Grog and the Car Designer - A Parable

[junk2drive]

"If Napoleon shows up at Waterloo riding in a Mercedes staff car"

A CV2 would be ok, right?

[Midnight Warrior]

"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."

That is exactly my point. Different people are turned on by different aspects of a wargame. By "educational" I meant that having played a game one better understands what actually happened and why (maybe there is a better term I could have used for this aspect such as enhanced understanding). This is not to mean a lecture but rather you get to view history from a different perspective by participating in it (albeit vicariously) by having to make similar decisions, getting more familiar with the terrain and OOB's, or seeing how events and alternative outcomes play out) rather than just reading about it in a history book. For me (being a big history buff) I like this aspect. On the other hand it might not appeal to someone else. That's cool with me. This may be a function of individual preference or experience. For example I sort of noticed that some of those who are actually in the military don't seem to value immersion very much (perhaps since they experience the real thing to some degree in their training). Thus they don't want a lot of eye candy (that might enhance immersion) but value other aspects. On the other hand for others immersion may be the thing that turns them on.

BTW. I thought of a couple of more fun aspect meterics.

1. Competitiveness/Game value

2. Drama/Historical Import

3. Remembrance/Heroic-ness

Competitive/game value deals with the thrill of competition a beating another layer (or even oneself ). Their is a higher form of this that comes from the challenge that comes from facing stiff competition and a more smarmy side of it that appeals to people's ego's wherethey can used the game as a means to showcase their skills (I could be a Napolean or Rommel) or just to show off how much they know about history, military tactics, or whatever. Those of the former aspect tend to like to play a game just from the sake of that like games and competition (be it chess, checkers, or Chancellesville). Thus these (since they like the gaming aspects) may not object as much to "gamey" tactics unless they also have a aspects of what makes a game fun as well (e.g. historical accuracy).

Drama is the sense of something important happening. For instance I find there is a sense of drama in any game (almost no matter how bad) that deals with certain topics such as the Normandy invasion in that the subject is of such a dramatic nature and has such an imense impact on history that it transcends.

This ties in with the remebrance element in that when one plays a historical wargame it can be viewsed as a way of honoring those who actually were there.

Now for some "honoring those in the past" might not just be their cup of tea. Great! For others they might not really that competitive and couldn't care less if they win or not. Once more that's great too. The idea is to try to capture some of the facets of what the cross section of those who like wargames so that individual features can better be discussed as to whether they are cool or not. For example take the discussion on PBEM. Why is that important to some people. Perhaps it is from the social aspect (they like interacting with other gamers via PBEM). For other it might be the competition aspect (they like beating people better than beating the AI). Or it might from the challenging stand point (i.e the AI is not a challenging enough opponent). Or perhaps it is from the historically accurate (the AI doesn't play as realistically as the human). The idea here is not to try to push one aspect over another but to better frame the discussion so that whatever aspects one likes they can better communicate how a game features affects those apsects. DoD some years ago tried to push this methodology that used a QFD matrix (I don't even remeber what QFD standatd far exacept he Q stood for quality.. alos I think the idea came from Japanesse car industry). In a QFD matrix the rows represent goodness aspects (like the fun aspecs) and the columns represent features. The elements of the matrix would have a value (like 0-9) that shows the correlation between a feature and a goodness factor. For example "ride qulaity" might be a goodness aspect and better shocks might be a feature and if the better shocks makes a better ride qulaity the element in the matrix that corrsponded to these two would be a 9 and if it didn't correlate at all it would be a zero). The idea was that one could use such a method to get a qualitative measurment of what features one should put into their next car (or tank, or airplane, or whatever). In practise I doubt that this never really worked (because people would inevitabaly mesd with the numbers until they got the numbers they wanted). However, notionally I think the idea was sound. What I was thinking is that (from a conceptual stand point)one could think about potentials features in CMX2 in a similar manner and cross indexthem against "funness aspects" to notional get a sense of the benefit of the possible function. I know that it in practice it won't work but I think something along these lines might be of some value in trying to elevate the discussion from above the purely subjective. Also, since there may be trades to be made (e.g. immersion verses interest)some sort of notional accounting system may be useful to help sort out these trades and try to come up with win/win solutions that let you have your cake and eat it too.

At any rate I've probably have beat this dead horse enough. If you guys find this notion useful, great! If not, that fine too!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

"If Napoleon shows up at Waterloo riding in a Mercedes staff car"

A CV2 would be ok, right?

