BTS - Custom OOB's with CM?

[Gyrene]

Hello all BTS folks, I realize you all must be fairly sick of us telling you what to do with CM, but I think what I have to say is a worthwhile concept:

Release a version of CM which is basically a "box of parts" with which we could make our own OOB's with all the existing CM vehicles, troops & equipment, mix and matching units and gear to our tastes.

The range of vehicles & troops available in CMBO and soon CMBB would easily allow the recreation of most conflicts from 1938 to 1953 or so with the addition of a few extra terrain and vehicle types and should require little additional coding.

I really do think this idea has merit and I'd be the first to put my money down for a copy.

Gyrene

[ March 20, 2002, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Gyrene ]

[Brian]

Has been suggested. Has been refused.

I too, would be more than willing to put some money down on a "black box" system, with the basic engine designed to take assorted configuration files (at least some, preferrably in plain text).

I can see the system being expandable to cover from about 1900 (2nd Boer War) through to say, 1973 (Yom Kippur War). Beyond that, would require significant changes, because of the range/complexity of weapon systems.

[Gyrene]

I'd be glad to have just the units we already have - Just give us the option to line them up as we see fit.

Gyrene

[Dirtweasle]

For instance; a post WWII OOB of the Allied powers(maybe include Germany) against the Soviets has a certain appeal to me, and probabaly others.

[Gen-x87H]

You can already do that. Just equip the Allies with mostly Pershings, the Germans with Panthers,KTs, and JagdPanth\Tigers.

What I would like is the ability to have two german players fight it out using German units. I could design a world level game equipped with diplomacy, economics and of course warefare. Each side just needs to pick their equipment

Gen

[MikeyD]

The problem with the add-a-vehicle coding idea is that it'll make playing against a live opponent impossible. You have a Staghound module (for example) but the guy on the other end of the PEBM game doesn't. Knowing how PCs usually work it'd no doubt lead to catastrophic crashes and damaged game files!

It sounds like after CMBO is done, they'll have most of what they'd need to quickly turn-around a desert war version (minus some funky Brit and Italian vehicles)... except someone will have to repaint ALL the German and Lend-Lease vehicles in CMBB to desert camou!

[Battlefront.com]

Gyerne:

Release a version of CM which is basically a "box of parts" with which we could make our own OOB's with all the existing CM vehicles, troops & equipment, mix and matching units and gear to our tastes.

Er... and you can't do this in the Editor right now? No, you can't outfit a Platoon with 90 men armed with only MG42s, but I don't see why we should allow this. Nor do I understand why someone feels they should be able to screw around with basic weapons and armor properties based on their own personal whims. Offering the player the ability to screw around with this stuff not only means allowing such silliness, but it also means multi-player becomes almost impossible to do. Not to mention allowing cheaters to hack files to their heart's content.

There are two types of Black Box games:

1. One that allows the player to customize data/units which are already represented in the game as is.

2. One that allows the player to customize data/units to the extent of creating an entirely different game system.

Call these Black Box 1, Black Box 2.

A Black Box 1 system is out of the question, totally and utterly. This has been a question we have answered a thousand times, so put that Search function to use if you are curious about the details Basically, it would cause far more harm than good (see above for a small sampling).

A Black Box 2 system is impossible to provide without a total rewrite with this being the primary design goal (i.e. customization, not realism, interface, multi-player capabilities, AI, graphics, etc.). It is such a huge design goal that it would either override all of the other important aspects of a game, or things would be horribly compromised all around, which would make the game a piece of crap.

Currently models, mappings, unit data, etc. all have to be put in directly to the code by someone familiar with a) how C/C++ works and how CM's code base works. Obviously we aren't going to be handing out source code, so Black Box 2 is impossible with the current game engine.

The only Black Box 2 games that have ever been released, quite frankly, sucked. The reason is that in order to offer an open system the system itself has to be SO generic that it fails to do anything specifically well. This is the old proverb of Ruller of All, Master of None problem. Or put another way, it would do everything except do anything well. There is no way around this and dreaming will not change that.

"wargame construction kits" have been tried in the past and they have *all* failed to excite the very people they were designed to please. Forgive us for not wanting to piss away our future for such a likely outcome We are good, but we also know what the limitations are.

Steve

[ March 21, 2002, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Gyrene]

Steve, what I meant was a system in which existing pre-set CM units could be chosen from a scenario editor to make up 1930-ish to 1950-ish sides.

During multiplayer games the scenario file would just tell each player's game program what units to place in each side's line up.

I agree that allowing players to change behaviours and individual fire power ratings is a bad idea, but having a common pool of units to pick from would be no different than what is in CM now, the only trick would be to tell the TacAI who's in what side.

