1:1 Representation in CMx2 (Part II)

[aka_tom_w]

Black line would be the "theoretical " movement over the "one minute" turn (of course theoretical without the combat penalties of the next 60 seconds). See the pictures.

Or the inverse , the "black line" could be the movement under the next 60 seconds , and the color line the rest. Totally realistic with the uncertainty of the next 60 seconds in the movement turn. (Not see in the pictures but I will try to put in another post).

quote:

Maybe you guys who want a short turn (30 sec), really wanna this ?, or have the inverse problem of dont know when your orders are under the turn limit ?

Listen me ,I'm not say that the player can not send orders over "one minute". I say that Turn by turn, minute by minute, the black line of the order of movement changes automatic to the color for the next 60 sec. Then , you no need send new orders of movement turn by turn, it's clear. But the green player understand , the first time when play CM , the first order that he send .Because the black line (the "theoretical " movement over the "one minute" turn) tell us where your units will be in theory this first turn the first time that the green player plays CM. This tactical knowledge is critical for the hexes player as you can see.

Perhaps what Halberdiers is trying to say is the SL Rules Lawyers, board game wargames or Min-Maxers (Minimize Risks Maximize Odds for your advantage) all with only a board game background are uncomfortable, like a fish out of water, when faced with the CMxx interface because they cannot get "certianty" or complete control over all the variables (like memorizing the rule book ) or predict to the exact second how far a unit will move in a one minute "turn".

AND OH MY GOD NO HEXES! :eek: "how will I ever determine optimal distances for movement or firepower???

I have seen this happen in person, for real. (I always hated hexes and rules lawyers but I have PLENTY of board game wargame experience) I could NEVER ever convince my wargame friends the hexes were articficially superimposed over the battle field as nothing more than an aid to permit the rules to be written, I tired to convince them you could play on a map board WITHOUT hexes if you used LOTS of different lengths of string to Measure every shot and every move, (they laughed at me!)

So to be honest Halberdiers' point and perspective may be widely held by players who memorize rule books AND must have hexes to determine movement range.

BUT while I see his point, I am deeply thankful the the BFC designers and developers have largely ignored it in their game design decisions. BFC, please do not make games that make rules lawyers/wargamers happy, or give card board chit wargame players a feeling of "comfort" in the game and interface.

Hell NO!

The more realism and the MORE uncertainty the better. I totally disagree with the idea that the player NEEDS to know how far a unit will move in 1 Minute with a black line the extends past one minute's worth of movement. The one minute time blocks are ARTICIFICIAL breaks in the action that seperate this game from RTS games. If there is full movie replay this will make more sense as the game SHOULD be envisioned to be an ongoing fluid timeline and the battle takes place without interuptions.

My question to Halberdiers is why don't RTS wargames that may be somewhat similiar to CMxx (but inferior IMHO) show that black line you are looking for??? Well the answer is because the game is fluid and there are no breaks so the one minutes' worth of movement makes no difference because the game is REAL TIME and everything moves constantly under player control.

IN the one minute WE GO system everything should move constantly from minute to minute its just that in between each minute the PLAYER sticks his head into the game to see how things are going and change the orders, but the game is actually trying to simulate fluid ongoing time and movement that idealy should not be interupted by the player (for complete realism).

BUT I am in NO WAY suggesting the RTS is better but from the point of view of simulating REAL TIME pressure constraints the RTS is real time and makes the player react and think faster, BUT it is clear that the caculations needed to make Combat Mission so accurate and realistic with regard to armour penetration COULD NOT be "crunched" fast enough to make CMx2 Real time so that is NOT an option.

I only mention the RTS game style as an example of a REAL TIME fluid form of game "movement" where the player does not need to "know" how far one unit moves in one minute because it does not matter in that case, and it should NOT matter in the case of CMxx where the player artificially sticks his head into the action every minute to freeze the action and issue new orders.

If that makes any sense?

