Some thoughts on different types of gameplay

[Battlefront.com]

It's a natural Human phenomenon to want what is most comfortable, predictable, and optimal. Challenges are certainly desired as well, but within a range of comfortability, predictability, and optimal conditions. This is true in wargaming as well, but with one critical thing thrown in... people want to feel that they are responsible for the victory or defeat of their forces, not things like random chance, inferior equipment, poor timing, etc.

The extreme manifestation of this are the people that only play battles that are stacked in their favor. I think we all know of CMx1 gamers that would only play if they were the Germans, the maps were flat, the weather perfect, and they had no equipment restrictions. These are also the same people that would magically become "too busy" to finish a PBEM game after their first Tiger got shot out from underneath them. Don't we just love playing against people like this?

The opposite extreme is someone who can't enjoy playing a game unless all his skills are stressed out to the max. Or to use a non gaming analogy, "you're ugly as sin, you have the personality of a goat, the bank account of a popper, and the personal hygiene of an animal in a badly maintained zoo. Now try and score yourself a super model for hot, torrid sex without the use of drugs, weapons, or blackmail" Seriously though, some people LOVE to be stressed out and tasked with doing the impossible. Winning, as such, is not the main goal... it is the thrill of getting the best result out of a really bad situation. A Minor Defeat with a few smoking hulks of enemy tanks, that weren't "supposed to be lost", may have the same meaning to them as the other extreme's "perfect victory" does.

Others, obviously, all over the spectrum. Some actually don't really care about realism or the actual units they use, they simply want to have an exercise of the brain and a challenge of figuring out how to beat the opponent. Think of this as Chess... it's all about skill, not luck, not equipment, not anything else.

Personally, I'm pretty close to the "love to get stressed" extreme. I don't care if I win or lose, I care about how I play the game with what I have been given to me. That's the great thing about a wargame like CM... all players can play their style of game. However, it may not be obvious to some how to achieve that, therefore I want to offer some constructive tips...

The more players want to neutralize inherent differences between Red and Blue forces, so as to concentrate on "skill" (tactics), the more I would recommend playing either Red on Red or Blue on Blue. Red and Blue are so inherently different in real life it is simply unrealistic to expect that the two can be played against each other without significant disadvantages for the Red. If overcoming those differences isn't your primary motivation for playing, then Red vs. Blue isn't likely the best way to play the game. In fact, Blue v Blue and Red v Red was not available in CMx1 and was specifically requested by people like this, so that's why we included it in CMx2 (yes, you will be able to play this way in all CMx2 games, not just CM:SF!).

Players that value overcoming the difficulties inherent with the Red forces probably have different thresholds for such a challenge. Trying to have a fight out in the open with a mech force against a Blue mech force is probably going to be a quick defeat of Red without much time for meaningful tactical action. Since that's the way it would work in real life, to expect different isn't very useful. So if you want open battles like that I suggest going with the Red v Red or Blue v Blue concept. Or you can mix and match within each side, of course! It's completely up to you and (if multiplayer) the other guy you're playing against.

Players that want more of a challenge from Red, however, are likely to go with MOUT battles. This is the real life "neutralizer" for Red forces so it is in CM:SF as well. Within this you can choose between scrappy forces that individually don't have a good chance of surviving first contact, or Special Forces that are almost equal to anything the Blue force has available. Play around with various quality settings too since Regular/Veteran Red forces armed with the better equipment are far closer to Blue's forces than if they are in the Conscript/Green range with or without the poor equipment. A Regular Special Forces Platoon in a MOUT environment, backed by some RPG-29s, can easily decimate a Stryker Rifle Platoon even if handled well by the Blue player.

Of course there are a myriad of other things that can be thrown into the mix; small/quick battles where one side is under a lot of time pressure, asymmetric victory conditions, night fighting, etc.

Anyway, I'm just tossing out some ideas for people to chew on. CM:SF has a huge range of possibilities for the various types of players out there and it's worth while, I think, to remind people that they can bend reality (if necessary) to tailor the game to suit their particular wants.

Steve

[M1A1TC]

The biggest thing I hate fighting against is a ungainly, uncomfortable, non-optimized user interface, no matter what game it is. Thats what matters to me the most - I want it to feel natural and smooth. I dont want to be forced to learn 15 different hot keys, etc

[SlowMotion]

I used hot keys a lot already in CMx1, so once they became user mappable I just used the same keys as in CMx1 when possible. At that point the UI became usable.

