1:1 Representation in CMx2 (Part II)

[Rick]

My having missed the Borg stuff probably is related to my other comment, the forum was becoming less interesting for awhile, thus I checked it less often. It's incredibly interesting now, thus I check it frequently.

I'll have to find the time to look up the earlier posts.

Are you guys still doing your primary programming on a Mac? Don't know how I ended up on a PC, I am primarily a photographer and that community is mostly on Macs, especially when I first got into the whole thing.

[Battlefront.com]

Primary coding is, for now, being done on a PC. This has to do with an issue regarding support for the Mac compiler he has been using. Long, strange, geeky story... but Charles is hedging his bets by waiting for things to sort themselves out before moving back onto the Mac. Whether the prime coding takes place on a Mac really depends on which compiler wins the tussle that is going on now. From a customer standpoint all of this is moot since Charles has always produced equally stable, featured programs at the same time for both PC and Mac.

Steve

[Rick]

Sounds like that is probably beyond my understanding.

Interesting that you use the term geeky describing the story. One of my friends' husband use to work for a computer game company and she says their company holiday parties were exceedingly boring for those not into computer games. Like most of his coworker could talk of nothing else.

[Battlefront.com]

So true I imagine it is similar to any holiday party for a company with a strong focus, like stock brokers, sports management, etc. Hard not to talk about your work when you spend 80 hours a week in the office and another 20 outside of it doing nothing but...

One of the interesting things about Battlefront now is that we really don't talk about the rest of the games industry much. Back when we started there was so much to talk about because there were still big wargame and warsim companies out there. TalonSoft and SSI were two of the last, and when they went under there was pretty much nobody left. Not in the way there used to be back in the earlier 1990s.

Steve

[Hamstersss]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Primary coding is, for now, being done on a PC. This has to do with an issue regarding support for the Mac compiler he has been using. Long, strange, geeky story... but Charles is hedging his bets by waiting for things to sort themselves out before moving back onto the Mac. Whether the prime coding takes place on a Mac really depends on which compiler wins the tussle that is going on now. From a customer standpoint all of this is moot since Charles has always produced equally stable, featured programs at the same time for both PC and Mac.

Steve

Any chance of it running on Linux or is that just a pipe dream?

[Halberdiers]

1:1 representation in CMX2:

-From the "support teams" to the "task teams"-

In CMX1 today , bazooka and machineguns(BAR,M1919) are teams that can be added to the scenario as individual element.

This could be good for certain battles at platoon level , but in battles at Battalion level the number of units increase a lot and gets to make tedious the move of units with the same purpose.

Developers could be possible to integrate "support teams" to squads during the game?.

With a certain limits (any),as the number of soldiers of the Squads (12 soldiers).For example: a split rifle squad (6 men)+ Bazooka team (2 men)as a "task unit" during certain number of turns. This unit have 8 men, then can be added and split later.In this way the purpose of the unit make the form and size of the unit (under certain limits).

This can decrease a lot the time lost to look the support teams to integrate them in the purpose of the maneuver and prevent the excess of tedious moves during the big battles at battalion level.

Could be used for this purpose a order "embark" that exist now in CMX1 and the order "split" that exist now in CMX1 too.

IMHO, the definition of GAMEY can not to be applied here because "task teams" can be limited by certain rules.

Gamey adj - a term used to describe an action which seeks to exploit design limitations in order to gain an edge in combat that the designers either explicitly tried to prevent or at least do not think is not propperly balanced with the other elements of the simulation.

[ February 07, 2005, 06:45 AM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[aka_tom_w]

Bump

because I am still curious about this aspect of the whole 1:1 concept....

-tom w

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Thanks Steve

BUT you have me Stumped!

If you say:

" But wiih a 1:1 man representation you could, in theory, have your entire 12 man squad physically spread out over 100m"

How does that make sense if you tell us that in no way will the player have 1:1 control over each man (I do not want 1:1 control over each man, thanks ).

The only solution that comes to mind is an SOP or a "formation template" that in effect says "Stretch it out boys!" ( 2 man fox holes 1 every 15 - 20 m) or something?

VERY interesting!