I'm sure you have noticed all the different eras that have been re-created (or attempted) with the existing CMBO set up, all this would do is to make our lives easier by giving us closer approximations of historical units.

Gyrene

[Dirtweasle]

So will there be the ability for American vs. Soviets in an immediate post WWII scenario? I'm guessing no after thinking about it as the Western Allies will not be modeled in CMBB.

Is this correct?

[KNac]

First of all: hi!!!

I have been reading this forum since a bit time ago, and I must say that there are great people in here along with some people with great knowledge of WWII...

well after that introduction I was inmterested in posting something about this subject some time ago. My question is, if in CMBB (or other incoming games in a "near" future) will be an option of doing your own formations (i do not mean "screwing" squads or weapons/vehicles) when i say that is because there are lots of formations/OOBs that are not (and maybe cannot be because of the high number) that are not present in CMBO (and will not be in CMBB) what i mean is something like this:

in the buy screan there is an option that says "customizable formation" when u press u have a number of default HQ units (from platoon HQ to battaillon HQ, regimental HQ would be cool too nd u can attach under their command, maybe u could do this option available in the scenario building part of the game if u feel it´s neccessary . well, along the HQ unit would be all kind of lower level units (squads, single vehicles, as in the actual CM) u can buy thos eunits and assing them under a command, also it would be good to have the possibility of asigning a HQ status to an other unit, imagine that i want to create a tank company of a very specific type that is not in the default units list (i have read that now vehicles?/tanks will be available in platoons, nice so i could go to the buy screen (as a scenario designer) and use the "customizable formations" part, and assing buy X number of tanks of different types, and assing one section as the Co HQ, and one for those tanks as Company CO , and then assing platoon HQ tanks of specific numbers, etc. if not this system it would be good to be able to eliminate/add units of other formations or change those units for other units...

a part of this, i had a pair of other questions:

1.- i have read that there will be an option to change the number of men in a squad (giving some men within a squad the death status). this point out two other questions:

1.a)the death men will count when the scenario/operation is finished as casualities (i hope no)

1.b)this other will be an option in squads? or it will be possible in tank platoons, etc. (also other status than death, like wounded case of inf, or gun damaged, case of tank platoons, i know it sound stupid, but to create histical scenarios

2.-more off-topic, when ussing FO, will we have the possibility of changing the type of gun (i mean there wasn´t only one type of 150mm howitzer) and changing the number of guns in a battery (1-6+) and other variables as firing speed/rates, number of shells per gun, etc... ?

that all well it´s enogh for my first post

[Battlefront.com]

Gyrene,

Steve, what I meant was a system in which existing pre-set CM units could be chosen from a scenario editor to make up 1930-ish to 1950-ish sides.

Hmmm... I still not sure I know what you are asking for. Soviet vs. US type forces? Totally out of the question because the CMBB game system can not use anything from the CMBO system without major investment of time. There is absolutely no changing that, so don't even ask

I agree that allowing players to change behaviours and individual fire power ratings is a bad idea, but having a common pool of units to pick from would be no different than what is in CM now, the only trick would be to tell the TacAI who's in what side.

The game system is not coded to allow free floating choices from both sides. It would be a huge amount of coding effort to allow this to happen. Just because it looks easy from the customer's seat doesn't mean the guy in the programmer's seat will come to the same conclusion There MUST be an explicitely programmed set of units and attributes for both Axis and Allied forces, and that will not change in CMBB.

I'm sure you have noticed all the different eras that have been re-created (or attempted) with the existing CMBO set up, all this would do is to make our lives easier by giving us closer approximations of historical units.

If it were easy for us to do, it would already be done. It isn't, so it isn't

KNac,

Welcome!

My question is, if in CMBB (or other incoming games in a "near" future) will be an option of doing your own formations (i do not mean "screwing" squads or weapons/vehicles) when i say that is because there are lots of formations/OOBs that are not (and maybe cannot be because of the high number) that are not present in CMBO (and will not be in CMBB)

Yup, I know exactly what you mean. No, this will not be possible in CMBB because it would require a total rewrite of how the data. It is no small task to alter. However, the engine rewrite will have this kind of flexibility built in to it for sure. This would allow someone to create a customized "task force" with existing units. Command and control could then be designed by the player and not preset. This will be critical for the new game engine because C&C rules will be much stricter and important than they are in CM now.

1.- i have read that there will be an option to change the number of men in a squad (giving some men within a squad the death status). this point out two other questions:

1.a)the death men will count when the scenario/operation is finished as casualities (i hope no)

1.b)this other will be an option in squads? or it will be possible in tank platoons, etc. (also other status than death, like wounded case of inf, or gun damaged, case of tank platoons, i know it sound stupid, but to create histical scenarios

1.a -> no, the guys "killed off" prior to the battle will not count towards the total. The reason is that the reduction is to simulate a reduced force which could have been that way for days, weeks, or even months prior to the battle. Why should the other side get credit for something it didn't do? Plus, the points are done in a way that if two sides each get a 1000 points, each will enter the battle with a 1000 points worth of forces. How? Because if you selected 20% casualties for a 1000 point battle, the points available to spend would be 1200. Then after you have bought 1200 worth of units CM will decided how to knock that force down to 1000 points and that is what the player will have to fight with. This is done with a degree of logic so that casualties are spread out realistically (i.e. instead of having 1 squad with 3 guys out of 9, and the other two full strength, you will most likely have 2 squads with 6 guys and one full strength).

1.b -> the headcount reduction applies to everything except for tank/vehicle crews. This means you can start out with a mortar team short a man or two, an AT gun shy 2 guys, etc. It can also mean not having the mortar or tank at all, simulating that the weapon system itself was broken/stuck/lost prior to combat. The sceanrio maker can adjust this stuff unit by unit.

2.-more off-topic, when ussing FO, will we have the possibility of changing the type of gun (i mean there wasn´t only one type of 150mm howitzer) and changing the number of guns in a battery (1-6+) and other variables as firing speed/rates, number of shells per gun, etc... ?

No, none of that can be changed in CMBB. Well, except for the ammo counts and the fact that 4 and 6 gun batteries will be available if they historically existed for that weapon and force. The engine rewrite will have a much more flexible system for all call artillery.

that all well it´s enogh for my first post

You did very well! You may now take a bow

Steve

[KNac]

wow my first post and I had a BTS anwer! thanks Steve, I liked all the anwers I cannot wait for CMBB but i cannot wait also for the next incoming game You have a good customer here for the incoming years, for the good and the bad things

Again thanks, and thanks for giving us this great game

see you soon

[Gyrene]

Hmmm... I still not sure I know what you are asking for. Soviet vs. US type forces? Totally out of the question because the CMBB game system can not use anything from the CMBO system without major investment of time. There is absolutely no changing that, so don't even ask

Agh. There goes that idea.

Well, make it work Gosh-Darn it!

Gyrene

[Brian]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

[QB]Gyrene,

Steve, what I meant was a system in which existing pre-set CM units could be chosen from a scenario editor to make up 1930-ish to 1950-ish sides.

Hang on a second. I was under the impression Steve that CMBB would allow the use of "captured" vehicles by either side. In that case, what is to prevent an ex-Russian lend-lease Sherman ending up in German hands and being used against its former owners? Or have I misunderstood whats been mentioned in various messages?

I agree that allowing players to change behaviours and individual fire power ratings is a bad idea, but having a common pool of units to pick from would be no different than what is in CM now, the only trick would be to tell the TacAI who's in what side.

Doesn't this equate more to a design methodology that you have decided to adopt, rather than any innate difficulty in itself? If you were, as I've suggested in the past to consider a more open design philosphy, where you have a basic engine and then the various attributes of units, such as firepower, weapons, etc. were provided in the form of datafiles (no, they don't have to be plain text but could still be encrypted in some manner) it would allow the game to much more easily modified. Essentially you'd have a "black box" program design. The player doesn't need to know how the engine processes the data, they simply need to see the results.

I'm sure you have noticed all the different eras that have been re-created (or attempted) with the existing CMBO set up, all this would do is to make our lives easier by giving us closer approximations of historical units.

Mmmm, if all the game required was the weapons which made up a particular subunit like a section, and those weapons were assigned a particular value, then it would indeed be quite possible to create different OrBats. Again, this harks back to my earlier point, of course, of using seperate data files.

I fully appreciate the criticisms which say, "if player A has module/modification X and player B doesn't, it will make PBEM/TCP/IP games impossible" however, that assumes that players would either have access to the important information, rather than merely the OrBats and the way in particular vehicles are handled/portrayed. I'm not talking about that. If the game design was more modular, then it could make it possible to substitute/change various factors. Afterall, ballistics is the same whether or not the gun being used is an American 37mm AT Gun or a Russian 45mm AT Gun or a German 8.8cm AT Gun.

This would mean that essentially you could concentrate on the engine and getting the mechanics of the game right, along with the visuals, while the other factors could be handled seperately.

