Reducing player's god-like capabilities

[Lethaface]

I guess what he means is that if you area fire a position without a spotted contact, accuracy will drop to a point at which you are actually area firing 6 action spots. The better the contact in the AS, the higher the accuracy. Buildings don't share in this effect.

??

Doesn't sound bad actually, but there might be a host of unforeseen consequences

Edit: I see that this is indeed what he meant. It would stop my sort of gamey use of area firing to snipe spotted contacts with HE / whatever munitions are available by out-of-command assets which haven't spotted the target.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I see what you mean now. It's an interesting idea, and I am in favor of having the option to spread area fire over a linear distance. But it seems contradictory to allow point area fire on a building in which there has been no enemy contact, but not allowing it on any other terrain feature.

[HistoryLover]

Ah, great! Finally one who understands me!

But not necessarily accuracy. I would see it more as intentional recon by fire effect, where the game determines how far the shooting will spread and the unit aims and shoots accordingly.

If you have spotted nothing, you want a wide recon by fire effect and not waste precious HEs on single spots. Check.

But if a tank has spotted a unit and it suddenly hides, the contact has a very good quality and an area fire command would become as concentrated as it is now. Check.

But if any unit spots a gun and your tank hasn't spotted this gun yet, the player's god-like ability to shell the gun's action spot is reduced: the tank has no contact in this spot and therefore his area fire would be spread over several action spots. Check.

Who can find a situation that breaks it?

[HistoryLover]

I see what you mean now. It's an interesting idea, and I am in favor of having the option to spread area fire over a linear distance.

The beauty of the idea is, that the game would offer that and the god-like capability of destroying units that haven't been spotted yet would be dramatically reduced, too. Two huge improvements with only one adaptation.

But it seems contradictory to allow point area fire on a building in which there has been no enemy contact, but not allowing it on any other terrain feature.

Yes, but I have found no better solution yet.

The thought behind it was that spreading area fire when aiming at buildings would make levelling buildings almost impossible. So this seemed not like an improvement to me.

Do you mean it was better if no exception was made for buildings?

[Lethaface]

The exact floor targeted could be randomized.

[Vark]

It might be an idea, in a turn based game, to have units selected by a ranking order of visible contacts. If a unit has no spots it goes first, once movement and any firing is decided it cannot be changed, rather like the touching rule in chess. Units would also have to continue their current movement path unless their knowledge of the enemy changed.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The beauty of the idea is, that the game would offer that and the god-like capability of destroying units that haven't been spotted yet would be dramatically reduced, too. Two huge improvements with only one adaptation.

Yes, but I have found no better solution yet.

The thought behind it was that spreading area fire when aiming at buildings would make levelling buildings almost impossible. So this seemed not like an improvement to me.

Do you mean it was better if no exception was made for buildings?

No, I'm only pointing out that it isn't logically consistent. Buildings are just man-made terrain. In reality area fire onto a suspected enemy position would be defined by the physical properties of the position as it relates to where your own units are or will be. A generic spread is not realistic. For example, if there is a copse 2 action spots wide surrounded by a grass field you would logically hit those 2 spots, not those 2 spots plus 4 more in the open field to each side.

My opinion on the "God's eye" problem is the same as BFC's : that there is no solution and the best thing to do is just roll with it.

[Combatintman]

Ok, ok, I see some players insist on wasting ammo.

How about combining both?

I think there is a way to keep recon by fire available (probably even enhancing it) AND to decrease the player's god-capabilities:

Spotting dependent area fire

A pic says more than a thousand words:

In this pic I chose 6 action spots for firing HE where no contact/intel is avvailable (but maybe 4 AS would already be enough?).

The better contact in the pic reduces the area fire width to two AS, the weaker tank contact reduces it to three and the building can be aimed directly like it is now.

