Is CM:SF fundamentally flawed ??

[Huntarr]

No, the game have never given you control of every single man. Never. You have control over a squad. There may be tweaks that can be made to Infantry to help out but you need to let go of the misconception that you get to place every man where you want.

edit: For right now anyway. (hell Charles may have some secret code just waiting for someone to say the right words of encouragement)

[ September 28, 2007, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: Huntarr ]

[Guest]

Honestly, Darkmath, I think they pursued a maximum unit count that was higher than most folks are able to handle in RT. You've got a point about the technical aspects, but if you really want realism you handle the cost of stuff like that (high-resolution LOS/LOF) by reducing scope (man, I'm like scope-reduction GUY or something).

Dale -- well, it's pretty common. You abstract everything you don't absolutely have to show, and that of course needs to be balanced against what you think your customers will be looking at when playing.

Unfortunately for us I think that the balance favors more units. Honestly, if you're managing a battalion (or a few companies) you're not likely to be down in the dust watching a rifleman walk into an enemy AFV, are you?

But I play smaller battles, so maybe I see the stuff they didn't really expect us to see. Decent positions are still decent positions, just not in a perfect, 100% accurate way. Whole squads don't shift to targets or respond properly every time, but they do it well enough that it wouldn't kill the game for you if you could absorb a few casualties. Good enough at a half-mile up.

Really, the engine is incredibly impressive. The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether I could do the same, by myself, in as little time. He really is a prodigy of some sort. Kudos to Charles... but then, I wouldn't bother trying in the first place.

In sum and toto, yeah. It's flawed, but I think they just had big designs. And they're still on their way there.

[VonWebb]

I just have to say, you can't have it all, its just not possible! give it 50 years and you'll be commanding "real" soldiers with chips in their heads or sumpfink... (ala peirs anthony)

[Manx]

Pushing squads around the map works great apart from Pathfinding issues that i understand will be addressed, but the 1:1 representation really breaks down once you get into combat. What is the point of having AT assets or marksmen doing nothing at the rear of the squad and with you having no way to get them online without making adjustments to the whole squad, who then invariably get slaughtered because you end up exposing them to unnecessary fire.

[thewood]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

What you are seeing most of the time is closer to a realistic tactical situation then you realise. Commanders have always been trying to figure out how to get more weapon systems on the enemy then the enemy has on him. If you are not seeing all your men shooting at the same time due to each man not being perfectly lined up then just watch a roof to roof firefight. Everyone is in perfect lines therefore all weapon systems can come to bare. Stick those same units on the ground and the minor changes in the terrain can prevent all of them from firing not necessarily from seeing each other. Big differenc in seeing and knowing where the enemy is then in actually everyone having clean lines of fire.

Please explain to me how I can get a squad to a crest and get the squad to bring weapons to bear. I have a hard time believing that 2007 US Army infantry team would not bring the majority of its weapons on line. Right now 1 - 3 guys get to the crest, get fired on, the rest of the squad hangs around "spotting" 3 or 4 meters down the hill.

[Abbott]

No, the game have never given you control of every single man. Never. You have control over a squad. There are tweaks that are being made to Infantry to help out but you need to let go of the misconception that you get to place every man where you want.

Unfortunately for us I think that the balance favors more units. Honestly, if you're managing a battalion (or a few companies) you're not likely to be down in the dust watching a rifleman walk into an enemy AFV, are you?

That’s all well and good from a design standpoint if it works. The problem is it doesn’t work in the game! Soldiers are trained to fight from cover as much as possible; CM:SF troops cannot properly use cover. Or move for that matter! That is one huge issue that needs to be fixed. Saying “Oh yeah in 1.04 these fixes are included” well we will soon see if that is true or not.

[ September 28, 2007, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Manx]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

No, the game have never given you control of every single man. Never. You have control over a squad. There may be tweaks that can be made to Infantry to help out but you need to let go of the misconception that you get to place every man where you want.

edit: For right now anyway. (hell Charles may have some secret code just waiting for someone to say the right words of encouragement)

I have no problem with not being able to control each individual guy in my squad, but once in combat i do have a problem with 60-70% of my guys having a picnic at the back of the formation.

[Battlefront]

Two quick points, guys:

1. I can't say for certain, but I think that much of what is being attributed to LOS/LOF problems (e.g. he can see me but I can't see him) was really due to some bugs in the TacAI where your soldiers could shoot back but chose not to. For example I recently fixed a bug where soldiers would try too hard to conserve ammo when they really shouldn't. That sort of thing. You'll see an improvement in v1.04.

2. v1.04 is coming very soon. :cool:

[Huntarr]

Thank you Charles! Great work BTW.

[Manx]

Hey Charles! They let you out!

While your around...1:1 is great, but by it's nature it leaves nothing to the imagination. So, anything you can do to address squad behaviour when in combat would be much appreciated.

This game is as equally frustrating as it is brilliant at the moment, but i am confident you can fix her up.

And thanks for the patch update. Sounds promising.

All the best Charles.

[John Catsack]

Originally posted by KNac:

Well but not all, I think we can give up some firepower; afterall, would in RL all the squad group in a few meters just to fire at a target?

As opposed to sitting there and letting themselves get picked off one by one, I guarantee they would do something.

[thewood]

Even showing the status as cowering, at least we know there not just playing canasta while a firefight is going on.

[Battlefront.com]

Dale,

The game purports to be 1:1, enforces limitations based on the premise that it is 1:1, and is not really 1:1.

How is that not fundamentally flawed?[/qoute]

No more "flawed" than three graphical figures representing 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, etc simulated soldiers, depending on the situation. No more "flawed" than said unit being able to walk through a building wall, no matter what, any time it wants to. No more "flawed" than having all the simualted guys move at the same exact speed and bring their weapons to bear at 100% the same time. Or put another way... no more "flawed" than CMBO, CMBB, or CMAK.

As I've said about 1000 times in the past few years... CMx2 doesn't simulate everything in 1:1 perfection. That is an impossibility. What it does do is simulate 1:1 far better than CMx1 did. This should be a rather simple thing to comprehend, but obviously many people are having problems with such simple things.

As I've also said, people can debate whether or not this is more FUN than the highly abstracted CMx1 system, but they can not argue that it is technically inferior (or "flawed" as Dale says). Well, not in any way that stands up to rational discourse. CMx2 is not perfect, true enough, but it is far closer to it than CMx1 ever was. Therefore, if CMx2 is fundamentally flawed, then CMx1 was fundamentally f'd

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:

Dale -- well, it's pretty common. You abstract everything you don't absolutely have to show, and that of course needs to be balanced against what you think your customers will be looking at when playing.

But in this particular case, they abstracted their "1:1" representation and mechanics. That's flawed.

-dale

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

What it does do is simulate 1:1 far better than CMx1 did. This should be a rather simple thing to comprehend, but obviously many people are having problems with such simple things.

You had 1:1 in CMx1?

The question I have with 1:1, is if LOS is more a group check on an action spot, what happens if an individual has group LOS but not individual LOF? Will he re-position to gain LOF?

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dale,

I disagree. The abstractions in CMx1 worked fine. As others have said, it was easy (and for some of us, fun) to fill in the blanks for CMx1, and probably easy (design-wise, not code-wise) for you to hide limitations within those abstractions.

For CMx2 it seems that the presentation on screen is that there are no blanks to fill, but the output is not close enough to 1:1 to satisfy the goal.

If you had, for example, an abstracted squad unit that looked like it was 1:1 - its individual soldier pictures could go through window pictures and behind wall pictures even though the actual effect was VERY abstracted "under the hood", then there would not be the current disconnect between expectations and presentation.

Instead you have real individual soldier guys and a real and nicely detailed terrain set, but the two do not interact well or "realistically". As it is, it appears to be quite jarring.

That's a flaw, Steve. To me, it's a fundamental flaw.

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

Dale,

But in this particular case, they abstracted their "1:1" representation and mechanics. That's flawed.

Again, no more "flawed" than not having it at all. Everything short of 100% realism is an abstraction, so by your logic all wargames are "flawed" because they have abstracted systems.

Sirocco,

You had 1:1 in CMx1?

