Andy Brown Posted January 5, 2000 Share Posted January 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Great. That's exactly what I want. If it can do it for itself, then it can do it for me!! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And if the AI was to be in charge of moving your units around, what the heck would you do all game long?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd be playing more games, for one thing. Steve, I hate the American opening move in Riesberg. (I use Riesberg because I think that the Americans start the game with the most units in the demo scenarios, although I haven't looked at the CE Germans yet). It takes me about 10 minutes as the company commander to come up with a workable plan. I then spend about an hour plotting waypoints. In this respect, CM is its own worst enemy. Because of CM's level of detail, you have to take care with every order you plot: You mess around with camera one trying to select good fire positions for your units to move to. It's hard because even camera one does not give you an accurate indication of what a unit can see exactly from any given spot. You finally select an endpoint for a unit. You plot a covered route to it. You then check the route from camera one to make sure you're covered from all the places you think the enemy might be. You mess around with the LoS tool, trying to get a feel for distances between various points so you can roughly coordinate the movement of various elements. You replot a couple of times to give you an extra waypoint so the left flank squad can Run some of the way to make up for the woods it has to advance through. You do this 32 times!! You have to take this much care because the enemy is unforgiving if you don't. By his own admission, Fionn's latest replay is a perfect example of what happens when you approach a game in a slap-dash manner. Rightly or wrongly, I doubt I will ever play the battalion-size scenarios promised in the final release. There will simply be too many units for me to be bothered moving. I realise once again that this is just my opinion and that others love the game the way it is but I can't believe I'm completely alone in disliking this micro-management. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the micromanagement shouldn't be there. Someone has to move my squads and support weapons. I just don't want it to be me. What I would like to be able to do is take a platoon, give it a task, say fire support, a location to fire from and a target area to fire into. Then I want to click Go and watch it carry out its orders. That is the kind of thing that battlefield company commanders do. They do not bypass the platoon and section commanders and site each squad and support weapon personally. What would I be doing while this was going on? Fighting the rest of my company battle in about a tenth of the real time it takes me to do so under the present system. When it comes to moving squads and siting weapons, the AI may not do a perfect job but it CAN do it a hell of a lot faster than I can. Cheers, Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted January 5, 2000 Share Posted January 5, 2000 Aye but my losses are due to a plan which is poor (since I figured I'd simply roll over Rick and didn't expect this much resistance) and not due to slapdash tactical maneuvring. A strategic flaw if you will. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted January 5, 2000 Share Posted January 5, 2000 Andy - possibly you know it already, but there will be two types of group moves in the final version, a click and drag one and what I call "formation select". They are explained in detail at CMHQ. Needless to say this speeds up plotting waypoints and orders in general quite a lot. You might still need to finetune this order or that for single units, but you'll be able to get a general plan very quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolColJ Posted January 5, 2000 Share Posted January 5, 2000 ANdy!! I agree 100% with you I'm a lazy gamer, the less I do the more fun I get! I hate micromanagent witha capital "H". That's why I used to love those old SSG games, where you could control the Regiment HQ, and the AI would move the regiment's divisions around, with regard to your orders, posture and frontage settings. I guess I'm more of a movie watcher Tac AI is my best friend ------------------ ------------------ CCJ BLITZ_Force My HomePage -----> www.geocities.com/coolcolj/ [This message has been edited by CoolColJ (edited 01-05-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 5, 2000 Share Posted January 5, 2000 Andy, please understand that my strong opinions are not directed at you, but at the game you think you want. The reality is there is no game in what you are describing You might think there is one, but we have been doing game design, and putting them into code, for 12 man years between the two of us. On top of that we have been playing games for as long as anybody else here has been. I personally have played a game or two that tried to do what you are describing. In short, we have a fairly deep understanding about what makes a game work and not work before it is coded. Simply put, command level games are oxymorons <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Great. That's exactly what I want. If it can do it for itself, then it can do it for me!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Er... I think you missed everything else I had to say about this. Booring. Not because there is no micromanagement, but because there is no game. What you call micromanagement, to a large degree, we call tactics. The deployment of MMGs, bazookas, etc. is not a dreary task, but a critical component of tactics and strategy. If you let the AI do this for you, there is little to no reason for you to play the game at all since there is nothing left to do. Any monkey can say "take that hill" and let the AI do it for him. There is no skill or challenge in such a game system. The skill comes in the HOW you take the hill, and that is what CM is all about. It is NOT a command level game, nor will it ever be. Simple reason is that there is no game at CM's level of simulation. If CM was simulating Regimental games at the Squad level, then there might be something to explore, but not Battalion or lower. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What I would like to be able to do is take a platoon, give it a task, say fire support, a location to fire from and a target area to fire into. Then I want to click Go and watch it carry out its orders. That is the kind of thing that battlefield company commanders do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If the AI did all the tactics for you a game the size of Riesberg would take about 50 minutes, 40 of which would be watching the movies crunch and replay, to complete. Now, you might think that is ideal, we do not because those 10 minutes of interaction with the game system lacks any play value worth mentioning. That is why CM wasn't designed like that. Command level games suck ass. So much so that only a few have ever tried to make them. All died horrible deaths. Nobdoy wanted them. The main reason is that they weren't fun, nor was there anything for the human to do. Plus, the AI never does things the way you want, and therefore a high degree of frustration is introduced. And, ironically, they weren't at all realistic. I STRONGLY encourage you to do a search on this subject. There have been several lengthy and informed discussions on this. You say you want to play the role of Battalion or Company commander? Realistically this would be issuing ONE set of orders if you were Battalion commander, a few more if you were Company commander. That is the reality of the control these guys had once a firefight started. "Take that hill" is about the extent of things. Why on earth would anybody want to waste their time watching the AI play itself game in and game out? That is what we are talking about here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You do this 32 times!! You have to take this much care because the enemy is unforgiving if you don't. By his own admission, Fionn's latest replay is a perfect example of what happens when you approach a game in a slap-dash manner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that this is mostly a "you have to get used to the system" sort of thing. I can do the initial deployment and planning for a scenario the size of Riesberg in about 15 minutes, tops. The vast majority is thinking about what I want to have happen, not tinkering around with game mechanics. It now takes me less time now that we have group moves. If I sat there using the LOS tool and the cameras for each and every unit it would take me over an hour. But such micromanagement is NOT necessary once you get the intuitive knack for how the game system works. Some people get it sooner than others, so don't worry if you haven't found the groove yet Conclusion... BTS will never make a combat commander level game, ever. They have no merrit as a game, and little to no merrit as a simulation of command and control. It is simply a waste of our time as it won't be enjoyable for 98% of the gamers out there. Again, check out the previous discussions about this for more info. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 5, 2000 Share Posted January 5, 2000 CoolColJ, your post made me burst out laughing I had a face to face chat with Roger Keating (SSG's driving force) about the Battlefront game series you speak of. It was a horrible disaster from a sales standpoint Hardly anybody liked it, including (from what I could tell) Roger himself. I purchased one of them and gave up after playing about 2 scenarios. There was NO game there, the AI did everything wrong, and it wasn't even realistic in terms of command and control. It was like watching paint dry in rain. I told all this to Roger, plus the fact I tried in vain to return it, and he put his head down and laughed along with everybody else in the room. Nobody else seemed to like it either. Hehe... I even have that on tape as it was during a roundtable discussion at the Computer Games Developers Conference some 5 years or so ago. So, each to his own I say, but I also say that BTS will never try to do a command level game. Not just because few will buy it, but because we won't want to play it ourselves Quick answer for Rick... yup, besides Combat Mission, I don't think I have played any wargame more than War In Russia. Limitations and flaws noted, that game totally rocked! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 6, 2000 Share Posted January 6, 2000 Cool, I liked PacWar better, but they were both awesome. The release of the updates of these games at TGN just may be the second biggest wargaming event of the year after Combat Mission. I'm on the don't like the command simulation side of this discussion. If we were talking a training simulation here it would be differnt. However, a game's main purpose is fun and the limitations imposed by the real abilities of commanders in the field make that kind of game sound pretty boring. If we go far enough into the future, I think that will be different. I hear that someday we will have soldiers like in Aliens, with the real-time video communication with HQ etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Brown Posted January 6, 2000 Share Posted January 6, 2000 Steve, I did keep mentioning that I clearly understood I was in a minority when it came to wargame likes and dislikes... In my opinion, SSG's Battlefront Game System is the best operational level wargame system I have ever come across I was bitterly disappointed when they chose not to develop it further but to take the new direction that became TAO. Accepting that I am not going to convert you to my attitude on wargames anytime soon ... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Any monkey can say "take that hill" and let the AI do it for him. There is no skill or challenge in such a game system<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A tactical problem does not become less challenging because one groups one's forces into a lesser, more manageable, number of manoeuvre elements that realistically correspond to the span of command appropriate to the player's alter ego. Riesberg as the Americans would be just as demanding if, instead of 32 separate units, your forces consisted of a Company's HQ, mortars and machine guns, 5 rifle platoons, 2 tank sections and some artillery. Sending a platoon to "take that hill" is going to cause the monkey a lot of grief if the forces defending the hill are stronger than that platoon can handle. The player may have nothing to do for 10 minutes while the platoon completes its approach (something that I, personally, would prefer to plotting waypoints ) but he had better be on the ball with fire support, reserves and alternative tactical options when that platoon runs into trouble. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> those 10 minutes of interaction with the game system lacks any play value worth mentioning.