Redwolf Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 I remember two times Steve said something about this. Both times I was sure the dominating issue for the "NO" was that BTS don't want their game to become a joke. Enforcing that the units on the field represent a halfway imaginable mix seems to play a big role. That's the same line of thought that will prevent Ferdinants to show up in months in which they historically hung out in Italy. I hope they don't do as far as removing the editor "feature" of timewarp, that was useful for many scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tondu Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 I just responded to the inaccurate idea that there wasn't any interest. There was and IMO, there is. Yes, the military does wargame. They even use computer wargames. I can see that this is a surprise to some people, but it is true. The US Marines have in particular been VERY public (for some time now) about this. Modern wargames have not been the only ones that they have been interested in. Don't you think that they may have important reasons for that? Don't you think that it may involve more than just keeping their troops from getting bored? Anyone ever hear a thing called a "staff ride?" Its were military officers go to an actual battlefield and go over in detail what happened there in order to learn from the mistakes that were made then. The US Army not long ago had one to the beaches of Sicily and they even plan to make one to Austerlitz and Aspern-Essling (two Napoleonic battlefields for those that don't know)in the near future. It happens all the time. Computer wargaming different periods can help to accomplish the same sort of goals. It promotes a healthy martial spirit and helps one to think tactically. I certainly see an advantage of having two equal forces go at it on a CM battlefield. BTS in a post to this board has said that the US Army and US Marines have asked about it. I bet they see an advantage too. C'mon people, there's no need to act like anyone would be forced to use the feature if it were to exist. AND it certainly wouldn't make CMBB a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karch Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Originally posted by Le Tondu: .....C'mon people, there's no need to act like anyone would be forced to use the feature if it were to exist. AND it certainly wouldn't make CMBB a joke.If it set's CMBB back more than 2 more months, I don't want it. I can see why people might want it, but not the military. We have never fought a war against an enemy armed exactly as we are and trained exactly as we are. If you are saying the military wants them to use them to go over historical scenarios and doctrines, they won't be using it either. It might be fun, but I don't think the majority of users would use it. The vast majority of players are not in ladders and things like that. They just want a WWII game to play. And I think you both are VASTLY underestimating the amount of work that would have to go into putting this into the game, and I don't think many people want to pay any more for the game for elements they won't use. Sure it would be fun, but it will probably take too long and cost too much to implement for any additional sales it might create. I can't imagine anyone would truly not buy a fantastic WWII wargame because you can't have AXIS V AXIS battles or ALLIES VS ALLIES battles. Why would you EXPECT to see that in a game anyway. If they include it great, but I'd wager they won't. Now answer these questions honestly... 2) How many addtional games to you truly imagine BF would sell by adding same side battles? 3) How many sales will they lose by NOT adding same side battles. How much will it cost to add the feature into the game and will they get their money back on their investment, AND does BF think it important enough to a WWII game/simulation to add it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Here's what Steve said in January 2001: It is not possible for either CM1 or CM2 to have same sides fighting against each other. Unfortunately, this would require an entire game engine rewrite because it is simply not set up to allow this. Now... some of you know that we are planning on rewriting the CM engine after the Eastern Front. I can tell you that the code assumptions that prevent same side fighting will be avoided. Put another way, in CM II (engine rewrite) you will be able to fight against the same exact side that you command. There is a simple reason for this. If you REALLY want to know which person is the best commander, one needs to eliminate as many variables as possible. If two players each have a platoon of US Sherman M4A3s and 2 US Rifle Companies Pattern 1944, on a map that is symetrical, then you have a pretty interesting game ahead of you. Is this something people would want to do all the time? Naw... but it would be a good thing to add! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karch Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Thanks for taking the time to look up the thread. I think it's the one that sticks in my mind, but I forgot that BF was planning on including it in the engine rewrite. I'm glad it will eventually get in, really. And I'm also glad they won't be delaying the game release to put it into CMBB. Heck, I'd pay full price to play with it right now!!! In beta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tondu Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 To all: I re-restate that I only started talking about this because it was incorrectly said that there was no interest for this feature. Whether it is politically correct or not, the facts are that there undeniably was interest for it and there undeniably still is interest for it-period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Five Posted June 21, 2002 Author Share Posted June 21, 2002 From Karch -------------------- You are leaving out something there. What about the time to code the game to do what you want? From descriptions of the game, it sounds like it would double the coding in the game. Every vehicle and troop would have to be coded into the game twice with twice the TOE etc. -------------------- This all depends on the data structure. You are correct in that CMBO is a very complex program. However, by using the proper data structure this option could be as simple to implement as a Boolean variable. However, as has been stated on many occasions, the data structure for the units in CMBO is very cumbersome. I would assume that when a total rewrite is done this will be fixed. I am sure that when they designed/coded the original game it was merely an oversight that