End of an era

[Beta1]

is that an african or an asian elephant?

[Joachim]

What takes up most time is tracking LOS. Remember that in every split second each unit has to check its full LOS for other units to decide on actions (fire, stop, ...). Use a huge map with large hills and lots of woods (or flat with every tile scattered trees) and a 5000 pts battle will run fast. Select a huge open ground map and do a 5000 pts battle. Hours later...

If CM would ignore sighting etc of enemy units during turns and only follow given orders, it would run much faster.

Guess if Total War would incorporate light infantrists individually panicking when seeing heavy cavalry in the distance, they would need much more cpu time. But if all units follow orders and only ignore them once panicked by massive losses, they need much less time for this.

Example 1:

You have 100 infantrists in tight formation. The unit spots a threat but marches on as threats are ignored. It takes losses. Based on the losses, the TacAI decides how many of the unit rout. Any action the individual does is based on the units perception. (Unit is the base for decisions though individuals are depicted. Only commands and events in the immediate vicinity influence unit behaviour)

Little CPU time

Example 2:

99 infantrists in command of an officer march forward in open formation. A few spot heavy cavalry or archers in the distance and start "falling back". Each soldier is tracked regarding spotting and its subsequent decisions. Communications between individual soldiers happens, so those around the spotters start to fall back, too. (Really individual soldiers. Commands and long range interaction influence soldiers actions).

Lots of CPU time.

Read: It is not important for the CPU how many units are displayed. The question is what influences their actions. (Display is rather a matter for the graphics card)

Gruß

Joachim

[Sergei]

Uh, unlike Total War, Combat Mission is not a real time strategy so I'd keep between-turn computations separate from frame rate. Especially since the screen freezes for the duration of the calculations. This makes direct comparisons of CM and TW pointless.

[ June 08, 2004, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Sergei ]

[Joachim]

Sergei,

as a mathematician I state that RTS is kind of CM with millions of ultra-short turns, very little time allowed for orders and no replay.

Now considering we have a really huge CM scen and each turn was 0.1 seconds instead of 1 minute. Time to compute a 1-minute turn can reach 5 minutes. So 0.1 seconds need 0.5 seconds of calcs. If a RTS would need the same calcs, it would not run smoothly. 2 frames per second - regardless of how fast your display is.

Question:

If TW runs smoothly with more units (ie calc time for a 0.1s turn is less than 0.1s) - why does CM need so much time to compute a 1 minute turn (and I don't talk about the graphics here) when it has less units than TW.

Answer: There are many things lacking in TW that are in CM (cf. above). And those things missing are those really straining the CPU

Gruß

Joachim

[Sergei]

Nothing wrong with that, Joachim, but how did we jump from graphics into modelling? Processing a turn could take 20 minutes, but that is independent from the graphics. In an RTS the system has to do both simultaneously, but I think the argument earlier was that, even then Total War shows more soldiers and more accurate terrain than CM does (dunno if that really is the case, as I've seen M:TW only once and I thought the graphics sucked). It would appear to me that it is only confusing to talk about complexity of modelling when the actual topic was complexity of graphics (and in a turn-based game increasing one doesn't take away from the other, unlike in RTS's like TW). Maybe I missed the post where the discussion took a turn... :confused:

[Joachim]

Hehe...

Flamingknives "You can have all the pretty graphics in the world, but it's the gameplay that makes the CM series great. "

Kobal2: "Gameplay is everything. Graphics...we don't need no stinkin' graphics !"

IMHO graphics and model/engine can not be separated. Of course it is possible to have 10 men depicted per squad. But the little grog in me wants that only if each of them behaves at least as rational as the squad does now. To achieve this, you need the TacAI for every soldier, thus you get more objects. So you'd have 5 times as many of your troops interacting with 5 times as many enemy troops. (Assuming an average of 5 men/objects per unit).

Same goes with accurate tres vs abstracted trees or any other feature. Once the graphics are exact, I would be rather disappointed in tanks driving straight thru a tree (or a single soldier just outside the trench.)

Gruß

Joachim

[Ant]

Guess if Total War would incorporate light infantrists individually panicking when seeing heavy cavalry in the distance, they would need much more cpu time. But if all units follow orders and only ignore them once panicked by massive losses, they need much less time for this.

Example 1:

You have 100 infantrists in tight formation. The unit spots a threat but marches on as threats are ignored. It takes losses. Based on the losses, the TacAI decides how many of the unit rout. Any action the individual does is based on the units perception. (Unit is the base for decisions though individuals are depicted. Only commands and events in the immediate vicinity influence unit behaviour)

Actually Joachim MTW is far more complicated in this area than you seem to realise. It's true that morale is based on the unit rather than individual troops (as does CM actually) but there are more factors taken into account than you seem to be aware of, and is actually every bit as complex as CM in calculating this, possibly even more so:

1. Distance that the unit is away from the General has an effect on morale.

2. Whether the unit's flanks are protected or not has an effect on morale

3. distance that the unit is away from the main body of the army has an effect on morale

4. fatigue level of the unit has an effect on morale.

