Ideas & Thoughts

[Murx]

I'm not quit sure if this is the right place for this topic, but I hope other ...

I think it could be a good option to change the timescale of turns. Thus you give commands for e.g. 5 minute turns, representing that you came with a plan and can't change it immediately (the messengers have to go to and come back from your troops, the radio msgs have to be sighted to weed useful information etc).

Another option is to limit the time you can give commands; no, I don't want CM to be a click feast, but to represent the pressure under which a WWII commander had to give his commands. Same had to go with the replay then, you are able to replay it once or up to three times etc.

There was a discussion on screenlayout / information ingame. I would find a TOO&E useful (ingame, not only at the start of a scenario that is).

Just ideas to talk about

murx

[JWorthing]

I disagree.

Time constraints on turns would just make things frustrating. It's unnecessary.

What if a player is just trying to get their tank in a good hull down position. That

takes time using the camera and moving those travel orders. I don't want my tank going over the hill and getting knocked out just because i missed clicked and ran out of time.

Also, viewing the movie only once or three times! You didn't state your reasons but I know I wouldn't like the game if it was that way.

I'm thinking it has to do with realism but sometimes, cool features are just better.

Getting to see the movie as many times as you want is one of the best things about the game. All that hard work, manuevering your forces just to get that great flanking move and only being able to see it three times!!

I've watched some of my replays twenty times!! It's just a cool feature that I don't think hurts the game but enhances it.

Having only limited times to view, I feel, would only hinder the game.

*Do not take offense, only my opinion and observation*

[Murx]

I agree that that kind of gameplay could be frustrating. And as I wrote just a idea, maybe it could improve the chance of th AI cause the player is under stress.

But maybe soeone (me) might find it an interesting challenge.

For the tanks You are quit right on maneuvering them properly, but normally a Cpt. would radio his tank leader: "OK, position your tank right of that 2-story building covering the right flank of our advance." No chance for the CO to get him exact in the position he wants him, but if the crew is experienced she'll surely will achieve what the COs command aimed at.

For the replay: Would be real cool if one could review the whole battle

All I'm writing is just for discussion and not nessessary to be added to CM at once or even ever

murx

[Fred]

Murx,

my opinion differs.

CM is not a simulation game, or a role playing game about "being a CO in WWII", it is a wargame.

You are not the CO, but a wargamer, sitting in front of a computer screen.

And as a wargamer, I do not need time contraints or any "quasi being the CO" limits.

If I want this, maybe I try Panzer Elite or another simulation game.

So, CM is wonderfully balanced game, and it should stay this way.

All, as usual, IMO

Fred

[Moon]

Also do not forget that 5 minutes turns would put a lot of pressure on the AI. People are shouting now already when they lose 5 seconds of a turn because the AI did something "wrong" (read: different than they wanted).

[Maastrictian]

I actually think this is a pretty good idea. (and IIRC it is an option in TCP/IP games (when that is implemented)). I think this is cool for all the options the topic starter mentioned, especially the more realisim (working under preasure). For those who say: "this is a war game, not a simulation or an RPG." Well, the great thing it that this game can be more than one thing to different people. I like playing these games to get an idea what the comander on the ground felt like, what was going through his head and the preasure he felt. (I also like playing exclusively from 1 & 2 camera (kudos to whoever sugested that)) In that sence I prefer a "simulation" rather than a "wargame." But if you prefer the tweaking and perfecting that an infinate turn length will give you, go for it. There is nothing wrong with either styles of play, they are just different ways to play.

--Chris

[Murx]

The ultimate variant (ultimate in CPU&graphic ressources needed that is) would realtime command & execution.

STOP! Don't kill me right on the spot for saying that!

As far as I understand the game-engine (I don't know ****, but I think it works that way) the timescale could be set to any value switching the command interface (which is currently ended by the player) and calculating & executing it. So enlengthen is no great deal, but if it would be set to very small timeframes (less 10ms that is) it would be realtime. But don't think of using your current PC for that

murx

[Tyro]

I kind of like the idea of a longer turn, maybe not 5 minutes but maybe 2, would give the sense of realism, in that you wouldn't have the ability to tweak your movements every minute, you make your decisions and have to live with it ( or die with it ) Oh well something to consider for CM 2.

[Murx]

I think if the player could set the timeframe everyone will be happy (get PBEM opponents that don't mind or share your opinion on time-frame, and if you disagree you still have the chance to test that option).

Two ideas have just come up in my mind:

Morale (I have tried to search but with over 100 threads I didn't want to look them all up ): Is the chance of a squad higher if he sees the rest of his platoon fleeing ? (read there is a complete forcemorale that has some effect but this is different).

Second: Less enemy information ! How can my troops tell if they are facing a veteran tank crew in that Sherman or a green/untried ?

murx

[Guest Germanboy]

Murx,

a couple of points. I think a lot of people would have a problem with the loss of control if you went to five minutes, I think I would. There have been numerous complaints about this months back, and I think a lot of people found it hard to accept. 1min seems like a good time to me. Things can go wrong, but not horribly so, and you have the ability to steer the game. In a scenario of 30-60 minutes, you can lose the game within 5min very easily. As an option, maybe if there is sufficient demand, but I doubt that there will be.

Individual squad morale is modeled, if you look into the lower right corner of your squad stats, there will be info like 'tired', 'pinned', 'broken' etc. If it carries an exclamation mark, that means the squad has been broken once and recovered. They will be unlikely heros in the near future.

I absolutely agree about the enemy unit info. I doubt it will be possible to pick up whether a tanker or a gun crew is veteran or regular experience level. If veterans disagree with me, I would like to hear it.

For the time limit, the point that was made about putting your tank into position is quite good. In real life a commander would give his tankers the order "position at the hedge over there, cover the ridge" (or something, you will know that better than I do). Then he would rely on the survival instinct of the crew to pick a good position, hull-down etc. In CM, you give the tank an order to proceed to point XY on the map. It will go there, period - there is no unit intelligence or survival instinct that would make them choose a point 10m back or 5m ahead, if that gave better cover, and they could still fulfill their intended mission. This makes micro-management necessary, and that takes time.

Regarding the TO&E, I think you can use the hotkeys to get back to the scenario briefing where you find it. Not comfortable, and it probably will be an issue in larger scenarios with reinforced batallions. It would also be great if that info was dynamic, i.e. the game keeps track of your losses in detail. I think that would help a lot in decision-making. Good idea.

Reviewing the movie, I usually only play itin overview once or twice in PBEMs. Unless something really interesting happens. But I also like to follow squads/tanks on their way, or take camera 1 view of a pillbox, locking on it during a movie. This to me adds tremendously to the feeling of immersion. So I would regret such a restriction very much.

Just my two UK£0.02

------------------

Andreas

[Murx]

Hello Germanboy,

agreed things can run out of steer if the timeframe gets longer (but intended - evil drives me sometimes, I like to see things go the wrong way ) Sure with 5 in turns it should be scenarios covering 60 - 120 minutes minimum.

For the squad moral, I don't meant the individual squad, that I know; but what happens when 2 of 3 squads and the support, maybe even the CO panic to the third squad? Is his chance to panick higher even if he is not under suppresion or other harmful things ?

For the tank-positioning - same as for my wish to happen more worse things (I'm evil, did I say that before ?). The TacAI pulls tanks (and other units) back out of AT-guns, so just a little changing and it tries to position it good (but still near the point you designated for them) taking their experience in account.

OK, that would be another horror to code (or even think of the algorythm to do that). But it's just a idea ...

murx

(I don't can really describe why I want more kind of randomness in the game, maybe that would feel more organic...)

[CanuckinDixie]

I think 5 minutes is an awfully long time to sit helplessly by and watch your troops get slaughtered due to an unforseen move by the AI or opponant. A 2 minute turn might be a viable option though.

[Murx]

That is the way war is - expect the unexpected ... ok that a bit polemic...

murx

[Fred]

Murx,

it is already in the game now:

1.

If you want 5 minutes without user interaction, well, enter your orders and then hit 5 times "Turn done" without giving any further orders. Voila!

If you only want to see the movie playback once or twice...just do it.

No need for hard coded options.

