1:1 Representation in CMx2

[Sergei]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

That is what Steve said right?

So that means that the Tac AI will taking care of where each man positions himself and the player can just sit back and watch I guess.

And that just doesn't work, because the AI is unable of filling shoes that big. It never worked in CC, and even less so in CM (because of turns instead of real time).

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

My sense is that the split platoon or 5-6 man squad may be the smallest controlable element other than snipers.

Just to clear things out, you mean "squad" right Tom ? I ask because there is always some confusion with the usage of "platoon" vs "squads" in various language/army.

Now we are controlling squads and half-squad as the smallest organic unit short of weapon teams. From what I understand, as far as control is concerned, it will remain so, no ?

Cheers

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

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

My sense is that the split platoon or 5-6 man squad may be the smallest controlable element other than snipers.

Just to clear things out, you mean "squad" right Tom ? I ask because there is always some confusion with the usage of "platoon" vs "squads" in various language/army.

Now we are controlling squads and half-squad as the smallest organic unit short of weapon teams. From what I understand, as far as control is concerned, it will remain so, no ?

Cheers </font>

[Sergei]

Have you played Close Combat?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Have you played Close Combat?

OK

you got me

sorry I have no experience with Close Combat

I have been spoiled by CMx1 and besides SimCity (which doesn't count) it is the only wargame I play on the computer. I have played (a little) or tested out several FPS games like Quake or Marathon but they don't count either.

-tom w

[junk2drive]

I have CC2 and CC5. I got too old for them.

I tried the demos for Blitzkreig and EYSA before buying CMBB. Everything is off my HD except CM.

[Stan Hope Park]

I still enjoy Close Combat.

(... does that mean I'll be *expelled* from this forum?!!)

[Sergei]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

sorry I have no experience with Close Combat

Well, the thing about 1:1 representation and modelling is that even if you're not directly controlling every man, you still have to baby sit them. Is the LMG man positioned so that he can see the enemy? Why is the sergeant sitting outside his foxhole? Why is everyone piled up together while under mortar fire? Why the hell did that rifleman crawl out of cover and spoil the ambush???

Since Close Combat is real time, you could give your squad an order to regroup if their formation was funny. And another order. And another. Every split second, until you were satisfied. But CMX2 is still going to be turn-based, so the player has no way to hold the AI from hand more than once every 60 seconds. And that is a recipe for disaster.

The AI simply can't do what the player would want it to do. This is already the case in CM when squads panic (just ask Redwolf), but if every soldier's location on the map is recorded individually, the problem takes place on every second of the game.

But I trust that it won't be done that way. At least the positions of the soldiers should be hidden, to prevent micro management (and to prevent disillusionment at the idiocy of grunts).

[Gpig]

Close Combat almost always got it right, Sergei. Those little squads of men "Usually" positioned in a way that made sense.

When they did get it wrong, it was a BIG pain in the ass. Maybe that's why we all hated that part of it so much. Because when your little soldiers get it wrong, they tended to die right quick.

But by saying that in CC2 "It never worked," well that's just a plain exaggeration.

I understand your worries, however.

It would be just as painfull in CM to watch your squad assault a position as part of a carefully laid attack. Then you'd pull your hair out as the squad lines itself up on the wrong side of a building with three guys left out in the alley - blowing your plan all to hell. (and getting themselves killed off.)

I believe it will work. But there will be chanllenges for BF to work out, all right.

CC2 sure was fun. A lot of the players here have played it. Including Steve, I think. So you're safe, CSO_Talorgan. Heh heh.

I think.

Gpig

[aka_tom_w]

Maybe I am just plain wrong about this but if you can play the game with the 3 man abstracted squad and not get any of them killed because they are somehow "left out of position" why can't you do the same thing when you see ALL ten men?

NOW granted sometimes you would send a 10 man unit into a house that was full and some of them got stuck outside, but the game moved on and the player learned how many units a standard house can hold.

