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

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i have read only some posts on these threads, so perhaps this is already covered, but here it goes anyway.

i have understood that each soldier's cover & concealment is modelled, but their LOS is not modelled? how can this be? for example if you have two men hiding behind a tank, surely LOS/LOF is the crucial factor that defines both cover & concealment for these fellows [in relation to the enemy they are hiding from]? or is it just that you can't manually check the LOS of each soldier, while it is modelled under the hood?

another question that i haven't seen a definite answer to is: will LOF be real 3D lines instead of 2D point objects of CM1? e.g. will we have machineguns that can lay down realistic horizontal fire across a field instead of just point fire? will we finally be able to shoot at houses that are located on higher terrain than us? and dear god will tanks be modelled in real 3D so that e.g. turret size begins to matter?

i think both of these questions deal essentially with one and same thing: 1:1 3D modelled LOF/LOS.

BTW sounds like a real killer game. amoeba like squads was what i liked the least in CM. keep up the good work and ignore the whine

ah, one last thing: it sounds like a WW2 game is the first to come out. any chances of covering the early war?

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

EVERYTHING is modeled in 1:1. Doesn't matter if it is a squad, an enclosed tank, or an open TD. 1:1 means 1:1, no exceptions.

Watching a gun crew carrying out their firing drill, and defending their gun with small arms and grenades, will be engrossing in itself.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

[...]"Take Liebgott and start clearing those houses, two to a house!" They split off into two man teams in order to clear buildings.

[...]

[O]ur section commander set up the LMG group differently depending on mission.

[...]

f the standard doctrine was to have a 3 man LMG group and a 7 man rifle group, but you had 8 incredibly new replacements, you might set up the section to have a two man LMG group and 8 riflemen instead (for whatever reason). Or a veteran squad might find that in urban terrain, as above, those two man teams were optimal.

Interesting. Since 1:1 control is out, this could be depicted by formations and splitable squads according to factors as experience, doctrine and leader abilities as you suggest. Some leaders could allow you to split their squads according to circumstances while others would be stuck to purely doctrinal combat drills, a bit as the current "assault" order in CMx1.

BTW What about leaders abilities ? Haven't seen anything that, but many ideas. Can we expect new stuff over there as well ?

[Battlefront.com]

Wartgamer... you've slipped into Troll Mode. Be warned that the next mode is Banned Mode. When you get your own forum you can call the shots, but you're on our forum and that means... we call the shots. Drop whatever misguided crusade you've put yourself in charge of because you can not win. I've dealt with your type far, far too frequently so I can assure you that I am far more experienced at locking horns than you. Plus, it's our forum So stick to discussing the game and stay away from discussing anything else.

As for the degree of flexibility of internal squad organization... obviously we've got to have some limitations since, as Michael pointed out, in reality there are infinite combos of situations and organizations possible. Since CM is not a platoon or squad level game we aren't going to allow the player control over internal squad organization, but instead use standard doctrine (or common practice) via the AI. If there is some standard doctrine for cleaning up houses 2 at a time... well, then we'd like to see that in the game. However... I don't think we can go quite that far. That would turn a single unit into 6 separate units (in the case of a 12 man US Squad). Egads!

What we can or can not do with spotting, LOS, and LOF remains a little up in the air. For sure we can't do 1:1 LOS because, as I have said before, even the fastest home computer out there can't handle it. So that is completely off the table. How we work around it will come down to technical capabilities more than anything else. When we have more answers for you I'll of course bring them up for discussion. Until then probably not much else that can be said about this for the moment.

Remember guys... CMx2 is a less abstracted simulation of warfare than CMx1, not an UNabstracted simulation of warfare. We will have abstractions for one reason or another all throughout the game. Just less than in CMx1 and with more realistic features not possible in CMx1. Computational and user interface limitations are the two main reasons for something be abstracted or not, because we can't break either for a particular feature or the whole game will fall apart.

Steve

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

i have understood that each soldier's cover & concealment is modelled, but their LOS is not modelled? how can this be? for example if you have two men hiding behind a tank, surely LOS/LOF is the crucial factor that defines both cover & concealment for these fellows [in relation to the enemy they are hiding from]? or is it just that you can't manually check the LOS of each soldier, while it is modelled under the hood?

another question that i haven't seen a definite answer to is: will LOF be real 3D lines instead of 2D point objects of CM1? e.g. will we have machineguns that can lay down realistic horizontal fire across a field instead of just point fire? will we finally be able to shoot at houses that are located on higher terrain than us? and dear god will tanks be modelled in real 3D so that e.g. turret size begins to matter?

i think both of these questions deal essentially with one and same thing: 1:1 3D modelled LOF/LOS.

