Balancing out commanders and the commanded

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

So if it is a game vice simulation, is it not important that you DO understand what goes on under the hood? Otherwise, whom are you pleasing? Not the gamers and not the simulationists.

If that's, like, a word and stuff.

Hm. I don't necessarily think it needs to be a game OR a simulation. I think CM is overall a far better simulation than ASL, for instance, and a better game as well. And I don't see that my curiosity of what goes on under the hood affects my enjoyment of the game in general, even though I am a "design notes" slut.

Maybe I'm missing your point?

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by 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 don't think CM (again, all I know is CMx1) is designed to be a Comnmand simulation at all, so therefore the C&C "feel" must always be subservient to other design aspects.

The miniature group I play with runs the occasional "Map Game" based on the Free Kriegspiel rules found here. These games are designed to simulate the Command and COntrol of operational battles, and the key element our umpires stress is a lack of both command and control.

So any real simulation of C&C would be unplayable at the CM level - we'd tell our platoons to go attack someone and that would be our sole action for 10 turns.

So we have to live with compromises like we currently have.

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

So if it is a game vice simulation, is it not important that you DO understand what goes on under the hood? Otherwise, whom are you pleasing? Not the gamers and not the simulationists.

If that's, like, a word and stuff.

Hm. I don't necessarily think it needs to be a game OR a simulation. I think CM is overall a far better simulation than ASL, for instance, and a better game as well. And I don't see that my curiosity of what goes on under the hood affects my enjoyment of the game in general, even though I am a "design notes" slut.

Maybe I'm missing your point?

-dale </font>

[hoolaman]

The possibilities open to us are mandatory multi-multi player or mandatory control of most forces by AI players or a combo of both.

As for me, I vote to not relegate any more control to an AI. I do not want to be in a battle where the other companies are AI controlled. If I wanted to do this, I would set up a company size battle.

Originally posted by Tarkus:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 </font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

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.

Cheerio

Dandelion

In the most positive and collegial way possible I would like to wholeheartedly disagree!.

It IS a LARGE part of the problem for many of us here for sure!

With every fiber of my being I bristle at the gamey jeep recon and the bailed out tank crew WAY way out of LOS or C&C (say 500m) that can report back to all other units via some Borg like collective consciousness, ANY and ALL possible spotting information about any and all enemy threats!

This can and should be neutralized or at the very least degraded in some meaningful way!

Absolute spotting means when one unit sees something ALL other units become instantly aware of it. I am NOT sure if we are talking about the same "Absolute Spotting/Borg collective conscious problem?"

If you suggesting that the absolute spotting paradigm as implemented in CMxx is acceptable then perhaps we are NOT playing the same game, and just as surely we do not share the same expectations of the CMx2.

I have every expectation that in CMx2 somehow each unit will make its own individual spotting checks (independently of all other units) and some how the player will be aware of which if his own units can see which enemy units they have INDIVIDUALLY spotted, if this is NOT the kind of grand improvement you are looking for in CMx2 then you will save your self some money and you can be happy playing CMxx games ( there are three great ones choose from) and you won't need to look forward to buying the CMx2 titles.

For the rest of us there is now an expectation that we have seen the LAST of absolute spotting and we are (a year from now) and the verge of a ground breaking step forward in video game design and hopefully a quantum leap forward in FUN!

(sorry for post of complete disagreement with your position as stated (if I understand what you mean by: "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. ")

-tom w

[ January 18, 2005, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Battlefront.com]

Correct... CMx1 and CMx2 are not designed to be Command type game systems. And we don't want them to be. By definition that means the Borg will, to some extent, remain in CM forever. It must because to eliminate it completely means the player is basically eliminted as well.

The purpose of this thread is to emphasize that there needs to be a trade off between realism and playability in regards to the player as God concept. I felt it was necessary to get into this a bit more because I don't think realism advocates fully comprehend where the path they are advocating winds up if followed without compromise. This is important because it frames the discussion for what is possible to improve without losing what makes the game great.

In regards to CM, eliminating the Borg and God problems basically means eliminating the Player from the game as we know it. That is just not a good plan, and we only like good plans Which means, when designing improvements into CMx2 we are not thinking "how can we eliminate the Borg and God problems" rather "how can we reduce their negatives without significantly compromising their benefits to the game".

Our plan is to identify the problems with Borg and God perspectives which cause significant breaks with realism, then evaluate how they can be minimized without fundamentally altering the player's role in the game. That means, as I have said hundreds of times before, not going down the path of a Command Level type game.

Steve

[Caesar]

Probably the biggest problem I have had with the command and control system that we currently have is that if I want to shift a squad a little to take into account a local tactical situation, I suffer the large delays. This means that I can't have my troops retreat/attack/whatever before it is too late even though they could obviously directly see the situation. I realise that we have to have some kind of command inhibitors to have any kind of realism but this doesn't seem to quite achieve the aim.

I wonder if it would be possible to implement a sort of layered SOP approach where certain aspects of the SOP could only be changed at the highest levels (say for instance Company or Battalion) and so suffer large delays before being activated, while the rest are set at the Platoon level so are activated with little delay. The squads themselves can then move, fire whatever with no delay so long as it obeys the SOPs.

I'm not entirely sure how well this would work in the game or for that matter how hard it would be to implement, but it seems to be more likely to affect CnC more realistically than the blanket delay system that we have now.

The other pet peeve I have always had is the isolated troops (often crew of abandoned) that have been broken, shot up etc and are totally cut off, yet still effectively performing as recon. I hope BFC can come up with an answer to this one because it can totally turn a game by providing a warning that should never have been available. I think I would rather that the AI took over completely until these troops got back in CnC range than the current situation.

Thanks Steve for all the time and info you have given over to this and the other thread.

[hoolaman]

My take on a game like CM is that the player NEEDS to control lowest level formations with the greatest degree of control. It is here where the simulation is most complex and most requires immediate human contact.

IRL, a platoon is also the highest level at which all elements should be in nearly immediate contact with each other. The command level you play when you command a squad to do something is a hybrid of the squad NCO and the platoon HQ.

Shouldn't command delay somehow be placed on a whole formation, rather than its individual parts. So for the platoon HQ to gather up all his squads and shift position would require a significant command delay, but for only one squad to get up and shift position reflects more of the will of the NCO rather than the officer.

That is why I think it must be simulated WHERE an order comes from.

CM is a squad level game, dashing from building to building is how you win battles, not by putting a company in the right place. If a C&C system "forced" your formations to be in the general area where the highest level HQs had told them to be in the early stages of a battle, it would be possible to "be" the high HQs and struggle with rerouting formations, while simulataneously "being" the men running from foxhole to foxhole.

No AI required. No co-op multiplay required (although a good C&C would put the broad pieces in place for multiplay). I see this as the only way to go.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

So in a command-style game where you play the role of battalion HQ, your role is not that of one man, but the role of 4 or more HQ groups that have worked out and enacted plans in cooperation with each other.

Right. I think we can safely assume by now that CM will not be a command game. But this still carries the question as to how successfully place 2 -or 13 players on the same side and have them manipulate units and coordinate their efforts, communicate, etc.

Beside, although co-op multiplay was presented as a potential solution for borg-spotting, I was more refering to it simply as a game feature. I think it could yield very interesting possibilities, but I wonder how the problem, apparently on Steve's list, is conceptualized and what is the implementation intent.

[Battlefront.com]

While I agree that CMx1 works well as a game with the Borg and God forces at work, the compromise on realism is too much for our taste. If we didn't have good, solid ideas on how to delicately fix these problems without cutting apart the rest of the game then we would let things be. Fortunately we've had ideas for many years now that we've been itching to get into CM but haven't beacuse of the old code. Now we've got our chance!

For those of you who are afraid that we'll kill the fun in CM, don't be. If you read my stuff carefully you'll see that we're taking great care to keep the "magic" of CM intact. Going to a Command Level game would kill it deader than dead, which is why there is no way we are going in that direction.

1:1 soldier representation is not just eye candy. It opens the door to a host of things which will make the game more realistic and more fun to play. We are also confident that we can program this sort of thing to work the right way. If we didn't believe that then we would have left things as is because what we have now isn't a bad thing.