5. Casualty levels and has an effect on morale.

6. Rates at which those casualties are occuring has an effect on morale.

7. Unit proficiency has an effect on morale.

8. Individual attributes of the Army commander has an effect on morale.

In fact, if anything, I'd say that MTW makes more calculations for this than CM.

[Sergei]

The graphics and the simulation are already separated IMO. You see three men per squad on screen, but actually they are just a marker for a squad. I'm not sure if those who want to see full squads want all men to be tracked individually (hope not, that would ruin CM) or if they just want to see three times as many polygons in that marker. In some sense I sympathize (it'd be fun to actually see all the men of my company assaulting across a field, sawed into halves by MG's and cut into smaller pieces by shrapnel, and it'd also be nice to see all the LMG men etc.), but in the end it's all useless to me. I prefer functional graphics, even if it means that the graphics are a bit more symbolic than realistic. Realism, after all, is a dead artform. Why try to revive it in a post-modern world? Might try cubism or dadaism just as well. Since the interface of CM is not meant to be realistic (or did commanders click around the battlefield with a pointer from the sky), and considering that graphics are only a part of the interface, it logically follows that the graphics aren't meant to be realistic either.

[Sergei]

How many units do you have in Total War under your command? 20?

[Ant]

Originally posted by Sergei:

How many units do you have in Total War under your command? 20?

No, 16.

I don't doubt that CM makes more calculations because of the fact that there's usually far more units in play at any one time. I'm just taking issue with Joachim's assertion that MTW makes very basic and simplistic calculations for each unit, it doesn't, it makes quite complex ones.

[Kobal2]

I think the limit of units on the board at the same time is 16 per side, though you may have 3-4 times that much in reinforcements.

[Sirocco]

What's the compexity of the tactical decisions in something like TW? I have no experience of the game, but I doubt it has to deal with cover and concealment and reaction to enemies in quite the same detail as CM, or WC, for that matter.

A compromise might be to split squads up into smaller groups, and I suspect that's the route that will be taken. That would be more manageable, but raises issues of squad management.

[Kobal2]

(WC ?)

Actually, cover and concealment is something to be dealt with in TW, as forests will provide cover from archer/crossbow fire, cavalry is very vulnerable in trees, archers fire farther from hilltop etc...

Also, the combat calculations of TW are quite complex since they take into account terrain and/or weather (units tire faster if heavily armored in North Africa deserts for example, units charging uphill are disadvantaged etc...), individual prowess (though moralewise it's the unit as a whole that is concerned (they will either all flee or all stand), each man in a unit fights independantly, and each man has a hidden "value"), the effect of morale as Ants said, the effect of flanking and/or rear attack, and the actual weapons they use - some units are killers when they charge and in the initial contact (such as heavy knights, or Scot Clansmen with their claymores) , but will progressively lose their efficiency when bogged down in a melee, some weapons are better against heavily armored ennemies (axe-wielders for example), or against horses (pikemen spring to mind), some are better attacking, some are better defending etc...

Quite complex, really. Of course, not as complex as CM, but still nothing to be sneezed at.

I agree that splitting squads might be the way to go, though of course it would imply more micromanagement.

[Sergei]

Uh, what do you guys mean by "splitting squads"? That there would be twice the amount of units to micromanage (teams instead of squads)? Doesn't sound appealing. It would be nice if a squad had more of an "area" dimension, instead of being a marker at coordinates [X,Y]. But most alternatives I can think of only add up to more micro managing with little gain. Despite of all the hype on the forum, I'd settle for an engine that does what current CM does but better (vehicles blocking LOS, AP shells tracked better so they can hit by accident - even these aren't vital), better artillery model, and of course multiplayer for over two players and improved scenario editors with the ability to edit for a scenario those unit values which you currently can't. And the possibility to pit Finns vs. Germans. Et cetera. Mainly I'd like to see a solid game, like CM.

[Sirocco]

More visible units - for example, three groups representing a squad, rather than one - doesn't mean more management for the player, unless the player chooses to issue orders to specific groups, a la split squads.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Kobal2:

(WC ?)

Actually, cover and concealment is something to be dealt with in TW, as forests will provide cover from archer/crossbow fire, cavalry is very vulnerable in trees, archers fire farther from hilltop etc...

Wartime Command.

A modern era game needs to deal with cover in a much more detailed manner. The co-ordination within squads is also more complex.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Ant:

In fact, if anything, I'd say that MTW makes more calculations for this than CM.

I had a wide range from worst case to best case. As you state, TW is somewhere in the middle. But you state that TW only has 16 units. And this is the main point:

TW does not calculate for every soldier but per unit. This drastically reduces amount of calcs necessary. Guess with max 16 units per side CM would run very quick.

Next point is that it is not the amount of things you have to calc but how you calc them.

Checking for weather to calculate speed or how fast you tire is each one calc per unit - thus linear.