[SlapHappy]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

The biggest thing I hate fighting against is a ungainly, uncomfortable, non-optimized user interface, no matter what game it is. Thats what matters to me the most - I want it to feel natural and smooth. I dont want to be forced to learn 15 different hot keys, etc

While I agree thoroughly with the above, my top level complaint is the lack of an untimed play option. On the face of it, it would appear to be an incredibly easy feature to implement....

And yet leading up to version 1.06, we still don't have it......

[Runyan99]

Steve I tend to agree with you, but this Red v. Blue dynamic just isn't clicking with the community. To a man, all of my PBEM opponents quit DURING a Red v. Blue scenario, or after playing one game they don't want to play another. I haven't found anybody that seems interested in playing these games, or will finish more than one.

Right or wrong, the majority of the gaming community wants to play "Axis & Allies Miniatures" type games, where I buy my tanks, you buy an equal number of tanks, and they fight it out.

[MarkEzra]

I'm a Red. I was a US player in CMBO, and early Russian player in CMBB, and Italian or US player in CMAK. I like the idea of bringing a knife to a gun fight, I guess. CM:SF offers some great equipment choices for the Red player...Learning to use them properly is the key. An example is this tidbit I learned recently: The T72 M1V Turms infrared optics is controlled from one position only...US has dual optics control...two set of eyes, not one! To help level the playing field I now run all my red vehicles unbuttoned. It gives me a better chance to get the drop on those blue meanies.

I don't expect to win. I hope to degrade the enemy forces. When I do that, I'm one happy Red.

[handihoc]

Some good and interesting points, Steve. In many ways I find CMSF is changing the way I play a wargame, and my expectations of the outcome.

One example of this is, when playing Blue v Red (to date my preferred mode), as the Blue side I generally accept that I almost certainly have vastly superior firepower and weaponry, and probably better trained and equipped soldiers. BUT the big difference here, compared to say WW2, and very much in tune with the political and social pressures of today, is that every Blue casualty is for me a potential 'news headline and a tragedy' that has serious repercussions, even if imaginary or abstracted in game terms. So I play with force preservation very much in mind; every loss of friendly life detracts from the overall satisfaction of winning, and so affects my battlefield tactics. In previous games I would fight on, no matter the casualties, as long as I had at least a chance of winning. Now, that is not enough.

What would be an awesome augmentation would be if there was some way (I accept this may not be possible) of bringing civilians into the battles in a less abstracted way than currently, which would once again greatly alter the way we approach a battle. Currently, although I take some care with my own forces, I happily wreak as much destruction on the opposing side as I can, going for the highest enemy casualty rate as necessary, by any means available to me, to acquire victory. If those buildings that I'm about to raze actually held families of non-combatants (which would realistically have to have civs visually represented, I think), it would once again change the nature of the battle very radically. And this is, of course, an issue that soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan etc are having to deal with right now, every day.

It would obviously make battles far more difficult, and if badly implemented could make them boring to the point of unplayability. So I don't know whether as a suggestion it's completely unfeasible. But several times it has struck me that my awesome Blue destructive power would be rendered pretty impotent if that building where the enemy may be holed up is a school or a hospital or a family home. It would place a far greater reliance on infantry tactics, and a much more real representation of the dilemmas soldiers in the field today have to confront.

Some years ago there was a series of games that did this with some degree of success - can't remember, was it the X-Com games? Obviously, the sophistication then, relative to what SF and today's sims are capable of, is barely comparable, but it did add an element that I've not really seen represented before or since.

Anyway, just my two ha'pence worth. I love the challenges that SF puts my way, and the learning curve and general appreciation of modern battlefield tactics.

Bloody hell, though, I'll be glad when that low wall bug fix is released!

[J_Toe]

Hi,

If those buildings that I'm about to raze actually held families of non-combatants (which would realistically have to have civs visually represented, I think)

I think you could be onto something there, whilst the majority of the emphasis should be placed by the scenario designer in the briefings it might be interesting to actually have "neutral" unmovable locked units representing civilians in the building. This could be used as an indicator of casualties caused because at the moment there really is no feedback to discourage indiscriminate use of overwhelming firepower apart from at the debrief.

I'm not sure how this would work with spotting rules and I know that CMSF is simulating an invasion where civilians are presumed to be somewhat out of the LOF but then why allow a civvie density setting anyway?

If nothing else it would be fun to be evil and call in an air strike on a building full of em' (Just joking!)

