Suggestion for CM2

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

After playing the game a bit you get a sense for what a unit can, and can not, do in a general circumstance. This doesn't mean that you have enough information to predict the outcome of a particular incident (which would be unrealistic), but enough to know roughly what to expect for a given situation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And for me, this is exactly the whole point of the game. You have to learn tactics that will reach the desired outcome most of the time without omnisciently knowing everything that will go into the making of that outcome. A situation curiously similar to the predicament of a a real commander on a real battlfield.

Michael

[Jeff Heidman]

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

OK, back to the squad I mentioned above...

Let us say that we did give a morale state number instead of the Fuzzy term "Alerted". OK, you look up in the manual and find that a 4.5 is half way inbetween a 6 (OK) and a 3 (Shaken). Besides knowing that you are spot in the middle here, what practical value does this information give you from a game standpoint? None what-so-everSteve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this was actually what people mean, then I would agree completely.

But I do not think the issue is whether or not there is some number displayed instead of a string representing some value.

I think the issue he is at least partially talking about, and the issue that I agree with him on, is that CM keeps a lot of stuff secret that has to do with how the game works.

I could not care less whether someone morale state is represented by a number or a word. What I do find irritating is that there is no info on WHAT it means to be "alerted" as opposed to "rested". Or whether or not a unit gets any kind of height advantage. Or what specific effect movement has on my vehicles chance to hit. Or whether brush is better cover than a light building. Or (to use an example already mentioned) how much effect experience has on a units firepower, although users have figured that one out, to some extent.

It is those kinds of things that he is talking about, not whether the status is displayed as a number or a string.

These are things that *would* possibly change the way the game is played. I understand the need to balance this kind of info with the desire to keep from CM becoming a numbers game (like ASL can be).

The thing is, I just do not play ASL with people who insist on calculating the odds for every shot before they take it. I would hate, however, for ASL to make a rule governing that. I would as soon leave that to the players to decide. CM has taken it away from the players completely, effectively saying "Sorry, but you are not allowed to know these things!"

Shrug. It is still the best PC wargame ever. And us users will do what we can to pry and figure out whatever we can anyway

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 09-05-2000).]

[Dr. Brian]

People, thanks for the great information.

But, I see the point about giving too much info, etc... as Steve (BTS) indicated. So, I'm not going to push it too much. I do think there could be some loss of quality when you get whacked though.

I guess, as an ASLer, it'd be nice to KNOW that there are such a thing as higher ground advantages. How much? Or, is it better to run behind a marsh (which is a hindrance) or a wheatfield?

Guess I'm looking for things to be quantified.

Above, I posted some basic questions which were answered "Unknow to Player."

Well, I think, in order to play the game CM (like ASL, Chess, or Monopoly), you need to know the effects of such things as height advantage apply (or how to use a Knight, or what happens when you pass Go).

Besides LOS advantages of being up there, if you don't have any defensive benifits from lower terrain fires, it may not be worth it. If you can see him, he can see you. Does the game model that?

I'm looking for what else the game models, and what it doesn't. It would help me make the right decsions during play.

I'm sorry, but the manual does not give the "quantity" of information I'm use too (i.e., ASL junkie... I know, I know....) and feel that it's hindering my understanding of the game. Like I said, I need more infor!

Thanks in advance!

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Los]

Long ramble follows...

Silly me I never worry about numbers I just order my guys to do what I would have them do in real life and CM returns the same expected results more or less based on my brilliance or stupidity in any given situation. I don't need numbers to tell me to remain concealed, and hinder through use of terrain, smoke or whatnot a potential enemy location's LOS to my forces. I know that heavy woods are going to be a bit safer for me than scattered trees, that a grainfield, while it may convey some oncealment when in season will offer little cover. I know that gully's and streambeds are as good as trenches against direct fire, Buildings and rocks can stop small arms but maybe not heavier stuff having seen it for myself before blah blah blah. A few days walking around in the woods, combined with a modicum of common sense provides me with these insights despite the fact that I have 23 yrs of service I also know that in combat not too terribly much beyond what I have just mentioned is certain, so whether my guys are 20% concealed or 30% concealed is not a factor that enters into my mind, they are at risk before during and after they cross the LD. We take as much precaution as we can because it is intuitive not because someone has actually figured out real numbers.

