Jump to content

What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Hister said:

 

Doug said CM gets thing right in this regard so it is not that he is saying CM is not getting things right - even on the start line casualty source are portrayed right in CM according to him.  

Not saying CM gets anything wrong. Not doubting artillery was the major killer. But I think comparing artillery kill rates over the entire war to small arms kill rates on any given day where a soldier goes into direct combat is making an apple to oranges comparison :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Returning to the basic premise of what CM does right and what wrong in regard to historical plausibility here is what I came up with, point by point, as the Austrian laid it out:
 

1. All or nothing aspect

- CM portrays wounded and missing in action. 

- Damaged vehicles (but not a total loss) are modeled. 

- No soldier and vehicle "health bars".

- You don't have to always completely wipe out the enemy to win like in most other games (depends on the scenario of course) -> bloodiest historical battles where 40 to 50% casualty rates were logged can be replicated in the game easily, as well as simulating lower intensity encounters (but those are harder to come by). The caveat in CM is that losses are usually higher then what real life situations would be due to us players pushing our troops harder and being less careful with our pixeltroopen lives then what real commanders would do. Plus real soldiers would probably disobey suicide tasks that we easily execute with our pixeltroopen.

Notable exceptions are campaign missions which promote preserving your soldiers life (excellent CM George's Von Schroif campaign for example)

 

2. Only warriors allowed aspect

- CM is guilty of this aspect. Non combat units are represented only minimalistically in the shape of supply units (am I forgetting any other unit?). In it's defense the scope of the game is focused mostly on tactical battles where non combat units weren't present in big numbers due to them being delegated to the rear of the front. 

 

3. Total information aspect

- CM doesn't give you total information of your enemy and this is true for scenario briefings which wildly differ in how much info about the enemy you get and also in the actual tactical battles themselves where you can not even have the enemy number and composition estimates. Having a total information on your units is present though but I find it hard how the game of this scope could tick this particular point off the list without making the game too irritable to play.  

-CM doesn't provide hit chances to the player. 

- Moral value of units is available to the player but not in percentages or other numerical numbers so this is 50/50. I personally think the way game conveys this information is optimal in the given scope of it. 

- Omnipresence, certainty and precision differ wildly from scenario to scenario in CM but in sum are not as in your face like in many other war games. CM is especially good when it comes to battles themselves where if played on Iron mode the game really shines with it's stellar C&C information modelling. 

- Losing contact with your units is partially modeled in CM (units being more brittle, easier to scoop, lose morale, no enemy positions info being passed to them, etc.) but you can never lose the ability to command those units that are out of the C&C. You can for example order your mortar team that is out of contact of C&C network to strike a specific point that you as a player know sports a MG nest but your mortar team would not be able to themselves know about. House rules need to apply here in order to be able to really simulate this aspect of the real thing. That said CM to my knowledge is THE game that comes as close as possible to it while not inhibiting the player too much in gameplay itself.  

- Vehicles in CM are portrayed right by them being more blind then their infantry counterpart (true for CM ww2 titles) and are more successful when supported by infantry. 

- Vehicle damage indicator is fully known to the player and thus CM games are the same in this aspect as other games so CM "fails" in this regard.     

- Vehicle repair on the active battlefield is not possible so that is a plus for CM. 

- CM doesn't have production lines for vehicles, etc so knowing exactly when something will come off the assembly line does not apply to it. 

 

4. Total control aspect

- Troops (foot grunts, vehicles) in CM do not always blindly follow your orders (example no control when the unit's is pinned, moral plummets, etc.) but you as a player are still able to send units in a certain death outcome situation with no soldiers complaining so this is not fully covered by CM but still comes quite close.

- There is no country production efficiency modeled so the point about players having unrealistically omnipotent ability to streamline the country they play as does not apply in CM games. 

 

5. How enjoyable to play are realistic aspects of the game 

- CM rocks especially because the realistic aspects discussed here in the tactical battles that you play are very enjoyable, enhance the overall gaming experience in the positive way, make the game stand out a lot from the WW2 crowd and don't hinder the gameplay in any way. Players need to learn about these plausible game mechanics and learning them is a lot of fun and mastery of different game aspects is especially rewarding. CM offers a lot of educational value without the political/religious involvement of what is portrayed and what isn't with a little caveat that atrocities like killing civilians as a punitive measure for the partisan activities and setting villages ablaze of course aren't modeled (CMRT where such historical actions were part of the retreating German army tactics).  