Calculating a distance is easy (still on calc. Just take the coordinates and ole Pythagoras). Checking if there is LOS between two points is more complex. One calc for every point between them.

Checking if there is a unit in another ones rear is easy. Checking if there is a unit visible (or heard) in the rear is much more complex. (You have to calc all points with LOS to the unit then check those that are in the rear for the existence of units and then check whether the units are visual or sound contact due to cover/concealment etc. If you want to check those complexity issues - try counting every 2m*2m square in LOS and then those out of LOS)

1. Distance that the unit is away from the General has an effect on morale.

Command radius of HQ - but CM checks for several HQs and command distance depends on whether there is LOS

2. Whether the unit's flanks are protected or not has an effect on morale

3. distance that the unit is away from the main body of the army has an effect on morale

ad 2&3:

Tanks in the rear. Amount of enemy seen. Incoming from flank/rear

4. fatigue level of the unit has an effect on morale.

Ditto in CM

5. Casualty levels and has an effect on morale.

Ditto in CM

6. Rates at which those casualties are occuring has an effect on morale.

Ditto in CM

7. Unit proficiency has an effect on morale.

Ditto in CM

8. Individual attributes of the Army commander has an effect on morale.

Command bonus

Nevertheless I'm looking forward to RTW.

Their big advantage is that battles were fought in formations in the depicted times and thus their model is reasonable well. It just would not do for modern war..

Gruß

Joachim

(Technical addendum: I know you can set up battles with 16 units per side that do not run quickly. IMHO this is because CM has a huge limit on forces, thus not allowing to do the calcs as comparison of each two units. From my experience CM checks a units field of view and it's subsequent actions are based on what is in LOS. Slower in certain cases, but much quicker in many others. This is a design decision based on there's more than 16 units)

[Kobal2]

Agreed on the fact that the TW engine wouldn't work at all in a modern setting, although I think it could probably be OK for Napoleonic or US Independance / Secession War settings. Of course, they'd need to add a "Messieurs les anglais, tirez les premiers !" order .

[Gian]

Hi there guys

Interesting post. I am a huge WW2 game fan and needless to say I snapped up CM 1,2 and 3. I play CMBB the most as the Russian theatre is a very interesting campaign. The graphics are good, but not great. But as they say, beauty is not everything.

I think the CM series will still be cherished my us grognards for a long time to come. But at the same time we are looking forward to new developments.

For those warmongers that don't know yet there is a new game coming out, however it is a RTS not turn based.

Look at this and it is based on the IL-2 engine.

http://www.cdv-board.de/english/showthread.php?s=66ae56774abce13ba43d5fc89d434269&threadid=34155

Now that looks amazing!!!!!! If they can get the physics and all other parts right then we are on to a winner here.

I play CM regulary, as well as Blitzkrieg which I think is really cool. Also sometimes Eric Youngs Squad assault.

Anyway, we are really spoilt for choices but titles that utilises todays technology are not yet released, there are a good few titles in the pipeline and I hope they are as promising as they look.

Regards

Gian

[ June 09, 2004, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: Gian ]

[ladoga]

Originally posted by Gian:

http://www.cdv-board.de/english/showthread.php?s=66ae56774abce13ba43d5fc89d434269&threadid=34155

Now that looks amazing!!!!!! If they can get the physics and all other parts right then we are on to a winner here.

If we can expect same realism (lack of) that il-2 has, then ill be playing CMBB long.

Good looks isnt everything.

[Chelco]

Originally posted by Kobal2:

@MikeyD : I don't think displaying the exact number of men would be that slowing down...I mean, what takes so much time is the "behind the scenes" calculations, not the display IMHO. And besides, Shogun and Medieval:Total War run smoothly with battles involving a thousand soldiers on each side, each of these soldiers tracked individually (though on a less complete/complex scale than in CM), plus a full 3D map much more detailed/complex than CM ones, so technically those 10 soldiers wouldn't be such a major feat...

If you look closely at the individual soldiers in the Total War series, they look like they are 2-D sprites. In the CM series each soldier is a 3D model.

[Kobal2]

I know TW soldiers are 2D, but then again, there's 960 of them, not 30 (and Rome...OK, no talking about vaporware. Still, Rome... )

[uhu]

Agreed, that CM's graphics is obsolote, but not the game. If we think after, how many hours we spent with this game, than, it could beat almost everything! My example: 160 Campaign-battles: these are at least 3 hours - total 500 hours, and this is only the solo gameplay!!! What other game have "taken" from me 600+ hours? (and I must say, I played many games, also because, I works at a computer gaming magazine)

What compares to CM, is the classic, mythic legend, Panzer General. It's campaign is still the best today.

[flamingknives]

Obsolete is a bit strong, obsolescent would be closer to the mark.

[junk2drive]

kobal2, ive not heard the term usa secession war. usa schools call it the us civil war, but i prefer the war of northern aggression. i am a "northerner" but believe in states rights.

you will find, out as the EU progresses, what i am talking about.