Balancing out commanders and the commanded

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

Tom,

I delight at your courtesy, and wish to be your equal at this, though I feel the limitations of not speaking my native tounge here. Know at least my desire in this.

The focal problem (quality as I see it) is that you are the Borg.

Not you personally, I mean the Player, any player. Is the Absolute Spotter.

Enemies encountered by your units will have to manifest themselves somehow, if they wish to interfere. Say they kill your Jeep. Your jeep can blow up, be gunned down, just disappear - any type of interference which is not caused by you will be noted by you as a hostile presence. The Borg mind is made aware of a hostile presence. Of some kind. The enemy might show on the map, or might not show, might show up in the wrong place, be just an icon, many interesting options are available. Enemy units/icons/nothing that appear or do not appear might and might not be able to be targeted with direct or indirect fire. I imagine all this to be possible to edit.

Either way you will still have seen those enemies, or at least know they are there, somewhere. You will redirect your will, redeploy, move up reserves, aim barrels, advance with caution - all of it against enemies that only a handful of your men, now lying dead in a jeep, have actually seen/experienced/encountered/fallen victim to, before being able to report anything to anybody.

This is the supernatural awareness of which I am a partisan. Impossible for any IRL commander to have, and unrealistic in a sense (but not in all). I am hoping (and now much reassured) it will remain in future CM titles.

Yours Truly

Dandelion

Hi Dandelion

Don't worry about it, your english it is better than most.

Your courtesy is equally appreciated.

BUT Hoolaman beat me to the punch.

Pretty much everything he said was what I was thinking reading over your post.

Steve has posted many times that the Player is always God like in an all seeing and ALL commanding role. But some of us would like to set some limits on what info should be revealed by the game to the player. From the point of view of the bailed tank crew they could meet with hostile fire (NOT report it to the player) and just show up dead on the map or BETTER yet go MIA, units in the game (especially bailed crews out of LOS and out of C&C ) should go MIA , they could be captured, they could be dead, they could be hiding BUT all the player will ever see is a marker indicating their last known position and that marker could just show the nationality marker (the way the game does now for unknown units) and the letters "MIA" over it!

Now the game has not revealed any unrealistic info to the player.

(even the Player is still "God Like" in their command and in what they might think they know about the battlefield.)

That is the kind of uncertianty many of us here are lobbying for.

I hope that the possibility that units can instantly turn into MIA markers in the middle of the game will be included in the design process, and for sanity sake all MIA's would be resolved at the end of the battle when all the information of the battlefield is revealed to the player and he can see what happened to all his MIA units.

Just an idea

-tom w

[ January 18, 2005, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[MeatEtr]

All this sounds fine and dandy, but when did you say that demo was coming out?

Ah hell, knowing my luck, on my way to the store to pick up my copy of CMx2, a piano will fall from the sky(freak accident from a FedEx plane overhead) and crush me, killing me only a few yards away from my wargaming bliss. Or i'll have a sudden and fatal brain aneurysm right as i open my mailbox and see my very own copy of CMx2.

P.S. Thanks for the bones Steve. This thread and the other one. Now there really is reason to live.

[chris talpas]

Hi Steve,

As others have mentioned, thanks for tossing us some bones lately. In terms of the AI, if I am not mistaken, in CMX1 the computer only plans its moves once the player hits 'go'. Have you considered using a threaded AI in CMX2? Stardock's Galactic Civilization which has a pretty well respected AI, is a threaded one which allows the computer to be planning its moves at the same time the player is plotting his. Taking this approach could allow you to use a fair amount of computational resources without too much impact on gameplay i.e. long waiting times for turn calculation.

Anyways, just a thought.

Thanks again to all the gang at Battlefront for giving us countless hours of enjoyment.

Chris

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Radio net simulation doesn't solve anything relating to Borg or God issues in and of itself. It is nothing more than a fundamental building block to be used by other designs to simulate C&C. Think about it... picture CMAK with a full on radio net simulated. Will that suddenly stop you from ordering a beat up squad from running up and over a hill to see what is on the other side and getting that information to you? No. Will it magically simulate the disruption that the loss of leadership brings to subordinate units, especially ones with inherently less initiative? Nope. So on and so on.