Good points. I also am wondering how the fireteams, which will seemingly select targets by the AI, are going to fire at the enemy.

Will each mamber of the fireteam add some firepower value, depending on weapon, suppression, etc.? Will individual member's firepower of the fireteam be resolved seperately?

As you point out, if there is 1:1 LOS, then certain members may not see the fireteams target. Realistically, they should fire at something.

Since control is now at the squad level, and I am assuming that weapons like HMG, mortars are 'squad' level, what becomes of the sharpshooter, bazooka and lmg 'non-squads'? Are they going to be attached to squads as another fireteam under the squad leader/platoonHQ/etc? Since there is no more direct control of 'half-squads', I can not see how these small 'units' can stay at player control.

Edit:

What we can or can not do with spotting, LOS, and LOF remains a little up in the air. For sure we can't do 1:1 LOS because, as I have said before, even the fastest home computer out there can't handle it. So that is completely off the table. How we work around it will come down to technical capabilities more than anything else. When we have more answers for you I'll of course bring them up for discussion. Until then probably not much else that can be said about this for the moment. Steve

This answers some of the 1:1 LOS. I suppose also the LOF?

[ February 20, 2005, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

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

EVERYTHING is modeled in 1:1. Doesn't matter if it is a squad, an enclosed tank, or an open TD. 1:1 means 1:1, no exceptions.

Watching a gun crew carrying out their firing drill, and defending their gun with small arms and grenades, will be engrossing in itself. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, EVERYBODY. Not much point in doing a 1:1 representation if there are exceptions. It is generally a bad idea to take a single, core system and have it behave in two different ways. In CMx1 all units were abstract, in CMx2 all units are 1:1.

Steve

[Wartgamer]

So will LOS be Fireteam:1 then?

[Ron]

1:1 representation(modelling and representation) concerning a squad brings up a few questions and observations.

Depending upon the squad's task, ie attack, movement or defend, its 'footprint' and deployment will have to vary visually and internally also. We have heard when attacking that a squad will deploy into fireteams as per SOP, fine. Will we have SOPs for when a squad is defending or marching or skirmishing. ie column or line to name two? What will be the 'footprint' for these different modes - 25m, 50m, 100m? I would assume that a unit's 'facing' and deployment would become much more important re firepower and susceptibility to fire and need to be accounted for also. What are your design thoughts/comments on this?

Somewhat related but what are your thoughts now on 'national characteristics'? I know what you have said in the past but wonder if anything has changed. I am thinking specifically of Dupuy's combat model and its relevance to basic combat effectiveness.

I may have missed it but what other factors besides morale, experience and fitness are being modelled for a squad?

Thanks for the 'bones'!

Ron

[Battlefront.com]

As stated above, there is nothing more I can add to the Spotting/LOS/LOF at this point. It would be pure speculation on my part beacuse technical issues are going to decide these issues and it's too early for that.

Yes, 1:1 representation means that the individual men will move around like a real unit would. This includes, especially, the footprint. Footprint was one of the most noticable aspects of CMx1's unit abstraction.

No, no national modifiers for the same reasons as CMx1. They simply aren't valid. Dupuy, as I am sure you know, is highly controversial. For me, I think he got more right than wrong when it came to the overall observations. It is true that different nationalities exhibit different qualities on the battlefield, but these come from training, equipment, leadership quality, doctrine, etc. not from some inherent national quality. Culture also has an impact on battlefield performance, but this is so arbitrary and subject to perception that it really isn't something we feel we SHOULD be modeling.

Those aspects of culture that really matter on the battlefield tend to be reflected in their doctrine anyway, so focusing on the other elements gets (we feel) a more accurate modeling than just having something like "Germans get a +1 for accuracy, Americans +2 for hand to hand combat, Brits +4 for teabkreaks , etc.".

Steve

[Richie]

Brits get +4 for smoking up some kippers at brekky too?

[Wartgamer]

Should morale be modeled at the individual level? Something like fitness is surely an invidual trait and differs enough in individuals that if it can be applied 1:1, then it should.

But something like morale is a bit of a group mentality and perhaps could be applied to a group (everything can't be modeled 1:1 and there will be some concessions I imagine).