-tom w

[ February 05, 2005, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Halberdiers:

But the DEMO needs to win the heart of the player in the FIRST battle.

Of course, but are you saying the game should be built around features that wont be used after the initial game ? I dont understand your logic for this, and most of all the point about hexes. I though this stuff was gone for good ?

* * *

Getting back to the 1:1 representation, here's a big challenge IMO, already stated before: making each of these virtual guys act or move in relation with terrain they are on. Here some abstraction can still be OK (like in current CMx1) but as some put it before, the minimal requirement would be to show the guy where he really is and, since there is will be no control on each man, AI will have to be quite smart when deploying men.

This must be a nightmare to figure out, really. Say you plot a move for a 12-men squad, moving by bounds & overwatch, along a city street. Each guy will obviously look for cover each time he stops. The cover may not be perfect, but he will at least get some along his idea of where the threat might most probably come from. Apart from conscript and green troops, this is something to be expected without having to take care of it in detail. The one thing to avoid is to allow AI to let a man stand in the middle of the street because the "formation" does not fit perfectly the physics/situation/whatever external factor come into play.

From here, it looks as if the tactical AI will have to consider the position of each man, the relative cover/concealment factor of each terrain element relative to standing orders/SOPs and such, and perceived direction of threat (a guy can understand that a stone wall is a good place behind which to stand, but it is note precisely useful if he doesnt know on which side).

A measure of abstraction can be retained, (Man and wall combine=man is assumed to be on the good side each time (as it is right now in CMx1?) but I guess it depends of the detail acheived by the terrain engine. The more accurate, detailed terrain gets (houses, streets, walls) the more accurate the player will want to be about the position of his troops... If there is a big gap between the two, isn't there a risk of making the player "read" the ground and plan ahead a more difficult process ?

Cheers

[junk2drive]

CM should be the perfect game for table top players. They already play in 3D.

For the person without the space, off to school, a spouse that objects to the dining table being used, etc., CM has to be a blessing.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

This must be a nightmare to figure out, really. Say you plot a move for a 12-men squad, moving by bounds & overwatch, along a city street. Each guy will obviously look for cover each time he stops. The cover may not be perfect, but he will at least get some along his idea of where the threat might most probably come from. Apart from conscript and green troops, this is something to be expected without having to take care of it in detail. The one thing to avoid is to allow AI to let a man stand in the middle of the street because the "formation" does not fit perfectly the physics/situation/whatever external factor come into play.

From here, it looks as if the tactical AI will have to consider the position of each man, the relative cover/concealment factor of each terrain element relative to standing orders/SOPs and such, and perceived direction of threat (a guy can understand that a stone wall is a good place behind which to stand, but it is note precisely useful if he doesnt know on which side).

A measure of abstraction can be retained, (Man and wall combine=man is assumed to be on the good side each time (as it is right now in CMx1?) but I guess it depends of the detail acheived by the terrain engine. The more accurate, detailed terrain gets (houses, streets, walls) the more accurate the player will want to be about the position of his troops... If there is a big gap between the two, isn't there a risk of making the player "read" the ground and plan ahead a more difficult process ?

Cheers

Since we'll no longer be hampered by extremely low end machines, I would hope that - given 1:1 rep - street fronts would have steps leading into buildings, balconies, lamp posts, gutters and complex shapes for our troops to use as cover. This will involve complex 3d code for the building, and of course some skinning issues.

Shall be interesting to see how this is achieved. I suspect a lot of abstraction will be necessary, but will represent a leap forward from CMX1.

[Halberdiers]

aka_tom_w ,junk2drive ,thanks for readme guys, I'm feel as the lawyer of the devil because I see all your points and Im with you.

Tarkus, yes in any case this as could be optional as "show unit basis" or "grid lines". I think the players no need this option after a weeks of play.