this feature was not implemented. Data and how it is handled is one of the most dynamic and difficult beasts in programming. Finally, I hope for their sake that it would not require writing the code twice in order to add this feature (hell even if it did most of it should be cut and paste). Also from karch -------------------- I can see why people might want it, but not the military. We have never fought a war against an enemy armed exactly as we are and trained exactly as we are. -------------------- I take it you've never been in military simulators? Identical units are used all the time. If you can beat the best hardware, which is frequently US hardware, then you will have an easier time beating opponents with lessor equipment. However, different "skins" can usually be used to keep people from getting in the habit of pasting friendlies From Le Tondu -------------------- BTS has told us that the US Army AND the US Marines have both expressed interest in there being 'same forces' that oppose each other. -------------------- YES, I use CMBO to train my Marines. It was an awesome tool to illustrate just how important it is to properly employ armored units. CMBO does a very nice job of illustrating the value of overwatch, bounding overwatch, formations, etc). I exchanged numerous Emails with Mr. Grammont about how armor is handled in CMBO. Two of my major concerns were turret facings and seek/advance to hulldown. The basics of tactics and complex problem solving have been the same for all eternity (local superiority, mass, combined arms AKA catapults/archers/battering rams/knights or Arty/CAS/armor/infantry, etc). CMBO gives them a chance to plan company level operations as an NCO and then implement those plans against a live opponent. The value of having an NCO think about combined arms and tactics at the platoon and company level cannot be overstated, especially in the armor community. In a real world situation it is quite possible that a Sergeant could be in command of a company or platoon a few minutes after contact if the poop hits the fan. The introduction of full movie playback was also a major concern since it would make for excellent AARs. From Panzer Leader -------------------- Le Tondu you're being a bit dramatic, don't you think? BFS has survived (and done very well) for this long without 'government contracts', right? Who says they even want them, or that they could ever have a chance in the big game market where three companies rule the software like Czars of old? -------------------- One of my concerns with respect to BTS is to keep them in business. Their games are the best in the field. Regardless of all else BTS is about making money. To have fulltime employees requires a lot of money. Take it from someone who owned his own business for a few years, it's friggin tough. Yes, I wanted to give the people in the community a great product, but I was not doing it for my health. If BTS is to survive they need to make money. There is not a good businessman on the planet that intentionally turns away business or designs his/her product to have limited appeal. I would be willing to bet a weeks pay that if this feature is not in CMBB it is due to the programming burden and not because it is non-historical. Finally, to fight with identical units was exactly what every Marine who I have played with has asked for. We are a rather competitive bunch as it turns out. Therefore we want to ensure that when we win a game it is because we are the best and not because the other guys gear was not as good. Well in games that is. In real life all bets are off Black Five [ June 20, 2002, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Black Five ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karch Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Black Five, I completely agree with everything you said. 'nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Originally posted by Le Tondu: I just responded to the inaccurate idea that there wasn't any interest. There was and IMO, there is. Yes, the military does wargame. They even use computer wargames. I can see that this is a surprise to some people, but it is true. The US Marines have in particular been VERY public (for some time now) about this. I certainly see an advantage of having two equal forces go at it on a CM battlefield. BTS in a post to this board has said that the US Army and US Marines have asked about it. I bet they see an advantage too. C'mon people, there's no need to act like anyone would be forced to use the feature if it were to exist. AND it certainly wouldn't make CMBB a joke.Yes the military does wargame... been doing it for many, many years. However, the military does NOT train to fight itself. Never once in training do I recall assuming the enemy were Marines. Identical forces is the worst idea in the world for training purposes. To be honest, even forces is a bad idea as it almost never occurs in the real world. So, the idea that the ability to set up battles with identical forces for sell it to the Military is a farse. What you describe is a complicated for of chess... what's the point? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I really cannot see the appeal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Black Five Looks like things have really changed since I was in the Corps. We trained against OpFors that represented Soviets (Ah, I remember the cold war well ), Terrorists and irregulars. We also trained with and against our Allies (Koreans, Australians, Thais, etc). I can't recall any training where we went up against other Marines acting like Marines. I cannot see any reason for even doing that... unless you are training for a Civil War Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tondu Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Black Five, One could talk all day about how blue the sky is to some folks and it seems that they still can end up calling it green. The point is that same forces against each other will be in the CMII engine re-write. Regarding your thread title -"Identical forces in CMBB? anyone have the final word?" It looks like Steve is the one that has the final word and that is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karch Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 grow up [ June 21, 2002, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: karch ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Five Posted June 21, 2002 Author Share Posted June 21, 2002 Looks like we're getting off topic. Thanks for all of your thoughts. [ June 21, 2002, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Black Five ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts