CMx2: god and borg differences?

[Juardis]

I will propose, once again, the C&C solution. Only those units that are in C&C, or within LOS of a unit of C&C (say, within 50m for example, but definitely not 2 km) can be issued commands. Radios or walkie talkies can increase the number of units in C&C. LOS allows hand signals/voice commands to be passed along. Any unit in C&C or within LOS of a unit in C&C (w/in 50m for example) can be issued orders.

On the FIRST TURN, and FIRST TURN ONLY, after falling out of C&C, the human can issue commands that that unit. The AI then takes over command of that unit attempting to carry out the last known commands of that unit. But after the first turn, the unit that is no longer in C&C turns to a star indicating to you the human that you know it's there, but you cannot issue orders to it. Eventually, it disappears altogther unless and until it gets back into C&C (whereupon you can give new orders) or LOS (whereupon, it turns back to a star indicating you can see it but not give orders to it).

To me, this solution goes a long way in solving the God problem. Simply because if it's not in C&C, then you the human have no way to know what that unit sees or how that unit is doing or acting or getting orders to that unit and hence you have no omnipotent view of the battlefield. Only those units that you can give commands to can give feedback to you the human. Now you can get clues as to what is happening, for example smoke appears or battle sounds appear in the area your units are supposed to be in, but until someone or something with C&C can get there to observe, you the human are left to imagine the horrors around the bend.

I get the feeling no one takes this suggestion seriously, but I swear, it'll solve a lot of the problems.

[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]

1-select your enemy objective in the screen(not your unit!!)

2-click rigth mouse and open orders

3-select orders

4-the AI select your units that can shoot.

5-the player select one.

[ March 03, 2005, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Philippe]

Juardis,

I actually take it very seriously, and it's very similar to one of the ways I would like to see things done. But it's dependant on a couple of huge unknowns, foremost of which is whether the TAC AI can successfully take over the soon to be invisible unit. But I also get the feeling that Steve is coming up with his own trademark solution to the problem that does something similar while involving several different combinations of elements. So I think we may be in wait and see mode on that one.

Note that your solution only resolves aspects of the problem with information you don't know. The maddening issue is what to do about the fact that your scout on the left is more or less in command, sees tanks, and you immediately counter the threat by moving up tanks from your right backfield. That speaks to the God problem and overly accelerated pace of battle at the same time.

[Juardis]

And furthermore, if my suggestion is implemented, then you have new units (scouts) that carry radios/walkie talkies and replace the function served now by half squads. No longer will you be able to use knocked out crews as spotters (you know who you are ). It places a premium on keeping your HQ units alive and it places a premium on keeping your units within C&C.

No more placing that LMG team at the map edge providing a picket for early detection. No more sending out lone units for picket duty (unless they have radios/walkie talkies that is).

Plus, just because a unit is out of C&C does not mean it cannot do good. Imagine a squad out of C&C because their leader just got killed. Your last orders are to run to a copse of trees, rotate to face the enemy, and fight. The AI will attempt to carry out that order. By the time you can get that unit back in C&C, it may have just knocked out 3 HTs and repelled a probe. Or it may be dead

[Andreas]

Juardis - sounds terribly frustrating. Not the game I want to play.

I think Kip is going to be with me on this one.

[Wartgamer]

Well you can call me Mr. G. Wartham. Close friends call me WartGamer. Or Gilbert.

I have not been 'giving' ideas here. These are actually specifications. More on this later.

One of the problems with what I do, relations with the private sector, is that the personalities do not pass the 'professional' test that is expected when negotiating strict developmental guidelines.

The only immediate problem that anyone in my position would have with dealing with your company is the reliance you have on only one programmer. If cmx2 was a finished/documented product; you could be a candidate for competition. As it is now, you would have to show acceptable documentation with at least a backup programmer (that can demonstrate following that documentation).

Imagine how odd to shop a research grant and find that a company is probably 92% towards meeting the specifications that it calls for but still having to waste money allowing other people to be competitive.

If there is anyone in your company that would like to persue this matter (hopefully with a technical background in dealing with this kind of opportunity with specification comprehension), give me an email and I will have preliminary information sent to them by my staff.

Best of Luck.

[ March 03, 2005, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[DrD]

Thanks Steve!

It's amazing how a well-designed game like CM can imitate RL without even intending to.

For those who haven't heard this story,

(and excuse me if I get it a bit wrong as it was along time ago),

when the 3D armor penetration model was developed for CM, it was soon discovered that the angle of strike made a huge difference to penetration. For this reason a tank struck in the front armor directly was more likely to be penetrated than one struck at a slight angle. So many of tthe early players tried to angle their tank's hull slightly to incoming fire.

Well lo and behold someone found an old German armour manual that advised their tankers to do exactly that!

And Steve and Charles swore they never read that before they designed the game.

So the moral of the story is that if the game designers pay attention to the fundamentals, all else will follow. Kind of like sports.

So a low-level change like relative spotting will likely have all kinds of repercussions we can't even imagine, and the whole thing will just work.

[DrD]

kipanderson, hello to you too.

We're not quite seeing eye-to-eye on this one. If you are "all" the commanders, then the problem is that you have perfect communication with yourself (well probably.)

But of course in RL this is not true.

To be real, you'd have to say move a tank platoon, without remembering what you did or saw when you "were" the battalion HQ or company HQ etc.

That is the God problem.

Another example, units area firing at a unit out of LOS because you, the player, know there's a unit in that house (for example) because another unit sees it. Why is your unit firng there? How did they know there's an enemy there?

Of course, some of this can be explained away, like maybe your unit saw or heard their buddies firing at the house, so they said "well gee, there must be a target there, lets shoot too!"

But in some cases it dos not make sense, or does not have a real-life correlate.

Several of us have suggested ways to reduce this "problem" but it's hard to do without reducing fun or simplicity.

And we all know how fun CM1 is, even without relative spotting! So I'm not worried, although it is fun to think about.

And let's not forget that one of the greatest strengths of CM1 is that it is so easy and simple to play! In fact, there are really no "rules" if you think about it.

Most of the suggestions we've seen here involve "rules."

And I hate rules!

And so I think does BFC.

[Wartgamer]

Most of the suggestions we've seen here involve "rules."

And I hate rules!

And so I think does BFC.

LOL! In my business they are called specifications.

You know, a couple years in the Army just might do you some good.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by DrD:

kipanderson, hello to you too.

We're not quite seeing eye-to-eye on this one. If you are "all" the commanders, then the problem is that you have perfect communication with yourself (well probably.)

In the case of Kip, an heroic assumption to make.

I am reasonably certain about Kip, but he will answer for himself, but in my case I can tell you that I am perfectly aware that this is a problem. It is best solved by team-play. For solo-play (i.e. one player/AI or two-player), this approach would restrict my fun too much for it to be enjoyable. I actually want to get down and dirty in level 1 view with that out of C&C team and watch it take on 3 HTs. And most likely die in the process.

If I can not do that, I am playing a very different game - I have done that in CMMC1 and CMMC2 before I dropped out of the latter, and there it was fun because I was dealing with other human beings in the chain of command. To do that but deal with an AI, no thanks. I'd rather watch repeats of 'Son of the Beach'.

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

LOL! In my business they are called specifications.

Is your "business" being an irritating t****r?

[Andreas]

His business is to ask for an email to be sent, but not to provide an email address.

Strikes me as very professional, although Marines may argue that is as good as you can expect from the Army.

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by Melnibone:

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

LOL! In my business they are called specifications.

Is your "business" being an irritating t****r? </font>

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

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

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

LOL! In my business they are called specifications.

Is your "business" being an irritating t****r? </font>

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by Andreas:

His business is to ask for an email to be sent, but not to provide an email address.

Strikes me as very professional, although Marines may argue that is as good as you can expect from the Army.

Have you ever been involved in military procurement? R&D? Grants? Different levels of acceptance/testing/fielding?

[DrD]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Most of the suggestions we've seen here involve "rules."

And I hate rules!

And so I think does BFC.

LOL! In my business they are called specifications.

You know, a couple years in the Army just might do you some good.

No thanks. I like the games better than real life. And I'm too old. And I make too much money to want to give it up.

[Philippe]

I seem to recall a certain discussion about Tigers in Normandy and airplanes a few years back. Someone who was very abrasive and opinionated claimed to be working for a government think tank. I guess they must have canned him. Now what was that guy's name...

P-51 ?

[Melnibone]

I think that was Cabron or such like??

[Wartgamer]

Is 'Tigers in Normandy' a game?

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Is 'Tigers in Normandy' a game?

bye bye mom

[Philippe]

What I especially enjoyed about our friend was the way he lost his sense of proportion, kept posting repeatedly and maniacally, and then slid from rude to malicious when he felt he wasn't getting enough attention.

I think it's time to clean the air waves.

[Wartgamer]

What I especially enjoyed about our friend was the way he lost his sense of proportion, kept posting repeatedly and maniacally, and then slid from rude to malicious when he felt he wasn't getting enough attention.

You are speaking about the designer from the company no?

He seems to be very stressed. I hope he reconsiders the military as a possible 5000-10000 a year sales market. The smart thing is that certain companies are offering products in different levels of capabilities and charging more for these features. This really does justify the extra design/programming/testing efforts.

[Wartgamer]

Getting back to the car analogy its like...

There's someone building cars and it meets almost every specification except for the wheels and tires. You mention, "hey! if you put the correct wheels and tires on that, you could sell it for twice as much!". And the answer is "NO! I wouldn't want to drive if it had those wheels and tires!".

[Philippe]

Isn't impersonating an officer a Federal offense?

[Wartgamer]

Who said I was an Officer? Are you talking about DrD?

[ March 03, 2005, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]