The start of actual news

[JonS]

Well, you know what they say: Amateurs think tactics, professionals think logistics.

[Silkwraith]

Awsome News

[Thomm]

Anyway, back in the day several of us already said that moving to something that gives up the 1:1 mapping between player control and unit for combat calculations will be trouble, namely in the TacAI field. Now you have TacAI positioning soldiers with no player control and we all know the result.

I have the impression that problems with the TacAI are the exception, not the norm.

Many more problems may go away once the game is taught to handle corners of buildings and ends of walls correctly.

I am getting good results by use of sneaking at the end of movement orders, also, which is perhaps what real soldiers would do, anyway.

The game gives you the possibility of splitting squads, which definitely brings it closer to 1:1 control.

Map design also has a influence. I just played a nice city map with zero TacAI problems. On the other hand, I remember a very "complicated" city map from the Gustav module that could be used as a showcase for the TacAI problems you mention.

What we said that what people asked for were (a) bigger battles (and the huge success of the mega-scenarios indicates that, too) and ( multiplayer per side and © more modability. Let's forget the latter which is never happening with BFC, but the first two would be a path of development.

None of these items are of interest to me. Just to add one data point to the statistic.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Freyberg]

I think the TacAI does rather well. I wouldn't imagine soldiers in the heat of battle make perfect use of cover. I love it when teams start to crack, and one guy is still blazing away while another is halfway back down the road! The way the AI handles armour is an absolute pleasure to observe - so real and so unpredictable.

Incidentally, a HUGE thank you to BFC for making these games available on the Mac. You have no idea how grateful I am for that.

[Michael Emrys]

However two game families with two modules already released in the space of 2 years is hardly "snail pace."

Indeed. Frankly I am at a loss to even imagine where "snail's pace" might be coming from. I do my best to try to understand sympathetically the statements that Redwolf makes, but honestly, their at times incoherent nature makes them completely opaque to me. It's as if he doesn't really know what he wants to say and his statements get muddled as a result. I would hope that he would think through his feelings carefully and put them in some kind of order that mere mortals can follow. Doing that, he might even discover their flaws without having to have them pointed out by others.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

And who could forget his classic lyric that got so many of the Boomer generation so tragically hooked on wargames:

You used to be so amused

At Napoleon in rags and the language that he used

Go to him he calls you now, you can't refuse...

As a very long-time Dylan fan and compulsive didact, I cannot resist pointing out that you put the 'now' in the wrong place in that last line. It should read, "Go to him now, he calls you, you can't refuse."

Michael

[ASL Veteran]

Vanir was asking for a reference to the release schedule that Redwolf mentioned, so I brought it up, since Redwolf seems to think that doing that himself debases him or something. That's the point.

Just because you state something doesn't mean that it has a meaning to anyone other than yourself. I can make a statement "The stock is falling." and to me that might be a statement that is self evident in it's meaning, but to you it could mean anything. Does it mean stuff on shelves is falling to the floor? Does it mean a company stock is falling in value? Does it mean that I dropped soup broth on the floor? Certainly someone with your vast intellect would understand that context is everything.

Vanir was asking the question because he, like me, was mystified as to your view of a snail pace of releases. Just reposting an old post by Steve doesn't give us any indication whatsoever as to why you think that the releases are at a snails pace, or even why it matters to you. It's simply repeating something that in your world is self evident but in the real world is meaningless without context.

[Redwolf]

I think the TacAI does rather well. I wouldn't imagine soldiers in the heat of battle make perfect use of cover.

I am reading narratives the other way round. Many of them specifically point out how surprised even members of the same team are about where other soldiers find cover where they previously didn't see any. Leaving yourself open toward the direction of direct fire seems to be something that soldiers "avoid", and successfully so.

A panic situation is a different matter of course, but that is modeled separately in the game.

I certainly see CMx2 members stranded where real soldiers wouldn't. Anyway, the point is that it will be hard to model what is in the narratives with TacAI, and it would also be hard to make the 3D environment rich enough that these patches of cover could be found in the game and provide realistic protection. Doing so would blow up both your graphics card (from too many 3D objects) and your CPU (from too many LOS/LOF calculations), not to mention what do you do when LOD kicks in on a firefight away from the game screen's viewpoint?

This would make me call for terrain abstractions to adjust assumed levels of protection beyond what the 3D model offers - if it wasn't for the fact that this is already being done in CMx2. It's just very rough so far and there doesn't seem to be a very deliberate pick between 3D cover and abstracted cover.

