this is an old thread 09/06 "We are planning an Iron Man Mode"

[aka_tom_w]

sorry...

But I just thought this juicy tidbit required its VERY own thread:

I have no restrictions on where to place the camera. But like CMx1, placing the camera over suspected enemy positions doesn't do anything for me unless I am able to spot the enemy with my own units. And that is the problem my MG Teams were having. We are planning an Iron Man mode where you can only be locked onto your own units, but this is not implemented yet.

Does that mean an Iron Man Mode for the CM:SF in the first release? or down the road in a later release?

Will CM:SF be patched (free) to make the Iron Man Mode available or will it ship in the premier release?

Iron Man Mode!!! Are you kidding that would be GREAT!

It might not be real fun to play ALL the time but it would be challengeing for a change of pace occasionally.

(it would be wonderfull also to handicap a player with a HUGE U.S. force!)

I can't believe we will finally get Iron Man Mode where I finally don't have to use my own (very limited) self discpline!

woo HOO!!

Thanks!

That was the BEST bone of all!

-tom w

[ February 14, 2007, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[MikeyD]

BFC had been hinting about this before, though using different (less cool) terminology. Something about using a FPS-type view mode, or lock to individual's point of view. 'Iron Man' rules sounds much cooler and I hope they use the phrase in the manual

If you've never played 'iron Man' rules in CMx1, try locking onto to a unit at ground level then calling an a out-of-LOS artillery strike. The ground will shake, explosions will be heard, but you won't have a CLUE where those darned rounds are falling on the board!

[hellfish]

Is that realistic? Wouldn't you need a map to plan an out of LOS artillery strike?

[Battlefront.com]

It is and isn't realistic, of course. But so too is the regular way of playing.

Our thinking is that the camera will be anchored to a unit. It can move up and down, pan 360, and tilt, but it can't move more than a small distance from the unit in question. This is necessary because sometimes you need to peek around something in order to get a movement order plopped down. Remember that in RealTime there isn't the luxury of micromanaging a single unit's movement very often, so we have to make sure a meaningful amount of Commands can be issued at one time.

As for overhead planning, we are planning (at some point) introducing an overhead map. It is planned for v1.0, but we'll just have to see how that goes. If we can't do it then we might allow the player to operate the camera freely at the highest level only. That kinda acheives the same thing as an overhead map.

Steve

[YankeeDog]

I love the idea of an Iron Man mode; you guys should definitely give props to Franko. I don't know whether he was the one that orginally came up with the idea, but he certainly deserves credit for codifiying the original Iron Man rules.

IMHO, if there's not time to create an overhead map feature before release, allowing unrestricted viewing at the highest view level would be an acceptable fudge.

In addition to the features already mentioned, if it hasn't been thought of already it would be great if view magnification was restricted based on a unit's equipment and abilities as well, as in the original Iron Man rules. So normal units get no magnification, units with Binocs might get access to x2, units with advanced sighting and observation equipment (FOs, vehicles w/ high-quality gunsights, etc.) might get access to x4, or even x8,. . . and so on.

But sounds very cool. I look forward to being supremely frustrated by my inabilty to figure out what the %&$*@! is going on in a hot-and-heavy firefight!

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I love the idea of an Iron Man mode; you guys should definitely give props to Franko. I don't know whether he was the one that orginally came up with the idea, but he certainly deserves credit for codifiying the original Iron Man rules.

I doubt he was the first to think of it. The danger with forums like these is that someone gets an idea the developers may have had in mind for years and then demands compensation or recognition. The idea will only work with a decent map - CM's artwork was so similar that the use of the Iron Man rules inflicted an unrealistic sense of disorientation. Real men walking individually through a town will retain a better sense of direction and where they are than one player cycling through 30 units and trying to remember where everything is with only bare minimal visual cues.

A map is a necessity for this to have any kind of realistic effect.