Thanks so much for the VERY prompt and informative post.

-tom w

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

In theory, going 1:1 means that a squad of 12 men is 12 men firing 12 weapons a 12 different targets. A 6 man 1/2 squad is 6 men firing 6 men at 6 targets. If nothing else were changed, the 1:1 system has not fairly made a 1/2 squad 1/2 as effective.

Also think about the "head of the pin" problem current units have. If you want to spread out your forces even a little bit, split squads is sometimes the only option. But wiih a 1:1 man representation you could, in theory, have your entire 12 man squad physically spread out over 100m. Now an artillery round comes down near one side... bang... it can only possibly hit 3 guys or so. That means, no matter what your squad was doing, only 3 guys are going to go down max. In current CM it could be the entire squad, because although there is some accounting for guys being spread out the abstraction of unit footprint means we can only do that to a limited extent.

Will you be able to split squads in CMx2? I don't know. Probably since the same reasons for adding this feature into CMx1 still exist, even with 1:1 representation. There just won't be as much need nor the potential for "gamey" benefits in some situations.

Steve

</font>

[Battlefront.com]

No, we are not planning on allowing the player to make small ad hoc "task forces". We do, however, have better ways to control small numbers of units than in CMx1.

Steve

[Stephen Smith]

Wow-

I never REALLY thought you'd go to 1:1 representation in CM. Even though, as reprinted below, I made the prediction in May 2003...

""This is my prediction for the future of CM.

In the not too distant future (in fact, probably, today) it will be technically feasible to 'draw' all soldiers in a squad (Rather than represent squads by 3 soldiers, teams by 2 soldiers, leader groups by 1 soldier, etc). This will be done-after all, why not? Its realistic (why represent 12 soldiers by 3, if you can actually draw the 12?), it looks cool, etc etc.

However, there will be problems. The computer AI will screw little things up: when you want to line a squad up behind a wall, the computer will occasionally accidentally set individuals on the wrong side of the wall. Sometimes it will place soldiers outside of a building, or outside of foxholes, etc.

To fix this, the software will have to be tweaked to allow the player to manually move individual soldiers. After all, its not realistic for one soldier of a squad occupying a bunch of foxholes to be lying on the ground next to a perfectly good foxhole, is it?

Tied to this will be occasional errors in the casualties caused: perhaps you have the machine gunner behind a corner, and the squad takes casualties from the street, but the computer randomly 'kills' the machine gunner rather than the individual in the street. Utterly unrealistic! So, the software will be rewritten so that fire is targetted on individual soldier icons rather than the 'squad' icon. (and similarly, individual soldiers, rather than 'squads' fire at the enemy as well).

Then, you will realize that sometimes you want your soldiers to lie down-perhaps in a foxhole, perhaps behind a wall, etc. Again, realism dictates that it be done, the software is an easy tweak to add 'lay down/stand' orders, so why not?

Then, some people realize that moving individual soldiers gives you certain advantages. For instance, if you move two soldiers to the edge of a wood, but leave the mass of the squad deep in it, you can see out without committing the whole squad (i.e. set up an LP/OP). Perhaps you want to put a machine gunner at one part of a wall and the riflemen at another. Perhaps you want to be able to cover a long hedgeline with one squad, so you spread the guys out more than the computer would.

It becomes apparent that moving individual guys is no longer an option; it is a necessity. Both to do exactly what you want to do, and to avoid allowing the computer to set you up in screwy positions, you find yourself moving individual soldiers rather than squads.

Everything is realistic, everything is logical. Every little change 'improved' upon a problem identified in CMBO/CMBB. But now, you are maneuvering individual soldiers in smaller and smaller time increments. The scenarios will get smaller; the time represented will get smaller; the action performed by each command will get smaller; and the game will have essentially evolved into a squad simulator that can be used to move a platoon, company, or battalion, for anyone masochistic enough to force himself through it.""

