CMx2: god and borg differences?

[Philippe]

You did before you edited your message.

But not to worry. It can be retrieved from your computer.

[Wartgamer]

I think you would have to say something like belonging to an orginization no?

If I said " I am Captain Nemotoad from the West Choad Central Investigative Alliance", then maybe then. See?

[Philippe]

I've never been a big fan of the Patriot Act, but in situations like this I just love it.

[Wartgamer]

I am prepared, as a captain of industry, to offer BFC $50.00 dollars to meet my specifications.

[DrD]

Did I impersonate an officer? It must have been a bad impersonation!

I've been a house officer but that's it.

Oh and a fraternity officer.

[Wartgamer]

If they meet this specification and accept the $50.00, they relinquish to me, the marketing of cmX2 to all military orginizations in existance. I will purchase cmx2 at a reduced price of $21.50 each and sell them for $169.99 each to the military.

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by DrD:

Did I impersonate an officer? It must have been a bad impersonation!

I've been a house officer but that's it.

Oh and a fraternity officer.

I once impersonated a Doctor but that was at a Sorority.

[Wartgamer]

On a serious note:

Many people think that the Military customer is like someone with a shopping cart. They need more bulletts, they go down an aisle and pick them up. They need new technology, they just go out and shop for some.

If you have been involved with this customer, you know that it is a proactive process of getting your proposal up for consideration. You have to hunt in the orginization to get soemone to champion what you are selling. That person champions you, and it works out, then you are a feather in his cap.

It is no more than writing a very good proposal and submitting it to the right people. The next step is a Grant. Basically, they will pay for your initial R&D and you must have something to show for it at the deadline.

In the case of the private software industry, which has already self-financed much of the work (to sell to the entertainment market), getting a grant and meeting the proposal (paid up front programming really) is a no brainer.

It is something that BFC should look into.

[Battlefront.com]

Wartgamer,

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).

That might be true for some grants and programs, but it is not an iron clad rule. Major H, for example, is a one man show and he has contracts with both the US Army and US Marines. Grants are also not the only way to get into the loop.

He seems to be very stressed.

Not at all. I don't do stress. I just don't like it when the bottom end of the person does the talking. If I were a guest in your office, talking to you as you talk to me about your job, I am sure you wouldn't be all that happy to deal with me either.

I hope he reconsiders the military as a possible 5000-10000 a year sales market.

Who said we aren't interested in making a game for the military market? Or must we follow your ideas to the letter in order to get a military contract?

It is something that BFC should look into.

Who said we haven't done more than this already?

Steve

[ March 03, 2005, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Who said we haven't done more than this already?

Steve

This might explain the rumors one keeps hearing about the US army planning to deploy Lobsters of Doom technology in Iraq as soon as the troops have finished being trained.

[Erwin Rommel]

Dont most of you just wish there was a MUTE or IGNORE function on this forum like on some others?

Just click on an ignore or mute button for the person or persons you want to ignore and when you read the forums you never have to see anything said person posted cause his just show up as blank posts.

I think some of us here have one in particular already in mind....

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by Erwin Rommel:

Dont most of you just wish there was a MUTE or IGNORE function on this forum like on some others?

Just click on an ignore or mute button for the person or persons you want to ignore and when you read the forums you never have to see anything said person posted cause his just show up as blank posts.

I think some of us here have one in particular already in mind....

May be we can start a thread

requesting this as a feature in the Next BFC BBS

[Battlefront.com]

Lord Peter,

This might explain the rumors one keeps hearing about the US army planning to deploy Lobsters of Doom™ technology in Iraq as soon as the troops have finished being trained.

I can not comment on the truth to these rumors, but if you find yourself hauled away in the middle of the night by some guys in black BDUs and balaklavas... I swear I had NOTHING to do with it

Steve

[jeffsmith]

Plausible Deniability at it Best Folks

[tar]

... 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"

Trying to wrench this a bit closer to topic.

I think this quote from Steve actually supports much more the command delay and interference school of argument. Certainly the theoretical situation of good communications means that (with luck) information can be passed and acted on fairly quickly. However, that is generally the exception rather than the rule. The rule is usually spelled SNAFU -- that's why the first two letters stand for "Situation Normal".

Even when the communications work in their most excellent form, there is still the issue of organizational inertia. Unlike a unit on parade, a tactically deployed unit and especially a unit engaged will take some time to get the word to everyone and (also important) make sure the commander knows the word got to everyone.

The larger the unit the more time this takes. It's just like getting a group of friends to actually leave to go out to dinner together. The larger the group, the longer it takes, even if everyone starts in the same room together. Military organizations are similar. The larger the unit you want to move, the more time it will take to make sure the orders percolate down appropriately. This is one area where the God-like ability surfaces, since one is able to skip over the chain of command and its delays in getting the orders instantly to the lowest echelons of the command.

The problem is that it is admittedly difficult to come up with an appropriate method of enforcing these delays, simply because there aren't really hierarchical orders in the system. One has the ability to control platoons and squads, so they get the movement orders, not the company or battalion. That means that an opportunity to insert the delays goes missing. It is difficult to see how one can circumvent that with a reasonably enforceable mechanism, but some way of slowing down the deployment of larger units would be nice to have.

I think that is in part what is meant by the reference to activation points from some of the board games. Although the mechanisms may be different from what ultimately ends up in CMx2, the underlying problem that the designers are trying to solve is the provision of some realistic inertia based on unit size. One idea I've advocated in the past is to make HQ more sluggish, the higher up the command chain they are. This is to make moving larger formations more ponderous. It also strikes me as a solution that fits most easily into the current C&C scheme -- how it would play out in the CMx2 scheme is difficult to evaluate since we haven't seen that one yet.

Regardless of what one uses for a mechanism, the challenge is to make it difficult to move larger formations without unduly restricting the ability of the front-line engaged units to respond to what is happening around them. Someone else on a different thread once suggested the idea of drawing areas of responsibility on the map. A game mechanism based off that idea could limit the size of unit for which such areas could be drawn each turn. That would mean that multiple turns would be needed to set up the sectors for an entire battalion. This would precisely represent the delays in passing down the orders, having the intermediate units make their plans and coordinate with neighbors, etc.

Pre-game planning could also be introduced to allow the designation of certain areas and phase lines that would speed this up. For a defense, a phased withdrawal could be planned during the setup, with the effect that movements to the pre-planned new areas would be much quicker. In general, such movements could be enabled with simple orders (in real life).

The pre-planning is done to minimize the amount of information that needs to be transmitted and the amount of planning that needs to be done at execution time. That time was spent in preparation and pre-battle briefings. The tradeoff is that it isn't quite as flexible, since you have to make the plans before you see what actually happens.

Any mechanism for being able to set pre-battle plans, perhaps only charting the movement of company or platoon HQ units, would also seem to address one of the desires of scenario designers for developing a system that allows limited "scripting" of AI battle plans. If everyone were able to do some such scripting as a way of reducing command delays, it would fit more naturally into the entire game system when used for AI plans as well. Being able to form task groups and then give them general directives would make this possible. The operational AI would then have the less daunting (but still difficult) task of figuring out how to schedule the movements in the plan.

[Dook]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

.... 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....

Steve [/QB]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

.... not sure how you can obtain a copy....

Steve [/QB]

Steve, do you know the author, title, educational institution for the thesis you mentioned? I can usually get a hold of most theses if I have a little info to track it down. I would be interested to read it. Thanks.

[Pak40]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

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.

You mean like Airborne Assault: Highway to the Reich? It's not a BFC game but it's very well done in continuous time.

[Battlefront.com]

I'll send an email to the author and see what can be done about it. He's quite busy these days with a new assignment so it might be a while before I can report back.

Tar,

Regardless of what one uses for a mechanism, the challenge is to make it difficult to move larger formations without unduly restricting the ability of the front-line engaged units to respond to what is happening around them.

That is the crux of the issue. There is no way for a game to understand what is a unit initiated tactical order and what is a higher level initiated tactical order. The former should have almost no time restrictions (relatively speaking), the latter should have rather significant ones (relatively speaking). All systems of previous games, and all systems proposed for years here on this Forum, haven't figured out a way around this. So I think it is pretty safe to say that there is no magic bullet solution.

What we do think works is a combo of elements which, on their own, don't restrict things unrealistically. But when the various C&C elements start to pile up, significant restrictions on flexibility start to manifest themselves in indirect ways. For example, if an HQ is much harder to get moving AND units out of C&C are at greater risk AND are not able to call in for support AND other units can't automatically come to their aid, etc. well... then the player is going to pace his units more realistically because losing C&C now likely outweighs any sort of Rambo style moves.

CMx1 has some of these elements that cause some degree of caution by the player, but not enough. Relative Spotting will help out a heck of a lot, so too will the new C&C system. But there is more than that. We fully expect that CMx2 games will be SLOWER and more DELIBERATE, but also much more TENSE and therefore EXCITING. Slower doesn't inherently mean less exciting, since it comes down to execution. It's kinda like the difference between a fast paced action film and a well executed slow building horror movie.

Steve

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Andreas:

[snip] 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. [snip snip]

I agree pretty strongly with this point. One of the things - and if I had to choose one, I'd say *the thing* - that makes CM so engaging is the one-to-one identification of the player with the lower level units. When these units are trying to flank a StuG, close-assaulting a tank, hiding in ambush with a flame-thrower, or trying to cross the open under fire, I, and I think most people, feel like we *are* those units trying to do whatever tasks they've been given.

This identification is a very significant part of the game's appeal. When I played SL, I had the same type of identification with my cardboard counters, and this was a significant part of that game's appeal. In a lot of ways, I think it's fair to say that the identification with lower-level units makes CM (and did with SL, too) feel almost like a role-playing game. This is a very important part of the game, and I think it would be a mistake to remove it.

I think that the RPG experience was responsible for a lot of the extra features that made their way into the SL series - "Why can't my squad start a fire? We're in a wheat field - and historically, units would have matches. So I want to start a fire." In CM, I think the RPG experience causes people to want a unit-centered campaign system: it gives one the ability to: (1) go on new adventures; and (2) go up levels.

[kipanderson]

What CM is. In my view

DrD, hi,

I think the core of the difference between us is that when you look at CM you tend to imagine that you are primarily the battalion or company commander. You will correct me if I am wrong, but your posts, and most posts from Grogs, seem to assume the single player is primarily playing the role of force commander. Thus posts from most Grogs take the line of “as company commander I would not know what my infantry squad on the extreme left flank could see, not immediately anyway”.

However, when I play CM I consider myself to be the commander of the individual infantry squad on the extreme left flank, the squad leader, thus I can see everything that the squad can see, immediately. Seeing all that the real world squad leader could see, and ordering around my squad is my primary role. Micro-managing my squad is my primary role in CM.

But I am as much a fan of “realism” as any. Thus I am no fan of Borg Spotting, that is of friendly units spotting on behalf of each other as in CMX1. There is no greater fan of Relative Spotting, each individual friendly unit having to spot enemy units in their own right, than I. Also, I do wish my infantry squad to suffer from real world morale problems, and limits on its abilities relative to its training/experience.

The next stage is that for reasons of “fun”, I like to play the roles of lots of squad commanders, AFV commanders, AT gun commanders, all at once But still wish the hard coding in the game to be optimised for the role of squad/AFV commander. The fact that I am now the single controlling mind/God to lots of squads does not make the game any more unrealistic, just more fun. My primary role is not company or battalion commander just because there is more than one squad to command. I do this in the full and happy knowledge that my primary role is still humble squad leader.

For realism the ideal would be a different human player to command each manoeuvre unit/squad/AFV in CM. However, for reasons of “fun”, and may be coding problems, a team of four players dividing up a company of infantry between them will probably be ideal in a game of CMX2. In its second release.

This is why when Steve first returned to the forum I was somewhat nervous as to what he had planned for CMX2 until he had confirmed that the focus of development is the same scale and scope as CMX1. Once I knew this, I was happy.

In fact I often like to play games that are semi-operational in terms of map size and number of units. For example against Andreas… hence he knows my eccentricities;) However, I do this in the full knowledge that the game is optimised for the role of squad leader/AFV commander.. not brigade commander. I am greedy; I want the fun of being lots of squad leaders/AFV commanders all at once I want to watch a huge battlefield all at once, but each small part in the detail a squad leader would see the battlefield in.

Finally, none of the above means I am not keen to see BFC design a game in which the primary role of the player is company, or battalion, or brigade, even better divisional commander. I do. But it would not be CM.

Anyway… all I have heard from Steve sounds great… so I am in the fortunate position of being very relaxed about the future of my hobby of mass slaughter

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[DrD]

Kip,

Believe me, I understand exactly what you are saying. I don't think that I, as the player, represent an individual, high-level HQ. I understand your point that as the player you are all HQ's, big and small, etc.

But my point is (and I'm sorry but I can't think of any new way to explain it) that this leads to an unrealistic "God" problem, which is acknowleged by the designers, not just by me alone! The bottom line is that the units do not act in the way they would or did in RL.

I agree 100% that fun is more important, and the game as it stands is tremendously fun while still highly, if not totally, realisitc. BFC hit the sweet spot of realism vs. fun, and I am happy they they do not seem to be eager to change too much in one direction or the other.

As you say, the only 100% realistic way is for each unit to be controlled by a different player.

What we have been discussing on this forum are ways, short of this, that the God issue can be toned down. So far the suggestions likely will push the delicate equilibrium of the game towards realistic and away from fun.

[DrD]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I'll send an email to the author and see what can be done about it. He's quite busy these days with a new assignment so it might be a while before I can report back.

Tar,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Regardless of what one uses for a mechanism, the challenge is to make it difficult to move larger formations without unduly restricting the ability of the front-line engaged units to respond to what is happening around them.

That is the crux of the issue. There is no way for a game to understand what is a unit initiated tactical order and what is a higher level initiated tactical order. The former should have almost no time restrictions (relatively speaking), the latter should have rather significant ones (relatively speaking). All systems of previous games, and all systems proposed for years here on this Forum, haven't figured out a way around this. So I think it is pretty safe to say that there is no magic bullet solution.

What we do think works is a combo of elements which, on their own, don't restrict things unrealistically. But when the various C&C elements start to pile up, significant restrictions on flexibility start to manifest themselves in indirect ways. For example, if an HQ is much harder to get moving AND units out of C&C are at greater risk AND are not able to call in for support AND other units can't automatically come to their aid, etc. well... then the player is going to pace his units more realistically because losing C&C now likely outweighs any sort of Rambo style moves.

CMx1 has some of these elements that cause some degree of caution by the player, but not enough. Relative Spotting will help out a heck of a lot, so too will the new C&C system. But there is more than that. We fully expect that CMx2 games will be SLOWER and more DELIBERATE, but also much more TENSE and therefore EXCITING. Slower doesn't inherently mean less exciting, since it comes down to execution. It's kinda like the difference between a fast paced action film and a well executed slow building horror movie.

Steve </font>

[Battlefront.com]

I agree with Kip. How many of you here has repeatedly watched a single firefight or Tank or AT gun do ONE amazing thing? I know I have! Heck, I can even remember a couple of instances of this from when I was play testing Riesberg for the CMBO demo. Boy that 88 sure could rock

In many earlier discussions, held over many years, I have repeatedly said that CM is not a command level game nor will it ever be only that. CMx1 had a little bit of it in it and CMx2 more, especially due to Relative Spotting and the new C&C modeling. But it will never force the player to break away from the type of enjoyment that Kip spoke about. CMx2 might be a sim first and foremost, but it is still a game and we would be fools to kill off one of the most enjoyable aspects of the game simply for the sake of realism. The line must be drawn somewhere.

Steve

[DrD]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I agree with Kip. How many of you here has repeatedly watched a single firefight or Tank or AT gun do ONE amazing thing? I know I have! Heck, I can even remember a couple of instances of this from when I was play testing Riesberg for the CMBO demo. Boy that 88 sure could rock

In many earlier discussions, held over many years, I have repeatedly said that CM is not a command level game nor will it ever be only that. CMx1 had a little bit of it in it and CMx2 more, especially due to Relative Spotting and the new C&C modeling. But it will never force the player to break away from the type of enjoyment that Kip spoke about. CMx2 might be a sim first and foremost, but it is still a game and we would be fools to kill off one of the most enjoyable aspects of the game simply for the sake of realism. The line must be drawn somewhere.

Steve

Yes, I agree 100%, and I did not mean to imply that I don't.

It's like my dad said, it's better to marry for love (fun) than money (realism), but if you can have both that's even better.

CM is like a beautiful bride who's also quite well off (like mine!) I'm glad you're not going to ugly her up.

Last week I was playing CMBB and a SU-152 fired at my 88, the shell missed and hit a nearby house that just disintegrated! That was really cool to watch from level 1, I could almost smell the fear! (actually it turned out my 10 month old needed a diaper change.)

That 1 gun, with the help of a TRP, took out 8 vehicles and survived the battle.

[ March 04, 2005, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: DrD ]

[tar]

Steve writes:

For example, if an HQ is much harder to get moving AND units out of C&C are at greater risk

Hooray!