Reality is 3 Dimensional

[Darstand]

Reality is 3 Dimensional. It does not have grid lines or hex's. Reality has beyond 32-bit color and near infinite resolution. Realty has laws of motion, space, and time. It also has chaos; in which the weirdest things can and do happen. Men are not robots, obeying every order. And will often do the most bravest/ stupidest/ cowardly things. Reality does not come in an easy to read manual, nor is it always what you perceive. So the next time you hear, the Combat Mission is not realistic. Just remind them that Realty is 3 Dimensional.

Darstand

"It's not what you know, but how you use knowledge"

"An Armchair General never loses any men"

[Moon]

Bravo!

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well said! We have tried this before and either get one of three responses:

1. "Good point!" - This comes from otherwise open minded wargamers who just never really thought about it before.

2. "But Quake isn't reality" - People that are convinced that 3D graphics MUST equal Quake. These folks are a hard sell, but we think many can be brought around

3. "" - Nothing. No reaction what-so-ever. These are the ones that really have no ability to debate, and rather just crawl back into the happy little 2D, hex based cave they crawled out of

We have NOTHING against traditional wargames. However, when they are held up as being the pinnacle of all wargame creation and design... then we have to take serious issue with those claims. The more strategic level the game, the less the 3D environment matters, so the more claim of realism can be made. But low level, 2D, hex based wargames can't hold a candle to Combat Mission's realism. Punto.

Even if CM doesn't have 1/10th the accuracy and realism that it already has, even the most simplistic of 3D physics and terrain would put Combat Mission ahead of the traditional. The fact that CM actually has more realism and detail than the traditional games PLUS a highly accurate 3D environment, really dusts the competition. Oh, and did I mention that our version of Western Front warfare won't require a dozen patches in as many weeks so that it plays as advertised?

Steve

[Ron Meier]

A quick comments from the lurker gallery...

"Quake blah blah blah" - I tend to find people who measure games by Quake standards lack the patience of what a good "wargame" takes in terms of thinking. Example: I saw a post on a newsgroup about from someone who was happy to defeat a klingon (StarFleet Command) battlecruiser in an hour. Well the next comment to his post was from someone who thought the game was horrible because it took so long to defeat the klingon. Now StarFleet Command isn't a historical wargame, but it is a game based upon a really decent boardgame that provided a reasonable playing field (Star Fleet Battles). I remember playing Star Fleet battles and it would take hours to play out and I was fine with that. The newer generation of gamers (Quakers) expect the game to be quick (yes I know I am drawing hasty generalizations). The Quakers will probably not get into Combat Mission even if it was photo realistic and perfect in every way. Most of them don't have the time or patience to appreicate Combat Mission.

Now for the gornards that use the Quake line in dismissing Combat Mission; well they will get over themselves or just miss out on what seems to be a grounding breaking wargame.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks Ron, and we agree (even with the "hasty generalizations") Fact is that there are gamers out there that want quick fixes. That is fine, but they shouldn't force their style of game on others. Same in reverse, as I would never want Quake to be shot down because "stuff happens too quickly".

And as you say, either the sticks in the mud wise up to what CM REALLY is, or they miss out. We think most will wise up, but just not say anything about it

Steve

[paullhr]

Reality is 3 dimensional, but it isn't a game. However accurate it will be, it will only be a game. The real think about WW2 was people getting scared, hungry, killed...and I am quite sure that every war veterans prefer playing a good game than beeing out in the wild and risquing their life. Shouldn't we rather talk about enjoyement in playing than quibble about reality in a game.

As far as I am concern I enjoy CM, but I must admit that I do enjoy some unrealistic games : Heroes of Might and Magic, Civilisation....

I hope I didn't hurt any feelings here

Happy New Year 200

[Guest Captain Foobar]

I think the comment about "short attention span" gets to the heart of the matter.

