The future of war games

[Urban Shocker]

I was disappointed to read in a posting by an administrator (Charles, maybe) that the next version of CM is going to focus more on individual soldiers. This is a rough paraphrase and what follows is my interpretation of what the poster meant. So I could be totally wrong but like my wife tells me that hasn't stopped me in the past so why let it now.

In my opinion, we have games that model individual soldiers in combat and more will probably continue to come out. I am actually happy with how CM models the battlefield as I think it is an interesting level to simulate. Seeing CM go towards management of individuals will probably lead me to stick with the series they have put out (CMBO, CMBB, CMAK, and maybe CLOW (Low countries). I could frankly care less if Pvt. Williams is pissing himself because has become the focal point of a MG42. Those games are out there and I don't play them.

What we do not have (that I am aware of) is a game that integrates the different levels of war allowing a player to jump between levels as desired. Think of CM meets Operation Art of War. A game where one is able to move divisions, regiments, or battalions around on a larger map (board, for the old timers) and then jump into tactical scale battle (ably modelled by CM) would, I think, be a breakthrough type of game.

Both types of games have been developed tactical and operational (or strategic) they just need to be integrated to provide a novel yet realistic experience.

A concrete example...

You hold a front with three infantry divisions, a tank destroyer task force, and an artillery battalion (forgive my lack of proper TOE). You have arrayed your forces at the level of battalions or regiments, registered your artillery in likely avenues of approach, and placed your TD's to deal with any armored breakthrough. Your opponent strikes on your left flank, you now have to decide whether you want to fight the battle or several battles at the tactical level (e.g., CM-style) or duke it out TAOW-style (and the style of many other war games)...the choice is yours because the software would let you do it.

Some advantages to this type of game are:

(1) There is a game within the game (nice cliche, I know) that you can fight or not.

(2) Sheperding your forces is important (campaign-style) depending on the scenario.

(3) Increased realism due to the increased levels of play opportunities. Also, increased command flexibility as you can be a 2nd Lt, a Colonel, or a General.

(4) Combines the tactical with the operational or strategic. To date, games either do one or the other.

Is this a tryptophan-induced dream or something that is appealing and in the realm of the possible?

[ November 27, 2003, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Urban Shocker ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Urban Shocker:

I was disappointed to read in a posting by an administrator (Charles, maybe) that the next version of CM is going to focus more on individual soldiers.

Where was this said? I would want concrete proof before I'll believe it. With all due respect.

(4) Combines the tactical with the operational or strategic. To date, games either do one or the other.

About twenty years ago, a gaming magazine devoted primarily to to miniature gaming (Little Wars?) set up a system to do just that. Players would draw their strategic moves on a map and mail them to a referee who would decide what the effects of those moves would be. If two armies came into contact, players had the option of letting the ref resolve them according to rules he had for that or going to an operational battle. If they chose to fight, they would plan their moves on an operational map and once again have the option of letting the ref resolve them or break them down into a series of tactical battles that the opponents would then play out on a table with miniatures.

As I recall, there were three rule sets, one each for Napoleonics, American Civil War, and World War II.

More recently, a computer game company tried unsuccessfully to bring out a game called Road to Moscow set in WW II that did what you are asking for, but it was never finished.

Michael

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Urban Shocker:

What we do not have (that I am aware of) is a game that integrates the different levels of war allowing a player to jump between levels as desired.

There is. CC4-5. However, you have to concentrate on what you are good at to make it good. For your idea to work in a playable manner, both the tactical as well as the operational level would have to be stripped down to a level as simple as feasible, because otherwise playing a campaign like that would never be finished, not for most players at least (I hardly have time for other than PBEM). I would rather play CM.

But I am also a bit worried about what BFC are planning on doing. I prefer Steel Panthers/Combat Mission type games, not CC/GIC micro level or then East/West Front type platoon level games. If I had to choose, I'd pick a platoon level game though, as long as it was done in an intelligent way (ie. just having 30 man "counters" that function just like squads before wouldn't do it for me, I would want to give more refined deployment orders etc.). But of course I can't dictate BFC's decisions. If Charles wanted to scrap land combat altogether and make a tactical air combat game, well I wouldn't buy it due to lack of interest, but I wouldn't feel betrayed either.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Where was this said? I would want concrete proof before I'll believe it. With all due respect.

Moon or Kwazy said something hinting to that direction, though it surely wasn't very clear and I shall wait and see until they tell something more about it.

[CKibler]

Originally posted by Urban Shocker:

I was disappointed to read in a posting by an administrator ...that the next version of CM is going to focus more on individual soldiers.