I bow respectfully before one that knows while I don't, but I dont get your point here. Isn't the whole communication model suppose to "interfere" between the player ordering his squad to do anything or learn anything from his troops ? Perhaps what really interfere is the way CM is using abstraction to model not the radio comm in itself but its effect, like delay in order ? This in turns would mean that instead of getting into the hassle of trying to model radio network and functions (as Michael stated, this might not be to the taste of everyone), just try to create some realistic abstraction of its effect, like increased misidentification, delayed spotted units apperance on the map, variable delay before a unit starts to move, etc.

I think I get it now.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[...]A simulation must be seen as having parts that are individually fairly meaningless, but when combined together create something much bigger. That is why we are attacking this thing from the top down as we did with CMx1 and as AEB did with his game. CMx1 is great because it is result orientated. We gave the simulation a vastly detailed basis and then figured out what kind of things we wanted the player to experience with all that otherwise meaningless data.

I never quite though about such an evidence, yet now that it is put plainly like this, it really make sense. The radio net in itself would probably be a burden not worth designing, yet part of the reality it shows might be worth looking at, both as an interesting reality of the battlefield and a communication tool, maybe for coop multiplaying.

At any rate, this is what Sirocco meant I suppose when refering to what works and what doesn't in simulating the battlefield, from a gaming stand point. Result orented, from the player perspective... what we want the player to experience. Now this is really food for thought as far as the present discussion is concerned. At the risk of sounding just like Tom...

INTERESTING...

[hoolaman]

The way I see it, artificial uncertainty in spotting makes CM a command-style game, and as such is a bad idea.

Your squads are your "eyes" as the omniscient guiding hand player. It is fair enough if the squads themselves do not accurately spot something, but to limit what they have really spotted seems very artificial.

What rank does the player take on in a scenario where the map and positions are uncertain? Is he Major, or merely Captain? To limit spotting in such a way, a mid level leader would have much better and quicker response than a high level leader. Which shoes do you want to put yourself in?

I think you should always see what your "eyes" see depicted on the map as they see it. Any restriction of the information flow must be in the way the player can make orders come into effect. Squads must always be able to see and react immediately to split second changes, but the further you get up the chain of command, the less able the leader is to immediately react to changes.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

What rank does the player take on in a scenario where the map and positions are uncertain? Is he Major, or merely Captain?

You are really asking what appointment or command position he holds; there is no evidence that a major is smarter than a captain by virtue of his insignia...though you would never though that by asking most majors. (Warren, you and your sock puppets still out there...?)

And FWIW, at least one entire German regiment in northern Italy was commanded by a mere Leutnant in 1945, whereas a single company in that same regiment might have been commanded by a captain a year previous....

[hoolaman]

My point was that any plan that involves a delay before a spotted unit becomes visible to the player is totally artificial.

If a player is controlling squads, he must see what the squad is able to see in real time.

If a two turn delay is added before something appears on the map, that is as if the player is taking on the role of a higher commander who may not have an immediate view of the situation.

You can't be totally responsible for the lowest levels of command but only be given the situational awareness of the highest levels.

And yes, I did mean the command position rather than the rank. Captain is quicker to type than company commander........

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

My point was that any plan that involves a delay before a spotted unit becomes visible to the player is totally artificial.

If a player is controlling squads, he must see what the squad is able to see in real time.

If a two turn delay is added before something appears on the map, that is as if the player is taking on the role of a higher commander who may not have an immediate view of the situation.

Well, rather. Isn't that the point of CM?

You can't be totally responsible for the lowest levels of command but only be given the situational awareness of the highest levels.

And yes, I did mean the command position rather than the rank. Captain is quicker to type than company commander........

You're talking about a bottom to top view, I rather thought Steve was talking about a top to bottom view - the view that has prevailed in the CM series thus far...

[hoolaman]

I was just responding to other points made by dandelion & aka_tom.

