1:1 Representation in CMx2 (Part II)

[Sergei]

Originally posted by JonS:

But surely you got somethings right, and you think 'yep, that needs to be in x2'. Stuff like WeGo, for instance.

If a decision has to be made between new features and WEGO, then the WEGO has to go. BFC is like a shark, it has to swim forward to stay in the Biz - listening to the 'Grogs' (a cancer they are, if you ask from me) only costs them in sales when it is obvious that the GRAND MAJORITY of the Market prefers Real Time Strategies.

Personally, I just can't wait to see GICx... oops, CMx2!!!

[Dschugaschwili]

Steve,

if PBEM will be in CMx2, will it use the secure two-files-per-turn system that was already proposed a few times on these forums? You know, the one that was (according to you) too much programming effort to be included in CMAK.

Dschugaschwili

[aka_tom_w]

Thanks Jim

That article should be a must read for anyone and everyone posting to this thread.

Its ALL about wargame design and the wargame player and designer relationship and the wargamer community.

Thanks I found it very informative.

But not at all related to Combat Mission in any specific or direct way.

Maybe everyone should read it before they post any further here...

-tom w

Originally posted by jim crowley:

http://www.wargamer.com/articles/groping_new_paradigm_2/

"Groping for a New Paradigm, Part 2

Author: Jon Compton

Article Type: Fifth Column Editorial

Publication Date: 2/11/2005

Related Categories: Business and Industry, Reprinted Article

Introduction

The Wargamer is pleased to present the first of a three-part series written by Jon Compton, editor-in-chief of Fire & Movement Magazine. This article was originally published by Against the Odds Magazine in Volume 2, No. 2, and The Wargamer would like to thank them for sharing these with our readers.

Part One of this series was published earlier.

Groping for the New Paradigm, Part II: Through a Glass and Darkly

One striking statistic that every wargame publisher eventually becomes aware of should it conduct a customer survey is that the largest portion of military wargame consumers play their games solitaire much of the time, if not exclusively.

(WOW!! If this is really true Steve is right in what he has been telling us here!!)

This characteristic begs several questions. Perhaps the most important among them is whether or not the games are played solitaire because of a lack of opponents, or because of something else? Unfortunately, I’m unaware of any empirical research that has occurred attempting to answer that question, but I can take a few anecdotal guesses.

The most obvious, and perhaps most often assumed answer is lack of opponents, but it doesn’t hold up well under a certain type of scrutiny. With the preponderance of Play by (E)Mail (PBM or PBEM) tools available these days, even the most rural denizen of our hobby should be able to play wargames against an opponent. Further, there are many opponent services available through user groups and the like on the Internet. Granted, many people still don’t have computers or Internet access, but I think if they really wanted to find an opponent, they could by putting up a notice at a local hobby store. The answer lies elsewhere. 

The players themselves in various wargame forums have offered another solution to this mystery. Many say that they do not view the products as games at all, but rather tools with which they can further analyze and garner greater understanding of the historical situation. This act is done through reading and analysis of the rules and components, and play, if you will, of the game in a non-competitive way to examine how the situation unfolds on the map."

[ February 11, 2005, 04:34 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Ron]

Interesting articles about wargame design, but the author's perspective is entirely on boardgames. Most of his comments are hardly relevant to computer wargames where there has been design innovation though not always successful.

One of his comments which stuck was the talk of the "Art of War" by Sun Tzu and how "Warfare is largely a psychological affair in which understanding your enemy and her relative capabilities and motives are as great a factor as firepower."

It's interesting, in a detached way, to follow the heated comments in this thread since as Steve said "we aren't even there yet". Unless one believes that Steve is really secretly 'sowing the fields' for the 'crop' to come.

Ron

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

One striking statistic that every wargame publisher eventually becomes aware of should it conduct a customer survey is that the largest portion of military wargame consumers play their games solitaire much of the time, if not exclusively.

(WOW!! If this is really true Steve is right in what he has been telling us here!!)

It’s an interesting article, but it deals with board games, not computer games, so I would question whether it supports Steve’s opinion.

I think much of the confusion in this thread comes from the assertion that PBEM play is not as popular relative to other forms of play. This assertion seems to be based on surveys by game magazines. The only evidence to counter this assertion is circumstantial – CM tournaments, campaigns, the large number of 2-player scenarios at the Scenario Depot, etc.

I’m sure Steve was right in that most computer game surveys found solo play was more popular than other types of play. But it would be interesting to see what types of games those surveys targeted. FPS? RTS? Wargames? I don’t know. Even if they did cover wargames, I would still question whether the results are applicable to the CM community. As Steve has so rightly pointed out in the past, CM was not designed to be, nor is it, like any other computer wargame – if it were it would not have been as successful as it has been. I find it hard to believe that it would have been as successful without PBEM, but, again, that belief has no hard data to back it up.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Ron:

Interesting articles about wargame design, but the author's perspective is entirely on boardgames. Most of his comments are hardly relevant to computer wargames where there has been design innovation though not always successful.

Ron

And most boardgames CAN'T be played over the internet, unless you use a cyberboard, VASSAL module, etc., so basically the point is useless.

In other words - John Q. Wargamer in Buttsville, Iowa (Population: 20) is more likely to play against a live opponent if his game is on his computer than if it is on his kitchen table.

Whomever posted that article should be shot. :mad:

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mace:

PS suck, ain't I?

What just happened here was an example of the typical behaviour of the 'jelly kneed jillaroo' - an ethologist.

But at least your sig line apologized for you in the next sentence.

[Battlefront.com]

Jon,

That response is off tangent. I realise CMx2 is going to be different. I don't expect a clone CMx1 in pretty colours. But surely you got somethings right, and you think 'yep, that needs to be in x2'. Stuff like WeGo, for instance.

We started with no such presumptions. When we made CMBO we said "we want to make the most realistic and fun wargame possible. How do we do that?" That is what we did for 3 years. We did not look at other games and say "everybody loved this and it worked well, let's include that". Which is why earlier in this? thread I corrected the record (yet again) about CM's relationship with SL/ASL. We did not use any other game for crib notes. To a large extent, the same thing is happening now.

We are making CMx2 as if CMx1 never existed in the sense that we are interested in making the most realistic and fun wargame possible, not to keep as much of CMx1 intact as possible. Having said that, our design for CMBO was our first tactical wargame and the first game Charles and I worked on together. Therefore we really did have a clean slate internally. With CMx2 we are obviously we don't have that same clean slate because we have nearly 7 years of CMx1 and collaborative work experience deeply ingrained in us. So CMx1 is a major source of influence for CMx2, even though we have no specific preconceptions of what should or should not be in CMx2.

Having said all that, only an idiot would think that we'd toss out stuff simply because we used it before and want to use something new for the sake of it being new. That is just plain stupid thinking. So yes, a lot of CMx2 will be familiar to you guys. But that is more coincidental than deliberate. i.e. the CMx1 stuff that is going into CMx2 is going in because it works to support the overall goals of CMx2, not because it is a CMx1 feature.

To snuff out potential incorrect reading between the lines... CMx2 will be WeGo

Since you asked, there's no presumption. Just bafflement at demonstrated priorities. Moving stars are in. PBEM might not be. Bafflement.

You're baffled only because you are either not reading what I am saying or not understanding it. So I will try again... PBEM is a feature we want. It is a priority in the sense that, all else being equal, we will make sure the interface and protocols are there to support it. Unless, of course, that it is TECHNICALLY not possible. You still seem to be under the illogical assumption that non-essential features, such as the stars thing, are somehow a higher priority and that because we are pursuing these superficial things that we are purposefully harming a core feature, PBEM. That is ridiculous. If we thought that superficial stuff like that was going to harm PBEM we would have an option to turn it off for that form of play or to not put it in at all. Or do you think we are a bunch of morons with a proven track record of making boneheaded decisions?

The superficial stuff, which will add to the game experience but not create it, is NOT the sort of thing that might kill off PBEM. No, the stuff that might affect PBEM are core gameplay things that impact the entire game experience in both a game and a sim standpoint. And yes, THAT stuff is a higher priority than PBEM for the simple reason that PBEM is only a method of playing the game while the other stuff is the game. And since the game can be played other ways, if PBEM has to go... it'll be worth it even if it missed in some way.

The only way to make PBEM a priority is to hobble the game system right now, before we have even coded it, just on the off chance that perhaps, maybe, possibly PBEM will be impractical. It completely baffles me why you, and others, can't see how short sighted and harmful such a assbackwards design philosophy is.

Since you addressed me directly I'll go way out on a limb, and assume your including me in the rest of your laundry list. You're wrong.

If you think we should undermine the game system with an arbitrary and perhaps unnecessary precondition like PBEM... then yes, you are mixed in with the group I mentioned. You have tunnel vision and that is the key defining trait of a true Grog. Can only see the bug on the bark of the tree... the forest around them is invisible once the bug is firmly fixed in their gaze.

Steve

[David I]

For myself, I'm just looking forward to seeing the horses.

DavidI

[Jasper 2x]

PBEM is a primitive feature I really could care less. What I would like to see is an in game browser something like game spy arcade that lets you find other internet games. A CM game is not that long although the set-up times can be. Thus I fail to see the value of PBEM. Just have a save feature.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Jasper 2x:

PBEM is a primitive feature I really could care less. What I would like to see is an in game browser something like game spy arcade that lets you find other internet games. A CM game is not that long although the set-up times can be. Thus I fail to see the value of PBEM. Just have a save feature.

The feature you are requesting....

"I would like to see is an in game browser something like game spy arcade that lets you find other internet games. "

Might mean setting up some form of BFC Command Central gaming MASTER server to co-ordinate your search request with other online active gamers.....

I suspect they may be thinking about something like this to facilitate co-play or Mulit-multi player for teams on each side, but it has been stated that won't be feature that is available in the first release of CMx2 (Game 1). They do however hope to have some form of co-play for CMx2 Game 2 and then that central server online game look up thing you are asking about maybe possible.

-tom w

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Jasper 2x:

PBEM is a primitive feature I really could care less. What I would like to see is an in game browser something like game spy arcade that lets you find other internet games. A CM game is not that long although the set-up times can be. Thus I fail to see the value of PBEM. Just have a save feature.

Do you have a job? A family? An interest in playing against people in other countries? A desire to carefully plan your moves? An interest in playing larger games?

All of these things are what makes PBEM a very viable alternative to TC/PIP.

[Michael Dorosh]

TOM!!!!! A bone!!!!

Horses are in!!!!!

That is GREAT NEWS!!!!!

I KNEW we could count on Bee Eff Dot See. THANK YOU STEVE for making the BEST WARGAME ON THE MARKET in 2006!!!

I have some concerns, however, on the 1:1 modelling of horses; I think you will find that most gun limber teams were composed of mixed types; Appaloosa, Clydesdale, etc. I'm wondering if the German draft animals, and especially the big Belgian ponies, will be modelled correctly, ie, differently than, say, the tiny Russian ones used to pull the panje wagons. The pullka and their reindeer will also be considered I hope.

WHATEVER, I KNOW that BF.C will get it right! Very much looking forward to this!

Originally posted by David I:

For myself, I'm just looking forward to seeing the horses.

DavidI

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dalem... yes, I am sure there will be a lot of surprise. And I am sure that initially more than a few of you will see it as BAD surprises. Equal and opposite reactions, if you will. Meaning, the more we change stuff, the more flak we are going to get. But we expect that after all the name calling dies down that MOST of the core CMers will see the potential for what we are doing. Then after playing it, they will be reminded of their first CMBO experience and how different it was from everything before. Then after some time passes they will wonder what all the fuss was about. Though after all is said and done, played and replayed, I expect some CMers will be move on to something else.

I think I understand where you're sitting Steve, big picture-wise. That's why I am trying to qualify my statements as "suprised" and/or "shocked" as opposed to "dismayed", say.

I may end up being dismayed overall, for sure. But until I see what you guys are trying to give me, I can't really judge, I can only opine.

-dale

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I have some concerns, however, on the 1:1 modelling of horses; I think you will find that most gun limber teams were composed of mixed types; Appaloosa, Clydesdale, etc. I'm wondering if the German draft animals, and especially the big Belgian ponies, will be modelled correctly, ie, differently than, say, the tiny Russian ones used to pull the panje wagons. The pullka and their reindeer will also be considered I hope.

Well they better include the Canadian requisition of Lipizzaners in June 1944 in the OOB or I'm going to stomp some heads. :mad: :mad:

[Kong]

I play CM almost exclusively PBEM. So no PBEM would be a blow for me personally, but would not stop me from buying CMx2. A file over 10 megs is gonna be a problem with most current email systems. I have an idea.

Why not create a hybrid TCP/PBEM system? In a nutshell CMx2 would act like a server. TCP is realtime this new option I'll call it Convenience Time. I have an opponent that wants to play Convenience Time, I start QB game set the options and select Convenience Time and input my opponents IP address. I make my first turn selections and hit 'Go'. CMx2 then automatically trys to connect to my opponents PC. If it is online it connects and begins tranferring the file. If he is not online it will try every X minutes to connect. When a connection is made the file is transferred the opponent is notified and can plot the next turn and start the transfer process heading the other direction. There should be a screen that helps the user track his Convenience Time games showing if a new turn has been received and who's turn it is next.

Yes it does require the PC to be online but so does email and for slow connections this system would work much better and with a lot less hassle than PBEM. This system could be set-up to continue the download if there is a disconnection without starting over. I suppose it could also be set-up to try to connect at certain times as well.

This is a simplified presentation of this idea, but seems like it would solve several problems and 'hopefully' would not require an exorbinant amount of work for BFC to implement.

Note: For the record I would be disappointed if BFC did anything that would lessen what CMx2 could be to make it more PBEM friendly.

[Battlefront.com]

Dale,

I think I understand where you're sitting Steve, big picture-wise. That's why I am trying to qualify my statements as "suprised" and/or "shocked" as opposed to "dismayed", say.

I may end up being dismayed overall, for sure. But until I see what you guys are trying to give me, I can't really judge, I can only opine.

Which is perfectly fine in my opinion. Even helpful in some ways. This is what I would call a cautious mentality, with a touch of conservatisim, yet fundamentally an open minded state with the the possibility existing that things could wind up being better than hoped for. I don't mind working to convince you guys that we're on track and tweaking things based on your feedback. I don't mind revising things to not lose something that should not be lost. That's why I interact with you guys instead of hiding from you (which is the esaier thing to do). But this all must be kept within the context of the Big Picture. And the Big Picture is that CMx2 will not be CMx1 with a few minor feature tweaks.

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And the Big Picture is that CMx2 will not be CMx1 with a few minor feature tweaks.

Steve

That is what some of us (if I may be so bold) are having a hard time processing. For example, I suspect it is possible that a company level wargame could be constructed such that PBEM-style play is completely unnecessary for long term 2-player games. I personally can't think of such a way, but then I'm not a game designer.

To dovetail into your parable, no sense in looking at an Automatic tranny car and screeching about there not being a clutch pedal, right?

-dale

[Treeburst155]

Well,well,well....ASSUMING PBEM ends up to be not possible we have several choices remaining. Let's take a look at them.

1) Solitaire - I would need a vast improvement in the AI for me to play this way. If this improvement was good enough, I wouldn't care if it alone was the cause for PBEM becoming impossible.

2) TCP/IP - finding the block of time for this would be difficult for me. I would probably play about 25 games per year. Hmmm....that's probably all I do right now with PBEM. I'd have to find opponents that allowed generous time limits however. I don't like wear and tear on my mouse. This means games would have to span a weekend, not just a couple hours.

3) Team play - I don't think I will find much use for this style of play. I might manage 6-8 games per year. Coordinating a meeting time with several other people, and expecting them to "show up" on time with a decent, working computer and internet connection is tough to do. I suspect technical issues may take up a great deal of playing time with this style of play.

I'll definitely buy the first CMX2, even if there is no PBEM. However, I would not buy future installments if single player AI is less than VERY good.

Treeburst155 out.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

I'll definitely buy the first CMX2, even if there is no PBEM. However, I would not buy future installments if single player AI is less than VERY good.

Treeburst155 out.

I would likely wait for user reviews on this site before buying sight unseen, as I did with CMBB and CMAK.

I would also not likely play it, given a deficient AI - actually, even if it had a kickass AI - unless it had a fully functioning map, scenario and campaign editor and/or an enormous amount of eye candy on the order of Operation Flashpoint. To me, OpF is fun even for just opening up the editor and walking around the islands, or flying over by helicopter.

[Treeburst155]

Michael,

....so what you are saying is, you wouldn't play the game at all if it doesn't have PBEM; but you would play WITH the game if it had the features you mention above. Interesting.....

I don't think BFC should worry about filesize anyway. Check this out: http://s3.yousendit.com/

Treeburst155 out.

[BlitzCanuck]

Originally posted by BigAlMoho:

"Obviously we don't want to lose PBEM, but you're insane if you think that this ONE feature is the most important thing in the world." -STEVE

Call me insane, but PBEM IS the single most important feature... No matter how great the game, it is still just a vehicle to compete head-to-head with other human beings... I have played some marginal games just because they allowed PBEM...

Al

Amen! There are over 1000 members (including myself) of the Combat Mission ladder at the Blitzkrieg Wargaming Club that would agree with that sentiment.

[PeterX]

WEGO, though not entirely original with BFC, was a significant step forward in realism. And it's extremely well suited to PBEM. I'll miss it when it's gone- and it will be gone.

Because Steve's a wargaming purist. Are we forgetting? What's been overloooked, IMO, with the groggy concerns over Borg spotting, real time LOS, gamey recon and other controversies du jour is the fundamental 'dissonant input' inherent in the system. Especially at the tactical level. Think about it: a player can apply unlimited anount of calculation to move which will consume 60 seconds. And this is PBEM. I realize in TCP play, set to the strictest delays, this will compose a minute of planning. But there still significant amount of non-spontaneity duue tothe movie preceding the plotting phase; a de facto prolongation of calculation time. The WEGO system may be more appropriate for multi-hour, multi-day slices of time. Matrix will be attempting this with Combined Arms.

CMx2 may well become a high-end RTS game which is not necessarily bad. For one thing, it will make multi-player more practical.

[aka_tom_w]

Steves says:

"To snuff out potential incorrect reading between the lines... CMx2 will be WeGo "

That sounds pretty certain to me....

-tom w

[ February 11, 2005, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Michael,

....so what you are saying is, you wouldn't play the game at all if it doesn't have PBEM; but you would play WITH the game if it had the features you mention above. Interesting.....

I don't think BFC should worry about filesize anyway. Check this out: http://s3.yousendit.com/

Treeburst155 out.

I phrased a couple things lousily - I meant to say, for example, I bought CMBB and CMAK sight unseen. I wouldn't do that with CMX2 if there was no PBEM.

And would not play it at all, if it lacked PBEM and also had no editor or serious eye candy, I can't imagine being all that interested playing vs. the AI. A cool campaign editor might save it, however, as this would make solo play interesting.

I couldn't be bothered to play CM solo - even if the AI was good, there is nothing to "gain" from winning. Playing PBEM you have a social aspect, and you've accomplished something real - beaten an opponent. A solo campaign lets you relive some history and experience something where each battle has an impact. Solo play otherwise is a big yawn for me - I'd rather write my next book, work on one of my websites, talk to girls or watch TV.