RTS version of CM ever?

[The_Capt]

Ok last one and then I will attempt to get on with my life.

Slapdragon, please read my post. I mean if we are going to flame each other, it will give a common ground at from which to hurl matches from.

I did read yours and perhaps my sarcastic response sailed over some heads and died out beyond the wire. So for the last time:

I do not exect BTS to "drop everything" in favour of an RTS. I was and still am simply suggesting a "new idea" about CM in real time. Yes it is quite a departure from the current game but I think it has merit. Please do not keep grouping me in with this "RTS group" of which you keep mentioning. I have no idea of whom you are talking. I was offering an idea, one which no one has really given a good reason why it wouldn't work, especially as on online multiplayer game.

BTS took a chance on CM, they have admitted that it is far more successful than they could have hoped. It was a solid idea by gamer for gamers. I am suggesting something similar. It you think the twitch RTS crowd will go for a game in which the sound of gunfire may be the best indication that a sub-unit has come under contact, I thinkyou are mistaken. Whilst, hard core wargamers may find it challenging.

Someone mentioned that it should be done from a map because that is what commanders saw. Not true, I belive Bn COs could see 3D terrain and didn't stay in the CP the entire time. 3D terrain is wondeful, you can sight positions and do actual terrain analysis. Hell one of the scenarios which came with the CD suggested that you stick in the position of the Coy Comd or "look over his shoulder" for a real challenge. Realism is what we are aiming for. Without the blood of course.

I find it funny that discussions will rage on as to how many mm of face hardened steel a German 50mm AP round will penetrate taking wind resistance and altitude into account but when I suggest as "type of CM" which would portray the CCC issues in a far more realistic manner the knives come out.

Very odd by my mind, because CCC is far more important to tactics and planning than all of the nuts and bolts stuff. I don't know, I am a professional military man and maybe that is just how I see it.

Anyway there it is, now someone can "do a search" and find my idea and argue with you Mr Slapdragon all over again in a few months.

[Spook]

Folks, I gotta weigh in with the Capt. on this one.

For one thing, I never perceived that Capt. was personally requiring a revision to the game-clocking structure in CM. I think his argument all along was, "If someone has an inspired concept on how continuous-time could be implemented, then let him be heard."

And I concur. If an RTS fan wants CM to be continuous-time, ask him to offer his reasons why on a point-by-point basis. That allows him to make his case without feeling like being tarred & feathered. A we-go advocate (like myself) can then provide a counter-argument to each point.

If the RTS fan takes umbrage or gets thin-skinned about the counter-points, then that's his fault. But his argument was given the podium. And also citing BTS's views (if relevant) is entirely fair game, because that MIGHT help the argument move to resolution quicker.

Now in regards to the Capt.'s quote below:

In order for Real Time to work (and I am sorry for not making this clear in my first post) one would have to lose control of the troops.

BINGO. And therein is the irony. Because if a continuous-time structure was adopted, BUT with lessened direct control of individual units, I personally believe that the majority of RTS fans would scream bloody murder and hate it. And yet, as pointed out by the Capt., that is just the premise that would have to be attempted in order for an RTS fan to foist an argument of "greater realism over we-go."

An interesting related example is Breakaway's recent game, "Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle." On several occasions, I have argued that trying to play the full battle with this game would be more plausible under a we-go structure. Now & then, a WNLB advocate lashes back to argue that "We-go would make WNLB less realistic!!" One has even recently labeled we-go as a "lame" concept.

And yet, such advocates have never articulated their reasons very well on WHY continuous-time is better (or more "realistic") than we-go for that game scale.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

In order for Real Time to work (and I am sorry for not making this clear in my first post) one would have to lose control of the troops.

BINGO. And therein is the irony. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. What came first, the chicken or the egg? The point has been made that by making CM into RTS, it CAUSES you to lose command of your troops!

Exactly what we are arguing against!

