Gamey Recon Technique?

[aka_tom_w]

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

ON a different but related front. With absolute spotting being what it is, how do friendly fire incidents occur?

SECOND: That being said, if the units are subject to "BORG like spotting" and perfect intel

then how does this happen? Here you have two platoons, sort of on line, fighting an enemy

to it's front. A unit from one platoon starts shooting at a unit from another platoon 100m

distant. The tgt squad is ten meters from other squads that clearly see it's freindly. SO how

is it with borg spotting that the entire German side deosn't have perfect intel that this is a

friendly unit. What am I missing?

Los

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 09-26-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOW!

Thats a GREAT question and quite frankly I'm a little pissed off at my self for not having thought this borg-like recon intel absolute spotting issue through that far. Are we missing something in our understanding of how absolute spotting is modeled?

I guess we must be.

I'm very curious to hear the answer as to how the borg-like absolute spotting model, permits the VERY cool feature of friendly fire amongst friendly units.

Seriously just how the hell can that be allowed to happen??!

Kudos' Los! that question just blows me away!

Now I AM curious!

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "It seems to me perfectly reasonable if a player wants to send one of his AFVs off at full speed in an attempt to draw fire, it's a legit tactic. So long as if that vehicle is alone, and it is unable to see/spot as well as if it were stationary, then you'll ge ta reasonable result out of the game. Better still so long as the player leaves vehicles in overwatch, he should still be able to garnish the info he's looking for even if it results in the death of the vehicle. It's a legit tactic even if a little harsh for the guys being the rabbit."

-Los

(And he KNOWS what he's talking about!)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Alexander]

I'm not sold on Gentlemens' Agreements; they tend to suck the vital juices out of game. There's a war going on here, dammit!

I remember Steel Panthers had a bug that enabled the player to hopscotch a transported unit from one carrier to another across the board in one turn. This should have been fixed at the prgramming level but never was. Opponents had to 'agree' not exploit this maneuver before a game. Gag!

I hereby prose a third solution to the Recon problem in addition to the two excellent ones advanced by Steve: Dual Costing.

Basically, under my plan, you have a purchase cost and a destuction cost. A regular Jeep MG now costs 19 points. Say

we make a Jeep cost- I don't know- 12 points but if you lose it your opponent gains 20 points. The lower Purchase point makes you buy but the higher loss penalty encourages to you think twice before hazarding it on risky recon ploys. Or you could simply assess a %penalty add-on on certain destroyed units like Jeeps, ACs, AT teams, etc.

This attempts to simulate the Human Factor: it may doable under the laws of physics but it's contrary to our nature.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Alexander:

Thats a novel idea. I have never thought of that before.

Which cost would reflect the combat effectiveness of the weapon system in CM? I assume the purchase cost, right?

Then the destruction cost would be weighted for historical factors...or what?

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Alexander]

Scott, I don't have the manual handy and I'm just assuming that CM makes you pay the same price for buying or losing a vehicle. That's the way Steel Panthers worked. I think that units costs are currently plausible in a strict firepower, armour, experience, and mph kind of way.

I would just increase penalties slightly for LOSING units like Jeeps and ACs that are particulary open to ahistorical abuse. At the same time you lower the purchase cost to ensure they remain an interesting value.

This adds a minor parameter to the game. You can massage the physics only so far. A lieutenant who, IRL, ordered a Jeep to cruise at full speed along the enemy MLR would probably end up with a bullet in back of his head.

Of course, for the Soviets, we narrow the cost differential.

[JoePrivate]

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

SECOND: That being said, if the units are subject to "BORG like spotting" and perfect intel then how does this happen? Here you have two platoons, sort of on line, fighting an enemy to it's front. A unit from one platoon starts shooting at a unit from another platoon 100m distant. The tgt squad is ten meters from other squads that clearly see it's freindly. SO how is it with borg spotting that the entire German side doesn't have perfect intel that this is a friendly unit. What am I missing?

Please help resolve this conundrum between absolute spotting/intelligence and how friendly fire incidents occur within CM. Eiher all the units know exactly what everyone else is seeing or they don't. Or is there a calc occuring during night battles that can make one firer drop out of absolute spotting? If it was absolute spotting and the squad was misidentified as enemy then many units would have fired at this one tgt, especialy those close by where it would have been a perceived high threat. (And this occured with a number a different friendly tgts during the same engagement.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a stab in the dark, but I think you are on target with the last part of your statement. Myself, when I have witnessed friendly fire instances(4X?) it has always been one on one. If the friendly target had really been misidentified as an enemy then others would have engaged it as well, no? I think the friendly fire occurences have nothing to do with CM's spotting/intelligence routines at all and are more a special case scenario depending on circumstances, ie night. Has anyone seen an instance of friendly fire during the 'day'? I mean a squad purposely targetting/firing on a friendly?

[Henri]

Originally posted by Mikeydz:

At no point has BTS or anyone else said that you MUST play using "house rules" that attempt to add realism, or return the game, since you aren't worthy. No one has said anything like this, and no one will. You are free to play the game as you wish, exploiting any loophole or bug in the code that you wish.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Henri wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oh yeah? How about the time in Africa that Field Marshall Rommel jmped into a vehicle and "crossed the wire" into Egypt on a recon mission with a single thin-skinned vehicle? Was he busted to private? Was this gamey? This horrified his staff, especially that he got lost behind the wire and had to sped the night meters from passing British military traffic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A strawman argument if I ever read one. First of all, this was in a desert, not North Western Europe. The difference in topogrophy, troop density, etc. means that this example holds absolutely no weight when discussing CM2. Totally irrelevant. Plus Rommel was also not driving at 35mph trying to get enemy units to shoot at him so he could mentally direct his combat assets to take out the targets. What he did was a long range recon patrol. This happened in NW Europe too, but is outside of CM's scope. Now we are back to my suggestion that you are confusing different types of recon and misapplying that to CM.

BTW, I have been waiting for you to bring up the SAS "Desert Rats" in to the fray. I mean, this "proves" both the realism of Jeep use AND sneaking around the enemey's flanks to get in kill shots. Right? Er, nope

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You are whipping a dead cat by insisting on my alleged opposition to making changes inthe game to make it more realistic -make whatever changes you want.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is that *you* are defining what is realistic and then opposing our efforts to make what *we* feel are changes to make CM more realistic. The fact is you are wrong about the realism of recon (as you have described it) and the use of something like armored cars. These are NOT plausible realistic tactics because they could not, and did not, work in real life. If they work in CM, then CM has something in need of fixing. NOT because we want to unrealistically constraining the player, but because at the moment the player is NOT REALISTICALLY constrained.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I DO have objection to forcing players to play in a so-called historical manner by additional rules that are not programmed into the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you actually read the last 3 posts I wrote about rules Henri? Combat Mission is *ALL* just a bunch of rules. There is no magical line that says "CM is reality now, you can't add in anything new". CM is imperfect, and it always will be, so the only way to get it to be less imperfect is to add rules. These rules are based on reality, not some make believe notion of what could in fact happen.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Let us assume that CM is a perfect historical simulation (which it is not as you admit);<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Henri, have you read Appendix D in your manual? Do not assume CM is a perfect historical simulation. We never have and never will. It is a fair approximation of WWII combat. Better than any before, but not perfect. And as seen in this thread, obviously so in regards to the two issues raised.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the main use of a historical simulation in my view would be to try out modifications of historical situations in order to try out what-if situations.If your position were accepted by all, then this would be impossible by definition.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are totally missing the point yet again. Look at my previous example about the 37mm flak gun. Combat Mission is *NOT* about letting someone make a "what-if" tactic out of an obvious bug or hole in the fabric of the simulation's reality. Sure, you can do "what-ifs" that CM allows, if you like. But don't pretend that they are in any way shape or form realistic. And don't gripe about us trying to shore up obvious breaks with reality just because you have found some sort of gamey tactic that works for you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Our difference of opinion does not lie with whether or not you should try to improve the program: it lies in whether or not players should be constrained to follow so-called historical tactics when the game mechanics cannot constrain them, and it lies to some exten on how good a simulation of WW2 combat mission really is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are trying to constrain players to reality. Not our reality, but the reality of WWII (which, incidentally, in regards to these two gamey tactics is just as much reality today as it was 55 years ago). I say again... if you don't want to be constrained by the real life factors of WWII then you will HATE Combat Mission 2 since we will be doing a lot of that.

Bottom line is that if we don't "constrain" players to WWII reality, why bother calling this a WWII game? Why not just give the guy's different names and graphics and call it "Space Combat Mission" and let people do whatever tactics they can dream up without being called "gamey"? The answer is because this is a WWII wargame, not some make-believe generic strategy game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My position is that there are a lot more unrealistic things in the game compared to which deep recon with armored cars pales, and that it is an illusion to claim that this will be improved by adding layers of player rules.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are still totally missing the point about "rules". Once again, Combat Mission is *NOTHING* but a bunch of rules. You can just as easily apply your logic to our ballistics equations, morale model, etc. If we totally ignored aspects that made CM unrealistic, what would we be left with? PanzerGeneral 3D where reality clearly was compromised because the designers did NOT add these rules you have such a hard time with.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Finally, although we have some slight difference of opinion, I appreciate your participationin the discussion. Rest assured that if you don't reply to every one of my rants, I will not assume that you agree with me <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On this point I agree I can also assure you that we will never agree on this point if your contention is that adding rules to make a more realistic simulation is a bad thing. If I had agreed with you we could have made CM in about 2 years time instead of 3. All those rules you have issue with probably took us about 1/3 of the total development time. Would have been much easier to just let the player do whatever it is he feels like. Of course, CM would then play like a half dozen other wargames instead of being unique...

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Los,

Friendlyfire at night is semi-random. We felt it was better to have it in this way than to not have it in at all. Unfortuantely, until we have relative spotting, this as good as it is going to get.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jarmo wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I've found 37 flak to be an excellent AT gun.

OK, not head on, but it's brilliant against light armor and easily kills a Sherman with a flank shot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought someone would say something like this

Yes, the 37mm Flak gun was a decent light AT gun. But it was not better than the Pak38 or Pak40, so it was not employed in a dedicated AT role except when it had to be.

In Combat Mission 2 we will offer the option to play games using a "rarity" factor. This factor will change unit costs to reflect how common it was to see them on the battlefield. For example, something like the Puma is totally overused by players. There was less than 200 of these vehicles built, but they show up in probably every 3rd battle So the rarity feature in CM2 would make them far less likely to be purchasable.

And unlike outright mistakes in the simulation of reality (like the jeep recon thing), this will be an optional feature.

Steve

[CavScout]

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

Oh yeah? How about the time in Africa that Field Marshall Rommel jmped into a vehicle and "crossed the wire" into Egypt on a recon mission with a single thin-skinned vehicle? Was he busted to private? Was this gamey? This horrified his staff, especially that he got lost behind the wire and had to sped the night meters from passing British military traffic.

You are whipping a dead cat by insisting on my alleged opposition to making changes inthe game to make it more realistic -make whatever changes you want. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A poor point made by a poor example. Rommel may have gone on a recon mission BUT he did not go out with the intent of being a target so that he could use ESP to let all his troops know where the enemy was.

Cav

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rommel may have gone on a recon mission BUT he did not go out with the intent of being a target so that he could use ESP to let all his troops know where the enemy was.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah, he sent the Italians out to do that

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

Charlie don't surf!

[Henri]

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

he problem is that *you* are defining what is realistic and then opposing our efforts to make what *we* feel are changes to make CM more realistic.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Three times in your last message you claim that I oppose changing the PROGRAM; I have repeated time and time again that I do NOT object to changing the program code. So once more, I DO NOT OBJECT TO CHANGING THE PROGRAM CODE for whatever reason (presumably to make the game better). This misunderstanding may come from early on in the discussion when I asked whether slowing down vehicles to make them easier to hit might make it more difficult than "normal" to transport units through contested terrain.I only meant that if a vehicle could do 30 mph in real life, it should be able to go at that speed in the game.

You also accuse me of wanting to force my style of play upon other players; I clearly said in my last message that I do NOT object to players agreeing among themselves to play in certain ways, but that I object to those who say that EVERYONE should play according to such rules.I don't know how to make this any clearer that I already have.

As to the statement by you and others that programs are just rules anyway, I guess I didn't make myself sufficiently clear when I quoted Lind's statement that "Warmaking has no traffic with rules".

This does not mean that there are no rules in war, on the contrary, it is an indictment of the fact that most armies DO fight according to rules, and the widespread mentality according to which war MUST be fought according to certain rules and Lind's statement is an invitation to adopt the necessary mentality for maneuver warfare which is incompatible with this idea of fighting battles according to rules.

Now you can keep repeating until you are blue in the face that since programming is nothing more than a set of rules, there is no harm in extending additional "house" rules to make the game even better, I respectfully hold that this is a matter of opinion, although I understand the point of view perfectly.

We all understand that in discussions, points of view shift slightly, which can be a cause for confusion; as Oscar Wilde put it, "Only milestones and idiots never change their minds".In retrospect, I probably made a mistake in the early posts in playing the Devil's advocate and appearing to defend the "jeep" zigzag recon, although I DID say that I had not and would not use it myself.

Finally I see this forum as an opportunity to discuss not only points about CM itself, but also some of the deeper issues of warmaking that have bearing on playing the game. If this were a Panzer General forum, we surely would not be having this discussion, which is a tribute to the quality of the game.Yes, the discussion does get a bit heated sometimes, but as they say, if ya can't stand the heat, get aoutta the kitchen...

Henri

[robo]

Regarding BORG-like spotting comments:

Huh? This term is meant to be applied to the player, not to the units in the game. The player can manipulate all his units with a coordination that could never be achieved in reality. That's what is meant by associating the BORG with the game. The player represents the mastermind computer having near total control over all his minions while he plots their orders for the next turn. This has nothing to do with the TAC-AI.

[iggi]

In response to LOS' question, perhaps the friendly fire was units shooting thier COs

[jshandorf]

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

Jarmo wrote:

I thought someone would say something like this

Yes, the 37mm Flak gun was a decent light AT gun. But it was not better than the Pak38 or Pak40, so it was not employed in a dedicated AT role except when it had to be.

In Combat Mission 2 we will offer the option to play games using a "rarity" factor. This factor will change unit costs to reflect how common it was to see them on the battlefield. For example, something like the Puma is totally overused by players. There was less than 200 of these vehicles built, but they show up in probably every 3rd battle So the rarity feature in CM2 would make them far less likely to be purchasable.

And unlike outright mistakes in the simulation of reality (like the jeep recon thing), this will be an optional feature.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, that is a great idea! I always think about things like that when I purchase my units. I always pick the more common vehicles first and then see how many points I have to throw at that more rare vehicles if I choose to.

Not to get off the topic but I almost always go with PzIVs and Panthers with the occasional Tiger. I have yet to actually play a King Tiger.

Jeff

[iggi]

I ask again and no one answered. Is it a realistic tactic to have one squad of the same platoon to plot movement to the west side of the map while another squad of that same platoon plots movement to the east side of the map?

I say that when one squad plots a waypoint, then all units should use that waypoint as a reference and plot only a max distance from it. Or use the platoon's HQ position as a reference.

Now units can react in a manner that makes them run away from thier platoon, no problem. However, in the orders phase, they still must move near the platoon.

The rules then can be loosened for recon groups so that they can be more spread out.

The recon group itself has to stay a certain distance from the battalion HQ.

In this way, different nationality's charachteristics can be better modeled, ie Russian vs German initiative.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In Combat Mission 2 we will offer the option to play games using a "rarity" factor...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Best news I've had all day. My fears of facing KVs and JSs in every battle when I play the Germans are now gone. A preemptive thanks to BTS!

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-26-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

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

Regarding BORG-like spotting comments:

Huh? This term is meant to be applied to the player, not to the units in the game. The player can manipulate all his units with a coordination that could never be achieved in reality. That's what is meant by associating the BORG with the game. The player represents the mastermind computer having near total control over all his minions while he plots their orders for the next turn. This has nothing to do with the TAC-AI.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it is my opinion that the borg-like esp intel sharing model of Absolute spotting actually MEANS that all friendly units have an omni-awareness of each other, AND when one friendly unit, identifies any enemy unit, that one friendly unit immediately and spontaenously (in a BORG-like way) via ESP, telepathically, transmits that intel to all other friendly units. (and of course you as the player, commander).

That is (and PLEASE, correct me if I'm wrong) my understanding of the way absolute spotting is modeled in the current version of this game.

-tom w

[Guest Big Time Software]

Henri,

OK, I think I have identified the only real point of disagreement between each other. And that is:

We are not programming in "house rules" to limit tactics because we find them to be ahistorical and unrealistic. What we are in fact doing is figuring out WHY these unrealistic and ahistorical tactics work (at least sometimes) in CM and figuring out what in our simulation is not functioning correctly. Subtle, but critical difference.

I ask you again to reread my previous point about the 37mm Flak gun. Now, in the context of that post, answer the following questions:

1. If we found that the 37mm Flak, as simulated in CM, had the ability to penetrate armor twice as much as it did in real life, you would agree that we should change the "rules" so that CM was more inline with reality?

2. Do you agree that we should make this change EVEN if someone has grown very fond of using 37mm Flak guns as greater-than-real-life AT guns?

I really hope you answered YES to both of these questions Now... if you did, let us look at the two examples kicked around here; Jeep Recon and Armored Car Kills.

With Jeep recon we found programming flaws (call them BUGS for the sake of argument, although that is not accurate) after complaints about "gamey tactics". The two flaws were the offroad spee of light wheeled vehicles was too fast and that they were allowed to spot as if they were a heavy tank with several pairs of eyes spotting stuff. So we have proposed fixes that do not attack the Jeep Recon tactic specifically, but instead fix underlying reality problems in Combat Mission. If that eliminates Jeep Recon tactic, it is an indirect (but realistic) result of addressing an underlying flaw in CM's simulation. Just like fixing the hypothetical bug with the 37mm Flak would, indirectly, cause the weapon to be a much less desirable unit for the player to purchase.

As for Armored Car Kills, there are a host of realworld reasons why this never happened in real life. Unfortunately, unlike Jeep Recon we have not identified any underlying realism problem that can be easily fixed. Instead, we see a problem that can not be solved at all. And that is second guessing what the human player intends on doing and then having the unit act as it would in real life if it had received such an order (i.e. telling the officer to "go to Hell!").

See... Combat Mission does not force you, the player, to behave like a real WWII officer (or a year 2000 officer for that matter). And because of that you can issue any number of orders that would have had a real officer busted to the rank of private (if not the first time, certainly the second). Unfortunately, the units under your command will accept any order from you, no matter how unrealistic or suicidal, until they get into a situation where they Panic or die. This is utterly unrealistic. And that is the reason why this Armored Car thing is allowed to happen, contrary to the reality of WWII (or today for that matter). All I can tell you is that if we ever find a way to fix this, we will since it has been a problem with wargames since day one.

So unfortunately, Combat Mission allows certain things to happen that shouldn't. If players wish to exploit CM's limitations in pursuit of victory, fine. But dispense with the defense that such tactics are realistic and that our fixes are somehow harming realism, because they are not. This is why I and others call Jeep Recon and Armored Car Kills "gamey". Because they take advantage of shortcomings in CM that allow unrealistic behavior and benefits to happen.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Robo,

There are two "game" problems with Combat Mission (and all other wargames for that matter). They are related, but not the same. They are:

"Borg Spotting" - this is where all units on the map are aware of enemy units simply because one of their own (no matter where and under what circumstances) spotted one of the enemy. The fix for this is Relative Spotting in place of the current Absolute Spotting.

"Godlike Point of View" - this is the player knowing, second by second, where each of his units are, where each of the enemy's spotted units are, knowing what each is capable of doing in the given situation, making predictions about enemy forces based on game parameters/limitations, how to coordinate units in order to achieve a desired goal, and being able to direct the units to execute orders based on all of this knowledge. Unless we remove the human player from the game, there is no fix for this at all.

All we can do for both problems is to impose as many real life restrictions as possible. For example, morale based on unit experience. Sure, the player might be able to formulate the most perfect plan based on the two above shortcomings, but that doesn't mean it will work (could actually cost the player the game). Different levels of spotting also aid in trying to reduce Godlike powers of observation. But in the end, we can not address the fundamental problem of Godlike control and have not yet proven we can implement Relative Spotting in a way that will increase realism (though it is highly like that this will in fact happen).

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Iggi,

A decent suggestion, to be sure. However, it isn't as easy as one might think to implement. There is no one unit that determines where a Platoon "is". The HQ comes close to that, but what happens if it is eliminated? What happens if one squad gets left behind because it is pinned down? What if that squad is the one designated to determine where the platoon "is" (i.e. the other two squads can't be moved away from the area). Or what happens if a squad breaks and runs, but then recovers?

With vehicles this becomes very problematic because the ranges they shoud be able to operate away from each other is great enough that the player could still do something like the Armored Car Kill thing. Plus, if you have one Armored Car, who is it responsible to in terms of an HQ?

Steve

[Holdit]

Out of curiosity, I conducted a quick experiment with a US v German setup. 1000 points each, and the Americans had 3 Jeeps and 2 Jeep MGs. Off they went at top speed haring into the German position, and they were all destroyed and the crews killed. Once things had settled down again, The US had 1% victory and was down to 88% morale. The German side had 93% morale (-6% for a split squad and -1% for a casualty from US return fire) and 34% victory. Neither side had troops near the single victory flag. Not a bad result for the Germans, and well worth having a few units spotted and plotted.

Of course, I'd set up the ambush so as to ensure the destruction of the jeeps in the interests of the experiment (and some fun), but even so, I noticed that by no means all of the German units firing as part of the ambush were spotted (I was playing both sides hotseat). On the basis of this, (admittedly only one test), I'd say that the whole tactic is of dubious value, and will certainly die a death when the new tweaks to spotting and offroad speeds are applied.

[Henri]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Henri,

I ask you again to reread my previous point about the 37mm Flak gun. Now, in the context of that post, answer the following questions:

1. If we found that the 37mm Flak, as simulated in CM, had the ability to penetrate armor twice as much as it did in real life, you would agree that we should change the "rules" so that CM was more inline with reality?

2. Do you agree that we should make this change EVEN if someone has grown very fond of using 37mm Flak guns as greater-than-real-life AT guns?

Yes to both questions.It appears that you think that I am against such changes, and I am not.

I emphasize once more that I have NO objection to ANY program changes that BTS deem necessary, whether they are physical limitations (speeds of vehicles for instance) or limitations on what units can do (for example preventing vehicles from going to certain places. As I said earlier, "The game is what it is".

When I say that I am against "house rules", I mean rules that are supposed to be followed by everyone at the risk of being called a cheat, rules not programmed into the game, such as forbidding sending armored cars deeply into enemy territory on the basis that it is ahistorical.

Now I freely admit that there may be cases where a player's actions may be ahistorical, but I also feel that it is a risk worth taking to avoid fostering a "Maginot-line mentality" about what can and cannot be done in war.

So this is where we differ, not on how the game should be programmed, which is your business. Since programming can be considered to be a set of rules, it appears to be a natural extension extend "house rules" as if they are a part of the game. But in fact this is a question of opinion. Rules on how to conduct war have always existed, but those that have survived over centuries are not those that say what one can and cannot do, but those who teach the warrior how to think, not in terms of what he cannot do given the constraints, but in terms of how to exploit them.

I understand that your point of view may be somewhat influenced by your wish that the game play as historically true as possible, and that mine is strongly influenced by my appreciation of maneuver warfare and by my personal and professional experience with the limitations of artificial intelligence.

Hopefully those differences have enriched the debate.

Henri

"The word Impossible is not in my vocabulary" (Napoleon)

[Grognerd_Fogman]

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

"Godlike Point of View" - this is the player knowing, second by second, where each of his units are, where each of the enemy's spotted units are, knowing what each is capable of doing in the given situation, making predictions about enemy forces based on game parameters/limitations, how to coordinate units in order to achieve a desired goal, and being able to direct the units to execute orders based on all of this knowledge. Unless we remove the human player from the game, there is no fix for this at all.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve, I think you've just went and solved all my PBEM problems. I think I can finally win a battle if I just remove myself from it! All this time I've been screwing myself up by being in the game...lol

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

Thanks for Athskin!

[Guest Big Time Software]

Henri,

I knew you would answer "yes" to both of my questions. However, in doing so you have not grasped the escential point of it. We are not trying to program out tactics that could, in any way shape or form, be actually used in WWII. You said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I understand that your point of view may be somewhat influenced by your wish that the game play as historically true as possible, and that mine is strongly influenced by my appreciation of maneuver warfare and by my personal and professional experience with the limitations of artificial intelligence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But if we do not constrain Combat Mission based on WWII, what do we constrain it to? You suggest here that we shouldn't hinder "maneuver", right? Well, why not make that Panzerkampfwagen MkIVh have anti-gravity capabilities? I mean, it can maneuver a lot better if it could fly over terrain. And think of all the tactical possibilities it would open up to the player.

Ok... yes, that was a silly example. But it is there to illustrate my point. If we, the game designers, do not constrain the elements in CM to the reality of 1944-1945 ETO, then what reality should we use as a baseline standard? And what should we rename this game since it won't be about WWII any more?

There are realworld reasons why some things don't work and some thigns do, regardless of the timeframe. I am not talking about tactics here (i.e. the mental construction of planned warfare), but physics and human limitations. As a simulation, Combat Mission attempts to model those constraints as best as we can. Sometimes we can't do a good enough job, other times we simply miss something and are able to fix it later. Overall we CAN and DO simulate WWII very well. Since CM is a WWII wargame, then obviously we should be aiming to simulate the reality of WWII.

I'm not trying to be snide here, just confused as to what you want; a historical wargame or a non-historical strategy game. The two aren't compatible. If you are unhappy with the realistic level of manuever warfare in WWII, might I suggest playing fictional wargames instead of historical ones?

Steve