What do we want in the next Combat Mission game

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Kilroy Lurking:

Would'n't it be nice if the game engine did'nt take control over the screen after the "Go" button is hit - one could zoom and roam all over the map and enjoy all those great mods etc. while'st that little blue line crawls along its appointed path.

Probably wouldn't work unless there is a huge leap in average computer power. The reason your screen freezes during turn crunching is that it requires all your CPU can give. Otherwise, you'd be waiting a week or so for your turns. That might get boring even with lots of things to look at.

(How about a thread titled "How I pass the time while the AI ponders".)

Feel free. Sounds like fun. Put it up in the GF though.

:cool:

Michael

[ March 30, 2004, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

I think the ability to look over the next hill and work out the ideal route of advance tree clump by tree clump, is one of the least realistic parts of the game.

You are right, but there's no easy solution to this problem. Besides, there are crazies extant who want even more information, i.e., to be able to check LOS from points on the map where they don't even have units yet! Go figure...

Michael

[30ot6]

Originally posted by mrpwase:

Improved graphics would be good IMHO - while looking good at the moment...

Strongly disagree with you there. The animations in CMAK are almost certainly the worst of any game released in 2003. That's where the graphics need the most work, as well as the addition of shading. Your suggestion about rooms inside buildings is good, though, perhaps even an essential enhancement. Building warfare in CM right now is entirely unrealistic.

WWB has had the best points so far, I would also recommend making it possible to import 3D objects. To my mind, however, the best thing Battlefront could do at this point is ditch the current system entirely and rethink everything taking into account all that has been learned from CM.

Essentially CM right now is ASL on steroids. Player has a gods eye view and manually controls evey individual unit. While it was good way to start, the limitations of this system have been reached, and I think it should now be dumped entirely. To make CM truly realistic, some major changes need to be made.

First, CMx2 would have to switch to a limited ground level commander view; best case would be having an on screen character in the form of the commander whose shoes you are filling. I prefer 3rd person views to 1st person because the peripheral vision you get in third person is actually more realistic than what you get in 1st person.

Second, a much more realistic method of communication would have to be implemented, meaning runners and radios. For example, lets assume you're filling the role of a company commander. You want 1st platoon to move forward and scout a neck of trees. So you send give the command to your runner, who goes to your 1st platoon commander. He carries out the orders, and then sends a runner back to you, relaying situation and geography. I don't know if this is the way it actually worked in WWII, but you get the picture.

Third, turn based isn't realistic. Real time is. Time to make the switch and throw the binds of table top wargaming forever.

If these three changes were implemented, I think we would actually start getting close to resembling real combat. I don't want to get into the "realism isn't fun" debate. I don't care, the purist in me wants it as realistic as possible no matter the cost. It can be argued that CMBB was less fun than CMBO, but I'll play second generation CM over CMBO any day, because the improvements make it seriously more realistic.

Why do some of us want things as realistic as possible, even at cost of sacrificing fun? I suppose its because we don't play wargames just to be entertained; we have a fascination with war. Maybe because we had a grandparent in the war, or because of a movie or a book we read, who knows. The bottom line is we are interested in it and want, in a very real sense, to experience it. We want to relive our grandfather's battles, to fight the depserate stands of Easy Comany at Bastogne, and get real idea of what it was like to be a soldier in World War II. I want to come as close the real experience as possible, no matter what, short of "having bullets come out of the screen," to borrow Dorosh's(or was it Emry's?) phrase.

So I will always advocate more realism, and more realism, and more realism. Limited view, realistic communications and unlimited time given available to the commander for planning are the areas where, as I see it, CM falls flat on its face, and so I think in those areas the game should be fundamentally changed.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by 30ot6:

Third, turn based isn't realistic. Real time is.

Not necessarily. While it fits nicely with the role playing game that it looks like you are moving towards in your desires, it does not fit well with a game like CM where you are required to play the parts of many people at once. There just isn't time to do that in a real time simulation unless it has a pause feature that allows you to give orders. In that case, it would be better described as a continuous time game.

Time to make the switch and throw the binds of table top wargaming forever.

But then, I think table top gaming was exactly the feel that the designers were after. It certainly is appreciated by a large body of CM gamers, if their posts are anything to go by.

Michael

[Pinetree]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

I think the ability to look over the next hill and work out the ideal route of advance tree clump by tree clump, is one of the least realistic parts of the game.

You are right, but there's no easy solution to this problem. Besides, there are crazies extant who want even more information, i.e., to be able to check LOS from points on the map where they don't even have units yet! Go figure...

Michael </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Pinetree:

Why not have a C&C style map where you can only see what your troops see and have the unseen parts represented by topograpical symbols.So while you can't see the ground you still have a reasonable idea what it is.just my $0.02

That's an idea that has been kicked around from time to time for a while now. Some version of that would probably be okay with me. It remains to be seen what BFC decides to go with.

Michael

[Pinetree]

Hopefully we'll also be able to capture and then use enemy weapons and vehicles, but perhaps with penalties, á la ASL,

[REVS]

Mr Emrys opined

Besides, there are crazies extant who want even more information, i.e., to be able to check LOS from points on the map where they don't even have units yet! Go figure...

Look at it this way: this game doesn't allow for any meaningful kind of scouting by individuals, or the assistance of local information, and such a "crazy" idea would model the effects of reconaissance, scouting and intelligence gathering. ie, "Sir, this local farm lad says the wooded rise just to the right of hill 324 can see all the way to the crossroads" If such a facility could be turned on and off in the game preferences, why would that be such a crazy bummer? If you like it, use it. If you don't like, don't use it. Isn't that a radical idea?

[tar]

OK, my two cents:

Model related.

I would like to see more orthagonality in the design. Terrain and overlays like fences, roads, buildings has already been mentioned. This could also be extended to orders, so that one could choose combinable attributes. For example movement speed and attention to cover or spotting -- rather than wrapping arbitrary choices together.

I would like to see the ability to more effectively hide, especially in buildings from tanks in the street.

Lines of fire being dangerous. One should not be able to shoot through one's own troops without penalty. Also, gunfire that goes through the target, not just being in a pinpoint area. That would force more careful arrangement of assaults, and also add additional benefits to flanking a line of troops: you can shoot them all.

Tanks that are a bit more blind and unable to fire at really close-in infantry.

Ability to blow bridges during play.

Scenario Design:

More flexibility in victory conditions. Allow scenario designers to assign weights to each sides point categories, and possibly even to subgroupings of units. That would open more possibilities for balanced games with asymmetric forces. One side, for example, could have losses count 2x as much as the other. Same for flags. Let the point values be asymmetric.

Time-dependent victory points and conditions. Allow flags, for example, to have time varying values. This would make delaying actions easier to create if the flags lost value over time. In this case, victory points would either accrue for time of possession or based on the last turn-over of the flag. Once a flag had become worthless, the defenders could abandon it. Time dependent exit zones and the ability for both sides to exit the same edge of the map. A defender, for example, could have a rising value of exited units with time, while the attacker would have a declining value.

I liked the suggestion for events as well. Imagine a situation where a (perhaps random) event occurs which changes the "orders" of the units. Suddenly, the attacker in a probe gets a large reinforcement and an exit zone opens for the defender. The defenders are ordered to retreat and save what they can...

Ability to give points for demolition of particular objects. For example to allow a raid scenario where the goal is to destroy particular structures on a map.

Player controlled reserve forces. Allow players to call for reserves or perhaps to request particular sorts of reserves. If entered, they do so with a VP cost. Particularly if something like this could be done for QBs, then some of the rock-paper-scissors guessing game might go out of unit purchases.

[RawRecruit]

How about the ability to blow anything, not just bridges. If you have engineers they could rig a couple of those buildings just outside your MLR when on defense.

Troops boot door in...storm into building...building goes sky high... :eek:

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by REVS:

Mr Emrys opined

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Besides, there are crazies extant who want even more information, i.e., to be able to check LOS from points on the map where they don't even have units yet! Go figure...

Look at it this way: this game doesn't allow for any meaningful kind of scouting by individuals, or the assistance of local information, and such a "crazy" idea would model the effects of reconaissance, scouting and intelligence gathering. ie, "Sir, this local farm lad says the wooded rise just to the right of hill 324 can see all the way to the crossroads" If such a facility could be turned on and off in the game preferences, why would that be such a crazy bummer? If you like it, use it. If you don't like, don't use it. Isn't that a radical idea? </font>

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

Why not have a C&C style map where you can only see what your troops see and have the unseen parts represented by topograpical symbols.So while you can't see the ground you still have a reasonable idea what it is.just my $0.02

That's an idea that has been kicked around from time to time for a while now. Some version of that would probably be okay with me.

Michael </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by tar:

Lines of fire being dangerous. One should not be able to shoot through one's own troops without penalty. Also, gunfire that goes through the target, not just being in a pinpoint area. That would force more careful arrangement of assaults, and also add additional benefits to flanking a line of troops: you can shoot them all.

I VERY strongly agree with this.

Tanks that are a bit more blind and unable to fire at really close-in infantry.

Another good idea.

Ability to blow bridges during play.

Yeah, but of a lesser priority.

More flexibility in victory conditions. Allow scenario designers to assign weights to each sides point categories, and possibly even to subgroupings of units. That would open more possibilities for balanced games with asymmetric forces. One side, for example, could have losses count 2x as much as the other. Same for flags. Let the point values be asymmetric.

Time-dependent victory points and conditions. Allow flags, for example, to have time varying values. This would make delaying actions easier to create if the flags lost value over time. In this case, victory points would either accrue for time of possession or based on the last turn-over of the flag. Once a flag had become worthless, the defenders could abandon it. Time dependent exit zones and the ability for both sides to exit the same edge of the map. A defender, for example, could have a rising value of exited units with time, while the attacker would have a declining value.

I liked the suggestion for events as well. Imagine a situation where a (perhaps random) event occurs which changes the "orders" of the units. Suddenly, the attacker in a probe gets a large reinforcement and an exit zone opens for the defender. The defenders are ordered to retreat and save what they can...

These all strike me as good ideas and can, I think, be lumped together as "Dynamic Victory Conditions".

Ability to give points for demolition of particular objects. For example to allow a raid scenario where the goal is to destroy particular structures on a map.

A couple of months ago I was pondering some more elaborate rules intended to better depict raids. I think this is an interesting area and I may get back to you on this. For now, I would suggest inclusion of such things as capturing prisoners and successfully returning with them, reaching certain points on the map (but different from existing VL rules), destroying certain enemy equipment and/or facilities, and other points.

Player controlled reserve forces. Allow players to call for reserves or perhaps to request particular sorts of reserves. If entered, they do so with a VP cost. Particularly if something like this could be done for QBs, then some of the rock-paper-scissors guessing game might go out of unit purchases.

I also like the idea that I posted in the Scenario Talk Forum a few months back and has also been suggested by others here of having reserves/reinforcements triggered by attacking forces reaching certain points on the map or inflicting a certain level of casualties.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by REVS:

Look at it this way: this game doesn't allow for any meaningful kind of scouting by individuals...

This is a recogized problem for which many solutions have been offered. I just don't happen to think yours is very elegant. That is, I think it would create as many new problems if not more, than it would solve.

or the assistance of local information...

But this was so rare as to not be worth modeling in my view. What's more, the information when available had nothing to do with whether an LOS was going to exist between two points on the map. Ordinary people just didn't go around checking for that and memorizing it in case a friendly army should come along and need it.

...and such a "crazy" idea would model the effects of reconaissance, scouting and intelligence gathering.

But much better suggestions have been put forward for other ways of accomplishing that end. Just one of those is to include a topo map in the briefing that has suspected or observed enemy positions marked.

If such a facility could be turned on and off in the game preferences...

Even if it were decided to go this route, there would have to be some way to reliably inform an opposing player whether you were using it or not. Otherwise, it would be a big cheat.

Michael

[REVS]

Moving onto another aspect of "realism", will the next generation of CM somehow model that trivial, incidental military matter called "lack of supplies".

(I believe there were these chaps called staff officers who worried about this stuff constantly. Apparently it had an effect on the outcome of "real" battles.)

At the moment, all that wonderful strategic bridge, factory, shipping and rail line bombing by the Allies with air superiority seems to have no effect whatsoever on all my German opponents.

The main guy I play against specialises in Conscripts, and no matter how much we Allies break the Enigma codes and bomb the crap out of his supply lines, he shows up with this amazing array of cheap Tigers with full fuel and full ammo, oodles of well-stocked guns: in fact a whole supermarket full of bargain basement German boys in peak condition, in the most amazing variety. And he can have whatever he likes, and it's there! Something tells me it's not quite realistic.

In the next rendition of this good-fun CM "game", I wonder whether the realism grogs could model in the practical effects of a chronic lack of fuel and equipment? Maybe lower ammo levels, maybe very restricted movement capabilities, maybe greater rarity penalties for truly obscure and wanky bits of gear? Maybe even the non-appearance of unlikely "wish-list" purchases of gear? Wouldn't that be realistic?

"Hey, but we ordered three shiny new Panthers, and all we get is those two clapped-out Mk IVs?"

Then we might get somewhere closer to modelling the fighting that went on in the latter years of the war.

At the moment, CM is predicated on the assumption that somehow, Hitler and his cronies actually cranked up the German economy to the max of production, survived all the strategic bombing, and didn't have their Enigma codes compromised.

I know these are minor quibbles that hardly related to the cherished notions of battlefield "reality" that dominate debate here, but I thought I'd be a pest and raise them, anyway.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by REVS:

Moving onto another aspect of "realism", will the next generation of CM somehow model that trivial, incidental military matter called "lack of supplies".

There are various ways that lack of supplies can already be modeled in CM, ammo levels being one. I suppose in a roundabout way the fitness levels of the soldiers and their casualties might be considered another, but agreed that would be a bit imprecise.

(I believe there were these chaps called staff officers who worried about this stuff constantly. Apparently it had an effect on the outcome of "real" battles.)

At the moment, all that wonderful strategic bridge, factory, shipping and rail line bombing by the Allies with air superiority seems to have no effect whatsoever on all my German opponents.

I have a feeling that the supply effects you have in mind are more aptly protrayed at the operational level. (One reason why I prefer operational level games, BTW.)

The main guy I play against specialises in Conscripts, and no matter how much we Allies break the Enigma codes and bomb the crap out of his supply lines, he shows up with this amazing array of cheap Tigers with full fuel and full ammo, oodles of well-stocked guns: in fact a whole supermarket full of bargain basement German boys in peak condition, in the most amazing variety. And he can have whatever he likes, and it's there! Something tells me it's not quite realistic.

A consistent, nagging realism quibble all along is that armored vehicles are seen much more often on the CM battlefield than they ever were on the real battlefields of WW II. Especially the German tanks.

The problem is that gamers like to play with tanks. If the game really tried very hard to force them to forego tanks, sales of the game would probably go down. Not much incentive for BFC there.

I think you need to find another opponent who shares your views on this matter and will honorably abide by gentlemen's agreements on whether to include armor or not in a given battle.

In the next rendition of this good-fun CM "game", I wonder whether the realism grogs could model in the practical effects of a chronic lack of fuel and equipment? Maybe lower ammo levels, maybe very restricted movement capabilities, maybe greater rarity penalties for truly obscure and wanky bits of gear? Maybe even the non-appearance of unlikely "wish-list" purchases of gear? Wouldn't that be realistic?

I'm not so sure about restricted movement capabilities. If they had enough fuel to be committed to the battlefield, they moved as well as any other time. Your other ideas merit consideration though.

"Hey, but we ordered three shiny new Panthers, and all we get is those two clapped-out Mk IVs?"

Heh. More likely a couple of clapped out StuGs.

At the moment, CM is predicated on the assumption that somehow, Hitler and his cronies actually cranked up the German economy to the max of production, survived all the strategic bombing, and didn't have their Enigma codes compromised.

I don't think so. All those things have their effects primarily on the strategic and operational levels. Once the stuff got to a CM-level battle, it fought about as well as it ever did.

Again, I think the problem with CM is many fold. One, as already stated, players cherry pick the big kitties in numbers and frequency that are wildly inflated.

Secondly, if you go strictly by the odds that the game offers (in order to produce a "balanced" game), it creates a scarcity for the attacker that is in many cases unhistoric. It's okay if you mean to represent a holding or spoiling attack, but if you are trying to depict a main effort, you need to bump up the points alloted to the attacker by a whole big bunch. The Allies from the end of 1943 on especially had lots of stuff including an absolutely incredible amount of artillery to throw at the enemy (except for that period in the late summer and autumn of '44 when they were closing with the West Wall and outran their supply lines).

I know these are minor quibbles that hardly related to the cherished notions of battlefield "reality" that dominate debate here...

Not at all. They are real concerns that have come up many times over the years. Some partial solutions and workarounds have developed, but real problems with the game still exist. That may have something to do with why BFC is so eager to get to work on the second generation engine.

Michael

[REVS]

Good answers all-round, Michael!

But, warming to the theme. Wouldn't it be luverly (to paraphrase E. Doolittle) if people asking to buy any gear with a rarity value beyond 0% were subject to a random "sorry, not available, but here's your substitute crap" inclusion (hence the STGIIIsubstituted for the Panther scenario), but charged at the full price. That would tend to make the supermarket shoppers a bit more wary and standardised in their choices.

When you look at the mind-numbing boredom of the standardised choices available to Allied players in CM, versus the cornucopia of exotica available to Axis chaps, the game needs to bridge this gap between one side having an incredibly large range of specialist gear, and the other having a limited, if versatile, range of all-rounder capabilities.

The basic strength, strategically, of the limited Allied choice is the plentifulness of spares, and their ready supply and versatility. The basic weakness of the "many-different-models" approach of the Axis is the lack of spares, etc. But this incredibly important factor doesn't rate in CM at the moment. Realism is the loser, big time.

I just cannot take the various "realism" debates all that seriously. They're always so tactical in nature.

That's why I plump for completely outrageous, gamey, unrealism, because that's where I think this game is at. That's what it does best.

Now, this may come as a disappointment to its creators and many fans, because that is not what they set out to achieve. But I'd like the next generation of CM to try to be both things to its fans. Both a great game for people not particularly bothered by "realism" in the tactical sense, and a great "military simulator" for people who really cannot grapple with the "if only" sad fact that the German military machine was beaten by a lack of industrial might, and a lack of strategic airpower.

I get the feeling that this aint gonna happen, nor will ever be admitted, but CM is a wonderful game, and may its next format be a better, but equally wonderful, game.

[stikkypixie]

But, warming to the theme. Wouldn't it be luverly (to paraphrase E. Doolittle) if people asking to buy any gear with a rarity value beyond 0% were subject to a random "sorry, not available, but here's your substitute crap" inclusion (hence the STGIIIsubstituted for the Panther scenario), but charged at the full price. That would tend to make the supermarket shoppers a bit more wary and standardised in their choices.

Now that would be nice for multiplayer games, for example 4 vs 4 and there is only 3 tigers available, i can imagine it already.

[tar]

Local Terrain & Other Recon.

Well, if we're just brainstorming...

This may not be practical, but what if it were possible to have hidden "information" objects in the game. That way a scenario designer could but such an information source in a farmhouse. The source would have a region defined, and any enemy forces in that region would be described to the player encountering the source.

For example: There are three tanks and 2 platoons of infantry in the village.

This would have to be dynamic, and ideally but perhaps not practically, subject to a delay of some number of turns. A dynamic delay is probably too difficult, but perhaps it could report what was in the region after the setup turn.

The only drawback is that having such a facility would mean that the scenarios involved would not have replay value.

[WWB]

Good stuff here. Especially terrain FOW. There are alot of scenarios I have data on that I could not do because they did revolve around tanks blundering into soft ground and such.

Regarding dynamic victory conditions, that can be rolled into the event engine to some extent. They really do go hand in hand. But the general idea to move towards mission-based, not casualty-based, scoring is a very good one IMHO.

WWB

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by tar:

This may not be practical, but what if it were possible to have hidden "information" objects in the game. That way a scenario designer could but such an information source in a farmhouse. The source would have a region defined, and any enemy forces in that region would be described to the player encountering the source.

I don't see this happening often enough on the CM timescale to justify inclusion.

It would make some sense in an operational level game, though, where the turns would be 6-8 hours long or longer.

Michael

[yacinator]

Originally posted by RawRecruit:

How about the ability to blow anything, not just bridges. If you have engineers they could rig a couple of those buildings just outside your MLR when on defense.

Troops boot door in...storm into building...building goes sky high... :eek:

can u tell engineers to blow a bridge by putting a target on it? will they just shoot at it with rifles or will they rig it up for detnation? i've never tried

"Sir, this local farm lad says the wooded rise just to the right of hill 324 can see all the way to the crossroads"

if they added civilians u could have a command interrogate and force interrogate. if u force intoerrogated the civilian might lie, but if he does u can always light up the village...

also in an opperation word might spread of your acts of violence against civilians (if u leave survivors or let other civilians see the aftermath) they will be more likely to lie even if u use normal interrogate no "force"

[Doghouse Reily]

Would like to see the early years 39-41 before

the game moves on to modern warfare.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Joachim:

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

I think the next Combat Mission game should return to Normandy. This needn’t be a repetition of CMBO if you take into account the possible enhancements that could be included such as;

1. Amphibious beach assaults and terrain; LCT’s, sand, dunes, obstacles etc

Why? There weren't so many besides D-Day in Europe</font>

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by 30ot6:

Third, turn based isn't realistic. Real time is. Time to make the switch and throw the binds of table top wargaming forever.

Turn based is not realistic, but it isn't to bad... Real Time is so divorced from reality that it is completely laughable. Turn based with time limits would be the closest to reality that I can think of