More realistic Command and Control introduces new game challenges which should make the game experience more exciting as well as more realistic. Uncertainty is a great stimulator for creative thought and emotional response.

For any of you that don't believe me, boot up any CMx1 game and load up a heavily fogged in wooded scenario or a night battle. Play it with the Fog of War on least realistic then play it most realistic. If you see no difference between how the two games play out, cognitively and emotionally, then my hat's off to your doctor. The lobotomy you got was completely successful

All this hub-bub is about increasing the player's gaming experience, not lessening it or even keeping it the same. Stagnation is the worst problem in the games industry as it is in industry as a whole. Companies need to continually try to make things better or, if something really is optimal, come up with a novel alternative. Sometimes this will not work, but when it does it is a benefit to all. This is the thinking that got Charles and I to look at ASL/SL and say "this is not the best a wargame can be. We can do it better". Now 7 years later we are looking at CMx1 and saying the same thing.

Steve

[hoolaman]

I just noticed that I said almost exactly the same thing as caesar!

I agree, but I think the only way to limit what a formation has been ordered to do by company HQ for example is to limit WHERE it is rather than SOPs.

SOPs would control what you can make you units do, or in an extreme case, guide the AI. You the player knows what the mission is. Every level of command of pixel soldiers knows what the mission is. You will direct your squads take realistic actions in fulfillment of the mission. The only thing that differs is that when you play as the lowest level of command in CM you can respond to the larger tactical situation that should be mostly unknown to you.

I want to limit a player from responding to the larger tactical situation unless a higher level HQ is used to do so.

[Caesar]

Hoolaman, I think that the WHERE should only be part of the restriction. Whether you are attacking/defending or whatever the SOPs control in the end needs to be 'layered' as well IMO. If you apply a realism filter for a moment, squads do not just attack off their own bat - they await orders. The locality is one aspect, but what they do within that location should also be subject to higher control and thus delays

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

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

So in a command-style game where you play the role of battalion HQ, your role is not that of one man, but the role of 4 or more HQ groups that have worked out and enacted plans in cooperation with each other.

Right. I think we can safely assume by now that CM will not be a command game. But this still carries the question as to how successfully place 2 -or 13 players on the same side and have them manipulate units and coordinate their efforts, communicate, etc.

Beside, although co-op multiplay was presented as a potential solution for borg-spotting, I was more refering to it simply as a game feature. I think it could yield very interesting possibilities, but I wonder how the problem, apparently on Steve's list, is conceptualized and what is the implementation intent. </font>

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Caesar:

Hoolaman, I think that the WHERE should only be part of the restriction. Whether you are attacking/defending or whatever the SOPs control in the end needs to be 'layered' as well IMO. If you apply a realism filter for a moment, squads do not just attack off their own bat - they await orders. The locality is one aspect, but what they do within that location should also be subject to higher control and thus delays

This is true, and should form part of the equation. However, in a single player game, where the player "is" everybody at once, the order to attack would be intuitively known by all the officers. Also how does an SOP limit what a squad can do? A squad can do, and may need to do all the same stuff on defense, assualt, movement. If I need to run for cover or make a hasty counter-attack, I don't want my defend SOP to prevent it.

There are of course options to make coordinating an hasty attack very difficult. If orders don't get out, a vital part of your force may be left sitting on the line. But a distinction must be made between a planned attack and a change-of-plan hasty attack.

Even an advance is still a big matter of WHERE the formations are. If the last high level order you gave was to send a company to point x, and then suddenly need to make a hasty attack with that company, you are going to have a command delay before it happens.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

For those of you who are afraid that we'll kill the fun in CM, don't be. If you read my stuff carefully you'll see that we're taking great care to keep the "magic" of CM intact. Going to a Command Level game would kill it deader than dead, which is why there is no way we are going in that direction.

I wish I could say that that completely reassured me. You guys have a better idea then us as to what it's going to be like and have proven that you lot know what you are doing. But CM was always like chess on steroids. I didn't mind the thinking two turns ahead but I'm going to hate also having to order the moves two turns before making them. Let alone if the pawns go off on an adventure of their own choosing. Responding to a fluid situation as it develops is half the fun for me.

