CMx2... a little more to chew on...

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I'm sure I forgot to say in earlier bone threads, but have said this many many times in past discussions... improved artillery modeling is one of our top priorities for CMx2. The artillery system we had in CMx1 was superior to anything else I've ever seen in any wargame of this scale, but it had some serious shortcomings.

Sorry, you forget TacOps here. On a minimally large scale, the TacOps model provides a much more realistic experience with the capability to hold fire while targetted and ready for FFE (biggest shortcoming of CMx1 artillery, IMHO), the possibility of hasty inaccurate fire, a better representation of inaccurate strike and control of multiple batteries and spotters with any connection between them. Some features you want to drop for WW2 as opposed to modern, the registration of new TRPs for example.

I think it would be more accurate to say the CMx1 did a good job for a model that works without a dialog box. I assume that dialog boxes were a PIA to program in CMx1, but in the case of artillery this really backfired.

[Wartgamer]

While I would welcome many improvements in the arty modeling, I wonder that since the overall scale of the game seems to be shrinking slightly, will any arty just dominate?

The single modification I would like to see is that FOs do not have 'ammo-loads' but rather mission requests that may be denied. The battery may have a ammo limit, but it could be decremented for fires elsewhere. Also, barrages are not turn based but based on '4 rounds per tube' fires or something like that.

Victory assessment based on ammo usage might be nice as well as getting a FO on the victory 'flag' (or area) with some battery ammo left. The US actually planned assaults around this concept. They called the victory areas that the FO would be able to see from (once he got there), murder zones or something like that. They would plan on killing the eventual counterattack with arty fires. So when attacking a small town, lets say, the victory 'flag' would actually be at the back of the town facing open areas that the enemy would come from. Of course, the Germans soon took to defending the back ass of towns.

[ February 18, 2005, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Actually you now play many PFCs as I pointed out before. The driver of the Kubelwagon? The two man bazooka team? The sharpshooter (not really a sniper but why quibble), etc.

Unit leaders to me means a NCO (minimum). A corporal being perhaps marginal. The german half squad would certainly be led by a corporal with the squad NCO staying with the LMG as an example.

But a flamethrower? A BAR team?

You may want to be more specific in terms of terminology - the Germans didn't have "corporals" and those armies that did used them very differently. A corporal in the British army was a full blown section commander in charge of 10 men. In the US Army, a squad leader was a sergeant (in normal circumstances).

The German lower ranks included Schütze/Grenadier, (and Obers, generally those found unsuitable for advancement), Gefreiter and Obergefreiter (with career privates eventually making Stabsgefreiter) - but in practical terms, none of them were "corporals" - they were private soldiers with pay raises. The next rank was Unteroffizier, a full blown NCO rank with attendant rank and privileges - equal to a corporal in the British Army but surpassing what a corporal in the US Army was normally expected to do.

To use your examples, an LMG team might be led by an Obergefreiter but he would compare more directly to a PFC - as per your example - in terms of responsibilities and authority. (CM uses that rank to distinguish drivers and team leaders, both, incidentally, whereas you feel a "corporal" should be in charge of one and a "PFC" the other - but in the German Army they are the exact same thing).

How's that for obsessing over a cupholder. We also want to see Lieutenant Colonels in charge of battalions. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

The problem with tying victory points to ammunition usage is that it is artificial. How about a completely random ammunition distribution to FOOs - and you don't know how many shells you get until the mission is over. Wouldn't this more realistically simulate the demands on infantry batteries to support different subunits within a brigade, or the likelihood that YOUR regiment is suddenly called on for a Victor Target elsewhere on the division's front?

The scenario designer can choose a random setting, or for scenarios where he knows that dedicated, unlimited support was available, he can set that option. Here, though, is the problem which the VP linkage would be used to address - what stops the player from simply expending 100s of rounds on the enemy?

The deletion of victory flags may be one way to do that - ie you have much less idea where the enemy is located.

Or perhaps you simply don't play scenarios in which artillery was used in large quantities, writing them off as "unbalanced" or beyond scope?

[Wartgamer]

No. Fire missions are typically called in with rounds per tube IRL. In the rare case where unlimited fire might be called for (FFE), the battery commander might call it off to preserve ammo.

The FO has radio/commo contact with the firers. The FO is not in the dark about how many rounds are coming in. You can't plan assaults and not know how many rounds will land on the enemy.

[ February 18, 2005, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

No. Fire missions are called in with rounds per tube IRL. The FO has radio/commo contact with the firers. The FO is not in the dark about how many rounds are coming in. You can't plan assaults and not know how many rounds will land on the enemy.

Maybe these types of missions need to be designated at game's start?

