Gamey Recon Technique?

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Henri,

Warmaking does not follow man-made rules, because it IS reality.

Wargaming has to involve rules because it is trying to SIMULATE warmaking accurately.

It's best if these rules are part of the code, but there is nothing wrong with players reaching rules agreements for things not addressed by the code.

Take a close look at the Combat Mission Meta Campaign. The only reason that the grand simulation is going to work is because of elaborate, and well thought out rules.

Reality is chaos. Rules are artificially imposed order. If you get enough well executed rules, you SIMULATE chaos. It will never truly BECOME the chaos. And thats a good thing, because I don't want to get shot.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Crap! Then I forgot to turn it on...

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

"The real groundbreaker of CM isn't the 3D modeling, it's the 'holy crap! what the heck was THAT' factor." - Dalem

[Mikeydz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

OK I've been thinking, yes actually intellectualizing, the entire conceptual basis, of this jeep recon issue.

Lets start with the premise that MANY players like to play CM to model, excersise and explore Real World Military Tactics ™ (RWMTs). And to these players the the use of other effective tactics in the game that are not viable RWMTs, like the deep fast suicide jeep recon joy ride (DFSJRJR), represent "gamey tactics" which they find unrealistic and offensive when they play.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is pretty accurate. It's also unfortunate that some players give the immpression that they are offended if someone uses a gamey tactic against them. The real issue is not whether we should be labeling tactics as gamey or not, or if players should use gamey tctics or not. The real issue is players need to clarify from the outset whether they prefer a no-holds-barred game, or one where "RWMT's" rule the day. If people included this info with other obvious items like scenario size, ect, then almost all friction generated because of gameyness issues would be wiped out.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

BUT, the premise that RWMTs can be accurately modeled, excersised and explored is compromised at the Most fundamental level by two game design decisions that I now understand and support.

The foundation of this GREAT game is fundamentally build on top of two fundametally

non-Real World principles, (this is not new and Steve and Charles Designed this game with these issues in mind from the start)

#1 Absolute Spotting (the borg-like instant tranmission of ALL recon intel to all other friendly units)

#2 LOS determination according to Steve's "Method 2" "#2. The trajectory itself is only a binary LOS calculation. Either the shooter can, in theory, get a round from the gun to the target or it can't"

Here's a refresher:

Quoting Steve:

"Method 2 -> On average will come up with the same results as Method 1, but only spews out a realistic number of calculations on the CPU to

crunch. What you lose is the ability for the shell to accidentally strike something between A and B other than terrain. As the link Iggi gave will explain a bit more. Thankfully, the cases where this matters are few and far inbetween.

So there you have it Method 1 and 2 yield pretty much the same results, with the exception of variable blockage (i.e. vehicles). Oh, well, the other difference is that Method 1 would make CM tedious to play and Method 2 works just fine.

So we can see here that two of the fundamental foundation priciples that the game was designed around are at their VERY core, abstractions or approximations of the physics of REALITY to begin with. I personally think these approximations of WWII Combat reality are the VERY BEST approximations and abstractions I have ever seen in a War Game so I am by no means complaining about them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's the problem using these two examples of abstrations together. While both abstractions were made because of hardware issues, the spotting abstaction gives rise to realisim issues, while the LOS calculations do not. As Steve pointed out, both methods produce identical results in alsomt every situation, but method 2 was done because it puts a lighter burden on the CPU, which alows them to lower system requirements for the game, with little effect on the game. The spotting method used in CM was chosen because, at the time the decision had to be made on which way to go as far as spotting, there was no way to even contemplate getting relative spotting in, from a development time and hardware capability viewpoint.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

So this leads me to wonder why so many other players and folks who post here EXPECT so MUCH more REALITY out of the game when these two fundamental prinicples compromise the actaul degree of integrity or reality this game can actually offer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaking for myself, as a non-gamey advocate. I think it is precisly BECAUSE of the spotting abstraction, that I want to look for ways to work within the limitaions of the system to plauable real world results.

As you point out, it's mainly a philosophical difference. I look for ways to make up for limitations presented by the system, while you look for ways to work the system to give you the upper hand. Absolutely nothing wrong with either game play approach. They just are generally incompatible, which is why players need to emphasize from the start what kind of game they are looking to play.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Seems like any attempt to model Accurate WWII Combat reality on top of this contruct that is inherently unrealistic to begin with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I stated above, it all depends on the player. If they want to work with the limitaions to try and simulate RWMTs, then realistic results can be easily had using CM. Since it is patently impossible to ever make a totally realistic game, we have to make do the best we can. And CM is the best game to come along that allows the realistic player to get realistic results.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Its a GAME!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly why people should not get overly worked up if someone doesn't have the same outlook as another player. If I don't make clear at the start that I'm looking for a "non-gamey" game, then I shouldn't get PO'd. Just bite the bullet and finish the game in style. And even if someone does pull a blatently gamey tactic, even after we agree on a "non-gamey" game, just use it as incentive to kick his butt in the game even more.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

IT attempts to model the reality of POST D-Day WWII small unit combat tactics, it does this BETTER than other game out there!

