CCM

[kai]

CCM for Close Combat Mission. Combined CC and CM. After planning one mission in the new scenario, my Stug started shooting at some infantry in the woods, however a tank became visible and my Stug kept targeting the inf which started running in front of the tank! so the Sherman knocked my tank out. Iw as watching the whole action from tab1 view which shows the view as being the tank commander.

A drawback became obvious in this game. With the order planning part and watching the orders being carried out, there's no way to order a unit to attack something else during the action phase. I was thinking if CM could be played in real time as CC(yes, the game blows). Where orders could be given at any time, players could attack units different then the ones computer chooses to attack, maybe the game would probably become a click fest and the it would become another RTS where tactics, planning would have as much significance as being able to keep track of the units and issue orders on the go..

However, it would offer some advantages, crating a whole different game which could be played online in an hour or so instead of a week long PBEM game. I was wondering if it would be possible to implement planning into action phase, perhaps a different build of CM.

It would be a 3d ww2 real time game, I think it may have potential. If design team or anyone has thoughts about my idea, if it was possible to accomplish that I would love to see them. Thx

[Eichmann2]

I think (for what it's worth)that this is a genuinely interesting suggestion. I know that it has been discussed before in this forum, but a real-time version of CM would be great! Despite its MANY flaws, CC has the undeniable appeal that a RT brings. Click-fest? Maybe,but constant decision making under pressure is the way ahead,incorporate the superior realism of CM and you are on to a world beater.

[BFCElvis]

I would be interested on how other people feel on this subject. I have always preferred non-realtime. I like to stop and think about my next move before making it. Grab a smoke or a beer...relax while playing. I don't like the pressure of constantly checking what all my units are doing at all times. With realtime you may be sending comands to one unit and be occupied enough doing that and miss the Sherman coming in anyway. My understanding of the AI for CM is that if the Sherman was a juicy enough target it would shoot at it anyway. I also understand the AI has been tweaked and in the final version your Stug may have retageted on its own,

[Guest Captain Foobar]

I can see the benfits of realtime, but I think the larger the battle, the more it would sabotauge the game. Think back about the AAR's from Fionn vs Martin on thegamers.net. I believe Fionn had attacking forces coming from 3 directions, and from very far away from each other. Imagine trying to coordinate these actions in any intelligent fashion.

I could see it taking 60 seconds just to issue orders to all the troops. And in large scale operations, it would actually make you react SLOWER than in the turn based play. Many squads would just end up getting killed due to neglect. In missions as small as the ones in the demo it might work, but I look forward to some maps that are gonna be a LOT bigger.

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

"when in doubt, run in circles"

[howardb]

The problem with realtime is that the small computer men inside your monitors aren't as smart as real humans. Since you don't have time to micromanage all your troops this will translate into strange behaviour that would never happen irl. That's the problem in a nutshell I think and this game is supposed to be realistic.

Until we get the mod RealThinkingAI v34.7 in 2003 we're stuck with the current model I'm afraid (well I'm not really afraid at all).

[Supertanker]

CM may be a little too complex for this, but sometimes workable solution is to have real time play that can be paused for unlimited periods. I thought this worked pretty well in XCOM Apocalypse, even after the excellent turn-based play of the original XCOM. The drawback comes where there are multiple fronts/battles going on simultaneously, as it is difficult to monitor and intervene quickly enough to prevent silly mistakes. Often in XCOMApoc, I would lose squaddies from Squad A to tactical errors while I was watching Squad B or C carry out some orders. However, when I had a good killing zone set up in front of a UFO, it saved a lot of time to let the clock run and rely on the squaddies to shoot anything that moved. This system might work with CM, especially where I have firing positions set and we are just blasting the defensive positions prior to an assault, but the greater complexity of combined arms battle would create more headaches and more casualties than would result from straight turn-based play.

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

Brad "Supertanker" Wohlenberg

[Renaud]

Kai,

Of course the reason your Stug didn't switch to the Sherman in time is because the CREW didn't see the Sherman in time even tho you floating godlike above could clearly see the sherman. I've seen this happen a lot, especially when the vehicle is buttoned up. I personally consider this to be realistic and really fun. Being able to over-rule this via a command interface which is always available as the game plays out would allow you to force units to notice and react to all new threats in a most unrealistic way. I think the designers of CM don't want that kind of micro control which is one reason the 1-minute control interval is part of the game.