In fact everything works against you knowing these things for certain and knowing the "odds" or knowing precisely what will happen when and how, so I am in favor of any and all similar "frictions" coming into play in CM. (Understanding that this is in direct conflict with what the majority or wargamers expect, being the type-A bean counters that so many of them are...hey different strokes!)It provides for a more understanding experience as to what it's like to make tactical decisions in the absence of concrete or certain information. Hopefully if you can take some solace in knowing our own troops intimately, knowing the plan and knowing they understand the plan, if not you haven't done your job. But even then there's the yahoos in the next company over or the next battery back, and who the hell knows if they'll hold up their end of the bargain (hopefully so!)

RE: Height advanatage, if anything it is artificial it's ASL. (Don't get me wrong I've played ASL since the beginning and like it.) It IS the LOS advantage that makes occupying a hill worth while and infers advantage to the owning player. That's the whole point to occupying a hill. There's nothing inherently much easier or harder to hitting someone standing on a hill as standing in flat terrain (Yes I am aware of certain common aiming errors people make when shooting downhill and whatnot) so there should not necessarily be an inherent "modifier" to a target just for being on a hill or higher elevation than the shooter. What matters is what is his disposition (Standing, moving, prone, hiding, hull down) and more importantly what terrain is he in, wooded, rough, foxholes, trenches, buildings, etc.

You take the hill because you can see farther, it controls enemy avenues of approach and can interdict areas all around it, something that you can't do from hanging out in the valley. You take the hill because it is much harder for the enemy to get at you, makes for slower movement on his part. Thus exposing him to longer durations of your own fires. If you are just sitting on a bald hill sillouetted against the sky, the hill will confer upon you no inherent defensive benefits. IN fact if you can see them, they can see you, (maybe not automatically as there are many variables such as training, fatigue, environmental conditions, and surprise involved), but LOS works two ways, theoretically, and that must be kept in one's mind constantly.

Anyway no great point to this rambling per se, I can understand that one accustomed to having all this information from other games available might be frustrated or at least wish to get more concrete analysis before deciding upon a course of action with some surety. However I understand and endorse BTS philosophy in this matter, and it is prety much what lies at the heart of much of the controversy with some of the issues for requested enhancements.

There is no replacement for experience and that goes the same for playing CM. In the final analysis when stuff is cracking over your head and you have to move forward, you look around try and pick out a spot, do what you can to minimize risk, but you also have to say "f**k it" and just get up and go. So just play the game and amass some experience. most peole will pick up what needs to be done, what works and what doesn't, very quickly. Cheers...

Los

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 09-06-2000).]

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

Silly me I never worry about numbers I just order my guys to do what I would have them do in real life and CM returns the same expected results more or less based on my brilliance or stupidity in any given situation. I don't need numbers to tell me to remain concealed, and hinder through use of terrain, smoke or whatnot a potential enemy location's LOS to my forces. I know that heavy woods are going to be a bit safer for me than scattered trees, that a grainfield, while it may convey some oncealment when in season will offer little cover. I know that gully's and streambeds are as good as trenches against direct fire, Buildings and rocks can stop small arms but maybe not heavier stuff having seen it for myself before blah blah blah. A few days walking around in the woods, combined with a modicum of common sense provides me with these insights despite the fact that I have 23 yrs of service I also know that in combat not too terribly much beyond what I have just mentioned is certain, so whether my guys are 20% concealed or 30% concealed is not a factor that enters into my mind, they are at risk before during and after they cross the LD. We take as much precaution as we can because it is intuitive not because someone has actually figured out real numbers.

In fact everything works against you knowing these things for certain and knowing the "odds" or knowing precisely what will happen when and how, so I am in favor of any and all similar "frictions" coming into play in CM. (Understanding that this is in direct conflict with what the majority or wargamers expect, being the type-A bean counters that so many of them are...hey different strokes!)It provides for a more understanding experience as to what it's like to make tactical decisions in the absence of concrete or certain information.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great post, Los! I couldn't have put it better myself. (Not much of a compliment, I know, but you gotta take what you can get.)

You know, this post and Doc's that immediately precedes it graphically delineate the difference between the Squad Leader and the Combat Mission experience. For me, a lot of the fun in SL was knowing what the odds were that a certain action would occur under certain stated circumstances. I even derived the equations for myself. That kind of information was very instructive and helped me to visualize what was going on in a WW II tactical combat situation. Cool.

CM divulges other kinds of information, and does it in a completely different way. It is intuitive rather than intellectual (to a relatively greater degree, that is). Although you cannot calculate the odds in the explicit way that you can in SL, you can get a pretty good sense of them after you play a while. You see what works and what doesn't. Play long enough and you begin to notice when something works and when it doesn't. Finally, you may begin to formulate some notion of why.

I like it!

Michael

[Dr. Brian]

I want to stress (it may have gotten lost) that I'm NOT looking for exact numbers and modifiers... that would be too much ASL-ish.

What I am looking for, is what is modeled. The example above (from 23 yrs of experience) is fine and dandy, but, the game may not model it.

What does the game model? Does it model EACH AND EVERY detail? I doubt that. I don't want to go under the assumption that it is modeled, only to find out that the benifit I was "suppose" to get, does not apply.

I have limited resources, and would have applied them some other way, more effectively.

Remember, I'm looking at this like a GAME, not some simulation. There is a fine line, but if you see it, the difference is huge.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Los]

"What I am looking for, is what is modeled. The example above (from 23 yrs of experience) is fine and dandy, but, the game may not model it."

That IS how it works which is how it also happens to be for real. (I thought I was clear in my post, sorry if I wasn't, my fault.) The game has all the information available to you that is needed to play the game.

"I don't want to go under the assumption that it is modelled, only to find out that the benifit I was "suppose" to get, does not apply."

Learning what works and what doesn't is part of playing a game. Everything needed to play the game is presented to the player. You're just going to have to get over the fact (or not) that BTS/CM is not going to provide you a handbook with tables and odds calculations in it. (ala Talonsofts games) It's not a flaw or an oversight but a deliberate design decision. If you've played any wargames before then it doesn't take but a few sittings to reground yourself in what's up with various situations, terrain effects and whatnot in CM. Learning to play the game effectively is neither rocket science nor labor/time intensive. Having every detail provided to you so that you have peace of mind or surety of your decisions is neither something that happens in real combat as a leader, nor is it something that BTS wants you to experience within the framework of their design philosophy. It's a friction they want you to experience, some find it annoying, that's OK there's plenty of other fish in the sea. IN fact you don't even have to go to another fish. Some have already tried to do detailed testing of various ballistics and terrain effects in the game in order to produce those stats so something near what you want may even be around and some of that stuff has been posted on the board.(Maybe it was Jeff?)

Of course this approach is not for everyone.

"Remember, I'm looking at this like a GAME, not some simulation. There is a fine line, but if you see it, the difference is huge."

CM the game has some of both. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

Cheers...

Los

[Dr. Brian]

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

You're just going to have to get over the fact (or not) that BTS/CM is not going to provide you a handbook with tables and odds calculations in it. (ala Talonsofts games) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Los, thanks for the insight... but, I think my point is getting lost. Let me say again, I am NOT looking for tables and odds calculations.

I am looking for a description of what is modeled. For example, it should be obvious that defensive advantages in Heavy Buildings are better than in Light Buildings. But what about some of the other not so obvious, yet so critical?

These are the descriptions I seek. You need to know the rules of the game, in order to play the game.

I'm given limited "resources" in a scenario. ANd I need to maximize their usage. If in fact there was no difference between heavy and light buildings, and I didn't know that, then I would not be using my "resources" effectively, by using heavy buildings, when a light building would have sufficed.

