Balancing out commanders and the commanded

[Halberdiers]

1. Entities

2. Environments

3. Interactions

4. Decisions

Single player:

1- One abilitie for each soldier. You have a limited number of soldiers in each HQ-unit or Squad ,maybe 12 or less.

2- The leader have their own level of command.

3- The "Leader" express the abilities of their own unit or the abilities of the "influence" below certain rules. The leader itself could have or not one abilitie as any soldier.

4- You can lose soldiers in your units or fight under another influence , then you can change abilities along the battle. If the influence and the abilities can change along the battle , then the decisions can change along the battle.

Note-The abilities could be anything. But the idea is that each soldier or officer have a role in the process of command .

Multi-Multiplayer

well , could be possible that each player take a role in each level of command as a soldier or officer as another member of this unit ?.

This means that each player can take a role at all levels of command with their own specific abilities. The number of players will be limited by the number of the soldiers of the unit. Then all the players could play a role in the HQ-Battalion and a role in the squad at first line of battle.

[ January 17, 2005, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Herr Oberst]

The answer is 42... now what was the question???

In a more serious vein, it would be very nice to have multiple "AI's", perhaps all starting from a general class of command AI that could handle all the basics (the mechanics of how command works, and some default values for operating parameters). Subclass off that base to account for differences in behavior from the scope of command perspective - is this AI comander more strategic or tactical?

Deriving further from that, you could have additional AI's that were more specialized, differing possibly for Infantry commanders vs Armor commanders, less experienced (meaning less capable, less 'smart'?) vs more experienced, Germans vs British vs Amis vs Russian (different proclivities towards certain actions, tactical doctrines), etc. Still supporting some fuzzy logic so that there would be some variability in commanders of forces.

Each of the active AI's would need to be able to track it's own knowledge rather than looking at the knowledge of the complete set of forces. Knowledge could be passed up or down a unit's command chain if other units were in command radius, but not instantaneously. It could be passed in a more discrete set of 'hops' from command level to command level depending on the state of the sender, the receiver, and the command linkage.

Then, how cool would it be if you could start a game, setup an ORBAT, then specify whether a player had command control of that unit or if the AI did. Multiplayer support comes from assigning different players to different units. Then it's like the current PBEM, but nothing is resolved until the last real player has filed his orders.

Maybe players can only see the details of their units, or any units lower in the food chain. If I take the battalion, I am Oz, the see-all, know-all. If in a multiplayer, I command just a platoon of Panthers or whatever, I can command mine, and send/receive messages to/from higher echelon, and see the map in general, but no details associated with other units (although a burning tank is a pretty good indication that its dead).

I'm sure the brain in a jar could do it if we could all be patient enough... *hint* *hint*

Heck, now that you have me thinking about it, I'll have to start tinkering around...

[Battlefront.com]

Guys,

I am not underestimating the desire to have multi-multi-player as an option. It is, as you say, HIGHLY desirable. One of the big things I am looking forward to doing. And because so many of you have misunderstood this point I think I will need to try again

What I am saying is that to have a realistic sim at the Battalion level you need to have 700 or so multi-multi players and/or AIs. In other words, a 1:1 representation of players/AIs to virtual soldiers. Every step away from this is a departure from reality.

Having a single player control a squad is not such a major departure from reality compared to a single player controlling a Battalion. 4 people controlling a Platoon is therefore pretty realistic, but 4 people controllaing a Battalion is still far away from the ideal state of 1:1 control. So while 4 people controlling a Battalion is more realistic than 1 person in charge, it is still a rather big abstraction. Having 4 people controlling a Company is much better.

So, while it would be neat to have OPTIONAL multi-multi-player support where each player controlls a company or platoon, the basic simulation will still be compromised in terms of realistic command decision making. And of course people do NOT want 13 player co-op games to be the only way to play the game, so obviously multi-multi-player options do not fundamentally offer a solution to the command issues in a Battalion sized simulation.

Steve

[A.E.B]

I fact you can already play CMBO, CMBB & CMAK with multiple human players per side by exploiting the difference between save files and go files for PBEMS.

UberFunnyBunny, M Bates, Dorosh and Krazy Canauk and I have played battles with two players per side, or two against one.

The main thing is to split the forces (we forgot the mortars in one battle with both players thinking they belonged to the other party). You can only order your own forces.

As long as you email the files in a set order, it works fine.

Coordiation was by email, or even screen dumps with lines and squiggles and other notation. But the FOW often intervened and plans fell apart.

For the next CM I see three possible game layers:

1. Normal human vs AI.

2. Human vs human.

3. Multiple humans vs AI or multiple humans.

Also, the game could be split into single battles or campaigns.

