1:1 Representation; What WILL be 1:1?

[Wartgamer]

I want to start a thread specifically about the 1:1 topic and its implications on the future game. Other threads are just too easily distracted and non-moderated.

So what is known so far?

The actual soldier entities will be visually represented on a 1:1 basis. They will still be 'units' in that they will be squads/half-squads/etc and orders will be issued to them as before (ie a menu type system). The individual ammo and 'states' of the soldiers will be tracked. Individual weapons will be tracked.

Will leadership/personalities be tracked? This was brought up in another thread. So a platoon HQ gets shot at and the LT bites it? There is a resulting loss in leadership abilities being the immediate effect?

Combining of squads/units/etc was mentioned. Specifics might be nice. Is this player controlled sometimes or an effect of the TACAI?

Can units be 'split' so that 'chunks' of them are broken off either under player control or as a result of firepower? (3 guys take off..either messy pantsed or 2 guys evacuating a wounded soldier, etc.)

Hopefully thsi important topic can stay on track and any designers can recognize that important issues are being brought up.

[Wartgamer]

Other improvements mentioned include resupply. Anything else?

[DrD]

As I said in the earlier thread, what about morale/experience? Can 1 soldier be taking cover, or even panicked, while another is still firing? Will individual experience be modeled, in so far as a more experienced soldier is less likely to get hit, but if he does he effects the morale of the rest of the squad more significantly? And leadership as above, will the squad sergeant's demise effect the rest of the squad's morale?

[Wartgamer]

Even something like physical state (exhausted, etc) might even be 1:1 modeled.

But at the risk of incurring someones ire, there is always a limit as to what you can add on without collapsing the game into a sub-company type wargame.

[MikeyD]

If CMx2 is going to have 1:1 representation (as opposed to 1:1 control, iniitially) that's going to pretty thoroughly fill the map with soldiers! I'm assuming instead of the current 3-man '12 man squad' there are going to be 12 little guys all dancing across the terrain. Running twelve men into a light building might be something of a 'Chinese fire drill' (excuse the offensive old phrase) to watch!

But its more likely that my own ability to 'imagine' the final game is inferior to BFCs ability to produce it, so I expect to be amazed.

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by DrD:

As I said in the earlier thread, what about morale/experience? Can 1 soldier be taking cover, or even panicked, while another is still firing? Will individual experience be modeled, in so far as a more experienced soldier is less likely to get hit, but if he does he effects the morale of the rest of the squad more significantly? And leadership as above, will the squad sergeant's demise effect the rest of the squad's morale?

Morale and experience might be something that varies over more than one CM battle. Perhaps during a 'Campaign' or whatever the new Campaign will be.

Having units of different Morale/Experience combine together might bring down (or possibly up) the Morale/Experience of the 'new' unit.

I brought up the tracking of leaders in the other thread. The designer also made a remark about leadership loss. So maybe individual leaders will be tracked.

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

If CMx2 is going to have 1:1 representation (as opposed to 1:1 control, iniitially) that's going to pretty thoroughly fill the map with soldiers! I'm assuming instead of the current 3-man '12 man squad' there are going to be 12 little guys all dancing across the terrain. Running twelve men into a light building might be something of a 'Chinese fire drill' (excuse the offensive old phrase) to watch!

But its more likely that my own ability to 'imagine' the final game is inferior to BFCs ability to produce it, so I expect to be amazed.

Hopefully, the 1:1 representation will only be 'visable' at low viewpoints (ground level/level1?). I also wonder about clutter. Its already difficult to find FOs, bazookas, etc in large games. I even hope for the total loss of figures and replacement with military symbols at birds eye viewpoints.

[junk2drive]

Maybe top down will look like top down in all the other games. 12 helmets per squad/hex

[Wartgamer]

I think a related topic is What will be the Units in the new game?

Will the squad still be the largest unit represented? Is there any reason to limit the orders/actions of smaller non-nco led units? Is a BAR team really the command and control equivelant of a full squad (perhaps in an airborne unit with two years of training but not really in most units).

[Wartgamer]

In real Life, a squad leader could try to direct the firepower of his men against a target. Since targets in real life are not as defined as they are in the game, I wonder if 1:1 firepower resolution will address this.

By this I mean, the player gives the 'unit' a fire command against an enemy unit; But, would it be possible for some of the men in the firing squad to actually target other, perhaps closer, threats?