As a way of handicapping players, it works, is even fun, but the IM rules as originally codified had nothing to do with "realism" in terms of a company-level tactical game.

CM isn't an individual sim like M-1 Tank Platoon; I see no reason to blur the distinction between the two.

[Imperial Grunt]

Iron Man rules with a map available would be awesome and it would best simulate company level command very well in my opinion. Some kind of verbal feedback through radio comms would be great as well.

Before the game starts, the player should get a chance to draw graphics, ie control measures, on the map. Checkpoints, phase lines, objectives,etc... That way he could direct teams around and they would report when they arrived at that location, etc...giving the player the feel of tracking the battlefield geometery. Some kind of Blue Force Tracker interface would be cool too.

[gunnersman]

An "Iron Man" mode would be great. But like Michael Dorosh said a map would be needed. I have played "Franko's Rules" several times and I find I would have to sketch my own map, with elevation and all so I can keep better situational awareness.

A pre-made map we be preferable.

[hoolaman]

The biggest problem with the original FTC rules is that LOS in the game is not graphically depicted. So your units can see things that you should be able to see too, but can't.

Unless LOS is calculated properly in high resolution around the terrain items

it won't be rewarding to play like this.

[ParaBellum]

The Total War series offered an option to restrict the camera to the General's unit. Quite an interesting way to play. In CM I found it very tedious to play with this rule because of the lack of a proper map. In areas with very small LOS you often got lost very quickly.

[MikeyD]

About lack of a proper map - an ignorant civilian question on my part.

Let's say the U.S. charges into Syria when BFC says they will. 60 miles into the attack a Stryker Company comes upon a generic Syrian hamlet/village. How detailed would the available map be of the place? No doubt topographic and major roads, but what about CM-style house clusters, woods, pastures, etc.? Isn't a CM-style overhead shot MORE detailed a area map than would be available? I recall soldiers in Grenada (1984?) having to rely on funky tourist maps to get their bearings.

[Thomm]

MikeyD,

Just browsed a little bit on Google Maps ...

Don't know if this is relevant, but there is some intimidating detail over large areas of Syria available there ...

Best regards,

Thomm

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

MikeyD,

Just browsed a little bit on Google Maps ...

Don't know if this is relevant, but there is some intimidating detail over large areas of Syria available there ...

Best regards,

Thomm

Yeah, I was checking out the airbases. Suprisingly detailed. Still can't find the MiG-29s, tho.

[YankeeDog]

Yeah, AIUI advances in computers and wireless communication now mean that high-resolution satellite and aerial recon images can be, and are forwarded to combat troops much more quickly than was the case 20 years ago.

So I would think it very unlikely that forward US commanders would be unaware of anything the satellites can see, and has been there for at least a day or so. Awfully hard to hide something as large as a building or a tree from a satellite.

Very recent changes are probably another matter – a bridge that’s been dropped within the past few hours, a hastily erected roadblock of junked cars, etc. I imagine changes like this could probably catch a US commander by surprise.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Imperial Grunt:

Iron Man rules with a map available would be awesome and it would best simulate company level command very well in my opinion. Some kind of verbal feedback through radio comms would be great as well.

Before the game starts, the player should get a chance to draw graphics, ie control measures, on the map. Checkpoints, phase lines, objectives,etc... That way he could direct teams around and they would report when they arrived at that location, etc...giving the player the feel of tracking the battlefield geometery. Some kind of Blue Force Tracker interface would be cool too.

This is a good suggestion. I think it would need to be coupled with labels on each squad with the leaders name, so you can know which of your own men you're looking at, information that would be known by commanders on the ground.

A compass/GPS co-ordinates included in the GUI would be useful without being unrealistic. Possibly with restrictions on their use. i.e. Commanders would have an accurate compass and full co-ords while lower in CoC would have less accurate or missing info.

The Syrian player should have the same, or possibly all their players have co-ords to simulate them knowing the ground, assuming they're on defense.