Unlike Steel Panthers (which had unconnected battles spread across random months), I see a CM campaign as being an intense operational period, during which units are slowly (or quickly) worn down and attrited, followed by periods in the rear to take on replacements and refits. Few units where engaged in continuous operations for months (an those that did were usually reduced to shells - think of the German units facing the D-Day landings).

A good example is Allied Airbourne units. Take the 101. D-Day, then England, then Market Garden, then Bastone, then the drop over the Rhine.

Even German units (like the SS Panzer divisions) where taken out of the line to receive reinforcements and new equipment. Much of the reason for the decline of these units in 1944/45 was the inability to remove them from operations for sufficient periods of time to rebuild.

If there is a campaign element, then units that survive opeartions should improve in quality unless diluted by reinforcements. I agree that progression during a short operation should be limited or non-existant, but there must be progression between operations.

Take a single CM battle. A elite Tiger I holds an objective against a concerted allied assault. The human playing German leaves the Tiger in place even after its infantry screen is stripped as the important thing is winning this 30+ minute battle.

Now imagine that it is December 1944 and that Tiger's crew has survived since D-Day June 6th. The crew started out regular, but is now elite, with the crew having many kills and the TC a Knight's Cross. You, the KG commander, can still sacrifice this Tiger to hold an objective for 30 minutes, but you may never get another Tiger or crew like that again. And tomorrow there will be another battle for another objective. Suddenly you care about your virtual men!

Regards

A.E.B

[aka_tom_w]

Hi Jaws

Some of us here might not be as video game savy as your self and I be very interested in hearing MORE about what is specifically so unquie or wonderful about Steel Beast Pro?

I assume it is a windows only game and I don't know anything about it?

can you tell us more about your experience playing this game:

and more about this:

"In Steel Beast Pro it is possible to delegate individual vehicles to even a complete company to a human or AI in a multiplayer game. It is even possible to switch platoons between company’s."

I am guessing it is an RTS game?

thanks

I look forward to your reply

-tom w

Originally posted by Jaws:

Ok if I understand this right it is a problem to delegate a certain level of command to an human or AI without negative consequences for 1 of the 4 subjects?

If that is so what technology did the boys from Steel Beast Pro or Steal Panthers (out dated) use? In Steel Beast Pro it is possible to delegate individual vehicles to even a complete company to a human or AI in a multiplayer game. It is even possible to switch platoons between company’s.

All this doesn't effect the

1. Entities.

2. Environments.

3. Interactions.

4. Decisions environment.

The game looks perfect and has the same dept as CM. Only it is not turn based.

Not critical here but just looking for reasons why other games can do this?

[Kilroy Lurking]

Hi Guys!

As one who plays mainly against the computer I would opt for CM2 to continue in this mode if forced to choose. Having said that I realise that a multi-player option would be immensly challenging and fun.

Somehow I feel the key to obtaining the M-P option lies with individuals playing their own mini /module game within the larger game, In other words the game would need to be in effect games within games. The "main " game would not have the same "parammeter set as the sub games so each could be optimised to maximise the realism and playability for its own type...

For example if say the basic "Lt." sized HQ unit (+ its subordinate units) was taken as the minimum module given to an individual player they would play these units c/w borg spotting which for a few close nit units is not really an issue (in all events the all seeing eye of the player is the biggest borg spotter of them all.) The player would be playing his own "Quick Battle" allbeit on a common map. Now to borrow an anology from Photoshop, if every player in effect played his battle on his own seperate '"layer" the game designer "only " has to make the sets of rules that computer would use to enable entities to react with entities on other layers. The computer AI could also play its own layers. Additionally there could be different game rules for diferent classes of layers. For instance the "Lt. Col." class of layer could be ruled to be updated for spotting according to its subordinate HQs being in command, but the player controlling the Col would only be able to see the HQ unit and not its subordinate units...etc

Layering might also enable solo campaigns to be made more interesting..you take your module the computer merges it with the set scenario and you get a different battle every time.

Anyways, just my two cents how it done in real life programming.......I hav'nt the foggiest!

Looking forward to the done deal (so I'll have an excuse to upgrade my Mac)

David

[Flenser]

Steve

Why did you feel it necessary to drop your intractable problems on us? Have we been bad? Are people not buying enough CMAK? Why lord, why?

People tend to get hung up on the "simulation" idea. I've always approached games like these, be it tabletop or computer, as... well... games. Games that try to simulate reality to varying degrees, but games nonetheless.

Unless you want to change the scope of the game, the All Seeing Commander is going to be a necessity, otherwise it won't be interesting and fun. Baring some revolution in AI programming I'm rather against delegating companies and such to the computer.

I'm all for the multi-multiplayer idea. Back in the good 'ol days, I was a beta tester for Myth, (a medieval/fantasy game where you could order individuals around, for you youngers out there. Bungie's first big hit, before the sold out to M$ and started this Halo nonsense.) and one of its more interesting play modes was a team capture-the-flag style of play where each side had a command who could assign (and more importantly, take away) units to other players on the team, draw battle plans on a map, etc. Great fun.

In summary... I don't see any reason to radically alter the current system. It works, its fun. Add a multiplayer option here, a borg-spotting fix there, and I'll be a happy gamer.

My two bits.

[Battlefront.com]

Sirocco had a really good post on the previous page. AEB also had a nice one, though it is the opposite of Sirocco's logic as explained at the beginning. I'll explain that a little better...

The more artificial the "fix" for a problem in a simulation, the more it degrades the overall feel of the simulation itself. While a system like AEB describes offers some work arounds for command problems, it is in and of itself inherently unrealistic and artificial. The effect, unfortunately, means highlighting the fact that the player is using an artificial construct instead of feeling like he is in a real environment.

Also, such artificial rules are the most brittle when it comes to simulation design and therefore the most likely to cause problems with other parts of the sim. Problems which may not even be fixable.

Avoiding such "rules" was a major design goal for CMx1. So mucuh so that just talking about the design got the ASL/SL guys up in arms early on, since those games are basically nothing but highly abstracted and restrictive rule sets. The Beta Demo, as imperfect as it was, won most over to the concept that more natural, systemic systems are more realistic and robust than carefully constructed rule sets.

After having said this I think you guys can see that we're not in favor of systems like AEB described, even though they have merrit. Instead we're going for more fundamental changes. Getting that Borg thing under control is the most important part of this, but a more realistic modeling of C&C will also be central. The end result will not be ideal, from a realism standpoint, but will represent a better compromise between realisim and playability than CMx1 offered.

Steve

[kipanderson]

Steve,

“I am not underestimating the desire to have multi-multi-player as an option. It is, as you say, HIGHLY desirable. One of the big things I am looking forward to doing. And because so many of you have misunderstood this point I think I will need to try again”

Now I do understand what you meant, and agree 100%... not that whether I agree or not matters

My reaction to your first post is called panic I thought “ Oh dear… no multi-play… if you do not ask you do not get.. lobby like crazy.”

I apologies for spreading/adding to the panic on the issue!

No need for the medication now

All the best,

Kip.

[imported_no_one]

Originally posted by Flenser:

Steve

Why did you feel it necessary to drop your intractable problems on us? Have we been bad? Are people not buying enough CMAK? Why lord, why?

People tend to get hung up on the "simulation" idea. I've always approached games like these, be it tabletop or computer, as... well... games. Games that try to simulate reality to varying degrees, but games nonetheless.

Unless you want to change the scope of the game, the All Seeing Commander is going to be a necessity, otherwise it won't be interesting and fun. Baring some revolution in AI programming I'm rather against delegating companies and such to the computer.

I'm all for the multi-multiplayer idea. Back in the good 'ol days, I was a beta tester for Myth, (a medieval/fantasy game where you could order individuals around, for you youngers out there. Bungie's first big hit, before the sold out to M$ and started this Halo nonsense.) and one of its more interesting play modes was a team capture-the-flag style of play where each side had a command who could assign (and more importantly, take away) units to other players on the team, draw battle plans on a map, etc. Great fun.

In summary... I don't see any reason to radically alter the current system. It works, its fun. Add a multiplayer option here, a borg-spotting fix there, and I'll be a happy gamer.

My two bits.

Put this down as my stance as well.Thanks Flenser

[jim crowley]

Phew! Where did this thread spring up from?

First a drought and now a veritable flood of ideas, information and concepts (including the bones tread)

So many good thoughts and suggestions; practical, workable, programmable? Who knows? And therein lies the rub. As Steve says we, the consumers, do not really know the ins and outs of game design and the limitations of trying to programme it. Well I certainly don't.

For the record, I'm not in favour of a command game, insofar as I don't want to be just the Battalion commander. Like Kip, I want the opportunity to control all the units of my force; just not necessarilly all of them all of the time.

There are precedents; In CMX1 you can't control units that are panicked or broken, for a while at least.

Many times in CMBB my conscript Russian troops were mostly out of my control, on and off, for most of the battle. Frustrating? Certainly, but it presented it's own challenges, and that provided a lot of fun in its own right.

Why?

Because it had a feel of realism to it and with practice you learned to adapt your plan to accommodate that realism.

So what that A company is temporarily out of your control. If the AI can co-ordinate the whole of the enemies forces (and not a bad job of it already does) surely it can control your company. Especially if you have given that company a robust set of orders/SOPs, maybe in just the simple form of waypoints and a final target.

I'm not advocating removing control from the player, merely reducing it at certain times when it is obvious that in the real world equivalent no such control could exist.

And the only point of that reduction in control is to reduce borg spotting to a more acceptable level. It wont be perfect but it will be better....and still fun.

I simply cannot accept that a unit, such as a bailed crew, even needs to be player controlled. Unless you want to use it as a rediculously unrealistic and gamey scout.

I would certainly like CMX2 to be top-down as far command goes. As Battalion HQ you give orders to the Companies, who in turn give orders to the platoons and so.

While the HQs remain in C&C you can run everything just as in CMx1 But as command chains break you have to rely on the AI running some of your stuff until you can re-establish control.

At the end of the day, I am perfectly happy to go with BFC's solution to borg spotting but would prefer the AI route to multi-multi player.

And even if BFC suddenly, God forbid, disappears in a puff of smoke, I'll still be playing CMx1 into my dotage.

[Battlefront.com]

As for how other games have dealt with this type of dilemia... they haven't Steel Panthers was brought out as an example, though I don't know why. There was almost no AI in that game at all, at any level, not to mention to the point of the AI being able to command your troops for the player without said player tearing out all his hair in frustration. And comparing SP and CMx1 in terms of complexity of simulation is like comparing silk flower to a real one. They might have a similar look to them, but one is tremendously more complex than the other.

Vehicle sim games, like Steel Beasts, do have the ability to have "wingmen" AIs. And good games, like Steel Beasts, can pull it off. But it is very, very different having a couple of vehicles operating in a more limited combat environment than having an AI simulate the actions of dozens and dozens of highly diverse units in a coordinated fashion.

So... the answer to why we can't do it is because we don't want to freeze the game design and spend the next 10 years making AI for it

What we are doing is making a game system that minimizes the problems associated with single player control. Since there is no way to realistically work around this problem completely, minimizing is the best we can do. Fortunately, we feel we can do this quite well without ruining the game in the process

I've said elsewhere that multi-multi-player will not be in the first CMx1 release. It is simply too much to bite off at once. Remember that we released CMBO without Internet play for the same reason. Instead we are focusing our energies on making the game as solid as possible WITH multi-mulit-player capabilities in mind. What will work for one player, from a game standpoint, must be workable for many players. And vice versa.

Steve

[Mad Russian]

There are several facets to battlefield command.

1) The level of the commander.

2) The level of command and control.

3) The experience and training level of the organization.

4) The environment the situation takes place in.

Whether the program is a sim or a game affects each of these.

1) The level of the commander…

In a sim, the player is the commander, at whatever level the sim is set at. Everything else is abstracted.

In a game, the commander’s role is abstracted, and everything else is weighted to the degree of abstraction chosen by the dynamics of the game.

In CM the commander’s role is from whatever level the scenario has been built for. However many commanders there are, in the scenario, the player is every one of them. This has the positive effect of allowing the player maximum participation. The negative effect of this is a missing chain of command.

CM has not, in the past, modeled the chain of command other than to show it with order delay times. This is an interesting model. I can see the rational behind that design model but I think it leaves a great deal of the command structure out of the picture.

Let’s take a look at what the CM command structure is. It is built soley on the command of the lowest level units in the game, whether they are squads, gun crews or vehicles. While any battlefield commander could, and sometimes did, take command of troops in the field, there is a limit to this. Interestingly enough, CM is designed, with the highest ranking commander in the game, as a battalion commander.

If we look at the duties of a battalion commander in the CM battlefield we would find very little for him to do. They command a battalion. That means giving direction and support to the companies under his command, reporting to superiors on the progress and situation of his battalion, coordinating with neighboring units, etc...

Rarely would you find him walking out on the battlefield and taking direct command of the troops in the field. Different nation’s armies had different operational structures though, and the necessity is the mother of invention. So, at times, a battalion commander would become involved in leading troops. This wouldn’t be an ordinary everyday type of event. Battalion commanders of armored units would have a more active role in the fighting but would still have to command the battalion. They would rarely, if ever, take over direct command of a platoon.

Company commanders are closer to the fighting, and have the ability, and the capacity to command all the troops in their company. Normally, they command the company, and not a squad, or platoon.

Platoon commanders command their platoons directly. They are responsible for issuing almost all of the orders that a platoon gets during a day. It is his job to direct the men at the lowest level.

CM currently has two levels of commanders. The platoon commanders, who issue the commands directly to the squads or individual vehicles, and company commanders who intervene when things get out of hand. The battalion commander, in CM, is just an extra company commander as far as ability, and effect of his command position, is concerned.

2) The level of command control…

In a sim, command and control is set at the specific level being modeled.

In a game, command and control is often blended between several different levels of command.

The CM system is a good example of command and control that has been blended. It is a mixture of the chain of command without using it. You have battalion commanders that have exactly the same functions in the game as company commanders. You have a company commander that is a platoon commander with the added ability to control any unit on the map even outside his own company. You have a platoon leader that reports to no-one. All the command positions have been blended into the gamer.

3) The experience and training level of the organization…

Experience levels have about the same uses and functions in both sims and games.