That way the chance to eliminate unspotted units would become vastly reduced, good spotting or sharing intel would be rewarded, while the capabilities with recon by fire are maintained, probably even increased. :cool:

Going back to the opening line of this thread, the irony of having the 'maligned' Godlike image to illustrate the point is killing me here - be careful for what you wish for. As some have said - if you want to be down and dirty lock your view to the unit and tab around but don't foist it on others as a default setting.

I apologise for being grumpy at this time of year but some of what is being requested or suggested can be solved by individual playing choices. You have to accept that certain compromises have to be made, don't like randomly shooting at woods? Then don't issue the 'target' command.

[HistoryLover]

I apologise for being grumpy at this time of year but some of what is being requested or suggested can be solved by individual playing choices.

Who needs game mechanics, when mind control of the opponent can be used...

[SlowMotion]

"The only thing we can't do right now is impose delays on the AI, but considering it is playing by a fixed set on instructions from the get go it is essentially how folks think the Russians should play."

Agreed. I still play CM1 tournies and find that command delays add a lot of C&C issues that "feel" much more realistic than the CM2 "everyone on the map can instantly respond to orders" system.

Am not holding my breath that BF will bring back delays. But, I never understood the rationale for eliminating command delays. (Maybe it was a requirement in CMSF when they were hoping to use CMSF for training sim defense contracts.)

One solution to reduce the problem of executing commander's orders perfectly would be CoPlay. If one player plotted some units and another player(s) the rest, they'd have to agree on how to proceed. Every time players discussed things there would be fog of war involved - one person misunderstanding what the other is saying. This way all sorts of unexpected things would happen on the map. Units would be placed less perfectly and coordinating timing would be much more difficult and realistic.

[poesel]

With this argument also artillery delays could be criticised as fun killer.

AFAIK artillery is faster than RL, too.

I'm not aiming for instant gratification but I would not like to sit in front of the computer doing nothing.

I totally misunderstood your proposal. What you say is that a target area order should have an implicit spread over several AS and the spread should be smaller if you have a sound contact nearby.

Makes total sense. I imagine the orders given then were more like 'fire at that copse of wood' or 'fire at that tree line' instead of 'fire at that tree 24 feet from the left' (unless you spotted something under that tree).

That is IMHO quite a good idea because it solves two issues. The one you mentioned (the ability to snipe at unknown positions) and the often mentioned want for a wider area fire for non-mortar units.

I don't see a problem with the special rule for buildings. These are prominent features and shooting at them would not be gamey.

Problems:

- the already mentioned prominent landscape features that are not treated special. Ok, an omission but probably difficult to code. But how often would that happen? IMHO not worth the effort

- building special rule: as someone already mentioned spread over floors. I guess a thing most people would like to have.

- area of spread: needs to depend on distance and type of weapon. CM already does some random spreading (try green mortars on point target). This would probably be a very similar mechanism

- several contacts in close proximity: could be solved by 'weighting' the areas around the contacts a bit higher

No, I can't think of a real problem. It's actually a clever solution for limiting the effects of the players 'a-bit-too-good' overview.

Those with the 'be careful what you wish for' argument should think about that this feature works both ways. Your carefully positioned ATG will also not become an easy target for every mortar on the map any more. You only loose the ability to precisely target unlocated enemy positions. But you can still shell the area - and that over a greater area than before.

Would also level the playing field vs the AI a bit (AIUI the AI wont do that).

[HistoryLover]

- several contacts in close proximity: could be solved by 'weighting' the areas around the contacts a bit higher

Where do you see a problem with a simple, strictly on the single action-spot based mechanism?

[poesel]

Where do you see a problem with a simple, strictly on the single action-spot based mechanism?

Because contacts are not bound to an AS. Also you don't see the AS when you target which would make it difficult for the player to decide if you are actually targeting the AS with the contact or not.

If you use a single AS and spread it left or right then the spread will depend on your angle towards the AS grid.

If you approach it with a real area in mind (like 3x3 AS) or - even better - a real circle then you don't have that problem.

But in both cases you need to make provisions for a case where there are several contacts in the area (AS line or square) where the shells would fall. Then I would assume that your soldiers would concentrate on the parts which have a contact and shoot less on others.