Could individual firers actually 'target' individual enemy?

[ February 18, 2005, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[DrD]

I think a related topic is What will be the Units in the new game?

Will the squad still be the largest unit represented? Is there any reason to limit the orders/actions of smaller non-nco led units? Is a BAR team really the command and control equivelant of a full squad (perhaps in an airborne unit with two years of training but not really in most units).

They do a pretty good job now. Some of the C+C is more for playability than a reflection of RL. A BAR team would not operate independently, but rather as part of a half-squad. I think this is how it's modeled now, I don't recall any 2-man BAR teams. US army doctrine called for a squad, when taking an objective, to split into a fire section (BAR man, assistant BAR man, 2-3 rilfemen) and a manuever section (rifleman/SMG's.) The fire section layed down supressive fire while the maneuver section flanked the position or otherwise approached it using cover. So tactically speaking a half-squad could be expected to have a degree of independance. IIRC US squads also had an assistant squad leader who had some NCO training and would usually lead one of the half-squads.

Bazooka teams were trained to operate alone also, if only because it's alot easier for 2 guys to ambush a tank than for 12! Finally, MG's in the US army and MG larger than light in the German were also independent teams. In RL, as in CM, such teams were actually half-squad or even squad sized, so it's not unreasonable they should have the same C+C as a squad. A typical MMG or HMG team had a leader who also acted as a spotter, a gunner who fired the thing and carried the weapon on the move, an assistant gunner who fed the belt and carried the bipod/tripod, and 2-6 riflemen who carried ammo and provided local security (i.e. watch the flank) when the MG was setup and firing. so although in CM it's only one guy graphically, really it's a half-squad to squad-size unit. Furthermore, in the US army MG's were actually part of the heavy weapons company, but were attached to individual platoons as needed. So they have to be seperate teams in CM also. (And indepedent, so they can be attached to any platoon.)

So the current system actually simulates quite well the C+C of a real-life WW2 unit.

[Wartgamer]

They do a pretty good job now. Some of the C+C is more for playability than a reflection of RL. A BAR team would not operate independently, but rather as part of a half-squad. I think this is how it's modeled now, I don't recall any 2-man BAR teams.

Theres BAR teams. Do a quick battle and look under support weapons.

[Stephen Smith]

"If CMx2 is going to have 1:1 representation (as opposed to 1:1 control, iniitially) that's going to pretty thoroughly fill the map with soldiers! I'm assuming instead of the current 3-man '12 man squad' there are going to be 12 little guys all dancing across the terrain. Running twelve men into a light building might be something of a 'Chinese fire drill' (excuse the offensive old phrase) to watch!"

Exactly. This is one thing that I am concerned with, and I suspect the scope of the game is being brought down, from company/Battalion level to platoon/company level.

In the most convenient viewing angle (I think its 4-its when it feels like you are in a balloon looking over the battlefield), 3 guys represented as a squad look pretty good. They are unrealistically large, of course, but looking over the battlefield, you can understand what is going on, and can see roughly a company's worth of battlespace (I don't know, maybe roughly 1km or slightly less of front).

With 12 realistically sized soldiers in the same screen space that currently holds 3 oversized soldiers, you are going to have to do one of two things: either shrink the soldiers down (i.e. draw them with fewer pixels), or reduce the quantity of frontage that can be covered in one screen shot (i.e. the soldiers use the same number of pixels as they do now. So, the twelve figured squad will occupy roughly the same screen space as four three-figured squads do now).

Each solution has problems. Shrinking soldiers down (drawing them with fewer pixels) will make them so small that they won't be very attractive. Thus, its probably not going to happen. But drawing the soldiers the same size will reduce the total frontage viewable in one given screen shot. In other words (very roughly) the screen space occupied by one platoon now will be occupied by one squad in CMx2. Which means that the total screen space will cover roughly 1/3 or 1/4 of the total frontage that the current system covers-or roughly a platoon+ (if we are assuming the current method covers a company+). The convenient viewing angle, which now shows about 1 km of frontage, will in the future show maybe 300 m of frontage, with the soldiers realistically drawn (and realistically sized).

