What CM does.... Game vs Sim

[JohnCalvin]

A few years ago any WWII product would have us (at least most of us) jumping through the roofs. Sudden Strike, Battlefield 1942 etc... But CM brought something else, realism on an amazing scale. Measuring this, calculating that, factoring in gobs of real-world elements. And while it might take a while to appreciate what's going on, once that happens, the bar is raised considerably.

For instance, two years ago I downloaded the demo to CM. I never got past the graphics. I thought, "This is supposed to be a great game? Who are they kidding?" Naturally I did not comprehending what was going on. Did the same for CMBB. Graphics a bit better, but can't match what's out there.

Then, one day I read a great review on CMBB and my eyes were opened. I did not see what was going on behind the scenes. And while I played military board games, I did not view the graphics as representative of real squads, real weapons, real physics. Real units, real conditions and so on suddenly came to light.

The result of all this is that now I want and expect new products to have these features. I enjoy RTS games like Blitzkrieg, but if the new versions (BKII, Sudden Strike III and the like) do not have real battlefields represented, with real terrain, historically accurate buildings and units and above all else, real missions, I won't buy. It's that simple.

It's come down to a "game" vs a "sim." Games will give you "missions" with little or no historical reference. They want you to have fun, but not necessarily be immersed in the action. Sims seek to recreate the historical conditions and so on. And so, now, if I see some product, which basically is eye-candy, but does not want me to think, understand and respond to simulated battlefield conditions. I'm not interested.

CM has done that for me, and has radically changed my opinion of what's good and what's not so good. For it's no longer a "game" I seek.

How bout you?

[Ant]

A few years ago any WWII product would have us (at least most of us) jumping through the roofs.

Not me. A bad game is a bad game regardless of what it's setting is, WW2 or not. In fact games that pretended to be realistic that weren't were particularly irksome. I really enjoyed Return to castle Wolfenstein because it didn't have any pretentions at realism. I hated Medal of Honour because it pretended to be realistic but still had things like health bars for tanks

Sudden Strike, Battlefield 1942 etc.

I didn't need CM to realise that sudden strike sucked.

In fairness it wasn't that it was necessarily a bad game, I'm sure it wasn't, and lots of people seemed to enjoy it. But they way I saw it advertised was that it was a realistic WW2 RTS game, and I very quickly found out that it wasn't realistic at all, in fact it was just another C&C RTS clone that happened to be wearing WW2 battledress. No bad thing if you like that sort of stuff....but I didn't and still don't.

But CM brought something else, realism on an amazing scale. Measuring this, calculating that, factoring in gobs of real-world elements. And while it might take a while to appreciate what's going on, once that happens, the bar is raised considerably.

Well there were other games before CM that tried to be realistic, Talonsoft's games come to mind, but others too: Steel Panthers, Close Combat; even stuff such as 'Horse and Musket' for non WW2 eras. Although CM has definitely raised the bar for realism I think it's more of an evolution and an improvement of what a few other games have tried to do previously rather than a revolutionary new concept of making a warsim as opposed to a wargame.

[Sergei]

I disagree on one bit. While CM is above the RTS crowd because of it's sim qualities, I also think that it is a great game. You could have a realistic simulation of WW2 tactical combat, but which would be unplayable and not offering the player interesting choices. And while compared to other games CM may lack of the latest graphics, it still leads in its own genre.

I loved Steel Panthers when it first came out, because it had good graphics, good playability and it was realistic. I love CM, because it has even better graphics, better playability and more realism. Talonsoft's Campaign series had the realism and also decent graphics, but I just HATED the game system. Thus I quickly got tired of it.

[Big Jim]

I remember buying Talonsoft's 'East Front' for about £5, then later 'West Front' for a similar princely sum.

I loved the games at the time, and I thought the level of unit detail etc. (in the unit info windows etc.) was amazing- recreating the battles of WWII and putting me in the driving seat. I bought Sudden Strike, but quickly became bored with it- C&C did the whole RTS thing better, IMHO. RTCW and MOHAA were both great fun, but essentially just FPS games with WWII clothes- although I'll never forget the first time I went up Omaha beach, very good level (but amazing to think people actually did charge into that situation- and win).

Then CM came along- played CMBO a bit, thought it was quite good, and then left it for a bit. When CMBB came out however, I was truly hooked- there was never any question as soon as I saw CMAK, I just had to buy it.

Now, I don't really bother buying games unless it's a fun FPS to play online- although my interest in Strategic Command 2 has been aroused by reading the articles on this website...

Games have their place though, as do sims- but give me 'Sim World War II' (CM) anyday!

