1:1 Representation in CMx2

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The problems come, as they often do, with fleshing this system out to cover "all" circumstances "all" the time "everytime". That's a challenge.

You mean when someone jumps up and yells "Waaaaaahhhhh!!!! My LMG didn't charge with the rest of the squad when I assaulted the position! WAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!"

You mean like that?

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dalem:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The problems come, as they often do, with fleshing this system out to cover "all" circumstances "all" the time "everytime". That's a challenge.

You mean when someone jumps up and yells "Waaaaaahhhhh!!!! My LMG didn't charge with the rest of the squad when I assaulted the position! WAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!"

You mean like that?

-dale </font>

[David Chapuis]

The one question that I have now is about the squad 'footprint' - for a lack of better term.

In CMx1, it seemed that a squad really only took up about 4m, which seems much much too small.

Also, Another play feature that would make sense to model is longer load/fire times for teams that are missing one or more men(ive never checked if that is modeled in CMx1) - which now we be make much more sense with 1:1 represenation. Imagine 1 man trying to load and fire a 150 mm inf gun - is that even possible.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

The one question that I have now is about the squad 'footprint' - for a lack of better term.

In CMx1, it seemed that a squad really only took up about 4m, which seems much much too small.

Also, Another play feature that would make sense to model is longer load/fire times for teams that are missing one or more men(ive never checked if that is modeled in CMx1) - which now we be make much more sense with 1:1 represenation. Imagine 1 man trying to load and fire a 150 mm inf gun - is that even possible.

Which weapons?

I'm not aware of any guns requiring a two man lift for the ammo - an 88mm shell weighed 35 lbs if I am not mistaken; not easy but still a one man job? Would be interesting to model fatigue, though, for the poor loader...

The more detail you try to put in, though, the more you will stray from "effect" as John Hill called it and more into specific instances that really aren't provable.

"Yeah, so my 88mm loader tired out in 10 rounds, how come adrenaline isn't modelled in the game?"

[Renaud]

David, I think that's already in CMBB/AK. Isn't it? I'm pretty sure the guns fire slower after you lose a few men. Never actually checked it tho.

[Denwad]

GPIG can you sketch German AT team with magnetic mines ?

[RMC]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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.

I think this could be addressed by setting movement modes in conjunction with the drills he's talking about. Under one movement mode the entire squad could move together because they are doing what the modern US Army calls Travelling. Under another they could use alternating bounds in what we call Bounding Overwatch. RTS games have toggles for units like this because of their reliance on the AI to select the proper action for a unit when certain trigger conditions are set. In this 1:1 environment we are talking about here, there is a similar onus on the AI to select the proper action for conditions.

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?

Are you talking about an animation for the guy moving to physically take the weapon? That's probably too much to ask for as it adds a layer of modelling the weapons systems as entities and not just attributes of the soldier. This role switching occurred in the CC series, but it was the weapon that moved and not the soldier. For the most part this was invisible to the players because of the scale of the sprites. The only time it was really noticeable was when an engineer unit flamethrower man got shot, you could see the flamethrower tank appear on another soldier in the squad regardless of distance. This might be the kind of abstract solution you'd see in CMx2.

[Gpig]

Do you mean a Tank Hunter Team?

Sure, I'll give it a go.

If Tom'll post it, I'll put one up tomorrow, sometime.

Gpig

[Denwad]

@Gpig

thanks!

@noone in particular

I think the movement should stay the same, but the squad would use an AI to put the elements in the squad in what it thinks is the most favorable situation.

[Cpl Steiner]

The simplest solution to some of the problems people have mentioned is to make the AI do the best it can, but allow a "manual override" for those players who really insist on positioning every single man in a squad.

Most of the time, the AI will do fine. For instance, when a squad advances through some trees, each man will try to put a tree between himself and the nearest sighted enemy.

However, when you absolutely must have your LMG man charge a foxhole firing from the hip, you can manually order him to do so. Of course, if in real life this would normally result in the LMG man being cut down without hitting a thing, then this should happen in the game too.

If you have the global option as the default, but are allowed to tweak one or two solder's movement paths etc, then this shouldn't add too much micro-management to the game. In any case, the AI can "evolve" with each release, to reduce the number of times you need to tweak.

I really agree with the approach Battlefront are taking with this, and can't wait for the game to come out! In the long run it must be right to model every possible detail at 1:1 level, even if you don't think you'll need all that detail right now. Computer power advances much faster than it takes to rewrite a game, and things thought impossible now may be possible with future computing power - but not if your whole game design means it requires a complete rewrite!

[Cpl Steiner]

Further to my "manual override" suggestion above, you could have each "tweak" add some command delay to the team. Thus, if you want your team to move quickly, let the AI do it. However, if you want to micro-manage a bit, feel free, but you'll have to give the squad leader time to explain to each man where he should end up - and that takes time.

[Battlefront.com]

Adjusting the soldier's actions in the game to match what one expects to see on a battlefield is easy. Well, in theory anyway ;D

What we have to do is identif the different action types, then assign them to various ingame conditions. For example, a unit assaulting would look a certain way compared to a unit on the march. A unit on the march getting shot at would change state to a unit taking cover. Note that the action seen by the player is directly tied to the current order the unit is following (be it a player order or a TacAI order). This is identical to how CMx1 works, though infinitely more tied to graphics and animations.

As for use of weapons not inherently assigned to a soldier. In general a squad is cross trained on all the weapons within the squad. A crew served weapon/vehicle is also the same way. So, in theory, everybody within a unit knows how to perform the function of every other member. Obviously this doesn't always happen and certainly some members will show better skill at one function compared to another soldier. So if a squad member carrying the LMG goes down, someone else will pick it up. There is no reason in the world for the player to care WHO picks it up, only that it is (within reason, that is).

In CMx1 the LMG within a squad tends to stay functional even with losses. When the LMG gunner is "hit", CM checks to see if someone in the squad recovers it. That someone is generally a rifleman, but if there are no riflemen available it will be someone else. Rules within the system, as is, reduce the chance of retention as the squad reduces in size simply because there is less ability to keep a LMG, and the unit itself, functional as manpower diminishes. We will do something similar in CMx2, but hopefully a bit more detailed (delay to recover, for example).

In CMx1 if a crew served weapon loses a crew member the units rate of fire is affected and, in some cases, ammo reduced (if the unit moves). I forget the exact rules, but generally the more men in the crew the less that first loss or two matters.

Steve

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Adjusting the soldier's actions in the game to match what one expects to see on a battlefield is easy. Well, in theory anyway ;D

What we have to do is identif the different action types, then assign them to various ingame conditions. For example, a unit assaulting would look a certain way compared to a unit on the march. A unit on the march getting shot at would change state to a unit taking cover. Note that the action seen by the player is directly tied to the current order the unit is following (be it a player order or a TacAI order). This is identical to how CMx1 works, though infinitely more tied to graphics and animations.

As for use of weapons not inherently assigned to a soldier. In general a squad is cross trained on all the weapons within the squad. A crew served weapon/vehicle is also the same way. So, in theory, everybody within a unit knows how to perform the function of every other member. Obviously this doesn't always happen and certainly some members will show better skill at one function compared to another soldier. So if a squad member carrying the LMG goes down, someone else will pick it up. There is no reason in the world for the player to care WHO picks it up, only that it is (within reason, that is).

In CMx1 the LMG within a squad tends to stay functional even with losses. When the LMG gunner is "hit", CM checks to see if someone in the squad recovers it. That someone is generally a rifleman, but if there are no riflemen available it will be someone else. Rules within the system, as is, reduce the chance of retention as the squad reduces in size simply because there is less ability to keep a LMG, and the unit itself, functional as manpower diminishes. We will do something similar in CMx2, but hopefully a bit more detailed (delay to recover, for example).

In CMx1 if a crew served weapon loses a crew member the units rate of fire is affected and, in some cases, ammo reduced (if the unit moves). I forget the exact rules, but generally the more men in the crew the less that first loss or two matters.

Any chance of having the enemy ordnance (both arms and ammo, even separately) being picked up during game play ?

[gibsonm]

Hi,

I know it looks impressive to be up to page 8 already but is there any chance people can just quote the relevant portion of a previous post as opposed to including the entire thing?

About 80% of this thread is just previous posts rehashed.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Hi,

I know it looks impressive to be up to page 8 already but is there any chance people can just quote the relevant portion of a previous post as opposed to including the entire thing?