Some one else said it best, No other game models the "Holy Crap! Where the Hell did that come from!" factor like CM currently does.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All I can say to this is 100% on target. No argument from me on this...

[This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 09-23-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Just to clarify how it is we come up with the rules used to simulate reality...

1. We identify a particular "something" (I'll call it "element") that is in need of simulation. That can be anything from the broad (morale) to the narrow (keeping LMGs after casualties).

2. We identify the important componants associated with this element.

3. We then figure out how many of these componants have already been coded up and how many new ones are needed to fill in the gaps.

4. The design for the new rules and modifications to the old are looked at to see how well they will do the job and how practical they are to put into the game.

5. At this point we figure out which ones can be done and which ones can't, then we readjust our designs to use alternatives where the first concepts proved to be impractical.

6. We beat the crap out of this design "on paper" to see if we missed something major or will cause something else to become broken. Repeat step #5 if necessary.

7. Coding time Repeat step #5 if necessary.

8. Play test the crap out of the design "in game"

9. Go back and modify the code if things aren't quite right. Hopefully nothing is majorly wrong or problem causing for something else.

10. Play test for the rest of the game's life to see if more changes are needed. Repeat #9 if problems warrent and time allows.

And there you go

All the time you MUST look at the game's results with a critical eye towards realism, since that is the baseline standard we chose for this game. If something is allowed, and it is not realistic, then we need to go back and fix it to the degree we can. And NEVER do we say that CM is "good enough". CM can always be made better, even if it can never reach perfection.

So we found a problem with light wheeled vehicles being able to do things that are utterly unrealistic and impossible to do even in today's Army. Therefore... we MUST have made a mistake somewhere. That means we had to go back to Step #9 and see how this slip in reality is allowed to happen.

We identified 3 problems:

1. Borgspotting - unit sees something 400m away from any friendly unit and all the other units in the game instantly know that the stuff is there.

2. Unstoppable - defenses against something like a fast moving Jeep are tough to do.

3. Good eyes - fast moving wheeled vehicles have a gerat ability to spot even hidden units in cover.

OK, so how do we fix these two problems?

1. Well... the Borg Spotting is something we can not address. So we have to pass on this for the moment, at least until we have Relative Spotting.

2. As others have stated, using real life and documented examples, we are letting light wheeled vehicles travel off road too fast. Charles basically pulled the existing speed value out of his butt, so trying to say that we shouldn't play around with this number is silly.

3. This is a design flaw and was never intended. The assumption of spotting was based on there being a dedicated driver and at least one additional pair of eyes dedicated on looking around. The problem is that the nature of driving off road in such a vehicle precludes this type of observation due to the fact the vehicle is bouncing all over the place. The driver is concentrating on the path and the passengers are trying to not fly out.

So there you have it. We are going to reduce the speed of light wheeled vehicles off road using Fast. We are also going to limit the ability to spot in Fast to almost nothing. How anybody can argue with this after reading this whole Topic is beyond my comprehension

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-23-2000).]

[Los]

Tom says...

"BUT, the premise that RWMTs can be accurately modeled, excersised and explored is compromised at the Most fundamental level by two game design decisions that I now understand and support."

Well I have to step in here and say something (as usual). WHile there is no argument that there are flaws in the spotting model, this does not seriously diminish CMs viability as a vehicle for exploring and implementing realworld tactics and getting real world outcomes.

I can take CM, and without knowing a single rule,a single calculation or a single terrain effect, make my plans and direct my forces as I would in the field, and the game will return more the same results as I would reasonably expect to happen if I was in the field for real. (Having been in combat arms for 23 years, and led up to company-sized forces in combat this is an area I am qualified to speak on.) And by the way this was pretty much the initial methodolgy BTS used when they gave us beta testers the game. ALmost nothing on how to play the game, (not even how to install it). They just said "here go play it, if you idiots can figure it out in an hour then pretty much anyone can and we're on the right track". I don't have to learn any workaorunds, I don't have to employ any ahistorical tactics to return realistic results after applying realistic tactics. In that regards alone, CM is more "realistic" than any other game that's been out there. In fact, it's been my role (whether self imposed or on purpose) to verify just that, given the way the porgram was written.

That doesn't mean that teh points you bring out are not valid criticism and issues that can be improved in CM2 to return us an even more accurate simulation. There are cases where those flaws can occasionally return annoying results that cost you this or that unit or whatever. However solid legitimate RWMT will pull your ass out of the fire every time despite roadbumps in the game engine. If your premise (I'm not quite sure that it is?) is that CM's modelling of the combat environment is so comprimised that you HAVE to use gamey tactics to win or return accurate results then you are dead wrong.

