Commander's Relative Command(CRC) Versus CMBO's Commander's Omniscient Command(COC)

[PiggDogg]

To BTS: For CM3 or 4 - Commander's Relative Command (CRC) Versus CMBO's Commander's Omniscient Command (COC)

Let me preface this post. I love CMBO. It is the most fun that I have had on the computer and in war gaming. Also, since about 1960, I have played many, many (most?) of the war games to have come down the pike from S&T, Avalon Hill, etc. So I have seen a 'few' (I have a whole walk-in closet filled with war games going back to Tactics II) war games. In the 60's (back in the old days), I had thought about something like CM, but never expected that it would be implemented at all, much less in a entertaining and fun way. However, to make CM better, I was thinking ...

In CMBO and in real life, a commander receives information regarding the battle and his and enemy units (spotting). He then utilizes this information/spotting in order to issue orders to his units to take advantage of this information to crawl on to victory (order transmission).

CMBO's present spotting/command structure is what might be called "Commander's Omniscient Command" (COC). COC consists of Commander's Omniscient Spotting (COS) and Commander's Omniscient Order Transmission (COOT).

CMBO's COS means that if any friendly unit (yep, even that lone sharpshooter way on the far left map edge, crawling from one stand of tall pines to the next heavy woods) spots something, then the player/commander (P/C) also spots that same something. Obviously, each unit carries a direct radio to the P/C or has a paranormal, telepathic link to the P/C. Even better, maybe the P/C actually sees through the eyes of each friendly unit on the map, sort of like Laura Mars (maybe someone remembers that movie from about 25 years ago). Indeed, quite cool, lol.

Further, CMBO's COOT has the P/C somewhat instantaneously (yes, I know that an order execution time delay exists between the command transmission and a unit's execution of same) transmitting an order to a unit and that unit, even if it is multiple hundreds of meters distant from the P/C, receives the orders and executes the order. (Boy, those WW2 headset radios and those Jessie Owens runners sure do work wonders.) Needless to say, such "omniscient" P/C powers of spotting and order transmission are somewhat beyond the realm of this particular universe.

May I propose for CM3 or 4 or for the rewrite of the CM code the following: "Commander's Relative Command" (CRC). CRC would consist of Commander's Relative Spotting (CRS) and Commander's Relative Order Transmission (CROT). [sure are a lot of acronyms, eh.].

CRS consists of whatever the P/C can see from his unit's position on the map. Plus, CRS includes whatever reports (via runners, radio, noise, informed wild butt guess, etc.) that the P/C receives. Obviously, the P/C must be personified by a commander unit, platoon or company, on the map. Also, that unit must remain alive and should find a good safe vantage point to view and to receive reports of the battle. It is hard to issue orders if you are wounded or, worse, dead.

The long and short of this is that what the P/C sees on the game map is only his estimation, interpretation, and guess of what is going on around him in the battle. This is not necessarily what actually is happening. What the game map shows are the P/C's guesses and estimates which may be right or wrong or somewhere in between.

CROT consists of the time delay in issuing the orders to his units, the delay for the orders to be transmitted to his units (by voice, by runner, by radio, by other) , and the delay that the units would have in executing the received order. Also, the local commanders (LC) below the P/C, with or without orders, could, should, and must act on their own as the situation dictates. Further, this LCs could execute, mis-execute, or ignore the received orders as they interpret or misinterpret the orders. In fact, sometimes the orders never arrive because the runner caught shrapnel in the brain or the radios may have broken down.

Thus, the CM AI has to be beefed up quite a bit, because (I don't want to be too critical) the present AI is slightly smarter than a box of rocks. Example, if a player slightly mis-clicks a unit's orders to clear terrain slightly outside an intended woods line, that unit will slavishly sit in the open and not use its AI brain and seek the woods cover without less than gentle prompting from enemy fire.

Regarding BTS's implementation of CRC, I do not have much idea how difficult CRC would be to code (I guess that CRC would be difficult to code). Also, I do not know if this would be more fun than what we have presently in CMBO. We don't want sales of CM to drop. The more sales, the more CM because BTS makes more money and they can feed their families (and they can buy their villas on the south French coast. Lol, I know way better). Maybe, CRC can be implemented as a toggle on/off or in increments in CM3, or 4, or 18.

Just some thoughts and hopefully some gentle persuasion of BTS.

Cheers, Richard Cuccia, richardcuccia@home.com, ICQ# 116577632 :cool:

[Mr. Johnson--]

Geez, will people give it a rest. BTS has already said they will try and create a fun but realistic realitive spotting system for CM3 (when they start rewriting the engine).

or better yet, you go make a "perfect" wargame then let us decide which we like better.

[PiggDogg]

The relative spotting that was previously described is only a part of what I was proposing above. What I am proposing is more comprehensive than just relative spotting.

Cheers, Richard Cuccia

[tiborhead]

Don't get me wrong, I think your CRC proposal would make an interesting simulation, but for the purposes of CM, I don't think so.

If I understand you right (which I may not, seeing as how I'm an idiot sometimes ), your proposal would sorta elininate our need to give orders. If the AI was that advanced there would no reason to play the game.

Like I said though, I think it would make a great sim. Taking on the role of a company commander or a lieutenant, seeing the events of the battle from his eyes and having to make on the spot decisions based only on loose info would be challenging to say the least.

[BFCElvis]

I don't know how well your idea would work either. If you have a platoon that is engaged in combat with an enemy platoon you should be able to control that platoon with no delay or misinformation. Without being able to do that I don't know if it is a game I would have a lot of interest in. I understand the abstraction of being able to see all exposed enemy units and I don't have a problem with it. I try not to think of CM as a game where I am an all seeing commander. Instead I try to think of it as commanding for each level. Squad, Platoon, Company,Battalion ect.....And at different times in a game assuming different roles. I on't do this in a dungeon and dragons way but that is how I rationalize seeing the all exposed units.

[barrage]

I think the CRC idea is pretty cool. It would be amazing to ineffect give set of orders for a battle and sit back and watch your troops execute the orders like "real troops". The stumbling block is the AI. Until BTS can come up with something that thinks like a trooper, your idea could not get off the ground. Maybe in CM III or IV.

Doug

[David Aitken]

As Elvis says, in CM you play the role of every commander on the battlefield, from battalion down to platoon. This is why you have an omniscient view of events, and why you are allowed unlimited time to plot orders. If you were only one man, it would only be realistic to play in real time.

What you suggest is way beyond what the AI is likely to be capable of for many years. Even if the computer processing power were available in PC form, it would still take BTS years to do the programming, and moreover, the work involved increases exponentially – each stage of AI development takes a multiple of the amount of work required to reach the previous stage.

If you played the role of only one man in the game, and were expected to conduct the battle using vague or misleading reports and your own intuition, the information available to you would essentially have to be totally realistic. There is no way that a computer could be programmed to provide you with all the little clues that would enable you to employ real-world intuition in playing the game. I might point out that you can't speak to any of your subordinates, which immediately poses an insurmountable barrier to playing the role of commander.

CM is a game. Much of it is abstracted to make it feasible, playable and enjoyable. If you want a totally realistic experience, go and declare war on somebody.

[Darwin]

I think the game he describes would be pretty cool but nothing like CM.

You would probably want to have a general map with some generic markers to indicate your troops positions as you assume them to be. hmmmm, sounds like a super enhanced board game. Not a bad thing but not at all CM.

[olandt]

I really like your idea and have been pondering something similar myself. It might also prove to be an interesting way to model the AI. In effect, each officer unit will have to possess it's own AI and you're simply replacing the one on top. By reducing the scope of each AI's area might be a great way to Parralel process the required code. I could see soemthing like the need for Battle plans for your troops. You as Battalion HQ, command Company A to take yonder hill by this path. The Company A commander would then only need to figure out lines within the laid out path. Each Platoon would be given subobjectives and only need to figure those out. Prepared scenarios could come with a selection of possible battle plans that the AI could use, thereby creating a better AI attack. Of course, the AI may already work this way, I don't quite know.

Pete

[Sitzkrieg]

I know everyone wants as much realism as possible, myself included. But what is being proposed here would make the game really boring. I could achieve the same result by having the computer play against itself and just watch the results.

[PiggDogg]

To tell the truth, I do not know if it is reasonably technically possible to implement the CRC. A Pentium5 5 gigahertz may be required to play the enhanced CRC CM, but maybe not. I guess, much programing time would be required, but would it be a prohibitive cost of BTS's time? Would the CRC proposal be CM? Well, it would not be the present CM.

Don't get me wrong, I really like/love CM. However, the thought of "my" far away, lone flanking sniper seeing the large enemy counter attacking tank force and instantaneouly (and telepathically) transmitting that information to me, is just not realistic (but it sure is some fun). With the best of players, I know how to 'play' the tricks of CM and many other wargames. However, I don't really like doing these gamey type antics.

I am just trying to improve CM so that it can be an even better simulation along with the fact that it is already great game which I thoroughly enjoy.

Also, I don't really have the time or skills to produce my own wargame. However, I can sure have my wish list of having my cake and icing too - a great game that is a total simulation. 'Yeah, and Morgan Fairchild is my girlfriend. Yeah.' Lol. :eek:

Cheers to Morgan Fairchild !!!!! Richard Cuccia

[Username]

I had suggested that an interim 'solution' would be to have the players orders limited by a further Spotting/IDing filter.

To give an example:

1. The player clicks on a unit (or is assigned unit).

2. Game then resolves the LOS and spotting/IDing for this unit only.

3. Player issues orders for this unit and moves to next unit.

4. There would be no re-editing of first unit. That is, you cant go back and edit the first units orders because of something the second unit can see.

The game could force you to give orders to the most LOS limited units first. This would only take place during the orders phase of course. The in-turn spotting/IDing would play out as usual.

Lewis

[olandt]

I'm not sure if the CRC would add that much CPU demand. CRC would obviouly be tied into the Relative Spotting that BTS is already planning on going ahead with. It could use the same "Message" system, and rightly so. What would be cool would be coding in the runners. Imagine how much more important sharpshooters would become. Not for spotting as they are commonly used now, but for denying communication to the enemy. It would also be cool to code in the radio man with the officer units, making it an item that could be lost.

What I think the really cool thing they could do, albiet this would definately only work on more powerful computers, would be to then run the game in real time. NO turns. Instead of the current "EYE in the SKY", see the whole battlefield, limit the view to 1st Person commander. Give him a map that keeps track of reports and issue orders on to ease things. I think that would be cool. You could then have an omnicient movie after the battle to see what all happened.

[Warmaker]

Playing the game, seeing things and issuing orders from the platoon leader or higher's position seems interesting. I'll have to agree that the AI needs to be damn good though in following orders (barring morale, etc.). If you're only going to see it from the unit leader's perspective though, what's gonna happen to the game when this same unit leader that represents YOU gets whacked by a bullet or a 105mm artillery shell lands in his foxhole? Automatically jumping to the next man in the chain of command with the player's same exact knowledge, plans, techniques, etc. just doesn't seem right. The lieutenant gets whacked so the platoon sergeant takes command of the platoon. But hold on! Since a human player is taking over, your basically transplanting the lieutenant's brain to the next person in the chain of command. I know it sounds weird but...

[PiggDogg]

If the player/commander P/C gets killed by a stray piece of shrapnel or a sniper's bullet to the head, there are two options. (1) game ends, you are dead. (2) the P/C gets transplanted to the next in command.

Personnally, I prefer the first alternative because it adds fear. This would result in more careful and safe placement of the P/C unit to lessen the chance of harm.

Of course, the discussion of the P/C unit placement should come somewhat after these questions are answered: (1) does a demand for CRC exist, (2) should CRC be done, (3) can CRC feasibly be done, and (4) will CRC be done.

Cheers, Richard Cuccia :cool:

[Richard Morgan]

Ref: Richard Cuccia the PigDog

"If the player/commander P/C gets killed... there are two options (1) Game ends, you are dead (2) the pc gets transplanted to the next in command.

Back in the bronze age, there was a naval simulation called "Dreadnoughts" by Dr Peter Turcan which in effect did both of these. When you - the commander - were sunk, the pc took over, went into accelerated mode and played the rest of the game out before your very eyes. This had the effect of concentrating the mind quite wonderfully when it came to self-preservation. For all the crude graphics, I still rate this particular game as the best naval simulation I have yet encountered

[PiggDogg]

I was told by a friend (I can not remember who) a time back that during the late 80's or early 90's there was a computer Napoleonic Battle game (probabally on Waterloo) that implemented something like the proposed CRC. The only items on the game map were what Napoleon or Wellington could physically see and hear and the reports that such commander received. Also, a time delay may have been figured into the length of time that reports would take to reach the commander and the length of time that orders would be required to go from commander to lesser commanders.

Certainly, this old Nappy game must have required intelligent and safe placement of Nappy & Wellington. Wellington's placement at his (I think) elm tree atop the ridge certainly gains importance.

Also, I don't know if the game ended if a stray round shot took out the commander's innards.

It woul be quite interesting if something like this Napoleonic type game command system (and the proposed CRC) would to be implemented into the rewrite of the CM code, even in a incremental or toggle on/off basis.

Does anyone remember the name of this Napoleonic game? I never knew the name of this game, so I can not remember it. Lol.

Cheers, Richard Cuccia :confused:

[Richard Morgan]

Does anyone remember the name of this Napoleonic game??

Actually, it was another of Doc Turcan's efforts... There was a series of them called "Turning points" which if memory serves, included Waterloo and Austerlitz

[PiggDogg]

I must profess my ignorance. Who is Doc Turcan? If back in the old days of computers (late 80's & early 90's), Turcan had a Napoleonic computer game with the equivalent of CRC, he was quite innovative and ambitious. Thanks for the info.

Cheers, Richard Cuccia

[Ron]

Turcan has a new simulation coming out called Battalia, Wargamer for a preview.

Ron

[PiggDogg]

Thanks a lot for the link to the 'Wargamer' about Dr. Turcan. What his upcoming Battalia seems to incorporate the proposed CRC.

Once again, the CRC may not be sufficient fun or ease of play to be viable for CM.

Cheers, Richard Cuccia :cool:

[kipanderson]

Richard, hi,

I halfway agree with you, but cannot go all the way with your views.

What you suggest would be great in a “command” game. By this I mean that “if” we, the players, just played the part of battalion/company commanders then I would agree with you. But that is not the case. For me, a large part of the fun is that in CM I play the role of the battalion, company, platoon “and” the squad and AFV commander. Because one plays the role of so many individuals, at so many levels of command, there is no way of avoiding being able to “see” everything all friendly units can see. Also, there has to be a limit on C&C modelling. It is all very well limiting the squads/AFVs power to react to an order from a platoon/company commander but you are then also limiting “your own power”, as the squad/AVF commander, to react to a threat/situation you can see. Given that in CMBO and in CMBB one person plays so many roles I would not like to change things. I enjoy playing the part of the squad/AFV commander at least as much as playing the part of the battalion commander. However, what you are after I believe will come with later CM engines. The answer is to have “team” play on each side, in my view.

If in CM3 there was the option of four players on each side then there could be three company commanders and an overall battalion commander. The company commanders would only “see” what units in their respective companies could see. This would a ply to both enemy units and friendly units. And so on. The same restrictions to ply to issuing orders, only to units in your own company. I later versions of CM there could be even more players on each side, thus causing realistic C&C problems.

All the best,

Kip.

[Darwin]

You guys ever play Chain of Command? In CoC the highest ranked player on a side would get command and be able to assign a chain of command to his subordinates. at the bottom of the chain visiblility was limited to what your units could see but as you went up the command ladder you would get vision of all subordinate teams as well. Take that system change the absolute spotting of subordinate units to a more general info type ie: location, strength, ammo?, threat level. Put it into a massively multiplayer CM and were golden

[olandt]

Another possible mod for those people who wish to have more conrol over the battlefield would be to give the player control over ONLY the HQs. No top downs just 1 level views from each HQ. It would be neat if you could model in getting lost in the fog and at night as well. Would make those encounters much more difficult and realistic as it would greatly increase friendly fire accidents.

[Username]

People here should also check out Steel beasts. It has a very unique triggering of orders that I find interesting. Its another game that is using the computer well I think.

Lewis