Yeah, no problem. A Bugatti would be much better though. After all, he was the Emperor, you know.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Midnight Warrior:

By "educational" I meant that having played a game one better understands what actually happened and why (maybe there is a better term I could have used for this aspect such as enhanced understanding). This is not to mean a lecture but rather you get to view history from a different perspective by participating in it (albeit vicariously) by having to make similar decisions, getting more familiar with the terrain and OOB's, or seeing how events and alternative outcomes play out) rather than just reading about it in a history book. For me (being a big history buff) I like this aspect.

Okay. Yeah, that's the biggest part of it for me too. A book can contain more data, but a well-designed game shows you how all the pieces fit dynamically together.

Personally, I don't think a game or its designers should try to be all things to all people. They should decide what they want the game to be and then build it the best that they can. It's great if it can appeal to a broad range of people for a variety of reasons, but the game's identity should not be compromised just to try to pull in more customers. I've never seen much good come of that.

Michael

[Runyan99]

I guess I'll beat my drum again.

CMx1 was revolutionary because it took the 2 dimensional map and chits wargame model and brought it into a three-dimensional world. It also removed 'turns' and played out the actions of all actors in real time, aka We-Go.

Those were the two major innovations which brought greater realism to CMx1 than any previous wargame.

I maintain that the next great frontier in the evolution of realism is the dimension of TIME itself. I believe that CMx1 often abstracted and in many cases truncated the time period in which company and battalion level engagements occured. There is no question that chopping three days in the trenches at Yelnya into an operation of 4 battles of 30 turns is a kind of abstraction, forced by the use of 1 minute turns in CMx1.

To increase realism, battles must be played out in the actual amount of time in which they occured.

Create a game system where I can simulate Lt. Winters' two hour crawl through a couple of hedgerows to knock out the guns at Brecourt manor, but also the three day engagement at the battle of Gettysburg, or a three week offensive through the hedgerows of St. Lo as a company commander. And make them all fun.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

When it comes to time, nearly all CM scenarios have too few turns, I agree. I always play at least 60 turns per battle. However, the reason most games are so short, is that the men are virtual, and thus the players far more brutal and indifferent to casualties. In all simulations, no matter how realistic the coding, casualties tend to be higher then in the real world, and battles shorter.

The way to over come many of the problems with time is to use layers for different time scales/game scales. If there were an operational layer, the time scale there could be four hours per turn. From the operational layer one could click down the to CM scale where it was still one minute per turn.

However, each layer/game must be focused on just one game scale. Or you will damage the overall game. So with CMX2 the focus should be narrowed to the company v company scale. ( Which I believe… roughly… is happening, same sale as CMX1.) One day when a genuine operational layer is introduced the operational layer should be focused on that scale, say, with battalion as opposed to squad manoeuvre units. And so on.

With the use of different layers one day it will no doubt be possible to play CM over a longer time period with a more realistic feel to the passing of time.

All the best,

Kip.

[Yeknodathon]

... and with each layer the map would zoom in or out to a company, battalion or division scale to reflect the time/game scale... I think I'm going to dribble.

[GSX]

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.

Couldnt agree more. You guys can debate the fin oints of grogness all day. I agree with the above. PBEM maybe doesnt cut it in the world of reality. I would have thought a true grog would hate pbem as having unlimited time to plan a 1 minute move is plain unrealistic. The whole game right now is based around a company sized battle most often and many guys play 60 minutes! Sheesh you average company sized intense fight is over way quicker than that. By taking away PBEM, CMx2 may actually be getting towards the real deal, imagine, no more playing guys who take 5 days to plot their 1 minute turn, where in real life they have about 30 seconds. We want more realism, well yes time management is probably more realistic than most other features if you take away PBEM. Im not saying mmake it RTS style, just say 1 minute per 1000 points max, so you play a 5000 pt Qb and apart from set up, you get 5 mins. I tend to play that now in IP and will flatly refuse when an opponent demands unlimited timer.

[Soddball]

Whilst I was at the War and Peace Show last year, I got to sit and watch one of the set-piece battles. Shermans and Greyhounds with infantry against SPWs, an AT gun and Panzergrenadiers. It was loud and frisky, and the bit that stuck in my mind was listening to the .50 cal firing from the top of a jeep. I got goose bumps up both my arms listening to that thing. I want CM to do the same thing to me.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Posted by Yeknodathaon above,

“... and with each layer the map would zoom in or out to a company, battalion or division scale to reflect the time/game scale... I think I'm going to dribble.” Exactly With the results from one layer, applied to the other layer/layers.

The key is not to try and mix scales within each layer. Game features that are suitable for operational games with battalions as maneuver units are not suitable for games in which the maneuver units are squads and individual AFVs. Not hard coded, as options no matter.

Steve may be laughing at this…. but I remain confident that one day it will come. CM has to evolve slowly, but sometime in the future I believe that the logic of taking this path is overwhelming. ( Ok Steve… you can stop laughing now )

All the best,

Kip.

[flamingknives]

Having unlimited time may be unrealistic, with you as battalion commander, but the thing is, in CMX1, you are also squad leader, artillery spotter and tank commander. So take your minute and multiply it by the number of units on the field. If you want to play it differently, that's a command game and a very different beast to CMX1.

Myself, and probably others too (naming no Kips), would argue that this is less engaging. A properly simulated command battle would be you as C.O. in FPS style, taking and giving orders via radio and runners. In order to properly simulate your subordinates, you need excellent AI (not likely to be that good) or human players, in which case you need a human player for each unit, reducing the customer base by a massive margin.

By keeping a single human intervention in at the unit level, you reduce the load on the AI while making it possible to play as a single player game.

[hoolaman]

I must confess I do not exactly see Steve's point.

Firstly, there have been pages and pages of CMX2 ideas threads around here over the last year or so. I have seen many excellent ideas which were thinking entirely out of the box. These ideas are not groggy nitpicks about CM1, but really hopeful ideas for the new engine.

However it seems there has been no official response to these kinds of ideas. I don't know if it is some confidentiality thing, but most of the "bones" we have gotten are not any huge surprise. They seem to be only revealing the ideas which most closely correspond to the OLD CM engine.

In summary, the bones we have gotten so far include:

1:1 representation (not 1:1 control)

Much more complex environment

Much more accurate simulation

Aimed at a wider audience

New more realistic C&C model

Will be WEGO

Will be CM scale

Now it seems to me that the new game including all these features will still be Combat Mission. I can't see how you can do a 3D tactical combat sim in WEGO without it still being recognisable as Combat Mission. And I think I am pretty good at thinking outside the box.

So as others have said, you can't keep the details hush-hush and expect people to place your bones in the proper context.

[hoolaman]

To go back to the car parable, here's how I see it in reference to the whole forum.

The Ford car club is well attended by a wide range of people. Some fondly remember the old muscle cars, but most liked the most up to date fancy models. Some were very mechanically minded, and some were happy as long as their car worked. But all of them loved cars and all of them liked Fords especially.

So on Sundays they would get together and discuss what features they would love to be in the NBT from Ford. Some people did not really understand the point of the discussion, and kept asking for a MK2 model of the car they were currently driving. Some of them wanted the same interior and mechanics, but with a new streamlined body shell. Some of the more creative ones came up with many amazing new ideas for the engine and transmission, as well as sketching out sexy new body shapes.

Then one day a Ford designer showed up, and started releasing details about the NBT, which was on the drawing board. He said things like.

It will have four wheels

It will have an incredibly advanced engine

It will have a high tech polymer shell

It may not be available in manual transmission, but to design a better car, we are willing to make this sacrifice.

It will still be fueled by fossil fuels

The car club was so excited by this, they fired thousands of questions and concerns at the Ford designer. The designer tried to answer the questions, but since the car was not built yet, he couldn't tell anybody what they wanted to know. The loudest people were complaining about how they love manual transmissions, and were hoping that they could stay. They also wanted to know if they could still tinker with the engine.

The car designer got angry about the lack of insight of the group, despite the fact that all sorts of interesting discussions had been going on in his absence all that year, and despite the fact that the people up the back were asking him a myriad of sensible questions. Some of the group thought all that could be said about the NBT had been discussed at their regular Sunday meetings, and didn't have much to say. The designer ended up saying, "we are making a car you cannot even conceive with your puny minds, and no I do not have a picture, because the car has not been built yet". The group, being up to date on the latest technology, was slightly insulted, but indeed could not think of a car that was 10 years ahead of all the other cars out there, but knowing they could not influence things AFTER the car was built, kept yelling out suggestions. The designer got angry with the Ford Club and pointed out to them that they were not that important anyway, because they were trying to sell Fords to people who don't already own one.

THE END

[junk2drive]

Hoolaman

[aka_tom_w]

Hoolaman that was Brilliant!!

Very nicely put.

Some how the car manufacturer should have been French (Citroen) just to give it a little more humour around this issue:

"The designer ended up saying, "here in France we are making a car you cannot even conceive with your puny minds, and no I do not have a picture, because the car has not been built yet". The group, being up to date on the latest technology, was slightly insulted, but indeed could not think of a car that was 10 years ahead of all the other cars out there, but knowing they could not influence things AFTER the car was built, kept yelling out suggestions. The designer got angry with the Citroen Club (think niché market) and pointed out to them that they were not that important anyway, because they were trying to sell Citroens to people who don't already own one."

he he

NICE job!!

-tom w

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

To go back to the car parable, here's how I see it in reference to the whole forum.

The Ford car club is well attended by a wide range of people. Some fondly remember the old muscle cars,

It was good up to that point.

I rather think the problem is that many of the Ford fans fondly remember the Model T, and even the Edsel, and wish for both greater complexity, yet as much fun and ease of use as the old models.

In other words - they want it all.

[Wisbech_lad]

It is a given in business that if you want to make incremental improvements – ask the customers. Because that is what they will give you – criticism of the current product, and ideas how to improve it.

If you want to make a product leap – sorry, you are on your own. Gap/ requirement analysis can help (e.g. – what isn’t out there in the market, and what needs aren’t fulfilled) but that is better done with inspirational guess work and professional marketing strategy people – NOT by asking current customers.

To go back to your car analogy. If you ask customers what they want of present cars – yes, you get feedback on steering feel, cupholders etc.

For example Renault created a new (very profitable) niche ten years ago with the mini MPV. Rather than asking users what they wanted improving, they asked themselves what did European families need? A Golf sized car with ample room for a family and all their stuff will sell like hotcakes, even if it looks ugly and drives only OK – and all manufacturers in Europe now have one. Renault had done it before, inventing the full size people mover – but that size vehicle only became mass market in USA. Shrinking it now looks to be an incredibly obvious move, but no one had done it because they were just asking customers what they didn’t like about previous cars. You need to ask them to dream, or better, dream yourself. (because if it isn’t your dream, you won’t make the effort in to get it done)

So don’t ask us what game we want, because we want CM1, better. My pet improvement request is arty… Ask what game you dream about playing, then go make it. It may not appeal to all, but if it is done with quality and passion, it is sure to hit a niche. Hopefully a profitable one!

I believe that is what you did with CMBO. Go do it again. FWIW I think Panther Games did it with AA and HTTR on the divisional level, but is still a work in progress.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

I believe that is what you did with CMBO. Go do it again.

But don't get pissed when we have no idea what you're on about and have no frame of reference.

[Snarker]

I'd like to be able to form tanks in the same group into usable formations. By picking the command tank and then having a pop up menu or hotkeys. I'd like them to hold that formation as best they can as they move, and start and stop at the same time while in formation. I don't care if they move at the time / rate of the least experienced crew.

I'd like to see armor leave more realistic crap around after a catastrophic hit - like maybe the hatches blow open or even blow off. You get the idea.

I'd like to be able to look down from the support aircraft as it flys over. Maybe hitch a ride Dr. Strangelove style as the bombs / rockets head to earth.

I'd like scout aircraft, or the ability to request photo analysis (for points, of course) that I can call up after both sides set up. Things like vehicles in the open should show up here, and maybe areas of dense troop concentration, or digging. Some "possibles" should also show - like something listed as "vehicle?" in sparse trees, for example.

Oh, and I want a larger cup holder for those 20 ouncers just like you.

[Wisbech_lad]

Note that in car design - there is a strong retro niche. (new Mustang) Give people what they loved, with a decent stereo & cupholders. As well as rice rockets.

Starting to see this in games - e.g. remake of Pirates.

Now, if someone remade Xcom 1, with modern technology, I would buy it in a flash. I know people who keep old PC going just to play this...

[spartan1]

Thinking out of the box is how I translate the meaning of this parable as put by Steve.

Not sure though if my idea is within the context of CMx2.

So, think of a game without turn 1 min limit and the player to be able to alter orders to his units during the turn play.

There would be an orders phase but when the turn starts the player will be able to interact and give new orders but with a limited scope on the pre existing orders.

On top of this they player/s could have the option of adjusting the turn limit to lets say 5 minutes. This could done if both players agree on how often they want to stop - pause and create new orders phase. Others could decide on 1 minute others could go for 3,5, 10 etc.

This idea might give a whole new perspective in the game, since is dealing with the constrains of the time vs real time playing.

Hope it helps your creative thinking Steve.

Other ideas: go real time but at squad level.

[Ron]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

I must confess I do not exactly see Steve's point...

In summary, the bones we have gotten so far include:

1:1 representation (not 1:1 control)

Much more complex environment

Much more accurate simulation

Aimed at a wider audience

New more realistic C&C model

Will be WEGO

Will be CM scale

Now it seems to me that the new game including all these features will still be Combat Mission. I can't see how you can do a 3D tactical combat sim in WEGO without it still being recognisable as Combat Mission.

With all respect, simply looking at the "1:1 representation", "Much more complex environment", "Much more accurate simulation", "New more realistic C&C model" aspects alone and not seeing how it will radically alter the game we play suggests a failure on your part.

I agree completely with Wisbech_lad, that's how we got CM in the first place. Maybe CMx2 will be a flop by breaking new ground again, no one knows yet, but any creator needs to create and not rehash the same, so let them create. I for one am looking forward to what BFC will do with the next installment of "CM", knowing full well it would never be exactly what I like or thought, just like CM was.

Ron

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Snarker:

I'd like scout aircraft, or the ability to request photo analysis (for points, of course) that I can call up after both sides set up. Things like vehicles in the open should show up here, and maybe areas of dense troop concentration, or digging. Some "possibles" should also show - like something listed as "vehicle?" in sparse trees, for example.

I basically like this idea, but there are points that need considering. We need to think about what we are modeling here.

First of all, in the real world, what a CM-level commander would have to hand would not necessarily be an aerial photo or limited to one. There might also be scouting reports and long distance observation, for instance. A lot would depend on how much time and resources would have been devoted to gathering information prior to the opening of the CM battle.

Secondly, there would have to be some consideration given to the "freshness" of the information. Intelligence gathered a week ago might or might not still be useful now.

Thirdly is the question of how much the player should be allowed to respond to the information. In a static situation, where the defender is well dug in (corresponding to an Assault Battle in CM), the attacker might have fairly good intelligence and have it early enough to plan his attack based on it. In that case, he should get to see it before setting up his units (possibly even before purchasing them?). But the defender should not necessarily see anything (or at least anything accurate) before setting up his defense.

In a hasty attack, perhaps both sides get to see partial information about each other after setting up.

In a meeting engagement, virtually no good information should be available to either player, but with a random chance that some general information should be available to one or both.

It should be obvious that in all cases, information should have a strong chance of being vague and/or slightly or entirely wrong. The intelligence picture the player is presented with could be useful, slightly useful, or even misleading.

Michael

[Kilroy Lurking]

Hi there Battlefront!

What you need is...... Two New Games!

1.......I would be more than happy to a have a new and immproved recognizeably CM WW2 game with the ability to choose which 'theatre' and which 'year' straight from the set up screen. And while you are at it, (although you have produced probably the PC game with the highest replayability of all time) I would wish for the Quck Battles to have much more varid aims/victory conditions and to be able to be linked.

2.......Surprise me with a Quantum leap in game design/concept and I will almost certainly buy that as well. (Esp if it is WW2 Naval)

David

(I nearly forgot - remember OSX, I would hate to have to crossover...)

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

Note that in car design - there is a strong retro niche. (new Mustang) Give people what they loved, with a decent stereo & cupholders. As well as rice rockets.

Starting to see this in games - e.g. remake of Pirates.

Now, if someone remade Xcom 1, with modern technology, I would buy it in a flash. I know people who keep old PC going just to play this...

It's not just cars - it is media as well. How many ****ty 1960s and 70s TV shows have been remade into Hollywood movies? How long will it be before we have a big screen adaption of Happy Days? Or Three's Company? Or The A-Team?

We've already alternately enjoyed and suffered through Scooby-Doo, the Brady Bunch, Car 54, Dragnet, The Fugitive, The Twilight Zone et al and are bracing ourselves for Combat!, yet another Superman incarnation, I have to believe another Star Trek series at some point....

Given a choice between a straight-to-PC adaptation of Squad Leader the board game, with the computer automatically alerting you to all legal moves and prohibiting illegal ones (something VASSAL doesn't do), and an "evolutionary step forward" like "Avalan Hill's Squad Leader" for the PC (anyone remember that stinkareeno?) I will take the straight adaptation of a fondly remembered oldie any time.