I have been out apostlizing about CM on certain forums that will remain nameless(cough ssi cough) I haven't yet had any heated conversations, but most of the CC-ers are just hooked on real-time resolution, even admitting the flaws in realism that it causes. (i.e. limited ai calculations,lack of orders control, etc.) Some people are not terribly concerned about realism, as long as the game "puts on a good show". And there is nothing wrong with that.

But some of us want something better, and I'm glad BTS is here to provide it. People will come around, something like this is too good to keep under wraps.

[Guest Stabsfeldwebel]

Yes good point, and good response steve, we can't just design one type of game and expect for every game of the genre to be the same makeup.

I also believe that the game that do break new ground, such as myth, myst, and ultima series get rewarded by fans and sales.

And I used to believe in santa steve till i got coal in my stocking booohoooohooohooo waaaaaa!

[Andy Brown]

Actually, for me, CM's "Great Leap Forward" is the "WeGo" simultaneous execution of plotted orders, not the 3D engine.

In fact, to be honest, I find the 3D a bit of a hassle. IMO, (truly subjective, of course ), wargaming at company and battalion level is about the fire and manoeuvre of companies and platoons, not grovelling around in the weeds sighting machine guns and lining up individual tank shots.

[To put that in perspective, I had the same criticism about Steel Panthers]

I would really like to see a version of CM where orders are given to platoons and the AI handles anything lower.

[i wanted that for Steel Panthers as well ]

The 3D gives me a bit of a vicarious thrill but is not essential to my enjoyment of the game.

[Knaust]

I WANT a 3D game box

I WANT a 3D CD

I WANT a 3D manual

[Guest Big Time Software]

Paullhr, the difference is there are games that strive for realism, and those that don't (as well as all in between). CM is a game. True. But so is Quake. The question isn't "does 3D make CM totally realistic" but rather, "does 3D make CM more realistic than a 2D game". The answer is yes. For another game the answer might be no, so there is no inherent 3D = realism force of nature. It is all what is done with it.

And that brings me to Andy's point. The truth is that you are wrong The 3rd dimension is realistically CRUCIAL to a game of CM's scale. It is even important for one of Panzer Blitz's scale (i.e. each unit is a platoon). Steel Panthers' level of simulation certainly would benefit (realism wise) from 3D. So like it or not, a game at CM's level without a propper treatment of 3D is always gonig to play second fiddle in terms of realism.

The problem is that games of the past haven't done a very good job simulating the thrid dimension, so the expectations and understanding of its importance is quite low. CM's 3D engine was designed to correct this huge realism gap.

The simple fact is that a tank tipped at x degrees and tilted y to the shooter makes a HUGE difference. As in life or death difference. Leaving such important factors out for vehicles is about the same as leaving altitude out for a game of air to air combat. From a realism standpoint, it is silly to gloss over such an important factor. We can understand why some people might find it an uncomfortable challenge, but why not rise to it instead of wishing it wasn't there?

For infantry the 3rd dimension is not as crucial as vehicles, but it still is very important. Small dips and rises often made the difference on the battlefield. This is something that we feel has been totally lacking in other wargames.

CM's scale and world simulation are in harmony with each other. Personally, I love higher level wargames a great deal. But CM isn't designed to be one, so it really is a non issue.

Steve

[Andy Brown]

Steve,

I'm not knocking CM or suggesting that the 3D work you guys have done is somehow irrelevant. You have indeed produced a state-of-the-art tactical wargame superior, IMO, to anything yet existing.

I was trying to point out that, as I'm sure you know by now , different folks have different strokes when it comes to the perfect wargame. In CM, you have chosen to develop the physical environment side of combat modelling. Players can feel confident that the laws of physics in the CM universe mirror reality far more closely than in any previous tactical wargame.

I think this is great but, for me, this is not necessary to generate the feedback I require to make decisions in MY ideal wargame. Steel Panthers, for example, did that just as well. The WEGO simultaneous resolution, on the other hand, has significantly modified my decision cycle as I have been able to dispense with a lot of unrealistic considerations arising from whether or not it's my turn to move.