That being said, a real-time CM with limits on your mind-meld with the troops could be something cool for the future. The scale would have to be very small tho, since CM will apparently allow really large battles with scores of units on each side and giant maps (3km x 3km and up!) that take quite a while to scroll over. Imagine a full mechanized battallion sized task force on a 3x5 map....utterly impossible to control in real-time. The demo scenarios are truly tiny.

[MarkEzra]

The market place is filled...really filled with RT games. I don't care to play them... I know I'm in the minority, I understand that lot's of money is being made by game companies on RT products. BTS has introduced a game that I want, in a style that I want. For that I'm grateful, and enthusiastic in my support. I know what a small share of the market I and others like me really are. For those of you who enjoy RT play, great...have at it. But please, Leave this game for me

[HawkerT]

Hear Hear !

You said it MarkEzra.

Please let this gem sparkle.

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

If you can't join'em beat'em.

[Greg Scurlock]

kia, in a word or two......HELL NO!!!!!

[weaselwerfer]

Don't worry Kai, I have a feeling that SSI and Atomic already have something on the drawing board, unless they're complete idiots. With the huge sucess of 3d RTS games like Homeworld and a slew of others on the way, It's only a matter of time before someone does something 3D in real-time set durring WW2. CM will only help make this a reality, providing it's a sucess...and we all know it will be!

[SS_PanzerLeader]

I love the idea of real-time and CC2 was undeniably king in my book, to me it was in no way a clickfest - unlike games like Age of empires warcraft etc etc. I do think that the guys at BTs should consider a game that is realtime.. HOLD ON BEFORE YA JUMP ALL OVER ME I think what they should consider is making a realtime game at a slowed rate comparable to cc2 or a tad slower ( have an optional setting) but nothing that reaches the speed of AOE etc. As far as realism goes Agreed it will not be as accurate as CM but I think that it is extremely evident that BTS has the knowlege to make it as realistic as possible for this genre . SURELY they can smoke any competition hands down should they take on this venture and would probably build a huge base of fans - and we would like them to do well right? There is no need to abandon CM as it is but why shouldnt they venture a little into this market aand make some dough?

COMMENTS?

SS_PanzerLeader.....out

[weaselwerfer]

How about sticking the interface of CM on a game engine like Hidden and Dangerous? Of course, you'd have to fix the horrible AI, add more units and morale, and add the level of detail that BTS is giving to CM. That would be one hell of a game.

[MarkEzra]

Hi SS: I value what you say. I just think you're asking the wrong Company. I notice the Company's mission statement (which we all see when we log on to this discussion board)clearly states they don't wish to chase the "twitch crowd". I assume that means RT players. It seems to me that folks who are CC players want to make Combat Mission a CC game...only better. BTS says it wants to go in the direction it wants to go. BTS says it favors the few over the many. BTS Mission statement seems very clear. Atomic/SSI are the people to talk with. That company supports your views by producing RT games like you like. The ideas that have been presented ARE interesting and valid. As I'm certain we can all agree , there are many, many bright people on this discussion board. But they seem to me to addressed to the wrong forum (based on BTS mission statement). Perhaps RT players should consider Combat Mission a change of pace from their hectic schedules.

[Guest John Pender]

I think a lesser company would try to make CM playable in real time as well as turn based in order to generate more sales regardless of playability. Fortunately Steve and Charles are on a mission and are not interested in compromising that mission to make cheap sales. This game was conceived and designed as a turn based game and it is obvious from what they have said to date it will remain a turn based game. The scale of CM will not work well in real-time, If you want real-time WWII you are stuck with CC2

[kai]

I knew this was gonna happen, I should've add a line to my post that losers, lamers, fanatics need not post.

Notice I didn't say; CM sucks, I want the game to be like CC and be played in real time.

Ezra keeps blabbing about the market and crap and says

"But please, Leave this game for me" you said that 'you don't care to play them' Well, this game is for you. It's gonna be released in few weeks, I never wanted to take this game AWAY from U! I don't care if you dress your barbie doll on your pc, it's your life, your comp and u play what u want. I was just wondering if it was possible to do CM in real time, just an idea with hopes of hearing from designers. Then some other moran says

"kia, in a word or two......HELL NO!!!!!"

Both of you should get together and screw each other and slap some buttocks. 'Ooh big boy, Ooh, bang my ass like a little school boy!'