 

ANALYSIS  

OK, these are most if not all the points the channel creator points out as far as I was able to discern out of the video  - there are 17 major points that he makes in total. Let's count point by point how many of these things CM games do right, partially right, how many fail to deliver and how many can't be applied to it due to the nature of the game in question:

- 3 of 17 points made are not applicable to CM games due to their nature/scope. 

- 1 of 17 points fails entirely in CM (vehicle module damage information could be improved in the game - player should not be given immediate info on what parts of the ingame vehicle modules got damaged or destroyed, for the most part that is).

- 5 of 17 points are done partially "right" (gameplay limits apply here so not much that can be improved here on most accounts).

- 8 of 17 points are modeled exactly as pointed out they should be by the channel creator.

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

Due to the nature/scope of CM games where only tactical level of battles are portrayed there are only 14 points that pertain to them.  Of these here is what the results tell us in percentages:

57% of these CM games simulate to the letter.

36% of these CM simulates partially, on at least 50/50 level if not more in the given gameplay limits of course.

7% of these CM games fail to deliver

This is why CM games are the king of those that do tactical battlefields. No other game comes as close to these numbers as CM games do to my knowledge. I'ts hard to bypass 93% done right or mostly right by other war game developers. 

 

Hope you guys enjoyed these number crounching as much as I did. :)
 

Cheers,

Hister

Edited by Hister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Not saying CM gets anything wrong. Not doubting artillery was the major killer. But I think comparing artillery kill rates over the entire war to small arms kill rates on any given day where a soldier goes into direct combat is making an apple to oranges comparison :)

 

That most certainly is, no qualms there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IanL said:

Cool. Time to create a YouTube channel and post it over some game play footage :)

Then we can all link to your video in the comments on his channel. Wait would that be considered annoying him? Perhaps, but who cares :D

Ha ha, if he is stubborn and annoyed enough due to his lack of time then it could only make it worse and block him for ever wanting to have anything to do with CM games. According to his previous reaction that is a far more plausible result then him finally realizing what a schmuck he was avoiding the game under the pretense he has no time for all this time. ;)

That said I will post my findings as a comment below the video in question, maybe a couple of people who previously were not aware of CM games would direct their radar towards them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Josey Wales said:

You should definitely create a response video with this information. Good effort. 

I have never created any youtube video myself. I give you the licence to kill..., erm to shoot the video containing this information Josey. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was only joking about trying to annoy him.

 

46 minutes ago, Hister said:

That said I will post my findings as a comment below the video in question, maybe a couple of people who previously were not aware of CM games would direct their radar towards them. 

Good idea.

 

12 minutes ago, Josey Wales said:

You should definitely create a response video with this information. Good effort. 

Even better.

But yeah I have very little interest in making a video that features me so I totally get it. A few game play videos is enough for me and even then I have not made one in a loooooong time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hister said:

1 of 17 points fails entirely in CM (vehicle module damage information could be improved in the game - player should not be given immediate info on what parts of the ingame vehicle modules got damaged or destroyed, for the most part that is).

I don't agree with this one, my friend. The info we are actually given when something is damaged is pretty generic and would be known pretty quickly by the crew. These guys eat, sleep and live in these vehicles. It'd be no different than you noticing a weird ticking in your car the minute you start it because you deal with it everyday. A passenger might not notice, but you will because you live with that car and are trained through your use of it. You won't know exactly what is wrong but you'll know it isn't normal.

For instance some of the subsystems on a vehicle would be:

Engine

Radio

Wheels/Tracks

Weapon Controls

Gyrostabilizer

When something is damaged we get an indicator from light green all the way to dark red (which measures severity). Lets pretend the engine takes a minor hit that results in yellow. This indicator is not saying; "That last round partially penetrated the engine compartment and we have some minor damage to the radiator". it's telling us maybe the driver notices that the engine isn't responding exactly as it should, maybe some dings, pings, and knocks alert him when he tries to reverse that something is wrong. Or if the radio is knocked out (red), the TC notices 'cause when he speaks into it he gets no reaction or it's sparking and smoking, or whatever. If the weapon controls are damaged (yellow), the gunner is gonna know 'cause he can't get the the weapons to react the way he'd like. And with specific weapons it would be the same thing; (red) "Sgt. the 50 cal won't fire, must be knocked out!"  (red) "Hey, I can't load the HE round, the breach is bent, the main gun must be knocked out!" Or with the tracks, (yellow)  "Hey Sgt, the tank is shuttering when I turn, the tracks must've took a hit." Etc.

 

See, the genius of the CM vehicle damage system is that it isn't specific but leaves open to interpretation what actually happened. The green, yellow, red squares are just guides.

