Uncanning troop reaction times: proposal for CMBB, etc.

[John Kettler]

Here's an idea which seems easily doable, but it may not be.

Chief proposal

Briefly, my idea is to assign a probability distribution to unit reaction times, rather than a canned number. It could be further tweaked to represent fatigue onset, damaged morale, etc.

My concept is that while on average the elite unit will outperform a lower quality unit, sometimes the inferior will have a good day and the superior won't. On average, the performance differential will remain, but more variability will be added to the mix. This will increase uncertainty and eliminate tactics based on exploiting consistently slower reaction times by inferior troops.

Additional ideas

Were sufficient processing power available, one could get really creative and do things like weighting unit priorities. A green tank crew might be slow off the mark in gunnery, say, but quick to leave town if shot at or otherwise in jeopardy.

History records an instance in which an Israeli MG jeep unit encountered Egyptian armor. Shots were fired, and both sides hightailed it. The Israeli reasoning was obvious, but the Egyptians figured that if they were alread taking .50 cal. MG fire, something lethal was doubtless next.

We don't see much mutual recoil in the game, except at night or in fog and such. We as game commanders are nowhere nearly as reticent to advance as real soldiers in combat are. This in turn generates a generally unrealistic willingness to close with the foe, so much so that I think the charge home logic needs additional research. I would argue that the decision to continue to press home an attack is a dynamic process which does not go on autopilot when a unit crosses some line x meters out from the objective.

These are my ideas. What say the troops?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Bobbaro]

Some thoughts there of much merit, John. Fuzzing up these responses is just as applicable as where it is used in other game functions. Could surely up the reality quotient. Some more.

[ 09-04-2001: Message edited by: Bobbaro ]

[Schrullenhaft]

I heartily agree. Admittedly it may not be something simple to code up and some players would probably want it as an option (which would be even harder to code up).

I think it would be great to bring a little more uncertainty to the game. Players tend to naturally optimize their play and become familiar with every detail that has a bearing on their tactics. With the limited classifications available at the moment to CMBO, more variables would certainly add more realism to the game (and possibly make simple classification and usage of your troops a more complex matter).

[John Kettler]

I confess myself a bit surprised that there has been so little response here to my proposal. I don't know whether it's so obvious it needs no acclaim, so ridiculous it's beneath comment, or simply was so evanescent that it appeared and vanished unnoticed and largely unremarked upon.

My thanks to the two of you for your public and private comments on my proposal.

Sincerely,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

It's not a terribly bad idea, John, so far as I can tell. But it would take a certain amount of programming and debugging effort that might be more interestingly invested elsewhere. JMHO.

Michael

[James Crowley]

Pretty good ideas IMO.

Almost anything that realistically increases uncertainty has to be good thing. This is an important area especially in relation to QB's.

If CMBB continues to have QB's produce uniformly similar troops (i.e. all green or all vets etc.) then something like this could add a measure of variety and unpredictabilty, sadly missing.

I have always believed that "CM Time" runs a bit quicker than "historical real time" and, again, anything that tends to slow things down (like troops advancing under fire) can only be, historically, correct

[Ron]

A very good idea, another aspect of unpredictability is always good. Differing reaction times for troops under fire is already in CM so perhaps it wouldn't be a stretch to expand that further, who knows. Definitely worth a bump.

Ron

[Dogface21]

I agree, I dont see why it couldnt be done, maybe have three factors. A unit could have a range of response times, based on fatigue, incoming fire, and experiance. Each one randomized by a lil' program, it really wouldnt have to be a big proccesor hit, but that depends on yer proccesor .

Great idea. BUMP