As I mentioned before, I would seriously consider reducing action spots in effect for a specific unit to where one piece of player control (e.g. a squad or a team) cannot be in more than one action spot. But that's a separate issue from the question of how much cover comes from abstraction and how 3D cover and abstracted cover balance.

[ASL Veteran]

The archeology part is simple: the old model where unit of player control and unit for combat calculations were identical (point-shaped per unit) has a simplicity to it that has it's own advantages. It looks ugly because attempts to put the graphical representation at better than that point-shape for the unit lead to the 3-soldier hack, and that is what BFC identified as a problem.

Anyway, back in the day several of us already said that moving to something that gives up the 1:1 mapping between player control and unit for combat calculations will be trouble, namely in the TacAI field. Now you have TacAI positioning soldiers with no player control and we all know the result. We also had the view that few people considered the ugly 3-men squads a big problem to go on this crusade. What we said that what people asked for were (a) bigger battles (and the huge success of the mega-scenarios indicates that, too) and ( multiplayer per side and © more modability. Let's forget the latter which is never happening with BFC, but the first two would be a path of development.

So no, I didn't say stick with CMx1, I said develop it in a different direction than going away from the 1:1 model of control and calculations. Bigger battles in the old point-shaped-units model would have required writing helper software to have unit movements to reduce player workload. But both Airborne Assault and Panzer Command have put these things to practice and they work well enough. This is technically doable.

So why don't you just play Panzer Command then?

Of course, BFC started with just two people - Steve and Charles. They then added three employees. Now BFC has more than ten employees so there are currently more than twice as many people now working at BFC than there were when CMSF was released all those years ago when you apparently made your recommendations. At the moment the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that they made the right decision after CMAK was released. So I guess in your mind the only way your .... ahem .... business theory .... can be proven to have been correct would be if BFC were to go out of business? Something that you seem very keen on happening (apparently for selfish reasons - why else would you want to deprive all these gamers of a tactical combat simulation by constantly predicting the demise of BFC?).

The more BFC continues on the more it chafes at you and grinds you down because you just know in your heart of hearts that BFC made the wrong decision back when they made CMSF. "They should have just tweaked CMx1 and made a better demo!" you shout while shaking your fist at the rooftops. So with every game that gets released you search through public download information in a continuing effort to ferret out sales figures, just knowing that they made the wrong decision with CMSF if only you could prove it. The information of BFC's imminent demise is there if only you could find it. Oh what a day it would be to see Steve eating crow on the unemployment line with you wagging your finger in admonition. If only BFC would go out of business so you could shout to the rooftops that you were right and Steve was wrong.

Of course, you do realize that even if BFC went out of business tomorrow that's no guarantee that your theory of running a successful software company would have been the correct choice either. BFC could have done everything to turn your CM fantasies into reality and BFC still could have gone out of business just the same. You do understand that .... don't you? Of course, we'll never find out one way or another will we, because BFC appears to be doing fine (more than doubling the number of employees) and it's doubtful that your recommendations will ever be acted upon. Quite honestly Redwolf you are irrelevant.

Redwolf, seriously bud, If you are spending all this free time searching various websites to try and figure out what the BFC sales figures are it's way past time to just let it go and move on to more productive pursuits.

[BLSTK]

^^^ Let's continue to take "the high road" here, boys. No need to get personal.

Incidentally, a HUGE thank you to BFC for making these games available on the Mac. You have no idea how grateful I am for that.

+1 I'll second that, my good man.

[Redwolf]

So why don't you just play Panzer Command then?

Of course, BFC started with just two people - Steve and Charles. They then added three employees. Now BFC has more than ten employees so there are currently more than twice as many people now working at BFC than there were when CMSF was released all those years ago when you apparently made your recommendations. At the moment the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that they made the right decision after CMAK was released. So I guess in your mind the only way your .... ahem .... business theory .... can be proven to have been correct would be if BFC were to go out of business? Something that you seem very keen on happening (apparently for selfish reasons - why else would you want to deprive all these gamers of a tactical combat simulation by constantly predicting the demise of BFC?).