And I think steve was talking about a design perspective rather than an actual army command structure.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

I was just responding to other points made by dandelion & aka_tom.

And I think steve was talking about a design perspective rather than an actual army command structure.

So am I.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

So am I.

Shut up, Dorosh, just SHUT UP!

CLOSE YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! CEASE YOUR ENDLESS VERBAL DIARRHEA! SWALLOW YOUR OWN TONGUE AND DIE, YOU PONCING GREAT PILE OF MOOSE DROPPINGS!

Whew. Does you good to simply do that now and again. I don't even know what this thread is about. Sorry, sorry, carry on.

I find if I go more than a few months without telling Dorosh to shut up and die, I get cramps.

That was apropos of nothing, you lot. Go back to your discussion.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

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

So am I.

Shut up, Dorosh, just SHUT UP!

CLOSE YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! CEASE YOUR ENDLESS VERBAL DIARRHEA! SWALLOW YOUR OWN TONGUE AND DIE, YOU PONCING GREAT PILE OF MOOSE DROPPINGS!

Whew. Does you good to simply do that now and again. I don't even know what this thread is about. Sorry, sorry, carry on.

I find if I go more than a few months without telling Dorosh to shut up and die, I get cramps.

That was apropos of nothing, you lot. Go back to your discussion. </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Steve has posted many times that the Player is always God like in an all seeing and ALL commanding role. But some of us would like to set some limits on what info should be revealed by the game to the player. From the point of view of the bailed tank crew they could meet with hostile fire (NOT report it to the player) and just show up dead on the map or BETTER yet go MIA, units in the game (especially bailed crews out of LOS and out of C&C ) should go MIA , they could be captured, they could be dead, they could be hiding BUT all the player will ever see is a marker indicating their last known position and that marker could just show the nationality marker (the way the game does now for unknown units) and the letters "MIA" over it!

Now the game has not revealed any unrealistic info to the player.

(even the Player is still "God Like" in their command and in what they might think they know about the battlefield.)

That is the kind of uncertianty many of us here are lobbying for.

I hope that the possibility that units can instantly turn into MIA markers in the middle of the game will be included in the design process, and for sanity sake all MIA's would be resolved at the end of the battle when all the information of the battlefield is revealed to the player and he can see what happened to all his MIA units.

Very good, Tom! I like this idea. Sounds like it would add a nice feature without straining the program too much.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

Steve has posted many times that the Player is always God like in an all seeing and ALL commanding role. But some of us would like to set some limits on what info should be revealed by the game to the player. From the point of view of the bailed tank crew they could meet with hostile fire (NOT report it to the player) and just show up dead on the map or BETTER yet go MIA, units in the game (especially bailed crews out of LOS and out of C&C ) should go MIA , they could be captured, they could be dead, they could be hiding BUT all the player will ever see is a marker indicating their last known position and that marker could just show the nationality marker (the way the game does now for unknown units) and the letters "MIA" over it!

Now the game has not revealed any unrealistic info to the player.

(even the Player is still "God Like" in their command and in what they might think they know about the battlefield.)

That is the kind of uncertianty many of us here are lobbying for.

I hope that the possibility that units can instantly turn into MIA markers in the middle of the game will be included in the design process, and for sanity sake all MIA's would be resolved at the end of the battle when all the information of the battlefield is revealed to the player and he can see what happened to all his MIA units.

Very good, Tom! I like this idea. Sounds like it would add a nice feature without straining the program too much.

Michael </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

...from a game play perspective it obviously takes much more control away from the player.

It takes some control away. Actually not a whole lot. That's why I like it. Like Hoolaman and Dandelion, I would not want to see CM reduced to a commander's RPG. But just going with Tom's idea seems to me to retain the essential character of the game while reducing the Borg impact on gameplay.

The player would still retain godlike control over his units that are still within C&C, which would be a mighty motivation to keep them in C&C range, something that historic armies were similarly motivated to do and for the same reason.

Michael

[citizen]

Here's my simplistic approach to programming the game to go anti-borg with regards to targeting.

