operations very weak in CMBO, improved in CMBB ?

[Tomb]

title says it all, while i love the set piece battles thier is very little sense of continuity. i dislike intensly the loss of towns or areas that were fought and won in the previous days fights..an important tactical area is often just given away without the otherside having to take it..certain key building etc. the Close combat series gave an excellent sense of operational continuity..lacking in CMBO . considering the time period of CMBB i would hope for some continuity, unit upgrades in equipment (or down grades) experiance levels etc. while the CM series makes for great table top gaming without the usual hassles involved i guess i would like to see it go that bit further and each battle could rely on the next one fought, or the last one. it removes the "nothing to lose" principle in One off battles. Games such as CC3 the russian front tend to eliminate that factor...lose all your equipment in 1 battle with reckless abandon could cost you the next two three or even a substatial defeat in an operation.

just a thought, it would be nice to see CM move beyond a table top recreation into part of a wider battle i mean barbarossa to berlin..thats a long way to go..with out links between battles and periods..well that limits it a bit...to unconnected one off battles..that may well be the intention of course.

two pence worth.

Tomb

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

I must totaly agree. The operations are the weakest part of CM.

The give away of land is unlogic and annoying - in princip, the attacker don't need to fire a single shot to advance.

I know about the victory conditions in operations, but if the advance is part of it (and I assume it is), then the way of advance without fight is twice worse!

[Bullethead]

Puffdaddy said:

The give away of land is unlogic and annoying - in princip, the attacker don't need to fire a single shot to advance.

Yeah, I find this annoying as well. It has really killed operations for me, both to play and to make for others. The attacker can force the defender back simply by massing his forces in a given area, even if the defender never spots him and thus doesn't know he's there, let alone successfully defending.

It seems that once the attacker reaches a certain force ratio with the defender in a given area, that's all that really matters. The attacker retains the ground he massed one and, if no-mans-land is wider than the current gap to the defender's foxholes, the defender is evicted. The only thing that seems to help the defender is live pillboxes, but those only in their immediate areas. Elsewhere, successful defenders will be driven back simply due to the force of unseen, even unsuccessful numbers.

Plus operations can't handle encirclements, but that's another story. Oh well.

I'm with you, I certainly hope CMBB fixes operations.

[Battlefront.com]

I suggest doing a Search about the giving up territory issue. You guys have no idea how much time we wasted trying to make flexible frontlines work in the Beta, so it was yanked out. Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that it will be solved for CMBB. In fact, I would put money on it that there will be no improvement in this regard. The fact that Charles is able to do so many other great things, yet threw in the towel on this after significant programming time, should emphasize how horribly difficult this "easy" concept is to do from a code standpoint.

BTW, troops pulled back from areas won after hard fighting all the time. Holding terrain is not the most important thing to do in war. However, the current system of course does not pull troops back with as much logic as the real world would have. Just wanted to point out that having the game move your troops inbetween battles is inherently not unrealistic, even if specific cases are.

Steve

[ February 12, 2002, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Midnight Warrior]

Also, there is no tactical flexibility and/or control in how and where reinforcements are fed into the battle.

[Battlefront.com]

Tomb,

just a thought, it would be nice to see CM move beyond a table top recreation into part of a wider battle i mean barbarossa to berlin..thats a long way to go..with out links between battles and periods..well that limits it a bit...to unconnected one off battles..that may well be the intention of course.

That was the total intent, from original concept all the way through implementation. What you are asking for is something we conciously decided we did NOT want to offer. At CM's scale it is totally unrealistic and therefore not something we wanted to spend time on.

Please do a Search on the topic of Operations. You could try words like "campaign" or "upgrading" and that might help.

We understand that quite a number of people want Operations to be something which they were never intended to be. But some people also want CM to be a first person shooter and others want it to be a command style game where you issue a couple of orders each turn and the AI does everything else. The game is what it is, not what it isn't

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The game is what it is, not what it isn't

Steve

Could it be a bowl of Cherry Garcia ice cream? I really like Cherry Garcia ice cream Steve. I really really like it. So, please?