The more BFC continues on the more it chafes at you and grinds you down because you just know in your heart of hearts that BFC made the wrong decision back when they made CMSF. "They should have just tweaked CMx1 and made a better demo!" you shout while shaking your fist at the rooftops. So with every game that gets released you search through public download information in a continuing effort to ferret out sales figures, just knowing that they made the wrong decision with CMSF if only you could prove it. The information of BFC's imminent demise is there if only you could find it. Oh what a day it would be to see Steve eating crow on the unemployment line with you wagging your finger in admonition. If only BFC would go out of business so you could shout to the rooftops that you were right and Steve was wrong.

Of course, you do realize that even if BFC went out of business tomorrow that's no guarantee that your theory of running a successful software company would have been the correct choice either. BFC could have done everything to turn your CM fantasies into reality and BFC still could have gone out of business just the same. You do understand that .... don't you? Of course, we'll never find out one way or another will we, because BFC appears to be doing fine (more than doubling the number of employees) and it's doubtful that your recommendations will ever be acted upon. Quite honestly Redwolf you are irrelevant.

Redwolf, seriously bud, If you are spending all this free time searching various websites to try and figure out what the BFC sales figures are it's way past time to just let it go and move on to more productive pursuits.

You are confused by the other posters who have misremembered or misrepresented what I said in the past.

I never advocated for a CMx1 frozen in time with just bugfixes, and that's why PzC isn't in good shape for me. Because it's frozen there, in fact with partially less features than CMx1, and it is in serious trouble developer wise (Matrix replaced the original developers but there still isn't any steam behind it). PzC did a few very good things, namely XML import of various useful thing. Among other things that enables them to have an editor that can import and export maps, and they have a tool that does so from public terrain databases. However, I'm afraid that the critical mass of gameplay isn't in the core game, so the chain reaction never started. You can't just release a game with 2002 CM level gameplay in 2012 without suffering the consequences.

The same partially applies to BFC, where CMx2 still doesn't have all features of CMx1, BTW, and that is part of what the problem with CMx2 is, the particular current choices of abstraction level (or rather, lack thereof) makes it very hard to add functionality. Especially doing so without breaking lots of existing stuff.

Suggesting how to and where to adjust that abstraction level is very much in the agenda for this forum no matter how much some people dislike it.

[Michael Emrys]

The same partially applies to BFC, where CMx2 still doesn't have all features of CMx1, BTW, and that is part of what the problem with CMx2 is, the particular current choices of abstraction level (or rather, lack thereof) makes it very hard to add functionality. Especially doing so without breaking lots of existing stuff.

Do you think you could explain what that means? I read it and frankly haven't a clue as to what you are trying to say here.

Michael

[Redwolf]

Do you think you could explain what that means? I read it and frankly haven't a clue as to what you are trying to say here.

The attempt to have the majority of combat result be driven from 3D has lead to a very complex engine and that makes it hard to make changes without breaking more things. If I remember this correctly we had a good amount of abstractions "creep in" (good thing, IMHO) since the beginning of time, I think the first release of CMSF tried to be 3D only but for reasons outlined (and corrected) that doesn't work.

All this jazz with different action spots for the same unit, occupied by choice of the TacAI, not the player makes it very hard to do code changes. Just look at how long it took for a MG fix to come along.

[sburke]

The attempt to have the majority of combat result be driven from 3D has lead to a very complex engine and that makes it hard to make changes without breaking more things. If I remember this correctly we had a good amount of abstractions "creep in" (good thing, IMHO) since the beginning of time, I think the first release of CMSF tried to be 3D only but for reasons outlined (and corrected) that doesn't work.

All this jazz with different action spots for the same unit, occupied by choice of the TacAI, not the player makes it very hard to do code changes. Just look at how long it took for a MG fix to come along.

What has that got to do with the MG fix? AFAIK that was more an issue of deciding what the behavior should be, not actually implementing it. Once again you are reaching for data to support your conclusion versus actually having an open mind. You decided as soon as they went with CMx2 that it wouldn't work and you have spent years trying to validate that it was a bad decision.

So now your argument is that it is complex? Don't worry your pretty little head, Charles is on it. It is his product and he doesn't seem to be fazed by working on it. I'll bet though he is touched by your concern.

And about that action spot thing. Apparently you after 7 years of this game still don't get it. A squad is made up of between 2 and 3 teams normally. Each team occupies an AS. You can divide the team and position them independently if you so desire. IF you want the TAC AI to control them you are free to do so, but you are not required to (with the exception of Italians and Syrian units in CMSF).

[womble]

All this jazz with different action spots for the same unit, occupied by choice of the TacAI, not the player makes it very hard to do code changes. Just look at how long it took for a MG fix to come along.