Perhaps it's the old soldier in me but when I'm playing a tactical wargame as a company or battalion commander, that's all I really want to be. I would prefer not to also have to be the platoon and section commanders, the support weapons crew commanders and the individual AFV commanders. I have been a wargamer long enough to know I'm in a very small minority here and that most players prefer absurd amounts of control over their forces. So be it. However, no matter how popular it is, the decision to design CM in this way is clearly NOT realistic.

Regards,

Andy

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Andy,

Yup, I understood your post. I also agree that the WEGO system is probably the most fundamental break with games like Steel Panthers. But the 3rd dimension is a very, very close second.

CM is designed to simulate the physical world of combat as much as anything else. In our opinion wargames have abstracted, and in many cases ignored, this aspect of warfare. The end result is often a wargame that has so much abstraction that it does not fairly represent the warfare it claims to simulate. In other words, an inherently flawed physical side produces situations that influence tactics in a totally ahistorical way. We decided to try and correct that, and by the reception that CM has received from the old guard and moderate wargamers, we feel that we have succeeded to a large degree.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think this is great but, for me, this is not necessary to generate the feedback I require to make decisions in MY ideal wargame. Steel Panthers, for example, did that just as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 3D aspect is not a feedback mechanism per se, but an inherent part of the simulation itself. It not only governs LOS, but also LOF (which is crucial for armor especially). The 3D engine also makes realistic movement rates up slopes and other stuff as well.

My point here is that your "ideal" wargame is inherently flawed from a realism standpoint. Again, it is like leaving altitude out of a game modeling air to air combat (from flight sims to our own turn based flight games). No knocks on what you want out of a wargame, just making sure that you understand that ignoring the 3rd dimension means an abstracted combat model to the extreme. This in turn produces a simulation that often punishes the player for using realistic tactics and rewards them for employing "gamey" ones.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would prefer not to also have to be the platoon and section commanders, the support weapons crew commanders and the individual AFV commanders.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But to have a more realistic game SOMEONE has to pay attention to this. Ignoring it (as all wargames before CM have done to a large degree) presents a whole host of problems in terms of realism.

CM is also not designed to be a Battalion or Company Commander game, so if that is what you are looking for then CM is not going to do everything for you that you would like. If it were you would just sit there with a text screen passing back bits and pieces of info every 10 or 15 minutes at best. For the majority of your units you wouldn't even know if they were engaged in combat until after the game was over. Not a lot of fun if you as me

If you want to play the role of Battalion commander, the AI would be responsible for moving all your units 98% of the time. Not only is that really boring sounding, but it also is asking more from the AI than can be expected of it. A few games have tried to simulate this type of command level, but none have done anything but fail miserably (both in terms of game and simulation aspects).

Instead, CM is designed to be a "traditional" wargame with a few twists. You are responsible for moving your own units, but there are Command and Control consequences for how this is done. So you are in the Captain or Major's seat, but instead of the AI moving all your units for you, it is your job.

And because CM simulates the physical world, units can not be sent willy nilly around the map like pretty much every wargame I have ever played. Positions matter. Not because we want absolute control over a unit, but because positions were the single most important aspect of warfare. As stated above, ignoring this leaves you with a game that does not have much in common with real warfare.

Now, I am not saying CM simulates everything in the physical world perfectly. Far from it. What I am saying is that other wargames hardly simulate it at all. So whatever CM does with its 3rd dimension (and it does a whole lot!) makes it much more realistic than the others by very simple comparison. And that means more realistic tactics and outcomes are possible. For me, that is what I am after.