Or the inverse , the "black line" could be the movement under the next 60 seconds , and the color line the rest. Totally realistic with the uncertainty of the next 60 seconds in the movement turn. (Not see in the pictures but I will try to put in another post).

here it is:

a mechanism:

-select the movement order with their color line.

-click the terrain and the color change : black line under one minute,color line the rest.

Best regards.

[ February 05, 2005, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

[...] I would hope that - given 1:1 rep - street fronts would have steps leading into buildings, balconies, lamp posts, gutters and complex shapes for our troops to use as cover. This will involve complex 3d code for the building, and of course some skinning issues.

Exactly. Incidentally, your Ortona operation comes to mind, since most of the action happens to be street fighting. Better modelisation of buildings would greatly enhance both the immersion and gameplay in such a battle. Imagine a bren team ducking behind a well in the middle of Piazza San Francesco or a Seaforth assault team mouse holing along Via Cavour!

Since importing 3D models is out, IIRC, I hope buildings get an extensive treatment and much more variety. And I'm talking on purely gameplay grounds: windows, doors, sewers and floors matters a lot when it comes to street fighting. A modular editor would be very useful... as would be the possibility to model third, fourth and higher floors.

This in turn raises the question: how to go about house clearing ? From here IMO a movement order would be fine, like "assault", but very specifically tied to this tactical situation. You could order a squad to clear a particular house and then some animation could take over. Grenades, door bursting, short SMG burst, yells and such.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

[...] I would hope that - given 1:1 rep - street fronts would have steps leading into buildings, balconies, lamp posts, gutters and complex shapes for our troops to use as cover. This will involve complex 3d code for the building, and of course some skinning issues.

Exactly. Incidentally, your Ortona operation comes to mind, since most of the action happens to be street fighting. Better modelisation of buildings would greatly enhance both the immersion and gameplay in such a battle. Imagine a bren team ducking behind a well in the middle of Piazza San Francesco or a Seaforth assault team mouse holing along Via Cavour!

Since importing 3D models is out, IIRC, I hope buildings get an extensive treatment and much more variety. And I'm talking on purely gameplay grounds: windows, doors, sewers and floors matters a lot when it comes to street fighting. A modular editor would be very useful... as would be the possibility to model third, fourth and higher floors.

This in turn raises the question: how to go about house clearing ? From here IMO a movement order would be fine, like "assault", but very specifically tied to this tactical situation. You could order a squad to clear a particular house and then some animation could take over. Grenades, door bursting, short SMG burst, yells and such. </font>

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

There are some major generational leaps to be made with the new engine, and that is why 1:1 or not 1:1 has always seemed beside the point to me. [...] I will be happy no matter what type of representation is done on screen.

If anything, 1:1 representation to me means more precision in situationnal awareness and faster sitrep. It shall be easier to assess the outcome of a particular action, at least as far as friendly troops goes, then it is right now with three-man squad.

[Battlefront.com]

Much of the limitations with CMx1 urban are buildings and the lack of urban clutter. This was necessary due to the slower hardware we had to work with more than anything else. What's the point of having a highly detailed city setting that got less than 1fps?

The abstractions in terrain, in particular buildings, was generally well offset by the abstracted treatment of units that operated within them. In other words, the level of precision and abstraction of each tended to compliment and not conflict with each other.

CMx2 now has the ability to simulate much more complex environments (urban and otherwise). And this inherently disrupts the balance between terrain and units. Those of you who think it is possible to increase the fidelity of one without touching the other are greatly mistaken. So if you want a better treatment of urban warfare, you are in need of a much less abstract system for modeling units.

In our case we've chose 1:1, but we could possibly have gone with 1:2 or 1:3. But why bother since the challenges of 1:1 and these other choices are almost identical? The only big difference is the hit to the hardware.

The same is true for engineering type battles. Increase the fidelity of things like mines, booby-traps, etc. and suddenly you find you really need to increase the fidelity of the units. For example, having a few individuals crawling on their bellies to flag lanes in a minefield. If these guys get blown up, should the rest of the Squad be there to suffer the same effects? No. When the Squad eventually moves along the cleared lane, should they be an abstracted blob of men, or should they be in a long stretched out single file?

