Combat Mission: Changing scope

[Barticus]

Let me start by saying this is NOT a request for BTS to build a new game, just me being curious.

The current 'scope' of Combat Mission is basically on the section. Several sections of men make a platoon, several platoons make a company etc. What if Combat Mission were increased in scope, say, where one of the 'multi-man' counters would represent a platoon and a single vehicle model would represent a pair of vehicles, would you still be as interested? A map at this scale could be several tens of kilometres wide and larger actions would be more easily handled, but I feel too much would be given up for the sake of playability. I really enjoy getting down in the dirt and seeing what the men I command are seeing.

Understand what I'm getting at?

Good, so let's go the other way, what if Combat Mission were decreased in scope? Each individual soldier would be modeled, there would be TWO men for each MG42 LMG, and five for each M2HB. Vehicles would be much rarer and potentially more potent. The 3D terrain would be much more important, perhaps even including the interiors of different sized buildings, hell, maybe you could even MAKE your own buildings through a set of pre-generated tiles. I know I played the old X-Com literally to death, and would be most interested in seeing how this scale could be handled using the 'we-go' system.

I realize that there are games out there that could compete with either of the options I discussed above (MS Close Combat series and Talonsoft's Campaign series) but I believe the beauty of Combat Mission is the we-go system, I just wouldn't have stayed as interested in the game if it weren't for this unique compromise of turn-based and real-time strategy.

Anyway, I was just wondering what everyone else thought, or am I completely off my rocker?

Wait a minute, you DON'T have to answer that.

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>but I believe the beauty of Combat Mission is the we-go system, I just wouldn't have stayed as interested in the game if it weren't for this unique compromise of turn-based and real-time strategy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To a fair extent, I agree with the core of this statement and think the We-go system is the most significant thing by far about CM from a broader gaming standpoint. It could easily be applied to a host of games, military or otherwise.

As a fan of shooters, too, I've also imagined a reduced-scale CM would feature the We-go system, historical fidelity, and basic interface conventions coupled with a top-flight 3D engine and represenations of each individual soldier and vehicle. Essentially a wargame with shooter like elements or vestiges. Imagine, perhaps, something akin to Operation Flashpoint with the We-go system, for instance. That would be amazing.

It would offer the tactical complexity (likely increased with the more detailed terrain, actually) and intelligence of CM with the added raw emotional inolvement of a detailed 3D game with a shooter's scale.

[ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[lcm1947]

Actually, I am extremely happy with the game as it is. Not really being in to computers and knowing whats what, my biggest fear is that if BTS changed it much it might not be the same game. I would hate to see that happen, so guess my answer would be no. Now I would like to see the sort of game (decreased in scope) that you are talking about but wouldn't want BTS to do it so they wouldn't deviate from the present game and games to come. Hope that makes sense? Now going back to increaseing the scope and why I wouldn't care to see something along those lines. I have played a game that did just that and while fun for a brief time it soon became old becauese being on that level you lost a lot of control. Even if somebody could develop one and it was a blast to play I personally feel it would be overwhelming to have to make all the details (orders or commands) that one would have to do. Anyway, my personally feelings.

[David Aitken]

On the simple matter of soldier representation, there are a few threads to look at:

#'s of soldiers in future CM titles - will modern tech help?

men flying from explosions

An interesting idea for squad representation!

A Case For Full Squad Representation

[Stacheldraht]

Just to clarify my point, I meant that I'd like to see not merely every individual soldier represented in such a game graphically, but actually have the game scale altered to the level of individual soldiers and vehicles. (Yes, I know we have the latter already, and the massive entertainment arising from that feature is precisely why I'm thinking along these lines.) That is, you'd control each man in each squad or team separately, yet still within the confines of cohesive groups (some sort of C&C issues would encourage that, surely). Imagine getting to position each soldier behind specific trees, rocks, walls, doors, and so forth; choosing standing, crouching, prone positions; etc. Basically, a hyper-detailed CM.

Naturally, ethical and esthetic issues of realistic presentation clashing with respect for the people who fought and died in these engagements would arise. Those are the sorts of issues that should be dealt with anyway in wargaming and in gaming in general, in terms of graphic depictions of violence using increasingly realistic visuals and sound.

[ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[lcm1947]

Quote:

_____________________________________________

Imagine getting to position each soldier behind specific trees, rocks, walls, doors, and so forth; choosing standing, crouching, prone positions; etc. Basically, a hyper-detailed CM.

_____________________________________________

Well, I have to admit that does sound cool.

[Michael Dorosh]

Isn't that what GI Combat is promising? Only in real time?

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Isn't that what GI Combat is promising? Only in real time?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure, but I thought that game was axed (?). I just play Tribes 2, SWAT 3, or Rogue Spear for a real-time tactical experience akin to that. A hyper-detailed We-go wargame a la CM would be another matter entirely, though.

[Slapdragon]

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

Isn't that what GI Combat is promising? Only in real time?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but it is not using anywhere near as realistic a model. With individual soldiers modeled, they have chosen not to look at all at ballistics of small arms fire.

[Stixx]

CM is brilliant!!!!. No doubting that.

If you reduce the scope to a FPS it wouldn't be CM it would be Operation Flashpoint or alike.

If you Increase it it would be Operational Art of War or alike.

CM is a very individual game that i believe is perfect. If you change the scope you change the game.

I only play extremely large games in CM. Because i enjoy them alot more than smaller ones. I would like to see a game similar to CM on a larger scale.

