CMx2 bones a plenty (renamed)

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

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

The next in line takes command.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by jim crowley:

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.

Hi Jim

to follow up more specifically....

" HQ losses will be automatically replaced, but with delays, so that a chain of command always exists."

This makes sense, it would have to be that way.

I think (IMHO) the real trick to making this new Relative Spotting Paradigm work in both a realistic sense and FUN game playing sense (there MUST be a blend here) would be to degrade info BOTH ways UP and down the chain of command. I would hope there are will ALWAYS be command delays in orders given to units. As it stands now the player can lose control of units that break, and desert, that is a VERY positive precedent because it means that there are and will ALWAYS be (we hope) times when the game WILL and should take away control from the player. (spotting info for these broken units should ALSO be significantly degraded).

BUT also (equally important) is that the game must take away information flowing up the chain of command (spotting information) from the player when the aformentioned bailed out tank crew is 500m from the nearest friendly unit without a radio.

(!)

If in CMx2 that unit can still let the player know about ALL the enemy units it can still see and report, then the whole "Gamey Jeep Recon Thing" is back in the game! (with avengence)

Command delays to units out of C&C is something they have worked on and they did real good job simulating the Russian command structure and war effort on the Eastern Front (no radios' no rifle for every soldier, no commander in the tanks, e.i. only a four person tank crew) so they can do that kind of thing.

I am also hoping that Relative Spotting will delay or significantly degrade the info the player receives from units WAY out of C&C.

I would like to see the player receive WRONG spotting info.

OR Wrong spotting info any where from 2-5 minutes delayed in the game. Spotting info that the player receives could be degraded in a mirriad of creative ways so that isolated units would be wrong and or delayed in what useful spotting info they could pass on to the Player.

If they can implement a command delay for sending orders for the player down the chain of command to the unit, then I hope a "spotting delay" (somewhat akin to the Death clock innovation in CMBB where the shooter did not know if the tank being shot at was KO'd or not) so that the player would then (somehow AND yes this is the TRICKY part) not see or know EVERYTHING his units on the ground might know, see or encounter. This might lead to tricky issues where by your isolated (?) units might somehow get whacked and disappear of the map and you the player would never have any idea what happened to them.

But I guess we will have to wait and see how they tackle this in CMx2

-tom w

[ January 16, 2005, 06:23 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[wbs]

From Steve (aka 'Battlefront.com'):

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 sounds a lot like the way the campaign game is played in "Sid Meir's 'Gettysburg'".

[Steiner14]

The new campaign system sounds fantastic and it could be really powerful. I hope the number of maps and battles will not be too restricted, so that i.e. a campaign of the size like the 'Stalingrad-Pack' will practically be possible.

If units are kept and crews can receive new tanks/vehicles I see not a single backdraw in the new campaign system.

But I hope you won't forget how much briefings can add to the atmosphere and that enhanced briefings with pics will become possible.

I completely understand, why in the first CMx2 titles, no meta-campaign im-/export function will be available. With all the improvements and the new campaign-system, it simply will not be necessary for some time and since the new campaign-system will need some kind of (internal) im-/export functionality, i'm almost sure, the 3rd CMx2 title will have it.

Regarding borg-spotting: a target for the CMx2 engine was a memory for each unit.

I'm quite sure already, how the solution will look like, if we take into acount, that CMx2 will be not a completely new game, but a much better CMx1: if you select no unit, you'll see what all units can see together, like it is now.

But if you select a unit and this unit has a memory, it also knows, what it has seen and identified so far...(enemy vehicles suddenly could turn into sound-contacts or disappear, squads turn into 'last-seen' markers,...

I could imagine that this new concept will be supported by some additional rules for certain units under certain conditions, i.e. sharpshooters or crews or single squads out of command-range.

I really hope the full-movie replay will finally become reality for us players - but also for BFC itself: if CMx2 graphics will really be that good as discussed, the advertisement effect taking place with a free downloadable CMx2-videoplayer-version must be quite big.

[Battlefront.com]

The concept for CMx2's Campaign system is not entirely unique. Very few things are However, there are other things that are more important than originality. Implementation is the key to success. A poor game design implmented excellently will likely be better than an excellent design poorly executed. We're shooting for a very good design implemented very well. The resulting game should therefore offer a better experience, in total, than most other games you've ever played. At least that is what we are planning on

There are no planned hard limitations on how many scenarios (which includes maps) a campaign can contain.