Capt - the point has already been made that the team rumble is the best way of introducing some of this reality. WW II Online is a bust for many reasons, but the concept isn't a bad one (ie many players playing at the same time).

But for a one to one game it is quite possible to abstract the amount of control over one's troops - CM already does this to a degree, via command radii, command delay, etc.

James Collier argued for the same kinds of things you are arguing for - when GI Anvil of Victory was being playtested.

His rules were so cumbersome, they were never adopted. I think the same thing would apply to what you propose for CM.

[Triumvir]

Sixty posts have hit this thread since I last checked the board. I had a nice long post half written before I accidentally erased it; therefore upon completing a section I will save and edit my reply.

I will state my point and let the matter stand till the furor cools. Ten years on Usenet has taught me -- but not well enough - that posting in heat cheapens my point and is as contemptible as imputing opinions to others that they do not hold.

As to the last, I reproduce Slapdragon's comment:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In a nutshell it was "you guys have mo (sic) right to critique our idea, only BTS does." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I reproduce my statement:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I moot that changing a turn length is _not_ a "difficult and time consuming code change" and frankly, unless Charles speaks up for himself or through Steve, I don't think you can say with any certainty that it is or isn't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still stand by saying that unless Charles -- the actual programmer -- says that something is doable or not doable, one cannot say with any certainty that something is or isn't doable.

<credo>

I believe that Combat Mission II's engine -- that same engine which will be rewritten after CM2, 3 and 4 -- will materially benefit from additional turn lengths which are more or less than one minute -- henceforth referred to as variable length turns. Specifically, I believe that turn lengths ranging from 30 seconds to 10 minutes, at minute intervals after the first minute will benefit CM II players.

</credo>

The case for variable length turns is control over player control of troops.

For turns shorter than a minute -- 30 seconds in my proposal -- novice players will have more control over their troops. This will affect their gameplay as it will let them more easily recover from poor planning by managing their troops.

For turns longer than a minute, each incremental minute forces the player to plan for contingencies, and forces the player to bear the consequences of improper planning. Conversely, this proposal rewards careful planning and execution, and makes its payoffs much greater.

This can be duplicated in the current engine against the AI by clicking go after each turn, since the AI in the present engine apparently issues orders that end at the end of each turn and issue new orders at the start of each turn. This explains the strange phenomenon of an entire rifle company sitting in the open three hundred yards from the ambush zones at the start of every turn, and rising en-masse at the sixteenth, sixth, or sixtieth second to being their move.

It can not be duplicated against a human opponent because of the inherent moral hazard problem of an opponent agreeing but reneging on their agreement. This moral hazard can be negated by forcing the game to play in n-minute long turns.

The case against variable length turns can be reduced to three objections.

The first is that the current game AI is unable to handle turns longer than one minute. Erratic results apparently occur which destroy the illusion that one is fighting a genuine AI.

This objection is not easily disposed of. Saying that "well, an improved AI should be part of the rewrite" is a glib and meaningless answer. Nonetheless, I really have no choice but to say "well, an improved AI should be part of the rewrite". 8) Specifically, an AI should be improved such that it is scalable beyond a minute.

I haven't worked with AI algorithms since high school, and thus am not qualified to make comments about what should and shouldn't be used for the AI.

Only allowing AI play at one minute or less, while reserving longer turns for multiplayer games may offer a solution, but the real answer is, again, "well, an improved AI should be part of the rewrite."

The second is that the amount of effort required outweighs the gain from the increased control. This is a very reasonable argument to make, and is at the core of just about every human decision.

I moot that, assuming all else stays the same, the amount of effort required to increase the calculation phase from 60 seconds to 120 or 30 seconds is relatively small. As I understand it, the AI sets goals before the calculation phase, then the game engine takes over and actually performs calculations.

I obviously do not know how BTS resolves their calculation phase. Making an educated guess, however, based on approximately fifteen years of programming experience, they use some form of counter to calculate at each discrete time interval -- probably no less than half a second and almost certainly no more than one second -- what has happened in game reality. Increasing either the start or end condition to a variable amount does not seem like an inordinate amount of effort.

Again, I stress that the above is an educated guess, but I would be extremely surprised if it did not in general describe their resolution.

The third argument is that changing the turn length -- more to the point, shortening the turn length -- somehow makes CM "not CM".

This argument is mere sophistry -- a wego system at 15 second intervals bears an obvious family resemblance to a wego system at 150 second intervals. Arguments about CM scope can be disposed of by Steve's statement nearly a year back that CM was not really intended for huge games -- CM has exceeded its scope; does this not imply that scopes can change?

I don't intend to dive into the murky depths of CM being the pinnacle of achievement -- to mangle Churchill, CM is the worst wargame ever created, except for everything that came before it.

And on that note, I leave this topic for at least another two weeks.

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Triumvir ]

[Slapdragon]

Again, why not just give your troops extended orders then run through a bunch of turns without touching the game. No need to delay CM2, no need to screw up the engine (read Germanboy and Rune's post) no need to even get upset. You can do it now and be done with it.

[Slapdragon]

I just posted to the Quake Online forum requesting a turn based strategy version of Quake 2 with a WEGO system and a detailed body engine system and ammunition modelling to replace the fantasy based hit point system and "power up" style ammo. Should make one hell of a game.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

I just posted to the Quake Online forum requesting a turn based strategy version of Quake 2 with a WEGO system and a detailed body engine system and ammunition modelling to replace the fantasy based hit point system and "power up" style ammo. Should make one hell of a game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL the old college sarcasm, eh maybe someone will snatch this one up as a signature . We can make an Slap'sters humor fest with the best quotes over the last year .

Better yet you could post your sugestions to the RB6 or Infiltration forums, since they already model a detailed body engine system and ammunition modelling, as well as a plethora of other things, they might like your We-go system idea.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Wrong. What came first, the chicken or the egg? The point has been made that by making CM into RTS, it CAUSES you to lose command of your troops!

Exactly what we are arguing against!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You missed the point of my post in turn.

My point is that many a RTS advocate (though not all) will argue the following:

"WE-GO is less realistic because time doesn't stand still in the real world. You aren't allowed in real life to spend minutes or hours mulling over what to do with each & every unit. (And yes, one can certainly do such a stretch in CM, either in solitaire or PBEM.) You should go on instinct on which units to give orders to."

That's how I've heard it on this issue, at this forum, for well over a year. And that's how I hear it at other forums, for games like WNLB. There's a WHOLE bigger world than just this forum, folks.

Yes, Michael, continuous-time in CM would ultimately cause for a gamer to lose control of most of his troops, on the likelihood couldn't keep up. But assuming, for a moment, that a C&C orders-delay structure wasn't still in place, then what would prevent a gamer from "jumping" to a critical action point and controlling a unit directly?

That is the continuous-time premise for a game like WNLB or Close Combat. And that MIGHT be the premise some RTS fans may argue for application in CM; let the clock run, but allow direct control of specific units on the fly.

And then it reduces to arcade-level mousesport. Which I believe that most of us here are justifiably against seeing.

[Triumvir]

Slapdragon, read my edited post as for why "clicking go" is not an acceptable solution.

As for a turnbased wego system for Quake 2, I refer you to Counterstrike, which has a detailed body engine system, relatively accurate ammunition modelling, and a millisecond granular turn.

And yes, Counterstrike is a helluva game.

I'd also point you at, for your happy belittlement of RTS, Fighter Command, one of the best wargames I've ever played on the Apple II.

Note that I have answered all of your snide remarks as politely as I can to be best of my ability. Your refusal to extend that same courtesy, as ever, is entirely your decision.

<edited for stupidity>

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Triumvir ]

[Slapdragon]

I am being nothing less than polite, and am at this point mostly trying for the effect of well placed humor. Since the very serious arguments against RTS and variable times where posted and ignored by Rune, Germanboy, and others, and the censors have struck in force, I am merely working at the level of the invective. If the well reasoned arguments of the above excellent posters are tossed in the trash without even a look, and their words are belittled by people who think no one should critique these ideas, then tactics have to change. Return and address these worthies ideas, and I will be happy to return to an intellectual conversation. In the mean time, I will ride this one down to lockup pointing out to new readers that all of this has been covered about 6000 times, and you can even find all of the arguments listed again here, ignored.

[Philistine]

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

Slapdragon, read my edited post as for why "clicking go" is not an acceptable solution.

{snip}

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Triumvir, you said before (unless that was a typo) that you can test out the 2-3 min. turns against the AI. Have you done so? What did you think? Was the play materially different? Did you think better? Worse?

I don't see doing this as a replacement for a variable length turn system, so much as a test of concept. I would think (I've been too lazy to try it out myself) that this would at least give you a feel for how well it could work, and if it would improve the game or not.

Personally, I don't have a whole lot of interest in a variable turn length system, but I don't think you are being unreasonable in exploring it.

My $.02

--Philistine

[Battlefront.com]

Not having read much of this thread (seen too many like it in the past) I did see this one comment I wanted to respond to:

Triumvir,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I still stand by saying that unless Charles -- the actual programmer -- says that something is doable or not doable, one cannot say with any certainty that something is or isn't doable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not doable. I know, since Charles and I have on many occasions chuckled about how simple people think it is. We would have to rewrite the entire engine, from scratch, with nothing but continuous time in mind. And even if we did that, we do not feel there would be a game worth playing when we finished the engine. At least not at CM's scale. Period.

BTW, when I worked for Sierra we were making Civil War Generals 2 right around the time when "RealTime" became THE buzzword. Every suit in gaming town wanted a RTS game for the Christmas lineup. And about 43 were put out that season, only 2-3 impressing anybody. Anyhoo, as the Producer of CWG2 I had to stand in front of the head and founder of Sierra to justify our existance. He wanted us to make the game realtime. "Oh, it would be really easy. All you have to do is just make all the turns run together". Sound familiar? Anyway, he didn't know what he was talking about either and fortunately he was talked out of forcing us to attempt such a foolish thing. It never would have worked.

Just some FYI insider scoop from us.

Steve

P.S. We have no plans to *ever* make a continuous (realtime) game. And we have our next 12 years of development in mind when we say that too...

[Madmatt]

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

Just some FYI insider scoop from us.

Steve

P.S. We have no plans to *ever* make a continuous (realtime) game. And we have our next 12 years of development in mind when we say that too...[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does that mean I won't be getting another vacation anytime soon?!? :eek:

Madmatt

[Slapdragon]

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

Not having read much of this thread (seen too many like it in the past) I did see this one comment I wanted to respond to:

Triumvir,

It is not doable. I know, since Charles and I have on many occasions chuckled about how simple people think it is. We would have to rewrite the entire engine, from scratch, with nothing but continuous time in mind. And even if we did that, we do not feel there would be a game worth playing when we finished the engine. At least not at CM's scale. Period.

BTW, when I worked for Sierra we were making Civil War Generals 2 right around the time when "RealTime" became THE buzzword. Every suit in gaming town wanted a RTS game for the Christmas lineup. And about 43 were put out that season, only 2-3 impressing anybody. Anyhoo, as the Producer of CWG2 I had to stand in front of the head and founder of Sierra to justify our existance. He wanted us to make the game realtime. "Oh, it would be really easy. All you have to do is just make all the turns run together". Sound familiar? Anyway, he didn't know what he was talking about either and fortunately he was talked out of forcing us to attempt such a foolish thing. It never would have worked.

Just some FYI insider scoop from us.

Steve

P.S. We have no plans to *ever* make a continuous (realtime) game. And we have our next 12 years of development in mind when we say that too...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve, don't beat around the bush now, do you intend to make an RTS game from CM?

[Battlefront.com]

Oh,

I forgot to add something. And that is that I really do like RTS games. Back when I had access to a LAN and people to play against, I used to rock at WCII and C&C (original and Red Alert). So before anybody starts thinking that we are against RT because it is RT should forget about making that case But just as turn based is not the best model for all games (oh, like for flight sims for example ), RT is not well suited for some games either.

Combat Mission, because of its scope and CPU demands (which can be overcome in the future for sure!) it can not be RT and be the same game that it is now. Even if coding were not an issue, which it is. That is why Combat Mission will never, ever, in a billion years go realtime. Might we make some other wargame with a realtime system? Hey, who knows, but we aren't planning on one. There are reasons why the WEGO system is superior for the scope and goals of CM, even if gamers totally under appreciate them.

Steve

[Spook]

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

There are reasons why the WEGO system is superior for the scope and goals of CM, even if gamers totally under appreciate them.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The are reasons, IMO, why WEGO would also be a superior system to utilize in other recent tactical wargames like WNLB. But past suggestions about this to WNLB advocates have been like talking to a brick wall at times.

Such is life.

[David Aitken]

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

We would have to rewrite the entire engine, from scratch, with nothing but continuous time in mind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is where I jump in and say "told you all so!". Did someone mention 'concept'...?

[Battlefront.com]

Small clarification to Triumvir's posts. Yes, we could POSSIBLY alter the turn's simulated time a little, but I am sure it would require far more coding work than he thinks. You see, the game was always designed to be 60 seconds of time, therefore all sorts of assumptions were made in the 3 years or so of coding.

Sure, if we rewrote the game engine from scratch we could make it variable without too much difficulty, but only to a limited degree. Oh, say 30 second turns or maybe 120 seconds. But much beyond that and the game system would cease to function well. At 10 seconds the players would have too many chances to screw around with orders, while 180 seconds too few. So we would have to program entirely different logic to try to overcome these problems. And what for? 60 seconds seems to be "perfect" so why go through all the effort and development sacrifices (i.e. only so much time, so only x stuff can get done) if it isn't worth it?

Making 1 second, or fractional second, turns which "run continiously" would never work unless we made an entirely different game and UI to work with it. So that is out of the question even if 30 seconds is theoretically possible to do (but not practical or even desirable from our standpoint).

Steve

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Small clarification to Triumvir's posts. Yes, we could POSSIBLY alter the turn's simulated time a little, but I am sure it would require far more coding work than he thinks. You see, the game was always designed to be 60 seconds of time, therefore all sorts of assumptions were made in the 3 years or so of coding.

Steve

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Their Thank's Steve , everyone happy now?.....

RRegards, John Waters

[Slapdragon]

Gee, could it be the same things Germanboy said like 85 posts ago?

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Gee, could it be the same things Germanboy said like 85 posts ago?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Had to get that last flank shot in eh . Maybe they will all apologise to ya'll & beg your forgiveness for the audacity of wanting an 'official' BTS response..

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Their Thank's Steve , everyone happy now?.....

RRegards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John, why pretend that you have just won some kind of victory? This is what Slapdragon et al were saying all along. Steve is just making it canonical. It wasn't necessary for him to do that, though I'm glad he did.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

John, why pretend that you have just won some kind of victory? This is what Slapdragon et al were saying all along. Steve is just making it canonical. It wasn't necessary for him to do that, though I'm glad he did.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Victory Michael :confused: I figured ppl would be glad BTS answered their question Ie, ppl got an 'official' answer & other ppl got to say 'told you so' everyone should be happy now. Sorry no hidden agenda etc.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Triumvir]

I'm happy that my question has been answered. I was quite wrong in my assumptions; nonetheless, je ne regrette rien.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Had to get that last flank shot in eh . Maybe they will all apologise to ya'll & beg your forgiveness for the audacity of wanting an 'official' BTS response..

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I learned flank shots fighting Germans with M4A3s.