The future of war games

[Urban Shocker]

Not to belabor the point but the essential question is:

Can the rules and procedures being used for CMMC be codified and run on today's computers?

If yes then such a game could be developed. What scale would be possible?

(a) The eastern,western, and african fronts combined.

( One front at a time (eastern or western or african)

© One part of a front (e.g. the northern part of the eastern front or the central part or the southern part)

(d) The front of one corps (several assorted divisions)

(e) The front of one division (with assorted attached units)

Which of the above, if any, could be done?

[ November 28, 2003, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Urban Shocker ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Urban Shocker:

Not to belabor the point but the essential question is:

Can the rules and procedures being used for CMMC be codified and run on today's computers?

If yes then such a game could be developed. What scale would be possible?

(a) The eastern,western, and african fronts combined.

( One front at a time (eastern or western or african)

© One part of a front (e.g. the northern part of the eastern front or the central part or the southern part)

(d) The front of one corps (several assorted divisions)

(e) The front of one division (with assorted attached units)

Which of the above, if any, could be done?

The only thing stopping this from existing right now is that people are talking about it, not doing it. Unfortunately, like so much in life, the ones doing the talking are not the ones in a position to do the doing...

Anything is possible; CMMC2 is essentially a bunch of spreadsheets with data and a map. I don't think you would need a processor the size of UNIVAC to run a campaign that is essentially being run by the comparitively pea-sized melons of some human beings.

Look at stuff like CMMOS and cocat - the only trouble with these programs was not any lack of sophistication, but an inability on the part of the programmers to produce documentation that the average schmo (myself very much included) could assimilate quickly and painlessly. (Still, not as bad as some of the modding utilities for Operation Flashpoint, where half the buttons were labelled in Czech! )

The sky is the limit; the problem is in getting underappreciated developers and programmers to feel that their time is being well served developing these kinds of things for us.

If the money is in Secret Weapons over Normandy (with its special TIE fighter bonus ending), that's where the devs will go.

As for the grass roots programmers like Molek or the cocat team - as we have seen, they unfortunately have real lives that preclude them from spending waking hours on this stuff.

But I have to believe its possible now.

[Sniped_Ash]

I'd like to see individual squad members represented because, as many of you probably know, scouting, house clearing, and fire & maneuver tactics typically don't involve entire squads performing the same action. The problem as mentioned, is keeping the micromanagement scalable through AI. For example, you order a squad to occupy and defend a building. The AI determines how it goes about this and which soldiers cover which windows, but at any time during the orders phase you can manage their defensive positions. The squad acts as it's trained, but may need to be ajusted by you, who can see the big picture (and the enemy squad spotted by another unit).

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sniped_Ash:

I'd like to see individual squad members represented because, as many of you probably know, scouting, house clearing, and fire & maneuver tactics typically don't involve entire squads performing the same action. The problem as mentioned, is keeping the micromanagement scalable through AI. For example, you order a squad to occupy and defend a building. The AI determines how it goes about this and which soldiers cover which windows, but at any time during the orders phase you can manage their defensive positions. The squad acts as it's trained, but may need to be ajusted by you, who can see the big picture (and the enemy squad spotted by another unit).

I disagree. A company commander rarely tells a squad how to deploy (unless he is Ted Danson in SPR) within a building; this should be handled either by abstraction (CM does this very well) or by the AI (tougher to do as we all know).

[ianc]

Winecape,

Is that a sig or an advertisement? That thing is absolutely, completely, totally out of control. Can you shorten it so it doesn't take up an entire screen?

ianc

[WineCape]

Originally posted by ianc:

Winecape,

Is that a sig or an advertisement? That thing is absolutely, completely, totally out of control. Can you shorten it so it doesn't take up an entire screen?

ianc

Both actually. My apologies if you have a small 14" monitor and need to scroll a lot. But then, as long as it's CM related and tolerated by the moderators here on the forum...

Brace yourself, it's going to get further out of control with CMAK's release!

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

EDITED for ianc's benefit, just for now...

