Is CM:SF fundamentally flawed ??

[Battlefront.com]

Sirocco,

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.

I don't disagree that it is suboptimal to not have a certain degree of repositioning, but one must remember that this is one of the most difficult things to do in real life combat. Huntarr already touched on that. So it is probable that the way CM should work is somewhere between where it is now and where you are picturing it being. We will see what we can work into v1.05, otherwise it will be improved later on.

Steve

[John Catsack]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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.

Steve [/QB]

That's the main problem that a lot of people have been complaining about. The shift towards greater 1:1 detail in CMSF, while it may be visually more realistic, creates unrealistic results. In a game, it's the behavior of units and the results of player actions that really matter.

[Sirocco]

I don't think it's a real life restriction in that sense, it becomes an issue when squads don't behave as one would expect them to in combat, ie not taking a clearly more beneficial position. But I accept this is something you're working to improve on in patches, and that's to be commended.

[SlowMotion]

I think what Steiner14 wrote about is much like when they make a movie based on a book. In very many cases the book feels better, even though making the movie has probably cost a lot more money. Still it doesn't beat imagination.

Soon after CMSF was relased there was a thread with a strange sounding title. I made a web search about it and found this explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley

Since CMSF is the first game using this new engine it has contained all sorts of things which feel weird to players and break the "magic" that was in CMx1. One such thing was the way tanks rotated 180 degrees after reaching their movement final waypoint. This was fixed and the game became more playable. I think that the more such weird things can be found and fixed, the less whining there's going to be. IMO getting rid of this strange looking unit behaviour improves the game much more than for example adding more detail to graphics.

[SlapHappy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Sirocco,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

I don't disagree that it is suboptimal to not have a certain degree of repositioning, but one must remember that this is one of the most difficult things to do in real life combat. Huntarr already touched on that. So it is probable that the way CM should work is somewhere between where it is now and where you are picturing it being. We will see what we can work into v1.05, otherwise it will be improved later on.

Steve </font>

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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

Quick question Steve, in your copious spare time

I'd like to see unit abstractions based on distance from the unit, as currently when I play I get a lot of dots with fire coming from them, e.g.

When what would be ideal is seeing the actual soldiers when I'm close and a unit abstraction when I can't see them due to them being too small.

I'd still expect all the calculations to be happening, just the area overlaid with a unit abstraction indicating the units status etc.

The icons showing the status is a reasonable stop-gap but to get a real feel for what's going on unit abstractions would be ideal. When you zoomed in the abstraction would be replaced with the actual units, as below:

This would allow an overall tactical "feel" for what was going on, while when you were close enough you could actually see what was happening.

The down and dirty 1 - 1 when you're there, with the command level feel for your tactics at the same time, instead of having to hop from one to the other to see what's going on.

Is it possible? If so I'd love it to be on the TO DO list.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dale,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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...</font>

[Other Means]

I wonder if the whole 1 - 1 thing could get a quick win by the squad action point being given by the soldier on point. That way no-one gets killed before the LOS check is done.

Of course, tail end Charley gets into more danger but I think that'd be less of an issue (except to Charley).

[pad152]

I think the main issues are.

1. CM:SF should have been more of a middle east wargame with (Iran, Iraq, Israel, etc.), and let the player pick who fights who.

USA vs Syria, yawn!

Nato vs Syria just more of the same, what's the point?

2. The campaign in SF sucks. I wish BF would get the idea out of their head, that all it takes is a a bunch of missions to some how make up a campaign! How about giving the player a map of Syria and have the player take hold real places on the map, then maybe the missions would mean something or maybe SF would have been better as a company only size game where you control each and every guy.

3. Broken and incomplete QB's that just makes the campaign seem even more lacking.

4. Limited and incomplete TO&E.

[aka_tom_w]

wrong thread oops

[Other Means]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Other Means:

I wonder if the whole 1 - 1 thing could get a quick win by the squad action point being given by the soldier on point. That way no-one gets killed before the LOS check is done.

Of course, tail end Charley gets into more danger but I think that'd be less of an issue (except to Charley).

yeah but but but

the whole thing is based on action spots, as the idea about the point man being the one with the LOS check is completely irrelevant if the 8x8m grid (if I understand this correctly) only has ONE LOS/LOF point in the center of it.

I like the idea of the point man being the only one with the LOS check, but what happens when they spread out along the edge of the roof or along a trench perpendicular to the target.

Its the action spots in the 8x8 grids that are messing us up I think. </font>

[C'Rogers]

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

I might be wrong, and this is a thread from years ago so the chance is likely, but I recall Steve mentioning one of the benefits of 1:1 to was engine flexibility in scope. That they could use the same engine to make any variation of company based (squad control)/battalion based (platoon control)/platoon (individual control).

Maybe that was an idea that has long since disappeared.

Or maybe it was just a long day at work and thinking of things that were never mentioned.

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

BFC should then reconsider any marketing to militaries and instead look to Disney.

"CM, a tool for expanding the imagination!"

[Battlefront.com]

SlapHappy,

If individual soldiers were able to reposition to achieve LOF when the action spot gives the entire squad LOS, I think most of the negative commentary would disappear and folks would be pretty satisfied.

Based on 15 years of experience doing this, I know that you're wrong However, we're still going to see what we can do about this anyway!

Dale,

I agree that it's subjective. I should have said the abstractions work fine for me.

And I'll never be the one to say "you're wrong" when it is expressed like that. As I have pointed out a ton of times, a LOT of people who played Steel Panthers and Close Combat did not like CMBO and were not bashful about saying so. When they said they preferred top down, I accepted that as a valid opinion and then illustrated the advantages inherent in a 3D representation in terms of game realism. Some changed their minds after seeing that it really wasn't just a bunch of useless eye candy, others did not. Again, that was fine in my book.

What was not fine was when someone said that Steel Panthers or Close Combat was more realistic than CMBO as an overall wargame. That is because "realism" is supposedly not a subjective quantity (it is squishy sometimes, that's for sure!) so if someone said "Steel Panthers is more realistic than CMBO" and yet couldn't show that in logical, rational argumentation... then their opinion could not possibly have value. If a person said "CMBO is not as realistic as real combat", I wouldn't argue with that either (though I'd ask what game is, and of course would have a field day with whatever the answer was). If they instead said "Steel Panthers is more fun than CMBO", well, then there is nothing for me to do than respectfully disagree because it's purely subjective.

With that reminder in mind...

True enough. But, if Pepsi compared itself to Coke and said it was trying to be less sweet than Coke, I would consider that Pepsi to be flawed, cuz it ain't less sweet.

Sweet is subjective, but let's say it wasn't. You are correct that if Pepsi compared itself to Coke and said it was less sweet, it would be making a flawed statement. But if Pepsi instead said that it was more sweet, then it would be making a correct statement. Whether you like the extra sweetness or not is subjective, so Pepsi's chest thumping that it has a sweeter product doesn't impress you. However, it doesn't make Pepsi "flawed" in any meaningful sense of the word, just not your cup of soda

This is the issue here. What measurement are you using to say that CMx2 is fundamentally flawed? Realism? Well, if so then in your mind CMx1 must be an f'n piece of feces This is because CMx2 is far more realistic than CMx1, and that is something I can back up in a non-subjective way. If you are using game enjoyment as the measuring stick, then that is subjective and therefore isn't something I can argue against. So take your pick... if you want to say CMx2 is fundamentally flawed because it isn't as enjoyable, the discussion stops there because I won't dispute this since it is inherently your opinion. If you wish to instead say that CMx2 is fundamentally flawed because it isn't realistic, then you are going to have to tell me what your acceptable realism threshold is (since 100% realistic is a pointless standard) and how CMx2 doesn't meet it. Then we can have a meaningful discussion. But I'll warn you... I will compare the equivalent feature in CMx1 to the same standard you have outlined when I talk about the CMx2 comparison. The reason for that? Because it is relevant

I don't see it as fruitless because I'm not trying to change anyone's mind about anything - I am interested in game design and choices made. I've never asked you to make CMx2 more like CMx1 and I never will. I may even see the light myself some day and join the CMx2 crowd. Until then I enjoy discussing game design with game designers and game players.

