Grog and the Car Designer - A Parable

[Ex-Cretin]

@Battlefront

I feel like a kid a Christmas. I've come down to the tree to find my big brother (battlefront) who gave me the best present ever a few years ago has left a new present for me. He tells me this present is different, that I can't open it until next Christmas but he wants to be sure this is even better than the last one so he says it will be like this… (CMX2 bones) and to make sure I really like it I should tell him what I really want it to do and over the course of the next year he may be able to work my ideas in or maybe they will come in a future present. But I'm a kid and certainly not a programmer or a game engine designer so I really don't have an "adult perspective" of what is reasonable, so I say swords and dragons and blood like any kid would. Or in the case of the happy Grog I say, cup holders and carpet.

Obviously Battlefront knows where this thing is going from a practical or programming standpoint and really must have an established game plan as you have been conceptualizing this since CMX1. I think some of the problems the community might have in coming up with BIG ideas is wondering how they can fit into a path that you have made much progress down. There is also a fear of throwing out bad ideas, and nobody wants to be criticized for that, surely you can relate but you are in a position to prove everyone wrong as you have in the past, an ability we don't all share.

Ok, in an oversimplification and with any eye to just one feature, with the introduction of CMBO your Grog who liked his car went from being able to turn in one of 6 hex directions to being able to turn 360 degrees. Is the next big thing for that car to be able to move in 3 dimensions like a hovercar? Should we think like that? What is ridiculous and what is sublime? Can I say something like… In a general gaming sense I find user input interfaces, meaning the keyboard and mouse, to be one of the weakest links in gaming. Give me a VR headset and let me interface CMX2 with a treadmill. Let me participate on many levels. If I send my squad running uphill in waist deep snow, let me feel it, MAKE me feel it. Before turn 1 let me have a strategic overview and give my troops an overall battleplan. Once turn 1 begins I can choose to participate as someone in this 1 to 1 representation. If I choose to be the Ranking HQ unit and I want to be on top of the highest hill with a panoramic view of all that's unobstructed before me then I should be able to command my units with less delay and with more of a grand overview gained from that 1st person perspective. If I choose to command from a squad on the back side of a hill with limited LOS and I and my men are exhausted let me command the battlefield with insight gained from messages from other units as they come in. In either case at the end of each turn return me to the strategic map and let me plan the next move based on what my character sees and give me representation on that map based on what others have reported. My original battleplan is still the guide and if I can't get orders out effectively then the plan holds. You know what else? If I get killed, that's it, I'm dead, no respawn, no body hopping. I watch from the sidelines the rest of the way. That'll make you think twice about poking you Sherman's turret over the hill to take a pot shot at a Tiger. I'm not looking to turn this into a 1st person shooter but I think we all crave being down as close to the action as possible. I don't want to run around sharpshooting, plenty of games do that, but I want to smell the powder.

How about a hybrid movement structure where you plot out you turn but are actively in charge of your unit, or your tank, or your squad, whoever you represent in the 1 to 1 reality. You become the "AI" for the unit you represent. This is still rooted in WEGO but you can react as action happens or as you make it happen, it's not so much "played back" as you are immersed in it. ---As you cross an open stretch of field moving to cover a MG opens up on you and you call out a command to yourself and or your squad to return to cover within the turn in progress. ---

So this is the surface of "big think" for me. Big think boils down to what I would do if I had the brains, money, time, patients and motivation. Big think for me, an end user, on this forum is "see my dream, hear my dream be my dream". The 1st two you generously indulge but the 3rd is not likely to happen. I feel like you guys want to hear our dreams in a constructive way but we are all here because you have shared your dreams with us and we like them. You are our leaders so we naturally look to you for inspiration.

If anyone actually reads this far, thanks for the effort. I love the CM series and appreciate being able to participate in the discussion.

[McAuliffe]

Sorry, but I am with Big Al on this one.

I mean, when car designer brought out the Mk I, Mr. Grog was so happy, he didn't mind the odd way of shifting gears, the small reserve tyre, the missing cup holder and the fact, you could not open the trunk from the inside. He had finally the car, he was always dreaming of. Okay, there where some inconveniences, but those would be fixed with the next versions, he more or less hoped.

When the Mk II came out the designer was bragging about, 3 cm more space for your legs, the nice leather seats in the car, the integrated stereo system, the light detectors etc...But, when Mr. Grog asked: Did you do something about the gear shifting -which became quite essential to Mr. Grog, he got the answer: "If you want to drive a car like this, you have to accept that inconvenience". "Okay, maybe next version", Mr. Grog thought, although he knew it would be the same engine and transmission.