While it would be possible in a PBEM/TCP/IP game to ensure that both players are using the same datafiles by making the first exchange between them include such information. If it doesn't match, the system spits out a report showing the inconsistencies between the two. Its then up to them, not BTS to make sure their systems match, which is IMO how it should be.

I am not suggesting that players should have access to these data files either, BTW. Rather that using this methodology would make it easier to change the game than issuing "patches" for the system itself.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Brian:

Hang on a second. I was under the impression Steve that CMBB would allow the use of "captured" vehicles by either side. In that case, what is to prevent an ex-Russian lend-lease Sherman ending up in German hands and being used against its former owners? Or have I misunderstood whats been mentioned in various messages?

I would guess they are being coded as "German T-34s" etc., with their own skins and attributes.

That being the case, it is doubtful EVERY VEHICLE in the game will be given that treatment - I suspect only the "commonly" reused stuff (comparitively speaking) - ie German T-34s - will be seen.

I've seen plenty of T-34s in German markings in the past few months thanks to other posters; never seen a Russian lend-lease tank in German colours.

Every "captured" vehicle, I am guessing again, as to be coded as a vehicle belonging to the captor - complete with skins, etc. All of which increases how much stuff goes on the CD, and our hard drive.

I may be wrong...

[MikeyD]

BTS means 'captured vehicles' in CMBB in the same way that in CMBO they currently use the 'captured' Hotkiss light tank. You won't (I believe) be able to troll your opponent's vehicle list and simply 'cherry-pick' vehicles for your own use. A T34 will show up in the German list in the same way a Hotchkiss shows up now.

As to getting a 'box of part' engine rewrite, this reminds me of that 3rd party 'desert war' mod with appropriately altered artwork (palmtrees, the hotchkiss dressed as an Italian tank etc.) If you're clever enough you can already cobble together something to approximate other campaigns -- as long as they used Shermans and Tigers!

[Battlefront.com]

Brian,

Hang on a second. I was under the impression Steve that CMBB would allow the use of "captured" vehicles by either side.

The gagle of Mikes have already answered this question for me A hand picked bunch of Axis and Allied vehicles are being specifically coded to work for the opposite side. There is no way we are going to do this for everything. In fact, we are already overwhelmed with the amount of work it is taking to get each side to use their own equipment

Doesn't this equate more to a design methodology that you have decided to adopt, rather than any innate difficulty in itself?

Sure, but the dsign methodology is the code as it stands right now, hence the difficulty in changing it. Kinda like deciding to build a sports car. After it is built it does certain things. To make it a good offroad vehicle requires more work than is worth it. The new game engine will be written differently in many respects, including the way this kind of stuff is dealt with.

If you were, as I've suggested in the past to consider a more open design philosphy, where you have a basic engine and then the various attributes of units, such as firepower, weapons, etc. were provided in the form of datafiles (no, they don't have to be plain text but could still be encrypted in some manner) it would allow the game to much more easily modified.

What you describe already exists. The raw data is not the problem and never has been. It is what the code does with the data that matters in this case. But yes, obviously if we had to do this all over again we would do some things differently to allow greater flexibility. However, when one undertakes a dauntingly huge task, with no assurances that even the first one will work, one does things in a certain way. When we rewrite the game engine it will be our third go around after much success, therefore we can (and will) be able to do things differently.

Mmmm, if all the game required was the weapons which made up a particular subunit like a section, and those weapons were assigned a particular value, then it would indeed be quite possible to create different OrBats. Again, this harks back to my earlier point, of course, of using seperate data files.

Again, the game is inherently not set up to do this. The data is not the issue.

If the game design was more modular, then it could make it possible to substitute/change various factors.

Correct, but modularity requires a lot of time be spent planning and executing whatever is designed to modular. Remember that it took us 3 years to code up CMBO the way it is now. I shudder to think how much longer it would have taken if we had modularity as a primary goal

This would mean that essentially you could concentrate on the engine and getting the mechanics of the game right, along with the visuals, while the other factors could be handled seperately.

This of course assumes that the modularity comes without any tradeoffs or cost in terms of time. Otherwise you find that the game mechanics, visuals, and other factors suffer because the developer got ahead of themselves by spending too much time thinking about the future application of something that hasn't even been played yet

I am not suggesting that players should have access to these data files either, BTW. Rather that using this methodology would make it easier to change the game than issuing "patches" for the system itself.

Actually, the modularity issue is not something we are worried about as we go into the engine rewrite. At that point we will have spent almost 5 years with the existing code base used for two different versions of it. This gives us insight into what we need to do, internally, to get the biggest bang for the buck. That cuts down on development effort, which means modularity becomes a practical design goal without sacrificing the game's core reason for being.

Steve