- dale

[WWB]

Steve,

One possible quick-fix I suggest is that instead of taking No Man's Land away from the defenders, take it away from the attackers. This would address alot of those "I held the line but the computer moved me back" issues, and probably would be more realistic. Attackers tended to pull back to safe positions, while defenders tended to hold on to their already dug-in haunts.

The only other suggestion I have is to give scenario designers more NML settings. I stick with 0m now, because that is the only way for things to work well with the current engine. But it would be really cool to have 20, 40, 60 and 100m settings, as well as probably not too much work.

WWB

[FinnN]

I love Combat Mission, it's my favourite multiplayer experience to date - although a flight sim called IL-2 Sturmovik comes close on occasion. One thing I do miss though is the supply tension in Close Combat 2 (which I realise was a very different game) - where do I put my resources, can I cut that supply route, etc.

Why not add an option to CMBB that at the end of a battle it will dump the full status of all elements (map, units, scenery, buildings, etc) to a text file. Likewise allow the game to import a text file in this format. There are people out there willing to work (or already with working) on Meta-Campaigns - why not further open up the possibility for them? I realise that this might have implications for cheating, but it could be an option that you tick so people couldn't capitalise on it or maybe some sort of encryption method. Either way a simple dump/import to/from a text file at the end of a battle probably isn't that hard so if it was never used then it wouldn't be too much of a waste of time.

Have fun

Finn

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

... You guys have no idea how much time we wasted trying to make flexible frontlines work in the Beta, so it was yanked out. Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that it will be solved for CMBB. In fact, I would put money on it that there will be no improvement in this regard. The fact that Charles is able to do so many other great things, yet threw in the towel on this after significant programming time, should emphasize how horribly difficult this "easy" concept is to do from a code standpoint.

...

Steve

Steve - I just wonder why we have flexible frontlines? I would think that after an operation battle the defender is, depending on his casualties and the tactical situation, anyway in need to regroup and take back his frontline.

So why not freeze the frontlines as they were in the last battle?

[Tomb]

I think i would agree , better to not have the front lines adjusted at all from the cease battle postions than the current system during operations...

certainly CC 2 has to be one of the best battles around and CC4s concept of manovering units and those that met..fought is clearly a concept that some have tried to emulate here via various "meta campaigns"

CM's tactical level matched with CC's operational level would be an unbeatable combination.

any one noticed how dam hard it is to get a good wargame on a computer these days...CMBB will be on my list but i cant help wondering if its all it could be...now that CC5 was disappointing and the whole series now seems to have bit the dust.

its berlin or bust (CMBB) for me CMBO did re-introduce for me a kind of wargaming i thought had gone forever and the anticipation of each new turn in E-mail is a thrill, and for that i'll live with the lack of ability of the game in other areas.

keep up the good work

regards

Tomb

[Battlefront.com]

WWB,

Some improvements will be made to Operations for sure. What you have suggested sounds interesting and I'm honestly not sure if it has been thought of before (Martin and Dan are handling that ). I'll forward it along to make sure it gets consideration.

Finn,

This has been discussed internally quite a bit. Unfortunately, the coding effort needed to make this work is a little bit tricky. I do not know why, but if it really was easy Charles would be adding it for sure. This is something which the rewrite of the game engine will fully address.

Puff,

So why not freeze the frontlines as they were in the last battle?

Because it is not realistic. When a battle in real life ended each side would move its forces around in order to make sure they were correctly deployed for the next battle or were in the best positions in the event of another enemy attack. Remember, quite a bit of time goes on inbetween battles during an Operation, so it is not correct to assume that NOBODY moves.

If we did freeze the front line people would complain about the game ending before they had a chance to pull x unit back or move y unit forward. On balance I think it would cause more problems than it solves, or at the very least cause just as many.

This is not a simple problem to fix, so it will largely be left as is for CMBB. For better or worse, that is reality.