 

Therefore, I nominate with this post, that vehicle damage be removed from the "Gets It Wrong" column and placed in the glorious and magical  "Gets It Right" column!

 

 

Mord.

 

P.S. I still don't like that guy anymore.

 

 

Edited by Mord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha, you are right Mord, mostly. I don't fully agree with you. When the vehicle is hit the systems damaged or destroyed are shown almost immidiately while the crew is still reeling from the impact and couldn't have possibly tested all the systems.

I would fix this point to "partially right" as per your argumentation. Do you agree?

 

I don't dislike him. I know how I am when I am overloaded with work - not very disposable. 😙😉 

Edited by Hister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Hister said:

I would fix this point to "partially right" as per your argumentation. Do you agree?

That seems like a good compromise. As @Hister says the information shows up right away - even before the crew could figure it out. But as @Mord says the crew *would* know the condition of their vehicle.

The issue stems from CM's modelling of all levels of command. The tank crew should know the condition of their vehicle - perhaps not instantaneously - but the company CO, Battalion CO and the player gets too much information because they have access to everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. I'll meet you half way. We'll call this one neutral. 

We should also note that:

A.) We can get details on hits. But that can be turned off, so again, neutral.

B.) If a vehicle is knocked out you will never know what happened to it if the crew is all killed or they bail before you can pause to check. Or you forward the turn before pausing to check.

I think CM's system for dealing with this is really good and in this case I think game play and enjoyment trumps realism. Though maybe waiting a turn before you know what was damaged wouldn't be a bad idea, I just don't know if it could be implemented or if it would have any real impact on game play. And in the case of part "B.)" you would never find out what happened.

I'll remove him from the "I don't like him anymore" column to the glorious and magical "I like him" column when he apologizes for being mean to you!

Mord.

Edited by Mord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Not saying CM gets anything wrong. Not doubting artillery was the major killer. But I think comparing artillery kill rates over the entire war to small arms kill rates on any given day where a soldier goes into direct combat is making an apple to oranges comparison :)

 

I mean more that you would never (I hope) set up an OOB without some artillery support. This is fairly consistent between all the titles.

The combined arms team gets their due in CM, you wouldn't leave behind engineers and artillery whereas most games focus on infantry and armour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mord said:

Ok. I'll meet you half way. We'll call this one neutral. 

We should also note that:

A.) We can get details on hits. But that can be turned off, so again, neutral.

B.) If a vehicle is knocked out you will never know what happened to it if the crew is all killed or they bail before you can pause to check. Or you forward the turn before pausing to check.

I agree. From my initial fails I would churn it up to 60-70% meets the point after your arguments. Good job. 

 

5 hours ago, Mord said:

I think CM's system for dealing with this is really good and in this case I think game play and enjoyment trumps realism. Though maybe waiting a turn before you know what was damaged wouldn't be a bad idea, I just don't know if it could be implemented or if it would have any real impact on game play. And in the case of part "B.)" you would never find out what happened.

Oh, I personally have no qualms with the way it is done in the game. I was just basing my observation according to what the Austrian pointed out were the main fails in war games and me merely observing what fails and what doesn't in CM according to how he set the "game rules" up. It would be ok if there wold be a plausible delay in conveying to the player what subsystems were damaged as soon as tank crew would understand what works and what doesn't but it is by no means necessary.  OK at least on paper, actual gameplay experience could annoy many. 

 

5 hours ago, Mord said:

I'll remove him from the "I don't like him anymore" column to the glorious and magical "I like him" column when he apologizes for being mean to you!

Aaaaaawww, thank you Mord. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hister said:

Oh, I personally have no qualms with the way it is done in the game. I was just basing my observation according to what the Austrian pointed out were the main fails in war games and me merely observing what fails and what doesn't in CM according to how he set the "game rules" up. It would be ok if there wold be a plausible delay in conveying to the player what subsystems were damaged as soon as tank crew would understand what works and what doesn't but it is by no means necessary. 

Yeah, I wasn't approaching any of this as your personal opinion. For the most part I was approaching it as you using his outline to critique and argue the game mechanics, with a dash of opinion thrown in. 

 

1 hour ago, Hister said:

OK at least on paper, actual gameplay experience could annoy many. 

It's the happy medium. I mean the player could easily work around it by not viewing the subsystem's tab for a turn. The default setting is whatever you viewed last. Or Ammo. If you keep it on Ammo you won't know. PROBLEM SOLVED! Damn, I am good! Back to "GETS IT RIGHT" column!

 

1 hour ago, Hister said:

Aaaaaawww, thank you Mord. :D

 

10-4, brother!

Edited by Mord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...