That was just an example.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[JoePrivate]

Doc,

I'm curious what you are looking for, if not odds calculations or tables then what exactly? Like Los said - 'Learning what works and what doesn't is part of playing a game. Everything needed to play the game is presented to the player.'

You said you want a description of what is modelled, isn't that covered in the manual or from play of the game? Your example of terrain has 6 pages in the manual devoted to describing the different types so the player will know the difference, between a light or heavy building for example, simply from reading it.

I personally can't see your point, everything is there, either in the manual or from play so your insistence that it isn't tables that you want, begs the question of what it is specifically you need to play effectively? Or do you mean to play to win and that's what you are really looking for, the guarantee of the best move?

To quote Los again(great posts BTW)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Learning to play the game effectively is neither rocket science nor labor/time intensive. Having every detail provided to you so that you have peace of mind or surety of your decisions is neither something that happens in real combat as a leader, nor is it something that BTS wants you to experience within the framework of their design philosophy. It's a friction they want you to experience<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That really sums it up and my post isn't a dig but genuine curiousity.

[Dr. Brian]

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

You said you want a description of what is modelled, isn't that covered in the manual or from play of the game? Your example of terrain has 6 pages in the manual devoted to describing the different types so the player will know the difference, between a light or heavy building for example, simply from reading it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joe, the 6 pages on terrain tell me NOTHING except that there are walls, hedges, woods, etc., and what they look like... maybe soemthing that they provide concealment, etc.

A hedge is "about one meter high, planted or naturally grown." Big deal. Is it better to be behind a hedge or a stone wall (even though we both know stone wall).

But, is it the same to be behind a stone wall as it is in a light or heavy building? These are questions that need to be answered to play your units correctly. THESE are the things a player needs to know to play the game efficenetly.

I'm not of the opinion that everything is there. Perhaps I'm spoiled from ASL, but to me, to play the game, you need to read the rules. To play the game effectively, you need something a bit more comprehensive than what the terrain looks like.

So, is behind a hedge the same as being in woods? Is behind bocage the same defensive benifit as a heavy building, etc.

Right now, it's all guess work, and much of it is based on my expereince with ASL. (For example, behind a stone wall is the same as a light (wooden?) building?????)

It's kind of frustrating, especially since I can't get my point accross.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Los]

Howdy Doc,

You are getting your point across quite well, but perhaps you are not getting ours?

You say yourself something the the effect of "Is it better to be behind a hedge or a stone wall (even though we both know stone wall)? And I say, yeah bingo that's right!

And in the example of the stone wall vs the stone building in providing protection, I say, obviosuly the stone building because it provides you with stone protection from all around not just from one side.

It is very much the point of CM design philosophy that most wargamers are very much spoiled by all the data tables and information they have in front of them in tehir easily organized and digested formats. (Again I love ASL as much as the fanatic and have owned and played every module form their first purple box.) But perhaps you should start by assuming CM models things more as less as they should in common sense fashion occur in real life (like the stone wall vs hedge.) I think that's an apporach that the majority of players have made either consciously or unconsciously, and then moved on from there. Having made that leap, then if you find something that doesn't jive we can oncentrate on seeing if that's broke...like (i.e. ) "Hey I had 2 sqds, one behind a stone wall and one behind a hedge. They both got a burst of MG42 fire but the stone wall squad was wiped out while the other was unscratched, and this happened three of four times. Then that can be picked apart and analyzed. (This being the genesis of most CM critiques.) Even on the beta list we don't normally pass around exact figures on effectiveness of this or that terrain. All that is locked up in Charlies head.

"(For example, behind a stone wall is the same as a light(wooden?) building?????)"

Again, when exposed to direct fire, would your rather be behind a wooden wall or a stone wall? I willing to bet that your ASL experience, combined with your intelligence and common sense has already very well equipped you to play CM (from a terrain appreciation standpoint). If it's not exact it's at least close enough htat a few playings will allow you get on to the business of concentrating on tactics. Other than that there's not gonna be much more forthcoming on the numbers you seek. It's not an oversight it's a deliberate design decision that you probably don't agree with.

Cheers...

Los

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 09-11-2000).]

[Dr. Brian]

Los,

You summed up a lot there for me to think about.

I think I'm pretty much with you and what your saying.... and I can see the "fun" of having to explore "in action" these things...

but, for a new player, I guess I just want to jump in and know all the little things right away.

Thanks to all that have answered!!!

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Jadayne]

as far as the "what is the best cover and concealment" question, I think someone did some kind of test to figure out each individual terrain type. I can't remember who or when or what the name of the thread was, but it was very informative.

I also think that that is the best way to answer any of those "what is modeled" questions. You'll have to set up a scenario to test it out. Besides the terrain example, i remember someone doing the same with artillary spreads, ambush effectiveness, hiding, and probably several others I didn't actually read. The point is, if you want to know if being on a hill is more effective than being in a valley and how -make the map, put the units on it, and see for yourself.

Just like you'd have to do in real life.

and, as for your original question: if you have a veteran unit that has been busted down to regular because of the 4 green recruits that joined up prior to this battle, and all 4 of them are whacked by an incoming artillary shell, would your unit then become veteran because they no longer have to wait around for the new guys?

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

"Well then private, it must be sh*t. Good thing we didn't step in it."

[This message has been edited by Jadayne (edited 09-14-2000).]

[Los]

Yes I thought it was Jeff, I'm sure he can repost the link to his data. If not perhaps when I get some time later on I will hit the search function and poke around.

Los

[elementalwarre]

i really like CM's approach. CM's the first wargame i've ever played for more than a week. i couldn't stand others' artificiality. heck, since i haven't said it this week: CM is fantastic, aside from being a horribly addictive time sink

that said, i think dr brian has a point

perhaps i can make his point more clearly. here goes:

yes, absolutely, common sense goes a long way in CM. if you're in a sherman, flank the tiger to use your faster turret against the tiger's weaker side armor. staying in defilade means your ambush is more likely to work. etc, etc

however, CM abstracts

this means there -are- factors which common sense says should matter but either do not or matter differently than one might think. case in point: a recent LOS thread which appears to show LOS is calculated from the ground rather than whatever height the weapon's at. i'm -not- saying LOS calc should change or not, just giving a sample abstraction

now say i'm a novice - pretty much true for me! say i'm trying to work out what's possible in an ambush. will fog reduce accuracy even when the target units are clearly visible from my units? will that MG team not fire because it doesn't have LOS to some of the ambush area? will that SMG squad deliver enough useful fire while fast moving to order it to? might the target units just race through the mine field?

(if you're typing answers to those, stop already. i know the answers for those. they're just examples, don't distract yourself from the real question!)

see the problem? see how it's worse if you're not a wargamer, but still nontrivial even for wargamers?

CM has enough depth to have a great many factors, quite a few of which are abstractions and thus hard to even have a feel for without trying. knowing which matter can take many games, experiments and forum searches, aka a -lot- of time. that's time which dr brian seems to be saying he'd rather spend playing the game, -not- learning it

if that's his point, i agree. more of an idea of what's abstracted, what's not a factor, etc would be great. this does -not- mean charts! ok, as few charts as possible, dammit

jeff, dr brian - am i on target?

sorry for such a long post, i just want to be as clear as possible

[Guest Michael emrys]

Dr. Brian, correct me if I'm wrong, but what it seems to me you're asking for is a tactics handbook kind of thing. Something that will point you in the direction of, as you say, utilizing your resources in the most efficient way.

If so, that sounds like a reasonable desire. Right now, such a handbook exists (at least partially) in a diffuse state, i.e. in the archives of this BBS and on such websites as the CMHQ, etc. It would be nice if someone were to pull all that information together and arrange it in a handily-accessible format (I am partial to the printed page myself, but some other types go for online docs). I don't suppose I need to point out that there might be some commercial possibilities here...

Michael

[Ben Galanti]

Here's a link to the post on cover data that was mentioned above:

www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/007716.html

Ben

(searchanaut in training)