Fionn Posted October 17, 1999 Share Posted October 17, 1999 Ok, firstly, sorry for the long post but I figured that to tide people over a little before the beta demo and since unavoidable issues have slowed down the posting at TGN I figured I'd post this 3101 word article here... I hope you all enjoy it and it sparks some good discussion. It will be posted at TGN later of course but I figured that with the weekend being slow etc this would get some minds ticking over . “X Hexes of Y meters by Z = A Dinosaur” I know many of you don’t have any idea who I am or what my history with wargaming has been, but basically I’ve bought pretty much every World War II wargame I could get my hands on for the past 13 or 14 years. Currently I am beta testing Combat Mission, a soon to be released wargame from Battlefront.com ( http://www.battlefront.com ). I believe the design and game play of Combat Mission is going to change the way gamers view and play tactical wargames and in this article I’m going begin to attempt to say how that is going to happen. Throughout these years, all of these wargames I’ve played have had systems in which reality has had to be “fitted” into hex-based, massively abstracted systems and I have learned to accommodate these abstractions so instinctively that now I play within the constraints of them even when they no longer apply. Replaying the battles of old has meant accepting as “given” many major dyshistoricities (and in some cases complete ahistoricities) as well as learning to see the real-world battles and battlefields I’ve studied and read about within the context of these game system limitations. The most obvious dyshistoricity is the representation of hexes. If, for example, a hex is 50 metres in size then what happens to a unit which moves 75 metres per turn? Essentially; a design decision must be made to have the unit move either 1 or 2 hexes per turn. It is impossible to move it 1.5 hexes since the entire idea of a hex is like binary code. Something is either there or not there. It is either a 1 or a 0; it cannot be a 0.5. Several games have tried to circumvent such issues by making the minimal divisor exceptionally small so that the effects of “rounding up or down” are minimal but STILL these systems contain some level below which no discrimination of movement, combat results etc. is possible. How does Combat Mission differ? By simply creating a three-dimensional battlefield in which total freedom of movement occurs with a far greater level of detail, hex-abstractions are largely removed. Certainly a minimal level of discrimination is present but this level of discrimination in Combat Mission is measured in centimetres and not in multiple metres as in other games. This one factor opens avenues of realism previously blocked by the dictated distortion of abstraction. Certainly, the Close Combat series of wargames also supports far more exact levels of discrimination for lines of sight and fields of fire. However, LOS and FOF in the Close Combat series is pre-calculated in such a faulty manner that there are many gamer complaints of enemies having clear lines of sight and of fire to a specific friendly vehicle without that friendly vehicles being able to achieve a reciprocal line of sight to the enemy firing at it. Clearly this is an untenable situation and shows the limitations and undesirability of pre-calculation of such important aspects of military wargames. I much prefer the “on the fly” method of calculating LOS used in most 3D games and find it a superior solution myself. So, to come back to my point: I’m sure many of you have at least as long a history in wargaming as I have, if not longer. To all you I say that you should, “Get ready to unlearn.” This was one of Steve’s favourite sayings to me during the first days and weeks after I got Combat Mission. I still thought in terms of hexes to target and expected my units to be able to fight whilst many hundreds of metres from their headquarters. Was this thinking unrealistic? Yes. So, why did I, someone who has spoken loudly in support of realism in wargaming fall into such an unrealistic pattern of thinking? Simply put I believe the reason is that I have been conditioned by all the other wargames I have played before. Steel Panthers, Close Combat, TOAW, Cross of Iron and all the others I could mention here contain many common design assumptions which ensure that the design decisions and game play systems in each game will be extremely familiar to anyone who has been playing wargames over recent years. It is our misfortune that the design decisions and game systems in all of these wargames feature several aspects that reward unrealistic command behaviours and punish realistic behaviours. Like all good wargamers and military thinkers I firmly believe we have all adapted to our environment (the wargames we played) and have, therefore, picked up many, many “bad habits”. Hexes and command and control modelling are two very obvious areas in which most recent wargames have a common, basic, shared genesis. Having such shared genesis and maintaining common assumptions certainly increases the acceptability of the program in the market. Everyone involved, namely the gamers, the programmers and the publishers and press, are innately comfortable as it “fits like a well worn glove”. Even grognards and others of that ilk are likely to be accepting, since the given design “progresses” in the same, incremental manner that most other evolutionary, but unrealistic and flawed offerings introduce themselves to the gaming world. To be fair, this approach eases the burden of designing the game as one is merely trying to fit a known and previously modelled combat situation into a familiar and accepted system. Familiarity, in this case, has not bred contempt. Hexes and other design assumptions are loved by many of the old guard. This love perseveres irrespective of their utter inability to provide reasons