Makes sense to me

Steve

[ September 28, 2007, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Drusus]

As I see it, the number one problem by far is what happens when a squad comes under fire. If this could be fixed (and I hope it can and will be fixed) then this game would be good enough for me.

The problem is simply this: when the squad comes under fire, the soldiers don't react to the threat as individuals, but as a squad. And that squad is going to try to regroup into the closest action spot. Or just go on mindlessly, which is a TacAI issue. The problem is a common one, because of the urban nature of the fighting.

What should happen is that the soldiers first react individually, basically choosing between three options: hit the dirt and return fire, seek better cover and return fire or panic and do not do anything useful. After this, the squad might _then_ regroup to the nearest action spot, without it causing too much unrealistic results.

So, my suggestion is this: The soldiers _do react individually_ to incoming fire. And why do I believe this can be done: If the soldier is under direct fire, then there _must_ be a LOF from the firer to the target, and because of that there must be a LOF from the target to the firer. That means that if the soldier hits the dirt and individually returns fire to that soldier firing at him, then there is no need for costly per soldier LOS checks. After the soldier has fired from place for a little time, then the right thing would be to think what the squad should do: That is, regroup to some action spot nearby, not necessarily the one which is towards the threat...

This is probably impossible to implement as is. But the point of this message is that the redeploying to the closest action spot behavior _must_ be changed. If it can't be changed, then the 1:1 representation is flawed. If you see your soldiers constantly doing something so clearly unrealistic, it can't be accepted as something that we must sacrifice for 1:1.

[Battlefront.com]

Other Means,

Is it possible?

Well, in theory anything is "possible", including implementing a CMx1 style abstracted system. The relevant questions are if the feature request is "practical" or "desirable". On the practical side... probably doable with a modest amount of work and no direct linkage in terms of what the abstracted figure's actions represent. Meaning, you might see a Javelin and MMG fire at the same time from the dude's feet, but an M4 in hand would simply be held in the firing position showing that the unit was engaging in combat. Major amount of work to make the abstracted figure's visual actions mean something other than basic stance (walking, crawling, shooting, etc.).

Now, the question about "desirability" is a little trickier. First is the time required to implement this feature and what would have to be cut in order to make it work. Right there it's dead, sorry to say. Compared to the list of things we need to do, this idea is a non-starter due to the implementation time (probably more than a month including the massive bug potential inherent in something like this). But even if it were not such a bear to implement, I think it is a huge mistake to "mix metaphors" on the screen at one time. It's potential to confuse, rather than clarify, is significant while its utility is somewhat questionable. So at best this would be a "minority user" feature because people would demand that they have a way to turn it off (if we weren't smart enough to have it from the start, and we wouldn't be that dumb!). On top of this we might get done doing it and you yourself might find that it was a lot better in your head than in the game, and perhaps even you wouldn't use it! It is possible, trust me. I've had things put into the game that I thought were important only to find out that they weren't. If I can be fallible that way, so can you

OK... so there we are. We've put in a month of coding and debugging time for a feature that at best only a few people might use, at worst nobody will use, while at the same time not implementing dozens of features that almost everybody wants in and would use even if optional. That means this idea is "practical" but not "desirable" from our perspective. Mind you, that doesn't mean it is an inherently bad idea or without some merit! Quite the contrary, I can see exactly what you're trying to achieve and why (it falls into the category of your sigline ). I also see that the idea is a logical solution to the problem you've expressed. It just isn't a wise course of action for us to pursue considering all the other things that wouldn't get done during that pursuit.

I wonder if the whole 1 - 1 thing could get a quick win by the squad action point being given by the soldier on point. That way no-one gets killed before the LOS check is done.

This shouldn't be a problem now, in theory, so it's something we should look into when we go to v1.05. I nominate you to remind me sometime in the middle of next week

pad152

1. CM:SF should have been more of a middle east wargame with (Iran, Iraq, Israel, etc.), and let the player pick who fights who.

Give us about a million bucks and we'd be happy to spend the next 2 years implementing something that none of you customers are willing to pay for In other words, if you want to bankroll this venture on behalf of all the people that wouldn't want to give us $200 up front for a game that wouldn't be ready until 2010ish, that's OK. I'll send you our bank account information and you can wire the money in any time you want.

USA vs Syria, yawn!

Everybody has the right to yawn, as exemplified by what I did as I read your post

Nato vs Syria just more of the same, what's the point?

If you have no interest in the differences in NATO equipment, formations, and the tactics that come as a result... well, no point at all. Though it kinda makes em curious why you'd be interested in paying us a million bucks for basically the same thing (what stunningly different stuff does Israel have that NATO doesn't? Same question about Iran compared to Syria?)

2. The campaign in SF sucks. I wish BF would get the idea out of their head, that all it takes is a a bunch of missions to some how make up a campaign! How about giving the player a map of Syria and have the player take hold real places on the map, then maybe the missions would mean something or maybe SF would have been better as a company only size game where you control each and every guy.

There is more than one way to make a campaign, sure enough. But I've played games that do it as you suggest and I thought they sucked. So a reminder to keep your humble opinions humble.

3. Broken and incomplete QB's that just makes the campaign seem even more lacking.

I won't disagree with your feelings about QBs because it is an opinion.

4. Limited and incomplete TO&E.

Sounds like you ran out of ideas and simply repeated #1 again? There is nothing "incomplete" about the TO&E in CM:SF. It's got everything in there that should be for what we said would be in.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Drusus,

As I see it, the number one problem by far is what happens when a squad comes under fire. If this could be fixed (and I hope it can and will be fixed) then this game would be good enough for me.

I think you'll find v1.04 already improves things somewhat. Not as much as we've been talking about in this thread, perhaps, but it is definitely better than v1.03 in two ways:

1. Soldiers react quicker as individuals.

2. When you cancel an infantry team's Commands it pretty much stops right where it is instead of being distracted by TacAI issued Movement Commands.

#2 is actually a bigger deal than it might appear to be. I think you'll see what I mean when you get the patch. Again, I'm not saying "that's it, that's all we're going to do", I'm just saying that you might find that a significant portion of your frustration may be gone even before we tackle the other stuff.

C'Rogers,

I might be wrong, and this is a thread from years ago so the chance is likely, but I recall Steve mentioning one of the benefits of 1:1 to was engine flexibility in scope. That they could use the same engine to make any variation of company based (squad control)/battalion based (platoon control)/platoon (individual control).

Maybe that was an idea that has long since disappeared.

Nope, you're correct. One of the major reasons to go to 1:1 was because it eliminated possible hurdles for future adaptation to other game ideas. The less abstract a system is, the more applicable it is to whatever game concept is thrown at it. The more abstract the system, the less. CMx1 was inherently WW2 ETO and could never be anything but without a near total rewrite. Since that would then make the rewritten product pretty much useless for anything other than what it was specifically rewritten for, we thought that was a rather dumb way to go about things.

Now, there were many other reasons to go with 1:1 and I've explained them in great detail over the past 2 months. I just thought I'd respond to this one since C'Rogers shouldn't be left to doubt his memory.

Steve

[ September 28, 2007, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Drusus]

#2 sounds really promising. That should at least keep the rest of the squad from marching to death. And the lead man pretty much goes by the rule "hit the dirt and return fire".

I didn't think that I was ever going to say this, but I am actually looking forward to Monday.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Other Means,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Is it possible?

Well, in theory anything is "possible", including

implementing a CMx1 style abstracted system. The relevant questions are if the

feature request is "practical" or "desirable". On the practical side... probably

doable with a modest amount of work and no direct linkage in terms of what the

abstracted figure's actions represent. Meaning, you might see a Javelin and MMG

fire at the same time from the dude's feet, but an M4 in hand would simply be held

in the firing position showing that the unit was engaging in combat. Major amount

of work to make the abstracted figure's visual actions mean something other than

basic stance (walking, crawling, shooting, etc.).

</font>

[KNac]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

1. Soldiers react quicker as individuals.

2. When you cancel an infantry team's Commands it pretty much stops right where it is instead of being distracted by TacAI issued Movement Commands.[/QB]

While #1 is usefull, for RT and WeGo, #2 it-s usefull most times only in RT. In WeGo we have to rely on TacAI decissions so if squad AI is not tuned to perform better or soem sorts of programmed SOPs are introduced, we still have issues.

Again #1 should help with this tho, allready.

[fritzthemoose]

Originally posted by John Catsack:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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.

Steve

That's the main problem that a lot of people have been complaining about. The shift towards greater 1:1 detail in CMSF, while it may be visually more realistic, creates unrealistic results. In a game, it's the behavior of units and the results of player actions that really matter. [/QB]</font>

[Manx]

As the starter of this thread, i have to say that i am somewhat encouraged by what Charles and Steve have had to say. Whether the contraints of the 8x8 system and it's "action spots" and the way in which it seems to restrict the maneuverability of squads (especially when under fire) can be improved or not i don't know. I would say that only Charles would know that.

For now, i'm happy enough to know that it is at least something they will take a look at. I think they should. After reading through all the discussion here, and learning a few new things along the way, i still stick by my original premise that as of 1.03, CM:SF IS flawed, in that when it gets down to the most critical phase of the battle, i.e - combat resolution, the 1:1 engine routines for squad behaviour breaks down, and it is painfully obvious to see.

[Steiner14]

Very interesting discussion.

From what i understand, the 8mx8m squares have been introduced due to save computation power (= the price for RT).

Could it be possible maybe, to reduce the size of the action spots for WEGO only? Or to make their sizes optional (down to 1mx1m would be fantastic!)?

As a wargamer I would have absolutely no problem if a turn calculation would take 5 minutes and the screen would go blank during that phase and the sound being muted.

[Darkmath]

As I said, it would need 4 times more CPU power to calculate 2*2 metres action spot (BFC correct me if I am wrong!). In its current state, the engine manage hardly even with the best rigs in RT.

With the current rigs, we could run CMX1 in RT!

A magical blue bar pre-calculation won't do the trick. Except if you wait for better rigs in the future!

[ September 29, 2007, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Darkmath ]

[KNac]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Very interesting discussion.

From what i understand, the 8mx8m squares have been introduced due to save computation power (= the price for RT).

Could it be possible maybe, to reduce the size of the action spots for WEGO only? Or to make their sizes optional (down to 1mx1m would be fantastic!)?

As a wargamer I would have absolutely no problem if a turn calculation would take 5 minutes and the screen would go blank during that phase and the sound being muted.

CMx1 squares were 20x20m and squads were totally abstracted. Which price have we paid?

1x1m squares are not going to do it, what is going to do it is 1:1 LOS. 1:1 LOS is technically impossible for RT yes, well, FALSE, it's possible but majority of computers wouldn't be able to run it to an acceptable level, at company sized battles at least. And for WeGo... I don't know how long it would take to process it. There are otehr problems, like inner squad behaviour, that's purelly a matter of AI programming, repositioning, individual response against enemy threads, moving or itnereacting with the enviorenment (seeking cover, MOUT operations etc). It's a matter of inputting a lot of info and how the squads must behave in each situation: so it's a mat6ter of developing time and tuning. The other option is a total 1:1 control, ie. you move EACH soldier. Micro hell and not inresting unless you want to play small unit action (squad level).

Mmmm, would be interesting in the future if CMSF can scale the engien down, adding more eye candy and better graphic even but smaller maps and unit count, maybe we can have a nice squad level sim. But that's an other point.

Darkmath, unfortunatlly games or applications are barelly being programmed to get the most of current systems. They don't use 64-bit architecture as they should (or don't use at all, let's remember most people DOES NOT run 64bit OS, including me), and they are not optimized to use multiple cores.

Probably with good programming (and enough time to do it), top home computers could do the trick.

[ September 29, 2007, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: KNac ]

[-E]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

It is an unobtainable goal, but it is the direction we have always been moving towards.

Reminds me of a Q&A I had with a CMSgt, oh so many years ago... Q: "Why is our wing's goal 97%?" A: "A goal has to be obtainable."