Balancing out commanders and the commanded

[aka_tom_w]

OK!

I will be watching EVERYDAY for that announcement!

The MIA status thing was just one "hairbrain" scheme to deal with (mostly) bailded crews that find them selves OUT of LOS and Out of any meaningful C&C radius.

From the sounds of Steve's post they already know where they are going and exactly how they are going to deal with the gamey jeep recon trick and bailed crews.

My guess is there is a solution to this and with our limited thinking (with only experience from CMx1 ) we cannot see all the other new things and features in CMx2 that will help deal with this "gamey" aspect of pre-CMx2 play.

My hope is that if the MIA status idea is not something they are interested in there is some way to avoid bailed crews from reporting spotting info to the player, when they are 500m from the nearest friendly unit, OUT of LOS and without a radio. If that gamey aspect of play as been dealt with then I don't really care what ingenious solution they have as long as units out of LOS of friendly units OUT of C&C command range and without a radio are NOT relaying spotting info to The PLAYER.

But that is JUST my personal quest....

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The only thing I'll throw out to you guys now is that you might want to save your breath when you find yourselves starting to get into nitty gritty details. CMx2 is sooooooo different from CMx1 that even if I were to say "yes, CMx2 will have the player in a fixed command position and units out of C&C are out of control" there is no way you guys could envision how this would work without knowing dozens of other things. Doesn't mean you've got bad ideas, just that you are missing too much information to come up stuff.

Now, sometime this will change. I'll spill the beans and you'll then be able to add stuff in the propper context (i.e. with CMx2 in mind instead of CMx1). But that time isn't here quite yet. But you'll of course be the first to know!

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by c3k:

I'll use my patented "Ho Chi Minh trickle of death attack". I've got a company of 12 squads with 3 platoon HQ's. I'm behind a wooded ridge. The enemy is over there somewhere. I send one squad over the top. They go WAY out of command. Then they go ground. Their job is to hide and watch. Later, they'll give an intel report.

What happens to them? Are they MIA? If not, why not? If I bring them back, do I get a sudden snap-shot of enemies? Are they in command, but blind until then? Are they able to spot enemies (hence, _I_ know about the enemy), but out of my control?

As I conceived it, they would not go MIA unless fired on. In which case, they go MIA and AI takes control of them. Possibly the AI is bound to some extent by SOPs that the owning player has set at the start of the game.

If they survive the fire with their morale intact, their MIA status ends and the owning player resumes control. But he does not yet know where the fire came from unless some unit(s) of his in C&C can spot the firing enemy unit through the normal rules of spotting.

Why are they out of my control?

Because their status is similar to units that have broken. Also because the player could not reasonably control them without being given information that he should not realistically possess. That's why the AI takes over.

Then, I send one squad at a time to join the initial squad. Spaced 2 turns apart. A steady infiltration. At what point does the MIA status change?

I think I have already covered that.

When do I, the player, gain information on enemy units they see? Or, their information (ammo, status, etc.).

When they return to C&C.

I don't see how this issue was addressed.

Actually it was. You just missed it.

All the suppositions seem to focus on a single, out of command, isolated unit. What happens as that status dynamically changes?

I frankly don't see the problem except that you failed to grasp what I wrote earlier. But if you still see a problem, try again and we'll see what we can hammer out. :cool:

Michael

[Andrew H.]

I have concerns about the MIA model that are similar to c3k's. Here's my example:

Let's say on a largish map there's a smallish area that the enemy could use to infiltrate and flank your forces. It doesn't seem particularly likely, but just to be sure, you send two half-squads, a LMG, and a schreck to cover this area.

Around the time your men get in position at this pass or whatever, you discover that the enemy is sending, say a platoon of infantry and a platoon of tanks through this area. This situation presents you with a tactical challenge that the AI is simply not good enough to address appropriately. I.e., should you hide infantry, give them a short covered arc, and try to ambush the enemy platoon - or should you open fire a at longer range in the hopes that they go to ground, giving you more room to maneuver...or maybe retreat. Maybe you should sneak through a wooded area around the side of the enemy troops. Or maybe you should leave the LMG in front of the enemy troops, and flank with the half squads.

And what about the schreck? Should you open up at 150 meters? Maybe you should move toward a more isolated tank and open up at 100 meters. Or maybe there's an area that will channel the tanks, and you should hide, set a 40 meter VCA, and wait in ambush - but on which side of the channelling area?