CM has experience levels that are pretty well defined. The troops are more or less prone to suffer adverse psychological results, breaking, routing, etc… depending on the amount of experience and training they have received.

4) The environment the situation takes place in…

The sim and game both show the effects of the environment pretty much the same. There is terrain, it is either night or day, it’s in a rural or urban setting…and the associated problems for commanding troops that arise from the setting. Operations at night are harder to coordinate, fighting in a city is more complicated to get orders issued and thus the command range is shorter, those type things.

Command and control determination in CM is affected differently by the environment. Daylight or dark the command range is the same. However, urban and heavy vegetation situations like forests shorten the command and control range.

Real life Command structure.

Battalion commander controls a battalion of from 2 to 5 battalions.

Company commander controls a company of 2 to 4 platoons.

Platoon commander controls a platoon of 2 to 4 squads.

The CM command and control model.

So what is command and control in CM. The commands are all issued at the platoon level. If a battalion commander or company commander gives orders it is the same as the platoon commander.

I believe that, the order delay, was an attempt to add some command and control to the game, in a pretty simplistic form. And in a simplistic sort of way it does. I don’t believe it was ever intended to simulate the entire command and control model.

Here are some suggestions for modeling command and control in a more realistic fashion.

All commanders would have to be in command and control just like the squads of the current CM platoon. If they aren’t there would be adverse affects down the chain of command.

The battalion commander is currently always in command and control but a scenario option could be added where he might not be. The range of command and control could be worked out for all levels of command, just like it is now for the experience levels of leaders. Night needs to be a determining factor of that command range and it currently doesn’t seem to be.

So, what are the effects of command and control if we don’t just use the order delay? There are a lot of things that commanders do. One is to affect the morale of troops. The closer the battalion, or company commander is, to a platoon leader, or particular squad, the higher the morale should go. Up to certain level. No matter what the leadership rating for that leader is. “The Old Man is here!” is a powerful morale booster. So higher chain of command leaders should give an automatic morale boost if they are close at hand.

CM leaders give orders to move or fire. In real life those orders move downhill. The battalion commander orders the company commander to take the village. He then orders his platoons to secure his objective. The company commander doesn’t wake up one morning and say,” Today would be a good day to take that village.” Not on his own initiative he doesn’t. In CM you are all the leaders, and you decide who will do what, but even then, you should be in command range. If you aren’t, your invincible soldiers wouldn’t know what you wanted them to do. There should be a limit to ranges of offensive fire and movement. Offensive fire and movement is anything firing at or moving toward the enemy. NEVER would there be a limit to defensive fire. Any and all units will always defend themselves. But offensive movement or combat, without being in the command and control range of the higher commander, should be penalized. Here is where the delays start happening. Here is where you may not move or fire at all. The less experience the more delays just like CM does now.

I find it interesting that there are no bad leaders in the CM model. That the worst any leader can have in CM is a zero rating for the leadership qualities. I think that the command and control system should reflect bad leaders as well.

Just like in the current system a battalion or company commander could take personal control, but if they do, they risk putting other parts of their command, out of command and control. Which is what happens in real life. A commander can’t do ten things at once. If you are commanding an infantry platoon, you can’t be commanding a battalion. If the company commander is using his combat ratings, for the HMG at the crossroads, and he is out of command range of one of his platoon leaders, they should suffer for it.

If a commander takes control of units not assigned to him there should be penalties. If, for instance, Company A’s Commander takes over control of a platoon from Company B, those soldiers won’t perform as well for him as they would their own commander. The chain of command is important in battle.

I am not purposing a drastically new system, but instead, a modified one of the current model. Just extend what is already in place for squads/vehicles, and platoons, up through the levels of the chain of command as well. It should give a little better representation for command and control, while at the same time, keeping the options open to the player where his leaders go, and what they do. Who gets help and who doesn’t. It should be much more realistic, with just a few changes to the existing CM model. It certainly wouldn’t mean redoing the entire leadership and order model currently in place.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by jim crowley:

So what that A company is temporarily out of your control. If the AI can co-ordinate the whole of the enemies forces (and not a bad job of it already does) surely it can control your company. Especially if you have given that company a robust set of orders/SOPs, maybe in just the simple form of waypoints and a final target.

I'm not advocating removing control from the player, merely reducing it at certain times when it is obvious that in the real world equivalent no such control could exist.

And the only point of that reduction in control is to reduce borg spotting to a more acceptable level. It wont be perfect but it will be better....and still fun.

I simply cannot accept that a unit, such as a bailed crew, even needs to be player controlled. Unless you want to use it as a rediculously unrealistic and gamey scout.

OK!

I am hoping there are some REALLY BIG great wonderful surprises they have in store for us in CMx2

and so far we have NOT heard one word about SOP's :confused:

"If the AI can co-ordinate the whole of the enemies forces (and not a bad job of it already does) surely it can control your company. Especially if you have given that company a robust set of orders/SOPs, maybe in just the simple form of waypoints and a final target."

That sounds good to me... the Whole issue around SOP's and how we might program/order or assign an SOP to a unit could be a WHOLE new thread, but I would be happier if Steve and Charles et. al. at BFC just ignore talking about and make it work in CMx2 and surprise us with it. (in my dreams)

If each unit has a memory for what happened in the game (not like CMxx now) AND each unit MUST do its OWN spotting check to see or verify a threat (NOT like CMxx now) AND if each unit could have an SOP order issued to it, AND if Fog of War and the general level of uncertianty was increased in the game, (plus the new terrain and the dynamic lighting and the 1:1 representation, did I miss anything??? ) we would all find we would be PLAYING A WHOLE NEW game, hopefully an order of magnitude GREATER and more fun and spectacular then CMBO was when it first came out.

Now what can we all do to help and speed up the process???

-tom w

[ January 17, 2005, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Hamstersss]

Finally, Steve, you've come around to 1:1 squad representation*. Maybe after CMx2 comes out I'll be able to google my name and not see that four-year old argument.

For my own two cents, I found CMBO's original appeal to be the organic struggle with your own troops. You weren't ordering robot soldiers into battle, you were trying to martial men with guns and force them to shoot at other men with guns. Sometimes they missed, sometimes they chickened out and, occasionally, they performed some really heroic activities. War is a social activity and resembles other social activities. The wargames I'd played before, though good, didn't feel so human.

To that end, I think if CMx2 modelled AI above as well as below, it would see most of its value on the social level. I would love to have played a single company in a battallion-sized assault on a city, all on the same map. To get the opportunity to curse or praise not just my soldiers or my enemies but also my superiors and my fellow commanders; that would add another element of social realism to the game.

*I'm a student of Peng, I don't use smilies, but that was a funny.

[aka_tom_w]

Here's another crazy Idea

What if.....

A player thought it might be FUN to play with PART of his force, say one of three entire/depleted companies OR one of three platoons) completely under AI command. Thus playing with another unknown or uncertain element in the game?

That would mean there would have to some way to communicate to the AI the goal or objective of the scenario.

Just an idea...

thanks

-tom w

[Jaws]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Hi Jaws

Some of us here might not be as video game savy as your self and I be very interested in hearing MORE about what is specifically so unquie or wonderful about Steel Beast Pro?

I assume it is a windows only game and I don't know anything about it?

can you tell us more about your experience playing this game:

and more about this:

"In Steel Beast Pro it is possible to delegate individual vehicles to even a complete company to a human or AI in a multiplayer game. It is even possible to switch platoons between company’s."

I am guessing it is an RTS game?

thanks

I look forward to your reply

-tom w

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

Ok if I understand this right it is a problem to delegate a certain level of command to an human or AI without negative consequences for 1 of the 4 subjects?

If that is so what technology did the boys from Steel Beast Pro or Steal Panthers (out dated) use? In Steel Beast Pro it is possible to delegate individual vehicles to even a complete company to a human or AI in a multiplayer game. It is even possible to switch platoons between company’s.

All this doesn't effect the

1. Entities.

2. Environments.

3. Interactions.

4. Decisions environment.

The game looks perfect and has the same dept as CM. Only it is not turn based.

Not critical here but just looking for reasons why other games can do this?

</font>

[Steiner14]

What i'm afraid of is, that Battlefront could decide for a complete new C&C system which no one likes or really needs.

There are too much examples of good programs, games, movies, sequels always suffering the same fate: in the wish to make things MUCH better, the 'magic' of the original is lost.

It's a misbelieve to think this 'magic' lies only in perfection or - in the case of games - in realism. Sometimes even the limitations create the magic.

I doubt, that the same two or three persons who developed a brilliant product like CMx1, will be able to produce a complete new CMx2, which is all new AND even much better than their first strike. This would mean the same person winning two times the jackpot.

What makes me worry, that BFC could leave the proven good old paths, i.e. is the planned 1:1 man representation. It sounds cool. But it will only work for me, if it will look really convincing. And that must be a HUGE amount of programming-labour, just for the eye-candy. How will the 1:1 representation work in houses, upstairs, in trenches, behind guns?

What will that look like, if two squads are very close to each other and fighting?

And what about the turn-sizes then? Will it still be possible to PBEM via modem?

Instead to see one or two pixelsoldiers in the open, although the squad is in woods, i would by far prefer three (fine) modelled symbolic soldiers.

Until now, i've not in a single moment had the feeling, that with the three man representation, i'm missing anything. But i can imagine, that it would look already fantastic AND convincing, if they were modeled with motion capturing and would offer different gestures and movements.

I also don't see the necessity of a complete new C&C concept.

The base of CMx1 is rock solid. Is there really the need to throw the not perfect but good working things away? Is it necessary to throw it away to reduce borg spotting?

It has limitations. Sure. But are all of the restrictions really that bad, or do they maybe even create their part on CMx1's magic and fun?

The balance in CMx1, between fun and realism is perfectly right.

But if we demand more realism, and maybe get it, this has nothing to say, that the game will still have any magic or be fun to play.

I hope BFC will only make the not so good and limited things a bit better, instead of falling into a megalomania, where everything is planned to be made new and 'much better'.

And i'm really afraid now, after reading Steve's posts about fundamentals of simulations. Steve, you don't have to invent the wheel new. You've invented it already! Don't try to do so a second time. Just make this brilliant product a bit better and adapt it to modern standards.

Just my 2 ct.

[Jaws]

100 % agree I like CM as it is but a little face lift is ok.1:1 is not a must and most games like Warhammer 40K or Lord of the Rings TBoME are using little groups of people but they all react a little different and that’s why they like individuals.

Yes this is one group like the 3 of CM. A group can consist of max 10 people.

[Treeburst155]

Single player command - minimize the negatives. You're on the right track IMO. I realize the limitations that must be accepted if single player command is the focus, which it should be IMO. Ever tried to organize and execute an 8-player Tacops battle? It's NOT something done without a great deal of prep before the big event.

Treeburst155 out.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[...] So while 4 people controlling a Battalion is more realistic than 1 person in charge, it is still a rather big abstraction. Having 4 people controlling a Company is much better.

So, while it would be neat to have OPTIONAL multi-multi-player support where each player controlls a company or platoon, the basic simulation will still be compromised in terms of realistic command decision making.

Steve, how do you see the co-op multiplaying (I'd propose "Complay") being implemented ? Now that I think about it, and judging from Sirocco comment on what works and what doesn't, it raises some questions about way of making this work effectively and interestingly.

For example, the coop multiplayer feature can be integrated in various organic or systemic fashions.

Case A, horizontal cooperation: all players gets a purchase screen and pick units they want, roughly like a superposition of QBs on a map in simultaneous time, fighting side by side and cooperating as they wish while pursuing their own objectives. Might be an option to consider for those who might want to try limited cooperation while keeping control on their own things.

Case B, vertical cooperation: players fill positions within one main force along the organic structure of the command. X would play the battalion commander, Y coy A commander, Z coy B and so on. I suppose it could look like a game hosted with slots (commands) to be filled by joining players. Soon enough we would see whole armies forming up and competing against each other. A player joining a game would take over all units under his command.

This call for effective definition of HQ role and responsabilities in the game even though the co-op multiplaying wont be in the first time around.

How does a battalion commander act differently than a coy commander ? What would be the advantage of filling this seat rather than another ? As it was pointed out earlier, in CM1 there is little differences between a platoon HQ and a battalion HQ. But in theory, the battalion commander has overall command, and thus it must take effect at some point.

Another question is whether to separate complay between commands along doctrinal lines to further simulate those doctrinal differences (combining infantry and armor or keeping them separated for example) or to make one generic setup. I suppose the latter is more effective from a gameplay stand point.

Cheers

[ January 17, 2005, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Here's another crazy Idea

What if.....

A player thought it might be FUN to play with PART of his force, say one of three entire/depleted companies OR one of three platoons) completely under AI command. Thus playing with another unknown or uncertain element in the game?

That would mean there would have to some way to communicate to the AI the goal or objective of the scenario.

Just an idea...

thanks

-tom w

I like the idea of that a lot. Not for every battle for sure but occaisionally it would be good to command a company action (just like in CMx1 now) but in the context of a much larger battle.

Frustration levels may be high sometimes, when your AI allies let you down. Or perhaps the reserve company will bail out your flagging attack.

Could be exciting stuff.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Avoiding such "rules" was a major design goal for CMx1. So mucuh so that just talking about the design got the ASL/SL guys up in arms early on, since those games are basically nothing but highly abstracted and restrictive rule sets. The Beta Demo, as imperfect as it was, won most over to the concept that more natural, systemic systems are more realistic and robust than carefully constructed rule sets.

As a mostly-former ASL/SL afficianado myself, I've come to understand the ASL rules as rules mechanics that drive the design, rather than design driving the rules.

I see CM as a "graduate" of the third class of wargaming evolution: the early wargames (Tractics, H.G. Wells early stuff, etc.) were the First Class - they were relatively simplistic and clunky. The Second Class were the ones that most of us remember fondly from the 70s and 80s - more organized and fairly flexible within their own contexts, but dominated by charts and tables and matrices, ASL being the arch-typical example. Several table top miniature games were and are similar.

A few years ago game designers apparently started looking at wargaming and noticed that a rule mechanism that had Step 5 using a matrix of 100 possible results that were funneled into only 5 possible option paths in Step 6 might just be a little overcomplicated. So there have been a growing number of rulesets and wargames that have tried to sweep out the junk and streamline their processes while maintaining or even increasing player options. I think of these games as the Third Class.