And indeed, when MkIII came out, the gear box, still showed the same disease.

Now, when designer asked Mr. Grog, what would you like to change on the next model, Mr. grog responded immediately : "Please, c-h-a-n-g-e g-e-a-r - b-o-x"

"Naaah" said the designer: "You have to think bigger, this gear box thing is a futility, it's not worth spending time and money on this". "The next model will be so powerful, so luxurious, so...well eh... so un-imaginable, you won't think anymore about that damn clutch."

Every similarity is pure coinci..err coe... well nevermind

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by McAuliffe:

[...] Now, when designer asked Mr. Grog, what would you like to change on the next model, Mr. grog responded immediately : "Please, c-h-a-n-g-e g-e-a-r - b-o-x"

"Naaah" said the designer: "You have to think bigger, this gear box thing is a futility, it's not worth spending time and money on this".

And what if the designer has already planned a continuous transmission for the next model, so there won't even be any more gears to worry about? You can't know yet why the designer thinks that the gear box is a thing of futility, so why don't you show some trust in him?

Dschugaschwili

[junk2drive]

We don't make that car anymore. You already paid for it, knowing from the test drive that the transmission was like that. Therefore, we are not going to attempt to fix it. Just buy a new car and get over it. BTW, sorry that your used car has no resale value.

[Wartgamer]

Ive read the 'parable' a few times and find it very prepossessing to say the least.

The basic use of the term Grog is incorrect. Grogs are people with a great deal of interest in wargames and intense interest/knowledge in very specific areas. They may not know much about programming (but could), but they certainly do know much about the things being modeled by the programs and should have input in certain matters (I am assuming that Steve is a programmer?).

The whole premise of the parable is stilted. The designer is acting like he is making a game about a futuristic war based product for WAR2012(like cars are furture products). No one is a qualified certified grog about the future.

The reality is that even if the game is 'new', its based on historical parameters and the Grog may just have very good knowledge of them. There is no input about 'better' cups according to any ones needs as a consumer of the computer product.

Heres an example:

Designer: How would you like a 1:1 representation of a MP40 equipped soldier with 4 clips?

Grog: They usually carried at least 6 and there could be some unloaded 9mm...etc.

See? It has nothing to do with 'cup' size needs or anything like that. Its about past data and modeling events at a certain level.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Ive read the 'parable' a few times and find it very prepossessing to say the least.

The basic use of the term Grog is incorrect. Grogs are people with a great deal of interest in wargames and intense interest/knowledge in very specific areas. They may not know much about programming (but could), but they certainly do know much about the things being modeled by the programs and should have input in certain matters (I am assuming that Steve is a programmer?).

The whole premise of the parable is stilted. The designer is acting like he is making a game about a futuristic war based product (like cars are furture products). No one is a qualified certified grog about the future.

The reality is that even if the game is 'new', its based on historical parameters and the Grog may just have very good knowledge of them. There is no input about 'better' cups according to any ones needs as a consumer of the computer product.

Heres an example:

Designer: How would you like a 1:1 representation of a MP40 equipped soldier with 4 clips?

Grog: They usually carried at least 6 and there could be some unloaded 9mm...etc.

See? It has nothing to do with 'cup' size needs or anything like that. Its about past data and modeling events at a certain level.

Exactly.

McAulliffe makes good points too.

[Wartgamer]

I think if there is to be feedback from customers: direct questions have to be asked.

Such as:

1. Do you want us to keep the same 1 minute turn? Should it be variable? Should it be non-even (shorter or longer for one playter?

This is how to open discussions. Not condescending awful parables and such.

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

I think if there is to be feedback from customers: direct questions have to be asked.

Such as:

1. Do you want us to keep the same 1 minute turn?

That question would have made sense going from CMBB to CMAK (read: largely unchanged engine). But with a totally new engine that changes almost everything, noone of us can know what changing one variable like the turn length would lead to. So if asking us can't produce meaningful results, why should Steve (who is not a programmer, by the way) ask us such questions in the first place?

Dschugaschwili

[Wartgamer]

No I don't believe they would have changed the turn length from CMBO to CMBB or to CMAK. I dont believe they changed that much of the basic structure.

I think the point is that they have to let everyone in on the ground floor if there is to be any real discussion. They have to rough in the area before filling in the details. Someone in the company should state how the actual structure is going to change. Things like tile size decrease? Good. Things like WEGO stays in place? OK. Time in the game will be abstracted differently somehow? Good..will it effect having PBEM games???...uhhhh.. I dunno about that...

