CMx2 bones a plenty (renamed)

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Steve posted,

“I think the best way to visualize the new campaign system is to imagine playing CMAK with a guy who has designed a complete campaign made up of individual scenarios. The scenarios are already "in the can" before you start to play. When you finish one battle the campaign dude chooses which scenario to give you next (based on a plan of some sort), tweaks the forces a bit to reflect previous losses/reinforcements, adjusts some global parameters to track your progress, then sends you the stand alone scenario file complete with tweaks. This repeats until complete.”

Yup…even I can imagine what it meant…it does sound like a lot of fun. Setting battles in greater context is the name of the game. As was the case for Jim, I too had no idea what a story driven campaign meant. CM really is the only PC game I play and when new jargon is used from other types of game… I am lost until someone takes mercy on me and explains:)

When it comes to uber campaigns, one day, some years down the line, I still of course think it would be fun. Why? Because a true uber campaign is the ultimate way of setting a given battle in context. It has all the advantages of a story driven campaign but is just a long way further down the same path.

One day, in some years time, when hopefully an operational game from which one can resolve the contact battles using CMX2/CMX3 is available as part of CMX2/CMX3, then I doubt anyone will ever look back. Even very small uber campaigns, setting just a two or three contact battles in context, will in my view, become the standard way of doing things. Because it will set the battles in context better than anything else I can think of. Who knows?

Dreaming again….

All the best,

Kip.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The kind of über campaign that some are dreaming of is just not something we feel we can do. At least not for CMx2's first couple of releases. We've got too many things piled up on our plates as it is. Since we feel these things are desired by nearly everybody, the choice is really easy to make. We can never put in everything that everybody wants

Steve

I think you can safely assume EVERYBODY wants the VERY best and MOST realistic Relative Spotting paradigm/solution/code/feature/design that you can possibly make workable and fun in within the context of a consumer level military simulation.

OK so hand up ....

"Who here does NOT want to see Borg Spotting (AKA Absolute Spotting) reduced or eliminated until is it is NOT such a gamey factor in the game play that it allows every friendly unit to see and KNOW exactly everything about the enemy force compostion and location that any single, lone, isolated (out of C & C) friendly unit knows? (that is a pretty standard definition of Borg Spotting I think generally agreed upon by most, yes?)

your comments?

anyone?

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Perhaps I am just another overly demanding video game player(enthusiast) with NO experience or idea about how to design or code video games.....

BUT

Back in 1998 (7 years ago) Bungie released Myth (it was NOT a first person shooter) and it had full movie replay.

AND IT WORKED!

SURE it did not have tanks, only individual sword swingers and archers and such but it was a GREAT game (for an RTS title) with FULL MOVIE play back in a delightfully realistic full-blown 3D environment akin to the CMxx series.

That game engine should be dissected, studied and retro-engineered thoroughly and completely!

I know I know, I don't have a clue about how to make video games, but the Myth series was ground breaking at the time (7 yrs ago) for its stunning graphics and 3D environment if I recall correctly.

Given that Bungie offered full motion movie replay (from any angle or viewpoint) 7 years ago and that CMx2 will be in development for at least 18 months, (more than that I would guess), there might be an expectation among many gaming enthusiasts here, that a full movie replay would be a WONDERFUL (if not overdue ) feature to include in CMx2.

hint hint

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As for the full game movie... we HOPE that we can make it work, but we'll just have to see. Obviously since we wanted it in CMx1 we want it in CMx2.

CMx2 similar to CMAK? Well, if you consider a Lexus in the same ballpark as a Ferrari... I suppose so CMx2 will have Campaign, Scenario, and Quick Battle options. Operations as you guys know them from CMx1 are out completely.

I think the best way to visualize the new campaign system is to imagine playing CMAK with a guy who has designed a complete campaign made up of individual scenarios. The scenarios are already "in the can" before you start to play. When you finish one battle the campaign dude chooses which scenario to give you next (based on a plan of some sort), tweaks the forces a bit to reflect previous losses/reinforcements, adjusts some global parameters to track your progress, then sends you the stand alone scenario file complete with tweaks. This repeats until complete.

This is very roughly what CMx2's campaign system will do. Only difference is that we aren't shipping each game with a live person to cobble together individual scenarios. We think it's more cost effective (and legal!) to have some code do that sort of thing

Steve

[ January 15, 2005, 08:01 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[kipanderson]

tom, hi,

“OK so hand up ....

