Grog and the Car Designer - A Parable

[Midnight Warrior]

If we are gonna have 1:1 representation (which I think is simply fantatstic!) and this 1:1 is more than just eye candy but involves higher fidelity modeling with less abstractions (another big thumbs up!) then are we gonna also have "1:1" terrain modeling? I mean like individual fox holes, trees, stumps, fallen logs, individual rocks, minor terrain height variations like ditches, mounds, creek beds, etc? Will buildings have "1:1 compatable" windows, doors, rooms, stairs, et al. Also are we then gonna have more explicit weapons effects that consider more detailed terrain effects on these weapons (i.e did the shot hit "me" hunkered down behind this big fat rock and not just some abstraction of my unit being in in a rocky tile? Did that grenade roll into my foxhole? Did I have time to toss it back before it went off? I think that something like that would indeed be revolutionary. Nor would I think that it require a lot of micro managing but rather micro modeling. I'm all for it! Forward! Forward!

[Halberdiers]

I'm confusing about what is "think big" too . Is it to think out of the box of WW2 era?.. for example , think in a "new game system" that can run for the conquest of Persia by Alexander and Operation Iraqi Freedom too? , in other words a system that could be the basis for the Persian chariots and the Apache Helicopters?.

[aka_tom_w]

Brilliant post

I find it incredulous that you could be so correct, verbose and descriptive WITHOUT using the ever popular term "Paradigm Shift".

BUT yes GREAT post..

you are right on!

-tom w

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Steve,

Great parable! Engages the reader, amusing, yet devastatingly accurate in its portrayal of a fundamental disconnect in the communication between the designers and the customers. Reminds me a bit of THE FREE ENTERPRISE PATRIOT (set in the American Revolution) in which the barrel boring machine, instead of producing the mandated smooth bore, goes a bit wonky and produces a rifled cannon with twice the accuracy and three times the range, resulting in a deluge of correction orders from George Washington's outraged weapon procurement group. Why? Because the new guns were out of spec and in violation of contract requirements.

We are in need of a radical new vision, yet find ourselves more nearly resembling the Chief of Patents at the turn of the century who advocated closing the U.S. Patent Office on the grounds that everything important had already been invented. Likewise a pre WW II brain trust utterly missed

predicting the atomic bomb, radar, and computers.

I believe Steve's saying that we're so locked into

a narrow mind frame based on what's been possible under the old engine that we're busy tweaking minutiae when we need to sketch out, in bold, daring strokes, a stunning, breathtakingly innovative view of what may be doable with a brand new, modular, readily reconfigurable game engine. I agree, and I'm guilty of the same sort of narrow thinking he so deftly skewers in his parable.

Regards,

John Kettler

[imported_no_one]

Steve,

Tell us more about how the environment in CMX2 is going to work.We know that the terrain tiles will be smaller,and that means less abstraction,but what about other things.What about lighting and weather effects?Will it have an evolving timeframe(i.e. clouds move across the sky,rain comes and goes)?

What about the modeling of buildings,trenches,and craters/foxholes?Are they going to be better represented in 3D?And I don't just mean eye candy.I do not like the idea that trenches and heavy buildings are considered simply a cover %,and that hiding/taking cover infantry in a trench can take casualties from "area target" small arms fire--that is absurd.

All these things may just be "details" but I view it as redesigning the drivetrain of the vehicle.The more detail that goes into the environment,the more realistic the combat environment.

[GSX]

I have just sat here and read all of the CMx2 threads with interest. laughed at a few posts, even moaned at 1. I think from my point, the whole debate is pretty much useless. The Grogs are definately the wrong people to ask what they want from the game. They prefer to have the wing mirror of a Kubelwagen moddled correctly over game play. In essence they want everything. What BF has done with CM has been excellent and is in a niche of 1. At the end of the day I like to PBEM, if its not in the next game, I will either, get used to it or go back to playing the ones I do now. As has been mentioned before, its BF Ass on the line here, they bring out the new game and it fails, well they suffer. Personnaly if I was at BF right now Id stop joining in the speculation forums and tell everyone to wait for the demo. Like they say, its only a game and if you dont like the product, go somewhere else.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

I want a CMX2 game to last for an hour (wall-clock time) on average, two hours maximum.