Increasing the details of the artillery modeling might also require an increase in the detailed modeling of soldiers. For example, having guys spread out in foxholes of 2 or 3 men each in order to lessen the chances of the unit getting blown up by one or two well placed rounds. With an abstracted blob unit you'd need to be able to split up a 12 man US squad into 4 or 6 individual units to get this sort of thing working right!

Night fighting also needs an increase in the detailed simulation of 1:1 to really get anywhere. In nighttime units often strung themselves out wide or narrow, depending on the terrain conditions and the mission. If a unit is advancing along a known path to an assembly area, it should be in pretty close single file. If it is running away in panic from an ambush it should be allowed to dissolve into individuals with very little situational awareness, only reconstituting itself with great effort.

To summarize... if you want an increase in the realism of this or that form of combat, you are also saying you want an increase in the fidelity of individual simulation. Whether you understand or accept this is of no concern to us because we know it to be true. And that is why when I see people going on and on about how unnecessary 1:1 simulation is, how it is just eye candy, and how we should instead fix other aspects of the sim I can't help but be reminded why so few game players ever make it to being game designers. Two different disciplines

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Sure, Steve, but ASL got a lot of aspects of the simulation "closer" to "correct" - engineering, night fighting, etc. while still maintaining an abstracted "squad" as the basic building block unit.

Not that I'm arguing - my point is that if you DID go to 2:1 or 3:1, I wouldn't pull my nails out, if at the same time it ensured fidelity in terms of obstacle passage, mouseholing, artillery modelling, night fighting with flares, gunflashes and multiple light sources, etc.

If you insist on giving us the whole ball of wax - 1:1 AND steps forward in the engineering, artillery, FIBUA, night, et al, well, so much the better....

[Battlefront.com]

Actually, your point about ASL strengthens my argument. The game system and all its componant parts are highly abstract when compared to CM. Therefore, it was easier in some ways for them to balance things out since abstract was matched with abstract. Conversely, CMx1 is a far more detailed and accurately modeled system than ASL. Therefore, the shortcomings of things like artillery and engineering has more to do with the rest of the game being more accurately modeled. That made doing thigns like accurate artillery and urban fighting MORE difficult for us to do and come out correctly.

Now, of course we could keep everything in CM exactly as it is and balance out stuff like engineering and artillery to better match what is already there. But why should we be limited to such modest improvements? Why not take this opportunity and make a big leap forward instead of tidying up some 6 year old loose ends? That's the kind of limited thinking that would have kept CMBO a simple computerized port of ASL, complete with hexes and highly abstracted modeling in a 2D environment.

When it comes right down to it, leave the game desining stuff to us and we'll leave the game playing to you. It's like comparing an ace pilot to an airplane designer who keeps designing planes that push the peformance envelope. Both need each other to produce the results desired, but they are not interchangeable positions. I'm sure most people on this Forum could kick Charles and my asses in any version of CM, even though we created it. But I doubt any of you could make a better game than us no matter how hard you tried.

Having said all of that, we know we aren't perfect and that with your help we can be better designers. That is why this Forum has been a critical part of CMx1's success and will be a big part of CMx2's success. Just try to remember, though, that if you all can't picture why we're so gung ho about something that the likely reason is because you "don't get it" yet, not because we're on the wrong track.

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Sure, Steve, but ASL got a lot of aspects of the simulation "closer" to "correct" - engineering, night fighting, etc. while still maintaining an abstracted "squad" as the basic building block unit.

But the only reason ASL could do that was the abstration of the hexes themselves. When the granularity we are dealing with as players is an area roughly 160m^2, and weapons affects are scaled to affect everything or nothing in that area, then things can be very ASLy and work pretty well.