CM is the first game that I have to use the real stuff and not the gamey stuff. In fact, many people (testers and demo players) have tried to be gamey out of curiosity or habit. In every case I have seen it has resulted in punishment, or at least no reward. The opposite of this, in my personal opinion, is the likes of Steel Panthers. I bought a copy of it and stopped playing it out of frustration because real tactics were punished and gamey ones won you the game. A lot had to do with the IGOUGO system, but a whole lot of it had to do with the short shift simulation of the physical world.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Several posts above I stated:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For infantry the 3rd dimension is not as crucial as vehicles, but it still is very important.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought I would provide an example here. In a standard 2D wargame there is no angle of fire. You might get a bonus for a height advantage, but not likely, and if so it will be crude at best (also probably leaving loopholes). However, in CM height AND angle are taken into account automatically. If you are 10 meters in front of a 2 story building, and someone is on the top floor shooting down at you, this is extra bad for the unit's state (mostly morale, but also pinning and such). In a 2D game this would have to be specifically coded, and that is why it often is absent.

Why is this so important? Do a Search and you will find several threads started and/or contributed to by machinegunners from armies around the world. This was something that was specifically asked about. Why? Because it is important and is not generally simulated.

Another example of why this 3D is important to troops. A unit behind a wall is protected only to the degree that the height of the wall, friendly distance from the wall, enemy distance from the wall, and enemy's shooting angle say it is. If the shooter is down hill, then the unit behind the wall is in an ideal spot. If the shooter is above, then perhaps being behind the wall offers NO protection. This is in addition to the age old problem of "which side of the wall is the unit on" in hex based wargames. In CM there is no confusion. You are behind it or you aren't depending on where your unit is in relation to the enemy's. No ambiguity.

Just some more food for thought

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-03-2000).]

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have been a wargamer long enough to know I'm in a very small minority here and that most players prefer absurd amounts of control over their forces.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Minority perhaps, but certainly not alone. My game group is currently developing two sets of miniture rules (1 Napoleonic, 1 ACW) and the focus is on division command. We are attempting to take the total control of the battalions/regiments away from the player. We've gotten some good results, but its not quite there yet.

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

---

Dan Brown

dbrown@owc.net

[Guest Big Time Software]

The ability to abstract command and control becomes easier with each level of command UP from Platoon. This is because the level of abstraction of the physical world inherently becomes greater by necesity. So trying to make a command level game at the National, Army Group, Army, Corps, and Divisional levels quite doable in theory. Regimental is probably also doable, but is as low down as you can get without compromising the realism aspects. Trying to do a command level game for anything from Battalion down is not viable in our opinion. The reasons why are stated above, but the main one is the actual position of a tank is very important, but the actual position of a Company of tanks is not. The former is a 1:1 relationship with the physical world, while the later is 20+ vehicles in some highly abstracted positions. One leaves very little room for abstraction if realism is to be maintained, the other allows a great degree of abstraction and yet can still maintain claims to realism.

So to recap, CM's level of simulation is too low to have it be a command level game. Well, unless you have dozens of humans under you doing your command biddings. That is called the Army, and you can't get more realistic than that

Steve

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That is called the Army, and you can't get more realistic than that<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've always found the Marine Corps to be more realistic... I couldn't resist

[Rick]

Steve,

Two questions for you.

1. At what point do you consider the 3rd dimension to stop mattering? In other words squad level (CM proves that 3d is important here), platoon, company, etc.

2. When I first started playing computer wargames there were many simultaneous execution games. Gary Grigsby for one designed almost exclusively WEGO games. Recently however, this superior, IMHO, method has been abandoned for the most part. Any ideas as to why?

[Andy Brown]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My point here is that your "ideal" wargame is inherently flawed from a realism standpoint.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really mate. It just means that I'm prepared to accept a greater degree of abstraction.

Some time ago, I clearly remember you commenting that luck is a significant factor in CM (something about some guy concluding Riesberg was heavily German-biased after one playing and getting his clock cleaned by the Americans the second time around). Presumably, both results were realistically achievable but the large difference between them, and the occasional need on this board to justify statistical "outliers", does make me wonder whether the result of all this physical world simulation is, in the end, any more efficient than feedback generated by more abstract methods.