I for one hope this rumor to be untrue.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Urban Shocker:

I was disappointed to read in a posting by an administrator (Charles, maybe) that the next version of CM is going to focus more on individual soldiers.

Never seen or heard anything that remotely sounds like that. Given that BFC has not made any definite statements about the next generation game, I wouldn't worry about that at all.

What we do not have (that I am aware of) is a game that integrates the different levels of war allowing a player to jump between levels as desired. Think of CM meets Operation Art of War. A game where one is able to move divisions, regiments, or battalions around on a larger map (board, for the old timers) and then jump into tactical scale battle (ably modelled by CM) would, I think, be a breakthrough type of game.

Sorry, that's been done for years... in miniature. CM is the first computer game to approach miniature wargaming on the computer. Every other computer game is an overglorified board game. We have actually seen CM used in this fashion already... the CMMCs.

[Urban Shocker]

Admittedly it was briefly mentioned without any details but it was mentioned. I have looked for it but can't locate the direct quote.

Why can't CMMC be codified to run on a computer?

My point was that we have both kinds of games (now) so integrating them would fill a (computer) gaming niche. I think from the number of people that want a campaign element in CM that this type of game would be appealing. In a sense, what I am talking about is not an operation in time (which CM does) but one that combines distance (frontage) with time.

[Lou2000]

I was disappointed to read in a posting by an administrator (Charles, maybe) that the next version of CM is going to focus more on individual soldiers.

I dont remember seeing any post along those lines, but are we sure that somebody hasnt been misquoted ...... could it be that this post was talking about 'displaying' each soldier in a squad, rather than the 1 or 3 figure representation we have at the moment.

Not actually having to manage each individual squad member.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Lou2000:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I was disappointed to read in a posting by an administrator (Charles, maybe) that the next version of CM is going to focus more on individual soldiers.

I dont remember seeing any post along those lines, but are we sure that somebody hasnt been misquoted ...... could it be that this post was talking about 'displaying' each soldier in a squad, rather than the 1 or 3 figure representation we have at the moment.

Not actually having to manage each individual squad member. </font>

[Moon]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lou2000:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I was disappointed to read in a posting by an administrator (Charles, maybe) that the next version of CM is going to focus more on individual soldiers.

I dont remember seeing any post along those lines, but are we sure that somebody hasnt been misquoted ...... could it be that this post was talking about 'displaying' each soldier in a squad, rather than the 1 or 3 figure representation we have at the moment.

Not actually having to manage each individual squad member. </font>

[pritzl]

I would not mind if this rumor were true. The original poster mentioned that there are games that already exist that model the individual soldier. What are these games? GI Combat? I think we all agree it can be done better. What other titles? Medal of Honor or Call of Duty? They are pretty, but not very realistic. Also,I don't like games that put me on a forced path. I not much of a fan of a digital roller coaster ride.

The only thing I can say is that I hope BFC makes the game that THEY want to play. That's exactly what they did the first time around and the passion that they put into it as a result was and is very evident. I also remember a whole bunch of posts (long before they had this fancy UBB bulletin board and while we were all still playing Flight Commander) from people complaining that a 3D wargame would never be successful let alone fun. It had to use counters and an overhead map. They vowed that it would NEVER be as good as the board game squad leader. In the end, I guess they were right. CM turned out to be better. I was even excited when I saw the original alpha screenshots. I wonder if those are still floating around anywhere out there. Somebody should post those for a fond memory.

Anyway, lets just wait and see what BFC has in store for us.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by CKibler:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Urban Shocker:

I was disappointed to read in a posting by an administrator ...that the next version of CM is going to focus more on individual soldiers.

I for one hope this rumor to be untrue. </font>

[_Axe_]

Ummm, Urban, I don't know how to break this to you, but according to my records you died September 9, 1928 in Denver, CO.

Pretty decent career though. Who was the toughest batter you ever faced? Ty Cobb, right?

[Fluf]

My impression is that rather than representing a squad with three infantry figures, as is presently done due to resource limitations of the typical gamers system, the new game engine will provide a one-to-one representation of individual soldiers. I did NOT read that control over individual soldiers would be added. We'll just see 8 to 12 men in each squad instead of 2 or 3.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Fluf:

My impression is that rather than representing a squad with three infantry figures, as is presently done due to resource limitations of the typical gamers system, the new game engine will provide a one-to-one representation of individual soldiers. I did NOT read that control over individual soldiers would be added. We'll just see 8 to 12 men in each squad instead of 2 or 3.

Yep, which is exactly how CC did things. The more you reveal to players, though, the tougher to do it well. Three guys squeezed into a building is ok - animating a 13 man squad so they all use cover intelligently may well prove to be a different kettle of fish.

EYSA anyone?

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Moon:

So do I...

But then you think CMAK has grass, so your opinion is suspect. I've often thought BFC keeps you around to fetch beer for Charles

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Yep, which is exactly how CC did things. The more you reveal to players, though, the tougher to do it well. Three guys squeezed into a building is ok - animating a 13 man squad so they all use cover intelligently may well prove to be a different kettle of fish.

EYSA anyone?

I find myself fortunate not to have played EYSA or any earlier incarnation of it. But from experience with CC I might comment that often enough I could easily see that the way my men were deployed was screwed - say, I had wanted them to go by a tree line, but only one of them went where I wanted them and the others stood back - causing me to have to micro fiddle with them to do what I wanted. Ie. to give them the same command multiple times, until finally they would react in the correct way. With the realities of AI programming, I don't see how this could be avoided, so I am against the CC'esque way of doing it. But that and CM are not the only ways of doing it. We'll see.

[Kwazydog]

Guys, if representing a full squad is a direction we do decide to head in do note that we wouldnt do it unless we felt it could be done properly. This is something we have stood firmly on in the past and it something we consider very important.

Dan

[junk2drive]

I bought CMBB and will buy CMAK because of EYSA. I finally got a video card because Blitzkreig, CL, CM, EYSA etc require it. As a fan of SP and CC I was looking for the next step. I no longer play RTS in general. Too much stress for me. The wego system is great for me. I understand and appreciate the fact that the game features are kept simple to play on lower end computers and enhance gameplay. We all cant afford an Alienware type box. But I can afford a $40-60 game that runs on a mid range machine. Kuddos to BFC for thinking of this.

[Pvt. Ryan]

I've always thought that squads could be represented as fire teams and weapons teams instead of individual soldiers. While watching a platoon march across the field I sometimes think, hey there's 10 men that could just as easily be a squad - three groups of three and a squad leader. Each man in a squad could be represented without having to model all 8, 10, or 12 of them individually.

[Urban Shocker]

I have to agree with the overall interpretation at this point on "individual soldiers" but that still does not change my preference and the preferences of others for a game that I summarized above.

I am not surprised that the multi-level thing has been done before on paper I was only suggesting that it might done integrated into a computer game. I did it on a BFC forum because they have an excellent (best to date) small unit tactical system that could be integrated into the higher levels of military engagements.

In capitalistic terms, I am indicating that there might be a demand that is not being supplied.

[Denwad]

all of the Close Combat games were awesome because you could see Shutze Kirk assault a building, get pinned down, run out of ammo and pick up an enemy rifle/smg/mg and literally own with it.

Or see Oberleutnant Hurst (I still remember this) run up to a KV-2 and place a haftholladung on it and then gun down the crew as they bail out.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Urban Shocker:

I am not surprised that the multi-level thing has been done before on paper I was only suggesting that it might done integrated into a computer game.

It's not a bad idea at all. I was quite interested when the original announcements were made about Road to Moscow seven or eight years ago. The thing is, to do a proper job of it would require resources on a massive scale, and might require equally massive computer power to run. I'm not sure there is an audience yet that would be willing to meet the necessary costs at this point. Of course, one could do a slapdash job of it and get something out rather quickly, but what would be the point? There are already lots of crappy games on the market.

Another approach that, to my mind at least, would show more promise would be to enlist a lot of part time unpaid research help. To some extent, that's what this forum is about. A lot of the people who are full time employees of BFC began as fans who were willing to contribute time and energy. And for each of them there are at least half a dozen beta testers, scenario writers, research assistants, etc. And then there are the modders and post-production scenario writers.

To some extent, this system could be formalized and accept volunteer contributors who do not depend on BFC to make a living, but are simply interested in bringing such a project to fruition. That said, the job of writing and testing code for such a game would be relatively enormous compared to just CM alone. This would require taking on—and paying—at least one (and probably more) additional programmers. And that brings problems of its own. All in all, this would require significant organizational changes at BFC, and whether they want and feel ready to take such a step is for them to decide.

As far as the necessary computer power is concerned, I think we'll get there eventually (meaning sometime in the next ten years), but I am not sanguine that we are there yet.

Time will tell. I think it is basically a good idea and it will come to pass in the fullness of time. But I also see the danger of making a premature false start. BFC is a small company and I don't think they are at a point where they can afford a flop. Therefore, they need to choose very carefully which projects to pursue.

Michael

[WineCape]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

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

So do I...

But then you think CMAK has grass, so your opinion is suspect. I've often thought BFC keeps you around to fetch beer for Charles </font>

[Sirocco]

I would expect more detailed modelling, and less abstraction, from the next engine. That includes full squad representation as well as other issues that aren't quite so visible.