Steve

[Schrullenhaft]

I have no idea how bad the originally intended front line code works, but could a 'freeze the front line/last positions' be used as one of the settings along with the current 'redeployment lines/buffer zone' settings in operations ? Although it isn't perfect and may not work in many situations, I wonder if it could be workable in some situations. It would be a nice tool for operation designers since a well designed operation would involve testing for the most appropriate 'front line determinant', that could help further the milieu of operations in what they can simulate.

To expand on wwb_99's concept, possibly have a setting that controls which side gets set back, attacker or defender. This would be useful in situations where the defender has to shorten the defensive line, due to manpower shortages, etc. However I would assume that most of the operations designed for CMBB would probably give such an advantage to the defender, especially when it comes to prepared defensive positions or the German 'hedgehog' defense of towns.

[ February 12, 2002, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Schrullenhaft ]

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Steve - Sorry, but you missunderstood me. I didn't meant to freeze the units, I meant to freeze the setup zone.

In simple words like this: I draw a line from one front unit to another, and that's my setup zone for the next battle. Within this setup zone, I can of course place my units and the reinforcements the way I want.

[LGMB]

Sir,

Steve: No suggestion for improvment here, since I have no idea how coding works, I wont go shouting out suggestion which I wont understand- codewise. Anyway, I have only one complaint: I find it most annoying that, a multiple front attack cannot be modled. Lets assume I wish to model a flanking operation, small scale. I set up attackers on both sides of the defender, and let the operation run. At the next battle, both attackers will be magically merged together, at the attackers set attack front. This makes multifront operations impossible.

[kipanderson]

Steve,

I know from other threads you are “not keen” on the idea, but welding together a quality operational game and CM would make for another stunning breakthrough in wargaming. Not as big a leap as CMBO was, but still a step change.

What I would like to see is an operational game which could be played entirely at the operational level if the players wished. However, if they preferred, they could zoom down to the CM scale and play any given individual engagement at the CM scale. Like many others, I would have thought that a program similar to the QB generator, but taking its parameters from the operational game, would do the job.

It was always clear to me that someone would have a go at a SL/ASL type computer game, but I never expected anything of the quality of CMBO to emerge. I am equally confident that one day some one will add a quality operational layer to a CM type game. I would very much like to see BTS do just that.

BTW, in my view, Decisive Action by Jim Lunsford, is the finest operational game out there. It a WEGO system. But you will have your own views on which of the operational game designers is best.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. The thought of “tracking characters/individuals” is not what I am after. I am after a quality operational game such as those used by the military. Like Decisive Action.

PPS. For the engine re-write my other big hope is live team play. Would deal with relative spotting and command in a realistic way.Also be fun.

[Battlefront.com]

Folks... please keep in mind the old saying...

He who tries to master all winds up being the master of none.

None of you fully appreciate the magnitude of what you ask for when you suggest making an operational level to the tactical game. Tomb thinks that CC4 did a fantastic job, but I recall many people thinking that it sucked and sucked hard. Most complained that the strategic layer came at the expense of fixing core, fundamental problems at the tactical level (like dancing tanks and vehicles which wouldn't go over bridges). So as far as we are concerned, this proves our point.

I lost interest in CC after CC2. That had a strategic layer as well, though not nearly as sophisticated as the one in CC4. But it too had some horrible flaws. So bad that I stopped playing campaigns (and tactical battles too because I found them to be rather predictable).

With Combat Mission we attempted to NOT make this fundamental mistake and instead make sure we did ONE part very well. And since CM is a tactical game, we focused on getting the tactical game element right on the FIRST release, not #5 or never in the case of most games I have played.

However, no matter how much we give players they always want more (standard rule of thumb ) so we figured out a system that would work best with the tactical layer, and therefore make adding another play option viable.

Operations in CMBO are about as simple as they can be, and yet they have fundamental problems in the eyes of quite a few of you. So if you think that CM's Operations are flawed, then just imagine how much all of you would be bitching about the game as a whole if we overextended ourselves and shot for the stars the first time out of the gate.

It is fine with us to ask us to do more with Operations. But when you dream of the ultimate game, realize that you are dreaming and are not in any way tied to reality. You are also not thinking, at all, about what the downsides are. We have to make the games you play, then listen to thousands of you critique, complain, and outright insult (thankfully very few do this!) us no matter what we do. And that means we can't dream like a customer if we are to deliver something which will keep the majority of you happy the majority of the time. We have to be realistic and do what we can within the bounds of reality.

I will be VERY honest with you. Operations were almost cut out of the game entirely. That was a very real possibility. After much discussion it was decided to fix some of the worst problems (i.e. the frontline) as best we could and keep it in. That was the harder thing to do, believe me.

Operations will remain a part of CMBB. They will be slightly improved. They will not be fundamentally different. If we were to make a radical change, it would be to cut the out altogether and not included them at all since that is the ONLY other viable option.

Again, we do not mind people voicing their opinions and dreams, as long as people understand that dreams are a dime a dozen while good games are rarer than rare. There are reasons for this reality and gamers should never, ever forget that.

Steve

[WWB]

AAK! I had a nicely written piece on how to use operations in CMBO, but I managed to brush the back button and killed it. So, here is the short, short version:

Thanks for passing my ideas on Steve. Schullenraft's addendum is a great one as well, being able to simulate several tactical situations would be real cool.

I, for one, do not think Operations are horribly broken in CM, so long as you recognize the limits to the engine and work within them. There are three big things a designer can do to make the battle work better:

1) Keep it short. More breaks between battles means more chances for the start-line problems to effect your battle. Plus, the 5-instance reinforcement limit (hint, hint Steve) can lead to thinly spread forces by the end of an operation.

2) Keep the map narrow. One of the biggest problems is that an armored car will pass unnoticed around one flank, and end up pushing someone back the entire map. Which is a pretty unfun event. Keeping the map narrow helps eliminate too-long flanks.

3) Keep the 'flow' of the battle parallel to the map. If the battle you are working on flowed NW-SE, twist it so it goes E-W. Another trick I discovered is that lines of cover ever 200-300m perpindicular to the axis of advance help the engine out alot in laying out setup zones.

WWB

[Juardis]

Just one simple question. Why do you have to redraw the lines at all? Just leave the guys where they are at the end of a battle. If you can "connect the dots" to form a broken line, then by all means, connect the dots. But if you cannot, then you have a force that is surrounded. That's what I would like to see. Oh, and 20m no mans land too.

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Hey BTS guys,

CM may have it's flaws like all things and people in real life, but it is a kick ass game that I for one value above all others. While we may whine we wnat this and that now and then, deep down, almost all of us know what a jewel CM is! We appreciate (misspell?) both what BTS has put into the CM franchise, and what will be in it in the future as well!! Thanks BTS!!!!

[Cauldron]

Wow.

Glad I'm not the only one on the "improve campaign's" bent....

I am not sure what BTS calls realistic but loosing a few units as against the present here "have half of Russia while you're at it" works for me.

I had this idea... IS IT POSSIBLE for a human to draw in the front lines??

This could be either drawn as a series of lines, or some form of grid co-ordinates entered.

The programming to do this is might be simpler than getting the computer to do it, the day however it DOES draw proper perimiters (as well as encirclemenmts) will be a great day indeed ))

eric

[hobo]

I must agree with Jester. BTS will get my money for every game they create. However, with that being said there is a major market for taking their engine and using it in an operational size game. I would pay double for such a game. I only wish had the venture cap. to make such an investment Maybe next life.

- Hobo

[Battlefront.com]

WWB:

1) Keep it short. More breaks between battles means more chances for the start-line problems to effect your battle. Plus, the 5-instance reinforcement limit (hint, hint Steve) can lead to thinly spread forces by the end of an operation.

More slots? This might be possible. I'll at least pass it on.

2) Keep the map narrow. One of the biggest problems is that an armored car will pass unnoticed around one flank, and end up pushing someone back the entire map. Which is a pretty unfun event. Keeping the map narrow helps eliminate too-long flanks.