I realize that on-call artillery is also done by round ("five rounds gunfire - FIRE") but after the 5 rounds - JonS would be able to better answer this as my familiarity stops and starts with the CW system - wasn't there always some danger that the battery or regiment in support of you might be called away for brigade, division or corps fire missions from another on-call observer on another part of the front? I don't know, which is why I ask.

[Wartgamer]

edited post above

Many things are artificial in the game. These are abstractions.

Victory assesment based on remaining ammo is not that bad an abstraction. If I take the objective and have remaining battlefield firepower, it makes the Boss happy.

[MikeyD]

I see BFC's Beta-testing and publishing the Russian tank fighter sim T72 (oh boy!!). Though not directly related to the new CM game engine, it can't be anything but good news that the guys are getting experience with a growing number of first-class games. Every little bit of knowledge helps.

...and that extra revenue from added titles doesn't hurt either!

[Stan Hope Park]

Originally posted by Kip Watson:

I'd also like the option, during setup, of re-assigning squd commands.

And I'd like it if this was reflected in the tab-through order (I assume this obvious feature will remain). Just a little thing, but it would help in keeping things organised.

And (this is a really pedantic one), As a scenario designer I'd like to define what command inheritance different units have. For example, it would be cool if a reserve platoon (or whatever), could have a 'place' in the whole command (eg. 5th Co, 2nd Platoon). Really pedantic I know, but just one of those little aesthetic things... (... a sure sign of undiagnosed OCD).

Steve kindly replied on the editable squad question. I guess the next one is "build your own units". Will we have more control in this area?

OCD is unfashionable, so it must be a good thing. I for one am proud of mine.

[Battlefront.com]

Of course unit morale won't be binary. Anybody that knows us knows that we hate binary logic We are all about Fuzzy Logic. In the context of a Squad, the Squad's combat effectiveness naturally diminishes with the loss of each member simply because it has less firepower, special wepaons, carrying capacity, etc. But a non linear reduction in combat effectiveness happens depending on various specific conditions. In other words, there is a curve but the curve will be different at different times for different reasons for different units. The only thing in common is that at some point on this curve, the unit ceases to be combat effective. Could be the loss of one man, could be after the loss of eleven.

As for the long established military thinking about minimal effort for maximum benefit... I don't understand why sources need to be cited. This is one of the oldest principles in warfare (all the way back to Sun Tzu). In today's US military lingo these things are called "High Value Targets". A couple of bombs spent taking out a command and control center will cause far more damange to the enemy's ability to fight than the same amount of bombs dropped over a random military unit. Military strategists are always on the lookout for things like this and we need to make sure that CMx2 allows realistic options and results for successful application of such tactics.

Artillery simulation is actually pretty straight forward the more we go with an unabstracted system. CMx1 had an abstracted system because it was, roughly, in line with the rest of the game's abstractions. Now that we are going to 1:1 man and simulating the C&C network in much more detail, a more realistic simulation of artillery is not only desirable but more practical for us to do.

In CMx1 we didn't have dialog boxes because they are a distraction from the game environment, not because they were difficult to program. In other words, it was a design decision not a technical decision. And it is a decision that we don't regret. What we would like to do differently is get the functionality without clunky interface, and that's already been done (on paper) so no worries there.

I didn't forget about TacOps, though I should have mentioned it as doing a really good job It definitely handles artillery better in some ways than CMx1 does, but it is at a slightly higher scale and therefore not directly comparable. It too has abstractions and limitations, though in some ways less than CM.

Steve

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I see BFC's Beta-testing and publishing the Russian tank fighter sim T72 (oh boy!!). Though not directly related to the new CM game engine, it can't be anything but good news that the guys are getting experience with a growing number of first-class games. Every little bit of knowledge helps.

And does the T-72 sim give any indication of the new graphics / terrain model (i.e. is there any “economy of effort” stuff going on here where one terrain model might form the basis of another)?

[Halberdiers]

Could be the loss of one man, could be after the loss of eleven

Developers, you can to take advantage of 1:1 representation in order to separate what is the Leadership and what is command-control.

I understand HQ-units like special units of intelligence and information,a species of the cement so that the rest of units, like bricks, can be organized in an effective wall. But those HQ-units also need their own leader.They also need leadership.

Therefore I propose you: every "order" done by the player will put in high risk their "leaders" (in HQ,squads,sections,teams,AFV,etc) that could be wounded by the enemy fire during some seconds of the turn. To greater number of orders and counter-orders,targets,next targets,etc, more interventions of the "leaders", greater risk. This moment of high risk could be modeled ,for example, emphasizing the leaders with the hand signals to send orders.

This leaders could be put with their name but unknown capacities and if he is wounded , changes for other with other capacities. Maybe a better leader ,fanatic, who knows. Remember Dike’s last command "the Battle of Foy" from Band of Brothers:

http://www.wargamesjournal.com/wwii/foy.asp

Furthermore , this one can be a form to bind emotionally the players with the "leaders" by means of its own orders. Totally different from the fact of the command and control.