You already stated that there are some people that prefer to play the game using RWMTs and some that just want to play the game within the limits of its modelling and don't know or don't understand RMWTs or don't give a crap. That's totally cool so long as both players (if it's MP) understand that and make it clear up front.

But if you're going to use "ahistorical" tactics (Maybe that's a better term than "gamey" since that obviously raises your hackles) don't turn around and try and justify it as either "well that's how it did happen for real" (which is what some people here tried to claim but has been clearly refuted) or necessary because the simulation is not accurate enough to portray RWMT, (which is another line of BS).

Los

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 09-23-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

Hi Foobar, you posted that you would be interested in my reply to this:

Foobar Says

"You've taken the time to lay out your position very clearly, which

removes my suspicions of your statements being simply rhetorical. This

last post of yours has exposed a philosophical difference between us."

Tom replies:

Thank-you your post here is equally well thought out and I'm having some diffuculty collecting

my thoughts enough to respond to it intelligently.

Foobar:

"I think that you are possibly over-applying the notion of absolutes. We

play a realistic simulation of combat that is based on rules that *include*

some unrealistic concepts. The inclusion of these unrealistic concepts

does not, by its presence, negate the realism of the game in whole. We

don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

tom:

I like things black and white, has Henri posted there are no rules in war. You are suggesting I'm over applying the

concept of absolutes. I like Absolutes, I like the clear line of distinction between what is balck and what is white. In the

game like to able to play it without some addtional artificial construct (like house rules) as an overly ON top of a set of

rules that attempt to make the simulation of Combat in WWII as realistic as possible but, are inherently NOT realistic

representations of real life LOS determination or intel sharing of Real Life spotting abilities of units in the game. We

differ fundamentally on this one and I'm not sure what else I can add. My suggestion is that CM as it was designed does

not just include some"unrealistic concepts" but was fundamentally designed (due to the given hardware limitations) with

Abosulte Spotting and Method 2 LOS determination which compromise the ability to model any form of WWII combat

"reality" on top of them. So we see that smoke does block LOS, thats great but Pillboxes bunkers and roadblocks do not.

This is not news, but on top of this virutual reality of Absolute spotting and Method 2 LOS determination, BTS has gone

to great lengths to model (in the MOST accurate way possible), all the weapons statistics and capabilities , both strengths

and weaknesses for a TRULY mindboggleing range of WWII weapons form pistols all the way up to airstrikes. This

degree of historical accuracy as modeled in the weapons present in CM gives most of us a really good "feel" for how all

these weapons actaully worked, but all this attention to detail and historical accuracy restes on a foundation of virtual

reality that was a game design decsion to make the game work on the current base model of consumer level computer

hardware and those game design decisions included abstractions in LOS determination and the use of the absolute

spotting model that can be exploited by the DFSJRJR.

Foobar

"It is not a contradiction for people to accept existing "unrealistic"

abstractions in the game, and at the same time strive for realism

wherever possible. We want to get it as close as possible".

I agree we all want to get it as CLOSE as possible and that is why I thought it was appropriate to explain in detail those two

places where it is not as close as possible so we can all suggest ways to make them better. The first task of problem

solving is to explain and describe the problem in detail, that was my goal.

Foobar:

"The reason we talk about jeep recon and not LOS calculating, is that we

can do something about jeep recon. Only BTS can work on LOS, so why

waste our breath on something we can't control?"

tom:

I figured we might all make suggestions as to how both the LOS determination and the absolute spotting issues could be

dealt with as I se both as weak links in the foundation of the game that compromise the rest of the historically acccurate

weapons data and specs that lie on top of them. I would say only BTS can do anything about either one of thiose two

things but they have been remarkably open about listening to suggestions so why not solicit suggestions for future

improvements on both issues.

Foobar:

"I think the "absolutes" concept doesnt work here. It isnt black and

white. I have had this conversation with others, on a different subject.

Trade the word "realism" with "airline safety" and perhaps the concept is

easier to understand."

tom:

We differ philosophically here, I prefer the black and white absolute and prefer to play the game even as it is now without

introducing house rules with regard to tactics. Fionn's rule of 75' is a great way to attempt to set up a nicely balanced

sceanrio, that seems like a fine gentleman's agreement for the intial set-up, no problem there. I think when we sit down

to playu we ALL want to play a scenario or battle where both sides have an equal opporuntiy to win, so the set-up should

include some way to encourage a fair start.

Foobar:

"Flying is not *safe*, or *unsafe*. It has a certain variable level of safety

that we strive to improve as much as possible.

CM is not *realistic* or *unrealistic*. It has a certain level of realism that

we try strive to improve wherever and however we can."

tom:

Some things about CM are amazingly realistic, the attention to detail with regard to all things like unit compositon, OB's

tanks, weapons, even uniforms, and those neffwafen thingy smoke dischargers on German tanks are all modeled so

realistically that all those kinds of things inspire to learn much more about the historical details of WWII than many here

even knew existing. This game does WWII historical detail EXTREME:Y well, in an attention to minute detail kind of

way that REALLY blows me away.