Enough with them/

I said it when I first played this game that it's great, new, fresh idea in this follow the crowd strategy momentum. Hm, I can't even think of a notable turn based strategy that came out lately. There's SSI's Reach for the stars coming soon, but their screens kinda suck, there's Imerium Galactica 2 with turn based game and real time battles which looks good so far and that's what comes to my mind right now.

I used to love TBS and still do, I played single games of Civ and Civ2 for weeks and thought just like Elvis, that RTS like Age of Empires would suck and that I like to 'relax and take time planning moves for my units and so on'. I tried the rts and I must say it's a whole new different experience. The exhiliration that comes from monitoring everything at once.. the rush of taking care of one aspect and thinking about the other, especially online, it's a battle between you and your human opponent and the winner is usually the one who keeps an eye on all the things, attacking and producing new units and defending home base. It's a fantastic experience and I think everyone should try it.. every game of AOE I played online, I swear my heart rate was in 200's, the thrill I had from the win and knowing that my planning and micromanagement came together!

Notice that I said "it would offer some advantages, crating a whole different game", "perhaps a different build of CM" one that would be in real time. I didn't say, don't release CM as it is, change it to real time. I suggested that if it was possible to perhaps release CM in real time as a stand alone game after this one is out on the market. I like CM right now but I just wonder how it would be played when me and my opponent is also issuing orders at the same time. I think I would like that action.

Some ppl complaing about CM being realistic now.. Well the player becomes a general issuing orders to battle groups with intention to defeat his enemy. Think, during the war did Rommel and his American counter part issued orders and then watched what happened for a minute, then called each other up and said 'ok sir, now we plan turn 2 of the battle'? Or was it chaos? And what was planned before the battle turned out into all out war, and the general who was able to keep track of all the aspects of the battle and use them to their full advantage went on to fight another day?

I'm just doing some brainstorming here. Online Battle scenarios would not have to be big, choosing units before the battle would be a must as it was in CC3 (why these morons didn't do it for CC4 is a mystery), thinking how to beat your opponent and his units is crucial. Deciding to get all heavy armor or have panzerschrecks and combined force of ground troops supported by armor to knock out enemy tanks, then keeping track of your units. Also moving around with camera would have to be improved to be faster, perhaps it could be still done for CM, right mouse hold or holding shift and moving mouse would move the camera, ctrl and mouse move would turn the camera around. These are just ideas and to those who contributed with some constructive comments I Sallute <S!>, I know this is a public forum and there's no way to keep some fanatical morans away who treat anything said that's diferent from their usual bible crap is an attack on their cult.

[howardb]

Supertanker:

Your ideas ripped from X-com would only work in single player because you would both be able to stop play endlessly

Ezra I agree with you 100%, furthermore let the people that get's their heart rate in 200 go play their rts games and leave this one as it is.

I'm pretty convinced that this game won't work in rts before we'll see a dramatic improvement in computer AI. Do we really want to trade away realism for a fast clicking game? (which we already have way to many of as it is).

PS. Clearly Kai needs a little social training before he should be allowed to post on a board.

[MarkEzra]

Kia: A tad testy tonite? My comments to SS PzLdr indicated no disrepect for the ideas presented in this thread. Other than that I stand by my comments.

[Rick]

Kia,

You were the first person to turn this into peronal insults. "Hell No", may have been a little harsh, but it was still on topic. Therefore, where do you get off calling anyone here a loser, flamer, or fanatic? Fanatics, maybe. I believe that Battlefront was specifically made for turn-based wargame fanatics.

I believe that all that the no rts crowd (of which I am one) is saying, is that most companies aren't making turn-based wargames anymore, wheras a variety of types of RTS are being made - please don't try to talk the few companies still into turn-based to start making RTS.

[pritzl]

Kai, have you considered the fact that making CM a real time game would completely undermine the entire code on which it is designed? Unless you have a mainframe in your basement you cannot even hope to retain the accurate penetration data, ballistics, etc that exist in CM while also having it be a real time game. Plenty of dumbed down, real time tactical games already exist. Retaining CMs level of accuracy simply cannot be done with a real time engine at this time. Further, even if it could, I don't think I would be too interested. AI simply isn't up to the standards where I would feel comfortable allowing my troops to operate independantly for any length of time while I was off trying to micromanage other units.

Frankly, I'm tired of the RTS click fests. They have very little to do with strategy and more to do with learning the formula by which you can most efficiently build up your forces and then simply rush your opponent with overwhelming force. For the most part, every RTS game that I've ever seen has been all about the guy with the fastest finger on the mouse and I personally find them rather dull.