for keeping them in the face of the advances in computer processing power which allow designers to run sufficient calculations to accurately model position and movement with pixel to pixel levels of accuracy. Well, I think the time has come to begin breaking from the hex-based, abstraction-laden systems to something a bit more realistic for SOME wargames. At this point I just want to make clear that I do not wish to be seen berating hexes as so many real-time-only gamers do. I have far, far more hex-based games in my game collection than I do of any and all other game types. I think hexes most definitely had a role to play in the past when every kilobyte counted and computers, quite simply, would not have been able to deal with fully three-dimensional terrain with realistic characteristics. I also think hexes still have a place to play in larger-scale games in which their levels of abstraction are more acceptable and less apt to produce noticeably flawed results. However now is the time for wargames at a very tactical level to realise that the expectations of gamers, the increase in CPU speed and the advent and acceptance of 3D accelerator cards are all enabling and facilitating a move away from hexes at the tactical level. A change to truly three-dimensional representation of the battle and the units and actions occurring there is both possible and appropriate at this tactical level and drives straight towards the heart of the issue of realistic simulation that gamers crave. Why would a three-dimensional map lead to more realistic outcomes? Well, quite simply since fired round, vehicle and infantry locations can be represented with far greater accuracy, the results of movement and explosions can be tracked to a far more detailed degree. Thus, it will be possible to differentiate between a unit moving seventy-four metres and one moving seventy-five metres with ease and to account for actions by and against that unit at the same time. Throw in increased accuracy in LOS calculations, impact calculations, realistic, three dimensional representation of blast radii and calculations of casualties based on the distance of the unit from the epicentre of the blast (all of which are then accurately, visually represented) the realism and immersion level possible both increase drastically. My particular area of interest lies in tanks and other varieties of armoured fighting vehicles and here the combination of accurate data and more specific unit location, facing and round tracking data combines to immensely increase accuracy. Let me lead you through a very basic example of only the most major factors that suddenly are much more differentiated and thus can be more precisely modelled in an AP penetration model. I will use Steel Panther as my hex-based comparison game but I could just as easily be choosing West Front or any other comparable games. The factors that affect penetration of a vehicle include the following: Facing of the vehicle relative to the shell. Only 6 facings are possible with the average hex-based game. A three-dimensional game such as Combat Mission can model shells impacting from any and all of the three hundred and sixty possible degrees around a tank. Angle of incidence of the shell. This refers to the angle which the shell makes with the armour as it impacts this armour and is comprised of the angle of the armour and the nose-down angle of the shell (or nose-up if the shell is on the ascending portion of its trajectory). In Steel Panthers this simply isn’t accounted for except insofar as the slope of the armour is taken into account slightly (but not correctly) in determining the armour rating of all vehicles. Round tracking. Was the shell fired from a higher or lower elevation than the target? If it was then this will play a role in varying the angle of incidence once impact occurs which directly plays into the amount of armour the shell will have to penetrate to destroy the enemy tank. Slope of ground. Is the enemy tank on a slope? If the enemy tank is heading towards you down a steeply sloping hill of a thirty degree down angle when hit the angle of incidence between armour and shell will be reduced by thirty degrees which could make as much as thirty or more millimetres in shell penetration. Very often this will be the difference between a non-penetrating hit and a kill. Likewise the slope of the ground under your own tank plays its own part in determining the amount of elevation needed for your round to reach the target. Is your tank in a hull-down position? Good tactical move isn’t it? I have yet to see a hex-based game that models the extremely poor declination of Soviet main guns due to their low turrets. This has the effect of creating a large area of “dead ground” in front of any Soviet tank position on a significant elevation as it simply cannot bring its gun to bear on any enemy tank which approaches the base of the elevation. Can Combat Mission and any other game using a truly accurate three-dimensional representation of terrain incorporate such fine points? Yes. I know some of you will state that I am talking about minutiae here but I have heard several armour officers pointing this exact issue out as a major design flaw in much Russian armour and the Israelis used this exact failing when attacking Egyptian positions in the past. Hell, the BMP-2 has a dead space on its front left extending from 350 degrees and 295 degrees relative and has a main gun depression of only four degrees. Has this ever been modelled in a hex-based game. No. Can it be easily modelled in a truly three-dimensional game? Yes. This is a huge tactical flaw and is akin to the lack of a turret on turretless assault guns the taking advantage of which is one of the most basic and important skills learned by every wargamer. ONLY a natively three-dimensional game can take full account of the three-dimensional angle of incidence between shell and armour which is the Holy Grail of correct armour penetration modelling. In current hex-based wargames there is absolutely no attempt to take account of three-dimensional angles of incidence since the engines simply cannot handle them. Hexes are far too crude for such fine and important calculations. Only a truly three-dimensional engine can utilise the myriad of data available to calculate this most important of components. This has been shown in some testing reports from the Combat Mission developers in which they found a single degree of incidence from the front of a Sherman caused the eighty-eight millimetre shells of a Tiger I to ricochet from the tank and not penetrate. Without the extremely fine levels of differentiation possible in truly three-dimensional wargames of which, as far as I am concerned, Combat Mission is the first worth discussing with serious, demanding wargamers this would simply not be possible. All these and many more factors simply can’t be accounted for in the crude world of hexes. Hexes are wonderful for representing very large-scale actions where certain levels of abstraction are necessary. At present, however, to be frank, very finely scaled tactical battles are being modelled using hexes which are far too large to accommodate the realism claims of the marketing managers which are plastered all over the boxes of these games. Certainly the choosing of a suitably small hex scale would allow for more gradation of data and finer discrimination. Certain hex-based games recently have shown this by markedly reducing the scale of the game and the size of the hexes used to model combat. The result is that the combat in those hex-based games is more realistic than in most but at no stage will hex-based tactical combat allow for as fine a level of differentiation and gradation of results as will a three-dimensional representation of the exact same tactical combat. Combat is all about fine levels of differentiation and precise results. Getting a result right to “within half a squad” is no good when you are modelling a platoon-sized skirmish. Sure it might be fine when modelling the combat of an entire battalion but all too many hex-based games aren’t accurately modelling the battalions to “within half a squad” but are modelling platoons and lower to “within half a squad”. I think that a hex-based game can best be described as X hexes of Y meters by Z = A where X, Y and Z are all very large numbers which each contain many large abstractions and “massaging of numbers” to allow the figures to fit into the hex-based environment. “A” is the product of these numbers AND its accuracy has been degraded by the sum of all the myriad abstractions and massaging which occurred when calculating X, Y and Z. Meanwhile the three-dimensional game, whilst obviously having to draw the line somewhere, can model several factors which simply cannot be modeled in a hex-based game and do so more accurately. Thus, the same problem, factored into a three-dimensional game such as Combat Mission can reasonably be described as X centimeters by Z by Y by M + N = A. Greater levels of accuracy and the modeling of far more factors must, assuming correct research, yield a more accurate “A”nswer. While I don’t think Steve, Charles or anyone else would claim Combat Mission is the most perfectly accurate wargame which will ever be made it definitely is something quite extraordinary and different from what we are used to. I visualise it as a first step down a road. Combat Mission is something new and different. It is not so much evolutionary as it is revolutionary. I think this will become obvious to others when they buy it and I think we will see the effect of Combat Mission’s release in the next generation of tactical level wargames. At present many companies are creating wargames that take advantage of the increasing prevalence of 3D cards to create lush graphics. From what I have seen, however, most of these efforts consist basically of a three dimensional graphic overlay of a traditional hex-based map. The end result is that whilst the game might look lush it doesn’t take advantage of the extra realism and immersive opportunities which I feel are afforded by fully utilising 3D to actually MODEL AND RESOLVE everything that is going on in-game. A 3D overlay of an underlying hex-grid is still a game hobbled by the necessity of describing all movements, ranges, effects etc into the context of “x hexes of y metres size equals A”. Computer power currently is not capable of dealing with the extra calculations which realistic terrain modelling will enforce on large scale conflicts so I do not think strategic or operational level games will change anytime soon. Even if they did adopt a three dimensional terrain model, the level of abstraction currently present is far too extreme for such strategic level games to really benefit from the added detail. As many people have pointed out during the wait for Combat Mission, it is not enough to simply create a new system that has the potential for increasingly detailed, and realistic combat resolution. It is also necessary to research and utilise all the data available to take advantage of the increased possibilities for realism and detail. I happen to know, from being on the inside, that this attention to detail is being paid in full in Combat Mission and that AI actions and weapons performances are being constantly evaluated and changed on the basis of observed behaviour and tester input. Just recently the behaviour of tanks underwent some very important changes which I think will make them behave even more realistically (and selfishly). Will we abandon hexes soon? No, I don’t think so. I think we will see a slow change in tactical wargame engines over the next few years. I think we will initially see three-dimensional graphics being utilized to create better graphics that lend more immersion to current games. The new Panzer General and Harpoon games are both examples of this, as far as I am aware. Soon, we will begin seeing games which begin to utilize real-world physics to a greater degree than is currently possible given the fact that any physics present in current hex-based games must fit within the constraints imposed by a hex-based system. The first steps will be tentative and slow. I imagine that round tracking and movement rates and LOS will be the first aspects which will benefit from the increasing usage of 3D in wargames but once three-dimensionality has proved its worth I expect more and more engines to be coded to be fully three-dimensionally functional in tactical wargames. Hopefully such a change will also be accompanied by a move away from the IGO-UGO system that hamstrings so many other games. More of THAT particular can of worms next time. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ithai Posted October 17, 1999 Share Posted October 17, 1999 The most fun I had wargaming was when I was in college with some friends. We got some tables together and set up some terrain and then used minitures and duked it out. When I first saw combat mission thats exactly what I saw. I love the tactics of wargames and I've played stuff like mechwarrior and the calulations alwys took a bit of the fun out of it. When I did miniture wargaming I fell in love with wargaming because I could eye my own los and know for sure what my field of fire was. And we had charts to determine what got hit on a tank. It was the randomness of it that made it so alive. I'm sure combat mission will deliver this experience to me once again. I'm game to play with anyone who wants to play. I don't care if I lose more than I win I love the experience. And by the way Fionn I think this is the spirit of your article and I think its great! [This message has been edited by Ithai (edited 10-16-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted October 17, 1999 Share Posted October 17, 1999 Yep, I have always perfered miniatures myself also. Micro and 1/72 scale. Here's one: Who out there remembers "Soak-offs"? Talk about abstractions! ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted October 17, 1999 Share Posted October 17, 1999 Well said Fionn. CM will be a great game. We are all looking forward to movement to contact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted October 17, 1999 Share Posted October 17, 1999 Looks like plenty of us miniature players don't need to much convincing on the hex front though when it comes the you-go-I-go vs we-go debate there might be some unlearning to do...I always preferred 'simultaneous' rules systems myself though they were inevitably slower on the tabletop. Currently there seems to be a reaction back to simpler, faster (and less realistic!) you-go-I-go mini rules. Many of us probably see Combat Mission as the computer game to finally break the mold. Viva la Revolution! Perhaps you should also post your article on the war-historical NG, Fionn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted October 17, 1999 Share Posted October 17, 1999 Nice article Fionn. Your message really brings home some of the important advantages of what BTS is doing w/ CM and how true 3D modeling (not just pretty eye-candy 3D lookingish graphics superimposed over an old 2d model) can really bring things to the tactical wargaming table that have been lost/non-existent for years. Which is exactly why I'm soooooooooooooooooooo much looking forward to CM coming out. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSCAR Posted October 17, 1999 Share Posted October 17, 1999 Hi Fionn, I got some thoughts and questions on you article... >“X Hexes of Y meters by Z = A Dinosaur” Well, maby but not yet... >Why would a three-dimensional map lead to more realistic outcomes? Well, quite simply since fired round, vehicle and infantry locations can be represented with far greater accuracy, the results of movement and explosions can be tracked to a far more detailed degree. Thus, Ok, but ARE they? does CM take "every inch", or pixel of an object into account when deciding outcome of a hit? For example does a soldier get wounded in the leg if that's the point one bullet hits? Does it calculate ALL flying fragments (and their directions) of an exploding shell? Are there no abstractions regarding impact, distance and angle calculating combat results in CM? >it will be possible to differentiate between a unit moving seventy-four metres and one moving seventy-five metres with ease and to account for actions by and against that unit at the same time. Throw in increased accuracy in LOS calculations, impact calculations, realistic, three dimensional representation of blast radii and calculations of casualties based on the distance of the unit from the epicentre of the blast (all of which are then accurately, visually represented) the realism and immersion level possible both increase drastically. True, but you don't really NEED an 3D system to simulate this, you can "place" them at an exact spot WITHIN a hex (as for example PitS does), same goes with angles of objects, no problem at all. Only loss is your (the player) abillity to place them at that exact spot, but is this such a big deal? Does a commander order, or unit ever decide to travel 137.68m exactly? As I see it what you loose on control you gain on simulation of other factors, like terrain and LOS. To me terrain features in CM like forrests seem poorly portraid, all the same litte 3D trees put as closly togheter as the engine allows. Any soldier looking at the right level of hight should be able to see right through the whole forrest. I rather have my MIND visualize this "forrest" and the computer to generalize the density and foliage level of it. Don't get me wrong; I know this ingame soldier of CM couldn't see through that "forrest" because of LOS restrictions, but what's the point with the 3D gfx then? I for one can do playing without watching "the movie" with "cool" explosion effects, I rather have more features, flexibility on scale and simulated environments instead. >Hopefully such a change will also be accompanied by a move away from the IGO-UGO system that hamstrings so many other games. The five year old hexbased PitS system has 1 min simultaneous turns like CM, where's the "revolution"? ------------------ The HPS freak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Posted October 17, 1999 Share Posted October 17, 1999 Oscar, hmm, you really want to compare a hex based LOS system with a 3D-based LOS system? Guess you better stay with the 5 year old system then... Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSCAR Posted October 17, 1999 Share Posted October 17, 1999 >hmm, you really want to compare a hex based LOS system with a 3D-based LOS system? Yes, why not? since it's up to the 3D *SYSTEM* to decide what you can see and what you can't, even if you zoom in or peer 'till you drop Where's the difference, except your game taking up the entire diskspace, RAM and available CPU cycles displaying that nice 3D? Do you actually believe just because it's 3D it's going to so much more realistic? >Guess you better stay with the 5 year old system then... You bet, until PoA2 hit the shelves ------------------ The HPS freak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 17, 1999 Share Posted October 17, 1999 I find it kind of funny that people are arguing about a game that almost no one has seen, except for some screenshots. Only those who have played the beta can really comment and they’re not allowed to. Oscar – I can tell that you have a lot of experience & knowledge with wargames and you bring up some interesting points. But unless you’re a tester, you’re speaking from a lack of information like the rest of us. From what I’ve been able to get out of these almost 10,000 postings, every inch or pixel IS taken into account when a vehicle is being attacked. When troops are the target, some abstraction is used, since squads are represented and not individual soldiers. How do you place a unit at an exact spot in PitS? I’ve looked through the manual and don’t see how it is done. A PitS hex is 100 meters by 100 meters. This is a huge area, especially for a tank or squad. “Does a commander order, or unit ever decide to travel 137.68m exactly?” Yes, they do. To see around the corner of a building or just over a rise, you would move a very short & exact distance, maybe inches. Certainly not 100 meters, as you would have to in PitS. “To me terrain features in CM like forrests seem poorly portraid, all the same litte 3D trees put as closly togheter as the engine allows.” Are we looking at the same screenshots? I see many different trees, different sizes & heights. I see spacing that changes. HPS is to be complimented for having simultaneous turns; it’s one of the reasons I play it and ToP2. But as long as LOS is based on center of hex to center of hex and those hexes are 100m by 100m, CM’s LOS looks to be much more accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSCAR Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 >have the unit move either 1 or 2 hexes per turn. It is impossible to move it 1.5 hexes since the entire idea of a hex is like binary code. Something is either there or not there. It is either a 1 or a 0; it cannot be a 0.5. Doesn't need to be true (read my post above), but I figure a binary effect is EXACTLY what you get to some extent (maby to a large!) if sighting is up to the 3D view in a game, and not to a LOS "engine" because the incapability of portraiting the surrounding world in all its complexity. Sure makes you wonder if 3D equals accuracy and realism... ------------------ The HPS freak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSCAR Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 >have the unit move either 1 or 2 hexes per turn. It is impossible to move it 1.5 hexes since the entire idea of a hex is like binary code. Something is either there or not there. It is either a 1 or a 0; it cannot be a 0.5. Doesn't need to be true (read my post above), but I figure a binary effect is EXACTLY what you get to some extent (maby to a large!) if sighting is up to the 3D view in a game, and not to a LOS "engine" because the incapability of portraiting the surrounding world in all its complexity. Sure makes you wonder if 3D equals accuracy and realism... ------------------ The HPS freak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSCAR Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 Dave, >From what I’ve been able to get out of these almost 10,000 postings, every inch or pixel IS taken into account when a vehicle is being attacked. Every little shaped detail? Not likely. >When troops are the target, some abstraction is used, since squads are represented and not individual soldiers Ok, like PitS then. Is also every bullet accounted for, like in PitS? >How do you place a unit at an exact spot in PitS? I’ve You don't the computer does it for you, that was the point. >Does a commander order, or unit ever decide to travel 137.68m exactly?” Yes, they do. To see around the corner of a building or just over a rise, you would move a very short & exact distance, maybe inches. Certainly Ok, but when we are talking sighting in forrests and inches at corners of buildings or over a rise it puts huge demands on the DETAIL of the simulated environment to achieve realism (and having the 3D visuals really come into play gamewise). In future we probably get the computing power needed on our desktops to provide us with this, but from what I've seen of CM it's not even close. Therefor I put my money on well implemented hexbased abstraction ------------------ The HPS freak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 Oscar, I think you've misunderstood something about CM's system. We don't use the 3D graphical polygons themselves to determine things like armor slope, LOS, etc. The engine tracks data like unit location (to the sub-millimeter ), elevation, "tilt" (i.e. a tank on a hillside), etc., and that's what underlies the game engine's equations. So in this sense, yes, there are of course abstractions in CM just like in any wargame. There have to be some. The only questions are how many and how large are they. The major reason we don't base things on the polygons is that the user can scale (for visual purposes only) the units to be larger than 1:1 scale so they're easier to see and click the mouse on. If this scaling actually impacted the simulation then you can see there would be big problems. I think the original point of the thread (though Fionn can correct me if I've misinterpreted) is that CM allows the user to see and therefore clearly understand how the third dimension directly impacts his forces and outcomes of shots fired, LOS, etc. It allows him to make decisions based on this information and therefore make direct use of it as part of his strategy. A 2D game, as you say, could theoretically track the same data that CM does (even things like "tilt") but it would be, in a sense, buried inside, rather difficult for the player to access, base strategy on, or even notice. In a 2D game the player would have to click on the tank and see a cryptic message like "tank angled at 15 degrees in X axis, -7 degrees Y axis" whereas in CM he can just look at the tank and get that same (important!) information instantly and visually, just like a commander would in real life. This is a case where graphics are more than mere eye-candy. They provide direct, important, functional information to the player which, if used properly, can often mean the difference between victory and defeat, or distinguish between a good player and a great player. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Only loss is your (the player) abillity to place them at that exact spot, but is this such a big deal?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Personally I think that yes, this is a very big deal. Sometimes moving your units just a couple of meters around the corner of a stone house can mean the difference between hiding out or covering a critical fire lane. Real life is like that, and a commander needs more precise control than only being able to place a unit into (say) a 40m x 40m hex area. You can have an awful lot of terrain variance in a space that large. Imposing a hexgrid on a battlemap is an entirely artificial convention that most of us have come to accept as a useful abstraction. There was a time when hexes were helpful, but that time has passed. They are now more of a hindrance than a help. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As I see it what you loose on control you gain on simulation of other factors, like terrain and LOS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How do hexes improve simulation of terrain and LOS? Please be specific. I don't think hexes help here at all. If anything, they hurt - especially LOS. In case it wasn't clear (and it probably wasn't) CM doesn't track LOS to each little polygon tree. We actually degrade LOS by each meter of terrain it passes through, more for some terrain, less for others. The trees you see on the map are representational only (because drawing ALL the trees would be too much for today's graphical processors to handle, and would create user interface problems when the player could not "see" his units underneath all those trees). LOS is tracked by terrain, meter by meter, not by polygons, so hexes have no advantage here. In fact, they are quite a lot less precise. Incidentally, another nice feature of 3D is that it allows a player to locate good firing positions just by looking at the map. I don't mean from top-down, 2D-style. I mean by getting into "unit view" so you see what your units see. It becomes immediately clear what you can and cannot see from a given position. Hills, houses, trees, anything that might block your view is readily apparent, but elevation effects now become especially clear (e.g. when you thought that house might block LOS but the slope behind it is juuuuust high enough to see...) in a way that no 2D game can ever match. Putting an 88mm Flak in such a position can make quite a commanding sight. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Pender Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 Oscar will you be purchasing CM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 "but from what I've seen of CM it's not even close" My guess is youve seen very little, like most people here. Each of us is entitled to their opinions, no one can argue with that, but to make statements like the one above about something youve never seen or experienced isnt any better than me saying that Pits is unreasistic because it IS hex based. I mean, how many battles in WW2 can realistically be simulated with 100m hexes? Is it possible for instance to have a lone farmhouse and barn next to a forest road, or is this detail assumed not to have an impact on a battle. Also, thats only 10 hexes a kilometre, and Pits does only 'pretend' to place a vehcile somewhere within the hex, dosnt it? I mean, there is no way to see where a vehicle is within one of these so called hexes is there? So bottom line is hexes seem very innaccurate, dont they. Stupid statements seeing Ive never played the game, arent they. Pits may be great for all I know, and hopefully Im smarter than to go around showing my own ignorance by telling people why it isnt All I suggest is that you play the game when the beta demo is released and judge then. Mind you, unless you have an opened mind before you do it probably wont make any difference [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 10-17-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Conmy Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 I havent been able to define the unit of measure for the variable Z in the equation “X Hexes of Y meters by Z = A Dinosaur” Anybody we know? Otherwise a valid argument despite being the biased pre-release hype of a paid lobbyist [and if youre not getting paid ya should] However...we in the real time community [CC subdivision] enjoy the increased realism of seamless time while you 'hex-based time' luddites labor under the impression sim-ex solves all. Gimme the solid data engine and 3D environment in CM, the RT flow of CC, the lusher graphic capabilities of tomorrows cpus & vid chips and some messiah to code a truly evil AI and I'll die a happy campaigner. Best of luck on CM. Truly hoping the beta will cause me to end a 3 year addiction and chuck my CC cds. And thx again Fionn for ALL you do in the wargaming world. mick (xe5) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I for one can do playing without watching "the movie" with "cool" explosion effects<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You have the right to your opinion and I understand CM uses 3D for a functional purpose. I for one am glad there will be atmosphere. Remember, machines don't win wars, men do. Some adrenaline will be appropriate. PS Thanks for telling me PitS uses simultaneous turns. I'd like to go try out thier demo. However it does seem that CM has everything PitS has and so much more. [This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 10-18-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 Ok I went over to the HPS site and downloaded the demo for the pacific theater, something in the mist. I tooled around and nothing was intuative. The encyclopedia britanica has more action than this game. I just found it totaly boring and didn't feel at all drawn into it. It felt like I was flipping through pages of statistics, like reading a spreadsheet. I admit that I spent only 5 min tooling around. I was put off right away. CM on the other hand has had me interested for almost a year now from screenshots, movies, posts etc. You decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 Well, at least you downloaded the demo, checked it out and made an informed descision John I only found HPS's web site recently, so I didnt go to the trouble of downloading. I think I really would have enjoyed those games when they were released, but that was a long time ago, and computers have advanced so much in that time I guess im just looking for a little more in a game.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 *Big sigh* I've played the HPS games. I thought they wre good games. I've played CC1 & CC2. I thought they were good games. I will play CM. I expect it will be a good game. Sometimes discussions about games take on theological dimensions, as much a matter of faith and values as logic. And almost as much flaming as a good inquisitorial party. Almost as bad as debates about operating systems, only worse. Nah. Nothing is worse than debates about OSes. Anyhow, CM's 3D combat environment will allow higher fidlety resolutions of combat than any other system presently available. It's approach makes possible a more realistic approximation because it accounts for a wider range of factors, in more detail, than any other system, bar none. Note this is a relativistic statement, not an absolute one. Whether it does it to the inch or the pixel or the atom is irrelevant. As for 3D visuals vs simple graphics, that is purely an issue of taste, and not subject to logic. I play both. Issues such as interface are more objective, but until I've played CM I can't compare. I can say the HPS interface is awkward, but useable. I believe HPS are addressing this for POA2 (which I will buy in any case). I do share Fionn's distaste for hexes, because they are a high level of abstraction. To mention just one point, in TAOW (or similar games with adjacent hex based combat systems) an attack to the north or south is more likely to succeed than an attack to the east or west. This is ludicrous. IGO-UGO systems produce strange outcomes too. Units that sit and watch entire corps rush past without reacting, and so on. Now these games may be fun to play, but they could provide better respresentations of the reality if we moved past these abstractions. How important this is is up to you. I know of at least one reviewer who finds attempts at realism in a wargame a *failing*. His argument is that a wargame cannot be completely realistic, ergo realism is an invalid desing principle, and would someone please give him all the formula and tables so he can micromanage the game mechanics. I believe CM will do an excellent job of approximating WWII battles. I also expect it to be fun. Once I have played the game I'll be able to have a meaningful discussion on how the details compare with other games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSCAR Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 Hmmm... It seems I'm just about to get the whole wargaming community as my foes This is something I don't want at all, but I think Mick Conmy sum up the reasons for my emotions in "Otherwise a valid argument despite being the biased pre-release hype of a paid lobbyist [and if youre not getting paid ya should]" ...ok, back to some nagging Charles, >I think you've misunderstood something about CM's system. We don't use the 3D graphical polygons themselves to determine things like armor slope, LOS, etc. The engine tracks data like unit location (to the sub-millimeter ), elevation, "tilt" (i.e. a tank on a hillside), etc., and that's what underlies the game engine's equations. So in this sense, yes, there are of course Ok, (don't know if it came through or not) but I figured this and want to add that I admit that the CM engine possess a great deal of detail, and if generalization of for example unit angles is avoided when calculating impact of a hit (is it?) it sounds very nice indeed. >I think the original point of the thread (though Fionn can correct me if I've misinterpreted) is