CMx2: god and borg differences?

[c3k]

Gents,

I've got a great understanding of the 'borg' concept. That's when every unit in play has all the information available to any other unit. Hence, the isolated, dismounted crew in the enemy's rear is able to ensure that every other unit knows what's on the other side of the hill.

My confusion arises from the 'god' concept. I've always thought that the 'god' concept is when the player is allowed to roam the battlefield at will and drop down and control each of the various levels of command in his force. (Note that roaming the battlefield at will does NOT imply gaining intel. It merely allows a bird's eye view.) The crux of the 'god' concept, to me, is being allowed to intervene at the different command levels. Now, having read all 2,361 pages of postings on CMx2, I seem to have misunderstood this term.

Can anyone (Steve?) define the 'god' concept to me? Thank you.

Please do try to keep this thread on topic. I'm not looking for pro's and con's, merely a working definition of the 'god' term. ('Borg' is quite well understood.)

Thanks,

Ken

[aka_tom_w]

Hi

My understanding of the "Player as God" issue is that in the game the player is not confined to any one role. The Player has a GOD like presence in the battle and Knows ALL and Sees ALL. In this GOD like way,the player, with instant access to ALL intel and spotting ALL the time, has an understanding and unrealitically HIGH situational awareness of the battle that no single commander in WWII ever had.

I think the "God" thing is mostly a reference to the problem that the player simply HAS an unrealistically HIGH situational awareness of ALL things at ALL times on the battlefield AND can command EVERY unit independently as though he were the commanding officer of EVERY friendly unit on the battlefield.

How's that?

Did I miss anything?

-tom w

[tar]

Taking my stab at this:

Borg spotting was a function of the game engine. It can be replaced by the relative spotting model that is coming in the next engine. In other words, the Borg feature was the instant sharing of spotting among all units on the battlefield INSIDE the game engine.

The God effect is caused by having a single player control all of the forces. It will persist even with relative spotting, because the player knows everything that ANY of the units knows. That allows, for example, the immediate mobilization of reserves to deal with a threat that only a single soldier is actually aware of. The canonical example is the movement of armor from one side of the map to the other as soon as enemy armor is detected. Since the player has access to all the information (omniscience) and an ability to act on it by issuing orders to anyone (quasi omnipotence), it is termed God-like.

The Borg issue can (and will) be fixed. The God effect cannot be fixed without radically changing the nature of the game and will thus not really be fixed. Having multi-player teams can reduce this effect a bit, particularly through clever division of responsibility. For example, if instead of dividing the map in half with two players, one assigned alternating companies across the front so that there is less direct interaction between the forces a single player controls.

[Battlefront.com]

Tar has the definitions right. Gold Star for you, Tar To go a little further...

Think of the Borg problem as getting too much information too easily and the God problem as being able to act on too much information too easily. Its an over simplification, but it's basically correct.

Borg issues are more or less related to the game system, God stuff related to the Human player. For sure there is a lot of overlap between the two, but the cause of each problems is extremely different.

We can fix a lot of the Borg problems without severly altering the way the game is played. Relative Spotting, as radical as it is, will feel quite familiar to CMx1 players. The ramifications of Relative Spotting, on the other hand are very fundamental and will therefore be felt more in the outcomes rather than the game mechanics.

God issues are not so easily solved without dramatic and extremely "restrictive" modifications to the game system. As such the player will notice a big difference between what he is playing and what CMx1 was all about. This doesn't have to be a bad thing, mind you, but tackling the God stuff does require fairly radical changes to how the player interacts with the game system itself.

We have said all along that Borg stuff is our top priority to overcome. While we can not get rid of it completely, we can seriously restrict it. The #1 feature in CMx2 that hits the Borg is Relative Spotting.

We have also said all along that the God stuff is not something we think we can take more than a bite (and a player OPTIONAL bite) out of since the ultimate solution would have the player sitting in a "command tent" getting messages passed too and fro, usually too late to have any real influence over. The #1 feature in CMx2 that chips away at the God problem is Command & Control.