You asked for opinions, that's mine.

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

[Fionn]

Well, couple of comments:

1. Kai, there is NO excuse for posting something along the lines of "Both of you should get together and screw each other and slap some buttocks. 'Ooh big boy, Ooh, bang my ass like a little school boy!"

A) It strikes me as quite homophobic and no matter what your private views on this I'd thank you to keep them off the BBS.

It is definitely insulting.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. MANY people need to learn that others can disagree with their opinions, arguments and conclusions BUT it doesn't mean they are being personally abusive. I have, many times, had people react badly when I'm only disagreeing with their arguments.

Some people need to just mature a little and realise that in a debate some people will agree with you, others won't and no matter how strongly their opinions are expressed so long as they aren't personally abusive you have no right to come back at them in an abusive manner and truth be told what you said was highly abusive and wrong to post.

2. Characterising those who disagree with you as flamers and fanatics is an ages old debating strategy and really is one of obfuscation and playing to the crowd (which can be used to great effect in public debates to influence crowd mindset BUT actually doesn't deal with the issues the other side raises).

3. For the record I don't have any problem with a real-time strategy game that is well executed, has a good, challenging AI, doesn't cause me to lose battles simply because I don't click fast enough and meets my realism standards.

That no such game has yet been released is a problem but once such a game is released I'll play it. I don't expect that to be for many years though .

4. CPU cycles and AI... Most real-time strategy games suffer from quite poor AIs principally because they have to devote MOST of their CPU cycles to graphics. We all know of the pathfinding horrors of some and of the "straight line right into the guns of my defences" attacks of others.

CM could, technically speaking, go real-time BUT if it did so the AIs intelligence would plummet and the player would have a VERY difficult job trying to command a battalion-sized Kampfgruppe over the size of maps that CM has. Thus probably CM would have to be scaled back to a company-level game purely for gameplay reasons.

All the detailed armour penetration equations would go out the window (VERY expensive on CPU cycles I'm sure), the dynamic calculation of LOS on the fly for all units to all units wow, that'd take a HUGE amount of cycles.

End result, as a company-level game it would CRAWL, the AI would be dumbed down, the penetration calculations would be dumbed down, much of the flavour would be lost, it would be played on MUCH smaller maps. Forget 3 km by 5km, think more about 300 metres by 500 metres. AND you can forget P 100s without 3D cards being able to run it... P 450s with 16 MB card minimums would apply.

If you don't believe me go have a look at the specifications for CC and then add on a generous extra cause CM does things with polygons and to render polygons in real-time is a big deal.

Anyways, once you do all that you'd end up with 3D Close Combat with polygons. Same scale, a dumbed down AI, dumbed down vehicle and unit models, tiny maps (by comparison) etc.

Personally I've seen the first signs from a few companies that they are working on 3D WW2-timescale troop command games recently and I'd be quite surprised if Atomic isn't thinking of making Close Combat 3D (or actively building an engine at the moment for in-house evaluation... they re-organised a while back to have an in-house development group which would be tailor-made for creating a 3D engine) and abandoning sprites.

I like CM the way it is. I think that to become "just like CC but here a couple of years earlier" is NOT conducive to long-term survival. I DO think that being the best in your niche is the way to go.

Kai, I think that in 18 months to two years time your squad and platoon-level 3D games will start hitting the market. The lower the level of the game the more detailed the weapons representations, morale levels etc possible due to the whole CPU cycle deal.

I don't think we'll see a GOOD company-level real-time game for many years (Good in this case being based on my appraisal that I doubt we'll see one with an AI good enough for me to consider a worthy challenge for a good wargamer and that we won't see realistic behaviour in a company-level rts for some time due to market forces and CPU cycles).

Since CM shines at modelling company and battalion-level battles (battalion-level battles are a LOT of fun ) I simply think that the decision to leave the real-time platoon-level, CPU-limited market to other companies is a good one.

Also, don't forget that BTS could be doing games for the big boys if they wanted. They could be developing or overseeing flashy RTS BUT they chose to develop games THEY believed in and THEY wanted to play.

One hint.. NEVER underestimate what a small group of truly dedicated people can turn out. BTS wants to make turn-based strategy games with simultaneous resolution and as realistic combat routines as is possible ( combat routines will never be perfect since we can't go back in time and get all the data we'd want ). They've done that IMO.

Kai, you want a different type of game. I truly believe you'll get what you want within 2 years. In fact, I believe you're going to get quite a glutt of them in 2001 .

Penultimately, I think you owe those who disagreed strenuously with you an apology for what you said about them.

Lastly, you asked for opinions and comments. I and others gave them. Don't belittle me or them for giving them. It really is a poor show when you do that.

Ps. As for the StuG... CM doesn't feature "radar-tanks". When the Sherman hove into view the StuG might have failed a spotting check and then basically failed to see the Sherman (in war it often happens). The Sherman spotted the StuG, fired and got lucky. I've asked about the whole vehicle spotting issue and the various factors are taken into account ( spotting is decreased to the side, decreased when buttoned etc etc).

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest R Cunningham]

Round and round and round and round.

CC is not part of the RTS scene. It doesn't have the resource gathering, base building, troops manufacturing elements that mark these games. CC is a continuous-time wargame. It has limitations and advantages based on the continuous-time format. CM is turned based and yet incorporates "real-time" elements. This format also has advantages and disadvantages.

If CM went "real-time" then it would have to scale back the size of the battles to something along the lines of CC to accomodate the biggest abstraction that both games have: the one "commander" who floats over the battlefield micromanaging his forces.

There might be room for a CC style game that incorporates CM 3D elements and Atomic might be trying that someday. But I think it is far from certain that the conservative herd-mentality that seems to dominate the computer games publishers will embrace CM as the "new way". The RTS games already have 3D versions (battlezone). Regardless of the relative merits of CM, CC4 will probably sell 5 to 10 times more copies. CM appeals to a niche market. It cannot hope for the impulse buy from cool box art. So the suits might notice a "little" game that does well enough on its own or they might not. I think they'll all be trying for the next C&C, Tomb Raider, Quake, etc. and not hardcore wargame.

[Guest kip anderson]

Hi,

my view is that the game is at perfect as it is possible to get with current computers. What I am after is realism and I feel CM in its current form delivers that, I am still in shock as to just how good CM has turned out to be.

All the best,

Kip.

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

[SS_PanzerLeader]

It would be nice if people would actually read what i said

I NEVER said....

GEt rid of CM

Change CM to real TIME

or

DONT Release it til it's realtime

UHH GUYS where are you getting this??

SCROLL UP and reread my post before going off on the 'OH no real time tangent'

for every one of us that love this game the way it is there are probably three who are jsut as into history and realism that would like to see this kind of dedication in a realtime game! In BTS msision statement they say wargames - Because its RTS it cant be classified as a wargame? says who? BTS has already proved it can do what it likes!

I pointed out that they could pursue BOTH markets

They dont have to SELL OUT to make an RTS game!

Why do you guys care if they can find away to improve realtime - REALTIME does not have to be a click fest anymore than BTS had to do COMBAT MISSION the way the developers woulda wanted it.

EZRA you missed the entire point _ I love CM if I had a real time ww2 game also made by BTS I would STILL play CM. s far as Talking to teh wrong company that is absurd _ I'm talking to the FIRST company that I've seen that would listen and cares about what we think!

What will happen if CM does'nt make them enough money to make a CM 2 viable then how are they gonna continue? I would like to see them do well - I never asked them to cater to the twitch-crowd Did you ever play cc? that game isn't a click fest unless you have arthritis.

I note that you said I had some valid Ideas but then you start talking about things I never said.

I think this game will do pretty good- But is pretty good gonna be enuff? these guys have spent an awful long time on this.

to make a real time game consider this

they have done all the research on teh historical aspects of the gmae- unit composition, tank -gun info etc etc

That already makes them WAY ahead of atomic and they havent written a line of code for this new venture- If I want to talk to a wall I dont need to talk to atomic Ive got several in my house :-P

SS_PanzerLeader....out

[Los]

You guys want a more relaistic CM experience? I would in no way turn to the CC series. I would , after setting the intial detailed movement objectives and SOPs (I've talked about this before) when you hit execute you go into Rainbow Six/Half life FPS mode with you being the commander. Then you can see only what you can see, no ever head views (except a 2d map) and your only link to units and subordinates you are not physically standing next to is a ****ty radio and hand and arm signals. Sure the system can draw what they're doing on the 2d map for you and you can point and click various orders for them. The level of control you exercize rises exponentially with the level of risk you are willing to assume by leading from the front.

Now instead of Combat Misison you have: Company Commander Simulator.

Los