[Erwin]

Re CM1 command delays: "I think this is one of those issues where folks have kind of a rose tinted glasses vision of how it actually functioned."

For what it's worth since I still play in large CM1 tournament campaigns (at WeBoB in case anyone is also interested) and I find Command Delays to be quite appropriate and they add to the challenges. It really makes an HQ's command attributes important.

In playing CM1 it seems that Command Delays are more realistic than not having Command Delays. I have never understood why it is more realistic to be able to instantly change the orders of every unit on the map and have them instantly obey. Sure the CM1 Command Delay system was not ideal. But, I think CM2 "threw the baby out with the bathwater".

Having said that, I would put Command Delays behind other issues like selectable waypoints/lines and LOS problems re the very few things left in the CM2 system that still need improvement.

[SlowMotion]

How should selectable waypoints be improved?

[altipueri]

CM1 still more fun than CM2

This is like some religious cult with BFC as Pope - what Pope says goes.

Just look at, or load up Steel Panthers, or download it (free) if you haven't got it. Set realism settings on a dozen or two settings to what you want. The whole power of PCs is you can play pretty much the way you want. Clearly if you are playing H2H you should have similar settings (although even that doesn't apply if you are playing a friend or opponent you know is stronger or weaker). A thousand years ago my Dad taught me chess by him playing without the Queen. Once I started winning it became evens.

Merry bloody Christmas.

[weapon2010]

"CM1 still more fun than CM2"

I couldn't disagree with you more!

[sburke]

"CM1 still more fun than CM2"

I couldn't disagree with you more!

Hey to each his own, but I'm with you. CMx1 was long ago deleted off my hard drive with all honors given. It just doesn't hold a candle for me to CMx2. Even with my preference for WW2, I deleted it as soon as I bought CMSF. I can't wait for CMSF to be re released. I only hope the old scenarios still work and if not maybe bribe Normal Dude to at least re do Task Force Panther.

[Battlefront.com]

The best way to get rid of the Player as God problem is to remove the player Anything short of that is a compromise between the fact that in order to play a game people need to be able to, uhm, play it.

That being said, we will continue to do what we can to curb unrealistic player behavior resulting from unrealistic degrees of control and flow of information.

I have never understood why it is more realistic to be able to instantly change the orders of every unit on the map and have them instantly obey.

Because you should not have a 2 minute delay to move 10m to a different section of wall, or have an ever increasing amount of delay time added because you're going down an unrealistically zig-zaggy road, or you see something that wasn't anticipated and decide not to sit in an open field getting shot at for a minute, no simulation of higher level restrictions/freedoms, etc.

Command Delays are inherently "gamey".

Sure the CM1 Command Delay system was not ideal. But, I think CM2 "threw the baby out with the bathwater".

I designed the original Command Delay system. I had to deal with the complaints about them in terms of detracting from realism (see above) and not really adding to it. When I started designing CMx2 I tried to refine and make the Command Delay system better. I couldn't figure out a practical way of doing that so Charles and I agreed to scrap it. Here we are 7 years later and I'd say the supporters of a return to CMx1 style Command Delays is quite small. Of all the things people have asked for, and continue to ask for, this one doesn't rank very highly from what I can see.

That being said, at some point I'd like to try and figure out some other way to hamper operational action without also screwing up reasonable tactical freedoms. But I already know it's a tough nut to crack. Nobody else has cracked it as far as I know.

Steve

[Lethaface]

Hey to each his own, but I'm with you. CMx1 was long ago deleted off my hard drive with all honors given. It just doesn't hold a candle for me to CMx2. Even with my preference for WW2, I deleted it as soon as I bought CMSF. I can't wait for CMSF to be re released. I only hope the old scenarios still work and if not maybe bribe Normal Dude to at least re do Task Force Panther.