Foobar:

"Now, as far the "House Rules", I don't think you need to worry. I

personally am not worried about the slippery slope of people making

rules. If I dont agree with a wacko concept of realism that someone

applies, I simply won't abide by it. It has to pass the common sense test."

tom:

I'm not worried about the slippery slope.

Foobar

" ALSO, to anyone trying to come up with house rules, they should be

limited to tactics that exploit absolute spotting, and only the most glaring

problems. Unrealistic tactics, in your opinion, that do not exploit the

game should NOT BE TOUCHED. You will be a major buzzkill if you start

trying to tell people how to make a squad of infantry go from point a to

point b."

tom:

For now and until the nest patch where this is fixed, it would seem fair that either both players woudl agree before hand

to abstain from the gamey use of cheap fast recon vehicles like jeeps or both wil agree to play "no holds barred" full

contact CM and amgonst the VG crowd perhaps both will expect the other do anything and everything to win.

At this point those HWGers that want enhanced realism will have to settle for "house rules" that prohibit the use of the

fast jeep recon trick. I'm not really sure what else you wnat me to say about that?

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-23-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks for the post Los. Just one clarification in case people took something too seriously:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They just said "here go play it, if you idiots can figure it out in an hour then pretty much anyone can and we're on the right track"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We never used the words "idiots" to describe our testers. We actually said:

"here go play it, if you rather mentally challenged individuals can figure it out in an hour then pretty much anyone can and we're on the right track"

Just wanted to clear up our good name before someone thought we think poorly of our testing team

Steve

P.S. Have no fear gamers out there! Most of these same "mentally challenged" folks have asked to test CM2, so have no fear about a drop in quality

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tom,

Just to restate the obvious... no matter how much you might like things to be Black and White, almost nothing in the world is. All shades of gray. This is actually the founding principle in CM (Fuzzy Logic) and therefore trying to impose a B&W view about anything in CM, or CM as a whole, is just a waste of brain juices. Might as well say that a person is either a happy person or a sad person. Such clasiffications yield no insights into the real world, but are instead inherently artifical and self limiting.

As Los stated, Combat Mission, abstractions and all, simulates WWII better than any game out there. Even more than that, it simulates it to a degree that is at least in the same ball park as the real world events it attempts to simulate. The fact that there are fundamental limitations and abstractions does not necessarily mean that everything built upon them is inherently flawed. If they were, Los would be the last commander I would ever want to have in charge of my life on the battlefield because it is his professional opinion that CM does simulate real life tactics very well. So in a B&W world, either Los is correct or he is insane

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>At this point those HWGers that want enhanced realism will have to settle for "house rules" that prohibit the use of the

fast jeep recon trick.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er... until the patch comes out Then there will be no need for House Rules because the problem will be largely fixed.

Steve

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Originally Posted by aka_tomw

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My main point after all this is that I am philosophically opposed to gentleman's aggreements and "house rules" that attempt to ban certain tactics because they are unrealistically effective. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Later Posted by aka_tomw

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For now and until the nest patch where this is fixed, it would seem fair that either both players woudl agree before hand

to abstain from the gamey use of cheap fast recon vehicles like jeeps or both wil agree to play "no holds barred" full

contact CM and amgonst the VG crowd perhaps both will expect the other do anything and everything to win.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats all I was pursuing it for Tom. The first quoted statement seems to imply that you don't want to see HWG groups establishing House rules and gentlemen's agreements. Your second quoted statement does not seem to reflect that opinion.

As long as HWG's agree not to look down their nose at the "no holds-barred" players, and the no holds barred players dont DSFJRJR on the HWG's, everything will be fine.

If we cant agree , than we agree to disagree. But when I call it gamey as hell, I am not saying that you cant or shouldnt do it. Just dont do it if you play me.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikeydz:

Here's the problem using these two examples of abstrations together.

While both abstractions were made because of hardware issues, the

spotting abstaction gives rise to realisim issues, while the LOS calculations

do not. As Steve pointed out, both methods produce identical results in

alsomt every situation, but method 2 was done because it puts a lighter

burden on the CPU, which alows them to lower system requirements for

the game, with little effect on the game. The spotting method used in CM

was chosen because, at the time the decision had to be made on which

way to go as far as spotting, there was no way to even contemplate

getting relative spotting in, from a development time and hardware

capability viewpoint.

[This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 09-23-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Mike, I have to rant again...

I must disagree strongly with this point

"while the LOS calculations do not."

When one off my tanks can shoot directly through one of my own tanks AND directly through one of my opponents tanks there is something very wrong with realism. I raised this LOS determination issue precisely because it DOES indeed to lead to a lack of realism. If I can trace the LOF of a round from the main weapon of one of my tanks directly through one my tanks, and a concrete pillbox and wooden bunker and road block AND any enemy tank to actaully target that round to hit the farthest enemy target of my choosing I think there is something VERY fundentally wrong with the way reality is modeled in Method 2 for LOS detemination.