Note that this ties into comments by Battlefront when they say that the 'standard' size of a scenario will be shrunk down, and that larger scenarios will be more inconvenient to play then previously. You know how, right now, when you play a company scenario, things are pretty convenient, but when you are up to a battalion level game (Say, 2 km frontage), things are just a bit more difficult? Its a bit more difficult to move around the map, its a bit more difficult to 'see' the big picture, you end up having to memorize terrain and locations more because more of the map is off-screen. Based on the changes to the scale, those difficulties in CMx2 will probably apply to a company+ scenario-anything over about 700 meters of frontage will begin to require alot more scrolling over the map, and so on.

As I've said before, I realize its not my decision. But I would have preferred that CM evolve in the opposite direction-to more of a big picture game (perhaps using AI to control squads, and the player becomes more of a Brigade or even Division commander). Rather than better modelling individual soldier behavior, I would have wanted better modelling of organizational behavior (resupply, communications delays between Brigade and Battalion staff, and so on). But it doesn't appear that that is the game we are getting. Ah, well.

Steve

[dalem]

I tend to take any spare BAR/LMG teams and group them with the Company Command HQ now. For security and for "instant small reserve". Maybe in CMx2 I can just assign them as part of the HQ and stop worrying until I need them again.

One thing I think will be good about 1:1 (and remember I am not a proponent of it) is a visual reminder to keep a platoon properly spread out. I have a tendency to bunch up, and I imagine it's harder to do with 1:1 taking up more screen space.

-dale

[Ace Pilot]

From the hints that Steve has dropped, it seems clear that there will be 1:1 graphical representation of squad members, but no 1:1 control of those squad members, nor 1:1 LOS modeling.

Furthermore, Steve has said:

Also think about the "head of the pin" problem current units have. If you want to spread out your forces even a little bit, split squads is sometimes the only option. But with a 1:1 man representation you could, in theory, have your entire 12 man squad physically spread out over 100m. Now an artillery round comes down near one side... bang... it can only possibly hit 3 guys or so. That means, no matter what your squad was doing, only 3 guys are going to go down max. In current CM it could be the entire squad, because although there is some accounting for guys being spread out the abstraction of unit footprint means we can only do that to a limited extent.

The neat thing about the “head of a pin” model is that the need for 1:1 LOS modeling is eliminated – every member of a squad is assumed to be able to see the exact same things.

If BFC opts to allow squad footprints that can be spread out over 100m, this could lead to situations where certain members of the squad can see something, but cannot fire upon it, since 1:1 LOS will not be modeled.

I think this is one of the most interesting issues for CMx2 - how will BFC handle the LOS issues of a dispersed squad? Any light Steve can shed on this issue, I think, will be most interesting.

Steve’s comments have also led me to believe that:

</font>

• Squad member geographic positions will be modeled 1:1</font>
• Squad member movement will be modeled (but not controlled) 1:1</font>
• Cover/concealment will be modeled 1:1</font>

So, we will have individual soldiers whose position will matter (because it determines their cover/concealment), but that cannot be directly controlled. One possible conclusion from this is that the CMx1 orders menu, consisting of different types of movement (Sneak, Move, Run, etc.) will be inadequate for CMx2. With squad members moving through different types of cover/concealment, it doesn’t make sense for all of them to perform the same type of movement. A more SOP-oriented menu may be called for, as has been suggested in other threads. Or BFC may have an entirely different solution in mind.

I think the system that BFC devises to overcome these issues will be rather innovative and will be the reason CMx2 is not just CMx1 with improvements.

[MikeyD]

BAR comes in two flavors, the stand-alone mg team and embedded into the platoon. Much like the German LMGs. I hear BAR was not a very popular weapon to man. It was heavy (comparatively), and it was sufficiently disliked by the Germans that a BAR man's life expectancy was somewhat shorter than the rest of the guys.

The original 'bone' posting mentioned the possibility of wounded soldiers being dragged to safety, etc. It sounds like there might be a LOT of scripted 3-D animation to cover all those soldiers moving as a unit ('modular' coding for BFC to farm-out to experts?). As CM now stands you can dump an entire battallion (or more!) onto a map. CMx2 scale sounds like Company size would be a more comfortable size - which might visually match a CM1 Battallion when you factor in 1:1 representation.

[Wartgamer]

Perhaps we should spell it..cmx2 to designate its move to more micromatters?

[Wartgamer]

I think this is one of the most interesting issues for CMx2 - how will BFC handle the LOS issues of a dispersed squad? Any light Steve can shed on this issue, I think, will be most interesting.

Steve’s comments have also led me to believe that:

Squad member geographic positions will be modeled 1:1

Squad member movement will be modeled (but not controlled) 1:1

Cover/concealment will be modeled 1:1

Excellent post. The whole Borg/Spotting thing could also be brought in.

[Wartgamer]

As I've said before, I realize its not my decision. But I would have preferred that CM evolve in the opposite direction-to more of a big picture game (perhaps using AI to control squads, and the player becomes more of a Brigade or even Division commander). Rather than better modelling individual soldier behavior, I would have wanted better modelling of organizational behavior (resupply, communications delays between Brigade and Battalion staff, and so on). But it doesn't appear that that is the game we are getting. Ah, well.

I think it will take a great demo to prove you wrong.

I also wanted the game to get away from the minutia. I prefer to just double click a platoon HQ, activate his minions and give them some waypoints/SOPs/etc. Having a TACAI that could handle the details suits me.

[MikeyD]

"But I would have preferred that CM evolve in the opposite direction"

Well, Moon did state that the engine will be able to be scaled down to true 1:1 fighting (for platoon sims) AND be scaled up-up-up! We can only imagine how an upcaled (Division-size?) CMx2 would look/operate. But rest assured if the first title isn't to your liking maybe the second will be, or the third (hopefully coming out in quick succesion).

[Michael Dorosh]

You all may want to look at some of the actual practices of the time before figuring what should and should not be in the game.

The CW section was divided into two teams - a rifle team and a Bren team. On the attack, they complemented the other, and were under the command of the section commander. On the defence, the section deployed as a section, usually dug in, in two man positions.

The section and platoon commanders would give fire orders when on the defence using GRIT

Group

Range

Indication

Type of Fire

Group being who was to fire - "Number One Section!" or "Bren Group" or "Number Three Rifleman"

Range - self explanatory

Indication - where and what the enemy was. "Half left, base of tree, dismounted infantry section!" or "enemy targets to the front" or "scout car, 200 yards, line of my arm!"

Type of Fire - "Rapid Fire" - "Normal Rate" - "Slow Rate" etc.

Sections could be broken down into smaller teams, certainly on the defence, but given the firepower of the bolt action rifle...probably not necessary. The riflemen were supported by the Bren (the Germans did it the other way round, and the LMG was supported by the riflemen).

Do we really need the ability to break down into two man fireteams? From a CW standpoint, I'd suggest not, as my reading suggests - and I'm subject to correction - that the section commander generally led the section in the fighting. He may have given the "fire at will" command on occasion, but then, all bets are off, as individual riflemen will pick their own targets. In game terms, that is when the Tac AI takes over and likely chooses the closest or most threatening target.

But I get the feeling that two man teams didn't really operate independently under the section commander all that often.

And infantry sections rarely went into battle at more than 60% of strength in any event - see the battle questionnaires I posted previously. A CW infantry section seems invariably to have been, in 1944-45

Section Commander - Sten

Section 2 i/c - Lee Enfield

Bren Gunner - Bren

Bren Number Two - Lee Enfield but rarely used it

Rifleman - Lee Enfield

Rifleman - Lee Enfield

Not a lot to play with and probably little incentive to break down the section into smaller groups, as the "rifle team" was often 3 or 4 men at most.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You all may want to look at some of the actual practices of the time before figuring what should and should not be in the game.

Apparently, that is quite different from marine fire teams.

The Marine Fire Teams are comprised of rifleman, close combat marines and marine medics among others. They are highly trained and are often used to recapture vessels, help overtake pirates on federation colonies among other jobs... They are armed with a small combat weapon, a Type Two Phaser, a Phaser Pistol and a Type Three Rifles.

From http://ussarmagosa.netfirms.com/marine-squads.htm

[Michael Dorosh]

Don't you hate it when there is a convention in town and your mom is too busy to iron your uniform for you?

Edited for the terrorists.

[ February 18, 2005, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The CW section was divided into two teams - a rifle team and a Bren team.

In another bone thread steve said that 1:1 will let them code specific responsibilities for each man. Does this not depend greatly on fire team structure. For example, US Marine squads in Korea had three fire teams with a BAR man in each. Would the BAR men in those squads have different functions than the LMG man in a CW section?

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Admiral Kahn:

Don't you hate it when there is a convention in town and your mom is to busy too iron your uniform for you?

Come on! Yours is the superior intellect, and you post something like that.