Opinons on Scenario Balance

[Mattias]

OBG,

Completely disagree with you there…

Steve didn’t say that most of us don’t care about realism in minute details. What he said was that a detail does not live it’s own life in CM and that if you raise the level of complexity in one area this could adversely effect the balance of the whole. Nothing can be added without considering it’s effect to the rest of CM and often you’ll find that a proposed change does not fit the CM “mould” or interpretation of reality.

In my opinion the term “game” is not naturally connected with the term “simplicity”. If anything I think it should be connected with the term “playability”.

There are those of us who really enjoy buying a special rule set add-on box cover the particulars of, say, the Normandy urban bird life “Caen edition” and plod through the 48 page rules covering things like plumage factors and sniper disturbance rolls (SDR’s).

This group of players have a completely different view on what is desirable in a game and will not get that feeling of immersion from anything less. What is staggeringly boring for one type of players is eminently playable for another type.

Now, on the other hand, the beauty of computer based wargames is that in a good design you can seamlessly integrate the exact number of feathers on the CGI bird that just flew by your Tiger. Those who are uninterested wouldn’t notice because the “CGI bird feather algorithm” is integrated into the code, while those who crave that level of realism to get immersed (key word on this context) will rejoice and say, now this is a great GAME.

So, to get the pointy bit, who are you to deride those that have different preferences in regards to realism? They might have trouble expressing their thoughts in a civil manner but I still say you have to work a little on understanding their point of view, no matter what you yourself think is right.

Finding myself somewhere in the realism middle ground I must say that “gamers” rantings are just as annoying as “grognard” rantings.

One of the greatest aspects of CM is that it allows such a wide range of players to get that elusive feeling of immersion, all in the same game.

Imagine PITS and AOE players joining hands all around the world and walking together into CM heaven. It’s a beautiful thought so just stop them negative waves.

M

[Ron]

Lol, you're a funny man Mattias!

[DEF BUNGIS]

**** DING DING ****

Round 11.

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

Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all

[Knaust]

Hey men!

this thread looks like to be getting really UNBALANCED!

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

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

In my opinion the term “game” is not naturally connected with the term “simplicity”. If anything I think it should be connected with the term “playability”.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alright, that's what I meant. I didn't mean to sacrifice "realism". I just meant that to incorporate every little nit-picky thing that Lewis wants makes the game "unplayable".

But as for the the accurate feather count of a CGI bird, how does that add to the play of the game when you're seeing "3-men renderings" of an 8-12 man squad firing at another 3-man rendering?

But as for what Lewis is trying to argue that he want's every single man in a crew or squad to have a different "experience" level, is just out of "playability" range that CM is. Name me one game that simulates this? Not even ASL does this. CM is a Squad-level Tactical Combat game, not a game that tracks each individual man.

So what I meant by "realism" is more in terms with the phrase "Let's get real here!" as it relates to what CM is trying to accomplish.

Sorry if my wording before wasn't quite clear. But the above is what I was trying to say.

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

"I am not interested in the names of your fathers...nor of your family's lineage. What I am interested in...is your breaking point!"--Gen. Chang

[This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 04-18-2000).]

[Moon]

Looks like the thread that never dies...

Anyway, I said in a different thread that I liked Lewis' idea - and I still do. What jumped to my mind when he mentioned a customized menu for units was not to leave basic orders out, but to include more sophisticated orders for veteran, elite and crack units, e.g. "leapfrog" (run, prone, fire, run, prone...) or "pause at command point" etc., something which would give the player more control for these specific units.

If, however, such a feature would justify the addtional coding and "interface clutter" is a question which I cannot imagine anybody to answer better than guys with years of game development experience. Try, for example, to come up with more smart sophisticated orders... I kinda gave up after "leapfrogging"

[Guest hunt52]

I would say:

[infantry]:

Leapfrogging,

Cover unit X (but don't hit them!),

Withdraw with fire (bounds),

Run the hell away when fired on (for recon),

Pause mid sequence.

[Tanks]:

Cover unit X (but don't hit them!),

Run the hell away when fired on (for recon),

Hunt tanks,

Hunt infantry,

Different shot commands (1 smoke, 1 he...)

I think you should only get the more complex commands if a unit is in the command radius of ITS HQ and that HQ has a similar level of experience. This could simulate the fact that an experienced command team coupled with an experienced unit could give more concise effeicient orders and therefore give more orders/unit time. Don't know about realism, but would be interesting (and emphasize C&C...)

- Bill

[Username]

Wow

People actually not trying to tear my every word apart. Almost agreeing with me..strange experience..never happened before..does not compute...

Lewis

[Guest Captain Foobar]

Notice how long its been since you insulted someone.

Do you see a pattern developing???

[Guest Big Time Software]

We gave additional orders a LOT of thought all along the development path. Remember, we started out with absolutely NOTHING to base CM on besides history. We did not look at a single game for influence so as to avoid their baggage (some good, a whole lot of it horrible). In short, we started with a clean slate.

We identified the core orders that would give the player a decent balance between three factors:

Realism

Game control

Interface/game simplicity

That is how we arrived at the set of orders we have now. We added a couple as we went along, but haven't seen the need to put in anything in say the last 10 months or so.

The problem, in our eyes, is that players want far too much control. They already have more than enough in our opinion. So more would most likely unbalance at least realism. We also think that "just one more order won't make a difference" is a dangerous one to make as we think we have just about the right number and mix of orders.

Another thing to keep in mind is that CM has a layer of abstraction at the squad level. Some of the things we have seen people asking for mess with this in an adverse way. I have mentioned "slippery slopes" and "design creep" many times, and they are real and huge issues for any game designer. The good ones figure out where to draw the lines, the poor ones keep tossing things in until all they have is a big pile of junk that hardly anybody (including the people asking for the features) wants to play.

Leapfrogging... honestly, I asked for this about 2 years ago. I quickly became convinced that it was not only unnecessary, but harmful. If you look on this BBS you will probably find a post I made about this early last year. The thing is... 12 man squads do not leapfrog with other 12 man squads AS WHOLE UNITS. Each 12 man squad sends men out in threes and fours in an internal squad leapfrog. You can leapfrog entire squads in CM already, so I am at a loss to know what a leapfrog order would do to add to the realism. And since CM's squads are abstracted the internal leapfrogging is factored into squad cohesion and exposure to enemy fire. So realism wise things are just fine, but to go further would mean a fundmental (and in our opinion FATAL) shift away from abstracted squads.

Pasuing during the middle of an order run. I asked for this ages ago as well, but quickly figured out that it would be too easily abused. There is a case to be made for a Shoot & Scoot order for AFVs simply because it would be a good shortcut, but this too could be abused in a way that the current system does not allow.

To give you an idea of orders that I did suggest that were added -> Ambush, Withdraw, Hunt, and Move at infantry pace for AFVs. Yup, there was a time when none of these were in. Oh, and the adjustable waypoint system was my idea, which is probably the most significant contribution I made to CM. Charles did all the rest

Short of it is that each addition has an impact on whatever is already in the game. Having been on the game design thing as a living for the last 7 years I can tell you that 95% of the gamers out there are horrible judges about how a single feature interacts with the system as a whole. And when I mean "horrible", I mean that if you took just about 9 out of 10 gamers and put them into a position of designing a complex game they would fail miserably their first try. And that 1 in 10 that can do it the first time will make some pretty big mistakes for sure. But the *only* way to know if you are the 1 in 10 is to actually do it for real, under pressure, with thousands of ruthless critics digging into you even before the game releases, and then attacking you without mercy once the game is released. Until then, I say quite strongly that our opinion is worht more than anybody else's on this matter simply because Charles and I have 14 combined years and about 8-10 games under our belts. Experience counts for a lot and anybody that thinks other wise can simply pucker up and kiss our asses because that is about all the lip service we will give you

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 04-18-2000).]

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

Not to be kissing any asses here, but...Nicely put, Steve!

I learned awhile back that CM was your's and Charle's animal and that programming is not the easiest thing to do because I tried back in college and failed miserably, so I went ahead and got me a History Degree.

From cross-referencing BBS posts and other sources, I realize that one tweak in coding here can screw up something else over there.

There is just no, shall I say, "usefulness" to put in every little minute detail to make a game TOTALLY realistic. Doing so, as Steve suggests, makes the game a big pile of garbage that is too complicated to play. Several games come to mind that did this. Can't think of their names, but you almost had to keep the manual open just to start the damn game. There comes a point where you have to say, "This is good enough, any more would be overkill."

In a game such as CM where the depth of the game is about WHOLE squads, there just isn't any need to have "partial" squad orders, like the "leapfrog" deal. NOW, the order of "cover 'unit'" would not be such a bad idea. But you can still simulate this, you just have to do it manually. I mean, com'on folks, let's not get too lazy here. I don't think the hit on CPU cycles in calculating this extra command would be worth the price.

And that's all I have to say about that!

'Cause Stone Cold said so!

P.S. Stone Cold Steve Austin is making his return to the WWF at the next pay-per-view, Backlash. He's going to be in The Rock's corner in the Main Event.

[SS_PanzerLeader]

lol you watch wrestling!!!!!!!!!!

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ol' Blood & Guts:

But as for what Lewis is trying to argue that he want's every single man in a crew or squad to have a different "experience" level, is just out of "playability" range that CM is. Name me one game that simulates this? Not even ASL does this. CM is a Squad-level Tactical Combat game, not a game that tracks each individual man.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OB&G

Thats not what I am trying to argue. I think other people here realize that. I never said it and cringe when I read posts like yours. Name a game that does? I would name Close Combat. Please leave me out of your posts, nothing personal.

Steve

I think the brain storming process here is more directed towards future products from you and other companies. 2 years from now cheap super computers will be common. I dont expect you to integrate every idea here. Its fun for us wannabe developers to bounce ideas around. Maybe someone will use them.

I think your tirade is really stemming from the stress you are obviously experiencing. Maybe you need to step back and get a better focus. Perhaps you should rest up for the coming months. I wish the game and you success.

Lewis

[Username]

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

1. The term "Infantry Support" is a technical term for a vehicle designed to take on infantry and infantry type targets (pillboxes etc.). This is *NOT* a general term for a vehicle, armored or otherwise, being used against infantry targets in support of friendly infantry formations on a case by case basis. If you bend the definition in this way it applies just as much to a Jagdtiger, King Tiger, Panther, etc. which is ludicrous since these vehicles were designed to kill other AFVs.

2. The role of the StuG was changed on September 28, 1941 when Hitler ordered that the vehicle be changed to be suited to an anti-tank role. This included upgunning and up armoring at the expense of mobility and to some exten reliability. This order produced the model F, the first to depart from the short 75mm L/24. It was followed quickly by the G and then production of the PzIII chasis ceased.

3. Guderian, as Inspector General of Pazner Forces tried to wrestle control of all StuGs away from the Artillery branch since it was a needless waste of resources in his opinion (and the Reich is FULL of such examples). But like the Luftwaffe and its flak guns in ground support roles, sensibilities were pushed aside in favor of politics and as a result the Artillery branch retained large numbers all the way up until the end of the war.

4. Huge numbers of StuGs were deployed in dedicated anti-armor roles, including being organically assigned in place of what should have been turreted tanks or other purpose built AT vehicles (like the Hetzer). The independent StuG battalions were still under the control of the Artillery branch, but they were employed as anti-tank units as their primary function.

5. The ammo for the L/24 was NOT the same as that of the later, longer barreled 75mm guns purpose built for AT combat. You asked for sources so here is one -> Chamberlin's "Encyclopedia of Geman Tanks of WWII". It also states that "none of the parts were interchangable with those of the short gun." There is also the point that Bullethead (a Marine gunner with a lot of knowledge on the subject of artillery) made about the difference between a low and high velocity HE round's shell in terms of effectiveness.

6. If you are trying to argue that the L/4x guns were MORE effective against infantry than the L/24, then that would put the StuG in the same class of Infantry Support as PzIVs and PzJg IVs. Logic would then say that a PzIV G was just as effective in supporting infantry as a StuG G, probably more so because the StuG lacked a turret and 2 full MGs (the StuGs had an ineffectual one on the roof and a later one as coax). This gets back to point #1 about the definition of roles.

7. The StuG's Infantry Support role was removed from it (as staetd above) and given to the StuH 42. Note that the StuH 42 came into service at the SAME TIME as the StuG changed over roles. Cooincidence? Hardly. Quote from "German Tanks of WWII" by Hart states, "...(StuH42 was deployed as) an infantry support role as the German Army increasingily diverted the StuG III to an anti-tank function". The website you cited, and accused me of dodging, clearly backs this up by stating the StuG "...were mostly used in an antitank role". So the ONE source you cited thus far contradicts your position quite plainly.

8. The thought that a high velocity gun is somehow MORE effective in the Infantry Support role (which is your opinion) is not supported by the facts. Charles has this to say...

Higher muzzle velocity does tend to increase accuracy, but mainly on the first few rounds fired. Even a low-velocity gun, given the opportunity

to "bracket" the target with a couple of shells, will eventually "find the range" and land shells on-target consistently. Suffice to say that a gun is not made high-velocity for the *sole* purpose of increasing

high-explosive effect. In fact, to the contrary, high shell velocity wears out the barrel a lot faster than low-velocity, which means that, operationally, a high-velocity gun is often seen as *less* effective than

a low-velocity gun. In fact this is one of the major reasons the original M4 Sherman was given a 75mm gun of only moderate muzzle velocity: the artillery department insisted that the barrel have a certain minimum lifespan which, in retrospect, was absurdly and optimistically long.

Higher muzzle velocity has only two main advantages. The first is

maximum range, which doesn't apply to assault guns like the StuG, which

rarely if ever are involved in a long-range artillery-style bombardment.

The ONLY other advantage is higher armor penetration. It's as simple as

that.

9. The standard loadout for pre-F StuGs was 25% AT and 65% HE. This changed to about 50% AT and 50% HE. More importantly, there was nearly a 50% reduction in ammo capacity when the F was introduced. So why on Earth would the Germans reduce the standard HE capacity by about 50% while keeping the AP at the same number of rounds (roughly 25) if the vehicle was supposed to be engaging infantry targets as its main role? Your claim that they could load out the vehicle any way they wanted STILL means a less HE rounds if an F or G had even if every single round HE than an earlier StuG outfitted with its standard load. And since the Germans CHANGED the role to be that of AT, where is your evidence that the Germans ever did such an unbalanced HE loadout?

-----

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. I think terms like velocity, time, etc. are technical terms. They are defined by scientific communitys and generally understood. Terms like "Infantry Support" are not technical terms and mean different things to different nations/armies. Take the british Matilda. They called that thing an infantry tank.

Sturmartillerie was an implementation of an official policy. It should be considered a seperate arm from the panzer units, infantry units, etc. In CM terms it wouldnt be apparent to you because of the scale represented. I will wait till the game comes out till I will comment on the games representations of bunkers, houses, trenches, etc. The scope and scale of the game seems to showcase this "infantry support" level of operations.

2. and 3. Again the scope of the game is at such a level that I find you quoting decrees from the highest command levels somewhat out of touch.

I will quote from "War on the Eastern front" James Lucas. pg 124

"According to the section in the manual which dealt with TACTICAL employment the gun was used while the machine was halted. This usually happened while the infantry was moving from one bound to another, according to the principles of fire and movement. Using direct fire good results could be achieved to 2000 meters but the most effective distances were 1000 meters. The 7.5cm gun with a high muzzle velocity, flat trajectory, accuracy and good powers of penetration fired several types of shell, the selection of which depended upon the target to be engaged. HE was recommended for use against field fortifications, heavy weapons and observation points. Tanks of course, were fought with AP and the same type of ammunition was used to destroy pillboxes. The 105mm howitzer firing HE was particurly effective against infantry targets, soft skin vehicles and marching columns.

When the enemy made an attack combining both armor and infantry, SP guns engaged the tanks while the howitzers bombarded the following infantry in order to seperate these from the armor and to leave this unsupported."

4. I believe you are right. Panzer units used stugs and sturmarty used stugs as did other units. Thats been established I thought. I also thought it was established that the germans were on the defensive in the later war years and ALL weapons and personnel and took on a decidely antitank stance. See my previous posts.

5. and 6. The L24 fired a High Explosive PROJECTILE that was the same as the later weapons. It had a different cartridge. I believe we agree on this and please see my recent post regarding "75mm HE fuzes". I will debate "Bullethead" anytime.

The goal of a surmarty stug was to stealthily move up, engage a target quickly with 2 or 3 rounds and then change position. Its height facilitated this. Its armor (for a while the best in the german army) was always better than a PnzIV weak turret armor. So I dont follow your logic. The JgdPnzIV would have made a great replacement for the stug in sturmarty units but was rare and in great demand for panzerjaeger units.

In general I will say that as main tank and antitank weapons all grew in diameter, if they could fire HE it would get more effective. As for the MG argument I think you are too focused on the short ranges seen in CM. On the Eastern Front, as the above quote states, 1000 meters was a prefered range. Vehicle MGs are typically not that effective at ranges over 800 meters. Use of MG fire tends to be a dead givaway of your position. This contradicts the sturmarty goal of stealth. The MGs were really self defense weapons secondary to the main gun.

7. The infantry support role was removed from it? It had a 50 percent load out of HE for what? The website showed in the final battle report the number of tanks and infantry type targets destroyed were NOT equal!!! In CM terms 22 armored targets and 51 "infantry" type targets were destroyed.

I have to take issue with your saying "infantry support role removed from it" and then using that websites "mostly antitank". The word "mostly" is not synonomous with "removed". I quoted that website for the battle report and you didnt comment on it (the report).

8. High velocity adds to the punch of an HE shell which is supported by physics and test data. This helps blast in fortifications and other reinforced targets. Please see my "75mm HE fuzes" post regarding the capabilities of these projectiles in a frag mode.

As for Charles statements, its nice to have the luxury to bracket a target inept enough to stick around or not retaliate. High velocity equates to better accuracy and greater hitting power. This kicks tush in buildings, bunkers, trenches, etc. It allows you to quickly engage a target and destroy/neutralize and back away without becoming an obvious dangerous target for everybody. Sturmarty is NOT artillery. You wont wear out more barrels but destroy more targets with less rounds!

9. Why didnt they put 90 percent AP rounds in the stugs? I am not sure what your argument is. You are saying that all stugs had this loadout? I doubt it.

"The US Handbook on German Equipment" agrees somewhat with your loadout but says they had 5 smoke rounds so I believe it. It also states that the stugs remained a dual purpose weapon.

Lucas claims that stug units overloaded upwards of 96 rounds by the way. They would put them on the floor evidently.

(End of point by point)

You and I will probably not agree on this because we are looking at it from completely different views. We are also discussing too many points at once and degrading into a pissing contest. Perhaps we can then concentrate our discussion on points that have a definite effect on CM.

I propose we take the 75mm effectiveness first if that is OK with you. It has a definite effect on game play and seems to be confused in peoples minds how shells work.

Looking forward to your response.

Lewis

[This message has been edited by Username (edited 05-02-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Username (edited 05-02-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Username (edited 05-02-2000).]