[ November 29, 2003, 04:31 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I agree with others that it would be a bit alarming if CMX2 changed the scale of the series to individual soldier from the current squad scale. Great to see from Moon/Martin that this is not on the cards.

However, if BFC can manage it, having a full squad of men to look at would be great. I think I know what Dan means when he says they will only do it if they can do the job properly. It would take a lot of programming to have all ten men manoeuvring realistically.

All sounds good,

All the best,

Kip.

[Salkin]

Maybe they will show the full squads , but maybe they wont maneuver realisticly. They could be there just as eye candy.

My guess is that there will still be some abstraction involved .

//Salkin

[Urban Shocker]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The only thing stopping this from existing right now is that people are talking about it, not doing it. Unfortunately, like so much in life, the ones doing the talking are not the ones in a position to do the doing...

Anything is possible; CMMC2 is essentially a bunch of spreadsheets with data and a map. I don't think you would need a processor the size of UNIVAC to run a campaign that is essentially being run by the comparitively pea-sized melons of some human beings.

Look at stuff like CMMOS and cocat - the only trouble with these programs was not any lack of sophistication, but an inability on the part of the programmers to produce documentation that the average schmo (myself very much included) could assimilate quickly and painlessly. (Still, not as bad as some of the modding utilities for Operation Flashpoint, where half the buttons were labelled in Czech! )

The sky is the limit; the problem is in getting underappreciated developers and programmers to feel that their time is being well served developing these kinds of things for us.

If the money is in Secret Weapons over Normandy (with its special TIE fighter bonus ending), that's where the devs will go.

As for the grass roots programmers like Molek or the cocat team - as we have seen, they unfortunately have real lives that preclude them from spending waking hours on this stuff.

But I have to believe its possible now.

Michael,

I hold no illusions regarding the weight of my opinion with BFC. I have bought the Big Three (CMBO, CMBB, CMAK) and have thoroughly enjoyed the series to date. That is what my opinion counts (around $160 worth)!

It seems computer game makers and bands seem to follow the same pattern over time. Their first release is a massive hit and they receive accolades by the score. Their second release is good (if their talented enough) but it is the same basic sound...still good, though. But you can only tweak things a few times before people start to realize it is basically the same music or game and move on to something else.

Basically, it comes down to the time-worn adage:

Success breeds complacency (complacency: self-satisfaction accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies)

If you're not taking risks then someone who is willing to risk will pass you by.

After reading my post again, it seems much more gloom-and-doom than I really intended. Don't take it that I am making dire predictions. I am merely trying to start a discussion on people's interests since we have a game with huge potential. If making things "more detailed" is what BFC wants to do that strikes me as tweaking what they already have and not taking the next step.

[Sgt Bilko]

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. 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?

I have posted a couple of thoughts on the CMAK Battlefront forum about using John Tillers Panzer Campaigns series as a strategic layer.

It contains a scenario editor that allows you to create any battles related to the particular theatre it represents so with this tool the JTPC game can always be updated to reflect the CM battles.

There are a few ways CM could be integrated into JTPC but the simplest way is:

Have a Games Master who owns JTPC ( Tobruk 41 ) for example.

At least two opposing players.

The GM chooses a scenario to play then sends to each player a screenshot of the map,briefing,unit locations,victory objectives,OOB and any parameter data files pertaining to JTPC.

The players come up with orders which they represent diagramatically on the map screenshot and with whatever other information the players think necassary to communicate their intentions.

This is then sent to the GM who inputs the data into a hot seat game in JTPC.

Once the moves have been done the GM sends a screenshot of the map with the new positions on.

If a contact is made a CM battle may take place with the GM building the map.

Once the battle has been resolved the new data of the forces must be transferred back into the JTPC game.

This is done in the scenario editor by making a replica of the map with the new positions ,updated time,and modified fought units added.

The game then proceeds on the updated JTPC game until the next contact...etc.

Having a GM will allow all sorts of additional rules for communication FOW, team play,intel gathering ....etc.

[ January 01, 2004, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: Sgt Bilko ]

[V]

Originally posted by Axe2121:

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?

LOL

[JasonC]

I would like to see the next major innovations go up the echelon scale, not down. I am completely bored by FPS games. I am sure some people like them, but to me they aren't strategy games. Strategy is about coordination of elements, the overview decisions. Chess is a strategy game. Paintball is not.

I think the scale CM deals with best now is reinforced company actions. Full battalion scale fights (or companies of armor) start to get cumbersome. The computer handles them easily as far as execution goes, but the command task placed on the player is already getting hard enough that parts of it are tedious rather than interesting. I don't think CM as it stands can be pushed above the battalion level.

But I know from experience that CM campaigns at the regimental to division level are an absolute blast. Above that I do not consider practical. The main limit on playing such campaigns is player time. It is possible to keep the actual systems used, above the existing CM engine, quite simple. They do not need to get as complicated as CMMC, with its associated learning curve, and transformation of battalion command into a full time job.

When I ran CM campaigns, what took the most time was making up the new scenarios as new fights occurred. If that process were automated they would be practical. If the higher echelon events were also internal to the game engine, it'd be that much more playable.

Last, if resolution of individual tactical battles were optional, with a "strategic resolution" option available (CRT style), then one could play through a campaign as an operational level game without ever using the underlying CM engine - or play any of the tactical battles you were particularly interested in.

This would means moving around on a larger scale map, with "steps" representing individual CM units, in company sized elements on the operational map. (Platoons might stack, companies would be in single locations). A scenario might be something like 3rd Panzer division attacks on the left flank of the southern Kursk offensive, or Task Force Rose tries to block the lead elements of 2nd Panzer on the road to Bastogne. The operational game would be we-go with orders and something like 2 hour turns.

I have no idea if BTS thinks they could do this sort of thing well. If they could, I'd love to have it and I do not think I am alone in that. There are plenty of FPSs out there. There are any number of old operational games with battalions as units but stacked so high it is really whole divisions that conduct multi-hex battles. Panzerblitz scale games were trying to be tactical without underlying realism, and fail for that reason. Instead go a little larger for an operational game, with CM to resolve km-square battles if desired. It would be ground breaking.

[Biff]

Whatever wargame BTS developes next I hope they spend some time refining the command interface. I do not like the fact that if I use a HQ to spot for mortars I also have to remember to issue a bogus covered arc command to keep them from firing. This kind of side-effect correction destroys the intent of the game to create a more realistic atmosphere.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

But I know from experience that CM campaigns at the regimental to division level are an absolute blast. Above that I do not consider practical. The main limit on playing such campaigns is player time. It is possible to keep the actual systems used, above the existing CM engine, quite simple. They do not need to get as complicated as CMMC, with its associated learning curve, and transformation of battalion command into a full time job.

I have to believe this is true; and even if they are as complicated as all that, this is what computers are for - to automate all that "stuff".

I would like to see a campaign system for CM as simple as the old "area movement" games from Avalon Hill (Storm over Arnhem, Thunder at Cassino, the Stalingrad one whose name escapes me) - ie you have a map board divided up into boxes; you move your companies and battalions between the boxes, and CM games get generated. Engineering tasks, air support, artillery - all that gets either randomized or automated (with just enough input from the player to make it interesting).

I certainly don't have the time or interest in becoming an expert at the US Army Manual of Field Engineering and memorizing how long it takes a field company to build a bridge in various weather conditions just to play a campaign. I also don't have a degree in Excel Spreadsheets.

[Andrew H.]

I think that US's idea of a scalable operational/tactical game is not something that BFC should pursue because I don't think that it would be much fun. The reason is that 90% of battles like this would be won at the higher level, meaning that there would be little point (and little fun) in playing out the resulting tactical battles.

For example, if you obtain operational success in a Stalingrad-type battle, you get to defend as the all-infantry Rumanians against a 6-to-1 attack by the armor/combined arms attack of the Soviets. That's not much fun, for either side. Although it's probably more fun for the Soviets. If there are even battles, they would likely be in unimportant sectors, so there's no real point in winning.

However, I think that Jason's idea - or at least what I understand Jason's idea to be - of going up a couple of levels, but not all the way to the operational level, could be very interesting. It might be something like a mega-operation, with perhaps infantry companies/tank platoons as manuever units, along with some sort of strategic movement and supply system. Throw in SOPs and some sort of movement settings as in airborne assault (i.e., move cautiously or move quickly, etc.) and you have a very interesting game. Particularly if you model dedicated recon assets, differential spotting rules, and, of course, radios. This leaves you with a very interesting game in which manuever, attrition, and deception would play a large role. I can see this having lots of possibilities and being very fun.

[Michael Emrys]

To Biff,

I think that is why BFC is so anxious to get to work on the new game engine. Many of the problems people are having making various things work like they think they should, are probably intrinsic to the way the current engine works and can only be fixed within that engine with difficulty, if at all. I suspect that Charles had some ideas for an elegant new system within which these problems can be addressed more satisfactorily.

Michael

[ January 03, 2004, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[Peterk]

The only thing stopping this from existing right now is that people are talking about it, not doing it. Unfortunately, like so much in life, the ones doing the talking are not the ones in a position to do the doing...

Actually I've been thinking about trying to put together a sort of SP Mega Campaign together for CMBB and I'm always stumped at the same point....and it's the same thing that lends too much inertia to computerizing a Meta Campaign as well IMHO.

The problem is that there's no way to make CM communicate with a 3rd party product at the start of the game when the CM battle must be set up and at the end of the game when the results have to be fetched.

So my option is to make an application where the user has to do a lot of data entry work by hand to make the campaign layer move, and a lot of manual entry to set up the CM battle....It might still be worthwhile, but I have a feeling people will be so turned off by this, they won't bother using it. And the idea ends there.

[JasonC]

The system I used for a Bulge based campaign was what I called "CMx10". I used CMBOs own editor as a "virtual sand table" for the operational level. I kept track of all unit locations on an operational map, made with the CM editor, where distances were 10 times what they are in CM. Thus a 5x5 tile was a square kilometer on this operational map. When units entered the same large tile, a tactical battle ensued.

The total forces engaged were one battalion with numerous attachments on the US (defense) side, and a regiment and change on the German (attacking) side. Individual "pieces" on the operational map represented platoons, but they were mostly "stacked" with one another (meaning, in the same square km) to produced company sized task forces. Over a day and a half of campaign time over 20 tactical fights occurred.

The presence of the operational layer dramatically changes the way one approaches the tactical fights. Force preservation becomes far, far more important. You can always try again the next turn, perhaps with more units. But not if you got everyone killed last turn. A battle at which an entire company was destroyed - and there were a few - was a major event in the overall campaign.

Side commanders gave their orders by moving units on their own copy of the operational map, which included enemy sighting reports in the form of generic enemy units. The ref (me) then combined both sets of orders on the master operational map, used it to create two new single side maps with sighting reports, and returned those. (Actually, battle came in between, before the updated maps went out. They incorporated the results of the fights).

This was workable but all of the file transfer stuff, by email, took a bit of time. What took more time was using the editor to make up each new fight and prepare briefings for the side commanders. When things went well we got off an operational turn per week. That is too slow for masses of people to do it. But it took so long because all of the editor tasks had to be done by hand, not because any of those tasks were rocket science. Essentially all of them could be automated easily enough.

Before using the CMx10 system, I ran a previous campaign that used "area movement", in effect. It wasn't as effective I thought. Players felt far more constrained, and mostly just decided how to divide their strength between 2-3 possible sensible routes. There was a definite incentive to "overstack" in this case, piling nearly everything into one schwerpunk, producing unwieldy largest tactical battles.

The more open, fluid maneuvering allowed by the CMx10 system - combined with some point limits on forces present on a single battlefield - produced much more realistic operational moves. If people went over the point limits I produced 2 side by side battles. Occasionally one side still brought essentially a full battalion of infantry to a fight. But it typically faced a reinforced company with arty support, and could easily take such high losses that even a tactical win was an operational setback.

[Michael Dorosh]

I think the answer to all these problems is insanely simple.

Allow us to cut and paste in the scenario editor - including units

Think about it; you want to run your own campaign - hey fine, imagine a company finishes a battle. You save the game, open up the save game file in the editor (another nice to have feature), and simply copy the forces for your company into a blank map. Then add in the enemy forces at random, or according to whatever system you devise, then add the map - either load it from the saved maps file if you want to continue on the new map, or at random, or whatever.

Allowing us to open two battles simultaneously in the editor would be even better; then we can cut and paste all the terrain elements from one map to another - including saved game elements like shellholes, destroyed buildings, KO'ed tanks, etc.

[Caesar]

What JasonC was proposing is exactly what I want to see in the next version. I want to be able to pick and choose which battles I want to fight and just tell the computer to resolve the rest. This would make the results of battles relevant and stop some of the ridiculous pyhrric victories that we fight for now. It would also allow battles where the task of the battle for each player is quite different and the scoring (under the current system) is irrelevant, e.g. rear guard battles. I am hoping that they will replace (or extend/suplement) the current Operation layer with something like this.

originally by Peterk

The problem is that there's no way to make CM communicate with a 3rd party product at the start of the game when the CM battle must be set up and at the end of the game when the results have to be fetched.

This can sort of be done now to generate the battles by remote controlling the editor. I have been working on such a tool on and off for a while and it can be done. Getting the results back is a lot more problematic and interupting a battle due to outside influences is obviously impossible.

[Mr. Tittles]

I agree that CM's scale suits me best at reinforced-company actions with armor as a supporting arm. I find large scenarios annoying and busy-work, like handling halftrack-mounted infatry annoying.

I would like a game that had minimum force size resolution around the platoon/section level. This means 2 vehicle tank sections, 3-5 tank platoons, etc. Basing this on radio and command limitations. A command structure/TACAI to handle chores like engaging the enemy without my need to eyeball everything.

I would like the game to be military symbols at birds-eye topdown view and change to a more visually enhanced vehicle/figure representation at lower angled views. I think that Arnhem game that BTS had for awhile was on the right track but missed out on finer points.

SOPs, formation orders would be nice.

[Redwolf]

Just to chime in here, the CMx10 campaign was a blast. Thanks Jason!

[Peterk]

Nice to hear some of the ideas here - what people have done and what they are thinking of doing.

I was thinking about being able to link together a series of small operations based on the Stalingrad battles covering the various phases of the fight for the city. There would be a branching tree a la Panzer General - so yes, you could actually take control of the whole city as the germans.

But I'd want the results of one op. to affect the start forces, date, weather and situation description of the next one without the user having to go in and tweak the battle file manually (basically just fine-tuning the operation at run time just before it's presented to the user).

This can sort of be done now to generate the battles by remote controlling the editor. I have been working on such a tool on and off for a while and it can be done.

Just wondering what technique you're using to do this?

[Sinek]

i'd like to see a campaign system implemented somewhat in the same way medival:total war does it , you could change the scale from whole countries to something smaller but the same basic idea when it comes to "peice" movement , i tought it worked realy well in that game.

[Caesar]

Originally by Peterk

Just wondering what technique you're using to do this?

Basically you post windows messages to the CMX application telling it to move the mouse and then post more messages to click buttons etc. Doing this, you can force it to open the scenerio editor, set the parameters, switch to the map, generate a map, switch to the unit editor and select the units and out pops a game.

It is by no means a perfect method and it does have some problems. You need different coordinates for everything depending on what resolution you are using. If you send to many messages at once you can cause problems where it misses messages so you have to have arbitary delays etc (actually I may have a better solution to that problem, but I need to test it). A player can watch the setup process and get some info about their opponent (not much though, it is very fast and you'd be doing well to read it all in time and you can do things like swap out the BMP for the text to help prevent it)

I started this ages ago but a few real life things have come up and intefered with my progress. I hope to have this basically working by the end of my holidays.