[ January 20, 2008, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: J_Toe ]

[missinginreality]

Runyan 99- I'd be happy to PBEM Red v Blue. I've not PBEM before but if you want to set one up that'd be great.

Cheers

[Rokossovski]

Hats off to Battlefront for adding a red v. red and blue v. blue option. This is a huge plus for me, and is second only to the excellent map/scenario editor among my favorite features of CMSF.

I'm also happy see Battlefront is planning to keep this feature as CM2 moves into WWII.

[Lethaface]

Im also in for any Red V Blue (me playing reds)

Did actually win one of the few PBEM's i played on red. Playing sneakily and suicidal, its surely possible to lure a Blue force into a trap. However some bugs make it impossible to win sometimes, like if all your troops are getting panicked because a few of them are getting shot to pieces far away. ATM i'm playing a PBEM (as reds ofc), the Eufrates. Curious to see what will happen when the first clash will come. If I only get 1 abrams, ill be happy

As reds I dont have problems with sacrificing troops. I'll happily send my RPG Team to kill a stryker knowing it will be eradicated even if it accomplishes its goal. Ive been analysing Red tactics and I find it possible to use guerilla tactics to good extent. Offcourse it can be difficult, when getting exposed to all that Blue firepower. For me, that makes it only more challenging

And after all, a "Death Before Dishonour" major defeat is better then run like a coward

Edit - oops, guess I'd better alter my signature - Probably even Sun Tzu didnt see this one coming

[ January 20, 2008, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Lethaface ]

[Pandur]

i guess the method to designate specific houses or simply large areas or whatever size, as preserve zones for the blue player should be used more often.

that makes a blue player think at least twice befor he drops something there. and the ones wich "like" their score most probably wont drop anything there.

in multiplayer, red could hide somewhat in such zones and blue would mostly have a hard time, as every fired shot from weapons of 25mm or more are costy there, in fact i would stay away from there as blue, if possible(imagine a city block invested with fighters as one huge preserve zone. may civilians be the reason...)

[LongLeftFlank]

I'm a realism junkie, and am striving to make the MOUT environments as photorealistic as possible. But I definitely draw the line at including civilians.

I think BFC has been pretty clear that they'll NEVER put anything in the game that will depict, or allow players to depict, the killing of innocent civilians, deliberately or otherwise, even though that is an unfortunate concomitant of warfare, particularly MOUT and insurgency. And I fully support that.

In conventional warfare, in any populated area where a large armed force has moved in and is preparing to meet another large armed force, most civilians have generally gotten out of Dodge before the fireworks start; those who haven't are lying low in their root cellars or wherever and are unlikely to appear for the duration of the firefight. I know that civilian cars cropped up in the weirdest places during OIF (e.g. Thunder Runs), but once serious lead starts flying, those folks are either off map or a (bullet-riddled) part of the scenery.

However, in COIN situations prior to contact, the presence or absence of civilians -- particularly children -- in public places is a very important barometer as to how "hot" the locals deem things likely to get in a given locality. If there's a bunch of fedayeen or an IED lying in ambush on July 17th Street, they know it. The streets are deserted and the shop owners pull their doors down.

Scenario designers could embed some kind of "heat map" in their mission briefings showing the level of activity in each street, for example. Activity in most streets would instantaneously fall to zero as soon as serious shooting began anywhere nearby however, so such barometers would be of strictly limited use.

[the Fighting Seabee]

For civilians, why not just use reskinned squads with no weapons? This would open the doors to a whole new world of possibilites for the scenario designer. Some possibilities might be: 1. Obviously don't kill the civvies, 2. Protect the civvies from bad guys, 3. Civvie movement such as parades or refugees, 4. Human shields and protestors, etc.

This could bring up a whole bunch of new mission types other than killing enemies and taking locations. Having them as real squads would allow a much more realistic feel as well as give the scenario designer more to play with. Hell, you could even make insurgent/militia/terrorist types appear as civilians until they open fire and reveal that they are militants.

I think this could be done easily and would add A LOT to the game as far as realism, especially in urban environments.

As far as Steve's comments go... I am one of those guys who likes to think I'm actually there, leading guys in a real battle. So I tend to want to do missions perfectly without a single casualty. Some of these missions I've lost dozens... that's a lot of letter writing to a lot of moms and dads.

On the other hand, I also like those missions where the odds are stacked against me, so the only way to win is to actually come up with a slick strategy and fight hard to pull it off. In real life, these battles are the ones that tend to get the cool names like hamburger hill, the devils den, purple heart highway, the longest day, etc.