"Who here does NOT want to see Borg Spotting (AKA Absolute Spotting) reduced or eliminated until is it is NOT such a gamey factor in the game play that it allows every friendly unit to see and KNOW exactly everything about the enemy force compostion and location that any single, lone, isolated (out of C & C) friendly unit knows? (that is a pretty standard definition of Borg Spotting I think generally agreed upon by most, yes?)”

Well… as it happens… this depends greatly on the exact definitions

I will be upfront about my caution on this one. What I do not want, is for CM to move towards becoming a “Command Game”.

My standard reply is that in CM you play the role of the battalion commander, the company commander, the platoon commander, but also, and this matters a lot, the squad commander/AFV commander. Thus I do wish to be able to see everything that all my squad and AFV commanders can see. Some seem to wish to drop the role of squad and AFV commander thus moving towards CM becoming a Command Game.

I am no mind reader… but I know from experience, that hiding out there in the ether, are those who do wish to turn CM into a Command Game…. I shudder just think of it

Jim is one of them just to name names You are also now on the “watch list”

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. The way round Borg Spotting, and I too wish to see the end of it, is what I call “individual spotting”. Each one of your units does all its own spotting such that an infantry unit 100m from an enemy unit cannot spot on behalf a HMG 600m away. Live multi play will also help a lot.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

tom, hi,

I will be upfront about my caution on this one. What I do not want, is for CM to move towards becoming a “Command Game”.

Hi Kip!

Hey I am not worried EVERY time Steve every talks about this issue he ALWAYS say CMx2 will NEVER be a "Command Game"

so that issue or possibility does not concern me.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

tom, hi,

Thus I do wish to be able to see everything that all my squad and AFV commanders can see. Some seem to wish to drop the role of squad and AFV commander thus moving towards CM becoming a Command Game.

Jim is one of them just to name names You are also now on the “watch list”

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. The way round Borg Spotting, and I too wish to see the end of it, is what I call “individual spotting”. Each one of your units does all its own spotting such that an infantry unit 100m from an enemy unit cannot spot on behalf a HMG 600m away. Live multi play will also help a lot.

Thanks for the PS

I was curious as to what you were proposing

If I understand your position correctly you have NO problem with the "Borg Swarming Response problem" whereby (as the player can SEE everything) when one unit reports to the player the location and compostion of an enemy threat the PLAYER can command ALL units even those ALL the way across the map that could NOT know about the threat, to proceed to engage the threat, because the player see's all know's all and commands all.

(I find the Borg Swarming response somewhat unrealistic in the context of a typical WWII engagement (especially with reagard to the challenges on the Eastern Front). (AND yes I know we have NO idea which front of conflict or period or war they will simulate this time around, but I am still hoping for WWII).

I am guessing that maybe this problem is not really a 'problem' for most people here and it is perhaps unrealistic to expect it my be solved or addressed in CMx2?

your thoughts?

-tom w

[ January 16, 2005, 06:15 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[kipanderson]

tom, hi,

yup… I realise I have Steve to fall back on when it comes to this issue.

BTW.. for the Borg element in near all its forms I do think live team play will help massively. In addition to any specific anti-Borg coding that will be there.

If you have two battalion combat teams fighting it out and each has three company commanders and a guy playing the role of all the artillery spotters and AFV commanders, there will be an entirely new dimension to the anti-Borg feel of the game. Each player only being able to spot what the units he commands can see, including other friendly units under the command of someone else.

Just one of the features that is not much discussed, I guess because people take it for granted, but which I am sure will have a huge effect on the feel of the game.

Just spotted your new post,

When it comes to "Borg Swarming Response problem" it is not that I do not have problem with it, it is more that I except that when there is just one player on each side there are very great limits on the anti-Borg effects one can have. CMX2 played with one player on each side will not, and my guess is never can be, as Borg resistant as with, say, four or five players on each side.

So individual unit spotting goes some of the way, but for the true anti-Borg effect you will need to get as many of your chums in the game as possible to cause that FOW effect you are looking for.

To date, I have not seen a suggestion for anti-Borg features that would prevent Borg Swarming and not move CM quite a way towards becoming a command game, with one player on each side. It may be do-able… but I doubt it.

I wish CM to go on becoming more and more realistic too, but because real life battlefields are made up of lots of different commander, CM will never come as close as it might when just one player is on each side.

The greater the number of players on each side, the greater the anti-Borg feel of the game. One day, why not a dozen on each side. A real chaos and anti-Borg feel then.

All the best,

Kip.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

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

Hmm. If we're going to have QB's, scenarios and only pre-defined campaigns that sounds like a step back.

You mean no editor ? I doubt it</font>

[kgsan]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As for the full game movie... we HOPE that we can make it work, but we'll just have to see. Obviously since we wanted it in CMx1 we want it in CMx2.

. . . .

Steve

Steve thanks for the info on movie playback. I hope y'all can work it in this time around. I think it would be a popular feature with a lot of customers. CM is an immersive game and I'm sure CMx2 will only be more so. Full movie playback is a great way to enjoy and share some of the highlights from that experience.

If you are able to include movie playback, do you think the movies would be exportable, or only viewable by running the CMx2 game program? If the movies were exportable, they might make a pretty good marketing tool as a bonus. I imagine that exciting full game movies posted up on the web could go a long way to interest potential customers who might not have otherwise given CM a look.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by kgsan:

If the movies were exportable, they might make a pretty good marketing tool as a bonus. I imagine that exciting full game movies posted up on the web could go a long way to interest potential customers who might not have otherwise given CM a look.

Good Point

From within the game the player should be able to move the camera or the viewpoint to anywhere on the 3D battlefield as the action unfolds so that FULL MOVIE play back would be quite different from something that might be exported (from one camera point of view) for promotional purposes. (a VERY good idea indeed).

the question would be how is it currently done in other games?

I don't know enough about how full movie replay works in other first person shooter games. There have been a few noteable atempts to capture CMBO game video, but all atempts that I am familiar with were with programs like SnapzPro or some other external video capture program.

thanks

-tom w

[Other Means]

Steve - will the game be available for download or will it be CD/DVD only? My ideal would be d/l with a disk available to downloaders at a reduced price with a full manual etc.

Something that allows this monkey to play straight away but still eventually have a disk, case & manual.

[Battlefront.com]

Guys... remember that because I am keeping my focus narrow doesn't meant that the design of the game improvements has narrowed. It's that I don't want to throw Pandora's Box wide open So things like spotting, player control, turn times, and all that stuff are all set already. You're just going to have to wait to see exactly how they are set.

Unless you think we've suddenly forgot the tons of discussions we've had about these things, and done a 180 from what we said CMx2 would be all about, you should just assume that things are going in the same direction as we've talked about with you in the past. Details will follow when the time is right to kick things into the open

Now, back to the campaign discussion. No, Operations with moving battles on the same map are out. Too many problems with that system and yet it took a significant amount of time to program, test, and tweak. We don't want to go down that road again because we expect similar end results for similar efforts. Our time is better spent on other things that are more fundamental (like spotting issues for example).

Having said that, it is entirely possible to have a series of battles take place on the same map. The difference between CMx2 and CMx1 is that there will be no "frontline" carried between battles. That was the worst part of Operations, from game play and development standpoints, and we honestly don't want to spend the time trying to figure out how to make it work better (mostly because we don't think we can without huge amounts of time spent).

As an aside, the basic concepts in Operations were of my design. I still think it is a good design and in some ways am sorry we don't feel it is right for CMx2. However, most of the things that Operations and stand alone CMx1 battles can not do will be doable with the CMx2 Campaign system. On balance I think the new system's pros far outweigh those of Operations, yet I am confident it will have far fewer problem spots. Since we can't do both for CMx2 the choice is very much a no-brainer for us. Both from a design standpoint as well as a development point of view.

I expect that some of you guys won't "get it" until you've started playing the new game. And that sits well with me just fine. Many of you guys argued to death that some stuff in CMBO was going to suck until you got your hands on the Beta Demo, then did a complete turn around after. All I ask is that you guys keep an open mind while picking apart stuff. I don't like to see you guys eat your words

Steve

[CombinedArms]

One thing I've been hoping for is that recon vehicles could have detachable "scouts"--a guy who could climb out of the vehicle (parked safely on the reverse slope of a hill, say) and walk up to some trees at the top of a hill and spot from there. This is how recon vehicles were often used in real life...I think it would add significantly to their value, instead of the "race toward death" mode that they currently need to employ.