Steve

[Philippe]

A traditional board-game way to try to make a dent in the God problem is to set activation limits on forces under your command.

There were several pre-modern tactical games a few years back that made a distinction between officers and commanders. In CM terms I supose you could think of these as tactical hq's like platoons, and strategic hq's like companies and battalions.

In the systems I was alluding to the strategic hq's would give a small range of enabling commands to the tactical hq's, which would be the elements in charge of actually moving the troops around. The nature of the strategic command would effect the kind of tactical orders that could be given.

So in the canonical case of moving your tanks from the right backfield to the left foreground as soon as one of your skirmishers on the left spots enemy armor, the 17th century paper boardgame solution would be to construct a set of rules that restrict strategic movement: a unit is in reserve, in tactical engagement mode, in regroup mode, in strategic movement mode, or whatever. The mode would place very restrictive limits on what you could and could not do. And switching modes would require an order from a higher command, and that higher command would need to have mode switching availability.

Using a method like this instantly gives meaning to the chain of command, and whether or not your telephone lines are cut, your radios work, or you have fresh horses for your ADC's starts to make an enormous difference. Games that use this approach often have several layers of strategic commanders, and they become more effective the more they are in touch with elements higher up their own chain of command.

The reason that I am spelling this out (besides wanting to see CMx2 adapted to the English Civil Wars -- I want to mod Montrose's kilt) is to suggest that a partial solution to the God problem is to let the player see as much as you want (he has to see too much in order to move the pieces around if the TAC AI isn't all powerful), but to severely restrict his ability to do anything about his knowledge in a timely manner.

If your tanks are in strategic reserve mode, it may take a few turns to accumulate enough activation points to buy the switch to strategic movement that allows you to shift them across the board.

This kind of mechanism is really ugly in board wargames, and not much fun to play. However, adapted to a computer game the uglier parts of a system like this could be made completely invisible to the player, and could be made to feel natural and intuitive as well.

To be honest, however, I have a funny feeling that Montrose didn't wear a kilt. But I'll bet Cromwell wore a morion.

[Wartgamer]

The Borg Problem now is mostly a function of both the MoviePlayback and the Absolute Spotting.

But there are many subtle Borglets in the game.

An example is knowing the exact 'realtime' state of your own troops. Thats uberinfo that forms a Borglet. Reinforcements coming in on turn XX with YY? Thats a Borglet. An infantry Platoon on your flank has been ambushed and you get to know how many guys got greased and how many grenades got lost and the state of each one? Borglet, Borglet, Borglet.

[Battlefront.com]

Philippe,

You point out the two fundamentally different ways of simulating realistic battlefield command decisions:

1. Restrict information - less information, less informed decisions.

2. Restrict commands - less commands, less flexible decisions.

By and large we do not favor #2 because it works less well the better communications are. The example you gave of the 17th century means that the rules are easier to enforce because there aren't many ways of realistically communicating faster. But in a modern day setting, or futuristic setting, the communications becomes more varried and accurate. What is generally lagging behind is the information.

Now... let's assume perfect, instantaneous communications between lower and higher command elements is a realistic part of the setting. How can one restrict something that shouldn't be realistically restricted? You can't , so #2 is really not a design option. OK, so does that mean that the real world commanders can communicate with 100% efficiency simply because they have an instantaneous communications link between them? Certainly not. Therefore, #1 is obviously a very important element to be simulating realistically.

In CMx1 terms this means that having artificial delays on commands or the inability to change a unit's orders/status/activity in a realistic manner is out. It is simply the wrong path to go down. (NOTE - Obviously where REALISTIC delays on commands and unit orders/status/activity changes exist they should be simulated.) Instead the emphasis needs to be placed on restricting information since even with "perfect" communications information sharing is (at least into the near future) imperfect for one reason or another.