These are important *tactical* issues, unrelated to spotting. A competent human player, with good terrain and some luck, could perhaps reasonably hope to knock out two tanks and at least kill most of the men in two squads. The AI, on the other hand, would be lucky to cause one casualty; given my experience with the AI, it's troops would likely be discovered by the infiltrating units before they were able to fire a shot...

So I think that this is a situation where the MIA solution just wouldn't work well at all. At first I thought that maybe this issue could be finessed by restricting the identification ability (as distinguished from the spotting ability) of the out of C&C units - that is, they could target enemy infantry and enemy vehicles, but wouldn't know precisely what they were. But this, in addition to being unrealistic, has tactical disadvantages that outweigh the benefits it would otherwise add. For example, the shreck team's ambush plan might be different if the enemy vehicles were T-26's as opposed to KV's. Or T-34's as opposed to IS-2s. So I think that retaining some form of the god-like perspective is going to be necessary.

Now there may be some minor tweaks that would be useful - perhaps if all of the out of C&C units that spotted are destroyed or no longer good order, the generic unit markers (showing former locations of out of LOS enemy units) should immediately disappear - since these markers are mostly there as an aid to the player, reflecting the fact that your men won't quickly forget where the enemy was, there is no reason to keep them around since, realistically, other units on the field would never have known of their existence, and the out of C&C troops who did know, are all dead or panicked.

Note that this type of ambush situation is one where eliminating borg spotting (for relative spotting) would make a big difference in the outcome - as the game plays currently, of course, if one tank spotted, say, the schreck as it fired at the tank, the other tanks and men would immediately know of the presence of the schreck and would, borg-like, all turn and begin firing on the shreck. With relative spotting, the chances of carrying out a successful ambush and surviving are much greater. Which is as it should be.

[aka_tom_w]

OK ok

The MIA thing was not the solution they are working on or looking for.

no problem.

I know Steve is wise and correct when he says:

"CMx2 is sooooooo different from CMx1 that even if I were to say "yes, CMx2 will have the player in a fixed command position and units out of C&C are out of control" there is no way you guys could envision how this would work without knowing dozens of other things. Doesn't mean you've got bad ideas, just that you are missing too much information to come up stuff."

Steve

I am sure he is correct, its sort of like that anology where these beings that live in a 2D world where all things are EITHER up or down or front or back that when they meet a sphere that tries to interface with them or meet them in their only world they know (2D) it looks like nothing more then a wierd circle that gets bigger then smaller as it tries to interface with their limits 2D world!

BUT My hope is that if the MIA status idea is not something they are interested in,then there is some mechanism to avoid bailed crews from reporting spotting info to the player, when they are 500m from the nearest friendly unit, OUT of LOS and without a radio. If that gamey aspect of play as been dealt with then I don't really care what ingenious solution they have as long as units out of LOS of friendly units OUT of C&C command range and without a radio are NOT relaying spotting info to The PLAYER.

But that is JUST my personal quest....

-tom w

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Lord Peter:

Let's say on a largish map there's a smallish area that the enemy could use to infiltrate and flank your forces. It doesn't seem particularly likely, but just to be sure, you send two half-squads, a LMG, and a schreck to cover this area.

Around the time your men get in position at this pass or whatever, you discover that the enemy is sending, say a platoon of infantry and a platoon of tanks through this area. This situation presents you with a tactical challenge that the AI is simply not good enough to address appropriately. I.e., should you hide infantry, give them a short covered arc, and try to ambush the enemy platoon - or should you open fire a at longer range in the hopes that they go to ground, giving you more room to maneuver...or maybe retreat. Maybe you should sneak through a wooded area around the side of the enemy troops. Or maybe you should leave the LMG in front of the enemy troops, and flank with the half squads.

Come on people, use your sense. That's what SOPs are for. That's as much as a real life army would have in such a situation, so why should you do better? You expect too much of a bunch of privates and a couple of NCOs. If you want a more coördinated defense, put them in C&C. Isn't that plain enough?

Michael

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by tar:

Well, let me revive one of my old suggestions that at least starts to get things moving in the right direction:

Observation: The current command delay system is really backwards.

The units with the smallest command delay should be the front-line elements -- namely squads and weapons teams. They are (or should be) the main maneuver elements. The HQ units, starting with the platoon HQ should all have longer command delays, at least for movement. The higher up the echelon, the longer the command delay.

In addition to increasing command delays for movement as the command level increases, there needs to be a hierarchical command structure. For example, to avoid an even bigger command delay, platoon HQ would need to be within command radius of their company HQ, which would in turn need to be within range of battalion HQ.

What increasing the command delay of the HQ (for movement, anyway) does is to make it harder to shift the focus of larger elements. The smaller the element, the more freedom it has to react to the circumstances. Squads remain able to move about just as now, but the platoon HQ is slower to move, which means that in order to stay in command range, the platoon must move move slowly than the squads. It has less flexibility, since it is a larger unit with more "inertia".

It would also be necessary to introduce command delays for rescinding orders as well. As now, of course, the TacAI can delay or perhaps even rescind movement orders on its own, but the player should have to suffer some delay in getting the orders out. I would also like to see command delay apply to targetting orders as well -- although perhaps not quite as severely hampered up the chain of command.

Now rather than command radius, it would really be better if larger units (battalion certainly, perhaps company) would have areas in which they are free to operate. One of the big parts of planning real operations is establishing unit boundaries. This is used partially for command and control, and also to reduce the chances of friendly fire. This would require a slightly different command model than what is currently present in the game, since one would need to be able to draw regions on the map to set up the appropriate zones.

Finally, it should be possible to cross-attach units. This would also help solve the problem of squads whose platoon leaders are wiped out. They could be re-assigned (with suitable command delay) to another platoon HQ for operations.

This is a great concept (not least because it closely resembles my own ideas! ) and seems to be on the right track.

Features like command-zones, movement delays for what should be semi-stationary company or higher HQs, and being able to attach units from company or higher level assets, or even for any HQ to take charge of leaderless units all seem to be on the right track. Although I can think of some issues with this particular model, it seems to most closely resemble reality, be transparent to the player, but not be "no fun".

Although we know next to nothing about the new game, one thing is certain, if it is a war-game it will feature different units, commanders and heirarchies so any bizarre discussions about C&C will be interesting even if totally irrelevant to CMx2.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Come on people, use your sense. That's what SOPs are for. That's as much as a real life army would have in such a situation, so why should you do better? You expect too much of a bunch of privates and a couple of NCOs. If you want a more coördinated defense, put them in C&C. Isn't that plain enough?

Michael

So your idea is that all units not in C&C will be controlled by the AI? That's a bad idea because the AI just isn't good enough. SOPs ar a great idea, but they won't make the AI better in this instance because (assuming the SOP is to stay and fight), SOP's won't help with the tactical fight.

And real infantrymen did not have to call back to battalion to get the major's opinion on whether they should sneak up the trees on the right or the trees on the left...or whether they should perhaps move, advance, assault, or run. Those decisions are left to the NCO, and the NCO is - in my example - already there.

[aka_tom_w]

"And real infantrymen did not have to call back to battalion to get the major's opinion on whether they should sneak up the trees on the right or the trees on the left...or whether they should perhaps move, advance, assault, or run. Those decisions are left to the NCO, and the NCO is - in my example - already there. "

yes and most of us here (me anyway) would agree with that.

the whole MIA idea is dead now, BUT was a suggestion that would leave BAILED-OUT crews without radio and OUT of friendly LOS, in an MIA state where the SOP and the TacAI would take care of them.

If an infantry squad was SO far out of C&C and out of any friendly LOS (Preferably some form of HQ LOS but that is just being picky) then if the squad had no radio and no HQ AND if it started taking fire I was perfectly fine with the idea that it would go MIA and it would end up relying on its own TAC AI and SOP.

BUT

none of this matters because Steve says we are wasteing our time and energy on the whole MIA thing

Oh well, I am quite confident Steve knows what he is talking about with regard to this issue because I know he has read all about all the bitching a complaining there was about the "gamey jeep recon" and bailed crew recon in CMxx and I suspect his solution will be even better in every way then the rather "blunt" instrument of the half baked "MIA state" (I say half baked only to disparage myself since the MIA thing started with me )

ok?

-tom w

Originally posted by Lord Peter:

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

Come on people, use your sense. That's what SOPs are for. That's as much as a real life army would have in such a situation, so why should you do better? You expect too much of a bunch of privates and a couple of NCOs. If you want a more coördinated defense, put them in C&C. Isn't that plain enough?