Sure did! When you clicked on a Squad in CMx1 what did you see? A headcount for how many individual soldiers it had, right? When you got the details screen, what did you see? What weapons were being used by those individuals. So yes, from a simulation standpoint we did have "1:1" in CMx1. It was just highly abstracted and visually not simulated at all. Which is why Dale, and other people's, complaints that CMx2 isn't 100% 1:1 are simply silly. CMx1 was highly abstracted, CMx2 is far less abstracted. If abstraction = flawed, then CMx2 is less flawed than Cmx1 because it is less abstracted.

It's simple logic.

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dale,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But in this particular case, they abstracted their "1:1" representation and mechanics. That's flawed.

Again, no more "flawed" than not having it at all. Everything short of 100% realism is an abstraction, so by your logic all wargames are "flawed" because they have abstracted systems.

</font>

[aka_tom_w]

my suggestion is you is might find this issue less so in v1.04 unless of course it is the ONLY thing you are looking for, in which case you may have wait 5- 8 years into the future when home computers will have the hardware specs to suport your desire to have a %100 1:1 wargame, the way things are going here you should see that kind of thing (likely pioneered by Steve and Charles and BFC) within the next 7-10 years, BUT not before computers are more then twice as fast and capable as they are now. IMHO

[Battlefront.com]

Dale,

I disagree. The abstractions in CMx1 worked fine.

That's an opinion that many people, including myself, don't share. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but...

For CMx2 it seems that the presentation on screen is that there are no blanks to fill, but the output is not close enough to 1:1 to satisfy the goal.

That's the problem here... getting as close to 1:1 has ALWAYS been our goal. We just weren't able to get as close to it in CMx1 as we have been in CMx2. Think about it for a sec... if this wasn't our goal, then why didn't we have abstracted "counters" in CMx1? You know, like board games where you have a Squad "chit" with a "3-4-5" on it. If we weren't trying to be more realistic, we would have just stayed with that format. But we wanted to be more realistic than that. And what is the ultimate in realism? 1:1, of course.

It is an unobtainable goal, but it is the direction we have always been moving towards. CMx2 gets us closer to it than CMx1, but it doesn't get us all the way there. Nothing ever will. It isn't possible. So either you accept that there are abstractions or you don't. If you don't, then stop playing wargames and join up to fight in Iraq, because that is really the only way you're going to experience realistic 1:1 combat.

If you had, for example, an abstracted squad unit that looked like it was 1:1 - its individual soldier pictures could go through window pictures and behind wall pictures even though the actual effect was VERY abstracted "under the hood", then there would not be the current disconnect between expectations and presentation.

Instead you have real individual soldier guys and a real and nicely detailed terrain set, but the two do not interact well or "realistically". As it is, it appears to be quite jarring.

I disagree with this logic unless you also think that a triangular cluster of 3 human like figures is "jarring" when you find out that they are simulating a variable number of guys. That's my point Dale... you don't get to set the line where visuals and game mechanics are in or out of balance. "Flawed" is a not the same as personal taste. You might like the previous, far more abstracted system... but that's very different than saying something is "flawed". I don't like Pepsi compared to Coke, but I don't think Pepsi is "flawed".

That's a flaw, Steve. To me, it's a fundamental flaw.

And to other CMx1 was fundamentally flawed because the visuals were attempting to look like the real world, but fell very far short of it.

Also, why are you still here, then? Spending your time talking about a game that is "fundamentally flawed" seems to be a rather silly waste of your time. I mean, I've said over and over again we will never go back to the way CMx1 was constructed, nor will we get to the unobtainable height of perfection you're attempting to hold CMx2 to. So what's the point of being engaged in a fruitless discussion?

Steve

[Sirocco]

I think it's a real stretch to call CMx1 1:1. I don't think it would fit a general definition.

The original premise of the thread was that 1:1 in CMx2 was flawed. If there is a disconnect between LOS and LOF then I think that conclusion is unavoidable. The only question is how often it intrudes into gameplay. And we can only hope that 1.04 minimises that.

[Steiner14]

Steve,

i think no one means, CMSF were not great programming art. What it can do, is miles ahead of other games, without any doubt.