That didn't take that long once it was properly demonstrated that it was wonky. And wasn't it rolled in with a bunch of other patch goodies? [quickly checks the BN2.01 release blurb] Oh yes, more than twenty publicised changes, and probably a bunch of others that weren't deemed noteworthy (as seems to be fairly common practice for BFC). Even if code changes are a piece of the proverbial, it takes time to check that no unanticipated effects are observed, and that would be true of any complex simulation, whether abstracted out a little more or not.

[Lethaface]

The attempt to have the majority of combat result be driven from 3D has lead to a very complex engine and that makes it hard to make changes without breaking more things. If I remember this correctly we had a good amount of abstractions "creep in" (good thing, IMHO) since the beginning of time, I think the first release of CMSF tried to be 3D only but for reasons outlined (and corrected) that doesn't work.

All this jazz with different action spots for the same unit, occupied by choice of the TacAI, not the player makes it very hard to do code changes. Just look at how long it took for a MG fix to come along.

How long did it took for the MG fix, from the moment they decided to do something about it?. This crucial point is missing. If they (Charles) have been programming on it since 2007 (CMSF release), I guess you have a point regarding the complexity of the engine However if they decided to make code changes after 2.0, you can't really say that it took so long to do so and henceforth can't make hard that it is very hard to make code changes.

It is these types of analogies that let you take heavy flak, among other stuff (IMO)

You as a programmer should know that there are several forms of complexity. For example you can have very complex technology create a very simple process, versus many instances of simple technology creating a complex process. Both have trade offs, as all things in life do.

You seem to be preferring the latter: having a (relatively) simple engine adjusted by many tweaks versus a (relatively) complex engine adjusted by less tweaks.

Me thinks you are a lousy programmer .

[Redwolf]

That didn't take that long once it was properly demonstrated that it was wonky.

"Properly demonstrated", yes?

More like reported for 5 years with you people covering ears and eyes, including Steve, until Charles finally puts it out of it's misery and fixes it.

Which is *precisely* what happened with the MG fix between CMBO and CMBB.

[sburke]

"Properly demonstrated", yes?

More like reported for 5 years with you people covering ears and eyes, including Steve, until Charles finally puts it out of it's misery and fixes it.

Which is *precisely* what happened with the MG fix between CMBO and CMBB.

Odd, now you are saying the issue wasn't that the "fix" took a long time because of the complexity of the engine, but rather there was disagreement as to what the effect should be.

So you changed your position....again..... okay maybe not so odd.

[JonS]

I am reading narratives the other way round. Many of them specifically point out how surprised even members of the same team are about where other soldiers find cover where they previously didn't see any. Leaving yourself open toward the direction of direct fire seems to be something that soldiers "avoid", and successfully so.

416,000 fatal US military casualties in WWII, plus the 383,000 UK casualties, 4,300,000 Germans, 9,000,000 Russians, and 2,100,000 Japanese, totaling somewhere between 22M and 30M fatal military casualties, would tend to suggest that you're wrong about that.

[Redwolf]

416,000 fatal US military casualties in WWII, plus the 383,000 UK casualties, 4,300,000 Germans, 9,000,000 Russians, and 2,100,000 Japanese, totaling somewhere between 22M and 30M fatal military casualties, would tend to suggest that you're wrong about that.

... and most of them not from direct smallarms fire.

[JonS]

There really is no true scotsman.

[ForwardObserver]

I have the impression that problems with the TacAI are the exception, not the norm.

Many more problems may go away once the game is taught to handle corners of buildings and ends of walls correctly.

I am getting good results by use of sneaking at the end of movement orders, also, which is perhaps what real soldiers would do, anyway.

The game gives you the possibility of splitting squads, which definitely brings it closer to 1:1 control.

Map design also has a influence. I just played a nice city map with zero TacAI problems. On the other hand, I remember a very "complicated" city map from the Gustav module that could be used as a showcase for the TacAI problems you mention.

That's a very fine response, Thomm. The second point, especially, is something I've figured out the hard way.

For instance, I've observed the following behaviour (or maybe lack of behaviour would be more appropiate) in units with a Quick command: the soldiers adopt a 'standing' stance, and move towards the designated action spot as if they were 'gliding' over the map. This 'gliding' (or maybe the animation is being 'zeroed') is less common when I specify a direction for deployment by chaining a Face command. On the other hand, I've never observed this when issuing a Hunt or Slow command (regardless of specifying the final direction with a Face command). Another common thing when no Face command is issued is that one or two members of the team start rotating along the Y-axis of their 3D model, sometimes in a standing stance (if some form of cover is nearby) or prone (if no cover is present in the action spot or in adjacent action spots).

Another general observation is that the TacAI seems to struggle at times with terrain features which go against the 'grain' of the action spots (for instance, making a diagonal cut across the action spot), especially heavy weapons units that require deployment. I've yet to be able to get an MG team to deploy properly against a diagonal piece of bocage, hedge or wall: they don't seem to be able to deploy along the obstacle properly, even when issuing a Face command specifying a direction orthogonal to that of the obstacle.

Having said the above, the TacAI in CMx2 does a qualitatively better job than in other games doing 1:1 modeling of infantry, such as Close Combat or Graviteam Tactics.

[sburke]

That's a very fine response, Thomm. The second point, especially, is something I've figured out the hard way.

For instance, I've observed the following behaviour (or maybe lack of behaviour would be more appropiate) in units with a Quick command: the soldiers adopt a 'standing' stance, and move towards the designated action spot as if they were 'gliding' over the map. This 'gliding' (or maybe the animation is being 'zeroed') is less common when I specify a direction for deployment by chaining a Face command.

I had it explained to me once that this was just one more example of how detailed the game is, they are sliding on cow patties...

Seriously though Steve did a detailed explanation of this at one point which I unfortunately completely lack the technical knowledge to regurgitate. I'll see if I can find the post.

[ForwardObserver]

Just because you state something doesn't mean that it has a meaning to anyone other than yourself. I can make a statement "The stock is falling." and to me that might be a statement that is self evident in it's meaning, but to you it could mean anything. Does it mean stuff on shelves is falling to the floor? Does it mean a company stock is falling in value? Does it mean that I dropped soup broth on the floor? Certainly someone with your vast intellect would understand that context is everything.

My dear self-appointed comrade Komissar for Straight Thinking:

no matter how hard you look for a fifth leg in a cat, you're not going to find any. You might find its tail or its dick, but not a 'leg'.

Vanir was asking the question because he, like me, was mystified as to your view of a snail pace of releases. Just reposting an old post by Steve doesn't give us any indication whatsoever as to why you think that the releases are at a snails pace, or even why it matters to you. It's simply repeating something that in your world is self evident but in the real world is meaningless without context.

Funny that I wasn't the one saying so, who prompted Vanir's question. That was Redwolf. I just checked what was behind Redwolf claims, and found something that I thought it would bring some light on Redwolf's somewhat Delphic statements. Posting that in the context of the discussion here, made me an ******* in the view of some here. Fair enough, I guess.

So much for context, comrade Komissar.

It matters to me because I don't like bullies. And there's way too much - textual - bullying going on these forums. Indeed, people can as juvenile as they want on the Internet for free. But things can get out of hand really quick. If you doubt that, just check that thread where someone commented about John Kettler's recent mishaps, expressing some honest concern about his health and what were some of the reactions there. That was just beautiful.

Going back to the topic of your inquiry, comrade Komissar. It's obvious to anyone with some basic English skills to figure out that BFC was expecting to deliver stuff at a pace they haven't. The reasons for that can engine-related (as Redwolf advocates), or of a more 'managerial' nature (such as Market Garden not having enough 'content' to make it worth or overlapping with past products, so that it was not attractive enough for owners of the CW module).

After becoming interested in the subject of "snail pace releases" - interest sparkled by me looking up what was Redwolf talking about - I've got my own hypothesis, which are just that, hypotheses, and they're inspired by past experiences with small companies developing wargames, and don't have to do with hopeless attempts at reverse-engineering the game engine.

In no particular order

• Real life hitting hard one or more critical members of the development team
  
• Internal volunteer beta testers participation in Q&A dwindling for some reason
  
• Content development bottlenecks due to having volunteers doing most of the job, which have real life priorities other than CMx2
  

None of the above 'make BFC look bad' in my book: just name a war game, discontinued or still in active development, which hasn't been struck by one or all of the above at some point during its life.

[kohlenklau]

The heck with all of you, I went over there and the fridge was empty and so was the cubbard. Redwolf showed up and we sat quietly and awkwardly for a few minutes until he said he had to make a call and excused himself and left...

That is the last thread party I throw!!!

Well, at least til the fall. I like Autumn beers.

I gotta go listen to some of those dead songs. thanks Sburke!