Now I may be ranting about this but I do fully understand that nothing can be done about this at this point, (which is why I introduce the hope for the future being Moore's law).

I still contend that BOTH absolute spotting and Method 2 LOS determination need to be looked at to make the future versions of CM2 MUCH more realistic.

Every time I post I'm always doing so with the intent or agenda to add more realism to the game and to add more Fog of war to the game.

Sorry to single out LOS determination Mikeydz, but in my opinion when pillboxes, bunkers, road blocks and vehicles over NO cover because of LOS determination based on the cpu time saving Method 2 it does indeed compromise the degree of reality we can expect from the game.

I note this because more than a few folks who are new to this game have posted here in disbelive that a game this incredibly realistic CANNOT model the (pressumed) ability of pillboxes, bunkers, road blocks and vehicles offer at least some degree of cover and or concealment, this means that all units can draw LOS and LOF directly through all pillboxes, bunkers, road blocks and vehicles that are not actaully smoking. This is the first let down most folks who are new to this game find.

And yes I know there is NOTHING that can be done about it at this point, but when combined with, and compounded b, the borg-like recon intel sharing resulting from the modeling of Absolute Spotting the degree to which the physical laws of WWII combat realism are compromised, is considerable in my opinion.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-24-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*:

Originally Posted by aka_tomw

Thats all I was pursuing it for Tom. The first quoted statement seems to imply that you don't want to see HWG groups establishing House rules and gentlemen's agreements. Your second quoted statement does not seem to reflect that opinion.

As long as HWG's agree not to look down their nose at the "no holds-barred" players, and the no holds barred players dont DSFJRJR on the HWG's, everything will be fine.

If we cant agree , than we agree to disagree. But when I call it gamey as hell, I am not saying that you cant or shouldnt do it. Just dont do it if you play me.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough

Sorry just to clarify:

When I posted that I was philosophically opposed to the use of the house rules or gentleman's agreements I never intented that to be understood as my suggestion that ALL players "should" play or feel that way. NO of course not, I was stating my preference to play against players who prefer no holds barred play. I'm very sorry if some here suspected I was actaully suggesting to the HWG crowd that they should be playing without the gentlemen's aggreements of their choice.

Sorry for the confusion.

Of course I hope I'm not mistaken when I suggest that all of us here would really like to play Combat mission with the need for such aggreements as at that point the game would be ideally free of any opporunity for the use of highly effective "gamey tactics" that exploit loopholes in the game design.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-23-2000).]

[Henri]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

You have a fundamental mis-perception about what a simulation is. Or at least that is what your very strongly worded post above leads me to understand...

Since I have published numerous scientific papers on artificial intelligence, that would be discouraging, although I have to admit that it is possible...

Taking away the gamey tactic is, to us, no different than fixing a data entry mistake in a tank's armor data. We made an error, now we are fixing it. Plain and simple.

I have no problem with that; nobody was complaining that vehicles were going too fast (see early messages), some were complaining that it was unrealistic to use them for fast recon, and you said that you would slow them down to discourage fast recon. At that time, you didn't say that you would slow them down becaus their speeds were not realistic. If that is the case, then I have no problem with slowing them down, Steve

Foobar:

I am well aware of rule-based programming and rule-based artificial intelligence, and I have no problem with your calling the laws of nature "rules" if you care to do so.

But it is not true that it follows that the "laws of nature" impose rules upon the conduct of warfare, which would imply as you say that man-made player rules are just extensions of the constraints imposed by nature.

I didn't invent the idea that maneuver warfare is incompatible with waging war according to "rules", and Lind doesn't give a source for the statement that he quotes. So if you want to defend fighting wars according to rules, argue with Lind who is an experienced combat veteran and a respected expert of maneuver warfare. Your military experience has its value as to what military doctrine about tactics your military organization followed (and if it was the US Army, it varied considerably with that of the US Marines).

Finally I don't thnk it is constructive in a discussion to defend one's point of view by continually implying that those who disagree are trolls or unable to understand one's point of view (I have been accused of both on this forum). There are clearly different points of view on the question of "rules" and realism in CM, and as has been pointed out, it is to a degree a question of philosophy and to a degree a question of opinion.

Let me make it clear that I don't have a problem with anyone disagreeing with my own point of view, and I do have a problem with people who think that those who disagree with them have to be "wrong". And I have no problem with strong argumentation either, as long as it doesn't lapse into personal attacks.

Henri

[Mikeydz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I must disagree strongly with this point

"while the LOS calculations do not."

When one off my tanks can shoot directly through one of my own tanks AND directly through one of my opponents tanks there is something very wrong with realism. I raised this LOS determination issue precisely because it DOES indeed to lead to a lack of realism. If I can trace the LOF of a round from the main weapon of one of my tanks directly through one my tanks, and a concrete pillbox and wooden bunker and road block AND any enemy tank to actaully target that round to hit the farthest enemy target of my choosing I think there is something VERY fundentally wrong with the way reality is modeled in Method 2 for LOS detemination.

Now I may be ranting about this but I do fully understand that nothing can be done about this at this point, (which is why I introduce the hope for the future being Moore's law).

I still content the BOTH absolute spotting and Method 2 LOS determination need to be looked at to make the future versions of CM2 MUCH more realistic.

Sorry to single out LOS determination Mikeydz, but in my opinion when pillboxes, bunkers, road blocks and vehicles over NO cover because of LOS determination based on the cpu time save Method 2 it does indeed compromise the degree of reality we can expect from the game.

-tom w <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point is that while method 2 does compromise some reality, with vehicles/fortifiations offering no cover, it isn't comparable to the lack of reality that absolute spotting introduces. As BTS has stated, they felt that the processing power saved by using method 2 outweighed the generally rare instances where the failings of method 2 are evident. Of course, when BTS decides that there is sufficient horsepower to be able to LOS method 1, then I'll be thrilled.

Too put it this way, you get an incredible boost in "realisim" when BTS makes the change from absolute to relative spotting, compared to the minor, but welcome, increase we will see when BTS goes from Method 2 LOS to Method 1.

Mikey

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Tom,

Just to restate the obvious... no matter how much you might like things to be Black and White, almost nothing in the world is. All shades of gray. This is actually the founding principle in CM (Fuzzy Logic) and therefore trying to impose a B&W view about anything in CM, or CM as a whole, is just a waste of brain juices. Might as well say that a person is either a happy person or a sad person. Such clasiffications yield no insights into the real world, but are instead inherently artifical and self limiting.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve

You either lay down an ambush marker from a tank to a point 300 meters away or you dont at 301 meters. Digital step function to me.

Unless directed by a platoon HQ who you cant even see.

Whats so fuzzy about 1 minute turns?

Lewis

[Smoker1]

I think BTS should put another beta tester to work. They need a guy whose natural approach to a computer game is to look at ways to take advantage of the program in order to maximize his chances of winning. I do not mean this to sound like a negative quality. The more familiar a person is with the "rules" of a game the better they can use the rules to their advantage. This is a legitimate gaming skill for all games that aren't aiming for realism. This type of thinker might really be able to help BTS prevent unrealistic (gamey) tactics from creeping into future CMs by using his ability to discover them. Such a person could play PBEM against one of the other beta testers such as Los using every trick he can come up with, without regard for realism, through his understanding of the program. Los would then recognize an unrealistic tactic that could never work in the real world and blow the whistle. I recommend Tom W for the job, a self proclaimed "gamey" thinker. Again, I don't mean this in any negative way, Tom W. With all the experts in various fields that BTS has doing the testing, why not a Gamey Tactics Specialist too.

Smoker out.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri:

This is the WHOLE point of the misunderstanding of this WHOLE discussion, the illusion that warmaking can be governed by RULES. Since I'm deemed to be too dense to understand military concepts, here is what William S. Lind says in his "Maneuver Warfare Handbook":

-----------

I has been said "The art of war has no traffic with rules", and this is very valid.Especially when we are dealing with professionals well versed in the art of war, there is all the less reason to make them follow fixed rules.

William S. Lind, "Maneuver Warfare Handbook", p. 94:

If there are no "rules" for warmaking, it is artificial to make other rules to force players to follow such non-existent rules.

I hold that it is a delusion to try to make CM more realistic by enforcing so-called "rules" about what they can and cannot do in "real life".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course you simply over-look the fact that there are rules to war. Rules that are missed in a computer game... the rules that govern our world. There is no single uber-mind that guids soldiers in battle like there is in the game of CM. No single being that sees all that its units see. If you can not grasp this simple concept it is you who is living within an illusion.

Cav

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Los:

.....

That doesn't mean that the points you bring out are not valid criticism and issues that can be improved in CM2 to return us an even more accurate simulation.....

If your premise (I'm not quite sure that it is?) is that CM's modelling of the combat environment is so comprimised that you HAVE to use gamey tactics to win or return accurate results then you are dead wrong.

You already stated that there are some people that prefer to play the game using RWMTs and some that just want to play the game within the limits of its modelling and don't know or don't understand RMWTs or don't give a crap. That's totally cool so long as both players (if it's MP) understand that and make it clear up front.

But if you're going to use "ahistorical" tactics (Maybe that's a better term than "gamey" since that obviously raises your hackles) don't turn around and try and justify it as either "well that's how it did happen for real" (which is what some people here tried to claim but has been clearly refuted) or necessary because the simulation is not accurate enough to portray RWMT, (which is another line of BS).