[ February 15, 2005, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[David I]

Wartgamer,

"Ive read the 'parable' a few times...."

What on earth for? Are you reading the forum while your at work or somefink? Don't you have solitare on your computer?

DavidI

[Wartgamer]

I guess I found it just so unbelievable.

I read it the other day but read the 'pertinent' parts again.

[ February 15, 2005, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Tarkus]

To put all this in perspective...

Steve did say time and again that it was way too early to establish a firm dialog about the game, since its coding hasn't started yet. It's a bit beside the point of discussing fundamentals, but still, part of the fussle come from our eager expectation for each and every bone thrown at us...

I wouldn't be surprise to hear that the initial bone throwing came initially from the good and simple intention of giving us something to think and talk about but quite rapidly degenerated into hot debate over unclear features.

Cheers

[Wartgamer]

I would say that anyone that would go out of thier way to write such a 'parable' is beyond bone throwing.

When making computer programs; Think then Code. Saves time.

I would discuss fundamentals before details. Perhaps thats the 'meaning' of the parable (since the writer got so hung up on the 'Grogs' contributions.

So maybe thats the major disconnect here. Does the game company want to discuss fundamentals (and before I forget, I would not buy the game without some form of 'PBEM' capability) or just skip the customer input over?

[Wartgamer]

I might add:

I do not see the real need for 1:1 but there may be some. The designer could explain with a few examples how it will improve the game and justifies its expense in programming time over other features or even to preclude others still.

My own take is that I hope the 1:1 graphic is only 'seen' at ground and level 1. As you go to higher levels, the more traditional 2-3 man representation is seen. As you go higher still, the traditional 2-3 man representation becomes a military symbol or something that allows FOs, AT, etc to be discerned from above.

[flamingknives]

"Change the gearbox? Not possible with the old one. The problems are integral with the car's design. To get a better gearbox, we've got to re-design from the ground up. While we're there, we're going to add a few more features that we'd have liked to last time.

Going for the ground up design wasn't worth it when we produced the Mks II and III, though we were looking at it, because the increase in technology wasn't sufficient to make it worthwhile. Now it is."

That's my take on it anyway.

CMX1 is damn good, whichever way you look at it. Sure it has some problems, but some of these are clearly integral to the game's design, others are minor. But hell, throw your dummy out of the pram. Sate yourself claiming that it would be a minor fix, when you don't know the first damn thing about programming, and certainly not about how the CMX1 engine actually works.

Feh.

[hoolaman]

The BFC car company had spent millions to tool up their production line for the CMXX GT.

This was their first car design, and while it was not perfect, their factory was built so that not many changes could be made to the design without extensive retooling.

So they decided instead to build an entire new factory, with the latest programmable robots to make a whole new car. The car was a new design taking into account all the lessons they learned making the CMXX GT.

And because the production line could be changed just by reprogramming the robots, the capacity for building all sorts of new models and improving existing ones was greatly increased.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

The car was a new design

See the other CMX2 thread - is it really a new design? I bet it has four wheels, a frame, an engine, some seats, a steering wheel, a fueltank, body, doors, windows and a roof.

If the 8-track player is replaced by a CD player, with anti-lock brakes, air conditioning, power windows, power steering, keycode entry, engine self-starter, OnStar support, heads up display, and improved emission system - is that revolutionary, or evolutionary?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

The BFC car company had spent millions to tool up their production line for the CMXX GT.

This was their first car design, and while it was not perfect, their factory was built so that not many changes could be made to the design without extensive retooling.

So they decided instead to build an entire new factory, with the latest programmable robots to make a whole new car. The car was a new design taking into account all the lessons they learned making the CMXX GT.

And because the production line could be changed just by reprogramming the robots, the capacity for building all sorts of new models and improving existing ones was greatly increased.

YES!

Very nice....

And still some stock holders wanted BIGGER dividends from their very limited investment in BFC stock in CMxx.

-tom w

[ February 15, 2005, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Maximilliam999]

Originally posted by 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.

Yes! Great idea. Have you (BTS) checked out the Combat Mission Meta Campaign? That's what I'd like to see. Maybe a bit less than three months per fifteen minute turn, though.

Also better (more) control & information. Sometimes I'd like to be able to grab a platoon or company leader and just give one order for the unit. I know that you can double click and give everybody the same move order, I mean something like 'move your platoon to this tree-line, sneak up until you can see out, then set up in hiding- Make sure that the lmg has a good line of sight'. That would be EXCELLENT.

Oh, and I agree with you absolutely. Please don't give us 1:1 level control of the men in the squads, or at least not before CMX3 or so. Put in your own version of CMMC first.

Max

[ February 15, 2005, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Maximilliam999 ]

[WineCape]

I believe in battlefront.com Fullstop.

[RawRecruit]

Bulding into the engine a 'meta-campaign' facility would be absolutely fantastic, but I don't know how that would work. Certainly allowing to import and expoert unit OOBs into the editor would be a massive time-saver and make such campaigns less error-prone.

Basically, I'll be happy as long as the new design doesn't prohibit such community-based activities.

[Guest BigAlMoho]

Originally posted by WineCape:

I believe in battlefront.com Fullstop.

Yep, so do I...

[WineCape]

Originally posted by BigAlMoho:

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

I believe in battlefront.com Fullstop.

Yep, so do I... </font>

[Bonxa]

As a note to those who feel their complaints on CMX1 hasn't been addressed while other small stuff has been added: please remember this is a computer program! Programming is far from easy, some things might be a piece of cake to fix while others require a complete overhaul. I think Steve has been saying this quite a lot too. Let's just drop the CMX1 stuff and move on to discuss a new wargame. CMX1 may well inspire but we should rather think backwards from the "ideal" than forwards from what we've got (no matter how counter intuitive this sounds with backwards being the good alternative it's really stuff ).

Go, go Battlefront! You're the best!

[willbell]

OK, I'm biting.

First, I want every single soldier to be rendered in full motion and graphics, so that the game isn't similar to being in the Finding Private Ryan, it would be exactly like it!

Second, each soldier is different looking, no droid pods. The leaders (including sergeants) are modeled with character features that fit their characteristics, ie. grizzled vetran, wet behind the ears, etc.

The individuals in the squads move in relation to their environment, following expected tacticle moves, ie, covering, rushing forward etc. But this is all run by the AI because I don't want to greatly increase the number of paths I have to take.

Instead of creating paths, I can point to locations on the map and the unit will take the most logical approach to that point. I can order them to work their way to a point, or to rush it like fools. But, If I want I can click on a single soldier to get them to do some specific, or unusual task. But as a rule the squad AI does the work for me most of the time.

Terrain types have even more flexiblility, and the variety is much greater. I mean specifically, as in all the wrecked buildings are different. Some of them can hide a tank, other's can't. Soldiers can climb up to the roof, up into the bell tower of the church etc. Trenches get filled in with dirt when bombed and are less effective. Trees get stripped of leaves after coninuous shelling and provide less cover.

The vehicles are graphically detailed, just like the infantry. Crews are separate units and they can be moved in and out of different tanks, so if I have two partial crews I can put them in one tank.

The tanks, and vehicles of all sorts have a wider range of damage. Broken windshield slows down the driver, the reverse goes out so the tank can only go forward. A flat tire slows, but doesn't stop a vehicle to a certain degree. The radio goes on the fritz.

View circles. A toggled colored circle around each unit that shows where it can and can't see so you don't have to do the million clicks of the sight line thing. It's like IRL, you turn your head from one side to the other and you know instantly what you can see and can't see.

Infantry can hid behind vehicles. Vehicles can push stuff around for the infantry to hide behind, like trees. There are just a wider variety a manipulatable items.

When infantry goes into a house they can increase it's defensive capabilities by being there for a while, such as digging trenches and slits in the walls, pushing stuff in front of the windows. So a building has a different defense effect for someone who has just walked in and someone who has been there for a while.

Don't change the scale, or make it more work to move everything, just give us more special instances options.

Make it so that a bunch of people can play a huge scenario all at the same time over the internet. Like there is just a huge model of terrain, and each player is somewhere on it with their battlion, or company. But from the perspective of their individual computers they can see only the ammount of terrain that would be usable in the span of the moves in that battle, they wouldn't see the whole terrain. There could be a command structure where one of the players is also an overall commander and could allocate resources to different players from turn to turn. And the resources might, or might now all get to them.

A campaign line of resistance AI that makes sense so we can play several connected battles, but have the line of resistance end up in a logical point, not just based on a main line closer or farther away from a certain side of the board, but based on positions and strength of each unit.

An editor that gives a designer more flexibility on the victory conditions. So you can probing missions, cover withdrawls, hold to the last man, etc.

These are some that come directly to mind.

William