So please please please,when in doubt err on the side of caution/fun rather then wizz bang realism. Otherwise I foresee much frustration at my end as I have to wait ages before I can correct a bad situation. Because I get into bad situations... A LOT.

Then again you guys should probably ignore me. While reading this thread I often had to apply corks in an attempt to keep my brain from leaking out.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Could someone move the quote button away from the edit button?

[Caesar]

Simplistically, a defend SOP (as an example) could prevent the use of the "Assault" and "Advance" commands or maybe limit their uses to well within the allowed movement radius of the WHERE. An advantage to this approach would be you could maybe allow armies that traditionally have more freedom of action at lower levels of command to actually have this.

[Richie]

The Borg issue comes down to communication between units.

There is either 'Line Of Sight' or an 'inherent radio'.

Out of line of sight, no radio, no command line, perhaps the AI should be picking up control of 'the gamey jeep' and display it as YOUR JEEP as it boldly goes where no jeep has gone before...

Just a thought, I'm sure it's been had before...

[aka_tom_w]

I think these are GREAT ideas!

Caesar's SOP concept combined with Hoolaman's WHERE limitations sound wonderful and I would really like to think these SOP and WHERE (command zone limitation) suggestions could be somehow part of the solution to CnC problems that exist in the current game.

Good thinking!

The really interesting thing is that NO matter how much we talk about SOP's Steve has never commented on them or mentioned any possibility of any such thing in CMx2. I think therefore it is safe to conclude that is the official policy :

"It is the stated policy of the Dept. (of State) to neither confirm or deny any rumours or allegations of anything of that (SOP) nature."

So lets keep coming up with new and innovative SOP idea's and suggestions combine with the WHERE concept and the idea of layer and those sort of "zones of control/command" you folks are talking about.

SO keep talking I am pretty sure these words are NOT falling on deaf ears

Thanks!

-tom w

Originally posted by Caesar:

Probably the biggest problem I have had with the command and control system that we currently have is that if I want to shift a squad a little to take into account a local tactical situation, I suffer the large delays. This means that I can't have my troops retreat/attack/whatever before it is too late even though they could obviously directly see the situation. I realise that we have to have some kind of command inhibitors to have any kind of realism but this doesn't seem to quite achieve the aim.

I wonder if it would be possible to implement a sort of layered SOP approach where certain aspects of the SOP could only be changed at the highest levels (say for instance Company or Battalion) and so suffer large delays before being activated, while the rest are set at the Platoon level so are activated with little delay. The squads themselves can then move, fire whatever with no delay so long as it obeys the SOPs.

I'm not entirely sure how well this would work in the game or for that matter how hard it would be to implement, but it seems to be more likely to affect CnC more realistically than the blanket delay system that we have now.

The other pet peeve I have always had is the isolated troops (often crew of abandoned) that have been broken, shot up etc and are totally cut off, yet still effectively performing as recon. I hope BFC can come up with an answer to this one because it can totally turn a game by providing a warning that should never have been available. I think I would rather that the AI took over completely until these troops got back in CnC range than the current situation.

Thanks Steve for all the time and info you have given over to this and the other thread.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Caesar:

Simplistically, a defend SOP (as an example) could prevent the use of the "Assault" and "Advance" commands or maybe limit their uses to well within the allowed movement radius of the WHERE. An advantage to this approach would be you could maybe allow armies that traditionally have more freedom of action at lower levels of command to actually have this.

And by that you mean:

" An advantage to this approach would be you could maybe allow armies that traditionally have more freedom of action at lower levels of command to actually have this. ..." Quicker response time at the lower level to a local threat WELL within the command radius so that the player can issue that order with mininal delay...

Is that what you mean?

This concept is VERY interesting because the command radius of platoon leaders has ALWAYS been modeled (yet largely unseen) in CMxx. Good players here know that you never want to see that "thin red line" turn black (unit OUTSIDE the command zone =BAD things begin to happen) BUT you as the player could never see an exact visual representation of that command radius (other than the black command line) but ever since CMBO that command radius has been present in the game design.