Michael

So your idea is that all units not in C&C will be controlled by the AI? That's a bad idea because the AI just isn't good enough. SOPs ar a great idea, but they won't make the AI better in this instance because (assuming the SOP is to stay and fight), SOP's won't help with the tactical fight.

And real infantrymen did not have to call back to battalion to get the major's opinion on whether they should sneak up the trees on the right or the trees on the left...or whether they should perhaps move, advance, assault, or run. Those decisions are left to the NCO, and the NCO is - in my example - already there. </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Lord Peter:

So your idea is that all units not in C&C will be controlled by the AI?

No, godammit. Can't you read? How many times do I have to type the words "units remain in control of the owning player unless they are fired on, in which case they go to ground and become MIA"? I also mentioned that if in a later turn they are no longer under fire and have suffered no casualties and their morale is intact, they recover from their MIA status and return to the control of the owning player.

Now stop putting words in my mouth just so you can find something to gripe about. This is a dead horse anyway since Steve has said that BFC is approaching the problem from a different angle.

Michael

[aka_tom_w]

I wasn't quite that irrate but I know what you mean.

as you say the issue is dead

-tom w

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lord Peter:

So your idea is that all units not in C&C will be controlled by the AI?

No, godammit. Can't you read? How many times do I have to type the words "units remain in control of the owning player unless they are fired on, in which case they go to ground and become MIA"? I also mentioned that if in a later turn they are no longer under fire and have suffered no casualties and their morale is intact, they recover from their MIA status and return to the control of the owning player.

Now stop putting words in my mouth just so you can find something to gripe about. This is a dead horse anyway since Steve has said that BFC is approaching the problem from a different angle.

Michael </font>

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No, godammit.

You should calm down.

Can't you read? How many times do I have to type the words "units remain in control of the owning player unless they are fired on, in which case they go to ground and become MIA"?

I can read fine. You wrote:

As I conceived it, they would not go MIA unless fired on. In which case, they go MIA and AI takes control of them. Possibly the AI is bound to some extent by SOPs that the owning player has set at the start of the game.

My problem is with the AI controlling any good order unit, fired upon or not.

[snip]

Now stop putting words in my mouth just so you can find something to gripe about.

See above

This is a dead horse anyway since Steve has said that BFC is approaching the problem from a different angle.

Agreed.

Michael [/QB]</font>

[markl]

It is interesting to see a thread regarding the philosophical approach to future game design. I have not read every entry but I would have thought your target market would be your first consideration. Has this been stated yet?

It appears the immediate future for the CM series is the PC. In Australia at least this is rapidly polarising between multi play online (Say Half life 2) and complex single player (say MS flight Simulator)

From the people I see in the software stores and on forums the younger set and some time rich older players are going multi player on the web. But generally the older players (a minority but growing number) are mainly single player. This is also true for people and families I know.

I have seen it stated somewhere that the majority of people playing CM are over 35, so that must be a big consideration.

The other philosophical question should also be how the game is played. For older players this is a big issue.

I like many other older players I know (around 50) the concept that I do not have to win a level to get to see the next level like the current CM and MS Flight Simulator series is a big factor. We get to use it all for our money.

And do not under rate the need to use a CD to play the game. Most forums cry pirate when someone asks about a no CD patch. But look at most big and small MS flight Simulator sites. They all have the No CD and advocate using it. This is what older players seem to want.

Most responses here are from regulars to the forum. Are these people representative of the potential market or only the hard core aspect?

Very interesting, but I would say how the game plays for your target audience is more important that some of the other issues being discussed. I can not help but to think that the majority of the market is more interested in overall game play than some of the finer points listed here.

But that is not to say they should not be aimed for.

What I like about the game so far is that the control is simple, but the tactics can be as deep as you want. What ever happens please keep it this way. That way it caters for both the casual and serious player at the same time. The old “KISS” should rule the day.

Only my biased views.

Cheers MarkL

[Battlefront.com]

One thing to keep in mind is that we can make some of these designs optional. For example, let us say we did put in a MIA feature. Such a feature would be fairly easy to have as an option such as Fog of War. Playing it one way might be more realistic and fun for some, not so fun for others.

While we have to be careful not to make 100 different games in one box, we can make some of the more controversial (see below) things optional. That way we can offer something new while not alienating the people that want what was done in the past.