In essence, I'm worried. The prediction above has one very specific concern: How do you have 1:1 representation without 1:1 control? I don't think you can (for the reasons mentioned above). And if you have 1:1 control, you have a vastly different game-perhaps a sophisticated Close Combat. I like my company/battalion level Combat Mission. I'm not so sure I will like a platoon level Combat Mission 2. But we'll see, I suppose.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

In essence, I'm worried. The prediction above has one very specific concern: How do you have 1:1 representation without 1:1 control? I don't think you can (for the reasons mentioned above). And if you have 1:1 control, you have a vastly different game-perhaps a sophisticated Close Combat. I like my company/battalion level Combat Mission. I'm not so sure I will like a platoon level Combat Mission 2. But we'll see, I suppose.

I wonder about this myself.

One way would to this ( the only way I can think if right now) would be to let the player use LOTS of pre designed "formations" or templates ALONG with SOPs.

I can think the you would issue the "move as a long line one after the other" order/formation with an SOP to spread out like a straight line behind the wall at the end of the "move as a long line one after the other (column march)" order when they get to the wall.

So that would obviously put the onus on BFC to give us LOTS of SOPs and many choices for templates or preset "formations" or SOMETHING (or JUST trust the AI :eek: ) for moving or deploying.

Having already said that there WILL NOT be 1:1 control, they must have something pretty convincing up their sleeve to pull this off. (at least I sure hope the have something clever in mind! :eek: )

Sorry I don't play or "sample" as many other games as many of the other readers on this forum.

How do other games do it?

Are there other games of the same scale as CMx2 that use 1:1 respresentation WITHOUT 1:1 control? (NOT FPS games they are not the same obviously)

thanks

-tom w

[ February 07, 2005, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[junk2drive]

Sid Meier's Gettysburg comes to mind.

[JPS]

Total War series has 1-to-1 representation but unit level control (around 6 to 100 men per unit). Having CM engine implement some medieval or ancient battles in the Total War style is intriguing idea...

[U8led]

Ever played Full Spectrum Warrior? You only control 2 teams but the 'template' idea is in there like you mentioned. If you want to move a team you select them then move the curser around and a hologram will show you how your team will be positioned when they arive at that position. Then after they arive if you want to change just one mans positon you can select him and move him wherever you want.

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by JPS:

Total War series has 1-to-1 representation but unit level control (around 6 to 100 men per unit). Having CM engine implement some medieval or ancient battles in the Total War style is intriguing idea...

You mean every guy in Total War had his own AI and stuff like that?

[Battlefront.com]

1:1 control is simply not workable for a game of CM's scale. It is horrible to even think of.

You guys have to keep things in perspective. You are playing CM right now, yes? CM's TacAI does things that are outside of your control, yes? It annoys you, yes? But you are still playing the game, yes? What makes you think that 1:1 is somehow going to be worse than what you already have in front of you? And anybody here that thinks that the abstraction aspect of the current CM engine makes goof ups OK, but not for 1:1 simulation, is probably lying

My point is that no matter what the level of abstraction is, the game will make some mistakes. It is unavoidable. The key is for those mistakes to be the exception rather than the norm. Nobody, not even us, can say that CMx2 will succeed or flop on its face because we haven't coded it yet.

No matter how hard people bitch and complain about CMx1's TacAI, it does things far more right than it does wrong. Heck, some of the stuff I've seen people complain about is in and of itself wrong (i.e. the TacAI is behaving correctly, just not the second guessed way the player wanted). How well will CMx2's 1:1 AI match up against CMx1's abstracted TacAI? Nobody knows, especially the people that claim they have a pretty good idea. History has shown that those who voice the loudest dounts early on are also the ones that owe us the bigest apologies later

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

My point is that no matter what the level of abstraction is, the game will make some mistakes. It is unavoidable. The key is for those mistakes to be the exception rather than the norm.

-Steve

I would guess that some folks here will be watching closely for the mistakes that are the exceptions and hoping they are few and far between.

The obvious issue that comes to mind is half the squad in moving into the cover you want (BEHIND the wall) and the other half appearing in the game NOT to be in the cover you order them to be in (stop and go to ground in FRONT of the wall appearing exposed to enemy fire).

-tom w

[ February 08, 2005, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[JPS]

Re: Total War series - the individual level modeling is simple, but yet complex enough to produce reasonable behavior at higher levels. The tiny men obey formation orders too well (or at least too quickly), though...

[U8led]

Re: Total War series - the individual level modeling is simple, but yet complex enough to produce reasonable behavior at higher levels. The tiny men obey formation orders too well (or at least too quickly), though..

The 1:1 representation in Rome: Total War is very enjoyable to the eyes. (although since battles are fought RTS I never felt like I could spend the time just watching the visuals in the individual skirmishes. CM shines there with the we/go and unlimited movie playback)

From the first time I played Rome: Total War I was thinking how great it would be to have a similar campaign map with WWII theme and all battles played out CM style. Of course the scale would be to big for CM battles. So even a Theater Campaign Map with the battles fought CM style could be doable, but that is another topic for another thread.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

What makes you think that 1:1 is somehow going to be worse than what you already have in front of you?

In CM I control squads. Sometimes, like when it is pinned, I lose that control, and my squad might do some foolishness. But it's limited to that.

But, in CMx2 there's a whole new level of action over which I have no control even when the squad itself is nominally under my control! It's exactly the same as if you crippled my copy of CM with an 'update' that gave all the control of squads to TacAI, with an instruction to stay in contact with the platoon HQ which I'd still keep under my command!!! So I'd get to watch the squads run into barbed wire, get stuck in corners, do all the wrong things, and I'd have no control over that other than try to predict the TacAI behaviour, a very annoying art in itself which I got fed up with in Close Combat, and which I could live without.

As you can see, dear Steve, trying to make this new game of yours is a folly and can only be considered as the result of long-time exposure to liberal media and all their radical anti-ludditian ideas. Thus I am inviting you and Charles to come to live in my forest cabin where I can guard with a shotgun that you don't get sidetracked in the development (as has been the case in the industry since circa 1985) and instead finally make the PERFECT text-based wargame that we all Grogs have been waiting for (and if you act well, I might even allow you to include a fancy ASCII animation for die rolls).

[Battlefront.com]

hehe... good advice. CMx2 will now be done in ASCII

I hate to make a point like this, but it is true that the TacAI's placement of a Squad can be substandard. Not just the placement, but where it stops, why it stops, and what it does once it is stopped. You might not necessarily notice the negatives of these choices, but they are there. The big difference between CMx1 and CMx2 is not that there is a potential for a lot more screwups, but rather that the screwups will be more visible to the player. That is a legitimate concern, which I answered directly in another post (basically saying we are aware of this).

Not to worry guys... we think we can do it and do it right. So far we haven't let you down, and we don't intended to start a bad trend

Steve

[dalem]

You are in a patch of woods with paths leading in all directions.

try to spot enemy

You are in a patch of woods with paths leading in all directions.

You spot no enemy.

turn tank A turret S

Your turret is turned South

move tank A W

Your tank has moved West.

Spot enemy

You are in a patch of woods with paths leading in all directions.

You spot no enemy.

.

.

.

-dale

[jeffsmith]

Thanx for the ALPHA AAR

[Thomm]

Originally posted by dalem:

You are in a patch of woods with paths leading in all directions.

Thank God I am old enough to grasp the nostalgia in this line ...

Was it 20 years ago that I tried to code something like this in BASIC ... ah the glory. But then again I tried to code a "game" where every soldier in a formation was represented by - hold your breath - a single pixel on a C64. And now we have Rome - Total War ...

Best regards,

Thomm

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem:

You are in a patch of woods with paths leading in all directions.

Thank God I am old enough to grasp the nostalgia in this line ...

Was it 20 years ago that I tried to code something like this in BASIC ... ah the glory. But then again I tried to code a "game" where every soldier in a formation was represented by - hold your breath - a single pixel on a C64. And now we have Rome - Total War ...

Best regards,

Thomm </font>

[dalem]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem:

You are in a patch of woods with paths leading in all directions.

Thank God I am old enough to grasp the nostalgia in this line ...

Was it 20 years ago that I tried to code something like this in BASIC ... ah the glory. But then again I tried to code a "game" where every soldier in a formation was represented by - hold your breath - a single pixel on a C64. And now we have Rome - Total War ...

Best regards,

Thomm </font>