Beating the Spotting Borg into the ground is still a primary design goal. I'd say on a feature by feature basis it is still #1 priority. Everything flows through this feature in one way or another, so we had better do a good job of it. Fortunately, thanks to nearly 6 years of experience with CMx1, we have a very good idea how to do this. As Tom pointed out, there are a lot of old posts to look back over to get an idea about the direction we're headed in.

Steve

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

There are no planned hard limitations on how many scenarios (which includes maps) a campaign can contain.

You do realize that this means the scenario designers will involve themselves in megalomanic "all of WW2 in one campaign" projects that never get finished and we are forced to play quick battles only???

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

BUT also (equally important) is that the game must take away inforamtion flowing up the chain of command (spotting information) from the player when the aformentioned bailed out tank crew is 500m from the nearest friendly unit without a radio.

This, IMO, would be a great improvement.

[norvandave]

I also like the idea of longer turns. It would remove some of the micro management and put more emphisis in being an overall commander. What would be great is if you could choose the length of each turn dynamically.

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The concept for CMx2's Campaign system is not entirely unique. Very few things are However, there are other things that are more important than originality. Implementation is the key to success. A poor game design implmented excellently will likely be better than an excellent design poorly executed. We're shooting for a very good design implemented very well. The resulting game should therefore offer a better experience, in total, than most other games you've ever played. At least that is what we are planning on

There are no planned hard limitations on how many scenarios (which includes maps) a campaign can contain.

That sounds fantastic. Although i'm sure you already have a quite detailed plan, how the system should work and what it should be able to do, i want to lobby for non-linear campaigns with tree-decisions, depending on the battle-results but also givng the player the possibility to decide about the way to go.

If non-linear campaings will make it in, don't forget about including the possibility of 'vital units' - certain units which affect directly the outcome/performance (i.e. if BTN-commander is lost).

[rob3d]

Hi

"1:1 man representation". How it looks?

Something similar to Close Combat? Every soldier has his own ammo, morale etc?

Throw us a bone!

We beg you!

thanks in advance

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Beating the Spotting Borg into the ground is still a primary design goal. I'd say on a feature by feature basis it is still #1 priority. Everything flows through this feature in one way or another, so we had better do a good job of it. Fortunately, thanks to nearly 6 years of experience with CMx1, we have a very good idea how to do this. As Tom pointed out, there are a lot of old posts to look back over to get an idea about the direction we're headed in.

Steve

THANKS Steve!!!

The bones are going over VERY well!

I am now comletely hooked and addicted to the info leaking out of this thread!!! aaaahh!

To be honest I the whole "campaign thing" is a non issue for me and my Lowest priority, BUT I can see it is very important to lots of other folks here so I am glad there have been a few bones to keep everyone else on the edge of their seat and (mostly) happy!

BUT for me this the BEST bone yet:

"Beating the Spotting Borg into the ground is still a primary design goal. I'd say on a feature by feature basis it is still #1 priority. "

Now Steve did not exactly say HOW they are going to make this ACTUALLY work in the game but the fact that it is their "#1 priority" thrills me in a way no other bone of tidbit of info every could, unless they could spill the beans on exactly how the new "Anti Borg Spotting System" will be fully implemented in the new game that we won't get to play now for about another year!

ahhhhhh!

(A year !! I can't wait 12 months!)

TWELVE more months of hints and bones like this and I will probably need to be sedated and/or institutionalized way before Jan 2006!

oh the agony ahhhhhh!

can't hold out

much

longer...

-tom w

[ January 16, 2005, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[hoolaman]

Thanks Steve and Co. for some bones, there are quite meaty, and if you boil it all down you will get a hearty broth!

Anyhow, it would seem that my wishes of sexy new terrain and 1:1 man graphical representation are going to come true.

As for the ol' borg spotting issue, well...

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

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

Firstly I would like to humbly (or not so humbly) add this for your perusal:

Old thread

And on the same subject, I would like to say that it is not impossible to have a playable, intuitive command style slanted CM.

The current incarnation of CM is very good, but it seems to me fixing borg spotting is impossible without slanting the whole works towards a command-style game. As battlefront have stated their intention to improve borginess as a number 1 priority, I am guessing that they have invented a very clever new command interface.

[Battlefront.com]

Tom, not to worry... we'll be having detailed discussions of stuff sooner rather than later. We just want to get a few more things done before opening up the discussion.

1:1 representation is just like it sounds... each man visually represented on the map with own stats and autonomy. Obviously there are many ways to do this, but that is a discussion for another day.

In a way minimizing the Borg (as I said, there is no way to eliminate it) means less control over units. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that means a "command level" system. If we changed nothing from CMx1 but the spotting system (Relative vs. Absolute) the Borg would be vastly reduced. But we are doing more than that. Mostly because there are other game elements that require more realistic Command & Control treatment. However, I would not call the resulting system a Command Level type game as I defined that in the quote of mine above. You will still be able to wear multiple command hats in CMx2, which is the first thing that must go for a Command Level type game.

In Hoolaman's thread I found this statement that pretty much sums up our way of thinking:

Anything that stops me from clicking on an individual unit and making it do something - no matter how smart or stupid - is counter to the purpose of the game as far as I am concerned.

CMx2 will remain fundamentally similar to CMx1 in this regard. Yes, there will be more limitations on what the player can do, but his units will always be under his direct command. There is simply no way we can write AI to substitute for the player, even if we thought the player wanted to be sidelined from direct control (wargamers as a whole want the opposite ).

Steve

[ January 16, 2005, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

1:1 representation is just like it sounds... each man visually represented on the map with own stats and autonomy. Obviously there are many ways to do this, but that is a discussion for another day.

Steve

That's great news, does this mean the terrain will be equally as detailed to accomodate each pixelsoldier?

[hellfish]

Any chance for a multiple multi-player capability? Like having four people on the allied side and another four on the axis... kind of like what TacOps does?

[Battlefront.com]

Terrain is significantly refined to the point that tiles, basically, don't exist any more.

Mutli-multi player is something that is unlikely to make it into CMx2's first release. As much as we want it to be, it could take several months to add this functionality if that was the only thing we were doing. And of course we have that whole game thingy that needs to be done first

Steve

[General Bolt]

Three things I'd like to see:

1) OOB listing popup with complete unit status, ammo, kills etc. And the ability to see the enemys OOB at the end of the battle.

2) Sortable Scenario listing by column. Right now its sorted by alphanumeric by title only. I'd like to see clicking on the Title, Date of battle, "Best played as" column and the list would resort.

3) User creatable Folders in the scenario selection area so you can move games from the "not-played" folder to the "kicked-butt" folder and "got creamed" folder. Not to mention the ETO, MTO and PTO folders. All these folders would be accessable from the senario selection menu with the details (date, breifing, etc) displayed.

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Terrain is significantly refined to the point that tiles, basically, don't exist any more.

Mutli-multi player is something that is unlikely to make it into CMx2's first release. As much as we want it to be, it could take several months to add this functionality if that was the only thing we were doing. And of course we have that whole game thingy that needs to be done first

Steve

Ok where do I pre-order?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

In a way minimizing the Borg (as I said, there is no way to eliminate it) means less control over units. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that means a "command level" system. If we changed nothing from CMx1 but the spotting system (Relative vs. Absolute) the Borg would be vastly reduced. But we are doing more than that. Mostly because there are other game elements that require more realistic Command & Control treatment. However, I would not call the resulting system a Command Level type game as I defined that in the quote of mine above. You will still be able to wear multiple command hats in CMx2, which is the first thing that must go for a Command Level type game.

Steve

Hi Steve

thanks for all the posts and news updates..

"In a way minimizing the Borg (as I said, there is no way to eliminate it) means less control over units."

The rest of you who fear a "command game" should not worry... the game ALREADY takes away player control over units when they break or route, this normal and healthy and part of the game and I have not heard other players complaining that it has been modelled incorrectly so far. (with the possible exception of Redwolf IIRC )

"Mostly because there are other game elements that require more realistic Command & Control treatment. "

This is ALSO very welcome news. For me it suggests the possibility that orders down the chain of command will be delayed and spotting info UP the chain of command could be incorrect, misjudged or delayed.

Many other players might not like this and I am not sure if it would really be fun but the game should model the Fog of War in the BEST and most plausible realistic way. Given that we are talking about (I am guessing here) a WW II era game there should be lots of confusion and a massive level of SNAFU on the ground. I am wondering out loud if the game should play (if you will grant me this poor analogy) a little like trying to hit a mosquito with a sledge hammer, meaning that command should be (in the appropriate circumstances) somewhat "unwieldy". I am sure this is "do-able" because that "feel" came across VERY well in CMBB if you have ever had to play green or conscript Russian units. Remember CMBB was only their second release after ground breaking CMBO, so I am very confident they do know how to make the game and the game play somewhat unwieldy so the player may feel on the "edge" or verge of total dicatorial (micromangement style) control. AND for me that should mean taking away MORE player control and degrading AND removing MORE spotting info the player receives.

NOW of course the REAL trick here is to get the ballance JUST right to make the game fun.

So the question is "Who thought is was "FUN" to play green and conscript Russian troops against veteran German units?"

( Now I personally did not think that was much "fun" but the game was VERY WELL done, and enthusiastically received by fans of the Eastern Front and was VERY favourably reviewed! BUT just because I didn't find playing Russian units FUN doesn't mean I think BFC didn't do a GREAT JOB with CMBB, NO in fact the improvements from CMBO to CMBB were quite dramatic and made the game play MORE realistic IMHO.

I am SURE CMx2 will also include equally spectacular and dramatic impovements over CMBB and CMAK.

-tom w

[ January 16, 2005, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The concept for CMx2's Campaign system is not entirely unique. Very few things are However, there are other things that are more important than originality. Implementation is the key to success. A poor game design implmented excellently will likely be better than an excellent design poorly executed. We're shooting for a very good design implemented very well. The resulting game should therefore offer a better experience, in total, than most other games you've ever played. At least that is what we are planning on

There are no planned hard limitations on how many scenarios (which includes maps) a campaign can contain.

Beating the Spotting Borg into the ground is still a primary design goal. I'd say on a feature by feature basis it is still #1 priority. Everything flows through this feature in one way or another, so we had better do a good job of it. Fortunately, thanks to nearly 6 years of experience with CMx1, we have a very good idea how to do this. As Tom pointed out, there are a lot of old posts to look back over to get an idea about the direction we're headed in.

Steve

I was wondering if game owners will be able to design their own campaigns...will this be possible? Or will we be limited to pre-designed and/or randomly generated??

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

The concept for CMx2's Campaign system is not entirely unique. Very few things are However, there are other things that are more important than originality. Implementation is the key to success. A poor game design implmented excellently will likely be better than an excellent design poorly executed. We're shooting for a very good design implemented very well. The resulting game should therefore offer a better experience, in total, than most other games you've ever played. At least that is what we are planning on

There are no planned hard limitations on how many scenarios (which includes maps) a campaign can contain.

Beating the Spotting Borg into the ground is still a primary design goal. I'd say on a feature by feature basis it is still #1 priority. Everything flows through this feature in one way or another, so we had better do a good job of it. Fortunately, thanks to nearly 6 years of experience with CMx1, we have a very good idea how to do this. As Tom pointed out, there are a lot of old posts to look back over to get an idea about the direction we're headed in.

Steve

I was wondering if game owners will be able to design their own campaigns...will this be possible? Or will we be limited to pre-designed and/or randomly generated?? </font>

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com

There are no planned hard limitations on how many scenarios (which includes maps) a campaign can contain.

"CAN contain".

Every bet, campaigns will be designable by users.

Wouldn't he had said otherwise "will contain"?

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

1:1 representation is just like it sounds... each man visually represented on the map with own stats and autonomy.

Steve [/quote

Wow! Prior to this thread I had no idea that there was 1:1 representation for men, let alone individual stats.

How much of a limit will this put on the ulitimate size of a battle? With 600 to 700 men in an infantry battalion, let alone armour and artillery support, thats a lot of individuals to deal with.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Firstly thanks to Steve for all bones thrown our way in the last few days… there is no way round the fact that it hugely adds to the fun.. dreaming about the way I will be able to use features in future versions of CM is fun. A lot of fun.

The biggest bone so far has been on the campaign system and it does sound like exciting stuff. I look forward to it.

When it comes to the question of Borg Spotting I always get nervous. I, as much as anyone, am keen to get rid of Borg Spotting, but am far more relaxed about the overall Borg Effect, when CM is played by “one player”.

Just to be clear, by “Borg Spotting” I mean that if an enemy unit 100m away is spotted by a friendly infantry unit, a friendly tank unit 600m away, but in LOS, can also spot the enemy unit. By the “Borg Effect” I mean that one player can see everything that all/any of his units can see.

In laymen’s terms I would be happy if each unit did its own spotting, as opposed to units spotting on behalf of other friendly units as in Borg Spotting. In the above example the friendly tank 600m from the enemy unit would have to spot the enemy unit in its own right. That would just about do the trick for me on the Borg Spotting front.

My fear with trying to do away with the “Borg Effect”, I think tom called it Borg Swarming resulting from a near God like view of the overall battlefield, is that there is a great danger of throwing out the “baby with the bath water”.

The fact that Steve says BFC tends to agree with the below statement from Holman, reassures me hugely,

“Anything that stops me from clicking on an individual unit and making it do something - no matter how smart or stupid - is counter to the purpose of the game as far as I am concerned.”

But as Steve does seem to be taking the time to read this thread I will just, very quickly, give an example of how BFC could very easily break CM by trying to do too much on the overall Borg Effect front as opposed to Borg Spotting as defined above. I will be as quick as possible.

About a year ago Andreas, who Steve and many of you know, and I played a game of CMBB simulating an action from the Korsun Pocket campaign. I built a large CMBB map from topographical maps of the region and Andreas attacked with a combined arms force against my infantry, and a few AT guns, force of Soviets. (BTW… the map looked “exactly” like a coloured version of all those black and white photos I have of the area… a huge credit to BFC… particularly their graphics guys

Anyway… one of my main tactics was to use my snipers in a screen to slow and break up Andreas’s attack. Leading to piecemeal attacks. When the game was over both of us agreed it was one of, if not the most, realistic and fun CM game we had played. (I had read an account of how the Soviets often did this, so gave it a go.)

My point is that in order for this game, with a very realistic feel, to work I “had” to be able to see/spot all that my snipers could see/spot, and micro-manage them over a 60 odd turn game. A necessary condition for my realist defense to work was my control over units that “realistically” were way out of any C&C in a real battle. Just out on their own with no communication with anyone. I was playing the role of the snipers.

The two greatest wargames of all time, by a very clear margin, in my view, are Squad Leader and CM, in there respective eras. It is no coincidence that both are same scale. The stunning quality of production plus the scale being the two most important factors. Squads, individual AFVs, snipers, AT guns being the lowest credible scale for a wargame to remain realistic. In my view. When it all comes together as in CM it leads to near magical effect.

If you are set on taking away more control from players than in CMX1, which you are, extreme care is needed that you do not go over the tipping point. My guess is that the tipping point in breaking the near magical effect of playing CM is exactly what tom and Jim wish to see. A reduction in the flow of information from the maneuver units up the chain of command to the player. Explicitly, a delay in information from an otherwise health maneuver unit in what it can see.

So, say, a health friendly infantry squad can see, and may be being fired on, by an enemy unit, you as the player will not be allowed to see the enemy unit until some delay it played out. My guess is such a feature would break the magic of CM.

I have played such a game; it is called Point of Attack 2. I am not going to launch into an attack on it, I respect the makers and in future, a much tweaked version may be a fine game. But in the version I have played it is a total failure in large part because of features some here lobby for in CMX2.

No one is more for realism than I am. I only play CM because at the moment it is the only wargame I know of that is realistic enough, a form of military history. But “realism features” that are suitable for operational games are not necessarily suitable for this small a scale. I would love to see BFC take a break from CM and one day do an operational game that would for sure end up being more realistic than CM. But as scale increases it is easier to model realism and maintain the fun of the game, relative to its scale.

Taking control away from the player and maintaining the magic of CM is very fine line

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. The suppression model in CMBB made the maneuver units behave more realistically. I could not be more in favour of that. Have never played CMBO since I got my hands on CMBB. Also, modeling lower tactical abilities is great. This is not what I mean by taking away control as lobbied for by some

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

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

Beating the Spotting Borg into the ground is still a primary design goal. I'd say on a feature by feature basis it is still #1 priority. Everything flows through this feature in one way or another, so we had better do a good job of it. Fortunately, thanks to nearly 6 years of experience with CMx1, we have a very good idea how to do this. As Tom pointed out, there are a lot of old posts to look back over to get an idea about the direction we're headed in.

Steve

THANKS Steve!!!

The bones are going over VERY well!

I am now comletely hooked and addicted to the info leaking out of this thread!!! aaaahh!

To be honest I the whole "campaign thing" is a non issue for me and my Lowest priority, BUT I can see it is very important to lots of other folks here so I am glad there have been a few bones to keep everyone else on the edge of their seat and (mostly) happy!

BUT for me this the BEST bone yet:

"Beating the Spotting Borg into the ground is still a primary design goal. I'd say on a feature by feature basis it is still #1 priority. "

-tom w </font>