As MarkL laid out there is no one group of CMers who only one one thing. Anybody around during the release of CMBB should be quite aware of this. Heck, Tom's sig line is from that time period and is, if I may say so, a classic quote In the case of the options that were most upsetting to some CMBO people were not things we felt should be optional even if it were easy for us to do (and it wasn't). A refresher of some changes that were controversial... new/removed orders, modified orders behavior, waypoint penalties, etc.

That being said, overall gameplay comes from the individual features. A generalized gamer might not see how such and such a realism enhancement will translate to more fun gameplay even for them, they should not worry because we do

Steve

[ January 20, 2005, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[aka_tom_w]

um do mean...

"While we have to be careful NOT to make 100 different games in one box, we can make some of the more controversial (see below) things optional. "

Just curious

thanks for the mention on the Signature line, I always felt it truly was one of the most insightful things from all these threads and posts and I include it on ever post so everyone who reads my posts will know that I agree with what you said about "gamey" game play ( and reduceing it!) %100

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

One thing to keep in mind is that we can make some of these designs optional. For example, let us say we did put in a MIA feature. Such a feature would be fairly easy to have as an option such as Fog of War. Playing it one way might be more realistic and fun for some, not so fun for others.

While we have to be careful to make 100 different games in one box, we can make some of the more controversial (see below) things optional. That way we can offer something new while not alienating the people that want what was done in the past.

As MarkL laid out there is no one group of CMers who only one one thing. Anybody around during the release of CMBB should be quite aware of this. Heck, Tom's sig line is from that time period and is, if I may say so, a classic quote In the case of the options that were most upsetting to some CMBO people were not things we felt should be optional even if it were easy for us to do (and it wasn't). A refresher of some changes that were controversial... new/removed orders, modified orders behavior, waypoint penalties, etc.

That being said, overall gameplay comes from the individual features. A generalized gamer might not see how such and such a realism enhancement will translate to more fun gameplay even for them, they should not worry because we do

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Dang... always forgetting to put in a negative in critical statements

Yes, the quote you have in your sigline is quite valuable to see where we are coming from in terms of game design. However, to clarify things for some people who might take it this the wrong way...

Gamers should never confused something "fun" with realistic or gamey. Fun is in the eye of the beholder, for sure, but that does not mean fun is a mutually exclusive thing. Many people find CMx1 games fun for a great many reasons. Just look at these "bone" threads where one group of die hard CMx1 fans are concerned that we might remove something while another batch of equally die hard fans are affraid we'll leave it in. Both site "fun" as the reason to include or exclude the feature. Same game, same feature... different opinions on its importance.

CMx2 will be a new experience for you guys. We fully expect some of you won't like individual features or the game as a whole. But we also fully expect to find lots of people that didn't care a hoot about CMx1 to fully embrace the new game. Since we have the hardcore pretty well behind us, it should go without saying that in order to get new people in CMx2 is going to not forget to be "fun". Yet you guys are seeing us talking about realism features here and so you should also be reassured the game will also be more realistic. How is it possible to be both? We did it with CMx1 so we think we can do it better with CMx2

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dang... always forgetting to put in a negative in critical statements

Yes, the quote you have in your sigline is quite valuable to see where we are coming from in terms of game design. However, to clarify things for some people who might take it this the wrong way...

Gamers should never confused something "fun" with realistic or gamey. Fun is in the eye of the beholder, for sure, but that does not mean fun is a mutually exclusive thing. Many people find CMx1 games fun for a great many reasons. Just look at these "bone" threads where one group of die hard CMx1 fans are concerned that we might remove something while another batch of equally die hard fans are affraid we'll leave it in. Both site "fun" as the reason to include or exclude the feature. Same game, same feature... different opinions on its importance.

CMx2 will be a new experience for you guys. We fully expect some of you won't like individual features or the game as a whole. But we also fully expect to find lots of people that didn't care a hoot about CMx1 to fully embrace the new game. Since we have the hardcore pretty well behind us, it should go without saying that in order to get new people in CMx2 is going to not forget to be "fun". Yet you guys are seeing us talking about realism features here and so you should also be reassured the game will also be more realistic. How is it possible to be both? We did it with CMx1 so we think we can do it better with CMx2

Steve

The hardcore fans are with you! (mostly )

If you would just let us pre-order we can prove it.

Thanks for ALL the updates.

-tom w

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by markl:

Most responses here are from regulars to the forum. Are these people representative of the potential market or only the hard core aspect?

