the players (or should that be presumed) in regard to hits on, and damage to, vehicles. The destruction of the Jumbo was a prime example.

Unless I'm missing something, which is emmintley possible, there does not appear to be any way to accurately ascertain the point of impact of (say) an incoming AT shell, or the actual damage done (if any) by it.

Thus if a vehicle is immobilised, the hit is assumed to have hit a track or driving-sprocket or possibly even the engine.

At least that is how I am reading it.

Now, given that, 'under the hood', the game engine is working through all sorts of esoteric data relating to angles, velocities, points of impact, armour thickness and slope, etc. it seems a shame that at least some of this can't be allowed to see some daylight.

In other words, why not a "AT shell hits side turret; no damage" or whatever , during or at the end of a turn or whenever appropriate.

Not only would this help the player to more readily and quickly understand what is happening (without perhaps having to go over each shot with a fine tooth-comb to try and trace the path of the shell to impact) but would also give at least a glipmse of what is going on 'underneath' to show that it is really all being calculated.

If not, then to the players perspective, it can appear that nothing more esoteric than a ten-sided dice has been rolled, with a 1 being a critical hit, a 2 and 3 a hit, and 4 to 10 a miss, etc. etc.

What I am trying to say is don't hide away all that hard work and detail under the hood by only showing it through the likes of the penetration charts; let some of it become more apparent, at least by option , if not by default.

Cheers

Jim

PS If I've got the wrong end of the stick, I apologise in advance.

[Fionn]

Jim,

Those are good points and actually are ones I would like to address from a gamer's/grognard's point of view.

Funny you should mention 10-sided die... If I broke NDAs I could tell you stories about those in wargames (NOT to do with Combat Mission of course.. In fact you know how Steve always mentions Charles' knowledge of figures etc? Once I asked Charles about a particular aspect of statistics.. About one paragraph into his reply email I'd already gone farther into probability than I could handle hehe.)

Anyways, one of the things I loved about TOP and PITS is the "75mm APCBC hit turret front, penetrates 51.2mm etc etc" BUT Combat Mission takes a different approach much more in keeping with the spirit of the game.

Whereas the hex-based games of old (and indeed new) give players huge amounts of data in an attempt to show that everything is tracked Combat Mission is taking a different approach... BTW I've had looks inside a lot of these so-called realistic games and let me tell you, there's a pyramidal relationship between detail, accuracy and realism BUT detail does not equal accuracy or realism.

Anyways, Combat Mission is best described as giving you ALL the information that you would have if you were really there. Do you, in a war, know that an APCR hit the turret side at an oblique angle and skimmed off causing only minor flaking OR do you know that there was a big bang and a ricochet but your tank survived? Answer, the latter.

Combat Mission's way of doing things acts to preserve the Fog of War and encourages a far more realistic view of the situation and FAR more identification with the scenario.

It comes down to this... Hex-based games do things one way whereas Combat Mission, because it is a very different game in ethos and carriage, has the option of conveying information in a much more realistic and effective manner. It chooses to do this, complicating Fog of War problems and increasing immersion (to my mind)...

This is another case where the "traditional" way of doing things if implemented in Combat Mission would actually subtract from the game.

I know that's hard to probably accept without playing it but I think you'll agree, when you play, that the uncertainty introduced by not having these unrealistically exact reports of individual shots increases the tension and fun of the game as well as making your threat evaluation and decision-making processes more difficult.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Bobb]

While it would be some fun to have post mortum info like this from the standpoint of looking at it like after the fact higher echelon researchers, our perspective is from the more emmersive view of the BN commander trying to accomplish his mission at as small a cost in lives and equipement as possible.

There is room for debate, I think, as whether a game should or not deliver a multi layered experence. Anyway, we are already seeing a trade offs made for the sake of being able to produce as good a game as possible within the practical limits of current hardware. No need to place any more stress on that than necessary. Still, I can envision a few years down the tracks being able to toggle on a more detailed exposure of what happened to that tank. Perhaps, in some play review mode. "Oh that's what happened to that piece of junk."

[Fionn]

Bobb,

Oh don't get me wrong, giving that data would NOT be a major drain on system resources etc. It's being left out (as far as I can see) because of a conscious design decision.

Flashng up a line of text to give a text summary of the mathematical stuff which determined whether or not the round penetrated wouldn't take much work BUT it would subtract from CM. CM isn't a game where you should go and count exactly how many troops you have manouvering against a certain position, or count the angles of advance etc. It's all about commanding your troops by "feel" and issuing orders on a battlefield which removes as much of the "traditional wargame" dyshistoricities as possible.

hexes and unrealistic information levels are among those dyshistoricities which we have become used to having but aren't realistic . Like I said it takes some adjusting to but its well worth it.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Bil Hardenberger]

I agree with Fionn, and obviously with the way that CM disseminates it's information.

A real Battalion Commander could care less how a vehicle got immobilized or taken out. He only cares that he lost a resource. This micro detail is irrelevant to how he wages the battle. He doesn't have the time to look through all the reports and ascertain the shell's angle as it passed through the armor, who cares? He wants to defeat the enemy, to do that he wants to know what he has available to put toward that end. Even after the battle I really doubt that he would care about the details unless vehicles were lost to a new weapon system that he will have to take into account in the future (Egyptian SAGGERS against Israeli armor in 1973 comes to mind).

To my mind, this argument is no different than the thread about whether dead bodies should be left scattered about on the battlefield. It would be unnecessary clutter.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Fionn is correct about why this information is not displayed. CM is a smooth, easy, emmersive game on one hand because it is so richly detailed and historically accurate. On the other, it is because we do not include reams of data that are irrelevant to gameplay or, like the ammo type, shot angle, etc. detract from Fog of War.

Grogs tend to think that more is always better, but that is not an opinion we share. The old saying of "too much of a good thing is bad" works as much here as it does anywhere else. We could list ranks and names for each soldier, display each and every hit a tank takes in 60 seconds of play, have 15 different move commands, allow specialized teams that were used once during the whole war, etc. etc. etc. etc. Even if we had the time to do this, we wouldn't. Too much info that has NO bearing on gameplay is just simply a bad thing.

When you play CM, and see how easy it is to enjoy it (i.e. you don't have to TRY hard like in some other games) you will understand if you don't already.

Steve

[Guest Bobb]

Gentlemen,

The point was, room for arguement; not support for interfering with the current game ideology. Yes, such a toggle at hand would tend to run a player's mind off on tangents not necessary to the most desirable Being-There atmosphere carefully crafted into play. In fact it would detract in a situation where a player already has his hands full.

But, for those who get into these details and occasional passers-by with a curiosity, such a capability adds another layer of enjoyment. I think that if this kind of capability were available, it should be only available after play has terminated. But that is only my opinion. I doubt whether I would do more than make an occasional use of it.

The capability to glean a few more details about what happened would effect a richer story of what happened.

So, Fionne and Bill I have no disagreement with your points about the primacy of an uncluttered battlefield exprience. Just wondering whether this lushous table set before us might not have a second course hidden somewhere for those with the appitite.

The capability to glean a few more details about what happened would effect a richer story of what happened. Speaking of stories, there is something that I have noticed about the AARs. They are fascination embodied. It is like reading a first person account of combat. They read like good battlefield fiction. Placing the two views of the action together, seeing directly the fogging of the perception of each sides battle is something else. What a hoot to see the embodiment of U.S. Grant's realization that the other fellow is just as afraid of his enemy's power and intention as he was.

One could just about use the game as a foundation upon which to build such stories. Though, I doubt the market for that is what it once was. The reports are hardly AFTER-Action-Reports. They are more like Concurrent-Action-Reports.

Now would war gamers take that depth of interest? Is this battlefield experence sufficiently superficial that players are satisfied with kicking ass or licking the place of their pain? (A real talent!) It is only speculation as far as I am concerned. I know that there is a different constant for each player in his equasion between maximising battles played and battles analyised in detail. It is a pain to keep records and gather them into a narrative of play. Yet when well done they make a fine read for those who like the game. In this one the reality of play translates far beyond the mere rattle of ten sided dice. There is a smell of powder and blood incongrously spread upon a landscape with beautiful trees, sky and seasonal colors fit for the artist. The penitration of 200mm of steel with a blast of hellish energy, that may be expended upon tracks rather than the sheltering cocoon of a turret or upon an angle that negates its killer instinct, may have a place somewhere beyond the secret bowels of the game engine.

So, Fionne and Bill I have no disagreement with your points about the primacy of an uncluttered battlefield exprience. Just wondering whether this lushous table set before us might not have a second course hidden somewhere for those with the appitite.

And just an arguement; it not a position. At least not mine. Jim, did Fionn speak so well that you lost your tongue?

By the way Fionn (and Martin), those AARs, they are something else. Elsewhere I have suggested selling tickets. What a spectator sport! Listening in on the opposing commanders as they convey their perceptions, thoughts, plans, hopes, fears, shock, and triumphs, shephard the green troops and develop affection for the suffering veterans who carry the load -- it is a ringside seat, and illustrated as well.

Tallented designers and player-writers could make presentations like this cause the war gaming public to burn for the opportunity to bull their way into the lists to try their own hand. I can see a vidio tape playing now with commentary, first person interviews, action footage - - - Ken Burns look out! The Private Ryan generation lives in Combat Mission! Hummmm, what about other wars? Stop that! One war at a time!

[jim crowley]

Fionn,

Thanks for the reply.

Broadly speaking I fully agree with you; the 3D and immersive nature of CM will mostly preclude digging into statistics etc. Even in the traditional hex-based games, I don't often bother to check out the details when I'm playing.

However (there always has to be a however), CM is being sold, at least in part, on it's attention to detail. Thus we have detailed penetration charts and, within the game itself, pull-down information on armour thickness and slope etc. Now none of this is essential to playing the game and those who have no interest in this info. will no doubt ignore it. (It's highly unlikely that the real-life crews themselves knew or even cared about that sort of info. much less company and battalion commanders).In other words access to this stuff is optional but there are some, self included, who will want to check those details out, at least from time to time.

On that basis, given that the game engine is actually calculating all of this complicated stuff- it's already there- why not let those who want access to it, or at least to the more important parts, have the option to do so. Perhaps by using that same drop-down data box.

Bobb put it rather well; basically it allows those who require more detail to have it, without deflecting from the basic nature of CM.

It also is evidential of the calcs. being done, as opposed to using the ten-sided dice, for those who might doubt (I'm not one - honest).

Bil

Good point about the battalion commander; I'm sure Lt.colonel whoever couldn't have given a toss about where the jumbo was hit etc. just worried about losing it.

However (again!) the player is not just the battalion or company commander, he is the 'everything' commander.

Sometime back I advocated the notion of additional command/control, such that you could not control everything all of the time and might not, therefore, be aware of every unit's situation.

This was pretty much trounced by all and sundry - control of all units was much preferred.

Well you can't have it all ways. If you have control over all of your units then ,IMHO, you should have access to some more of the 'detail' if you want it. The crew of that jumbo really did give a damn where they were hit!

Real life AAR's (personal testimonies, company, battalion, divisional reports etc.) are often suprisingly detailed in terms of how, where and when damage- to vehicles and men- was occaisioned (bloody word - never remember how to spell it).

Well, thats my two qiuds worth.

Cheers

Jim.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jim,

2 Quid = a can of Coke in London, right?

One thing that people have to keep in mind is that CM already has a CRUD load of data and detail, both internal and externally displayed. The problem isn't one of showing this or that data, but ALL the data as a whole. The argument can always be made that this or that thing won't tip the balance, but everybody has their one or two things they want to see in. The result of putting all of this stuff in, EVEN IF OPTIONAL, would make the game a horribly cluttered/complex environment.

Having said that, I forgot to mention that there *is* some notification of where the shell hit. So far as I know it is available only for the owner of the vehicle being struck, not from the player doing the shooting. It is a simple, straight forward display of relevant information to let you know what happened when it happened (this info is not available post-hit because it would require some list be kept somewhere).

Example "Track Hit - Immobilized" or "Side Turret Penetration" that sort of thing. But you will NOT see something like "36.2 deg oblique angle hit on side of turret, penetrating 20.6mm but only caused Cpl. Jones to get a bad headache" Although the 3D experience largely shows you where the vehicle is hit, and what happened to it, it is nice to have a description to explain EXACTLY what happened so you don't have to guess as much.

Bil's point about the higher level concept is not invalidated by the fact that you can excercise unrealistic control over your units (i.e. as opposed to a Bn. Commander). Just because one aspect doesn't work in a game doesn't mean that we shouldn't simulate others that do work. The problem with removing C&C is that you cease to have a game worth playing. But this shouldn't mean that CM should pay no attention to simulating other aspects of that level of command. If simulations had to be all or nothing there would be no simulations since "all" is impossible to do.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-09-99).]

[Bil Hardenberger]

Jim,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sometime back I advocated the notion of additional command/control, such that you could not control everything all of the time and might not, therefore, be aware of every unit's situation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, this sounds good. I agree that during a battle the Commander would and did lose contact with his own troops. I would love to see friendly units on the battlefield that are not under the commander's control, or/and units that he loses control of (i.e. loses comms). Communications is a sorely neglected part of the battle. This is a feature that has never been addressed before in a wargame (to my knowledge) and would certainly add to the immersion. I would also like to see you lose sight of your troops when this happens. It could have you firing on friendly troops, mis-identifying units, etc. Is this realistic? You bet it is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This was pretty much trounced by all and sundry - control of all units was much preferred.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sorry to hear that Jim. God-like control of all units is not reality. Perhaps this is a feature we can talk Steve and Charles into adding for future releases of CM

[jim crowley]

Steve,

Excellent news! What you described as already being in, is exactly what I was referring to, i.e the important details.(just hadn't seen them anywhere in the sreenshots) You and Charles are obviously way ahead of my thinking on this. And yes, angles and degrees etc. would ony be so much clutter that is un-needed.

The can-of-coke thing is, unfortunately, about right as well (sigh).

Bil,

Thanks for the support. As you say though, this is a battle for another day. (got too shot-up last time to have another go this soon)

Cheers

Jim

[Guest Bobb]

Steve, the info is basically available to the victum's player; so, after the game is over is there any way that the other player can access the full range of experence from both sides in a replay capability?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jim, glad you like it. Reason you haven't seen it is that it just went in. We are putting in lots of stuff on The List every day. In fact, some of our testers have emailed me about stuff they have seen me mention here, asking how to get it. Even though they have a build from just a couple of days they don't have everything

BTW, the rate of little things going in is directly related to Charles having a VERY SOLID code structure to work with. Normally at this stage in the game the programmer breaks more than he adds because there is so much spagetti code in there already. But then again, we spent about 1 year longer than most games simply to make sure it was done right

Bobb, I double checked and you can see the info from the other player, but only when it happens (so far as I know). So if you see an enemy vehicle knocked out just highlight it, replay the hit, and you get the info.

Steve

[Guest Bobb]

Thanks, Steve. Sorry to have worried this little detail rag of a point over so much. Still it is a further fine insight into the inner details and the consequences of good programming. I suppose you guys at Bigtime both curse and give thanks for the operation of this forum on your your efforts. It has to be a big time hit. (Now there is a rich pun with at least 3 faces, each one appropriate.) Yet watching things that come up being incorporated or at least acknowledged as desirable but "listed" due to cause, reassures us out here that we are not entirely useless and merely pocketbooks. What a hell of bang for the buck this kind of participation is. Or is it two quid? Nothing like it ever before.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks Bobb! Combat Mission really shines because of the attention to detail. There is SO many little and medium sized things (and of course BIG ones ) in CM, working as they should, that other games gloss over or get wrong. We are pretty smart guys, and dedicated to quality, but we certainly couldn't have thought of everything that is in CM. Having about 100 collective, dedicated minds helping us out REALLY has made a difference. Lots of stuff seen in the game are there only because someone on this BBS thought to either ask the right question or suggest something straight up.

In the end, we all win

Steve