How is that for a difficult design goal!?

I'd say it's downright impossible, given the huge range of player styles. For instance, I like to study my moves carefully and ruminate on what is going on on my screen. That's a big part of the fun for me. Consequently, it may well take me an hour just to do one move! And I find it hard to conceive of me playing a game that consists of just one move. Possible, but unlikely.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by GSX:

The Grogs are definately the wrong people to ask what they want from the game. They prefer to have the wing mirror of a Kubelwagen moddled correctly over game play.

That's a vicious, slanderous lie! This grog wants both. I figured out a long time ago that a game that wasn't fun to play, or too tedious to play, would sit unplayed on the shelf regardless of how much nit-picky detail was included in the package. All I want from a game is to give me a reasonably accurate depiction of what it claims to be modeling. I tend to get irritable when it is—to me—obviously false and misleading.

Michael

[Holman]

Personnaly if I was at BF right now Id stop joining in the speculation forums and tell everyone to wait for the demo. Like they say, its only a game and if you dont like the product, go somewhere else.

So you're saying that BTS is stupid to actually communicate with their long-term fan base?

[aka_tom_w]

I am not sure if a review of this post will help us here or not?

Topic: Balancing out commanders and the commanded

Battlefront.com

Administrator

Member # 42

posted January 17, 2005 02:35 AM                         

Since the beginning of wargaming there has been a lively debate about how to simulate command decisions and command levels. Unfortunately, many wargamers do not really understand how simulations work and what impact one part has on another. While it is certainly true there should always be ways of improving a given design, it is also true that at some point there will come a point of diminishing returns. It can also happen that an ideal can not ever be reached unless certain other elements are changed, and therefore diminishing returns start pretty quickly if the other stuff is left largely unchanged. What I'd like to do is get a bit philosophical for a bit in order to try and get everybody on the same page. It's not going to work, but it's always fun to try

A simulation basically contains four elements which represent:

1. Entities

2. Environments

3. Interactions

4. Decisions

I don't care what kind of simulation it is, it contains these four concepts in some shape or form. The more simplistic each element is, the easier the sim is to make accurate. For example, to simulate a ball rolling down a playground slide you have the ball (entity), the slide (environment), physics of ball on a slanted surface (interaction), and how the ball is released (decision). If you have only one type of ball, one model of slide, and one way of releasing it things are a piece of cake because they are all pretty much in balance with each other. But change one part of the sim and you will either have to change others or be faced with an inaccurate model.

For example, having different balls of different weights or textures, possibly even imperfect roundness, would mean simulating the other things in more detail. The slide's surface would have to be simulated to interact with the different textures and the physics would need to account for the various properties and their values. The decision part, how the ball is released down the slide, could probably remain the same. But what if you introduced different ways of releasing the ball? Now you have to make the various decisions have different effects based on the type of ball, type of slide, and method of release.

The point I am trying to make here is that all elements must be kept in balance for a sim to function realistically. The more you deviate from balance between the elements, the less realistic the simulation is.

In a military sim there is a special dynamic between decisions and the other elements. The fewer entities the fewer decision makers need to be simulated. The more diverse the entities the more decision makers are needed. The less detailed the entities the less detailed the decision making. The opposites of each are also true. It is also true that the more detailed the entities, environments, and interactions the more decisions there are to make.