Los

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 09-23-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HI Los,

OK

I think that since my point may have been unclear enough in your opinion that you would suggest that "If your premise (I'm not quite sure that it is?) is that CM's modelling of the combat environment is so comprimised that you HAVE to use gamey tactics to win or return accurate results then you are dead wrong",

then I will feel free to restate the point of most of my rather long winded posts of late in this thread:

The point of my long winded post above was to explore the foundation of some of the game design descisons as they relate to Simulation of WWII combat "reality" in this game. I simply pointed out two fundamental underlying game design decsions that lie at the foundation of the way CM models the "reality" of WWII combat. I thought my conclusions clearly suggested that I was looking forward to moving the future of CM2 much closer toward accurately modeling LOS determination by using Method 1 (not in the near future I understand) and incorporating Relative Spotting to somehow (I must admit that how this will be done in a video game has me COMPLETELY stumped) remove the borg-like omniawareness of all spotted and identified enemy units by all friendly units. I thought I was encourageing all participants here to continue to contribute to makeing this a MUCH better game than it already is by starting at the begining and clearly identifying what, in my opinion, were good game design decsions (necessitated by current hardware constraints) that compromise the current level of reality in spotting and recon and LOF and LOS determination we can expect at this time in the latest version of Combat Mission.

I thought my conclusions in included comments to the effect that this was a GREAT game and that if we all communicate and contribute in a

mature manner (and I would say that all particpants In this thread have done so admirabley for a change) the collective BrainTrust of this BBS might come up (by working together) with some truely exceptional suggestions that Steveand Charles and now Dan and MadMatt can attempt to incorporate into

future versions of the game. I was not really solveing any problems or not really proposing any solutions either, or drawing any conclusinos mearly, IMHO, identifing where the abstractions, necessary at this time to make this game work, begin to compromise the degree of reality we can legitamitely expect to realize by contineuing to patch the original CMBO game engine. As in any approach to problem solving is always best to start by clearly describing and identifying the problem, that was the main point of my long posts, was simply to describe and identify those two levels of abstraction that I felt compromised the way the rest of the reality in the game is modeled.

Nothing more, and they are only my opinions and Maybe I'm totally wrong....

But I am enjoying the disccusion.

But my brain hurts now, I have not felt compelled to write in this style for many years but it feels good

-tom w

From the Grateful Dead:

I might be going to hell in a hand basket, BUT I'm enjoying the Ride!

[Mikeydz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smoker1:

I think BTS should put another beta tester to work. They need a guy whose natural approach to a computer game is to look at ways to take advantage of the program in order to maximize his chances of winning. I do not mean this to sound like a negative quality. The more familiar a person is with the "rules" of a game the better they can use the rules to their advantage. This is a legitimate gaming skill for all games that aren't aiming for realism. This type of thinker might really be able to help BTS prevent unrealistic (gamey) tactics from creeping into future CMs by using his ability to discover them. Such a person could play PBEM against one of the other beta testers such as Los using every trick he can come up with, without regard for realism, through his understanding of the program. Los would then recognize an unrealistic tactic that could never work in the real world and blow the whistle. I recommend Tom W for the job, a self proclaimed "gamey" thinker. Again, I don't mean this in any negative way, Tom W. With all the experts in various fields that BTS has doing the testing, why not a Gamey Tactics Specialist too.

Smoker out.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking about making this point also. Especially considering the fact that since one of the main design ideas centers around the fact that "gamey" tactics should not work, it's pretty sound that the best person to root out gamey tactics to squash is a "gamey" player at heart. You should hear some of the war stories from the past about screws in differnt game systems that some of my old gaming buddies would tell. They would learn every rule and permutaion of a game, then figure out stuff that no one could even think of to exploit a loop hole. Those were the days...

[Los]

Boy guys will do anything to sneak onto the beta list (and I don't blame them.)

And yes a goal of the design should be to continue to reduce the ability to apply ahistorical tactics. Though unless you are going to make "Task Force COmmander Simulator" where you are in an FPS sitting in a CP reading a poorly updated map and occasionally going outside to get shot, there will always be some abstraction.

Los

(Though I would love to someday see "Infantry Platoon leader simulator")

[Mikeydz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Los:

(Though I would love to someday see "Infantry Platoon leader simulator")

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't that planned for CM6???

BTW guys... we're doing a great job on this thread. Keep it up...

Only 1990 more posts till we pass the Peng challenge thread.

Mikey

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smoker1:

I think BTS should put another beta tester to work. They need a guy whose natural approach to a computer game is to look at ways to take advantage of the program in order to maximize his chances of winning. I do not mean this to sound like a negative quality. The more familiar a person is with the "rules" of a game the better they can use the rules to their advantage. This is a legitimate gaming skill for all games that aren't aiming for realism. This type of thinker might really be able to help BTS prevent unrealistic (gamey) tactics from creeping into future CMs by using his ability to discover them. Such a person could play PBEM against one of the other beta testers such as Los using every trick he can come up with, without regard for realism, through his understanding of the program. Los would then recognize an unrealistic tactic that could never work in the real world and blow the whistle. I recommend Tom W for the job, a self proclaimed "gamey" thinker. Again, I don't mean this in any negative way, Tom W. With all the experts in various fields that BTS has doing the testing, why not a Gamey Tactics Specialist too.