This is not supposed to happen. The frontline is calculated based on where the bulk of each side's forces are at. Running one or two units to the other side shouldn't set the line there.

3) Keep the 'flow' of the battle parallel to the map. If the battle you are working on flowed NW-SE, twist it so it goes E-W. Another trick I discovered is that lines of cover ever 200-300m perpindicular to the axis of advance help the engine out alot in laying out setup zones.

Yup, but remember that a straight line is a straight line. The concepts of E/W/N/S etc. are all in the player's head as the game system doesn't care about this at all. What can't happen, obviously, is a wildly changing directional Operation (zig-zag for instance). This is not something that we are likely to ever be able to allow.

Juardis,

Just one simple question. Why do you have to redraw the lines at all?

See my answer above This would likely cause MORE complaints than the system now. For example, how would you like it if the enemy rushed a platoon and 2 tanks deep into your flanks, without ammo, during the last couple of turns, then at the beginning of the next game, there they are, sitting pretty all fresh as daisies with literally no attention paid to them during the inbetween time? Or how about if you advance to the edge of the map, but the other guy has a cut off bailed out crew way back in your start up zone... then the map would not advance and you would have to deal with a piddly unit for a whole battle?

Yes, there are solutions to all of these problems. But this is just the tip of the iceberg we found when we had the original frontline code in the game. Simply put, it is better this way than with the line remaining "as is". There is no viable third option.

Vader's Jester,

Thanks for the peptalk Don't worry, we do not lose perspective about where we are at or where we are going when we look at a single thread. If we did, we would have long since quit making games

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Cauldron,

Er... who would draw the front line? Attacker or Defender? I'm sure that neither player would be happy with the system unless they had the final say Plus, how would you deal with units which were cut off? Move them or penalize them? Fair or unfair depending on the situation. But it isn't doable anyway without a lot of programming time, so it is out of the running just for that reason alone.

Hobo,

Remember what I said above...

"He who tries to master all winds up being the master of none."

Money isn't the big issue and neither is time to some extent. But combine the two with the reality of how games are designed (even by independent, talented teams like ours) and you get yourself a huge invitation for disapointment and/or disaster. There is a reason why no game, that I can think of, has EVER been released which does both tactical and operational/strategic simulation well and historically accurate. In fact, I can think of precious few that are even good which do not have the realism issue to wrestle with.

Yes, probably most gamers would like some sort of mixed scale game. I know I would. But it will likely remain a pipedream for a long time to come. It is just one of those things that in theory is possible, and definately desirable, but will not come to pass because reality says so.

Same is true for us making a tactical game AND a seperate operational game at the same time. We need to make either one or the other. Trying to do both is just begging for mucho problems.

I know gamers HATE it when developers pour cold water on them like this, but we would be dishonest to claim that this is something which we feel we can do. Or more specifically, that anybody can do.

But I will grant you one thing... I honestly think that if someone CAN pull this off, we are the leading contender. So the fact that we are so sure it isn't in the cards for us should speak very loudly.

Steve

[ February 13, 2002, 12:20 AM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Franko]

Interesting discussion. I very much appreciate BTS' timely responses to our questions. For what its worth, I don't think the CM "Operations" are horribly broken..and I've probably designed more operations than anyone.

However, adding reinforcement slots are HUGE from a design standpoint..it opens up many possibilities. Therefore, I think thats a great idea.

Second, it would be highly useful to be able to control the "weather" more specifically for each scenario within an operation.

Third, there should be more TURNS allowed for each individual scenario within an operation.

Fourth, I agree that the frontlines should be "weighted" in favor of the defender (i.e., more likely to displace the attacker).

Fifth, "whole map" displays should be allowed for any type of operation, whether it be assault, advance, etc. Perhaps more meaningful descriptions of those terms would also be useful.

Admittedly, I'm no programmer. But these capabilities would allow for better operations design -- no doubt. I once wrote a HUGE memo on this, for the purpose of sending to BTS, but I figured I'd just annoy them.

Frank