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

tom, hi,

“I will be upfront about my caution on this one. What I do not want, is for CM to move towards becoming a “Command Game”.

I am no mind reader… but I know from experience, that hiding out there in the ether, are those who do wish to turn CM into a Command Game…. I shudder just think of it

Jim is one of them just to name names You are also now on the “watch list”

Oh no! I'm on "Kips List"; the end is nigh! (Kip, just you wait 'til we meet again in May at the CMBB fest. Then again, it will be you who is designing the campaign, so I'd better be on my best behaviour)

Ahh. It's great to see the old stuff resurfacing again; borg spotting, command or not-command games and so on. But this time with answers just around the corner. Very exciting.

If a "non-command" game is one where a bailed-out tank crew, 500m from the nearest friendly unit, can instantly communicate information about enemy units, which only it can see, to you the player, and you, the player, can act on that information, then I most certainly do advocate a "command" game.

To me, at least, having realistic restrictions on what units that are completely out of command, in all senses of the phrase, can communicate about themselves and what they see, in no way diminishes the fun in a CM type game.

I suppose we shall all just have to hold our combined breaths and await the final verdict

[Jaws]

And who was saying this forum was almost dead... Great news Steve thanks

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by jim crowley:

"If a "non-command" game is one where a bailed-out tank crew, 500m from the nearest friendly unit, can instantly communicate information about enemy units, which only it can see, to you the player, and you, the player, can act on that information, then I most certainly do advocate a "command" game."

I am relieved to learn I am not the only player (arm chair video game designer ) here who can see this "problem".

The Bailed out tank crew wounded, dazed, shocked and low on ammo, WITHOUT radio, and more than a few hundred meters from the nearest friendly unit, represents a REAL design challenge if this "command game issue" means that the player should know and see EVERYTHING that units sees so that other units that are under the player's command can somehow respond to an enemy threat identified by the balied crew and reported instantaneoulsy to the player. (Ieading to the ever popular Borg Swarming Response Syndrome )

Kip's suggestion is that this problem may be reduced by a multi player scenarios/play. While this might be true to a limited degree I prefer the option of a head to head game with one player OR a one on one game against the AI (mostly due to time constraits based on domestic and family obligations). I like to practice against the AI (for fun) but for a real challenge of my tactical skill I would prefer a head to head TCP/IP match.

I am TRULY looking forward to learning what new improvements we will see with regard to exactly how the NEW improved spotting paradigm works. I think we know ONE thing for sure, Steve WON'T design or deliver a command game of any kind.

Note the DATE:

BEGIN QUOTE:

"Big Time Software

unregistered

posted April 26, 2002 11:13 PM                

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh my God but this is a really big thread

Folks, the crux of the issue is this...

Do people want a Command Style, Micromanagement Style, or Multi-Level Style game? These are terms I made up to illustrate the three major groupings. I define each as such:

1. Command Style - you are in ONE definite position of command. You can only influence the battlefield as that one command position would allow in the real world. More importantly, all subordinate units under your command would behave 100% autonomously from your will unless you were able to realistically give them "orders". I am not just talking about radio or messanger contact, but chain of command.

A Major does NOT go and order some buck private to move his MG to a better spot. He orders a Captain to set up a certain type of position in a certain location ("set up a defensive line along the north side of Hill 345"), the Captain then issues more specific commands to his LTs. ("1st Platoon go to that stand of trees, 2nd Platoon down thee road a click, 3rd Platoon deploy to 2nd's right), then each LT gives orders to his SGTs to deploy a little bit more specifically ("1st Squad, take that wall over there, 2nd Squad see if that house has a good field of fire on that gully over there, 3rd Squad go over there and see what you can do about covering that road junction"), and then each SGT in turn yells at various peeons to get moving to a VERY specific location ("behind that tree, numbnuts! Smitty!! Damn your soul... get that MG set up pronto behind that boulder facing that way or I'll tapdance on your butt for the rest of the day").

Now, in such a system the Major (that would be you!) does not know or even care about these details. That is called deligation of responsibility and initiative, which is what every modern armed force is trained around doing. The Major's responsibilities are to keep in touch with his neighboring formations and higher HQ, requisitioning stuff (units, supplies, guns, etc.) to get his mission accomplished, and making sure everything is running smoothly before, during, and after contact with the enemy. In non combat situations there are a LOT more responsibilities than that, but we are only focusing on the combat aspect.

What each unit under his command can or can not see, shoot at, or deal with is NOT the Major's direct concern. It is the direct concern of the unit in question and its HQ. The Major is, of course, trying to get as much information as possible so he can best lead the battle, but he doesn't care a hoot if there is an enemy squad 203.4 meters and closing on 1st Squad, 3rd Platoon, E Company. At least specifically he doesn't care.

So there you have it. This is how REAL combat works in terms of C&C. There is absolutely no way to simulate the reality of the battlefield without taking the player's mits 99% off direct control of units.

2. Micromanagement Style - You read all of the above, correct? Well, forget about it A Mircormanagement style game doesn't give a hoot about command and control aspects of warfare. You get some units, you use units as you see fit. When you click on one of the units you can order it to do whatever the heck you want without any thoughts about command and control. I would even include games with very primative attempts at C&C being lumped into this group.

3. Multi-Level Style - The player is neither a single commander nor an über micromanager. Orders can be given to any unit, but those orders and behaviors are influenced, to some degree or another, by Command and Control rules. In other words, you CAN order that individual MG to move 2.5 meters to the left, but you can not do this for "free". Some set of rules are set up to make such an order be more or less effective depending on the circumstances (in/out C&C, good/poor morale, good/poor experience, etc). The player is therefore still has far more flexability than a single commander would ever have, but not total and utter control in any and all circumstances.

Examples of each game...

Command Style - I know of no commercial wargame in existance that does this type of simulation. A game like the upcoming Airborne Assault comes VERY close, but even that one doesn't limit you to one command position with only the ability to see and affect the action as that one position would allow.

Micromanagement Style - best example I can give you guys is something like Panzer General or Close Combat. In both of these games you could order your units to do whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted without the slightest interference in terms of command decisions.

Multi-Level Style - Combat Mission and Steel Panthers come to mind. The original system in Steel Panthers was quite simplistic compared to Combat Mission's, but both sought to penalize units which lacked C&C with their higher HQs. Combat Mission took many previous game concepts a few steps further, as well as adding a few new ones of its own. Some games, like Combat Mission, lean more towards Command Style while others, like Airborne Assault go even further. Other games, like Steel Panthers, lean more towards Micromanagement Style.

In terms of realism, Command Style is the highest ideal, Micromanagement the lowest, and Multi-Level somewhere inbetween. In terms of playability, Micromanagement is the highest ideal, Command Style the lowest, and Multi-Level somewhere inbetween.

In terms of proven trackrecord of being fun, the pie is split between Micromanagement and Multi-Level. No wargame has ever fit the definition of Command Style, so it has no reecord. We are not going to try and be the first because we would rather watch paint dry than play such a game. And we are very sure that 99% of our customers would agree. And that 1% would most likely not really wind up liking the game anyway. Sometimes people need to be careful about what they ask for because they just might get it

Command Style games do not exist for a reason. They are nearly impossible to make (the AI necessary boggles the mind!) and the gameplay value near non existant. So why bother trying?

Instead we will make Combat Mission more realistic through our system of Relative Spotting. Reading through some of the posts here, I don't think people necessarily totally understand what a profound impact it will have on the game. Will it make CM 100% realistic? No, and I pitty any fool developer who attempts such a silly venture. But will CM be more realistic than any Squad level wargame yet? Well... of course we already think it is , but we know we can do better.

So until we get into coding the new engine, do a search on Relative Spotting and see what has been said on the subject before. Lots of good stuff to read through.

Steve

"

END QUOTE

the FULL discussion and thread are available here full OLD spotting thread discussion.

-tom w

[ January 15, 2005, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Stan Hope Park]

Originally posted by Yeknodathon:

As has been mentioned before, is BFC going to consider greater freedom to edit unit information in the Scenario Editor or allow the export, editing and import of game files to allow greater flexibility with third-party campaign systems?

Any chance of a straight answer to this one?

Yeknodathon: What third party system do you use?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by jim crowley:

[QB] If a "non-command" game is one where a bailed-out tank crew, 500m from the nearest friendly unit, can instantly communicate information about enemy units, which only it can see, to you the player, and you, the player, can act on that information, then I most certainly do advocate a "command" game.