But say Steve (and crew) can give us a granularity of 5mx5m - that's a smaller area than a squad footprint in the field, right? So graphical aesthetics aside, doesn't it make more sense to have 1:1 as Steve is portraying it?

I see it kinda like my first car with power locks. I had had bad experiences with earlier power lock systems on previous cars, didn't trust them to work right, and I certainly didn't "need" them to get into my cars, so I avoided them. But when I finally ended up being "forced" to get a car with power locks I found that they worked just fine and they are a fine convenience to have.

-dale

[RMC]

Bring back hexes and dice. It's the only way to be sure.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Just try to remember, though, that if you all can't picture why we're so gung ho about something that the likely reason is because you "don't get it" yet, not because we're on the wrong track.

Lol. Why do I feel like a mushroom?

[Michael Dorosh]

Points noted, Steve. Which is why I was a bit surprised to see so much response to the CMX2 threads - we are all very much looking forward to it. I guess in the end we all have different ideas of what we are hoping to see at the end - and if others aren't honest about saying it, I am - and what I am saying is that I hope to be loudest and longest and have my own personal vision catered to because I believe it to be the only vision in existence that is correct.

Right?

Seriously though, good points on abstraction and I concur. Now, if you would just make sure to get those Canadian SMGs right...

I have absolute faith that you will at the least have the camo patterns down. Oh, if you want the address of a guy that hand paints CADPAT, MARPAT et al designs on fibre rifle stocks, I can help you out...

[Battlefront.com]

Don't feel bad if you guys find yourselves scratching your heads and wonder what 'ol Steve bumpped his head into before making these posts. It's really hard to imagine how fundamentally different CMx2 is from CMx1, yet at the same time being so similar. As the old saying goes... there is more than one way to scratch an itch! CMx1 scratched it one way, CMx2 will scratch it another. I am confident you guys will still be here on this Forum this time next year, and not to simply say "you screwed up"

Hand painting CADPAT/MARPAT? Ouch! BTW, I did manage to get a pair of the experimental CADPAT boots. If you saw how goofy they look you'd know why they only made a couple hundred pairs and then promptly dropped the idea. I was lucky enough to get my brand new in a box. But that is for another game... Combat Mission - CADPAT Warriors

[Rick]

Glad to see that talk of CMx2 has put a little more life back into the forums again. Also glad to see some serious bone-throwing these days, although actually understanding them is not totally there.

I for one am just trying to have faith in BFC. 1:1 at first-glance sounds like a disaster in the making. Then again, I thought 3D sounded that way at first and CM is my favorite game around, although I also love HTTR and WitP.

So as for an actual question; someday will there be as many bones on the borg spotting issue as the 1:1 issue? The borg spotting is personally the issue I stress about its impact on realism, also one that I can't think of really good solutions to either.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

If you saw how goofy they look you'd know why they only made a couple hundred pairs and then promptly dropped the idea. I was lucky enough to get my brand new in a box. But that is for another game... Combat Mission - CADPAT Warriors

I've seen photos, and my jaw dropped in disbelief. Sergeant Major's nightmare!

They are producing the next generation C7 rifle with green plastic furniture, and, get this - a CADPAT rifle sling.

Yeah, just hate all those times a defensive position is given away cause some dumbass infanteer had a black cloth sling on his rifle...

Camouflage is such a fad these days...

[Mord]

All I gotta say is keep talking Steve. The more you say the more pumped I am. I feel like I did when I was waiting for CMBO to come in the mail. You guys are covering just about everything I ever hoped for and then some from the sound of all this. So I have no doubts this is gonna ROCK!!

Mord.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Agree with Mord’s above comments.

I did have my fears, well the odd apprehension, that CM may evolve in a direction that was not my preferred one. The key is to focus on the company v company scale; this seems to be exactly what CM will continue to be focused on. Perfect.

Of course, I will in no time be abusing CMX2 by using it for a scale of game it was not really designed for, games that are way bigger. But whatever the size of game CMX2 is optimized for, many will which to play bigger or smaller games.