I think almost by definition, the "regulars" who post here frequently are "hard core". But you may also note that there is quite a diversity of opinion among the regulars on many of the issues you raise.

Very interesting, but I would say how the game plays for your target audience is more important that some of the other issues being discussed. I can not help but to think that the majority of the market is more interested in overall game play than some of the finer points listed here.

But that is not to say they should not be aimed for.

What I like about the game so far is that the control is simple, but the tactics can be as deep as you want. What ever happens please keep it this way. That way it caters for both the casual and serious player at the same time. The old “KISS” should rule the day.

While you will find me advocating realism much more often than not, I don't disagree with you here at all. Back in my boardgaming days of 20-40 years ago, I became aware that a lot of my games were just too hard to play. By that, I mean that the sheer drudgery of doing all the things you had to do to complete a turn had become overwhelming. So a lot of games that had lots of fascinating design features got put away after being played a turn or two.

This has been somewhat less of a problem with computer games, simply because the computer does most of the "housework" chores. But if the workload—and this can include the conceptual workload of trying to remember all the different things all your and your opponent's units are capable of—gets too great, the fun flies out the window.

Therefore, I try to always temper my calls for realism by asking myself what it's actually going to be like to play the game with such and such a feature in play. And when I criticise other players' suggestions, it's usually with that in mind.

Michael

[aka_tom_w]

This has been somewhat less of a problem with computer games, simply because the computer does most of the "housework" chores. But if the workload—and this can include the conceptual workload of trying to remember all the different things all your and your opponent's units are capable of—gets too great, the fun flies out the window.

Therefore, I try to always temper my calls for realism by asking myself what it's actually going to be like to play the game with such and such a feature in play. And when I criticise other players' suggestions, it's usually with that in mind.

Michael

Michael

Something like this has come up before.

The IronMan Rules, or Franko's True Combat rules are a GREAT example.

Mostly they say just play the game BY ONLY viewing the battlefield from EACH one of your units at level 1 (Ground Level)

the rules a more complex than that and allow for zoom magnification if the unit has binocs and such.

NOW this is an interesting idea

it sounds GREAT, may infact be WAY more realistic (sort of)

but from the point of view of game play this is what it means:

You the player can ONLY see and understand the battlefield by jumping (+/-) from unit to unit and looking around using view level 1 !!!!! (thats it!)

I think Relative spotting (somehow) may be like this BUT not restricted to view level 1 (I hope)

I would say the IronMan/TrueCombat rules might be more realistic to play, and some here might find it more fun, BUT MOSTLY I would suggest it would just be a tedious excersise in making the GAME not fun and REALLY hard to play. (I don't know I have never tried it)

Making the game MORE realistic by making it A GREAT deal harder to play is NOT the design goal here. (I hope)

I am however hoping there might be a MIA-EFOW Fog of War option in the game that may make it more uncertian and a little more difficult to win at BUT not really harder to play based on the interface.

I would like the game to challenge me (especially against the AI) BUT I don't want the game or the game interface to be tedious and harder to play. When I say that I think the IronMan rules, (observering the game ONLY from your friendly unit's level perspective) would make the game tedious and A LOT harder to play.

I am just hoping they can make Relative Spotting WORK but not in a way that makes the game play tedious and HARDER to play.

(hopping from unit to unit to see what it can see, BUT how else do you do it? Beats me? :confused: )

just a note on TEDIOUS...

FOR the record ordering a company's worth of units and vehicles to stay on the long an windy road so they don't stray off and get bogged in the mud is my idea of a TEDIOUS concept because there is NO follow or column command. :mad:

Please BFC..... eliminate the tedious things about the game play, user experience and the interface!

please

-tom w

[ January 21, 2005, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I am just hoping they can make Relative Spotting WORK but not in a way that makes the game play tedious and HARDER to play.

I’m fairly convinced that BFC will be able to make Relative Spotting work, and probably in a way that does not make the game harder to play. But, I think the greater uncertainty brought on by Relative Spotting will slow down the pace of the game, much like the improvements in CMBB slowed down the pace as compared to CMBO. I’m under the impression that CMx2 battles will still be faster paced than in real life (because of the extraordinary coordination that the all-seeing single player can bring to the game), but not by much.

That leaves me wondering two things:

1. How long will a typical CMx2 battle be? It seemed that a typical CMBO battle was 30-45 turns. CMBB/CMAK seemed to lengthen this to between 40-60 turns. Can we expect CMx2 games to be 60-120 turns long, reflecting the slower pace brought on by greater uncertainty? [Note: no offense to those scenarios that are under 30 turns, of which there are many great examples and I really enjoy. But I think it is easier to design a scenario with a longer turn length as compared to a shorter turn length.]

2. If the typical CMx2 battle is longer, will things that were “beyond the scope of CMBO” now be within the scope of CMx2? Examples may include obstacle clearance by engineers, resupply - any others?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

I’m fairly convinced that BFC will be able to make Relative Spotting work, and probably in a way that does not make the game harder to play. But, I think the greater uncertainty brought on by Relative Spotting will slow down the pace of the game, much like the improvements in CMBB slowed down the pace as compared to CMBO. I’m under the impression that CMx2 battles will still be faster paced than in real life (because of the extraordinary coordination that the all-seeing single player can bring to the game), but not by much.

Ace

Ok

that sounds good

When I am feeling confident that everything will turn out right and I am NOT thinking to hard about HOW I WOULD do it, I am guessing it will be a fun game..

ON good days I believe you are correct about this part:

"I’m fairly convinced that BFC will be able to make Relative Spotting work, and probably in a way that does not make the game harder to play."

But when I think about the problem of how to make the interface of relative spotting work in the game and make it fun and easy to play AND make Relative Spotting take the borg consciousness away from the view of the player (!) my head starts to HURT!

But as Steve says...

"Thats why we (collectively) pay him the BIG BUCK$!"

he he

-tom w

[markl]

Like the post from Tom above, I am sure they will make a good game and:

"Thats why we (collectively) pay him the BIG BUCK$!"

But Steve must be fishing for something here, must be unsure of something or just brainstorming.

I doubt this thread was opened for nothing and surely for more than just a philosopical discussion because he had a few hours to fill in.

Hopefully some of these good ideas will be seen in the next release.

Cheers MarkL

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by markl:

But Steve must be fishing for something here, must be unsure of something or just brainstorming.

I doubt this thread was opened for nothing and surely for more than just a philosopical discussion because he had a few hours to fill in.

Cheers MarkL

Gaugeing the wind, I would say.

[Caesar]

If BFC do decide to implement an MIA style of system where units are taken out of your control, then IMO it should apply only to units isolated that have been broken or routed or bailed crews.

All other units need to be controlled by the player simply because AI just cannot do a good enough job of controlling them, SOPs or no SOPs. After all, these are fighting units who, despite a lack of immediate command, should still be capable of influencing a battle. They should have to continue to obey whatever the SOP was that applied to them and maybe they should not be able to change this without being within command radius but beyond that I would want to be able to control them myself.

As for crew, personally I wouldn't care if they were just immediately removed from the battle and the points sorted out at the end in an abstracted manner. From a realism POV, they should have little of no influence on the remainder of the battle and their continued presence is only an invitation to gamey behaviour.

Once a unit has been broken or routed, realistically they would be in no fit state to do anything useful for the remainder of the game anyway, given the short time span our games are played in. Consider what is supposed to be happening here - you have a unit so panicked that it flees and yet with in a 20 - 30 minute period they are able to be sufficiently recovered to attack again. This is already an unrealistic amount of control. So if they are out of command radius, not being able to control them, see what they see, etc seems completely reasonable to me.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

[...]Therefore, I try to always temper my calls for realism by asking myself what it's actually going to be like to play the game with such and such a feature in play. And when I criticise other players' suggestions, it's usually with that in mind.

Very well said. That's a thing I should do as well I think. I tend to forget that I have been playing this game for soooo long and that many things, moves and informations that are now second nature were learned, sometime quite the hard way.

This is one big design challenge for sure.

[ January 21, 2005, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

How long will a typical CMx2 battle be? It seemed that a typical CMBO battle was 30-45 turns. CMBB/CMAK seemed to lengthen this to between 40-60 turns. Can we expect CMx2 games to be 60-120 turns long, reflecting the slower pace brought on by greater uncertainty?

2. If the typical CMx2 battle is longer, will things that were “beyond the scope of CMBO” now be within the scope of CMx2? Examples may include obstacle clearance by engineers, resupply - any others?

Very good questions. I felt this time increase too from BO to BB. And we all remember the critics voiced about the realism leap in BB making it too hard to play.

[ January 21, 2005, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]