As I mentioned, I see CM as more representative of this Third Class because it is NOT simply a complicated game where the computer paints a pretty picture, replaces all my charts and moves my figures for me. I don't really know what goes on under the hood in CM, but it's not simply generating random numbers and checking their places in a chart. It plays a lot like a good tactical miniature wargame being run by a group of guys who all know their stuff and all trust each other and know when to consult the rulebook and when to just agree that "that's a reasonable outcome", and I have a feeling that that's how it's intended to play.

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

Avoiding such "rules" was a major design goal for CMx1. So mucuh so that just talking about the design got the ASL/SL guys up in arms early on, since those games are basically nothing but highly abstracted and restrictive rule sets. The Beta Demo, as imperfect as it was, won most over to the concept that more natural, systemic systems are more realistic and robust than carefully constructed rule sets.

As a mostly-former ASL/SL afficianado myself, I've come to understand the ASL rules as rules mechanics that drive the design, rather than design driving the rules.

I see CM as a "graduate" of the third class of wargaming evolution: the early wargames (Tractics, H.G. Wells early stuff, etc.) were the First Class - they were relatively simplistic and clunky. The Second Class were the ones that most of us remember fondly from the 70s and 80s - more organized and fairly flexible within their own contexts, but dominated by charts and tables and matrices, ASL being the arch-typical example. Several table top miniature games were and are similar.

A few years ago game designers apparently started looking at wargaming and noticed that a rule mechanism that had Step 5 using a matrix of 100 possible results that were funneled into only 5 possible option paths in Step 6 might just be a little overcomplicated. So there have been a growing number of rulesets and wargames that have tried to sweep out the junk and streamline their processes while maintaining or even increasing player options. I think of these games as the Third Class.

As I mentioned, I see CM as more representative of this Third Class because it is NOT simply a complicated game where the computer paints a pretty picture, replaces all my charts and moves my figures for me. I don't really know what goes on under the hood in CM, but it's not simply generating random numbers and checking their places in a chart. It plays a lot like a good tactical miniature wargame being run by a group of guys who all know their stuff and all trust each other and know when to consult the rulebook and when to just agree that "that's a reasonable outcome", and I have a feeling that that's how it's intended to play.

-dale </font>

[Dandelion]

Steve and fellow posters,

Do we as players want realistic conditions of a military commander (at any level of command) in combat, or do we prefer to be act the role of the collective will of a military unit working to achieve an objective? The latter is what we do now I think, never really entering the individual minds of soldiers or commanders as such.

I think the Borg problem (in the sense of supernatural awareness, rather than spotting rules) should perhaps not be solved. Because it may not be a problem. Maybe it is a quality of the game.

There was this game, maybe of Commodore 64 vintage, where one played out naval battles using text only. Looking much like a Word document really. Coordinates and events were reported in as demanded from the various vessels, as if standing by a radio many miles from the battle. Maps were irrelevant in wide open ocean. You knew nothing that your vessel commanders did not report, and if not within visual range of the enemy your commanders knew nothing that you did not inform them of.

In it's own fashion, this was realistic (and I recall enjoying the game). Such simulations of individual commanders can be placed at any level - in OFP you will normally be a squad leader, for instance. But of course with every step in the CoC away from the individual soldiers, you also surrender control of events, until finally reaching a most abstract state of flags and lines on a map. As the commander will not be able to leave his maps and signallers at a certain level, it makes sense making simulations of the Airborne Assault type. At the other extreme we have the FPS game, simulating individual experience but lacking any kind of tactical challenge.

Personally I always felt that CM made a solid compromise, using basically the same level as ASL (control down to squad level, but not individual men) but introducing a score of substantial improvements over the latter (including semi-independent squads). It appears to be a good level for modern warfare simulation, combining the tactical challenge of chess with FPS-type 3D dramatic experience, the two ingredients enrichening rather than weaking the other. CM was always the rightlevel for me.

Adressing the Borg problem with a mind to completely eliminate it (again meaning the divine powers of observation and situational awareness in a wider sense than just unit spotting), will inevitably force a definition of the player, since anything is understandable or observable only in relation to someone or something. And as soon as the player is defined he is immediately confined. He is someplace specific in the 3D environment, and must be in order for the illusion to work. We are back at the Naval game, except we travel in a much improved 3D environment.

And one cannot say it is entirely unrealistic. A group working together toward a common goal just might act as coordinated as if driven by a single will. The whole structure of any armed force is designed to create just that effect and with some confusion and irregularity injected by wrestling detailed control out of our hands (men panicking, men reacting negatively upon not seeing their CO and so on), I personally find the solution credible enough.

Cheerio

Dandelion