It's not the point, that it is technically by far superior to CMx1. What counts is the result and when you take away all imagination by displaying 1:1 units, then it is for me as old CM-player not enough, if the achievements are better than everything else out there, but if it is realistical what i see displayed.

If you decide to take the imagination away, you have to make the display very accurate, otherwise you will have a negative effect, no matter how technically much more enhanced and powerful the new system is. Could it be you underestimate the positive power of imagination?

The more i think about it, the more i'm convinced, the magic of CMx1 is, that it triggers imagination.

A strong indication for that theory is, that no one playing CMx1, feels he were moving abstractions with 3 soldiers. It feels like moving squads, the objects have a life, although they are quite abstracted.

This trigger for imagination can definately be enhanced, i.e. by better graphics, faces showing emotions, body movements according to the environment and the psychic situation. But this trigger can also be reduced, if the things that are displayed, do not fit perfectly to the action going on.

I don't know if it would be much labour, but it could be worth a try, to switch the graphical 1:1 representation off and reduce the representation to three soldiers like in CMx1 and test the impact on the gaming experience.

[aka_tom_w]

opps wrong thread

[ September 28, 2007, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Battlefront.com]

Sirocco,

There is no disconnect between LOS and LOF in CMx2. You can't shoot at something you can't see. This was true in CMx1 as well. The difference is that not every individual soldier spots on his own, so there are times when the individual can't draw LOF even though the unit, as a whole, can draw LOS. That's the way it works in real life, BTW. The issue in CMx2, right now, is that the individuals within the unit don't reposition themselves based on this. Well, at least not to the degree that the should. We'll work on that.

Steiner14,

If you decide to take the imagination away, you have to make the display very accurate, otherwise you will have a negative effect, no matter how technically much more enhanced and powerful the new system is. Could it be you underestimate the positive power of imagination?

Perhaps. CMx1 required a mental shift, what we called Unlearning, and most people were able to make that shift. Many did not and were openly hostile to the 3D representation that you (and others) feel is perfect. Now we've shifted again and some people are having as much problem with this as the 2D top down gamers had with CMx1. So yeah, we thought people could handle less abstraction because it requires less imagination. Some are clearly not up to the task of re-Unlearning

The problem is that you don't see that there is room for debate here because in your minds CMx1 was perfect and that's all there is too it. I completely and utterly reject your position from a personal standpoint. I don't have any propblems with the reduced levels of visual and simulation abstractions that CMx2 provides over CMx1, any more than I had problems with the reduced abstraction CMx1 provided over something like Steel Panthers. In fact, I embrace and enjoy the reduced abstraction. I probably couldn't go back and play CMx1 games and enjoy them like I used to. I don't know, because I haven't played CMx1 in about 3 years

So just keep in mind that it is all personal taste.

I don't know if it would be much labour, but it could be worth a try, to switch the graphical 1:1 representation off and reduce the representation to three soldiers like in CMx1 and test the impact on the gaming experience.

It is impossible because CMx1 really is "1:1", despite what the detractors wish to say about it. It just isn't PERFECTLY 1:1.

Each soldier is actually simulated in the space it occupies. All the game's rules and mechanics follow this fundamental reality. Therefore, if we show 3 men, then there are only 3 men there. The game has no ability, none what-so-ever, to abstractly simulated 12 men with just 3 figures. Not without completely rewriting the entire game engine. Obviously we're not going to do that

Steve

[ September 28, 2007, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

There is no disconnect between LOS and LOF in CMx2. You can't shoot at something you can't see. This was true in CMx1 as well. The difference is that not every individual soldier spots on his own, so there are times when the individual can't draw LOF even though the unit, as a whole, can draw LOS. That's the way it works in real life, BTW. The issue in CMx2, right now, is that the individuals within the unit don't reposition themselves based on this. Well, at least not to the degree that the should. We'll work on that.

I do think there is a disconnect if the individual is effectively thinking I can see the target [action spot LOS] but I can't hit it [LOF], if the individual doesn't re-position. But if that can and will be improved upon with 1.04 or future patches that's a positive step forward for CMx2.