Targeting lines do not "connect" to enemy units. Meaning, when you tell your troops to target an enemy, you don't get the confirmation of having a nice shiny line from your troops to their troops.

Sure you can use the LOS tool to see what and where a particular unit can see, but you don't get any sort of connection to enemy units. Currently, when you drag your targeting or LOS line near an enemy unit, it suddenly jumps onto the unit and gives you some info about that unit.

There would be two types of shooting orders: Opportunity and Area

Opportunity fire is ordering your troops to fire when they think they see something or are getting a good enough noise/flash reading to start shooting. But you don't get any confirmation as to what sort of cover they have or even that you have absolute sight of the enemy.

Area fire is ordering your troops to just start firing at a certain spot. This is already in the game with the gold targeting line with no connection to an enemy at the other end.

With this idea you could drop the ability to click on opposing units, though that may be too radical for some. This method works either way. Figure out their exposure % from your LOS tool and terrain knowledge. Since the troops are 1:1 in CMx2, you won't need to click to see how many men are there anymore.

To order fire on an enemy unit, select either Opportunity or Area fire. You get a targeting line just like now, but when you click your mouse at the destination of the line you don't get a connection to the enemy unit. If the enemy is on the move, Opportunity fire will track the enemy as it does now.

An alternate method of ordering fire is to drop a "dot" on the place you want the fire. Once the dot is dropped you can expand the zone of coverage around that dot similar to how we currently set up cover arcs. This makes Area fire able to suppress a larger area than it does now. So you could essentially set up a cover arc in and around the dot, then order an Area fire mission into that arc. Yes, a beaten zone.

That's my 2 cents.

citizen

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

The player would still retain godlike control over his units that are still within C&C, which would be a mighty motivation to keep them in C&C range, something that historic armies were similarly motivated to do and for the same reason.

Michael

This is exactly my viewpoint.

And since orderless units are unlikely to do very much, there is a mighty incentive to get them back in the C&C net as soon as possible.

If that is not possible, due to HQ casualties or poor placement etc, then your battle is probably lost already.

[aka_tom_w]

Did the cesspool open up new Franchise in this thread I was unaware of?

Strange

BUT it was FUNNY and I am still laughing!

he he

-tom w

Originally posted by Seanachai:

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

So am I.

Shut up, Dorosh, just SHUT UP!

CLOSE YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! CEASE YOUR ENDLESS VERBAL DIARRHEA! SWALLOW YOUR OWN TONGUE AND DIE, YOU PONCING GREAT PILE OF MOOSE DROPPINGS!

Whew. Does you good to simply do that now and again. I don't even know what this thread is about. Sorry, sorry, carry on.

I find if I go more than a few months without telling Dorosh to shut up and die, I get cramps.

That was apropos of nothing, you lot. Go back to your discussion. </font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

...from a game play perspective it obviously takes much more control away from the player.

It takes some control away. Actually not a whole lot. That's why I like it. Like Hoolaman and Dandelion, I would not want to see CM reduced to a commander's RPG. But just going with Tom's idea seems to me to retain the essential character of the game while reducing the Borg impact on gameplay.

The player would still retain godlike control over his units that are still within C&C, which would be a mighty motivation to keep them in C&C range, something that historic armies were similarly motivated to do and for the same reason.

Michael </font>

[hoolaman]

I can totally see the concept and it is not such a bad one, but too extreme for me.

I can't see any reason why crews should stay on the map when out of C&C. A case could be made that routed units could disappear too. But then they serve next to no useful purpose. Maybe a sniper could be left to the AI, but I want to see him nailing officers from the clocktower.

What if I want to send out a one squad patrol, or even sneak up a jeep for some recon? Why should I have to turn such a risky mission over to a dumbass AI just when a deft human touch is most needed?

That's where I'm coming from anyway. I think the system must allow for such situations, letting the player play the role of the gamey jeep, but making it hard for him to respond to what the jeep sees when he jumps into the role of the company HQ. After all, the jeep is only gamey because the player can instantly respond to the info it recieves.