What this all means is that the smaller scope, lower level games (first person shooters for example) are better suited to single players. Ironically the opposite end of the spectrum is also better suited for single players, but for different reasons. Commanding a Platoon of soldiers is more difficult than commanding a Squad which is more difficult than commanding a single soldier. Commanding divisional sized units for a section of front is easier than commanding regimental sized units for a large operation, which is easier than commanding battalion sized units for a big battle. In between is the apex where things switch from becoming harder to becoming easier. Unfortunately for us, Battalion level is that apex.

At the Battalion level you have the best and worst of everything. You have all the detail of a first person battle sim with significant tactical and strategic elements. Pretty much everything has even weight from a sim standpoint. And that is where the trouble lies if the decision element is tied to one individual decision maker. In order to balance out the other elements there needs to be multiple decision makers. The more the better from a sim standpoint, the less the better from a game standpoint.

See the inherent problem we have as designers of the simulation? Arbitrarily limiting the decision makers to one entity, without adjusting the other elements, means that the system as a whole is inherently less realistic than it should be. The solution is to allow more decision makers or to reduce the other elements. Since the latter is impractical to do for a Battalion level sim, we're stuck with needing more decision makers if we want to get the maximum realism possible.

The possibilities open to us are mandatory multi-multi player or mandatory control of most forces by AI players or a combo of both. In all cases a single player would have a restricted role in the game. Additional players and extensive AI are both impractical (especially the latter), which means even if a player agreed to play in a highly restricted capacity there would still be significant problems for the sim (i.e. a shortage of players means no game, less than near Human competent AI means frustration). However, few players want that type of restricted environment in the first place so it makes the rest rather moot.

And so there we have it. The level and scope of CM's combat environment requires many commanders in order to be more realistic than it is right now. But players by and large don't want this. Therefore, players are going to have to accept that they are getting what they asked for, limitations and all. The only thing we, the designers and developers, can do is attempt to minimize the negatives of having a single player in command. And that means approaching designs that recognize the limitations of what can be achieved so as to not get into a situation of spending time on ideas that offer diminishing returns on development resources.

Hope this all makes sense to you guys

Steve

AND...

ON that 1:1 Representation issue...

Battlefront.com

Administrator

Member # 42

posted January 21, 2005 12:15 AM                      

1:1 representation sure does open up a big can of worms. It's one of the reasons why we did not attempt it for CMx1 (though hardware wouldn't have allowed it anyway). However, as has already been pointed out one should not confuse 1:1 graphical represenation with 1:1 modeling or 1:1 control. Three different concepts.

From a GAME standpoint, 1:1 graphical representation is the most important. If I were to make a Top Ten list of complaints from general gamers about CMx1, this would probably be the #2 complaint (#1 is the lack of ridiculously detailed and textured models) constant throughout all three games.

From a REALISM standpoint the most important thing is the 1:1 modeling. Though it is very difficult to do this without the 1:1 graphical represenation, it is certainly possible to do. We could have had individuals run away from generic 3 man squads or more detailed soldier stats. But without 1:1 representation this all seemed kinda hollow so we kept the level of modeling in line with the degree of visual representation. Now that we are increasing the latter, we will also be increasing the modeling to stay in balance. There will still be abstractions, just not nearly as many as there are now.

The interesting thing is that most "gamers" and "grognards" is that they probably pretty much agree that 1:1 control is undesirable. There is already enough to pay attention to without having to get Pvt. Pyle to move 0.5 meters to the left of the tree he is behind so he can get a shot off. It also turns the focus to individual soldiers instead of units and the formations they belong to.

Obviously, if you are smart you'll see that we're not going to implement 1:1 control, but are going to do 1:1 visual and 1:1 modeling. The results should make the game more fun to play and also far more realistic. There will be issues we need to work through to make sure it all works happily together, but that's the sort of thing you guys pay us for when you buy the game

Steve

[ February 12, 2005, 06:40 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[McAuliffe]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

I want a CMX2 game to last for an hour (wall-clock time) on average, two hours maximum.

How is that for a difficult design goal!?

I'd say it's downright impossible, given the huge range of player styles. For instance, I like to study my moves carefully and ruminate on what is going on on my screen. That's a big part of the fun for me. Consequently, it may well take me an hour just to do one move! And I find it hard to conceive of me playing a game that consists of just one move. Possible, but unlikely.

Michael </font>

[RMC]

Originally posted by Halberdiers:

I'm confusing about what is "think big" too . Is it to think out of the box of WW2 era?.. for example , think in a "new game system" that can run for the conquest of Persia by Alexander and Operation Iraqi Freedom too? , in other words a system that could be the basis for the Persian chariots and the Apache Helicopters?.

The think big comment is supposed to get you out of thinking in terms of CM1. I think most are approaching CM2 as simply CM1 with:

1:1 modelling

higher polygon models

higher res textures

smaller terrain tiles

better handling of LOS

And maybe for many that is all they want. Plus horses or some other missing thing to be included.

Steve is saying CM2 will be so much more than that.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by RMC:

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

I'm confusing about what is "think big" too . Is it to think out of the box of WW2 era?.. for example , think in a "new game system" that can run for the conquest of Persia by Alexander and Operation Iraqi Freedom too? , in other words a system that could be the basis for the Persian chariots and the Apache Helicopters?.

The think big comment is supposed to get you out of thinking in terms of CM1. I think most are approaching CM2 as simply CM1 with:

1:1 modelling

higher polygon models

higher res textures

smaller terrain tiles

better handling of LOS

And maybe for many that is all they want. Plus horses or some other missing thing to be included.

Steve is saying CM2 will be so much more than that. </font>

[Grimly Fiendish]

I have to admit, I don't see why Grog's input needs to be written off so completely. Is he not a loyal customer? Is he not easily satisfied? perhaps TOO easily satisfied---no car designer will ever get rich off customers like him, unless they number in the millions. Which, as a matter of fact, they DO (if you stick to cars, that is---don't know about games).

I don't think Grog was intended to be a fanatic about details. Grog would never go to a forum and bitch about his cupholder---he would simply suffer and make do. Am I wrong? I don't remember him modding his car. He adapted to it rather than the reverse.

I wish we could all agree on what a "detail" is. I personally don't give a crap about polygons and textures and tiles or uniforms and mirrors and skins. I do want to be able to do a Somaliland scenario with Mark VIbs (which were on their way to Somaliland before the Italians arrived and might have made a difference, but are not available in East Africa at all), but---more than that, because that IS a detail---I want the reality of game programming limitations to stop intruding on my game experience.

There is a lot of talk about gameyness---well, nothing is more gamey than when the game itself rears its ugly head and refuses to play along. The classic example, to me, is when I tell a tank to go tight around a house to avoid getting targeted (just as I see the AI do) and the tank gets inexplicably caught on a corner, spins around, and gets a new hole in its rear turret where no hole should be. (I can lose on my own, I don't need the game to do it for me!) The AI can tell how many pixels away from the house to plot, I cannot.

I want to stop playing tank driver and battalion commander at the same time. I am tired of brutally stupid unit AIs that must only want to die with all their ammo intact, and of tediously plotted infantry orders that get thrown out on the next turn. I do not consider these frustrations to be details, though obviously they are relatively minor because I, like Grog, am still here driving my car into the ground. I HOPE they will be addressed in CM2. If they ARE addressed, BFC can do all the polygons and textures and "big ideas" they want, and I will pay double. Am I Grog?

No doubt some will want to respond, "If you don't like CM, go play something else." Those people may want to read again more closely or just stop reading entirely. I generally trust BFC to do what it thinks is best because its track record so far is phenomenal, and I am aware of the many limitations and decisions (marketing, technological, artistic) faced by a game designer, but this forum is not for worshipping CM. It is for criticizing it---as fairly and objectively and as ruthlessly as possible. Grog must speak!

[ February 12, 2005, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: Dave Stockhoff ]

[GSX]

'So you're saying that BTS is stupid to actually communicate with their long-term fan base?'

Thats not what I meant. What I meant was that, yes its valid to ask an already established fan base in one game what they would like to see in future games. However I presume thet BF have also marketed non CMx1 playing customers etc. What it boils down too is that speculation is just being fuelled about the new game right now. Unless BF can give specifics about the game (and they state they cannot) Why not just say, wait for the new game to arrive. Its obvious that this game will be diffrent and the engine is being designed to be mush more than a WW2 sim. So the target audience will be diffrent in some ways. Im not a long term member here so I dont know if this was done in previous iterations of CM. Im just saying, why fuel speculation. Lets wait and see. If we dont like it, hey we dont need to buy it and Im sure there will always be something else out there to buy. I think we are lucky they interact with us as much as they do now.

In reality I meet a lot of CM players in varous sites and the vast majority never come in here. I find in here a hard core few that post reular. If I were designing a new game Id certainly like to aim it at more ppl that come here and I say good luck to them. I for one am quite prepared to wait, after all this thing may be a year away yet.

[ February 12, 2005, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: GSX ]

[JonS]

well said Dave.

[folke]

How about making some kind of summary for all thoughts mentioned in this forum..

Perhaps then it will me more easy to see what ppl wants?

Well what do I know, I still like the good "old" CM

[flammenwerfer]

Will CMX2 have that new car smell?

(Non-Techie Ques.)

Why can't Charles code a work around for the file size problem, like a pre-zipped file or somin...

[ February 12, 2005, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Flammenwerfer ]

[aka_tom_w]

There is a great of deal truth here:

I want the reality of game programming limitations to stop intruding on my game experience.

There is a lot of talk about gameyness---well, nothing is more gamey than when the game itself rears its ugly head and refuses to play along. The classic example, to me, is when I tell a tank to go tight around a house to avoid getting targeted (just as I see the AI do) and the tank gets inexplicably caught on a corner, spins around, and gets a new hole in its rear turret where no hole should be. (I can lose on my own, I don't need the game to do it for me!) The AI can tell how many pixels away from the house to plot, I cannot.

I want to stop playing tank driver and battalion commander at the same time. I am tired of brutally stupid unit AIs that must only want to die with all their ammo intact, and of tediously plotted infantry orders that get thrown out on the next turn. I do not consider these frustrations to be details, though obviously they are relatively minor because I, like Grog, am still here driving my car into the ground. I HOPE they will be addressed in CM2. If they ARE addressed, BFC can do all the polygons and textures and "big ideas" they want, and I will pay double. Am I Grog?

I especially like this part! (below)

"I want to stop playing tank driver and battalion commander at the same time. I am tired of brutally stupid unit AIs that must only want to die with all their ammo intact, and of tediously plotted infantry orders that get thrown out on the next turn. I do not consider these frustrations to be details,"

Thanks!

-tom w

[Midnight Warrior]

I think that it might be of some benefit on what properties makes a wargame fun. I think some the "funness features" listed below captures some of these properties:

1. Interest/challenging,

2. vicarious correlation with actual historical events,

3. education/insight/illumination,

4. immersion,

5. engagement/entertainment,

6. community/commraderery (sp?)

7. escapism/relaxation,

8. excitement,

9. ease of play/absence of tedium,

10. aesthetics

(and maybe a few more I left out).

For example a game is interesting if it presents challenges problems with many dimensions for the player to solve. Most games want it to correlate with actual historical events (e.g. my soldies get cold and hungry) but only vicariously because I don't want to be cold and hungry when I watching them be cold and hungry.. I what to be chowing down). It is illuminating if when you play it the light bulb comes on and you can say "Ah! Now I understand why they did that!" It has immersion if it gives you a sense of really being there. It is entertaining if it gives you plenty to keep you occupied to keep your mind engaged. The community factor it gives you ways of interacting with other gamers. It provides escapism if it helps you forget some of the problems and stresses you had during the day and focus in on your own little world. It is exciting if it creates a level of suspense of what will happen so that it isn't all totally predictable. It has a high ease of play if it is user friendly and has playing aids. It has aesthetics if there is an element of beauty not only in its graphics and sounds but an elegance in its design and play.

Now different people would weight these factors differently. A grog is going to weight say illumination factor higher than a FPS gamer while a FPS is probably going to weight immersion more. I think that the key is to get the right balance for the right audience. This is achieved by getting the right balance of funness features. For example the much touted follow command supports the ease of play funness feature while a cosmic LOS tool enhances ease of play at the expense of accuracy and illumination in that it gives the player too much information. On the other hand real time immersiveness is enhanced by real time play but not the escapist/relaxation element (I have to race against the clock all day. When I come home from a hectic day at work and play a wargame I want to savor what is happening not spend that time too racing agaisnt the clock so I think WEGO is a marvelous compromise solution.

Now if you take something like 1:1 modelling and it has the potential to regiser in almost all of the funness features from immersion, to accuracy and detail, to aetheitics, to illuminaion, etc. Thus the mere fact that a game function would touch so many of these funness features says to me that it is a fruitfull area to explore.

Where the value of Grogs come in is to help articulate on what the grogs consider as fun in a wargame as a counter balance to the general community since their are so many of them than there are grogs. What the game developers have to do is find the right balance so that they can sell enough games to stay in business but advance the state of the art so it is worth them staying in business. I think that the Battlefront.com have done a great job of this. So rather than freaking out that they will sell out on the Grogs like other developers such as Talonsoft did (which I think ain't a gonna happen!) rather the thrust should be to more accurate capture just what is it that makes a game fun for the Grogs and then to prioritize these against each oter to get the right balance.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

All I want from a game is to give me a reasonably accurate depiction of what it claims to be modeling. I tend to get irritable when it is—to me—obviously false and misleading.

Same here.

Mace

[flamingknives]

Not sure that a grog would value immersion more than education from a game. The whole reason they're called grogs is they already know everthing and bitch about it if it's wrong.

[Jasper 2x]

Unlimited time between turns is so unrealistic it’s not even funny. The turn timer is in for a reason. 3 to 5 mins should be more then enough time to play a turn more is only need for large battles 5000+ a turn time of more then 10 mins is to much. So even with a 10 min turn you can have a game that is played out in about an hour. After 10 turns someone should have the advantage. So that would be like 100mins.

Of course placement and the first turn take more time.

[GreenAsJade]

Note: somehow all the feedback received in this forum is being classified as "Grog feedback".

I ain't a Grog. I'm providing feedback.

The feedback in this forum is from people passionate about the game though. Here's really where the trouble starts: something I like (say - being able to do my turns at a different time to my opponent) is at risk of going away, then I provide feedback that I wouldn't like that. Other people chime in passionately too, and BFC feel under seige. They needn't. All it is is people passionately communicating what people think about a game they really like.

Of course, all this is hard to handle if you're on the other end of it, and BFC's bussines is making games, not handling passionate people on forums. It's good for us that they focus their effort on the former

GaJ.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Midnight Warrior's got it exactly right.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Not sure that a grog would value immersion more than education from a game.

I'm not clear about what you mean by 'education' in this context. I know that I don't buy a game so that I can sit down to a lecture; I want to play it. And immersion is important to me too. The thing is, if something I know is unrealistic happens in a game that touts itself on being "historical", immersion goes right out the window for me, and I don't want to play it any more. Just like with movies that claim to be about historical events. If Napoleon shows up at Waterloo riding in a Mercedes staff car, I'm gonna go find something else to do. (Okay, if it is obviously intended as a satire, I might stick around to see if the designer has any wit...but this better be good.)

Michael