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wrong. In those 10 minutes of interaction, you win or lose the game in exactly the same way you would win or lose any game of CM, but... Because you only took 10 minutes, (because the computer did all the grunt-work - pun intended ) you've got time to play it again! Moon Yes, I saw that. Hope it works better than the "A" key in SP But seriously. Between that and the Tac AI, basic tools to do what I want are already partially in place, natural developments of the CM system. I accept that they may not be developed the way that I, personally, would like them to be but their presence in the game surely suggests that the gap between CM and me is not SO great? CoolColJ It's a wilderness here, mate. It's nice to know I'm not quite alone Cheers, Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted January 6, 2000 Share Posted January 6, 2000 Not quite a full wilderness, Andy, because I agree with many of your points. Although not necessarily in application to CM. I do recall earlier, Andy, that you posed the question as to whether or not a similar game system (at least the WEGO element) could be applied to a PLATOON-level game, similar to TalonSoft's Campaign Series (EF/WF). In truth, I would prefer a platoon-level game too in addition to CM. At platoon-level, it's easier to utilize higher formations (companies, battalions, and even brigades) as maneuver elements than at the squad-level. Certainly, platoon-level would mean more abstraction than the squad-level of CM as a trade-off, but the trick is how to balance this trade-off for a CONSISTENT game that is still playable and realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted January 6, 2000 Share Posted January 6, 2000 I wonder if, with all this horses**t, there might not be a pony somewhere. If CM's muliplayer ability were enhanced (far in the future, after the hopefully IMMINENT release of v. 1.0), it would be possible to have platoon commander/players each operating their unit(s) in the time and scale of CM. They would then file their reports (sim of radio) to the company, who would manually update his map to reflect the status of units the report seems to indicate. Ideally this would include automatic update of units within his (the CO's) line of sight. Company commanders would in return report to the monkey at battalion who told them to take the hill. He in turn would update his map, augmenting the automatic updates made based on his LOS to the action. Thus action junkies play on the map and plot the tedious waypoints, while command & control types try to figure out what's happening and issue more general orders verbally via sim-radio or sound powered phone (sim with e-mail, natch). Their mapping ability would be the key to control, augmented by their ability to "look around" their field of view. Commanders would have no direct control over unit movement and fire control. I saw a version of this in the Army, which met with some success. Lower level commanders were in a gym with the sand table full of microarmor, but reported via PRC77 to higher level commanders in other rooms outside, who in return reported up, etc. The misreporting of locations and misidentification and numeration of enemy were not only humorous to behold after the fact, but as realistic as you can get when it comes to FOW. It makes you realize just how important AND impotent remote command can be in real time battlefields. PS: Random communications outages (no reports from certain units for periods of time) would be a vital component of realism in such a model. I think a lot of elements required for this are already in CM, the most important being a sound 3D battlefield sim to begin with. I would bet coordinating human players would prove a bigger challenge than coding the game mechanics to allow for individual unit control and multilevel communications. I used to update the maps in a forward command post (TOC) for a 2-star during Reforgers, etc., and this is how it works (or fails to). It is amazing how little you really know at higher levels during an all-out battle, including the status of entire brigades for periods of time. What do you think? I have fantasized about a game that would work like this, but the logisitics of pulling it off with multiple humans are daunting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 6, 2000 Share Posted January 6, 2000 Good points Andy, even better discussion This is definately an "each to his own" sort of thing. For me, and the majority of folks (not rubbing that in your face at all), the tactical challenges and game enjoyment come from utilizing weapons/troops to the best effect to achieve some goal. The thrill, for folks like me, does not come from "take this hill" and kicking back for 10 minutes to see if it works. The ends are not what we are looking for in a game, but the means. Frankly, I could care less if my guys take the hill or not. The enjoyment comes from trying. So games that are like Battlefront just don't provide anything for me to enjoy (BTW, in 20 years that was the ONLY computer game I tried to return ). Steve P.S. multi-multi player is something we might do in the distant future, but not any time soon. HUGE amount of work needed for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Brown Posted January 6, 2000 Share Posted January 6, 2000 Steve, I'm not about to launch into a vigorous defence of the BGS here but I would point out that it WAS created pre Mac/PC. How good would Combat Mission be if you had to develop it on an Apple ][+ ? Cheers, Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 7, 2000 Share Posted January 7, 2000 Cripes, I called it "Battlefront" again, didn't I!?! I always do that For the record I have been talking about BattleGround by SSG, not the Battlefront series by TS. Granted the game was done a long time ago, but the degree of control you are looking for is the same. Therefore it is pretty easy to reconcile the limitations of the day (especially the AI) with what the game would be like today. Personally, a Combat Mission with a BGS style command system simply won't give me what I want in a game or a simulation. Therefore I not only have no interest in playing such a game, but also no interest in developing one. I know that Charles feels the same way, as well as the vast majority of gamers, so such a game will never come out of our shop. Each to his own Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts