CMX2: Can we get back to fantasising now?

[flamingknives]

I think a level of uncertainty about the terrain would be good. Adjustable, just like the casualty settings are now. All terrain out of LoS is represented by wireframe, greyed out terrain, whatever.

as it comes into LoS, it changes, depending on the level of uncertainty. Uncertainty governs the amount of errors on the false map and the magnitude of errors.

[Jasper 2x]

Maybe what if you have a map of the area in your command wagon ?

[Aco4bn187inf]

If you have a map, maybe it could be given as part of the breifing. Then you may find out whether it's accurate...

My personal wish list-

(sure, not all original)

Streetlamps, telephone poles, civilian cars, train cars

several types of bridge structures- steel superstructure, stone wall as railing, no railing, etc.

several types of walls- tall stone walls, tall wooden fences that block line of sight even for tanks. Tank ditches impassable to vehicles.

Very short los areas, like denser woods or series of urban back yards with many high fences. (You sure you want to send troops in there?)

Several types of industrial structures- silos, cranes, etc.

several types of boats. The Germans had motorized assault boats, for example

houses on sloped terrain.

several types of victory conditions- have an amount of troops pass a line on-board. Clear enemy from a certain area. I find the focus on flags a bit gamey and unrealistic, makes it too easy to know exactly where the enemy is focussing.

Several types of SOP orders- "fire once then retreat" "retreat if spotted"(good for scout cars), etc. A combination movement command, like- "advance when in open, MTC when in cover, pause if tiring". That would save a LOT of pointing and clicking.

...hope these haven't ALL been suggested before...

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

I think a level of uncertainty about the terrain would be good. Adjustable, just like the casualty settings are now. All terrain out of LoS is represented by wireframe, greyed out terrain, whatever.

as it comes into LoS, it changes, depending on the level of uncertainty. Uncertainty governs the amount of errors on the false map and the magnitude of errors.

Terrain Fog Of War has been on my personal wish list since CMBO!

Sure you as the player should have a look at a 2D map or a Road Map or an image or graphic of a 2D topo map of the area, BUT thats it!.

If you do not have friendly units with LOS to a specific area of the REAL 3D battlefield that area should be unavailable to be viewed by the player.

" All terrain out of LoS is represented by wireframe, greyed out terrain, whatever." FOR SURE!

This should be do-able in CMx2

I like the idea of the sterile wireframe with NO rendered details, (for map area's out of LOS) technically this would be like asking the game code to render and skin the under lying 3D wire frame AS IT COMES INTO VIEW OR LOS OF FRIENDLY UNITS.

(is that doable? or even desireable?)

GOOD POINT

thanks

-tom w

[Kip Watson]

I know in BFC terms this probably counts as a cup-holder, but I always thought the command-delay was a clear, simple and efficient way to model LOS,FOW and all the rest (and one that doesn't force me to play the whole game at zoom level one - yikes!).

In my fantasy world, a further level of realistic command delay could be effected (as in the picture below) by having generalised company or battalion orders, issued in the setup phase - to which platoon orders have to broadly adhere - that can be overridden but only with an additional delay.

[aka_tom_w]

I think Steve has said lately they don't want to add abstract command delays if they can help it.

"but I always thought the command-delay was a clear, simple and efficient way to model LOS,FOW and all the rest (and one that doesn't force me to play the whole game at zoom level one - yikes!). "

(or something to that effect, "If it takes 1 Minute to do or complete the task in REAL Life then it should take 1 Minute to do in CMx2")

-tom w

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

(or something to that effect, "If it takes 1 Minute to do or complete the task in REAL Life then it should take 1 Minute to do in CMx2")

-tom w

It is certainly a great concept and works really well. The big challenge when applying it to issuing commands is trying to determine where the command originated. Going back to Kip’s example, the order for the 2 platoons to secure the 2-story building could have come from each platoon leader acting independently, or from the company commander. Where the order came from has different implications. Kip’s idea provides a mechanism that starts to distinguish these situations, and could allow them to be treated properly.

[Kip Watson]

Seriously, I think it would work. The company level orders would need to be generalised and simple. Any platoon level orders that didn't conflict with them would incur only a brief command delay.

I think it actually overcomes the 'abstracted' mid-long command delay which currently applies to every order (especially those with multiple waypoints).

Say for example you wanted to change the orders of platoon 1 to race to the other side of the map and deal with a threat. It could be designed so that orders in serious conflict with company level orders would be very slow to implement and might even incur a big morale drop (cf. BoB attacking Foy "A flanking movement - what's he talking about, our orders are to attack").

A change in company orders themselves need not require much more of a delay - complicated ones would: 'regroup your platoon and proceed to...and coordinate with...etc etc' might add a full minute (and the company HQ could be limited to how many orders they could issue in a game-turn). Comprehensive orders - or perhaps ones that include a 'regroup' command, or coordinated orders that make use of siignals - should also give a slight boost to morale (on the premise troops like the firm hand of a strong leader), but there should be the option of simple ones too - 'get the hell out of there', 'all platoons attack', 'get over to the other side of town' - which could be issued/amended in the heat of battle and add just a few seconds.

I think something like this would be a lot less abstract than the current system.

Anyway, this is just fantasising (and an excuse to play around with screenshots) - BFC probably have something much cooler in store.

[Kip Watson]

As you say, the hard part would be the algorithm that determines whether a 'unit' order conflicts with a 'company/battalion HQ' order.

CoBa HQ orders could consist of very simple elements such as:

- broad/narrow vectors of attack*

- target areas and target points*

- a list of general directives, 'observe', 'engage', 'suppress', 'attack'

*Players should also be rewarded with improved command and morale response for using narrow vectors and small areas/specific targets (ie. clear and concise orders)

[The_Enigma]

ok hope this is the right place to post ideas, it seems it and also hope noone else has said this already. so ...

heres an idea, pontoon bridges for operations.

picture this, axis side has to hold a bridgehead over a a river and hold a bridge.

the allied side (assuming this is set in ww2 stil )has to push the axis back over the bridge and cont advaning.

The axis will get more troops, enough to mount a credable counterattack in a few battles time with the obj of push the allie's back if they cross the bridge etc.

So the axis player can if he wishes to retreat from his bridgehead onto his side of the river if he think he cannot hold it and destoy the bridge with enginners/arty

now atm that would probably screw the game over ... stalemate.

So in the next battle setup both sides or just one, get the opporunity to create a pontoon bridge, thus for example the allied attack could cont or the axis counterattack could start. etc etc

Something like in the setup you cna click somewhere and the bridge would automatically be there for when the battle or the next battle starts?

How this would be managed to do and what determine which side or both can be allowed to put one in i havnt got the fogess on, but so far what you think?

Anyway i say this because i remember playing some op in cmbo, a canal crossing.

My force got massacred in there boats and i wasnt able to sucure a bridgehead by the end of the battle so i was stuck on my side of the canal for a few turns until i dont know or remember why i was able to setup on there side of the canal.

[Kip Watson]

Some other CoBa orders could work like this be....

- Support: platoon 1

- Escort: Tank platoon 1

- Escort: Battery 2

- Advance: with stealth: and assemble

- Advance: with speed: and attack

Penalties (morale, time, cohesion) on contradictory behaviour would help to impose an 'opportunity cost' on certain orders that derive from the 'God View'.

To use a fairly common example, an AT unit takes a pot at a tank, and from the 'God-viewpoint' the opposing player has every available unit stop what they're doing and open fire on it. Personally, I don't have a problem with this as such - if you order it as a player, then as a commander you would almost certainly have included that situation during training or given instructions in standing orders.

The point is, that acting in that way would have an effect on the unit in terms of delay and temporary loss of cohesion ('who's firing - is that third squad - I didn't order anyone to fire - go and find out what they're firing at' ... that sort of thing)

Soldiers are not robots, they act on direct orders as well as according to their training, instincts and according to their own best judgement (esp. NCOs). The AI can never model this, so to take too much away from the 'God view' actually could make the game unrealistic.

But a layered command system would handle a situation like that (and others) elegantly, accurately, and without loss of playability.

[Michael Emrys]

Okay, I'm sold...I think.

Michael

[Bannon DC]

Someone must have suggested this in the past --

Camouflage netting. We need a better way to defend against air attacks than the sacraficial truck.

[willbell]

I absolutely love the pre-mini-scenario idea for shaping the goals of the battle or campaign.

I would also like a toggle so that you could lock the game onto ground level POV only. It would be challenging, and kind of realistic. It would be fun to play a game where your opponent was under the same restriction.

I would like to be able to record turn movies. Maybe create a method for setting up a camera POV at a few places during the turn. Or it could record what you see on the screen as you navigate around during the game turn play.

I would like to have a refined LOS so that if I get down at the ground level view and look around I will see only the stuff that is actually visible from that point. Sometimes you get down a tanks level, and you can see a tank through the trees, but only because some other unit sees it. I would like a choice of a view that shows only what that unit sees.

Forgive any idea repeats here, I just don't have the time to read every single post thoroughly.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Bannon DC:

Someone must have suggested this in the past --

Camouflage netting. We need a better way to defend against air attacks than the sacraficial truck.

That's fine in a situation where they begin a CM battle camouflaged, but one didn't wait until the Jabos showed up to start throwing nets over everything. By then it was much too late. In that situation, one simply dove into a ditch and got as close to China as humanly possible.

Michael

[Stan Hope Park]

.

[ March 06, 2005, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: 1327 ]

[Wikingkopf]

Not really a gameplay issue but I've always wanted my tanks to have their very own turret numbers.You know "There goes 223 up in smoke".Individual unit markings and tactical markings would also look real nice.Being able to see your Tigers with their say 503sPzabt insignia would be so sweet.

[PLM]

The problem with this command stuff is the person in charge typically wouldnt micromanage the exact movements of any movement anyway. Then you're putting too much emphasis on who's in command range and not. The AI sucks on its own. It cant handle ANY situation. I dont want troops isolated to just be inept and be massacred by the enemy human player. I want to control unit movements completely without any sort of command delay.

One thing i've thouhgt about is a real-time CM. Would take higher specs of course and be very hard to keep up with. But if you want to add problems with command you can make it real time. Would be itneresting to have it as an option. I dont think enough comps can handle it though.

I think there aughta be some sort of chatterbox or message box. Maybe several different notifier tabs which blink when one becomes valid. One for spotting enemy. One for casualties etc.

A campaign mode would be nice. Different than the operation mode. Where your troops carry over from a battle and gain experience and stuff

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by PLM:

One thing i've thouhgt about is a real-time CM. Would take higher specs of course and be very hard to keep up with. But if you want to add problems with command you can make it real time.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Michael

[aka_tom_w]

One thing i've thouhgt about is a real-time CM. Would take higher specs of course and be very hard to keep up with. But if you want to add problems with command you can make it real time. Would be itneresting to have it as an option. I dont think enough comps can handle it though.

Sorry

I don't think there are ANY home/consumer level computers that could handle a even a Company vs a company with Arty and Air support and tank support in REAL TIME???? :confused:

What???

are you kidding me?

Just look how long the "crunch" time is now. Any time you see a crunch that is about a minute long you know it could not show the turn in real time due to the armour penetration calculations.

MAYBE 5 years from now it might be do-able but computers are not getting faster ( like doubleing in speed every 18 months) the way they used to now-a-days!

The faithful here know that BFC will not sell out Combat Mission or any future Combat Mission Like games to the RTS market....

BUT I could be wrong.

-tom w

[Philippe]

I'm not sure I would want to play CM in real time even if that were possible.

[Hamstersss]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Just look how long the "crunch" time is now. Any time you see a crunch that is about a minute long you know it could not show the turn in real time due to the armour penetration calculations.

Easy thing to test, really, you just have to see which turns take 1 minute or less to process.

I just hope BFC spends some quality time with environmental effects, especially during operations. Seeing the same battlefield change--through terrain deformation and weather effects--from a beautiful European hamlet into a blasted-out, muddy wreck with knocked-out tanks scattered around, would be spectacular.

Plus it'd come in handy when they use the engine for WWI...

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by PLM:

The problem with this command stuff is the person in charge typically wouldnt micromanage the exact movements of any movement anyway. Then you're putting too much emphasis on who's in command range and not. The AI sucks on its own. It cant handle ANY situation. I dont want troops isolated to just be inept and be massacred by the enemy human player. I want to control unit movements completely without any sort of command delay.

Using command-zones could achieve this aim. Using Kip's screenshot, imagine if the squads were confined to the "arrow" area. Within it they could move without any delay at all. To change the company level orders (replot the arrows) would result in relatively large delay, to leave the zone on a platoon's own initiative would result in delay or some other bad effect (fragile morale, friendly fire incidents etc).

Anyhow, I have mentioned this ad-nauseum before. Just thought I would mention it again , as Kip's screenshot is almost exactly what I had in mind when I mention "command-zones" or "command-radius" as in this old thread here:

C&C thread .

Originally posted by Hoolaman on October 18, 2004 05:32 PM:

[Juardis]

Wow. Go away for 2 years and things change .

Seriously, I quit playing CMBB because it ceased to be fun. I never bought CMAK. But I eagerly awaited news on CMX2 and here it is.

So if it's not too late, here are some of my wishes from 2 years ago and some new ones. I have no idea how much of what we came up with years ago has been written down, but what I'd like first and foremost is for the game to be fun. It is all well and good to be as realistic as possible, but at some point realism is not fun. The shear frustration of having your squad break as it runs from tree cover to tree cover while a HMG squad fires on it is not fun. It may be realistic (or may not, since we're talking about human reactions in the heat of the battle), but it's certainly not fun. CMBB took away the fire and manuever aspects that made CMBO fun simply because you could no longer effectively manuever. So you ordered your guys to stay in one place and expend their ammo until the time limit expired.

Certainly not all games were like that, but it happened more often than not. It was extremely frustrating.

I just read about the morale issues and I fear even more frustration. I mean, having an entire squad break on the death of the squad leader? Realistic? Who knows. Possible? Perhaps. Fun? No. So while I applaud the realistic combat simulator, is there any acknowledgement at all that this is still a game? I think the two can co-exist nicely, but it's a fine balance to be sure.

Anyway, my wish list.

1. Scalable. By that I mean the ability to model the Vietnam war and the longer ranges associated with it as well as WW I/WW II eras. My main desire is for a Korean war battlefield. But if a Vietnam battlefield can be modeled, I'd suspect a Korean war battlefield could be.

2. Passage of time. A one hour battle may start in daylight (or darkness) but surely transition to the other.

3. Borg spotting has got to go. I have an idea that I put forth a few years ago, and I still think it would work and be fun at the same time. Basically, commands can only be given to units with radios or within LOS of units with radios.

4. Ability to play the game from different perspectives. By that, I mean you are either the squad leader, platoon leader, company commander or battalion commander. How much C&C you have depends greatly on which perspective you play from. For example: If this is a platoon vs. platoon, you're a platoon leader and can issue direct commands to the squad leaders and have those commands executed in a reasonably fast time and indirect commands to the individuals in the squad after some delay (to simulate the direct command to the squad leader giving commands to his subordinates). Issuing a command to a squad leader only will allow the AI to figure out how to execute the command (perhaps using pre-determined formations or maneuvers). Issuing a command to a soldier will take longer to execute since the order has to come from me (the platoon leader) through the squad leader to the soldier. I think this would work well with the previously mentioned cooperative play mode.

5. Alternate turn time limits. Instead of 60 sec, allow longer/shorter times. Longer battles can be simulated in the same number of turns if longer turn lengths are allowed.

6. Air drops. Be they supplies falling from parachutes or men falling from parachutes. The entire battle centered around the drop zone. Plenty of battles took place in WWII and Korea and Vietnam around drop zones (The movie "We Were Soldiers" is a great example).

7. Since I'm wishing, Helicopter modeling. Obviously not for WW II, nor much for Korea, but definitely to extend the engine to Vietnam.

8. I would love to hook this into a campaign system to replace the current Operations. But if the current operation system is retained, I'd love to have truly dynamic front lines that allow for encirclement in between battles.

9. I know with dynamic lighting that a lot of cool things can be added. But I'd vote for star shells for night battles and willy pete (ordnance and lighting effects).

There are more I'm sure, but these will do for now. I'm trying to think revolutionary by the way.

[flamingknives]

1) I would have thought that Vietnam ranges were shorter than WWI/WWII. Certainly small arms lost power and range.

2) passage of time is in

3) Relative spotting (the antithesis of Borg spotting) is in

4) Command game is out, at least for the first two games, but may come in for later games (games will come along faster than with CMX1)

8) Operations have changed into more scripted campaign battles. 'Upgrades' are unlikely though