[Paper Tiger]

I have to confess that I haven't played a Blue v Red situation for at least two months now. My game time is exclusively Red on Red and it's a blast. Red forces require much more careful handling in a battle that US forces and I feel the C2 restrictions more frequently.

I'm not a great fan of MOUT but I'm sure as hell going to give it another chance once 1.06 comes out. I prefer battles out in the open, meeting engagements, two forces slogging it out over a small village, etc and these are not really possible to do to my satisfaction with Blue v Red. But Red on Red really works in these situations. The decreased accuracy and lethality of the atgm's and main guns make engaements between two mechanised forces exciting to play. I remember playtesting one of my scenarios as Syrian Special Forces defending a village against a US Bradley company with a platoon of SEPS in support. One SEP took up position and took more than 10 hits from A-14 ATGMS and survived them all. It was immobilsed but it was still combat capable and it took out all four of the Kornet teams. When the other three SEPS climbed up onto the crest I quit. Game over.

On the other hand, TURMS are clearly superior to the regular armoured forces tanks but they are MUCH more vulnerable than M1A1's. When playtesting one scenario, I parked them in an excellent firing postion and waited for the enemy tanks to swing into view. Yeah, I nailed the first couple without a problem but then I lost them all to the return fire. They're powerful without being Uber and handling them on the modern battlefield requires more care than the M1A1. Having all that extra armour is a little more forgiving of player mistakes or bad tactics.

I would imagine that the reason some PBEM games stop so quickly when the Red player gets disheartened is because playing Red v the Blue AI is a very different baby from playing another human. In most cases, when playing the AI, I feel I have a REAL chance of winning, even when the odds are heavily stacked against me simply because the AI is locked into a plan and can't react at all. But when I feel that I have NO chance of a victory, like in the above situation, I usually quit. I can't imagine it would be much fun fighting on as Red when your best units have been wiped out and those SEPS are bearing down on you. You're just waiting to die. On the other hand, US infantry without javelins versus tanks is equally desperate.

I'm SO glad the game allows me to do Red v Red. There are a greater variety of units with different kit to play around with and that will improve when the Marines module comes out sometime later this year. And the new Red resupply option that's coming with 1.06 will make the experience even better. Bring it on!

[GSX]

I'm in the Steve Camp for liking a challenge. But I like it within context so I dont get too excited for Blue Vs Blue, although it would make for the perfect balance in a QB.

One thing that may be fun though was if my M1's appeared to the enemy as say T-80s and my US troops appeared as Red ones. I think the concept was introduced in the game Americas Army where you played as the US but saw your enemey as OPFOR! I dont know how easy that is to represent but would keep some realism.

[Battlefront.com]

Since this is a discussion about the gameplay itself, I'm skipping over gripes about unrelated things like the UI. That's an entirely different discussion and it only gets in the way of this one.

Runyan99

Steve I tend to agree with you, but this Red v. Blue dynamic just isn't clicking with the community. To a man, all of my PBEM opponents quit DURING a Red v. Blue scenario, or after playing one game they don't want to play another. I haven't found anybody that seems interested in playing these games, or will finish more than one.

We had the same problem with CMBB. A huge percentage (I do mean huge) of the CMBO players refused to purchase CMBB because they didn't think the Soviet forces would be any fun. Even the people that did buy CMBB complained about all kinds of things "wrong" with the Soviet forces, though it usually boiled down to wanting them to perform better than they ever possibly could in real life. The vast majority completely, and utterly, rejected playing the Romanians, Hungarians, and Italians because they were extremely "alien" to them as well as being generally difficult to employ effectively. So no surprise that a lot of people don't like the inherent challenge of playing the Syrians. It comes with the territory

Having said that, unlike CMBB we now allow to play same forces vs. same forces. So people who do not want the sort of challenge that the Syrians present can play Blue vs. Blue or play Red vs. Red if their objection is more to do with relative challenges (i.e. neutralize the inherent superiority of Blue's forces). Which is exactly why I started this thread

Handihoc,

In many ways I find CMSF is changing the way I play a wargame, and my expectations of the outcome.

We do like to challenge people, which is part of the problem with the games we make; our goal is not to keep people comfortable. CMx1 challenged a lot of people and, quite frankly, a significant number of people did not like that. For example, the conversion of Steel Panthers and Close Combat players to CMBO was, from what we can tell, extremely low. I am sure that we didn't win over huge numbers of ASL/SL fanatics either. There is no one reason for this, but I think a central theme would be people wanting to remain comfortable and not have a new challenge. As I said in the first paragraph of this post, that's a rather strong Human tradition and it's not something we can change. So we are prepared to accept those that want something new and are prepared to lose those who aren't. Obviously other issues can cause people to reject a new game, I'm just saying not wishing to change old ways is historically one of the big ones within the wargaming community.

One example of this is, when playing Blue v Red (to date my preferred mode), as the Blue side I generally accept that I almost certainly have vastly superior firepower and weaponry, and probably better trained and equipped soldiers. BUT the big difference here, compared to say WW2, and very much in tune with the political and social pressures of today, is that every Blue casualty is for me a potential 'news headline and a tragedy' that has serious repercussions, even if imaginary or abstracted in game terms. So I play with force preservation very much in mind; every loss of friendly life detracts from the overall satisfaction of winning, and so affects my battlefield tactics. In previous games I would fight on, no matter the casualties, as long as I had at least a chance of winning. Now, that is not enough.

Good for you That is, indeed, one of the differences people have to embrace if they are to enjoy CM:SF's setting. There are more ways to have challenging play than trading off significant quantities of casualties on both sides. In fact, one could argue that it is a lot more challenging to win without suffering significant casualties.

What would be an awesome augmentation would be if there was some way (I accept this may not be possible) of bringing civilians into the battles in a less abstracted way than currently, which would once again greatly alter the way we approach a battle.

In theory we would like to do this, but in reality it is so difficult that it will not happen. Well, not at least for a commercial product. If a military wants to write us a big check we'll be able to hire a programmer to get civilians into the game in a non-abstract way. Anything less than a full time programmer working on this issue will fail. Hence us not even deluding ourselves, or you customers, that it is practical for us to do. More on this further down in this post.

Anyway, just my two ha'pence worth. I love the challenges that SF puts my way, and the learning curve and general appreciation of modern battlefield tactics.

Bloody hell, though, I'll be glad when that low wall bug fix is released!

Thanks and soon

J-Toe,

IIf nothing else it would be fun to be evil and call in an air strike on a building full of em' (Just joking!)

There are some abstract ways this is handled now. In the Editor you can designate a building "Preserve" and then assign points. This is done specific to a single side, meaning "Preserving" a building can be applicable to one side and not another. If the building is damaged/destroyed by your forces lose points which then weighs into your victory determination depending on how heavily the scenario designer wants it to. The best example of this is a Mosque. Due to strange cultural differences and PR aspects, the Muslim fighters do not hesitate to use their places of worship for warfare, but the Western forces are obligated to treat them as if they aren't used for that purpose. This means a US force shooting up a mosque generally has a negative backlash and therefore is not to be done unless it can't be avoided (negotiations, siege, etc.). CM:SF allows this to be simulated for any building, therefore you can designate a whole neighborhood "off limits" to heavy fire and punish the US player if he ignores the "orders".

Rokossovski.

Hats off to Battlefront for adding a red v. red and blue v. blue option. This is a huge plus for me, and is second only to the excellent map/scenario editor among my favorite features of CMSF.

I'm also happy see Battlefront is planning to keep this feature as CM2 moves into WWII.

Thanks! This was one of the many reasons we had to ditch the CMx1 codebase. It simply could not accept Red vs. Red, Blue vs. Blue, or a mixmash of both within the same force. Therefore we structured the CMx2 code SPECIFICALLY to allow for this. It's one of the things I forget to mention when someone tells me that we "didn't need to get rid of the old code"

Lethaface,

As reds I dont have problems with sacrificing troops. I'll happily send my RPG Team to kill a stryker knowing it will be eradicated even if it accomplishes its goal. Ive been analysing Red tactics and I find it possible to use guerilla tactics to good extent. Offcourse it can be difficult, when getting exposed to all that Blue firepower. For me, that makes it only more challenging

And after all, a "Death Before Dishonour" major defeat is better then run like a coward

A man after my own heart The "knowing it will be eradicated" mentality shift is the one, I think, many people have a problem with. It's understandable since nearly all of us playing the game were not raised, or "trained" on wargames, to think this way. We all think "force preservation" and "tactics aren't possible without cohesion". Well, the Coalition hasn't lost 4,000+ dead and about 30,000+ wounded in Iraq to forces that believe in "preservation" or "cohesion". And the sort of forces we simulate (both conventional and unconventional) in CM:SF are far superior to that which the Coalition is up against in Iraq.

LongLeftFlank,

I think BFC has been pretty clear that they'll NEVER put anything in the game that will depict, or allow players to depict, the killing of innocent civilians, deliberately or otherwise, even though that is an unfortunate concomitant of warfare, particularly MOUT and insurgency. And I fully support that.

Yes, there are a bunch of reasons why we won't be going the explicit civilian route. The biggest one, though, is the technical challenge and stress to our extremely limited resources. As I said above, in theory we have the talent and skills necessary to add them. We're not sure how the computer will like a 2nd fully autonomous "Sim City" AI, and all the polygons that go with it (scratch that, we know the computer would BARF!), but I don't think the outcome would be much to people's liking for other reasons. I don't think wargamers are ready for a realistic treatment of civilians.

In conventional warfare, in any populated area where a large armed force has moved in and is preparing to meet another large armed force, most civilians have generally gotten out of Dodge before the fireworks start; those who haven't are lying low in their root cellars or wherever and are unlikely to appear for the duration of the firefight. I know that civilian cars cropped up in the weirdest places during OIF (e.g. Thunder Runs), but once serious lead starts flying, those folks are either off map or a (bullet-riddled) part of the scenery.

However, in COIN situations prior to contact, the presence or absence of civilians -- particularly children -- in public places is a very important barometer as to how "hot" the locals deem things likely to get in a given locality. If there's a bunch of fedayeen or an IED lying in ambush on July 17th Street, they know it. The streets are deserted and the shop owners pull their doors down.

Correct. Which is why we say very loudly and clearly that CM:SF is not a COIN Ops game. Counter insurgency may have some overlapping elements with the sort of conventional/asymmetric warfare CM:SF simulates, but the differences between them are rather large.

the Figthing Seabee,

I think this could be done easily and would add A LOT to the game as far as realism, especially in urban environments.

Unfortunately, not easy at all. The worst component is having to write AI to move the little civilians around realistically. Even the DoD has problems doing things like this because civilians are by nature autonomous one minute and not the next. They are also pursuing a myriad of goals at any given time and therefore it's very tough to simulate the range of behaviors that would result from those things. Worse yet, from a hardware standpoint, are all the CPU and GPU (video card) cycles that are chewed up moving the little dudes around on top of their AI and the rest of the game. It's a massive can of worms that we aren't going near

As far as Steve's comments go... I am one of those guys who likes to think I'm actually there, leading guys in a real battle. So I tend to want to do missions perfectly without a single casualty. Some of these missions I've lost dozens... that's a lot of letter writing to a lot of moms and dads.

On the other hand, I also like those missions where the odds are stacked against me, so the only way to win is to actually come up with a slick strategy and fight hard to pull it off. In real life, these battles are the ones that tend to get the cool names like hamburger hill, the devils den, purple heart highway, the longest day, etc.

Another man after my own heart!

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Sheesh... so many things to respond to I had to break it up into two posts!

Paper Tiger,

I'm not a great fan of MOUT but I'm sure as hell going to give it another chance once 1.06 comes out. I prefer battles out in the open, meeting engagements, two forces slogging it out over a small village, etc and these are not really possible to do to my satisfaction with Blue v Red. But Red on Red really works in these situations.

We have ourselves a poster child for the solution to "I don't like MOUT" play style If open warfare is what you like to play, Red vs. Red is probably the way to go. Blue vs. Blue is a bit more problematic because Blue's equipment is optimized for that type of warfare. I'm glad the options are there for you to get what you want out of it without trying to get us to make Red or Blue sides less realistic

The decreased accuracy and lethality of the atgm's and main guns make engaements between two mechanised forces exciting to play. I remember playtesting one of my scenarios as Syrian Special Forces defending a village against a US Bradley company with a platoon of SEPS in support. One SEP took up position and took more than 10 hits from A-14 ATGMS and survived them all. It was immobilsed but it was still combat capable and it took out all four of the Kornet teams. When the other three SEPS climbed up onto the crest I quit. Game over.

One of the additional burdens on the Red player is the notion that hitting the Blue stuff isn't necessarily good enough. The AT-14 is a stupendous ATGM, but it can't quite kill a SEP from the front. So you, as the Red player, have to figure out ways of getting flank shots or perhaps even top shots from higher elevations. Far more difficult to do this, especially out in the open.