I wouldn't like to see BTS change the size/scope of the game. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you reduce the scope to a FPS it wouldn't be CM it would be Operation Flashpoint or alike.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, it would be vitally different than a real-time first-person shooter such as Operation Flashpoint. I'm thinking of a game that in all of the most important respects (hybrid turn system, interface, detailed ballistics model, historical accuracy, tactical complexity, diversity of units, etc.) would be just like CM, but with the scale altered to cover individual men and vehicles, instead of using the current somewhat broader scale of individual vehicles and squads/teams. I think a game like that would present many new and interesting tactical challenges without becoming a shooter. (There are already tons of excellent ones there; Medal of Honor: Allied Assault looks like it will be a very entertaining one using the roughly the same time and theater as CM, btw.)

[Barticus]

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

[QB]

Actually, it would be vitally different than a real-time first-person shooter such as Operation Flashpoint. I'm thinking of a game that in all of the most important respects (hybrid turn system, interface, detailed ballistics model, historical accuracy, tactical complexity, diversity of units, etc.) would be just like CM, but with the scale altered to cover individual men and vehicles, instead of using the current somewhat broader scale of individual vehicles and squads/teams. I think a game like that would present many new and interesting tactical challenges without becoming a shooter. QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was more or less what I was getting at, this is the kind of game I wouldn't mind seeing. It would be especially good for modelling house-clearing.

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It would be especially good for modelling house-clearing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My thoughts too. That's an area CM is sadly deficient in. With the reduced scale, you could move troops through each room, choose which window to fire from, etc.

[Big Ron]

The biggest problem of changing the scale as far as I'm concerned would be balance between the various arms (infantry, armour etc.) At the moment a force of infantry can take on a mechanised force in a well balanced battle. If the game scale changed I think it would be very difficult to maintain that balance

[Spook]

In a word about the idea of adjusting CM to a smaller scale---No. That would not be good for BTS to pursue. (I don't think it will anyway.)

I can understand what you desire here, Barticus. And yes, seeing 3D combat played out as per the means you've described through a smaller unit scale would be intriguing to see, and give a more "personal" feel to a firefight. But it would also create a few added layers of micromanagement than is the case now, and at some point, that can get too much.

Another problem is how the ground & time scales would be adjusted. If you are trying to guide men on a more personal level, would a one-minute time execution between order plots still suffice for you? Or perhaps you might think that 30-45 seconds would be more applicable? And what of the ground-scale and "higher unit" bounds? Would we still attempt mulitple companies or battalions with this reduced scale? I thnk that attempting a battalion-level scenario with the proposed reduced scale would get very tedious very soon.

An added benefit of the existing CM scale to me is that direct-fire ranges of various weapons are more measureable. At ranges of 1000, 1500, or 2000 meters, certain weapons like the 88mm will "reach" better. If your proposed reduced scale requires a reduction in ground scale to be utilized, then it becomes a case where such variances in fire effectiveness aren't so obvious. Which, in turn, reduces most scenario scopes to that of closer-range head-on firefights (again, more so than the present case).

If a more "personal" feel to tactical combat is desired, then perhaps "Medal of Honor" should fit your bill when it releases. But BTS would do best to maintain its focus and to stick with its present chosen scales.

[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Barticus]

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

The biggest problem of changing the scale as far as I'm concerned would be balance between the various arms (infantry, armour etc.) At the moment a force of infantry can take on a mechanised force in a well balanced battle. If the game scale changed I think it would be very difficult to maintain that balance<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I absolutely agree. I would argue, though, that the current focus of CMBO is the armoured fighting vehicle, whatever it's role. Infantry is included and ABSOLUTELY necessary in any sort of combined operations. I still can't help feeling, however, that it takes a back-seat to the armour, not as 'Sexy' I guess. If the scope were reduced, the focus of the game would then become the individual infantry soldier.

Although, I should be careful what I wish for. I might just end up saying "Damn those Garands!!" instead of "Damn those Panthers!!"

Bart

[Barticus]

In response to Spook, who posted while I was typing;

Again, I can agree with you on most of your observations. If the decision were made to see a smaller scope CM, the decision would also have to be made to drop something at the larger end. Battalion scale engagements would be tedious in the extreme, hell, I find them tedious now, but a typical engagement at a reduced scope would probably be about a platoon. I guess what I'm searching for is the ability to do justice to how hard the fighting was in built-up areas like Ortona and Stalingrad. I made a scenario for Combat Mission in a town setting and clearing city blocks with combined arms tactics is just far too easy. Only being able to draw upon my rather limited paintball experience, I just feel it should be more difficult than it currently is.

Just a quick note; I have heard rumours that BTS intends to expand building representation in CMB2B, and I am VERY much looking forward to it.

Bart

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>At the moment a force of infantry can take on a mechanised force in a well balanced battle. If the game scale changed I think it would be very difficult to maintain that balance <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, balance would need to be altered on most fronts, no pun intended. Infantry could still fight vehicles, though, thanks to fausts, schrecks, zooks, PIATs, Molotov cocktails, the kitchen sink, etc. Clearly, though, a single platoon, with each soldier represented, couldn't take on a Panzer company. The number of vehicles in a battle would need a proportional reduction to address that issue.

It's true too that certain weapon systems wouldn't be as relevant at a reduced scale, but others, including the myriad personal firearms, would gain in significance.

[Doug Beman]

Stachel, I don't think increasing the scale of CM would be a positive step. Modeling true 3D terrain and real-time would bring about a game not unlike "Beyond the Rhine" from Microprose. I HATED that game specifically because of how one vehicle graphic had a footprint of several vehicles, making it IMPOSSIBLE to do things like get hull-down, etc.

Decreasing the scale (i.e. modelling and giving orders to individual troops) might be interesting, but either technical requirements would increase exponentially or battles would be no more than 1 platoon on a side, fighting over a map only a few hundred meters. I personally would tire more quickly of this type of battle.

DjB