operations very weak in CMBO, improved in CMBB ?

[SlowMotion]

If the number of reinforcements could be increased, what do you think about these reinforcement tweaks I suggested in this old thread? Especially the idea that the arrival time of a reinforcement could depend on the arrival turn of some earlier reinforcement.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=018335

[Mark Dyson]

Just some insane ramblings, ignore at will...

On one hand I saw FinnN's suggestion about an export/import feature for saving a mission's state. On the other, I'm just a graphics hack but I can see how adding an entire operational level to the existing game would be a nightmare.

How about a different game? Some people want to control operations, others just want to grip a k-bar in their teeth and go kill the enema. Assuming you could capture a tactical game's state, and/or import a new state generated elsewhere, why not offer an operations-level game for the folks who like that sort of thing, and give it the ability to save off data that could be fed into CC to fight out desired battles in detail? When fighting flares up you pick whether to let the Ops game adjudicate it, or export it for you to duke out; the results can be read back into the Ops game and the sitch adjusted accordingly.

I know, who has the time, eh? Still, it's an idea of sorts.

Cheers!

Spinny

[Juardis]

Steve, as long as a surrounded force gets no reinforcements/resupply, I think it would be realistic. You want to send a plt of guys out of ammo behind the enemy lines? Fine, go ahead, but if they're surrounded then they stay out of ammo for the next battle.

The idea I had a while ago was to think of the battlefield as a bar chart. If there are no interceding enemy units between your unit and the "front" lines, then that 20m wide path is available for setup at the start of the next battle. Proceed to the adjacent tile and redo the calculation. If there are enemy units between the "front" and them, then they are surrounded. And surrounded guys don't get reinforced or resupplied.

Just an idea.

[Battlefront.com]

Juardis,

Steve, as long as a surrounded force gets no reinforcements/resupply, I think it would be realistic. You want to send a plt of guys out of ammo behind the enemy lines? Fine, go ahead, but if they're surrounded then they stay out of ammo for the next battle.

But this assumes that we can create a fair means of assessing what "surrounded" is. We tried this already, in code, with the original system. It didn't work. Trying to figure out who is in supply or not on a hex grid with strategic forces which do in fact make an easily definiable frontline is very easy. Trying to make sense out of a chaotic tactical level deployment is very different.

It is totally unrealistic to assume that a platoon would remain in its "cutoff" position, without ammo or communications with higher command, unless it was under artificial duress (like early war Soviet units often were) or could not safely withdraw. Freezing the frontlines and having a rather clumsy supply system (that was the best we managed before) would piss off people to no end. Now instead of having your forces jostled around, they remain ineffective for an entire battle. I know, without any doubts in my mind, that people would go after us for this more than any feature that is in Operations now.

On top of this, who is to say a "cut off" unit couldn't receive resupply during the hour or so lull inbetween a battle? Happened all the time in real life. Some brave guy crawled on his belly for a half hour through some hot zone with enough ammo for an entire platoon. Or how about a unit which is technically "in supply" because nobody is behind it, but in reality is sitting out in the middle of a field covered by 4 MGs, an Infantry Gun, and 2 Platoons of infantry? A harsh fozen frontline system can not deal with stuff like this.

Then of course there is the problem I mentioned about the crew cut off and the map not advancing. I could also assure you all that if we did a flexible frontline that even more problems, which we can't predict, would rear up their ugly heads. That is what kept happening the last time we tried it, and is exactly why we cut our losses and ditched the system. Even we have NO idea how many problems such a system will cause, so I think it is a little unrealistic to assume that someone without any game design experience or coding time with the CM engine can think their way around this very big problem. This is just one of those Big Hairy Butt Problems that come up every so often

Bottom line is...

People should stop asking for things which have 100% no chance at all of going in. It is not a good use of creative energy and discussion time. I said before, and I will say again, we will not be changing the frontline system in any dramatic way.

People who think it is broken now would howl like mad if we changed it back to the way we had it before (which is not possible to do without a LOT of coding). This is because a frontline, and its ramifications, is an abstract concept to the extreme. Abstract concepts are very difficult to program, or at least take a long time to do depending on how involved the concept is. This is qutie simply not something we are interested in spending a month or more of programming time on.