2.

Some people complain about the fog of war; they want "super-realistic" fow, like a CO in WWII experienced it.

Read my first post.

One of the most important things in a game is the feedback to the user. And this must be sufficient to base ones decisions on. So there MUST be parts of the game that could not be "realistic", because it enhances the game play to stay "unrealistic" in these areas.

In other words, "more realism" does not mean "more fun". And, at least for me, gameplay is more important than ultra-realism.

And on a real battlefield, units know in short time, if they are facing a green or a veteran tank crew, simply from the way they act.

I could live with one more option of FOW ("super-hyper realistic FOW") as an OPTION to the now included FOW, but not INSTEAD of it.

3.

Steve made it very clear (some time ago): CM will never go realtime.

Conclusion:

My vote against longer turns or artificial limits on the game play.

Fred

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Murx:

That is the way war is - expect the unexpected ... ok that a bit polemic...

murx<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guess we are hitting abstraction country again here. I want to enjoy this as a good simulation of war, yet still as a game, and I am quite sure I would not enjoy the real thing at all. Two minutes as an option could be interesting, it would also shorten PBEMs, due to a lower number of turns that need to be sent. Maybe as an option. I wonder how difficult that would be. But different strokes for different folks.

Having said that, this could be one way to simulate the C&C advantage that German troops had over Soviet troops, let's say the German player can give orders every 45sec, while the Russian player can only do so every 1.5min. Not sure if that is codable, though.

------------------

Andreas

[Guest grunto]

i have noticed one very cool feature along these lines.

if you have a unit moving or firing or whatever, and you change its orders, notice how the computer tacks on a 'pause' as a penalty for your changing the unit's orders.

i think this is very cool.

so if your orders from two-minutes ago still fit the current situation you're in better shape from a time standpoint than if you re-issue new orders.

andy

[Juju]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Murx:

Another option is to limit the time you can give commands; no, I don't want CM to be a click feast, but to represent the pressure under which a WWII commander had to give his commands<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When playing CM I'm not THE WWII commander. I'm every lowly squad and/or section leader. I need to check everyones LOS, cover, advance route etcetera. So, in essence, I am a lot of people at the same time! I don't think any game will ever represent the pressure under which a WWII commander had to give commands.

[Murx]

I have read may good ideas/arguments now.

To Fred: The five minute turns that both You and the AI/opponent have to stick to their (initial) 5 min orders, so it's surprising for both of you...

I don't meant to replay just one minute of replay but the whole scenario, that is 60 minute movie (without loading every turn....)

For estimating the experience of enemy troops, especially vehicles. It should be as exact as the hitting algorithm...

A veteran troop might know a MG34 from a MG42 but in the midth of a firefight? And they might tell a Sherman with 105m gun from a 75mm, but a 75mm from a 76mm ? When shot at ?

A camoflaged concrete from a wooden bunker ? I doubt it ( and that doesn't even include experience of a unit !)

So I find nothing special on a less precise ID of targets...

Any target is dangerous

(Why don't show how much ammo they have left or for FO how much firemissions ?)

The idea from Germanboy is quit good representing C&C capabilities.

As is gruntos note of delay when issueing new orders.

As I (till now ) understand CM it tries to give players the maximum they want & Steve and Charles are willing and able to give.

So when some things can *easily* be included as an option then why not ?

You can give players a bonus in units (25% 50% etc), why not let them choose their force with points in a scenario as an option ?

Options that could be easily be included should (to my opinion and meager knowledge of programming structure) be included.

I don't want to sell fun for reality, but I would like to see the option to gain reality for those who still find fun then.

Just read Jujus post...

You are right, but with the limit you weren't able to do all this and focus on being the CO giving commmands and hoping your troops assimilate :_) ( this will take maybe a even better TacAI [could that be done ? without a cray ] )

murx

PS: I'm astonished with so good replies on my thread ! I'm in since only three days... ;}

[Juju]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Murx:

PS: I'm astonished with so good replies on my thread ! I'm in since only three days... ;}<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, won't be long, and you'll come here every night.

Hey wait, you already come here every night.

So here's a late welcome Murx!

[Juju]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Murx:

Just read Jujus post...

You are right, but with the limit you weren't able to do all this and focus on being the CO giving commmands and hoping your troops assimilate :_) ( this will take maybe a even better TacAI [could that be done ? without a cray ] )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Murx, what I actually (or maybe, also) meant that it would be a shame if I had a platoon attack, or move to, an objective, and they get chewed up along the way just because I, the player didn't get enough time to, not tell them what to do, but how to do it.

Frankly, the only game so far where I've seen 'multiple character' (multiple unit in CM's case) realtime 'combat' that didn't turn out into a click-fest is Baldur's Gate. Simply because you can pause the game AND isue orders at the same time.

[This message has been edited by Juju (edited 06-16-2000).]

[robertpat1]

if you want to simulate a longer turn. Then just hit the "go" button as maney times as you want.

------------------

A 2x4 and a kind word work better than just a 2x4

[Guest Scott Clinton]

IMHO longer turns just would not work.

We are 'pushing the limit' on the TacAI now IMHO. You go putting more of a burden on it and it will start to show.

Now, I am not knocking CM's AI, or Charles' coding, not at all. AI technology just has its limits...and so does Charles' time. To beef up the AI to where it could handle the added burden would take (IMO) an inordinate about of time...and all for an optional feature? No, not IMO.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hello Murx and the rest...

Longer turn times wouldn't work unless we increased the scale of the game to something like Regimental sized. The main reason is what Germanboy wrote -> sometimes battles hinge on a 5 minute slice of battle. So if that were one turn, and the size of the force remained as it is now (and it needs to be) you could lose the whole thing after one press of the Go! button.

As with everything in CM, the core pieces were designed to work in harmony with each other. Change one and you are likely to break the whole game. And since there is little as fundamental as the turn time, you should expect LOTS of stuff to be broken if it were changed (both code and gameplay). So it is a no go.

Absolutely no to RealTime. As I stated above, increasing the turn time would mean increasing the scale of the game. The same works in reverse. Reduce the turn time (to a second for example) and you must reduce the scale of the game. This is why Close Combat only gives you, at the most, a heavily reinforced platoon. The other reason why we won't go RealTime is that we would have to chuck almost all the game code, rewrite it, and dumb down pretty much everthing that people think sets CM apart from the others. There are only so many things the CPU can handle at one time.

As for the FoW thing... lots of long posts on this in the General Forum. CM is designed to be a wargame, not a RPG. NOTHING wrong with RPG, but to be more like a Company Commander game Combat Mission would have to be changed into an entirely different game than it is now, and obviously what we intended it to be. There is nothing inherently wrong with a RPG styled wargame, but it is an entirely different style of game than what CM is.

Steve

[Murx]

Thanks Steve

OK, I thought the game-engine would have a slighty other structure ; but that each components works in harmony that seems like good traditional Chinese philosophy.

This phrase tells me that You really put Your heart & soul in this game (if one wasn't sure by now).

I don't mind if either of these options will be build-in I'm still going to buy it. If this discussion leads to know what CM2 could have or maybe even should avoid I'm fine. If it's just hot air , err, pixels on a screen, it's allright too (I can train my English here )

murx

[Guest grunto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CanuckinDixie: A 2 minute turn might be a viable option though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah i try to give the units 2 minutes worth of stuff to do. if you change their orders every minute you often get those then sometimes-deadly pauses. for instance if you changed an infantry units movement route the same turn an enemy machinegun opens up. the pausing unit suddenly stands around out in the open while 'someone is yelling new orders at them.' i see that as a 'realistically-behaving' game system.

it looks to me like you can change a unit's movement orders if they have a multi-segment order - get rid of any or all of the segments except the one closest to the unit, then re-do the order and you don't take the pause penalty.

for instance if you have a fast-move-crawl order and you get rid of the -move-crawl but keep the fast, then you can tack on another fast-move for example.

has anyone else noticed this?

it seems to me like the game is trying to penalize you for micromanaging and i think it's a great touch. because if you think about it someone is telling these troops where to go, and if it keeps changing the word has to be passed around more often. that's what i figured the pause was for.

andy