My fear was that BFC would try to optimize CMX2 for too wide a range of game size. In particular, that they would try to optimize CMX2 for reinforced battalion v battalion scale games. Then they may have started to introduce some of the “command game” features some wish for.

This would have been the death of CM.

I am amongst the most unhinged in wishing to use CM for bigger scale games, but to do this realistically there must be a move to a quality operational layer. If you try to optimize any wargame to cover too wide a range of game sizes in any one layer, you will break the game.

Happily for me, having read all Steve’s posts in the various threads over the last couple of weeks, I now know my apprehensions were groundless.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. How people could be anti 1:1 representation is beyond me… anti 1:1 control… sure… sends a shudder down my spine just thinking about that one.

[Battlefront.com]

A reminder to folks like Rick... my postings started with posts about kicking the Borg in the butt. Look back over the last couple of weeks for some huge threads and you'll get a lot of info.

Yes, CMx2 will be a bit more what CMx1 was supposed to be in terms of scale. We had always intended CMx1 to be used mostly for engagements of less than Battalion scale. While this probably does reflect the bulk of games played over the last 5 years, certainly lots of people wanted to play larger games. CMx2 will still be able to simulate a Battalion sized force, but certain ways of playing the game will make people happier with a Company sized force instead. Just think about the things we've talked about regarding uncertainty, relative spotting, chains of command, etc.

To reassure the huddled CM masses all I can say is that we have no intention of abandoning what CMx1 so great for you guys. Yet at the same time we aren't fearing moving the game to an entirely different plane of existance either. Stagnation in this industry is a disease we do not wish to get caught up in.

Will some of you guys HATE some of the things we are doing with CMx2? I'd say that is probably true. Good news is that most of those features will be optional. Relative Spotting, 1:1 simulation, and some other things will not be, but the number of people that will balk at these features will hopefully be miniscule and worth pissing off to make the others happier than they were with CMx1 (not to mention being able to attract a LOT more people to the game).

Basically, what I am saying is that we are going to do what we feel strongly needs to be done to advance the game system. Some won't like what they hear initially (as can already be seen on this Forum ), but that was the case with CMBO and even CMBB. Ignoring the calls for 2D hex based systems with tons of artificially phases and roll modifiers was obviously a good thing, eh? When all is said and done we expect the vast majority of the existing base to be playing CMx2 and loving it.

Steve

[Jasper 2x]

I think 1:1 etc all sound great I think you have to understand that a lot of posters here are out of touch grogs running Macs from 1996.

I would even like the ability to click on individual soldiers if I so chose to tweak their positions. Although the AI should be good enough most of the time in those key fire fights it would be helpful. Especially in smaller games.

[flamingknives]

Platform capacity is hardly the major source of complaints viz. 1:1 representation. As for out of touch, what are 'they', this 'lots' of posters out of touch with?

[JonS]

fk they're out of touch with the peecee world of course doncha know that CM was and is designed on PCs? only idjits and andreas who is of course an idjit so that fits anyway use max

oh the irony its even funnier that its unintended

(all grammar and punctuation deliberately removed in honour of our new friend)

[Battlefront.com]

I think that Jon meant to say that CM was designed on a Mac, otherwise he would be misinforming people on purpose

Mac users are generally well behind the times in terms of computing speed. The reason is when they bought their computers they were probably faster than the PCs their friends bought. And then several years later, after Microsoft found new ways to bring hardware to its knees, Mac users are still happily running current OS and applications at acceptable speeds without stuff being in compatible. The one big exception are bleeding edge games, A/V, and certain other products that are always killing hardware's speed faster than the chip makers can crank it up.

The good news is that Apple has, for the past couple of years, narrowed the price gap with PCs. Still a bit more expensive, but when real world speeds are prices are compared the difference is only a couple hundred bucks. Back in the old days it could be as much as $1000 or more! Ugh, those were NOT the days

Steve