An example of this is the current US Army "Blue Force Tracker"' being used in Iraq. Through satellite communications each commander is able to see, instantly and accurately (thanks to GPS), where each one of his friendly units are. Wow... sounds perfect, right? Wrong Currently there is no way to track dismounted infantry elements, therefore this system only applies to vehicles. Also, all accumulated requests for satellite time can overwhelm the available bandwidth, which means instead of getting a Blue Force update ever second it might be 5 to 10 minutes before the little icons in the commander's display are adjusted to fit in with reality. And is that the reality of that second, or is the information off by 5-10 minutes too? And some units aren't hooked into the system at all, so cross attaching units sometimes means that the commander only knows what PART of his force MIGHT be doing SOME of the time.

While the Blue Force Tracker system is far, far superior to anything else ever fielded by a military force, it is still a long ways from perfect. And WW2 is a long ways away from 17th Century too

Hopefully you guys can see this clearly now because the suggestion about relying upon #2 has come up quite often, yet I don't think the people suggesting it understand why it doesn't work so well outside of board wargame context and/or for periods of time prior to radios.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

There are countless "Borglets" that influence the player's ability to command his force beyond what his real world counterpart could. However, since the player is not a real life commander in a real life command situation, there is absolutely no way to avoid many of these instances. Total accuracy means near total removal of the Human player from the game. That is something which might interest the military, but it is a certain flop in the commercial market. Hell... I don't think we at Battlefront would like to play such a "game"

While we do consider CM to be a simulation first, game second... it is still a game. We'll never forget that.

Steve

[Wartgamer]

Options, Options, Options...

And yes as a military product, its been mentioned in that other thread.

As the game is now, you would have to be hard pressed (or some Kind of Australian) to believe it can be a training tool. If CMX1 was sold to a military Org, and cmx2 is going to push the reality barrier, why the heck not a market for the game? Isnt that Tank Sim doing the same thing and asking big bucks?

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Just to show that there is a wide range of views on the Borg and God/single controlling mind issues. Even amongst those who may sometimes be described as Grogs.

Relative Spotting sounds great, units doing there own spotting as opposed to spotting on behalf of each other as in Absolute Spotting/CMX1.

When it comes to the God/single controlling mind issue I do not consider it a problem, because in my view it is not a “realism” issue.

My view is that in CM you play the roles of battalion commander, company commander, platoon commander and squad/AFV commanders. Most posts by Grogs seem to assume that the most important roles are the most senior. I disagree. In CM your primary role is that of squad/AFV commander, not company or battalion commander.

CM is a micro-management game. The exact positioning and timing in the manoeuvre of your units is what CM is all about. Within the limits of what their morale and training will allow. That is why the units you play with are squads/AFV and not single units representing platoons/companies.

The answer to the issue of the single controlling mind is CoPlay, in my view. I hugely look forward to it. You can realistically overcome the problem of the single controlling mind by having two/three or four minds on each side, which CMX2 will have in its second version.

Anyway… all I have heard from Steve sounds great, so I am a happy chap.

But not all Grogs wish to reduce the “problem” of a single controlling mind, when there is reality only one controlling mind on each side

All good fun ,

All the best,

Kip.

[Philippe]

I agree that restricting command flexibility isn't optimal, and as I mentioned in my post, having to memorize lists of restrictions and the circumstances under which they come into play isn't much fun.

But one thing I find myself wondering about lately is just how instantaneous battlefield communication actually was in WWII. Surely they didn't all have radios tuned to the same frequency all the time did they? I would imagine it might take a good half a minute just to get their dial-ups to work. So I guess what I'm asking is how much better is WWII communication at this geographic scale than 19th century communication in real practise?

For the more modern stuff all bets are off because everybody probably has a Jagged Alliance-style headphone plugged in their ear. But I hope we aren't over-estimating the efficiency of communications in the earlier era.

I'm not trying to guess at a solution, because that can only be arrived at by someone who sees all the pieces in the puzzle. And this one's a doozy.

[Wartgamer]

http://www.esimgames.com/comparison.htm

Here is what Steel Beasts is doing. Going after the recreational treadhead as well as the military market. Why does BFC have to go to Market with self-imposed blinders on?

Its somewhat limiting to say "I don't want to play that so why should I make that?". If you were in the Automobile inductry and said "I don't want to make SUVs cause I don't like SUVs..", you would not be very competitive.

Is there a Marketing person also? From what I gather its still one or two designers/programmers (1?) and a loose staff of artists, etc.?

[Philippe]

I don't think I care much if Steve's primary objective isn't maximizing shareholder wealth. Actually, I find that refreshing and rather encouraging. I want Steve to produce the best CMx2 that he thinks he can, and if it's different from anything I can imagine, so much the better. I like surprises, and if the final product were a slavish imitation of my suggestions my ego wouldn't be flattered and I would quickly become quite bored. CMx1 was good because it wasn't what we would have come up with, and CMx2 will probably be better, and for the same reasons.

[aka_tom_w]

YES to THAT!

I like this part:

"CMx1 was good because it wasn't what we would have come up with, and CMx2 will probably be better, and for the same reasons. (ONLY More So!)"

Please surprise us!

-tom w

Originally posted by Philippe:

I don't think I care much if Steve's primary objective isn't maximizing shareholder wealth. Actually, I find that refreshing and rather encouraging. I want Steve to produce the best CMx2 that he thinks he can, and if it's different from anything I can imagine, so much the better. I like surprises, and if the final product were a slavish imitation of my suggestions my ego wouldn't be flattered and I would quickly become quite bored. CMx1 was good because it wasn't what we would have come up with, and CMx2 will probably be better, and for the same reasons.

[Wartgamer]

But one thing I find myself wondering about lately is just how instantaneous battlefield communication actually was in WWII. Surely they didn't all have radios tuned to the same frequency all the time did they? I would imagine it might take a good half a minute just to get their dial-ups to work. So I guess what I'm asking is how much better is WWII communication at this geographic scale than 19th century communication in real practise?

In many early cases, field phones with secure wire communications were more common. This was gradually taken over by wireless as the war dragged on.

Getting radios netted up takes some time and is prone to jamming, heavy traffic and breaking down (no transistors). But when they worked provided a revolution in the speed of battle.

From a Battalion HQ standpoint, getting wired field phones to all company HQs and critical observation points was crucial to fight the Battalion.

[DrD]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Hi,

Just to show that there is a wide range of views on the Borg and God/single controlling mind issues. Even amongst those who may sometimes be described as Grogs.

Relative Spotting sounds great, units doing there own spotting as opposed to spotting on behalf of each other as in Absolute Spotting/CMX1.

When it comes to the God/single controlling mind issue I do not consider it a problem, because in my view it is not a “realism” issue.

My view is that in CM you play the roles of battalion commander, company commander, platoon commander and squad/AFV commanders. Most posts by Grogs seem to assume that the most important roles are the most senior. I disagree. In CM your primary role is that of squad/AFV commander, not company or battalion commander.

CM is a micro-management game. The exact positioning and timing in the manoeuvre of your units is what CM is all about. Within the limits of what their morale and training will allow. That is why the units you play with are squads/AFV and not single units representing platoons/companies.

The answer to the issue of the single controlling mind is CoPlay, in my view. I hugely look forward to it. You can realistically overcome the problem of the single controlling mind by having two/three or four minds on each side, which CMX2 will have in its second version.

Anyway… all I have heard from Steve sounds great, so I am a happy chap.

But not all Grogs wish to reduce the “problem” of a single controlling mind, when there is reality only one controlling mind on each side

All good fun ,

All the best,

Kip.

But it is a realism issue. To me, realism means that what happens in CM is what would happen in real life. so in real life, if a squad cresting a hill suddenly saw an enemy tank in defilade, and that enemy tank shot them all up, would the friendly tanks suddenly come over the hill to extract revenge? Well, maybe, if they heard a shot, but more likely a few minutes would go by and somone would say, hey, what happened to third squad? Send a runner over there and see.

Now in CM, the player would see (briefly) the enemy tank, and see their squad go to ground and take casaulties. He would then send his armor over the hill (and around the flank also) and take out the tank that he knows is there somewhere.

That is the God problem.

Having said that, I agree that to prevent this entirely would require an unwieldy and worse unfun game.

Now, relative spotting will prevent the TAC AI from having God ability, which will improve things alot. Specifically, units will not "look" (i.e. orient towards) units they can't see, and thus will not spot those units quickly. This will mean less info about spotted units, as fewer friendlies will have them spotted. As it is now, an enemy is instantly spotted as it moves into LOS IF it was previously spotted by any friendly unit. As "false spotting" and level of spotting is largely dependent on the number of units spotting it, the new relative spotting will mean that it will take long for multiple friendlies to spot an enemy, as each has to spot "on its own," and therefore much less info.

Also, I think we will no longer be able to target units out of LOS, so each unspotted enemy will have to be acquired "from scratch."

Note that this does not prevent the player from setting covered arcs. This is another example of the God problem that is not realistic. How would a unit (necessarily) know to focus its targeting on a certain area if it has no knowledge of the enemy in that area?

Of course there are communications, and it will be very interesting to see how this is modeled (if at all) from a spotting point. Will units in C+C be assumed to get info about spotted units via radio, hand signals, etc? Will this then allow them some awareness of the units despite no LOS?

We shall see. Or read about it here.

[ March 03, 2005, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: DrD ]

[Battlefront.com]

Wartgamer,

Options, Options, Options...

Since you claim some sort of knowledge of programming, surely you are aware that "options" just don't magically appear in the middle of the night thanks to the work of little programming pixies, right? Or do you know as little about programming as you do everything else related to wargame development? Your comments certainly make it seem so.

As the game is now, you would have to be hard pressed (or some Kind of Australian) to believe it can be a training tool.

Once again showing how little you know. CM is in official and unofficial use within many militaries already. And why? Because it is a good adjunct training tool, that's why. Heck, CMBO (not even CMBB) was used as the center piece for a US Army Major's masters thesis, which culminated in its use at Ft.Benning for a training course. The nearly 2 inch thick report that was produced from this study doesn't support your narrow minded viewpoint of what a "training tool" is.

If CMX1 was sold to a military Org, and cmx2 is going to push the reality barrier, why the heck not a market for the game? Isnt that Tank Sim doing the same thing and asking big bucks?

Here is what Steel Beasts is doing. Going after the recreational treadhead as well as the military market.

And this is a proven, viable sales strategy? From our experience, and watching other game companies try this over the years, we'd say it is a strategy for failure. But of course you know more about this than we do since you're ever so clever.

Why does BFC have to go to Market with self-imposed blinders on?

I don't know... why do some customers think that they are God's gift to wargaming design and marketing when they have never done either?

Come on Wartgamer... stick to what you have a chance of being constructive at and leave the rest to people with a PROVEN track record of knowing what they are doing. Every time you open your big mouth about this sort of stuff you only expose how absolutely ignorant and illinformed you really are.

Out of curiosity... what do you do for a living? I mean, you appear to be a full time pain in the ass, but that rarely makes anybody any money. Well, except for ambulance chasing lawyers

Is there a Marketing person also? From what I gather its still one or two designers/programmers (1?) and a loose staff of artists, etc.?

Why does this matter to you? It's not like knowing that we're 5 full timers makes you any smarter.

Steve

[DrD]

Steve,

I'd love to know the name of that thesis, and to know if we can get a copy of it! What was its main point? If you have time of course.

Thanks.

[Wartgamer]

Yes I would like to read the abstract at least!

Here's an order..

Summary:

Shrapnel Games announced that the United States Military Academy at West Point has ordered 1,040 copies of the tank simulation Steel Beasts.

Full Story:

Shrapnel Games announced that the United States Military Academy at West Point has ordered 1,040 copies of the tank simulation Steel Beasts. According to Shrapnel, this order indicates that the Department of Military Instruction Warfighting Center sees the educational use that the true-to-life tank simulation can provide. Shrapnel has had discussions with West Point representatives concerning the use of the game in the classroom. The use of electronic games in military training is not unheard of; back in March, it was announced that the US Army planned to use the squad-based action game Delta Force 2 in a training program.

And I believe the Danes and other countries have simulator training programs that use this programs also

[ March 03, 2005, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[kipanderson]

DrD, hi,

“But is is a realism issue. To me, realism means that what happens in CM is what would happen in real life. so in real life, if a squad cresting a hill suddenly saw an enemy tank in defilade, and that enemy tank shot them all up, would the friendly tanks suddenly come over the hill to extract revenge? Well, maybe, if they heard a shot, but more likely a few minutes would go by and somone would say, hey, what happened to third squad? Send a runner over there and see.”

DrD.. it is not a realism issue “if” you are playing the role of “all” the squad and AFV commanders… which in a game in which there is only one player on each side… you are

I am as keen as any to play live team CM, CoPlay. In your example the tanks some way behind the infantry squad would be commanded by a different human player in CoPlay. Given that in CoPlay each player can only see what the units he personally commands can see, the supporting tanks would not know the grim fate of the infantry squad. So would not be able to come to their rescue.

CoPlay is a far more realistic way to play CM. I agree. But… when there is only “one” human player on each side…. when that is the reality in a given game…. there is nothing unrealistic about being able to see all that each of your units can see. In my view.

The greater the number of human players on each side, the smaller the number of units each human player commands, the more realistic the game will be. Agreed.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Battlefront.com]

Dr.D... not sure how you can obtain a copy. The main thesis was to evaluate the effectiveness of "off the shelf" wargame technology as an adjunct training tool for junior level leadership (Platoon and Company commanders). It was tested by a group of active officers and a group of ROTC (for those who don't know, basically these are future officers). The two groups were put through the same tasks and asked to evaluate CMBO on a large variety of points considered central to leadership training. Some comments pro/con were noted for each group for each point covered. Overall the scores were very, very high with the few exceptions being things one would expect (artillery, mines, and a few other nitty gritty elements).

The really funny bit was on issues having to do with control and predictable behavior. The Army officers gave CM high marks on these points, the ROTC guys a lot lower. On one particular question the ROTC guys said something like "I couldn't get my guys to do as I instructed. Bad points", but the Army officers said "hey, my guys didn't do half the things I told them to, which was pretty much as expected. Good points". That was a classic

Steve

[kipanderson]

Hi,

The difference between myself and many others (amongst Grogs ) is that I am perfectly happy with the idea that I play the role of “all” the squad and AFV commanders in CM. when just the single player on one side. In fact, it is the central reason for the success of CM, and Squad Leader before it, together with their stunningly high quality of execution. In my view.

BTW. A Semi command game at an operational level, manoeuvre units being battalions not squads, I think would work very well. In fact I hope BFC will give that scale a go one day.

All the best ,

Kip.

[Andreas]

I knew I would find Kip in this thread.

Carry on.

[Halberdiers]

about "God" problem:

Instead the player can select:

-"unit to next target"

what about if the player must select

-"target to next unit"

and more,

-"Target to unit and next unit"

-"Cover arc to unit and next unit"

-"Area to unit and next unit"

CMX2 also could avoid the necessity to have LOS in many cases!!

why not? :confused:

[ March 03, 2005, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Philippe]

I think I follow part of that, but I'm not sure.

If there are no objections, could we relax the English-only rule in the forum just for a second, and maybe you could try explaining your thought in a bit more detail?

I'm feeling denser than usual and can't quite grasp the implications for the God problem (I actually started to type Grog problem).