I would imagine that the reason some PBEM games stop so quickly when the Red player gets disheartened is because playing Red v the Blue AI is a very different baby from playing another human. In most cases, when playing the AI, I feel I have a REAL chance of winning, even when the odds are heavily stacked against me simply because the AI is locked into a plan and can't react at all. But when I feel that I have NO chance of a victory, like in the above situation, I usually quit. I can't imagine it would be much fun fighting on as Red when your best units have been wiped out and those SEPS are bearing down on you. You're just waiting to die. On the other hand, US infantry without javelins versus tanks is equally desperate.

I agree about the AI angle. Good point. A well designed scenario should give you enough possibilities to come out at least even no matter what you lose. In fact, a REALLY good scenario secretly plans on you losing your best stuff and finds other ways to allow you a chance at victory. CMx1 was all about body counts and squatting on flags, CMx2 is far broader than that.

GSX,

One thing that may be fun though was if my M1's appeared to the enemy as say T-80s and my US troops appeared as Red ones. I think the concept was introduced in the game Americas Army where you played as the US but saw your enemey as OPFOR! I dont know how easy that is to represent but would keep some realism.

An interesting concept. Unfortunately, it won't work in CMx2 because the poligonal representations matter. The T-90SA (which is coming in the Marines Module) is significantly smaller than the M1 family. It's armor is arrayed in different ways in different locations, so a hit to one spot may be different than a hit 30cm (scale distance) to one side of that. Since these things are determined by the polygons, it isn't possible to mix and match. In CMx1 we could easily do what you suggest since the vehicle simulation was divorced from the visual representation. The trade off is systems like CMx1 (and I am going to bet America's Army) is flexibility at the expense of detail.

Steve

[M1A1TC]

"Since this is a discussion about the gameplay itself, I'm skipping over gripes about unrelated things like the UI. That's an entirely different discussion and it only gets in the way of this one." -Steve

IMO the UI is part of the gameplay. There are some games that I tried to pick up, but they ended up sitting on my shelf because of non-user-friendly UI. If it feels uncomfortable to play the game, if it feels like work, I am not attracted to play it

Having things like Red VS Red or Blue VS Blue are irrelevent if the UI is not user friendly

Steve

Do you plan on adding or expanding your programming staff any time in the future? I think having more programmers would let you create games faster, give you more time off, and reduce the amount of bugs

[ January 21, 2008, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: M1A1TankCommander ]

[Battlefront.com]

M1A1TankCommander,

IMO the UI is part of the gameplay. There are some games that I tried to pick up, but they ended up sitting on my shelf because of non-user-friendly UI. If it feels uncomfortable to play the game, if it feels like work, I am not attracted to play it

Having things like Red VS Red or Blue VS Blue are irrelevent if the UI is not user friendly

The same argument can be applied to graphics. The gameplay is affected by all kinds of things, but we're not talking about those things here. Kitchensink discussions are not usually productive because the train of thought keeps getting derailed onto other tracks. Something like UI is strong enough to have it's own discussion.

Do you plan on adding or expanding your programming staff any time in the future? I think having more programmers would let you create games faster, give you more time off, and reduce the amount of bugs

Doesn't work that way More programmers usually does not mean shorter development times or less bugs. In fact, it often means the opposite. It also always means higher production costs. We don't have a couple hundred extra thousand to toss around, and programmers will not work on spec, so no immediate plans to expand the staff.

Steve

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Something like UI is strong enough to have it's own discussion.

So where is it? Any concrete suggestions to improve the UI of CMSF are usually met with thundering silence and/or swamped out by dithering about the location of the turret of the T-55!

Personal favourite would be that the game should provide you reports (that you'd receive as a real commander) and optimally these reports should form a scrolling message window that you can click on to zoom in to the unit that gave the report.

[c3k]

Steve,

I would hesitate to place anyone into your player categories and say, "He is THAT kind of player." I enjoy EACH of those styles. They have their own place and time.

Regards,

Ken

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

I am with M1, I wouldn't put UI in with graphics as it really is integral to game play.

If the game is am M-16, then graphics are the sights and the UI your eyes. You can play at fight with a crap sight, but not if you are blind....

Having used a Mac for years I've been given a PC laptop from the Council to fit in with there Windows only PC system ( they won't touch bootcamp because the contractor owns all the PC's and systems) and it's bloody awful.

It's not just that I've got to learn things that I'd forgotten or do them differently, things that I have relearned are still awkward and time consuming.