CMx1 demo didn't convince me, CMSF did. CMSF 2.0 with all original modules would probably let me stop playing CMBN / CMFI. So many CMSF missions / campaigns still to play, but can't go back to that state of the engine. And then CM:Afghanistan. It's a beauty but got stuck in a campaign on a fubar mission and never played it again. CMSF British campaign is my favorite CM campaign until now. Played some TF Panther, airfield assault iirc. Good times :-). Hell IF I only had the time to play when things are released.

Edit: I don't see any plusses in indiscriminate command delays.

[Peregrine]

Hi,

Read through the post pretty quickly and my comment is in reference to command delays and the rules I put together that were linked to earlier.

Firstly I think Battlefront did the right thing getting rid of command delays. They are gamey and having them increment in the CMx1 style was awful in some situations.

In my guidelines it aimed to address how responsive your troops are without crippling them entirely.

Simplifying them you can:

- always hit withdraw

- always move at least two squares

- if in command do anything that is following the units "plan"

- always move to preserve your unit with a 10 second delay if not in command

- if it is close to friendlies in command it has a 30 second delay

There are long 1:15 delays but these kick in only if the unit is out of command or is doing something entirely different to what they are actually aware of. Guidelines themselves explain this better.

PS The guidelines that I put together grew from dissatisfaction with the elements of the game that the original poster discussed. They are pretty full on but are very mature in that I have played with them for months without issues. Don't expect Battlefront to simply create anything like this. Making a script "see" the battlefield like you do when applying these rules would be a massive (impossible) ask.

[Andrew H.]

That being said, at some point I'd like to try and figure out some other way to hamper operational action without also screwing up reasonable tactical freedoms. But I already know it's a tough nut to crack. Nobody else has cracked it as far as I know.

Steve

I'm sure there are many more elegant solutions than command delays. But they did a pretty good job in CMx1 of making you feel like you were commanding a bunch of conscripts.

Which I think is what the real goal should be - if I have a company of Soviet conscript infantry, what I can do with them should be realistically limited; which would mean, in turn, that I would be forced to use many of the techniques used in the war historically. Not because they are the best techniques to attack with overall, but because they may be the best techniques to attack with with these particular forces.

Which makes things more fun as a player because you have to use a completely different style with different types of troops.

But this was done pretty effectively in FI - playing the Italians was not at all like playing the US or Germans; you had to use completely different tactics. (Or at least completely different tactics from those I used when playing Italian; I sucked...)

Maybe the conscripts should have unsplittable platoons...

[Vinnart]

The best way to get rid of the Player as God problem is to remove the player Anything short of that is a compromise between the fact that in order to play a game people need to be able to, uhm, play it.

Well put.

As far as one's desire to not move the camera above level one no one is putting a gun to their head to keep them from doing that. As for me I want to be able to play a playable "table top" tactical game with the least amount of frustration.

[Battlefront.com]

Which makes things more fun as a player because you have to use a completely different style with different types of troops.

But this was done pretty effectively in FI - playing the Italians was not at all like playing the US or Germans; you had to use completely different tactics. (Or at least completely different tactics from those I used when playing Italian; I sucked...)

I'm glad you brought this up. We already have examples of how difficult it is to use poor quality forces effectively. There's plenty in CMSF, but there's also the example of Italian forces in CMFI. Anybody who claims that they can employ Italian forces as effectively as Germans is either a liar or a practical jokester

Knowing the TO&E for Soviet forces, I'm not worried that they're going to be misused. When you drop a company of tank riders off inside the German defenses you'll likely find two things:

1. The survivors that weren't picked off on the way to the German trenches are probably not in excellent condition generally speaking.

2. If they don't immediately overwhelm the defenders, they're most likely going to be ineffective pretty soon there after.

Similar things can be said for other Soviet formations. Used according to Soviet doctrine they can be really effective. Used as if they are Germans or American forces... well, probably not as effective Which means Soviet players will likely benefit from keeping their forces concentrated and focused on only a few limited objectives, likely punished for trying to use them dynamically or to do too much.

Steve

[poesel]

Steve - any comment on HistoryLovers proposal?