Er... have I made myself clear?

Steve

[ February 13, 2002, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Battlefront.com]

SlowMotion,

I looked over your suggestions and the arrival time thing is a bit more complicated than we have time for. However, I'll see what we can do with extra Reinforcement Slots.

Steve

[Panzer Leader]

Well, alrighty then... now, how about campaigns?

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Ehm - how much ground do I loose in each battle? Is it a static number or preset by the designer? I can't find it in the manual, but maybe I'm just blind! :cool:

[WWB]

Puffy:

The defender generally loses the bulk of 'no man's land', which is set by the designer. Current settings are 80m, 160m, 240m and 400m, IIRC.

Steve:

Thanks for the replies as always. I have some appreciation for how hard relatively simple tasks for the human brain, such as scanning text for meaning, are exceedingly complex to code successfully. So I keep it simple with the requests. I am glad you all are looking into putting in more reinforcement instances, and I hope you do not forget normal battles in the process. In general, giving scenario designers more options within the current system will pay off in spades. We designers are a creative bunch and the more settings, the craftier we become.

One last, small request: Would it be possible to enable the keypad to select the terrain types in the left pane of the scenario design window. Having to click on the desired terrain type with the mouse leads to losing your place at worst and lots of wasted mousing at best.

WWB

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Thanx webby

[kipanderson]

Steve,

Yes, I am somewhat of a dreamer in the sense of wanting the ultimate operational/tactical wargames. However, BTS has already delivered one “ultimate” wargame, so to claim BTS cannot do it will not wash! When it comes to CM I certainly would not like to see it become a command game, or change its scale. The SL/ASL/CM scale is perfect for tactical games.

One quick point on Operations within CM. I have asked a number of times, and in the hope that you read this will now ask again.

Would it be possible for the maximum length of “battles within operations” to be increased from 30 turns to, say, 60 turns? I fully understand the point about the AI tending to wish to fight to the last man in longer battles. However, in human V human games, as long as you explain the situation in the briefing, players will/do take care to preserve their units in longer battles. I feel 40-50 minutes is about right for most battles, including in operations. However, others will differ on this.

All the best,

Kip.

[ February 13, 2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

[killmore]

Just gimme interface to create missions and extract results after the game.

I can do the rest. I have done it already for CC3.

See: MMCC3 main page

Sure it is not WWII simulation but changing front line is fun and people are playing it everyday. (With close combat 3)

[Battlefront.com]

WWB,

Thanks for remembering that programming is an art, not a science. And often it is a very FRUSTRATING art

I'll pass on the suggestion about the current terrain selection. I agree, it is always better to give options for two hand controls than one.

Kip,

Oh, I am sure we could pull such a game off in the technical sense. But reality is such a SOB when it comes to stuff like this. We have to remember that we can outdesign our capabilities far easier than any of you think possible. Don't believe me? Well, there are a couple hundred very good suggestions/enhancements which are not going int CMBB, yet we are already past our target release date. Time is an enemy of creativity in this industry. Which is exactly why "weak" games are generally the same as "rushed" ones.

To answer your specific question about battle length, there is already a suggestion on the list to lengthen them. Not sure how or if this will fit into the game, but it is at least noted.

Killmore,

You have no idea how much this has been discussed both internally and externally. The simple truth is that we can not snap our fingers and spit out an export file. If we could, it would have been done last year when you and two others were harpping loudly for it It might happen in the future, but I can promise you it will NOT happen for CMBB 1.0.

Steve

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

...Time is an enemy of creativity in this industry. Which is exactly why "weak" games are generally the same as "rushed" ones...

Steve

Sad but true - must someone be reminded on the 'WWII Online' desaster? Hyped early, pushed to the market before time, crashed badly and nearly forgotten after a few month.

I guess the simpliest solution for the lost ground would be to allow smaller - very small - no-mans-land settings.

I'm just curious, Steve, what would happen when no-mans-land would be set to zero?

[Juardis]

Gotcha Steve. Thanks for making that clear.

Although I for one would love to play a few ops with the coding you discarded. Maybe I know not what I wish for

[Battlefront.com]

Puff,

I'm just curious, Steve, what would happen when no-mans-land would be set to zero?

Units could start out unrealistically close together. While it makes sense for a dense urban battle to be within a few meters of the enemy, we are still talking 20m or so, not 1m.

We will likely offer more choices for no-mans-land size.

Steve

[kipanderson]

Steve, hi,

Thanks for the replies. I for one, will stop nagging you about operations. (In fact I think operations are the best way to play CMBO.) However, given the high quality of the job you all did on CMBO it is only natural that all your fans should allow their “war game fantasies” to run a little wild.

All the best,

Kip.

[WWB]

Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

I'm just curious, Steve, what would happen when no-mans-land would be set to zero?

Play Steckenroth Roadblock, avaliable at The Scenario Depot and find out.

WWB

[Ryan Crierie]

Has anyone here ever played X-COM?

It was a great turn-based strategy game

that used random maps created by mixing

randomly pre-determined elements such as

houses, stores, into a single map.

Perhaps in CM3, BTS can create a prebuilt

"area" and assign it the tag of "Train Station",

or "Factory", and issue you randomly generated

orders utilizing "fill-in-the-blank" stuff.

Sort of like Close Combat 3's system but with

a random map.

[FinnN]

Mark: I see there's no escape from Flight Sim people even here! If you ever fancy a quick battle PBEM game between pushing vertices around let me know!

BTS: Thanks for the response, I too began to lose interest in CC after #2, although I bought them up to #4. The key thing about #2 was the balance, and the way that the terrain you defended gradually changed as walls got trashed and so on. CC as an RTS got better in each one, but the overall feel went backwards (especially in 3, where you basically couldn't lose). The simple nature of the campaign system in CC2 would be quite easy to recreate if, and this is a big if, there was a file that could be manipulated outside the tactical game. Of course if the game engine isn't designed for that then retro-fitting it is potentially not an option...and if it meant compromising the CM side then it simply wouldn't be worth it.

More and more games are getting campaigns bolted on or included as standard, and I hope that one day some future edition of the CM series will have one too!

Have fun

Finn

[Battlefront.com]

Kip,

I know what you mean about being to blame for all of this. If we released the typical buggy, horribly flawed, rushed out the door software you guys would all be too busy yelling for us to just get the game running for more than a few minutes or calling for our execution

FinnN,

Of course if the game engine isn't designed for that then retro-fitting it is potentially not an option...and if it meant compromising the CM side then it simply wouldn't be worth it.

As is, the game engine isn't set up to dump out data. It can be done, but not quickly. It is something we plan on looking into (again) after 1.0 is released.

More and more games are getting campaigns bolted on or included as standard, and I hope that one day some future edition of the CM series will have one too!

Operations *are* CM's "campaign" The problem I think is that some people have a narrow concept of what a campaign should be, and Operations don't fit that view. All an Operation or Campaign amounts to is a bunch of linked battles. That much they have in common. The difference is that at CM's level the scope of one is realistic, the scope of the other is not in any way realistic. That is why we went with Operations and not Campaigns. To be honest, Campaigns would have been FAR easier to code (at least to the standard people are used to). But we instead chose the harder, more realistic path. Big surprise, huh?

Steve

[Fenris]

This is an idea I posted a year ago re having groups of units that have seen battle and can be purchased as a whole to be used in subsequent fighting. Seems like a good time to dig it up, I liken it to the traditional 'campaigning' concept.....

Paste>

Having core forces to carry thru lots of fights in a 'campaign' is something discussed alot here.

I'm not really that hung up on the idea and don't mind to much not having it. However I was reading a thread WRT CM2 and I had this idea (my one for the year, now I can sit back and relax, hehe).

Basically the idea was to be able to save your units after a battle which can then be used in any other battle as long as it's after the date of the last battle.

So say you start with a force and play a quick battle. At the end you're prompted to "Save the survivors". It saves the remnants of the force for you and calculates it's point value rounding up to the smallest unit denomination of that type (ie it fleshes out a squad of men as opposed to counting say just 3 survivors). Prolly wanna exclude fortifications.

So next time your ready to fight and you have the option to purchase units you can purchase this force as part of your point total and then the remaining points as per normal. Then at the end of that fight you can save the force again with what ever is left and so on and so on.

Restrictions could be the force becomes available the month after it's last fight and obviously if you don't have enough points for this particular battle then you can't use it.

SO, as an example:

June 44, 1000 point US force has a battle and win/lose ends up as a 500 point force.

I next play a QB dated July 44 that lets me have 1500 points. I spend part of those points buying my saved force with the same guys for 500 points and the other 1000 on new stuff. At the end of this fight I've got a force of 1200 points worth left which I save and can use again later in a QB dated August 44 or later and that lets me use at least 1200 points.

Etc, etc every month (or however often you want to field the force) until May 45. The force could grow huge if you chose successively bigger fights or be allowed to stay small depending on the size/point totals of the engagements you choose to participate in.

Draw backs I can think of off the top of my head would be you can only use the forces in battles that allow you to purchase units. So best might be to play thru an Operation and then use those survivors as a core for lots of subsequent QB's or self created ops.

You could combine two (or more) smaller forces into one by buying them both at force selection and then saving them at the end of the battle thus combining this force into one.

Dunno about the traditional upping a unit's ratings between fights, maybe after 6 months or whatever seems reasonable.

Also would need to keep leader names and be nice to keep the kill totals of course.

Doable? I have no idea but thought I'd share with the group.

Reg's

Fen

[ February 14, 2002, 03:29 AM: Message edited by: Fenris ]

[Cauldron]

Thanks for your reply,

I know there will be different intepritations on front lines for every game.

The MAIN problem is that the attacker gets FAR TOO MUCH ground for very little effort.

In a recent article by the commander of 9th SS that I read, he said that the Allies used WAYY too much artillary in relation to the ground gained (ie: using a sledghammer to crack peanuts).

In the opposite sence the attacker is able to use a feather duster to absolutly trash a half decently held front line.

If modifications can not be made to change the system anytime soon then please adjust or modify how it already works...

All you really need is about 20 end game maps and just tweek the settings until it looks something like reality.

I'm going to put some tiger prawn's on the barbie and if you get it right I will add a carton of Foster's as well.

Now don't you go showing off

[aka_tom_w]

I have been enjoying this thread a GREAT deal

Mostly because there is NO real flaming going on and Steve is posting so often.

I'm wondering (and yes this is TOTALLY unrelated to this thread) would there be a way to somehow flag threads the BTS adminstrators are posting in?

I would like to read the posts in threads where I know Steve or Dan or Matt or Charles or Martin (did I miss anyone?) are posting.

As it is now I have search through all active threads to find comments from BTS.

Just a Thought

now...to comment on the topic of this thread I have never ever played an operation because of the negative things I have heard and all the beefing and complaining about how they don't work, given that, I'm still interested in how others here want to make suggestions to improve the system so operations will be more enjoyable in the future.

Maybe I will play me first operation in CMBB once they are "fixed"

-tom w

[ February 14, 2002, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Cauldron]

I have a solution to all this...

Just write in the code " subtract 200m from the perimiter you just drew".

If any units are isolated it would be up to the reonforcing units to un- isolate them. Like Operation Winter Storm time and time again...

Steve, by adding reinforcement flags to operations we can get flank attacks happening- juicy aye ??? [ Note: Adding reinforcement slots is vital].

All you have to do is get the perimiter to draw in an "L" shape...

Come on Steve, please please please do it )

BTW there is another reason you should get all this working perfectly - you will become in the eyes of all of us........a God ...

Not only will we pay you money but very lilkely worship you, erect statues and form political parties............ did I miss anything ??

[Battlefront.com]

We can favor the defender more when the line is drawn. Sure, no problem. However, we changed to what it is now from what it was before because people complained that it favored the defender too much

If we do allow reinforcement flags, you absolutely will not be able to put them down wherever you like, so "L" shapes are absolutely will not be possible. Just think about it. You have your nice, tight frontline and all of a sudden... 2 companies and a platoon of tanks start out on your side of the line. Oh joy!

Steve