Maybe it could just be used or exploited now a little more creatively (when combined with command level appropriate SOPs with different levels of orders available with different levels of command delay from different levels of commanders! ).

I think this is a Brilliant idea, at least in its basic concept as suggested by Hoolaman and Caesar anyway, as always I will assume the Devil is in the details!

-tom w

[Caesar]

" An advantage to this approach would be you could maybe allow armies that traditionally have more freedom of action at lower levels of command to actually have this. ..." Quicker response time at the lower level to a local threat WELL within the command radius so that the player can issue that order with mininal delay...

Is that what you mean?

Yes that is what I meant.

And yes the devil will be in the details though at the same time so will some of the benefits. The more I have thought about this, the more I like some of the ramifications. If the army has radios down to level X, the delays lessen, the company HQ's range from the platoon HQ could affect the delays etc etc.

[Caesar]

You could also restrict the number of company and battalion level orders given each turn so as to further reflect the realtime nature of a real battle. I have seen this done in table top rules before and it can have quite an effect

[Battlefront.com]

Guys, even if we did put in some sort of option to have the AI snag units away from your control, it would be optional. But I don't think we are going to do that simply because of the practical issues that come along with it (mostly AI, but other things as well). The kind of play this simulates is better done by co-op play.

As for how co-op play might work... I don't know too early to start talking about that since it won't be in CMx2's first release. However, I suspect it will simply be taking existing command positions and having players take control of all direct attachments that are not controlled by another player. So if you take a company you get all the platoons and squads and two other players get a company each with a 4th player handling the BN HQ and BN assets. Or if you take a company three other guys might have a platoon each.

Now, as for how to get players to work together more or less as a military unit would, and not as independent selfish wargamers. Easy... teams of players that don't work together will likely fail together. The teams on competitive play "ladders" that work most like real military units will be the ones who do best. One guy is determined to be a good coordinator and strategist, so that guy gets the highest level of command. The guy who is a whiz at armor gets to handle the vehicle stuff. Someone who has distinguished himself in close in fighting is best in command of a platoon of grunts. Over time teams will form based on the strengths and weaknesses of various members comign together to complement each other. Those that don't will likely fall apart.

Think of it like any "pick up" team sport. The two teams, drawn from random players, are likely to both have a certain level of disorganization and lack of team cooperation. But the one that has more players that are willing to take a role and stick to it will have a huge advantage. They will be the ones that do a lot of passing and covering while the other team sports players that hog the ball and think of covering someone else's guy as "his problem not mine". After a time of playing such games the GOOD players know this ahead of time and go into a pickup game knowing what needs to be done.

I see the same thing happening with CM co-op play.

Steve

[Hamstersss]

Steve, how do you foresee handling the issue of motivation in the face of loss of assets? Maybe my co. commander's great and my fellow platoon commanders, as well, but I just watched my platoon get chewed up in the first three turns. Do you plan to have dynamic adjustments within the scenario (Allow the overall commander to detach and form an ad hoc group for the player) or, if he drops out of the game (either because of a lost connection or because he no longer wants to play two broken squads and a zook) will his units fall under human control or AI control?

I think, though, that the inclusion of AI controlled units opens up a great possibility for a campaign game, wherein you control a company (Or perhaps platoon or batallion, but it seems like a company allows the most variety with the most control) that is thrown into the battlefield alongside other units. In this way, you could have players who've built up their favorite 'Band of Brothers' through various battles with the possibility of meeting another, enemy player's company on a battlefield in a similar situation (That is, among a larger unit of AI-controlled enemy forces).

[aka_tom_w]

the OPTION of playing along side the AI sounds like fun to me.

By that I mean it could be used as sort of "handicap" system.

Suppose I would like to play someone REAL good who I know beats me ALL the time (Elvis ) but for a change I might like to win one. So I propose we play a balanced scenario BUT I suggest the better player (Elvis) give up say %25 to %33 of his force pool, one whole company of 3 companies or one platoon of 3 platoons (preferably at random) to FRIENDLY AI control.

I would suspect that would somewhat (although not necesarily) handicap that player (just for the FUN of it of course ).

Thats that kind of Co-op play I dream about.

..........and still no "official" comment about SOP's

-tom w