Why is it we cannot expect the game and the TacAI to take care of 10 little pixel soldiers in the same way it used to take good care of the 3 little pixel soldiers the same way all three CMx1 games did? BUT we get to see 10 pixel soldiers instead of 3 pixel soldiers.

I am not so worried about this issue. I trust Steve to let us feel free to trust the TacAI when he tells us there will not be 1:1 control of ALL the pixel soldiers.

-tom w

[ January 23, 2005, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Why is it we cannot expect the game and the TacAI to take care of 10 little pixel soldiers in the same way it used to take good care of the 3 little pixel soldiers the same way all three CMx1 games did? BUT we get to see 10 pixel soldiers instead of 3 pixel soldiers.

No, you are misunderstanding the issue.

At the moment, those 3 guys are just an icon for a squad. They don't move relative to each other, they just tell that the squad still has over 2/3's of its men left.

What some people seem to want, God knows why, is that instead of having icons for units, each single soldier should be kept track of and shown on the map. To them, this equals realism. To me, it equals grafix at the expense of realism and playability. At the level of a Battalion commander, you are not worrying about what individual soldiers are doing. You are thinking of bigger things.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Wow… the pictures from Gpig do look great.

I was not really bothered about the graphics and such, but when the potential of what may await us is shown it certainly does look like fun.

Glad to hear it will be 1:1 representation and not control. The scale of CM is a big part of the magic. i.e. squad not individual soldier. In my view.

All the best,

Kip.

[aka_tom_w]

I don't know..... :confused:

This sounds good to me:

"Obviously, if you are smart you'll see that we're not going to implement 1:1 control, but are going to do 1:1 visual and 1:1 modeling. "

-Steve

"Battlefront.com

Administrator

Member # 42

posted January 21, 2005 12:15 AM                         

1:1 representation sure does open up a big can of worms. It's one of the reasons why we did not attempt it for CMx1 (though hardware wouldn't have allowed it anyway). However, as has already been pointed out one should not confuse 1:1 graphical represenation with 1:1 modeling or 1:1 control. Three different concepts.

From a GAME standpoint, 1:1 graphical representation is the most important. If I were to make a Top Ten list of complaints from general gamers about CMx1, this would probably be the #2 complaint (#1 is the lack of ridiculously detailed and textured models) constant throughout all three games.

From a REALISM standpoint the most important thing is the 1:1 modeling. Though it is very difficult to do this without the 1:1 graphical represenation, it is certainly possible to do. We could have had individuals run away from generic 3 man squads or more detailed soldier stats. But without 1:1 representation this all seemed kinda hollow so we kept the level of modeling in line with the degree of visual representation. Now that we are increasing the latter, we will also be increasing the modeling to stay in balance. There will still be abstractions, just not nearly as many as there are now.

The interesting thing is that most "gamers" and "grognards" is that they probably pretty much agree that 1:1 control is undesirable. There is already enough to pay attention to without having to get Pvt. Pyle to move 0.5 meters to the left of the tree he is behind so he can get a shot off. It also turns the focus to individual soldiers instead of units and the formations they belong to.

Obviously, if you are smart you'll see that we're not going to implement 1:1 control, but are going to do 1:1 visual and 1:1 modeling. The results should make the game more fun to play and also far more realistic. There will be issues we need to work through to make sure it all works happily together, but that's the sort of thing you guys pay us for when you buy the game "

Steve

[Thomm]

I think that some of the problems in CC come from the fact that the AI does not know the concept of 'houses' or 'bunkers' or 'trenches'. All it sees is 2x2 meter terrain tiles that have different attributes. Building tiles are rather attractive in terms of cover and concealment, so men are trying to go there.

If the AI knew that those terrain tiles belong to a building then it can act accordingly and cram more soldiers in if necessary. Plus, those soldiers would understand what walls are and take up appropriate firing positions. Don't think that would be too hard to code.

Lets take CM's bunkers: a great improvement over the tile heaps of CC. Nobody seems to care that they cannot see what is going inside the CM bunkers and those bunkers behave just as they should. So I think that the proper object representation can work wonders here.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Stan Hope Park]

Originally posted by Gpig:

CC2 sure was fun. A lot of the players here have played it. Including Steve, I think. So you're safe, CSO_Talorgan. Heh heh.

Phew! Not even a little light flogging?! )

Remember though that Close Combat is primarily an infantry game set at a lower level and on smaller maps than Combat Mission. It's a much earlier game and the two cannot be directly compared.

In Close Combat you can mod squad sizes and weapons (which is why I keep trying to get an answer from Steve about tailoring CMX2's orbat.) If you mod squad size down to say four, daft behaviour is reduced, and the whole thing becomes a lot more manageable. If you want an 8-man bayonet charge (unusual) you just use two of your 4-man squads. Patience, careful positioning, firepower, and being frugal with ammunition are better answers though.

I should point out some deficiencies in Close Combat which hopefully CMX2 will not be a victim of. Firstly, there is something wrong with the scale of individual men in Close Combat. Vehicles, men and buildings are all out of kilter. More than six men and you have difficulty fitting them all in under one roof. Ridiculous, yes.

Secondly, mortars are unrealistically accurate in Close Combat. So large groups of men make juicy targets. You can't miss!

I still enjoy Close Combat in spite of these deficiencies. It still gives me tachycardia. (First time I played I had PTSD!)

If CMX2 matches Close Combat by representing the individual soldier with the more realistic buildings and mortar fire already present in current incarnations of Combat Mission, we are all in for a treat.

[Halberdiers]

Since Close Combat is real time...But CMX2 is still going to be turn-based... every 60 seconds...

Sergei,

Take in mind that those 60 seconds of action movie in CM are RETROSPECTIVE !!!

In other words: the turn based game made the movie when the AI know all your orders and make all the calculations. Then , the RTS animation never will be better in realism and accuracy than a Turn based animation.

[ January 23, 2005, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Sirocco]

The advantage for CM2 over CC is that the AI can pre-calculate positioning. The AI doesn't have one eye on the clock, at least not even close to the same extent. It isn't doing it all on the fly.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Halberdiers:

[...] the turn based game made the movie when the AI know all your orders and make all the calculations. Then , the RTS animation never will be better in realism and accuracy than a Turn based animation.

Right. But the animation remains the basis for order and situationnal awareness. I mean the player must base his estimates, observations, and contingencies for action on his perception of these animations. So the visual must be quite in line with the abstracted values within the game in order to get the player to decide along valid parameters.

Cheers

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Halberdiers:

In other words: the turn based game made the movie when the AI know all your orders and make all the calculations. Then , the RTS animation never will be better in realism and accuracy than a Turn based animation.

Once you hit that GO! button, you can't correct any stupidities by the AI for a minute. And the stupidity of the AI is too substantial to ignore for a time that long and on a scale that affects every man of yours.

[JonS]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

"Obviously, if you are smart you'll see that we're not going to implement 1:1 control, but are going to do 1:1 visual and 1:1 modelling. "

-Steve

Let's see:

* No to 1:1 control - already in CMx1

* Yes to 1:1 visual - new to CMx2, but personally it's right up there with swaying trees and moving stars

* Yes to 1:1 modelling - already in CMx1 (though it may be handled in a more sophisticated and/or transparent manner)

I get the strong suspicion that in CMx2 squads are still going to be modelled as a single point, with the only difference being that there will be 10 sprites instead of 3. There's nothing wrong with that, at the level that CM is pitched, but it's not a lot to get excited about.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

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

"Obviously, if you are smart you'll see that we're not going to implement 1:1 control, but are going to do 1:1 visual and 1:1 modelling. "

-Steve

Let's see:

* No to 1:1 control - already in CMx1

* Yes to 1:1 visual - new to CMx2, but personally it's right up there with swaying trees and moving stars

* Yes to 1:1 modelling - already in CMx1 (though it may be handled in a more sophisticated and/or transparent manner)

I get the strong suspicion that in CMx2 squads are still going to be modelled as a point, with the only difference being that there will be 10 sprites instead of 3. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Never confuse an implementation of something with what is possible or not. Meaning, just because you play Game X with Feature Y does not mean that Game Z will play exactly the same. If you want a dose of reality in that sense, pick up the other 3D tactical WWII game out there and see how closely it compares to CMBO What I mean by this is that nobody should judge what we can do, or not do, based on what some other group of guys did 10 years ago in a 2D enviroment that worked on a 486 (or a Mac IIci in my case ).

Now, as it so happens you guys that were painfully hoping to rearranging your CC men probably were wasting your time. While CC was certainly 1:1 Graphically, it was not 1:1 Modeled. Unless my memory is playing big tricks on me, much to the contrary of sycophant ramblings a CC unit was no different than a CMx1 unit in that all LOS, LOF, and location calcs were based on a single spot. That means 3 guys of a CC squad on the wrong side of the wall were likely in no danger if the system though of the center of the unit as being on the correct side of the wall. If the system thought the unit was on the incorrect side of the way, the 3 guys on the "protected" side were vulnerable even though they looked protected. I don't remember exactly how the CC system worked, but like I said... unless my memory is getting bad it worked pretty much like this and not like you guys think it did.

Having said that, it isn't as hard to control individual guys within a single unit as it is to control multiple units. The reason is that telling something like a rifle team (to use CC scale) to move to location X effectively defines where the 3, 4, or 6 guys should go to. Now, think of telling a platoon to "take x objective". The AI now has to move several pieces, which are inherently separate from each other, in a way that makes sense. In real life this could mean leaving one Squad (of two teams) behind, moving one Squad (of two teams) down a road 30m to the left, and telling the other Squad (of two teams) to do a zig-zag assault over an open field, but only after the second team arrives on target.

See the difference? If not, read this

The less variation there is in general location, type, and expected behavior, the easier it is for an AI to get it right. The more varried the locations, types, and behaviors the more complicated. Telling the AI to move 6 or 12 guys to "go to this wall and lay down suppressive fire" is a lot easier for the AI than "move these 34 guys in any one of a million ways to take that farmhouse".

Git it now?

Steve

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Unless my memory is playing big tricks on me, much to the contrary of sycophant ramblings a CC unit was no different than a CMx1 unit in that all LOS, LOF, and location calcs were based on a single spot. That means 3 guys of a CC squad on the wrong side of the wall were likely in no danger if the system though of the center of the unit as being on the correct side of the wall. If the system thought the unit was on the incorrect side of the way, the 3 guys on the "protected" side were vulnerable even though they looked protected.

Both common sense and experience tells the opposite. Guys that are placed out of cover, for example in the street, are disposed of rather quickly, much to the dismay of the player, while soldiers from the same squad who are inside the house next to it remain undetected.

Best regards,

Thomm

[junk2drive]

While searching for something else I came across this thead from 2003 containing Steve's comments on 1:1 in the next game.

CC better than CM

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

While searching for something else I came across this thead from 2003 containing Steve's comments on 1:1 in the next game.

CC better than CM

Thanks that was an interesting thread.

It would seem there seems to some disagreement as to how individual soldier control was modeled in CC. I have never played CC so I have no experience.

Steve seems quite certain that exactly where the player places the location of each individual soldier does not or should not make any difference to incomeing fire because the squad unit is only in one spot to determine the calculation of incoming fire, so the guy you have on the wrong side of the wall is in the same kind of abstracted cover as the rests of the squad on the "good" side of the wall. :confused: ?

Does anyone else here have any other experience with 1:1 modeling and control in CC?

I am curious about this issue.

-tom w