/QB]

you can count on this

We WON'T be playing some text based "ZORK" version of a Command Game

he he he

Steve also said this: (from the last thread I posted)

"As I described above, there is absolutely NO solution to the Borg problem except to remove the human player from the game. Do you really want that?

If so we could easily make CM play so that you deploy your troops (which CM buys for you) by simply clicking down the HQs at the next level lower than your own (i.e. if you are the Major, you can only click on the Company HQs). CM would then deploy all the rest of the units without you even seeing them. Yup, you wouldn't see anything except what was around your HQ unit, which would be set up and unmovable (for the most part) after the Setup Phase. Then the game would start. You would issue a couple of vauge orders to your next lower HQs and then sit back and wait. From Turn 1 on all friendly units would disappear from the map. Every so often a Spotted icon would appear where MAYBE one of your directly subordinated HQ was. At this point in time you might get back some meaningful information from the HQ, or perhpas not. Depending on if the HQ is in radio contact or not, you could issue orders to the HQ along the vauge lines of Turn 1. You will have no idea what that HQ does with them until the next time he resurfaces. If there is no radio contact, runners would be necessary and that means instant communication would be impossible, thus making that Spotted icon appear less frequently and even more prone to error. After the shooting would start you might have a rough idea about where and the nature of the shooting. But until one of those ghost icons popped up, you wouldn't know much more than that. And even when that does happen, you would only get back snipts of text about what was going on and you could still only issue a few vauge orders.

Gee... DAMN does that sound like fun! Whoopie Cripes, we wouldn't even need to program in anything except some sort of ZORK like text adventure script engine and a few generalized combat resolution equations.

You see.. THAT is the be all, end all Black and White counter balance to the RTS type Borg system. CM is already somewhere inbetween the two, and CMBB is a bit more towards the realism side. The engine rewrite will be even more towards the REALISM side of the equation by reducing the effectiveness of the Borg aspect. But no way, no how can we eliminate it. So why bother having such a black and white set of standards when one side is available and not liked (i.e. RTS with no C&C rules at all) and the other would be a yawner to even those who THINK they want it (i.e. human player almost totally removed from even watching the action)? Wouldn't it be more interesting and productive to focus on practical ways to make the game more realistic without all the hoo-ha about it not going far enough? Hmmm?

Steve

End Quote

[Mord]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I'm really not here to introduce new information, but I will remind people of stuff we've already said will be in CMx2 Specifically, 1:1 man representation

Steve

I liked the sound of this! But exactly what are we talking about here?

Mord.

[aka_tom_w]

the CMx2 forum is showing signs of activity as recently as today!

look at the latest post date:

Title

Battlefront.com Skunkworks

Secret stuff discussed by secret people....

Posts: 284

 Date and time of Latest Post:

January 15, 2005 02:33 PM

My guess is they are laughing at us and complaining amongst them selves about all the crazy idea's in this thread from all the "arm chair video game designers" here.

he he

-tom w

[Sirocco]

Well, it might be possible to remove borg spotting with a more realistic command and control system, with the use of radios and runners, which has been touched on before. That would also obviate the current "command delay" abstracted system.

[jim crowley]

Imagine the following

You are a battalion commander, you have three companies under your command (radio, hand signal, courier, proximity, whatever).

As a consequence of this chain of command, you are therefore also able to assume the role of the company commanders.

Take company A, which has four platoons; as company commander you have command over the four platoons (again proximity, eyesight whatever).

Again as a consequence of the command control you can also assume the role of a platoon commander. The platoon commander has three squads under his control and once again command and control is confirmed and therefore, as in the current CM game, you can give order to each of those squads.

Now as the battalion commander you give a set of orders to each of the companies. These orders will be more detailed that in the current CM and would take the form of fairly detailed instructions, instructing say A company to move from its current position, to position A, B, C or D, and then to execute an attack on point 100 (a village).

The orders for company B will take a similar form and instruct it to execute a flank attack, via certain points on the map. The orders for company C, would be to remain in reserve awaiting events and further orders.

You now drop down a command level to the company commanders. Take company A. As company commander you now give instructions to each of the platoons, in a similar form, such that platoon one goes in such and such a direction, platoon 2 in another etc etc. This is repeated for all the platoons throughout the companies.

We now drop down another level to the platoon commander, who similarly is able to give orders to each of the squad / sections under his command. These last set of orders would be similar to what we are used to in Combat Mission.

Time moves on; at some stage various squads / platoons / companies encounter fire, enemy movement etc. As a result of this, you as the player acting as battalion HQ, lose touch (radio breakdown for instances), with company A. You can now only give orders to companies B and C. You cannot give orders to A nor are you able to receive information from A about its current situation, or the enemy’s’.

What will happen to company A going forward? You have already given the company commander an overall set of orders and the tactical AI (?) will now attempt to move the squads / platoons of company A towards the target previously given. What they see and what they do, in terms of inter-reaction remains unknown to the player until such time as command control is re-established with battalion HQ.

It follows that the tactical AI, would need to be robust enough to at least move company A through the way points previously given in some sort of reasonable order, possibly using SOPs. The individual squads would react to the enemy little differently to how they do currently in CM.

If the orders given to company A at the outset are sufficiently forward thinking (in terms of waypoints, SOPs etc, then the chances of it continuing to do something useful will also be good. Conversely if the orders have not been properly thought through at the outset, company A may well flounder and become useless, until such time as command control can be re-established.

Imagine the battle progressing and communications being established, lost and re-established through all the various levels. At any given time in the game you will have control of all, many or perhaps even only few units and the value of your long term plan, from the outset will be tested, as these units, divorced from your immediate control, attempt to follow their “orders”. HQ losses will be automatically replaced, but with delays, so that a chain of command always exists. In that way it will always be theoretically possible to control all of your forces, all of the time. Only poor initial planning, combat and perhaps random bad luck (radio malfunctions) will cause C&C to break down.

The above scenario, or something very like it, represents for me, an idealistic vision of what I would like to see in CMX2. Is it possible? I have no idea. Will it happen? We shall see.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The story is, in many ways, chrome. But it is the kinda chrome that gets people to feel like they are behind the wheel of something special instead of a generic looking plastic and sheet metal utility car. The story will matter, even to those who think it won't. On top of that the story will offers us the ability to craft something that is highly polished and works exactly as we expect it to instead of having something where people find themselves plopped down into a battle that doesn't make sense or isn't much fun.

While I agree that many people here might think that this campaign concept isn't for them, customer base wide it is probably a minority view even on this forum. People have been clamoring for "context" since CMBO came out. The campaign gives that context in a way that individual battles, especially Quick Battles, never can. Still, individual battles will certainly be a part of the game because they are cool in a different way and therefore replacable by a campaign of any type.

Steve

Will we be able to write our own stories?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As for the full game movie... we HOPE that we can make it work, but we'll just have to see. Obviously since we wanted it in CMx1 we want it in CMx2.

CMx2 similar to CMAK? Well, if you consider a Lexus in the same ballpark as a Ferrari... I suppose so CMx2 will have Campaign, Scenario, and Quick Battle options. Operations as you guys know them from CMx1 are out completely.

I think the best way to visualize the new campaign system is to imagine playing CMAK with a guy who has designed a complete campaign made up of individual scenarios. The scenarios are already "in the can" before you start to play. When you finish one battle the campaign dude chooses which scenario to give you next (based on a plan of some sort), tweaks the forces a bit to reflect previous losses/reinforcements, adjusts some global parameters to track your progress, then sends you the stand alone scenario file complete with tweaks. This repeats until complete.

This is very roughly what CMx2's campaign system will do. Only difference is that we aren't shipping each game with a live person to cobble together individual scenarios. We think it's more cost effective (and legal!) to have some code do that sort of thing

Steve

Will we hae a campaign editor to do our own, with HTML briefing screens?

[aka_tom_w]

Hi Jim

I understand that the Standard response to that is "What if the battalion commander HQ unit was destroyed by a lucky Arty hit"?

I like your thinking and for the most part I agree but I am pretty sure MOST folks who play the game would be somewhere between profoundly dissappointed to downright IRATE that a broken radio would lead to the complete LOSS of contol of an entire company.

What of vehicles or units that never historically had radios?

What of snipers operating in recon roles? (gamey? perhaps

I understand and totally appreciate your position and suggestion but my guess is Steve will not ever design a game system that will remove from the player's control an entire company's worth of units because somehow the game simulated that the radio failed.

What if ALL company HQ's where destroyed by arty stikes or HE?

-tom w