[Wartgamer]

Physical fitness, physical state (rested, tired, etc), weapon/ammunition, suppression level, cover, C&C level, Experience, Order (alerted, broken, etc)

This is a list of things that come to mind for 1:1 individual personnel tracking. If many of these things are modified during play, the number cruching task will add up.

[Wartgamer]

The LOS implications are the ones that bothers me the most. If you have two opposing squads, and they both have spread out formations, and the LOS routine is from central squad LOS point, you could have the problem of the two squads not 'seeing' each other yet there is one soldier from each squad in the same spot!

LOS might have to be a fireteam level routine. Spreading out might also just mean that fireteams move apart but keep a tighter grouping amongst the team. So a 10 man squad spread out over 100 meters would not actually be a man every 10 meters.

[ February 20, 2005, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Wartgamer]

Another LOS example:

A squad deploys to take a 2 storey house. One section covers while the other advances into first floor. Covering group moves up to first floor and first section advances up to second floor.

The section upstairs has a better LOS and can 'see' over soem hedges into a park where some enemy are coming towards the house. But the game would have to do an LOS check from the section upstairs to actually see the enemy.

It really boils down to where the eyes for the guys gets modeled. Going to 1:1 representation makes the LOS routines a major concern. Is there any justification to individually modeling soldiers and having such a fundamental need modeled at a section or squad level?

[melb_will]

Ok I've been reading along quitely and can see the problem facing Battlefront which If i can try to sum up I will.

1st You are unable to get 1:1 LoS because of technical limitations (although this is desirable)

However, without 1:1 LOS then 1:1 representation becomes abstracted. Because the system can't tell if Soldier A in Squad B can see Target X. Only that Squad B can see target X. Anyway that's how i've been reading it.

The thing that actually interests me the most was the national modifiers. Who is Dupuy, what did he write and what should I read to find out more.

Cheers

Will

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, LOS and LOF are a major concern, but they are not a major concern until we start programming. The ideal state (1:1 LOS/LOF) is the obvious goal for us to acheive. Since we can't acheive it, we will implement the next best possible solution. And that solution will be, more than anything else, hardware dependent. What that means is that ALL discussion of LOS/LOF at this point is a waste of everybody's time. We know what we need to do, but don't know what the hardware will allow us to do. Until we get to the point of knowing the latter we have nothing more to discuss. Please, let's not waste any more time on this topic since it is really quite pointless at this stage.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Dupuy was a US Army Colonel who started up a think tank after leaving the Army, called HERO. They were tasked with doing studies of various aspects of WWII, particularly. Most of these are boring even for most Grogs, but I myself found them very useful. Things like the advance rates of specific units, compare/constrast between the German and Soviet replacement systems, and all sorts of smaller studies on casualties and such. These studies are, as far as I can tell, held in very high regard.

From this grew some mathematical theories about how to predict the outcome of battles based on pure number crunching. And this is where Dupuy started to pick up a lot of detractors. The science became less than perfect and therefore his conculsions questioned. However, the studies he did in order to come up with the equations are very valuable, I think, to people looking at how combat works (especially WWII, which was the focus of most of his team's work).

I spoke to Dupuy's grandson many years ago and was told that he had cleaned out his grandfather's atic after he passed away. Can you imagine all the primary resource materials that were up there? I can't, but that's exactly what he cleaned out and put into storage!!

Some of Trevor Dupuy's works can be found in print (two books IIRC), but most were small runs of xerox bound stuff. Not sure if his grandson or anybody else is still selling them, but that's where I got all my stuff from.

Steve

[Soddball]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

Somebody shoot me

Must...not...respond...

Fighting...urge...losing...battle...

-dale </font>

[Wartgamer]

A 1:1 progress could certainly be made in minefields. Minefields, like artillery, are oversimplified.

With 1:1 (and non-tiled 3D surface), individual mines can be potrayed. While some might want to buy mines in loose quantities and plant them about, I would prefer to buy minefields in historical amounts and already 'planted' in correct patterns/mixes/etc.

How the minefields attack 1:1 would have to depend on the individual soldiers/vehicles tripping the actual mines. Things like bounding betties might be modeled by a 'line' (trip wire) instead of a dot.

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by melb_will:

Ok I've been reading along quitely and can see the problem facing Battlefront which If i can try to sum up I will.

1st You are unable to get 1:1 LoS because of technical limitations (although this is desirable)

However, without 1:1 LOS then 1:1 representation becomes abstracted. Because the system can't tell if Soldier A in Squad B can see Target X. Only that Squad B can see target X. Anyway that's how i've been reading it.

The thing that actually interests me the most was the national modifiers. Who is Dupuy, what did he write and what should I read to find out more.

Cheers

Will

I think you summed it up correctly. Like anything, 1:1 comes along with some luggage. Maybe a steamer trunk.

The intent of 1:1 seems to be to advance towards realism and remove abstractions. But you sum up the point that it seems to go over the line if it can't bring along certain traits with it.

Its a systems engineering dilemma at this point and a design crossroads.

National Characteristics:

While I think it may be off topic a bit, national characteristics could be a group trait of sorts and not a 1:1 trait. Lets say we are modeling something like the old ASL going Berserk thing. Will every soldier need a routine every time he is under fire to determine if they go berserk? Its just more lines of code and more cpu cruch time.

I would like to see aversion to casualties modeled. The US Army had the lowest casualty rate of all combatants (I think thats true) and units that had already experienced losses and taken green replacements in the line would be very iffy.

[ February 21, 2005, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[DrD]

I don't think the 1:1 LOS will be a big issue. Currently, supression occurs more than actual casualties. Thus, unless they have really bad aim, it can be assumed that on a micro scale there is usually not an LOS to incoming fire, rather the target of such fire is hunkered down under cover.

If a squad is spread out, and some of it has LOS to the enemy and opens fire, it can be assumed (and this very point has been brought up under threads regarding borg spotting) that the other elements of the squad that don't have LOS will see and hear their buddies shooting, and will shoot their weapons in the same general direction. This will add to the overall suppressive effect of such fire, even if the fire does not actually have LOS.

The opposite situation is a bit trickier. Perhaps we can assume that if 1 soldier sees another but the rest of the squad is not shooting, that soldier's instincts may be just to hold fire to avoid exposure. I seem to recall reading that many soldiers would not fire on one another, a sort of "live and let live" approach, and that it often took a general squad fire-fight to motivate an individual troop to pop up and fire his weapon.

The bigger challenge for the designers as I see it is how to give a realistic advantage to a squad that spreads out. If there is no 1:1 LOS, much of the advantage to spreading out will be negated, especially if spreading out somehow reduces a squad's ability to concentrate FP.

I'm sure Steve and Charles will think of a clever way around this. I can't wait to see it!

[aka_tom_w]

The bigger challenge for the designers as I see it is how to give a realistic advantage to a squad that spreads out. If there is no 1:1 LOS, much of the advantage to spreading out will be negated, especially if spreading out somehow reduces a squad's ability to concentrate FP.

YES!

This is a good Point!

if the player is somehow permitted to "spread the squad out" how will the game reflect and or model the presumed advantages the player is really trying to take advantage of by spreading them out????

I think this is a VERY big can of worms.

Steve says: (AND I paraphrase here) "Don't worry, trust us, we will figure it out and it will work." ("you at least owe us the benefit of the doubt ", or words to that effect)

I am one of the hopeful, and my confidence is high, BUT if there is NO 1:1 LOS and LOF and you have your squads spread out real thin so arty won't get them ALL with one round then what other spotting or firepower advantages will this squad realize when you have them spread out for their own protection?

Its hard to believe we still have to wait almost one full YEAR for some of the answers to these questions .

-tom w

[ February 21, 2005, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Wartgamer]

Its hard to believe we still have to wait almost one full YEAR for some of the answers to these questions .

I think the designer has said that there is nothing else he will add at this point so maybe we should move on?

From a design/test standpoint, they can ceratinly code up a force size that can be supported and determine how LOS/LOF will be modeled/abstracted etc.

A related issue to 1:1 is overall force size. I would think that fans of the first three games would want at least a reinforced company type game. A platton level game is just too small.

[ February 21, 2005, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by DrD:

If a squad is spread out, and some of it has LOS to the enemy and opens fire, it can be assumed (and this very point has been brought up under threads regarding borg spotting) that the other elements of the squad that don't have LOS will see and hear their buddies shooting, and will shoot their weapons in the same general direction. This will add to the overall suppressive effect of such fire, even if the fire does not actually have LOS.

I'm sure Steve and Charles will think of a clever way around this. I can't wait to see it!

I dont think you understand the implications. If a squad is spread out and you claim that some of it has LOS, that means that LOS is being done on a 1:1 scale.