About 80% of this thread is just previous posts rehashed.

huh?

[GreenAsJade]

A lot of the more recent conversation has been as if there's some knowledge that individual units will actually be represented in the game mechanics.

Where did that come from?

I got the strong impression that we were expecting visual representation of the right number of men, but that in game mechanics it would still be the TacAI "thinking" about a squad as a whole. Any depicted individual actions would be eye candy...

[Gpig]

No no, GreenAsJade. You are right. Your "strong impression" is correct.

Individual actions (1:1 representaion) will still be mainly eye candy. There is already some individual tracking that goes on in the current CM series. It's just that they are not REPRESENTED individually in a visual sense. (Modelled.)

Now (CMx2) they will be tracked individually AND modelled individually. So you'll be able to see the LMG gunner, the riflemen and the NCO (with the SMG).

Gpig

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I'm not aware of any guns requiring a two man lift for the ammo - an 88mm shell weighed 35 lbs if I am not mistaken; not easy but still a one man job?

The heavier guns (150mm and up are among the contenders). Then you have the guns which use cartousse loads.

Would be interesting to model fatigue, though, for the poor loader...

The 88 team has at least 3 men in the loading team. Others used loaders who loaded the gun and ammo carriers who handed the rounds to the loader.

[Mord]

IN CMx1 games the CO is always the last man to fall in HQ units, will it be the same in CMx2? Or will there be a chance that the main officer can be killed/wounded first leaving only his staff to continue?

Mord.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mord:

IN CMx1 games the CO is always the last man to fall in HQ units, will it be the same in CMx2? Or will there be a chance that the main officer can be killed/wounded first leaving only his staff to continue?

Mord.

You're expecting Gandalf the Grey??

[Battlefront.com]

CMx2 will still be focused on the Team/Squad/Vehicle as the smallest tactical unit. Individual men within these units will not be doing anything more independent than those actions necessary to depict their function within the unit and the circumstances of that place and time. In other words, the AI will worry about if a guy is running crouched or strolling along, but won't be ordering PFC Johnson to do a wide flanking move while his squad mates eat some MREs

The 1:1 representation requires more levels of AI. In CMx1 we had Tac, Op, and Strat to handle individual units, groups of untis, and the overall plan. In CMx2 we need to have things a bit more separated. It is, mostly, a top down type system...

StratAI - decides what the missions are, who is going to carry them out, and other such parameters.

OpAI - determines what a formation of units should be doing in order to fulfill its mission.

TacAI - governs each individual unit's behavior as directed from above. This is where a tank decides it needs to move over to a specific position in order to get a good flank shot on an enemy tank, or a squad knows that it should not walk into the middle of a large volume of enemy fire.

UnitAI - what the individual soldiers within a unit should be doing in relation to each other. For example, a HMG has one guy firing, another loading, and a couple of guys providing covering fire.

SoldierAI - in charge of the graphical representation a soldier should be using at that given time in that given situation. For example, assaulting under fire when armed with a rifle requires animations and actions a, b, and c.

I'm not sure how Charles is going to program all of this stuff from an organizational standpoint, so the above is purely theory at the moment. In one way or another, however, all of the above needs to happen for the game to function correctly.

Steve

[YankeeDog]

Heh. Thanks for the additional info, Steve. Looks good. . .

[Mord]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

IN CMx1 games the CO is always the last man to fall in HQ units, will it be the same in CMx2? Or will there be a chance that the main officer can be killed/wounded first leaving only his staff to continue?

Mord.

You're expecting Gandalf the Grey?? </font>

[aka_tom_w]

That sounds GREAT!

Thanks for the Update Steve!

(I am sure that will keep you folks busy for the next 12 months!)

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

CMx2 will still be focused on the Team/Squad/Vehicle as the smallest tactical unit. Individual men within these units will not be doing anything more independent than those actions necessary to depict their function within the unit and the circumstances of that place and time. In other words, the AI will worry about if a guy is running crouched or strolling along, but won't be ordering PFC Johnson to do a wide flanking move while his squad mates eat some MREs Steve

[David I]

BFC,

With 1:1 representation, how many horses are going to be attached to a limber? 2 or 4?

How many to a wagon?

DavidI