Smoker out.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you Smoker, I consider that a SUPREME compliment and would be hounoured by the title "Gamey Tactics Specialist" I should nominate my gamey tactics specialist friend Rick as well, he is not active here, no internet but he is WAY more gamey than I ever could be, but I have still learned a few tricks from him. He has played CM and determined it does not have enough juicy gamey loopholes to really be fully enjoyed by him !

And ALL kidding aside, be it me or even some other EVEN more gamey specialist, It do FULLY support the idea that some really gamey guys like the guy (?) I think it was a guy, and I don't know who it was, who discovered that Arty spotting rounds were infinite supply, should also be nominated for this job.

BTS There you have it here are three tried tested and true Gamey tactics guys you can call on for CM2 beta testing Smoker1, tom_w and who the genius that figured out that arty spotting rounds could be "walked" all over the map and wreak havoc without exhausting the main supply of the Fire for effect arty! Speak up you ever you are the Devil's Advocate Dept is looking for you.

There are others here who I think are much sharper and much more gamey than myself. But don't worry I'm working hard ot catch up.

Put the point remains a few folks from the VG (video gamer) crowd, and I do just LOVE this quote "The Video Gamer sees themselves as in a personal battle using their Sopwith Pentium against a nameless foe." Quote from Slapdragon) who could test the game for gamey loopholes they would like to exploit. This should be part of the testing process for CM2 because as one other person so ably put it ("von Lucke

Member posted 05-19-2000 06:07 AM

"since we don't have anything else to mess with (hint - hint), we're gonna pull the wings off this lil' bugger until it stops kickin'!."

Well when CM2 comes out thats what every VGer will do, " pull the wings off this lil' bugger until it stops kickin" and try to find every possible game design weakness that can be exp\ploited for the winning combination of a sure fire kick-ass through gamey tactics victory.

But that's ok, I can tell that Steve and Charles learn VERY fast and have a proven track record of dealing swiftly and decisively with all gamey tactics game design exploitation issues. I'm quite gald and happy about that fact that they sometimes take these game design exploitation gamey tactic tricks so personally. (Not a critism gentleman, I think its great that you are so close to the game that you feel personally compelled to fix it so well and so quickly)

I'm sure those problems will be VERY limited in CM2, hell they are almost non-existant now in CMBO!

Just condsider me the Devil's Advocate, yeah that right here's a new title, "Gamey Tactics Specialist" Dept of the Devil's Advocate, we will need our own Deptment as there should be at least two or three of us nominated for these presegiuous positions because it is well known group dynamic that sneaky, gamey players can become EVEN sneakier and gamier when they can conspire with their sneaky and gamey buddies he he he...

I think I need a new Sig

Something like "aka_tom_w Gamey Tactics Specialist" Dept. of the Devil's Advocate"

Still enjoying this discussion and enjoying every minute of playing CM which it as has been pointed out in another thread, I have not been doing enough of lately.

But I am enjoying the ranting here.

more tomorrow, if you can all stand me anymore

-tom w

[Guest Big Time Software]

Henri, OK glad you understand why the changes are to be made. I do have to point out that the issue with the speed was stated way back at the beginning of this thread and was followed up in great detail after. Not sure how you could have missed it all the way along.

Lewis, I didn't say EVERYTHING in CM was Fuzzy. I said that the core of the game is. And it is. But just as my car's spedometer only goes up to 85mph, has only 5 forward and one reverse gear, 4 doors and a trunk, 2 bucket seats... etc. there are cutoff points for various aspects within CM. So your point is... what exactly?

Tom, well... what can I say. We missed killing off a flaw exposed by the Video Gamers (using Slapdragon speak here ). This is clear to anybody reading this thread. What is not clear is how many were snuffed out before the Beta Demo, Gold Demo, and final release were made public. I think our tester's score card is pretty good

Steve

[Ghengis Jim]

Vanir I like your signature.

LoL, is very funny.

[cartman316]

FE!

[This message has been edited by cartman316 (edited 09-24-2000).]

[chrisl]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smoker1:

I think BTS should put another beta tester to work. They need a guy whose natural approach to a computer game is to look at ways to take advantage of the program in order to maximize his chances of winning.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll volunteer for that. I like to play both ways. With some opponents I try to use realistic tactics (and OOBs) and with others it's much more gamey. Finding holes in the CM engine is certainly entertaining. There are few, so it makes it more of a challenge. I emailed BTS one about the TacAI armored car doctrine a few weeks ago.