that CM allows the user to see and therefore clearly understand how the third dimension directly impacts his forces and outcomes of shots fired, LOS, etc. It allows him to make decisions based on this information and therefore make direct use of it as part of his strategy. A 2D game, as Well, to me, the original point of Fionn's article was to bin the concept of the hex system in general. Ok, the 3D of CM is (majorly?) an visual aid just like I figured, and since it comes with a price (limiting scale of game, environments simulated, simulated forces and units for example) I rather go without that aid and press the LOS button Also nothing prevents a 2D game from having visual aids, PitS for example gives you a 2D picture (with additional data) of what terrain look like between LOS points. >Personally I think that yes, this is a very big deal. Sometimes moving your units just a couple of meters around the corner of a stone house can mean the difference between hiding out or >How do hexes improve simulation of terrain and LOS? Please be specific. I don't think hexes help here at all. If anything, they hurt - especially LOS. Yes, but as I said in prevoius posts: doesn't this place INCREDIBLE demands on the level of detail in the simulated environment? In my mind just thinking of this rises some questions about how sighting is implemented in CM. Is the "LOS engine" in charge at all times? even when talking about metres in a village or a forrest for example? or does the "LOS engine" only apply from some distance and on? If "LOS engine" is at charge at all times we're talking 3D visual aid alone, and if not I have my fears that sighting could be somewhat unrealistic because of the unability of the 3D engine to portrait the complexity of surroundings. For example I figure a decently camouflaged veichle or squad could avoid detection at VERY narrow distances (metres) in any environment (village, forrest). How does CM handle this? The hexbased system has NO problem handling these things at all, since things that can't be simulated well enough is generalized and estimated (in PitS case an outcome of calculation with *plenty* of factors in effect). John, I might KwazyDog, >it IS hex based. I mean, how many battles in WW2 can realistically be simulated with 100m hexes? Well, it depends on scale of events. If we're talking squad to squad combat between three barns I figure the 100m hex is less accurate, but at greater scales (like the battle or operation scale) I think a resonably granulated grid and small slices of time does very well indeed... John, >one am glad there will be atmosphere. Remember, machines don't win wars, men do. Some adrenaline will be appropriate. Well, if CM is your cup of tea... >PS Thanks for telling me PitS uses simultaneous turns. I'd like to go try out thier demo. However it does seem that CM has everything PitS has and so much more. Don't you guys know about HPS games? I would say that CM has some that is not present in PitS, but PitS has PLENTY that's missing in CM, see for yoursef ------------------ The HPS freak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSCAR Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 Correction: >The hexbased system has NO problem handling these things at all, since things that can't be simulated well enough is generalized and ..."pictured" or "visualized" may be better words >estimated (in PitS case an outcome of calculation with *plenty* of factors in effect). ------------------ The HPS freak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSCAR Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 You don't rock Brian, >Anyhow, CM's 3D combat environment will allow higher fidlety resolutions of combat than any other system presently available. It's approach makes possible a more realistic approximation because it accounts for a wider range of factors, in more detail, than any other system, bar none. <yawn> >I do share Fionn's distaste for hexes, because they are a high level of abstraction. To mention just one point, in TAOW (or similar games with adjacent hex based combat systems) an attack to the north or south is more likely to succeed than an attack to the east or west. This is ludicrous. So, just because TS can't get things right the whole hex system is wrong? >IGO-UGO systems produce strange outcomes too. PitS is no more IGO-UGO system than CM is, neither is any HPS game in the series. >Units that sit and watch entire corps rush past without reacting, and so on. No, in PitS they won't (allthough a myriad of factors decide if they do), they will "spontaneously" engage with ambush fire and also go for the close combat if their engagement range is adequate and the passing object is of their selected or ordered type... strange, I suddenly hear that "WROOONG... DO IT AGAIN" from Pink Floyd's "The Wall" echo in my head hmm... those guys rocked >Now these games may be fun to play, but they could provide better respresentations of the reality if we moved past these abstractions. <yawn> >How important this is is up to you. I know of at least one reviewer who finds attempts at realism in a wargame a *failing*. His argument is that a wargame cannot be completely True, but they can come CLOSE! Also: How important is it for Fionn (and company) to misscredit and write off the everything but CM? ------------------ The HPS freak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSCAR Posted October 18, 1999 Share Posted October 18, 1999 Correction2: >>The hexbased system has NO problem handling these things at all, since things that can't be simulated well enough is generalized and >..."pictured" or "visualized" may be better words >>estimated (in PitS case an outcome of calculation with *plenty* of factors in effect). Argh,...my english needs practice, an even better word is "isolated" ...no more corrections I promise ------------------ The HPS freak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts