1:1 Representation in CMx2

[hoolaman]

Well as much as I would like to endorse what Gpig has done, I much prefer Sergei's effort.

I will print it out and stick it on my refrigerator.

And after all Sergei has signed it as an original in his best letters.....

[Ace Pilot]

I'll add my thanks to Gpig, both for his artwork and his comments - spot on. I hope you continue to grace us with your contributions.

Now, tell us, Gpig - whose grass mod are you using?

[i can't believe it has taken until page 7 for the grass mod comment to show up. This forum is really slipping.]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Gpig:

[QB] Mr. Dorosh, you truly are a grognard.

After four years here I still don't know if this is an insult or not!

You, sir, are indeed an artist, which can't be taken any way other than a compliment.

I should know better than to try and defend myself from someone who loves to hate, but here goes . . .

Oh come on, no need to defend yourself, you're not being attacked. And I don't love to hate, I love to be hated...and don't think this long exchange of messages makes you my mortal enemy, I would never share mutual animus with someone I perceived as being more talented than myself, so you're off my list.

I stand here accused of showmanship, rude behaviour and worse.

Not in the least - I just don't see that the drawings are relevant at this point in time. Despite KC's continued desire to show himself incapable of deeper thought and analysis. If the drawings we've seen represent what CMX2's 1:1 representation will look like, that's fine. He either meant in a superficial way (meaning the soldiers will actually be more spread out but your storyboards are a general approximation), or else literally, in which case the 1:1 representation in the game will be just as non-representational as the current 2 or 3 sprites. (Either way is fine by me, incidentally). Check out the way soldiers in Operation Flashpoint move, for example - distances between men, etc.

I bought the book you referred to by Matthew Gajkowski, in fact that's where I got the squad placement, marching order, positions and deployment ideas from.

The defensive position is just an "idea" about how a squad of 12 men might appear in a CM setting. If -you- had to place 12 men in foxholes on a CM map, how would -you- do it? Bearing in mind the current spacing that a squad takes up in CM. How much space your other 2 squads take up. Plus where the 3 to 9 men in your HQ squad would set up and still be in command range. Would you put them in a big circular crater? 12 men in a hole (like it is now?) Or would you set about trying to figure out a way to disperse those men?

This is my problem with 1:1 representation that everyone keeps crying out for. I don't think it's terribly necessary until it can be done well. Check out page 28 for the sketch on defensive positions. They need to be mutually supporting, but spread out and taking advantage of the terrain . This was the problem in CC - if you have prearranged formations, etc. it guarantees you won't have guys in optimal - or even logical - places. Do we want to micromanage individual foxholes? Probably not. If the code can actually manage to get squads in decent positions on their own, I'll look forward to that.

The other pictures are just visualizing "out loud." I feel you may have misinterpreted my intention. It was just to share in the Sesame Street sense. You remember Sesame Street, right?

I liked the Electric Company better, it was written to a higher level. I think your illustrations were an excellent visual aid, I just think the depictions are taking the conversation in a direction other than what would be hoped for CMX2 - ie if 1:1 representation is going to have soldiers walking too close together, and settling into hokey defensive positions, no thanks. If they can get the little sprites to act with some randomness, proper spacing, and make individual use of cover like the troops in Op Flashpoint, we will have a winner.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

"I think your illustrations were an excellent visual aid, I just think the depictions are taking the conversation in a direction other than what would be hoped for CMX2 - ie if 1:1 representation is going to have soldiers walking too close together, and settling into hokey defensive positions, no thanks. If they can get the little sprites to act with some randomness, proper spacing, and make individual use of cover like the troops in Op Flashpoint, we will have a winner."

Well....

I guess its always good to have really high expectations, so that way you will have something tangible to measure your disappointment and dissatisfaction against when your expectations are not met

Why oh, Why is this such a big deal?

Right now in CMx1 we see 3 little pixel soldiers pretending to be a whole squad of somewhere between 8-12 abstracted soldier units.

BUT in the new game CMx2 we will see 8-12 little pixel soldiers abstrated to be one squad unit. If you want to control it further and micromanage it maybe (who knows) you can break it into two fire teams so you can control twice as many mini squads? (teams). BUT those little pixel soldiers we still be controled by the player as a UNIT. I guess then the REAL question is will each pixel soldier draw its own LOS and LOF to and from the target. AND off the top of my head my guess it that each soldier will NOT do this, so that means for the purpose of determining combat results and incoming damage and firepower it would seem that the whole 8-12 man unit will be deemed to be IN THE SAME COVER (being that the cover state maybe determined at one central point for the whole Squad with the same LOS state for the whole squad) irrespective of the visual model of "the apparent cover state" of some guys here and some guys there?

OR I could be ALL wrong ....

But.... Gpig's eye candy sketches sure are fun to look at!

-tom w

[ January 25, 2005, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Bil Hardenberger]

I think what Michael is getting at is that as good as GPIG's drawings are (and they are excellent) they are not really showing a realistic footprint for the squad.

The problem is that they are too close and bunched up. If the next CM is going to emphasize realism with the 1:1 representation then the individuals should be spread out realistically using the appropriate formation for the task at hand. There is no reason that if everything is scaled correctly that this can't happen, in fact I'm sure it will. If you enlarge the scale of the figures then you would have something that perhaps looks more in keeping with GPIG's sketches.

Keep them coming GPIG, for all their flaws I really love seeing your work.

Bil

[Mord]

I think what Michael is getting at is that as good as GPIG's drawings are (and they are excellent) they are not really showing a realistic footprint for the squad.-Bil Hardenberger

He sure does have an arrogant and snide way about getting at things sometimes, Bil.

Perhaps we could move the pretty pictures to the General Forum, where they belong? -Dorosh

....yep I call that arrogant.

Maybe you can post some nice watercolours of how blue the sky is, next - just in case Kwazy Dog doesn't have blue skies down under, and needs a reference for European sky tones...

Pretty snide there...

After 16,000 posts you think he'd learn some manners.

Mord

[Stan Hope Park]

BUT in the new game CMx2 we will see 8-12 little pixel soldiers abstrated to be one squad unit. If you want to control it further and micromanage it maybe (who knows) you can break it into two fire teams so you can control twice as many mini squads? (teams). BUT those little pixel soldiers we still be controled by the player as a UNIT. I guess then the REAL question is will each pixel soldier draw its own LOS and LOF to and from the target. AND off the top of my head my guess it that each soldier will NOT do this, so that means for the purpose of determining combat results and incoming damage and firepower it would seem that the whole 8-12 man unit will be deemed to be IN THE SAME COVER (being that the cover state maybe determined at one central point for the whole Squad with the same LOS state for the whole squad) irrespective of the visual model of "the apparent cover state" of some guys here and some guys there?

... but again, a powerful unit editor would allow you to edit down the size of the squad and increase the number of squads.

We still don't know what degree of control the new game will give us in that department.

[Salkin]

You are a grog Michael and in my opinion that's not an insult, it's a label (which I suppose can be an insult).

It means you know lot's about the War. You know which unit did what, you know what caliber will penetrate most etc etc.

Some people also add other meanings to the word grognard but in my opinion on this board it just means you REALLY burn for the subject at hand (WW2).

About Gpigs sketches :

Some other guy said before me (was it you Tom ?)that they help you day dream and they exercise your fantasy and above all:

THEY MAKE THE WAIT FEEL A LITTLE SHORTER.

So bring on the excellent pics Gpig (they really are loaded with action/movement)

And Michael keep up the tactical discussion , one thing doesn't have to exclude the other IMHO.

He inspires , you analyse and inspire .

Win, win in my book .

//Salkin

[Salkin]

Ops...got so excited I made a bogus post.

[Michael Dorosh]

My other problem with abstraction of 1:1 representation was that tactically speaking, squads trained to break down into teams - certainly in the CW but also very prevalently in the US Army. We may have an opportunity for some national characteristics - ie the inability of Soviet squads to utilize teams - if these tactics are recreated now (we have "split squads" but they aren't done with much accuracy now in CM).

Again, it comes down to how much micromanagement you want to do. Whether we are allowed as players to split into teams, or whether the Tac AI will do so automatically is all the same to me (hopefully a bit of both), but if neither is the case, then once again there is little point in having 1:1 representation to begin with.

In other words, if tactics are being abstracted, there is no point in one to one representation.

I'd love to see it handled well, however - the ability to split a CW infantry section into a Bren Group and a Rifle Group and have them make use of individual cover would be great. Even better if the computer would take care of those little details for us while we assume the role of company commander. Sounds like what is on the burner, but we shall see.

[Salkin]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

My other problem with abstraction of 1:1 representation was that tactically speaking, squads trained to break down into teams - certainly in the CW but also very prevalently in the US Army. We may have an opportunity for some national characteristics - ie the inability of Soviet squads to utilize teams - if these tactics are recreated now (we have "split squads" but they aren't done with much accuracy now in CM).

Again, it comes down to how much micromanagement you want to do. Whether we are allowed as players to split into teams, or whether the Tac AI will do so automatically is all the same to me (hopefully a bit of both), but if neither is the case, then once again there is little point in having 1:1 representation to begin with.

In other words, if tactics are being abstracted, there is no point in one to one representation.

I'd love to see it handled well, however - the ability to split a CW infantry section into a Bren Group and a Rifle Group and have them make use of individual cover would be great. Even better if the computer would take care of those little details for us while we assume the role of company commander. Sounds like what is on the burner, but we shall see.

It's really difficult to tell what type 1:1 representation Battlefront is up too , and I wonder how far gone the development is .

Does anything that, for instance , Michael Dorosh say here influence the final product.

Steve , how about a comment ?

//Salkin

[aka_tom_w]

How's this?....

(found in this thread on page 3!)

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

Originally posted by Salkin:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

My other problem with abstraction of 1:1 representation was that tactically speaking, squads trained to break down into teams - certainly in the CW but also very prevalently in the US Army. We may have an opportunity for some national characteristics - ie the inability of Soviet squads to utilize teams - if these tactics are recreated now (we have "split squads" but they aren't done with much accuracy now in CM).

Again, it comes down to how much micromanagement you want to do. Whether we are allowed as players to split into teams, or whether the Tac AI will do so automatically is all the same to me (hopefully a bit of both), but if neither is the case, then once again there is little point in having 1:1 representation to begin with.

In other words, if tactics are being abstracted, there is no point in one to one representation.

I'd love to see it handled well, however - the ability to split a CW infantry section into a Bren Group and a Rifle Group and have them make use of individual cover would be great. Even better if the computer would take care of those little details for us while we assume the role of company commander. Sounds like what is on the burner, but we shall see.

It's really difficult to tell what type 1:1 representation Battlefront is up too , and I wonder how far gone the development is .

Does anything that, for instance , Michael Dorosh say here influence the final product.

Steve , how about a comment ?

//Salkin </font>

[Salkin]

Not bad , but I still wonder if our opinions can influence the development on how 1:1 is implemented or if that part is allready set in stone .

For instance what will be abstracted and what wont be abstracted .

Other then that thanks for the input Tom .

//Salkin

I allready read that by the way

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

"Full Spectrum Warrior" is a good example of the "template" idea mentioned above. When a team is ordered to move, each man's future position is shown graphically (with the AI positioning them close to the best cover) and the player has to confirm the order before they move. This way they move realistically and stack up behind car wrecks or around the corners of buildings.

My thoughts exactly, reading this thread. It would be quite simple, while the player is giving orders, to let him choose between 3-4 templates for the unit formation at the destination. Works like this:

Say you are giving orders for a squad to run up a wall. You select the unit, give it a waypoint or two and have them end the movement at the wall. Now, before finalizing the command, you select between 3-4 patterns of soldier placement at the wall. Think circles on the ground with a facing indication, like FSW or even Rise of Nations. Weapons teams and specialists are of course highlighted in some way, just so you know if your MG is going to be in the center, on the right or left side.

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

Perhaps I should clarify a bit, as to why this might be a good idea, for at least two reasons:

1) It gives you indirect 1:1 control. There is no need to plot the individual paths of every soldier - they move as a group - but you get to specify what positions your primary weapons will occupy at the units' destiation. So you control the unit as a group, but you get a lot of influence on how they are positioned at the destination, based on any number of pre-defined templates, which again are dependent on the terrain.

2) The AI won't screw it up for you, because the TacAI doesn't need to consider how to place your guys. It doesn't even need to consider how it will place its own guys, because it simply needs to select at random any of the available templates for whatever terrain feature or object it is trying to use. The only decision (in this instance) the TacAI has to make with regards to its own guys, is the general facing of the unit - but it is already capable of doing that adequately now.

[Ace Pilot]

Lots of good comments and questions on 1:1 representation here. Many of these comments address the issue of how 1:1 graphical presentation will correlate with 1:1 modeling without 1:1 control (i.e., what will prevent some squad members from being depicted outside of the house you’ve ordered the squad to enter). It seems to me this presupposes that BFC will abandon its method of modeling infantry units as points for location purposes. Currently, if a squad is in a house, all of the squad members are in the house, even if one of the three sprites is depicted outside the house. As long as the unit can trace LOS to something, all members of that unit are assumed to have LOS. Likewise, all members of that unit can suffer the consequences of incoming fire that can reach the unit’s point location.

Do we have any reason to believe that 1:1 modeling means modeling each individual soldier’s location, LOS and cover/concealment? Personally, I think the point object modeling works very well and has relatively few shortcomings.

It was my impression that 1:1 modeling meant tracking individual soldier’s ammo use, morale level, and possibly targeting, so that a squad could engage two or more targets simultaneously. I should point out that CMx1 can already do this on a limited basis, as I’ve seen squads putting small arms fire on one target while a panzerfaust is launched at a different target.

[aka_tom_w]

Ok that sounds great if they do it like that....

Originally posted by Sgt. Emren:

Perhaps I should clarify a bit, as to why this might be a good idea, for at least two reasons:

1) It gives you indirect 1:1 control. There is no need to plot the individual paths of every soldier - they move as a group - but you get to specify what positions your primary weapons will occupy at the units' destiation. So you control the unit as a group, but you get a lot of influence on how they are positioned at the destination, based on any number of pre-defined templates, which again are dependent on the terrain.

2) The AI won't screw it up for you, because the TacAI doesn't need to consider how to place your guys. It doesn't even need to consider how it will place its own guys, because it simply needs to select at random any of the available templates for whatever terrain feature or object it is trying to use. The only decision (in this instance) the TacAI has to make with regards to its own guys, is the general facing of the unit - but it is already capable of doing that adequately now.

Maybe it will work like this:

Right now in CMx1 we see 3 little pixel soldiers pretending to be a whole squad of somewhere between 8-12 abstracted soldier units.

BUT in the new game CMx2 we will see 8-12 little pixel soldiers abstrated to be one squad unit. If you want to control it further and micromanage it maybe (who knows) you can break it into two fire teams so you can control twice as many mini squads? (teams). BUT those little pixel soldiers we still be controled by the player as a UNIT. I guess then the REAL question is will each pixel soldier draw its own LOS and LOF to and from the target. AND off the top of my head my guess it that each soldier will NOT do this, so that means for the purpose of determining combat results and incoming damage and firepower it would seem that the whole 8-12 man unit will be deemed to be IN THE SAME COVER (being that the cover state maybe determined at one central point for the whole Squad with the same LOS state for the whole squad) irrespective of the visual model of "the apparent cover state" of some guys here and some guys there?

OR I could be ALL wrong ....

What do you think?

-tom w

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

I guess then the REAL question is - will each pixel soldier draw its own LOS and LOF to and from the target?

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

For now, this is all we have to go with, unfortunately. I suppose it IS possible to model LOS and LOF for each individual solidier. CMx1 has an engine which tracks LOS and LOF for a number of units, and scaling this engine to cope with a higher number of units is theoretically feasible. For three friendly squads facing three enemy squads, 18 LOS must be tracked in CMx1. If those squads consist of ten guys each, 1.800 LOS must tracked in CMx2, using 1:1 LOS. (In both examples, all units can see each other, by the way). Now, if you play a scenario in CMx1 with 30 units on both sides, you get the same number of (potential) LOS that need tracking - 1.800, so it's presently possible. Taking it further in CMx2, tracking 1.000 soldiers facing 1.000 soldiers will require the tracking of 2.000.000 LOS, which is far more than you'll ever need in CMx1.

Can it be done? Yes. Will Battlefront attempt it? I doubt it - but I'm hoping...

[ January 26, 2005, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Sgt. Emren ]

[Battlefront.com]

As you guys have all fully grasped, the 1:1 representation is not as simple as blitting a few extra sprites onto the screen. This has been the most frustrating thing to explain to more general gamers. They think that if it appears, visually, in the game then everything is taken care of and we'll all live happily ever after. NOT!

One thing to keep in mind is the general philosophy we use when designing stuff. And that is, the closer we make the basic model relate to the real world, the easier it is to solve problems with making the simulation act realistically.

In CMx2 terms this means simulating each individual soldier and their function within the unit. We need to do this because each unit has some sort of unique mix of tasks for its individual members. For example, a mortar team might have the same number of men as a heavy MG team, but their "jobs" are totally different. A squad with a LMG and 10 riflemen behaves differently than a 6 man recon squad armed with SMGs. So on and so forth.

Once we have the guys individually pegged to different spots, then we can assign more individualized behaviors for the TacAI to use. For example, having a LMG team stay put while the rifle section moves forward on an assault. This is inherently possible because CMx2 already knows what a LMG team is and what a rilfeman is, if for no other reason than to get the animations correct.

Now comes the realism benefit. We have soldiers with individual tasks and individual animations. We also have a range of realistic orders to cover various types of functions. Terrain is also laid out in great detail, as are all the combat modeling that goes along with it (weather, LOS effects, etc.). Weapons and other things are obviously modeled in detail as well. This is a rich pallet of stuff to draw from.

What we need to do is make a TacAI that understands which soldiers should be doing what in one situation vs. another. While this is certainly no small task, it isn't as bad as it might appear to you guys. One reason is that we have all the realism elements to implement standardized military "drills" without much in the way of compromise.

For example, let us say that a Squad has two internal Teams, one of which is a LMG and the other is armed with rifle type weapons. The drill for that nation might state that the LMG team, on the assault, sets up and provides covering fire for the rifle team as it moves to its objective. This is fairly easy to code into the TacAI.

The problems come, as they often do, with fleshing this system out to cover "all" circumstances "all" the time "everytime". That's a challenge. We are confident enough that we can do this. In fact there is only one design for CMx2 and that design involves 1:1 representation. It will happen and we expect the results will be better than average

Steve

[Stan Hope Park]

Putting it like this makes you (one) realise just how huge this task is.

Thank you for trying.

... and Good Luck!

[aka_tom_w]

Gpig has been busy again

Gpig Writes:

A few things are going to change for the player/commander.

For example, in the CMAK Demo, one of the battles (the one in North Africa) has a U.S. Rifle company defending (without "trenches," just foxholes). One of the platoons by default, sets up in the walled compound of the Mosque. Each walled off area is 80m. (The one with the two houses is more than that, I think.)

But the platoon located there (under Lt. Burgess' 10 man HQ squad) starts the game with two squads OUT of command range. One squad is in C&C. And it is Sgt. Deitrich's 12 man squad. There is also a Bazooka team FAR left. And there is a 37mm AT gun just to the right.

I doodled up what that set-up might look like (limiting myself to CMAK knowledge) with 1:1 representation. It left me with a few thoughts.

My theory is that with the new game and 1:1 representation, a few things are going to change for the player/commander.

1. Your forces are going to look WAY STRONGER, numerically speaking. You know what I mean? One glance at your defensive position with all it's scores of men, and the player may feel more confident than before. I mean, you might say to yourself "HOW is the enemy going to get through all these men?" A reinforced company could be 150 little sprites on the battlefield. That's plenty!

2. You are going to "feel" more for your little troopers. As it stands now, your little robot men do not generate much compassion on the part of the player. But when you can see each little dude snuff it . . . it's going to be hard to watch.

3. Defensive arrangements and offensive groupings are going to end up being more spread out in the new game. I was just trying to imagine an attacking platoon (40 or so little men) running up a hill. They are going to be a mighty tempting target for the enemy if they are close together. The attacker may feel like spending more time (and thus more spacing) for moving squads into position, you know what I mean? If the route to the objective looks like a mosh pit, you may want to re think your squad/platoon movement. As a single HE round landing amongst all those little fella's is going to HURT!

Same with on the defence. If your platoon HQ is too close to your 2nd squad and you realize you've got 20 men within 30m of each other, you may reconsider. I think it'll be a GREAT improvement. What do you think?

Comments and Artwork by Gpig

[Gpig]

That sounds AWESOME, Steve. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

Sorry for running off at the moth (and pencil). It's the prospect of the best wargame getting even better.

Gpig

P.S. Thanks again, Tom. You're a CHAMP!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As you guys have all fully grasped, the 1:1 representation is not as simple as blitting a few extra sprites onto the screen. This has been the most frustrating thing to explain to more general gamers. They think that if it appears, visually, in the game then everything is taken care of and we'll all live happily ever after. NOT!

One thing to keep in mind is the general philosophy we use when designing stuff. And that is, the closer we make the basic model relate to the real world, the easier it is to solve problems with making the simulation act realistically.

In CMx2 terms this means simulating each individual soldier and their function within the unit. We need to do this because each unit has some sort of unique mix of tasks for its individual members. For example, a mortar team might have the same number of men as a heavy MG team, but their "jobs" are totally different. A squad with a LMG and 10 riflemen behaves differently than a 6 man recon squad armed with SMGs. So on and so forth.

Once we have the guys individually pegged to different spots, then we can assign more individualized behaviors for the TacAI to use. For example, having a LMG team stay put while the rifle section moves forward on an assault. This is inherently possible because CMx2 already knows what a LMG team is and what a rilfeman is, if for no other reason than to get the animations correct.

Now comes the realism benefit. We have soldiers with individual tasks and individual animations. We also have a range of realistic orders to cover various types of functions. Terrain is also laid out in great detail, as are all the combat modeling that goes along with it (weather, LOS effects, etc.). Weapons and other things are obviously modeled in detail as well. This is a rich pallet of stuff to draw from.

What we need to do is make a TacAI that understands which soldiers should be doing what in one situation vs. another. While this is certainly no small task, it isn't as bad as it might appear to you guys. One reason is that we have all the realism elements to implement standardized military "drills" without much in the way of compromise.

For example, let us say that a Squad has two internal Teams, one of which is a LMG and the other is armed with rifle type weapons. The drill for that nation might state that the LMG team, on the assault, sets up and provides covering fire for the rifle team as it moves to its objective. This is fairly easy to code into the TacAI.

The problems come, as they often do, with fleshing this system out to cover "all" circumstances "all" the time "everytime". That's a challenge. We are confident enough that we can do this. In fact there is only one design for CMx2 and that design involves 1:1 representation. It will happen and we expect the results will be better than average

Steve

But roles change in any given enviromenment...consider

a) the LMG team covers the rifle team while it advances. The Rifle team finishes its "bound". Tactics suggest the rifle team will now provide cover fire while the LMG team moves forward a "bound" also - ie reversing roles.

Cpl Faller, the squad's machinegunner is hit. Pte Orosz is 2 feet away, armed with a carbine. His function will now change once he picks up the LMG - given that he

i) sees the LMG

ii) has the presence of mind to pick it up

iii) is trained in its use

iv) is permitted by doctrine to pick up the weapon

So there are two choices, either he will do nothing, or he will change roles.

Will we see these kinds of role changes in the 1:1?

Consider also

3) the section commander wishes to change the size of his "rifle" group to suit the terrain, and leaves one additional rifleman with his LMG group because the terrain is more open

4) the rifle section is starting out with 6 men instead of the TOE of 10 - the TOE calls for a 3 man LMG group and 7 man rifle group. The section commander wants his LMG group to have 2 men and his smaller rifle group to have 4 instead of 3. Will this be user-definable?

[Renaud]

Will we still be able to manually split squads? I really liked and used that feature. A good platoon leader (+heart and +star) and vet or above troops seems to substantially negate the penalties for splitting.

Figure 60-100 meters from the leading rifle teams back to the PL, LMG teams and perhaps 1 full squad (or whatever the PL command range allows). All squads advance to contact.

This allows your rifle teams to pressure the enemy into opening fire while your LMG teams are still a fair distance away. Upon contact the LMG teams and full-squad open fire while the forward rifle teams cower in place, crawl or assault as the situation dictates.

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

Steve,

Kudos for taking the time to discuss and share some of these issues with the community. I don't post much these days, but this thread was just irresistible!

Renaud: I don't see why this feature would be removed. If every single soldier is modelled individually, it shouldn't matter much if he is part of a squad or a half-squad. It would all depend on whether there would be an upper limit to the number of commandable units on the map, but this has not been an issue in the past.

/Emren - no longer doubting!