In fact, the whole "knowing the ground" issue could be expanded upon with more accurate maps and co-ordinate markers.

It certainly an interesting angle on FOW.

[MikeyD]

Including actual GPS coordinates in the game might complicate matters a bit. Some GPS grog is liable to complain that a random scenario's coordinates would in fact target a 'baby milk factory' on the edge of a real town somewhere.

Maybe GPS capabilities could be implied. Stryker Brigade does have integral command and recon Stryker vehicles. Perhaps their mere presence in a scenario might imply GPS targetting resources, making command and recon vehicles valuable targets for the enemy. Destroying the command/recon vehicle means reduced precision strikes or no more info downloads from circling Predators?

Hey, maybe reduced game maps could be toggled in the form of those handheld military 'blackberries'.

[Battlefront.com]

All fun stuff to talk about, but we aren't going to go into that level of detail. It's not necessary since it adds no realism to the game. Even in IronMan Mode it is still super unrealistic because the player has the ability to know where everybody is, even if it means double checking because we're hiding some info. And of course he still has control over everything. Things get a lot more intersting for IronMan possibilities when we start talking about CoPlay.

Think of the IronMan Mode in CM:SF as being 1/10th of what you would like it to be, but 10 times more than what is possible in CMx1

Steve

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

All fun stuff to talk about, but we aren't going to go into that level of detail. It's not necessary since it adds no realism to the game. Even in IronMan Mode it is still super unrealistic because the player has the ability to know where everybody is, even if it means double checking because we're hiding some info. And of course he still has control over everything. Things get a lot more intersting for IronMan possibilities when we start talking about CoPlay.

Think of the IronMan Mode in CM:SF as being 1/10th of what you would like it to be, but 10 times more than what is possible in CMx1

Steve

Yes true, but I think 50% of the time when CM players ask "is it realistic?" they really mean "is it a fun game dynamic?". And I certainly think there's fertile ground in these kinds of restrictions/addons to create a very different game and quite a fun dynamic.

[Battlefront.com]

Very true. We just have to be clear about realism vs. fun because sometimes people try to pressure us into doing something fun under the guise of it being realistic. We have no problem with concept of adding fun features, though they need to be done carefully. We also have to balance the time/resources required to do them right. The kinds of ideas being bounced around here do sound fun, but they are a nightmare to contemplate from a development standpoint. Just like the "it would be cool to have a strategic layer..." discussions we see from time to time.

Steve

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Just like the "it would be cool to have a strategic layer..." discussions we see from time to time.

Steve

What about an operational layer?

[Homo ferricus]

Iron Man mode, eh? I guess BFC has finally acknowledged my contributions to the forum and is honoring me by creating a game mode in my honor, and even naming it after myself. I whole-heartedly accept.

[86smopuim]

my interest level in cm:sf just went from 0%

to 70%

another vote for iron man

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

All fun stuff to talk about, but we aren't going to go into that level of detail. It's not necessary since it adds no realism to the game. Even in IronMan Mode it is still super unrealistic because the player has the ability to know where everybody is, even if it means double checking because we're hiding some info. And of course he still has control over everything. Things get a lot more intersting for IronMan possibilities when we start talking about CoPlay.

Think of the IronMan Mode in CM:SF as being 1/10th of what you would like it to be, but 10 times more than what is possible in CMx1

Steve

Is there a status update on Iron Man Mode? Is that the Elite Hardness FOW level? (or a subset or option in the Elite FOW setting?)

wondering

-tom w

[Hans]

Yeah baby, I made some scenarios specifically for the 1-2 vision level in Cmak and Cmbb. I could see doing the same for SF.

[Battlefront.com]

The Elite mode is what we're planning on for Iron Man. But the details of each mode hasn't been fully worked out yet, so details will have to come later. The reason why is we want the sim to be done first, then we can see what makes sense to include/disallow for each mode.

Steve