[MikeyD]

Every once in awhile someone posts a screenshot of the 'next great WWII game' said to be in testing out of the Ukraine or someplace, that at first glance looks way cooler than CM. Then you look a bit closer... at the menu options, at the number of elements in the picture, at the proportions and accuracy of the polygon, at the scale of the map. Hmmm, maybe this isn't going to be the 'next great game' compared to CM after all! And funnny thing is, besides those few screenshots we rarely hear a word about that upcoming game ever again.

[Ant]

Hmmm. You wouldn't be talking about a certain 'Wartime Command' would you?

[Chelco]

Nice post John!

I second your thoughts.

I have lost the ability to have fun with games that are not realistic. I am leaning now in on to the simulator side. And I am saving a lot of money: how many worthy sims appear per year?

Another thing that turns me off is a single player experience with fully scripted missions. Cheers,

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by JohnCalvin:

Measuring this, calculating that, factoring in gobs of real-world elements. And while it might take a while to appreciate what's going on, once that happens, the bar is raised considerably.

Ditto this. But it did not take me long. The CMBO demo scenario "Valley of Trouble" convinced me that suddenly here was a game where real world tactical decisions have real world results.

While these results were bad for me at first....it occured to me that frontal assault on a pillbox is not a smart real world decision...I soon tried less suicidal tactics. By the way, how many other game's scenarios or missions would include a pillbox that you are NOT supposed to attack from the front??

Anyway, CM raises the level by turning your computer into a WW-II battlefield tactical laboratory (WoBTaL). It may sound presumptive, but a winning CM player could possibly serve with distinction on a Regimental or Battalion Operations Staff of the time....give time-travel to 1944.

-Sarge

[BigMik1]

Originally posted by JohnCalvin:

CM has done that for me, and has radically changed my opinion of what's good and what's not so good. For it's no longer a "game" I seek.

How bout you?

I agree very much with you. I am a wargamer, first and far most. When my mother bought my first wargame "Submarine" by Avalon Hill in 1978, I was hooked and AH was my forever friend, ASL, Panzer Leader, FlatTop and many others. I then moved over to the computer games and played an old, old game, Under Fire by Avalon Hill. I truly belive this is the great grandfather of CM. Then I played other computer wargames and had fun, but not a real big spark and they came and went.

But then a game comes along and just drops you and it was CM. It was a wargame and a great one. It rolled ASL, History Channel and Under Fire all in one game and I love it still. It thrills me like IL-2 for flight Sims. I am glad it came along.

BigMik1

[SoDak]

[/qb]

[MikeyD]

Along that line, I believe BFC's other product TacOps is being used as an official training aid by at least one branch of the U.S. armed forces. And considering that game's fondness for Canadian troops Canada's probably got a finger in that pie as well.

[Sergei]

Did you notice the latest news? That BFC is making a special version of CMAK for Australian Department of Defence for historical education?

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Did you notice the latest news? That BFC is making a special version of CMAK for Australian Department of Defence for historical education?

Yeah I saw that. I wonder what the differences will be vs the civilian version? Maybe they'll tell us (ahem...nudge-nudge). Interesting stuff.

[Michael Dorosh]

CM is NOT a simulation of anything, full stop, at least not with regards to the player's decision making. It simulates absolutely none of the decisions a real life battalion commander would make, nor a platoon commander, section commander or individual rifleman, tank gunner, driver, etc.

It's a game, not a simulation.

What it does simulate is armour penetration statistics and some ballistics type stuff. It also simulates the passage of time.

Other than that, everything is fudged - ammo factors, casualties, morale - anyone who would suggest CM is an accurate simulation of anything really doesn't know what the distinction is.

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Jack Carr:

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

Did you notice the latest news? That BFC is making a special version of CMAK for Australian Department of Defence for historical education?

Yeah I saw that. I wonder what the differences will be vs the civilian version? Maybe they'll tell us (ahem...nudge-nudge). Interesting stuff. </font>

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

CM is NOT a simulation of anything, full stop, at least not with regards to the player's decision making. It simulates absolutely none of the decisions a real life battalion commander would make, nor a platoon commander, section commander or individual rifleman, tank gunner, driver, etc.

It's a game, not a simulation.

What it does simulate is armour penetration statistics and some ballistics type stuff. It also simulates the passage of time.

Other than that, everything is fudged - ammo factors, casualties, morale - anyone who would suggest CM is an accurate simulation of anything really doesn't know what the distinction is.

Game grog.

Steve

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by SoDak:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

snip...

Anyway, CM raises the level by turning your computer into a WW-II battlefield tactical laboratory (WoBTaL). It may sound presumptive, but a winning CM player could possibly serve with distinction on a Regimental or Battalion Operations Staff of the time....give time-travel to 1944.

-Sarge

I doubt that Its still only a game, not even close to real life issues. </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Jack Carr:

Yeah I saw that. I wonder what the differences will be vs the civilian version? Maybe they'll tell us (ahem...nudge-nudge). Interesting stuff.

I think they already did...

Besides a number of changes to mainly the Australian Order of Battles (ORBAT), Greece will be added as a playable theater.

I doubt this involves an engine rewrite or anything of that sort. Captured equipment used by Aussies etc.

[MikeyD]

Hmmm... sounds like Mr. Dorosh woke up on the wrong side of the shipping container this morning. A bit cranky today? His argument that "CM is not a simulation because" reminds me of those Civil War recreationists who believe if you don't wear dirty underwear and eat rancid biscuits you've spoiled the whole experience. Of course the thing about not dying when shot rings a bit hollow as well.

There must be differing levels of meaning between 'simulation', 'recreation' and 'reenactment'. Would you say CM more reenacts, as opposed to simulates, within the limits of a home computing system? Saying its just a game isn't an answer since who says a game can't simulate -recreate -reenact past times/events?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Hmmm... sounds like Mr. Dorosh woke up on the wrong side of the shipping container this morning. A bit cranky today? His argument that "CM is not a simulation because" reminds me of those Civil War recreationists who believe if you don't wear dirty underwear and eat rancid biscuits you've spoiled the whole experience. Of course the thing about not dying when shot rings a bit hollow as well.

There must be differing levels of meaning between 'simulation', 'recreation' and 'reenactment'. Would you say CM more reenacts, as opposed to simulates, within the limits of a home computing system? Saying its just a game isn't an answer since who says a game can't simulate -recreate -reenact past times/events?

What exactly does CM simulate, then? I suspect my mood has less to do with the conversation than your understanding of what "simulation" means.

[Sergei]

One big difference between CM and RL is that IRL you don't have the luxury of flying around the battlefield inspecting how your men are doing during the battle and at the same time issue orders to all of them every minute (even if you ran around the battlefield all the time, you would risk being killed). There are no supply considerations and only a minimal C&C model. CM commanders don't care how many of their men are left alive after the battle, as long as they get those flags and/or inflict bigger casualties to enemy - IRL a commander could not justify such suicidal behaviour with an AAR screen coming up within 8 minutes, telling if he won or lost.

To some extent CM type games would be handy, but planning an attack involves a lot more than just drawing arrows onto a map.

[SoDak]

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

snip...

Anyway, CM raises the level by turning your computer into a WW-II battlefield tactical laboratory (WoBTaL). It may sound presumptive, but a winning CM player could possibly serve with distinction on a Regimental or Battalion Operations Staff of the time....give time-travel to 1944.

-Sarge

I doubt that Its still only a game, not even close to real life issues. </font>

[Chelco]

A simulation of an hypothetical battle in a specified terrain, with a specified tactical approach and a specified confronting forces. I think that if one CM scenario designer makes an scenario very close to a real life battle and if two CM players move their forces in a similar way as it happened in real life, the digital and real life results would be similar. CM is a WWII tactical combat simulator.

Dorosh is absolutely right in that no commander ever had the amount of control you have over your forces in CM.

[MikeyD]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, the only 'honest' way to properly simulate a discrete 30 minute event in WWII would be for a bunch of guys to get together, to get drafted, go through basic training, invade a foreign country, survive the next year digging latrines and living on rations in the field, and then - in the end -die horribly? Surely there must be varying degrees of simulation that gets the point across short of being spattered with your own gore! If pushing pieces of cardboard across hexagons can be considered a simulation of tactics on the field, why not CM?

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by SoDak:

If we CM fanatics admit that real life tactics tend to work best in most CM situations, then how can that not be an advantagous education to bring to real life WW-II battlefield planning??

I speak primarily of planning. Like Battalion or Regimental S3 staff.

-Sarge

.........

See Michaels post, simple as that. In addition, you are completely ignoring the most important factor in such a scenario; the human one.

Bit different than telling a bunch of bytes what to do, etc.

Michael seems to be picking over the meaning of "simulation" but I get the main point.

However, if your perspective is completely right then why does the modern (and historical) army wargame at all!!?? See:

http://www.nps.navy.mil/or/or-courses/WargamingDS.htm

A quote from above:

Wargaming allows us to maximize combat power at key points on the battlefield by synchronizing all combat elements. It enables us to better anticipate battlefield events and focus efforts on key enemy actions and high payoff targets. The most important outcome of wargaming, however, comes as the staff achieves a common vision of the battlefield. Each staff member knows the plan and his role in achieving success.

How is this different from what I describe??

I'm talking BATTLE-PLANNING here. Clearly, the oft-discussed "borg spotting" in CM does not simulate real-world WW-II battle outcomes. But analyzing the outcome of wargaming in the military has been critical to real life battlefield success....I'd venture to say it would be a decisive advantage on the WW-II battlefield given roughly equal opposing forces.