By inclination I think the way forward would be to move as much as possible from the UI to the map and drop anything that isn't essential. Anything dropped could still be accessed via a drop down or menu, but I'd be for cutting it down.

For me the template is a Fighter style "head up" as opposed to the cockpit of a 747. What you want to see is what you need now not everything you will ever need.

Do you really need to know what weapons your squad has and have it visible all the time.? It's nice to have access to it but you can click for that.

In the past I talked about using pie charts, Click on a unit and get a three colour disk that gives you something like firepower, movement and moral. A quick visual indicator of the three things the unit needs to tell you.

In the past people criticised that idea because being able to manipulate the three would be micromanagement, but I think giving three clicks per segment would cover most of the options you need.

It would move more pressure on to the AI and might make the tricky things like MOUT or assault trickier, but I think if you are going to play real time and get it right you need the slickest UI you can get.

I tried Command & Conquer a few times and I found it's UI terrible. The Ui in CMx1 was okay, if not state of the art, but you had time between moves to sit and look at it.

The fact that the UI wasn't that different visually was one of the biggest surprises when I first was CM:SF.

Peter.

I

[Battlefront.com]

Guys... if you want to lump everything into one discussion you can find a justification for it since all game elements eventually impact "fun" and "enjoyment". This thread is NOT intended to be a catch all for everything under the sun. Instead, I'm talking about balancing forces and how to get the sort of gameplay people want out of those choices. It is simple and distinctly different from other game aspects. If you want to talk about the game UI (again, for the 1000th time) then start up another thread and don't try and hijack this one

C3k,

I would hesitate to place anyone into your player categories and say, "He is THAT kind of player." I enjoy EACH of those styles. They have their own place and time.

To be sure some people don't tend towards any particular style of play, but my experience is that's a very small percentage. The overly competitive types don't tend to be happy about losing, those that want to have the deck in their favor don't like being the underdog, etc. Again, there are exceptions, but generally people tend towards a particular philosophy of play. There isn't anything wrong with that, it's just useful to point out that some styles of play are more/less leaning towards one bunch of game options vs. another bunch.

The example that is easiest to illustrate is someone who doesn't want to have his forces burned up at all, no matter what the ultimate victory outcome is. If that's the case then playing as Red Mech Inf in an open map is just not the way to go. Others that like an intensive challenge of overcoming big losses might revel in the role as Red Mech Inf commander. The key is to recognize which is what and to tailor your own game play towards that. The tools are there.

As I said earlier, it must be remembered that CMBB was considered "too lopsided" and/or "too unfamiliar" to a lot of CMBO players. Which meant a huge number didn't purchase CMBB at all. Within those that did, some found particular types of setups fun, others found them not to their liking. I'm sure there are few people that liked playing Italians in 1942 against a mech Soviet force (complete with KVs ). When CMAK came out we had the same problem... loads of people not thinking the desert would be any fun and that there wouldn't be anything in it for them. Those who did buy the game found their own particular ways of playing, such as only playing with Italy like terrain and not desert (and once again, not as the Italians ).

CM:SF is no different. The setting itself appeals to some and not to others. What this thread is here to do is remind people that within the game, like CMBB and CMAK, there is a lot of room to find something that fits your general play style. Likewise, there are things that will not appeal to your general play style. So like the CMBB and CMAK players, find the types of matchups you like and stick to them, avoid the rest. At least you don't have to avoid the Italians since we don't have them in the game this time around

Steve

[ January 22, 2008, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[MikeyD]

About my style of play. I usually stay pretty close to the troops, trying to take in the 'war movie' aspect of the game. I'm not a big fan of hovering godlike over the battlefield even if that put me at a disadvantage. I'm less concerned with winning than with the 'drama' happening in my mini-warmovie.

I've spent a LOT of time recently playing bloody infantry MOUT assaults. Guess i love the close-in carnage. But I'm now working on a scenario i've wanted to see for awhile, a stand-up Red-on-Red fight with early model T55s vs early model T55s. Woo Hoo! Reminds me of the good old days. A drastic drop in one-shot kills. Hell, a drastic drop in hits! The battlefield's no longer overwhelmed by 'technology'. The closest equivalent I can think of is when Pershings and Panthers duked it out in CMBO.

This was what I wanted to see ever since Red-on-Red play was first announced. I don't know why it took me so long to get around to it. I think the game engine's catching up to my ambitions. T55 slugfest scenario might not've worked very well in v1.0 but it's a real roller-coaster ride now!