[aka_tom_w]

Back to the begining..

Steve said

"And so there we have it. The level and scope of CM's combat environment requires many commanders in order to be more realistic than it is right now. But players by and large don't want this. Therefore, players are going to have to accept that they are getting what they asked for, limitations and all. The only thing we, the designers and developers, can do is attempt to minimize the negatives of having a single player in command."

I my focus at this time is

"When is the Player NOT in control?" OR "When should the game legitimately take control and info away from the God-Like Player?"

We can all agree the player has been losing a little control from CMBO to CMBB...

We find that if a unit is out of C&C it takes longer to make it do anything useful.

We find that our units out of C&C tend to route and panic and break more often and stay in that state longer.

Units that break, route or panic are out of the player's control of a period of time.

Units captured by our opponent are out of the player's control.

So the question is under what other circumstances will the player lose control or information from a unit?

The game design decsesions as to when to take this information and control away will of course be made be Steve and Charles.

I am hoping they will consider a set of circumstances in CMx2 when it should be obvious to the Player that a unit has become Missing in Action MIA.

(New Thought:) Different topic (sort of)....

I am often wondering what it is that we are REALISTICALLY trying to simulate when the world realism is used in this discussion so often.

Hoolaman said:

"What if I want to send out a one squad patrol, or even sneak up a jeep for some recon? Why should I have to turn such a risky mission over to a dumbass AI just when a deft human touch is most needed?

That's where I'm coming from anyway. I think the system must allow for such situations, letting the player play the role of the gamey jeep, but making it hard for him to respond to what the jeep sees when he jumps into the role of the company HQ. After all, the jeep is only gamey because the player can instantly respond to the info it recieves."

Where is the reality of the simulation when we suggest:

" After all, the jeep is only gamey because the player can instantly respond to the info it recieves"

AND in CMBO the info the gamey jeep relays is transmitted instantly to ALL other friendly units.

EVEN with the new Relative Spotting paradigm the player will KNOW instantly what the gamey jeep reports. EVEN if the jeep is out of LOS of other units and even if the JEEP has no radio, that for me presents a problem in realism.

I am in favour of command zones in the form of a rolling radius around HQ units. The idea has merit and I hope somehow Steve and Charles will try to find a way to make it work in the game.

I would be very interested to hear what other players with actual military backgrounds feel about attempting to simulate rolling command zones within the game? (Dorosh: I already know what you have to say ) My mind is open to rolling command zones with a radius extending from HQ zones. WE should all recall that there has always been an invisible form of a rolling command zone around HQ units BUT in the past the only way you could see the limits or the edges of that zone was to watch when the red command lines turn black. That was a VERY subtle way of modeling a command zone but it was only to determine if a units was within C&C or out of C&C of its HQ. I would be interested to see this idea expanded in someway within CMx2. BUT I am still not sure how it would exactly work or how it would change the game for the better? I think I need to re-read Hoolman's posts a few more times.....

thanks

-tom w

[ January 19, 2005, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Philippe]

I would agree that part of the problem is that the mind of the player is, indeed, the Borg.

But players have poor memories and limited attention spans.

Leaving aside what might happen if player aids and detailed hit text were automatically shut off at the highest level of realism, a simple improvement might be to limit what the player sees to what can be seen by the highlighted unit.

Nothing would prevent you from clicking on every unit on your side, repeatedly, until you had memorized the positions of everything that everybody could see. Unless, of course, you weren't allowed to click on units that were out of command (and that means letting them get run by the AI until they get back in command).

In a variation of this, you could see what a unit sees, and be aware of anything that units in communication with him can see, probably in the form of hidden unit markers. Played this way losing your batallion commander isn't the end of the world, but is a real pain, because he's the only one that really knows what's going on, for the most part. This hypothetical dead major saw his field of view, the units and revealed terrain in it (I'd like to see buildings and other terrain features act like enemy pillboxes in this regard), and a bunch of infantry and vehicle hidden unit markers relayed to him by his company commanders. You can get the same information by clicking on the company commanders, but if you don't see that icon on the map, you might forget that it's there. Especially if there is some kind of time limit in place.

So I think the omniscience of the player can be partially counteracted by the fact that most people are mentally sloppy to some extent, and that partial solution (mind candy -- the illusion of greater fog of war) would have the curious effect of distinguishing between the different parts of the chain of command.

If, in addition to that, you set up some kind of provision for the logistical tail (ammo and fuel dumps, wounded aid stations, mobile bakeries and mess kitchens) and make them unresponsive to anything below batallion command, losing your major could become a real pain in anything other than a skirmish, even in the limited time frame of a one hour engagement.

As for limiting visibility and information to what one particular unit sees, Jagged Alliance used to have a toggle switch that did exactly that, and I always played with it on. And every now and again something surprising would happen.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

I can totally see the concept and it is not such a bad one, but too extreme for me.

...

What if I want to send out a one squad patrol, or even sneak up a jeep for some recon?

The issue is that there are an entire group of players, myself included, who wnat logical limits on that. I would take Tom suggestion further and like to see a Friendly Unit FOW option (for people like me, not you). In a limited capacity, I think this could do wonders for the All Seeing Eye problem and yet still give players - not AI - control over their units.

The way I picture it, at some point when low-level units go out of CC and LOS of all other friendlies (the lonely squad sent off through the woods on its own, or the Jeep that is sent behind enemy lines) the player only gets FOW info about the unit - perhaps a sound-contact-like icon. The player can still give orders to the unit, which it will carry-out if possible, but the player doesnt know with certainty the state/location of that unit.

I would only want this on a very limited basis, but I think under the right circumstances it makes sense, and it doesnt really hinder the players ability to control the unit. And as an option, it wouldnt have to be used by everybody.

[ January 19, 2005, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: David Chapuis ]

[willbell]

Steve,

I see your point about the programming being a sim, and then the game uses the sim, and I agree. The game then is playing with army men (and I mean this in a really good way). You structure the game so the player gets to do all the stuff that is fun, and also, magically, you have created the tactical aspect so that it very closely resembles real life. It is not identical to real life because we play many people at once, not just ourselves. All this is great, and I make the point only to underscore the fact that it is not reasonable for us to think that you can solve all the quirks, like borg spotting, they are inherently part of the balancing act between first person and battalion level tactics.

This is the best game ever invented.

My only contribution is to suggest that a multiplayer game could be either two players on one side, with each one running half the units, or you might make a meta campaign component, where you have a bunch of battle maps set up. Then the campaign program moves men and materiel around on a larger map that represent something like a division level game. One player is the commander, and orders men and materiel around. The campaign game resolves the movement on the larger map, then it is broken down into smaller local battles that the other player then play. The results of the idividual battles then is translated to what happens on the larger map. It's kind of like a PBEM civil war game that I played once.

[Philippe]

To continue beating a dead horse, notice that if you can only see what the unit you have just activated on sees, and if you can't see what a unit that is out of command sees, that could potentially eliminate a whole class of Borg-spotting abuses.

A jeep sent on a long recon mission will stop giving information as soon as it leaves command. If it ever re-enters command (assuming that it was given orders to drive into and out of the recon area, and that it survives) the section of the map that was scouted will suddenly have a lot of hidden unit markers on it -- the report of the jeep once it has returned. And if the jeep doesn't make it back, then you learn nothing. Add some kind of time delay on receiving that information, and you have something pretty realistic. Another nice feature would be a set of contingent orders (e.g. get the hell out of there) that only get triggered if certain events take place (e.g. coming within 200 meters of more than 100 points of enemy units).

The gamey way around this is to send an officer on recon with a radio. That isn't really gamey, and risks the loss of a link in the chain of command.

Personally I find scouting and screening to be one of the more interesting activities that goes on on a battlefield. Scouting and the need to prevent enemy scouting is what gives rise to a lot of very small unit actions, and the big picture is really hobbled if this kind of engagement (or the circumstances that lead up to it) is missing.