Once again, I have to stress that I'm not arguing AGAINST CM's 3D model. I agree completely that it takes wargaming to a new level. I agree that, provided you have correctly translated real world physics into the CM universe , it IS a more creditable way of providing me with feedback than any previous system.

I do feel that the 3D environment or lack of it is not the reason for gamey tactics in inferior games. It is the complete bastardisation of the 4th dimension, time, in alternate move systems, the use of "undo" keys and the ability to move one unit step-by-step before committing its fellows that is almost entirely responsible for this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you want to play the role of Battalion commander, the AI would be responsible for moving all your units 98% of the time. Not only is that really boring sounding, but it also is asking more from the AI than can be expected of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the AI does this now when I'm playing the computer. OK, it doesn't do the job that I would do if I was micro-managing its forces but I'm sure most people reading this board have been pushed by the AI on occasion. Surely, the AI can move my units as well as it can the enemy's?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Damn, lost power in the middle of posting

3D is not very important to games where the smallest unit is a Company or larger. While 3D terrain can add a higher degree of fidelity to movement rates and combat factors, other things like LOS and general physics don't really benefit from it.

3D is critical for games where units are Squad or lower. 3D affects everything so fundamentally that to ignore it, or give it an overly abstract treatment, harms the accuracy of the simulation to a great degree.

Platoon unit sizes stradle the two groups. LOS and physics are still important, but not as much as lower and far more than higher. Terrain factors are, however, nearly as important as lower level games.

There are basically two forms of WeGo games:

1. Simultaneous - all orders are preregistered and carried out at the same time. i.e. two tanks can shoot at the same exact milisecond.

2. Tunrn based - all orders are preregistered and carried out one unit at a time. i.e. two one shoots, the round hits, then tank two shoots and the round hits. NEVER can they shoot and hit at the same time.

CM is one of a very few number of games that does simultaneous WeGo. TacOps is another that I can think of right now (wonder why ), but I can't think of any other wargame at the moment.

A strategic level wargame like War In Russia is somewhere inbetween. Several units would attack at once, but only one battle at a time was resolved. Likewise, one unit would move its entire movement path before another unit could move. This type of system produces highly unrealistic results very, very often.

The difference between the two systems is felt more with each additional unit and with the more rapid the attacks. Strategic level games can get away with more, tactical less.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-04-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not really mate. It just means that I'm prepared to accept a greater degree of abstraction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Degree of abstraction and realism are, in practical terms, the same thing. So in fact we are agreeing At some point an abstraction goes too far and thus harms the realism of what it is simulating. The further the abstraction the greater the harm. At CM's level ignoring the 3D nature of a tank's position is a HUGE abstraction that produces totally unrealistic results nearly each and everytime a shot is fired. The end result is a wargame that is more game than wargame. In other words, Steel Panthers is closer to Panzer General in many ways than it is closer to Combat Mission.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Presumably, both results were realistically achievable but the large difference between them, and the occasional need on this board to justify statistical "outliers", does make me wonder whether the result of all this physical world simulation is, in the end, any more efficient than feedback generated by more abstract methods.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally disagree Think of it in terms of flight sims...

Game One - allows planes to dive, climb, role, etc. according to the best possible physics of that can be modeled in a home computer.

Game Two - planes can not do anything but go faster and slower, turn on a dime, and do not bank while doing so.

Would ANYBODY question that Game Two is so far from reality that it has very little degree of realism? That is what my point is. CM simulates major, fundamental elements that are JUST as critical as those mentioned above for flight sims. So any game that abstracts these, or in most cases ignores them, can not be considered to be in the same league.

[additional note here... even if Game One and Two came up with the same end result for a given battle does NOT mean that they are reasonably similar in terms of realism. This is the same reason why so many people, myself included, have huge problems with Dupy's Qunatified Judgement Model.]

As far as statistical "outliers", these are POSITIVE things in terms of gameplay and realism. Why? Because they happened in real life, so they should happen in Combat Mission. The problem is many gamers aren't used to the realistic aspects of these outliers and therefore question CM's simulation capabilities instead of their understanding of warfare. It is an educational sort of thing that we are more than happy to discuss.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Once again, I have to stress that I'm not arguing AGAINST CM's 3D model. I agree completely that it takes wargaming to a new level. I agree that, provided you have correctly translated real world physics into the CM universe , it IS a more creditable way of providing me with feedback than any previous system.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, I understand you and thank you for the support. What I am trying to illustrate here is that the level of abstraction that you are comfortable with has a significant impact on realism. Once again, I say there is NOTHING wrong with high levels of abstraction so far as people adjust their notion of realism in relation. Personally, I thought Steel Panthers was a disappointment in terms of realism and therefore had to stop playing it. But I do understand that SP is a great warGAME and therefore hold no grudges against it. Just wasn't my cup of tea

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I do feel that the 3D environment or lack of it is not the reason for gamey tactics in inferior games. It is the complete bastardisation of the 4th dimension, time, in alternate move systems, the use of "undo" keys and the ability to move one unit step-by-step before committing its fellows that is almost entirely responsible for this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you here to a large degree. As I stated somewhere above, CM's simultaneous WeGo system is the single biggest contribution to advancing realism in wargaming. However, a 3D physical world with detailed treatment of things like terrain, LOS, ballistics, etc. is a very close second. The cool thing is that the two compliment each other and reinforce each others positive aspects. So a wargme that is SimulWeGo without 3D will eliminate many of the gamey aspects of a IGOUGO game, bunt SimulWeGo with 3D can get rid of even more problems.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But the AI does this now when I'm playing the computer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes and no. It actually moves things around much the way a human would, so its units are micromanaged just as much, and just as unrealistically, as a human's are. And if the AI was to be in charge of moving your units around, what the heck would you do all game long? A Company or Battalion commander had little impact on a battle in progress in WWII (and to a great degree, even today). So taking away unit control to a realistic degree leaves no game Do a Search on this topic as it has been covered in great detail several times already.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-04-2000).]

[Colin]

Reality is 3 Dimensional!!!! Oh crap!!! You had to tell me now!!!! Well, it certainly explains a lot. Thanks guys!!

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

"I'm tired of quotes, tell me what you know"

-Mark Twain

[paullhr]

Steve, in my last post i just wanted to point that a game couldn't recreate totaly, and i mean totaly in an absolut way, reality. But i must agree, as i do since i begun playing CM that 3D is absolutly necessairy to simulate as closely as possible reality. I just wanted to point that what i search in a game is enjoyement. After all i certainly bought enough games that were just piece of ****. I'm eager to play and enjoye myself with CM.

P S when i talk about CM to my friends i certainly present all the avantages 3D gives to wargaiming

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well said. Any game element, 3D, 2D, setero sound, charts, whatever is just that; a game element. It can make the game more accurate, or less, more fun, or boring as paint drying on a wall. 3D itself, like anything else, is neutral in respect to fun and excitement. I've played plenty of 2D wargames that suck, and I have played plenty of 3D ones that rot just as bad.

As you say, no game will ever totally simulate reality. There is nothing wrong with admitting that, nor trying to do the best that one can to overcome challenges to make the game more realistic. CM is the most realistic wargame out there, but it is certainly not totally realistic or untouchable to future competition. 3D is one of the major elements that makes it so realistic and, for many, so enjoyable too

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-05-2000).]

[Rick]

Thanks Steve,

Your answers were very enlightening, especially the one about WeGo.

You definitely explain the difference between say PacWar, War in Russian and Combat Mission as far as turn resolution is concerned. Those are probaly my two favorite games other than Combat Mission BTW. I seem to remember reading that you really like WiR.