[ February 18, 2005, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[willbell]

Please don't misunderstand me on this point. I am not talking about an on line RPG where you develop a character.

But, if you did have some kind of over arching war game going on where a lot of different palyers could participate in a larger battle or campaign, you could also command a company, or battalion, that changes in character over time. Some squads that start out as green would become vetran. Some leaders would grow in skill.

The main focus would not be growing a battalion or company into some kind of uber force. There would be too many casualties and it should be modeled to avoid this. But you would begin to get a feel for the strengths and weaknesses of certain units and the personalities of certain officers, and you could incorporate this into your tactical descisions.

Is this a crazy idea? Hey, you asked for blue sky ideas.

[willbell]

I would also like to repeat here a suggestion I had in another similar thread, just to make sure it gets out there.

I would like to see a larger group game available, perhaps on a web site. It would be a larger campaign or theatre, there would be divisions etc, and some players could even be generals and such. But each player is involved in just a smaller battle, the CM battle, that is just a small part of the larger campaign. But the outcome of your battle effects the larger campaign. This would create a wider variety of situations, you wouldn't always have a balanced battle. You may even be confronted with a situation where the wisest decision would be to withdraw.

I know that one problem to solve is that players are not going to always make muster? Well what you can do is have an AI that constantly keeps the larger campaign moving. If a CM player wants to play a battle they can log in and play it. If they are not available then another player could jump in and play it. But if there are no palyers to play it then the AI plays it. There would often be battles where the AI would be playing a CM battle against itself and the results of that battle would effect the overall campaign. It's kind of like the Sim City concept, when you stop actively playing the game it keeps going on it's own.

Think of it as a whole bunch of CM battle maps that all fit together, and the larger campaign flows across these. Success at a division level is due to the collective success of all the smaller CM battles being fought. The overall commander would allocate division level resources to various battalions and that would ultimately effect what all your particular company has to fight with in a particular battle.

So that's my idea. It is actually an additonal, larger game, but the capabilities woudl have to be programed into CMx2 in order to work.

[Battlefront.com]

With 1:1 representation comes the ability to simulate the "jobs" within the unit. This goes beyond simply identifying the leader of a unit. I commented on this in another thread, but in short... we can now have a HMG unit have a dedicated Team Leader, Gunner, Assistant Gunner, Ammo Bearer, and Ammo Bearer (or something like that). When there is a casualty the unit loses (temporarily, usually) the functionality of the specific guy lost.

And to be clear about T72 - Balkans on Fire... we had nothing to do at all with the development, so it is not directly associated with anything we are doing for CMx2. However, as was stated above, it does give an idea what is possible with today's hardware vs. the hardware of 5-7 years ago.

Steve

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And to be clear about T72 - Balkans on Fire... we had nothing to do at all with the development, so it is not directly associated with anything we are doing for CMx2. However, as was stated above, it does give an idea what is possible with today's hardware vs. the hardware of 5-7 years ago.

Steve

OK so at least now I know roughly what the new ball park looks like (even if its someone else’s ball park from last year).

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The problem with tying victory points to ammunition usage is that it is artificial.

Perhaps, though I'm not so sure about that - re-read what I wrote about opportunity cost. That's the more important concept involved, rather than ammo usage per-se. Ammo usage is just the metric used to measure the opportunity cost involved.

That aside, is it more or less artificial than what we have now?

Some other victory points type ideas:

. 1) victory locations with a setable radius. "Captain, take your men and clear Anyburg out to a radius of 100/200/300 metres" (no points for that 'flag' unless radius is completely clear of the enemy. Perhaps points pro-rated instead of nil.)

. 2) victory locations with a exclusive or inclusive LOS parameter. "Captain, move up and secure a position that has LOS to the crossroads in Anyburg" or "Captain, take Anyburg and clear the heights around it so that there are no enemy units with LOS into the village"

. 3) victory conditions that are different for each side, and/or hidden from the opposing player. "Captain, push through and hold take Anyburg and clear the heights around it so that there are no enemy units with LOS into the village" AND "Hauptman, hold Anyburg for 15 minutes, then withdraw your forces to Secondville on the heights to the NW. Hold there."

Regards

JonS

[ February 18, 2005, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Of course unit morale won't be binary. Anybody that knows us knows that we hate binary logic We are all about Fuzzy Logic. In the context of a Squad, the Squad's combat effectiveness naturally diminishes with the loss of each member simply because it has less firepower, special wepaons, carrying capacity, etc. But a non linear reduction in combat effectiveness happens depending on various specific conditions. In other words, there is a curve but the curve will be different at different times for different reasons for different units. The only thing in common is that at some point on this curve, the unit ceases to be combat effective. Could be the loss of one man, could be after the loss of eleven.

The firepower comments are obvious and irrelevant, since we were talking about morale. Could you more comment on "non linear reduction in combat effectiveness" please - what does that actually mean, from a players commanders POV? Longer delays? Restricted orders?

As for the long established military thinking about subject du jour... I don't understand why sources need to be cited.

Behold, the new standard of debate on these forums?

Regards

JonS

[Bannon DC]

The concept of leadership in CMx2 is looking much more sophisticated. If men in a unit have assigned "jobs" and the leader of the unit is knocked out, you can see a "stunning" effect on the unit... "what now?" Time will be needed to sort things out as the men look at each other to see who is in charge. In a well trained... or a highly experienced unit, the stunning effect will be short. In a lesser experienced/trained unit, the effect will have a real effect on game play. Imagine several Russian units with their highly ingrained leadership dependence losing several leaders in a short amount of time. An advance will suddenly turn into a rout. In such a case, could one or two highly regarded leaders save the day and rally the mob? That would be a tense moment. One also recalls the American Army's trouble in Northern Africa as the learned the trade of war.

I imaging there might have to be more morale states. What will men do when their squad has dissolved? Will they run, hide, or actively seek another squad to join? Will they take part in firing at enemy units or will they hide to save themselves? Will they be "broken" as you might expect in CMx1 or have another state of "non leadership?"

Resupplying is also interesting. I like longer battles and obviously this is a problem. Will there be a set supply depot you can place anywhere. Can you load supplies on a HT and move it forward and have men go to the HT? Can you drop supplies by air to an airborne unit (like an Arnem or Bastonge scenario). Retrieving these airdropped parcels might be like opening an unmarked Christmas present... it might be rifle ammo, HMG ammo, AT ammo, etc. Can you scrounge for ammo near a like unit as you can in Tac Ops? I'm looking forward to resupply.

[Battlefront.com]

Jon,

The firepower comments are obvious and irrelevant, since we were talking about morale.

I've been talking about combat effectiveness, which affects morale and morale effects combat effectiveness. Ying and Yang. Very difficult to talk about one without talking about the other.

Could you more comment on "non linear reduction in combat effectiveness" please - what does that actually mean, from a players commanders POV? Longer delays? Restricted orders?

Not really that much different than in CMx1. A unit's Morale in any given instance is influenced by its current state such as (Experience, Physical Fitness, number of casualties taken, etc.) and what the unit is experiencing (lots of sustained heavy enemy fire, fire from multiple directions, etc.). The Morale is then used to determine the chances that a unit will, or will not, do certain things. The worse the unit, the worse the situation... the worse the Morale. The worse the Morale, the worse its chances of doing the desirable thing. The worse the unit, the worse the Morale decline (i.e. a great unit will be able to suffer less loss of Morale and regain it quicker than a crappy unit, even though the situation might be identical).

The effects in CMx1 for the player are, therefore, behavioral. The same will be true in CMx2, since it is the correct way to model units under combat stress. The addition of 1:1 modeling, on the other hand, allows CMx2 to have a lot more refined behavior. So instead of the unit simply becoming incapacitated as a whole, all at once, perhaps in CMx2 a few guys will bugger off and the rest of the unit remains semi-functional, though greatly shaken. Then a few minutes later the unit takes a casualty and the rest of the unit decides to call it quits by hunkering down and ceasing to do as the player had instructed. The unit can be issued new orders (provided it isn't Panicked, Routed, or Broken) but will not necessarily follow them. Same in CMx1 as it will be in CMx2. At least in general terms.

Behold, the new standard of debate on these forums? ?

Nah, I just found it to be a rather silly question... like "You said the world is round. Please cite your sources". Or do you think we need to have some sort of debate about basic military principles that have been in place since probably before recorded time? Seems rather out of place given the direction of this conversation. BTW, I did cite Sun Tzu and mentioned the current terminology (with exmamples) for the heck of it

Steve

[ February 18, 2005, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[von shrad]

It seems to have been a good time to check out one of my old favorites at Battlefront.com. A new engine to a lengendary title was something spoken in whispers and dreams just a few years ago and now it looks to be happening. Great news indeed.

Looks like the wait is on....again

Not to be too sappy but CM and it's effect on me as far as wargames go are some of my fondest Computer gaming memories. Best wishes all.

von shrad

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

stuff

Cheers.

Jon

[Achtung Baby]

If you are going to use bocage or tall hedge terrain again, please could you model it more as it still looks like its been attacked by topiary grogs. Since this type of terrain consists of trees should it not simulate arty air bursts?

[BulletRat]

Guys, guys, guys, seriously - stop yapping for a minute and let Battlefront.com go back to slaving over a hot computer coding CMx2 or whatever he does.

The less time he has to spend on these forums the sooner we get CMx2!

[Battlefront.com]

von Shard is back? Holy crow... is the van back as well?

Steve