Small Bone

[Battlefront.com]

Jarmo,

CM:SF will be out a lot sooner than the end of next year Plus, our internal guess for CM:WW2 is 6 months, which means it will probably take 12

Kgsan,

We have made no firm decisions. The problem with moving to Ardennes is that means we have to do a winter set of everything plus new vehicles, TO&E, and probably other minor stuff I'm not thinking of right now. It's a lot of work. However, we do have the desire to simulate this setting, so we'll have to see how it goes.

Steve

[kipanderson]

Hi,

The Ardennes is certainly my favourite NWE setting.

I have been fortunate to visit the Ardennes four times over the last ten years, each time between the 16th December and 20th December. The atmosphere is remarkable, as you stand in the pine forests with fog in the air and an inch or so of snow on the ground you can almost hear the panzers squeaking and crunching their way over the half frozen ground and down the small tracks. The half-light of northern Europe at that time of year also adds ot the effect.

The combat power of the German army peaked in the summer of ’44 and it is true that by December’44 it was in decline. But even so the winter melancholy of the setting, with Silent Night drifting through the trees….. makes The Bulge top of my wish list.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Darkmath]

The problem with the module system is it could restrict "what if" scenarios .Or, for example, you can't exactly recreate , say Free French Lorraine campaign when you have an Ardennes Module (or maybe you would include this with Ardennes module? Otherwise there will be an INFINITE numbers of module ))

You can just approximate , and IMSHO more than global TO&E from CMX1 series, some very specificals and/or hypothetical battles.

[Bruce70]

One thing still worries me about RT.

Someone said earlier (can't be bothered checking who) that the restrictions imposed by no-orders-when-paused and the order delay in WeGo simulate two different things - or something like that.

I have to say that I tend to agree. The proposed RT system introduces delays to orders that should have no delay and removes the delay from orders that should have it. There are two opposing situations:

1) The player is busy issuing orders in one part of the map when another unit comes under fire. It will take some time for the player to find the unit, assess the situation and issues appropriate orders, introducing a delay that would not occur IRL (the CO on the spot would issue orders immediately and would not need as much time to assess the situation).

2) The player is issuing orders to a unit, when that unit spots the enemy they can immediately switch to other units and give appropriate orders with less delay that would normally be required (IRL the CO would have to radio up the chain of command).

The first situation can be improved through good interface design (or good AI ). I am thinking something along the lines of a graphical representation of radio messages that, when clicked, take you to the location of the sender - but I am sure there are other ways (pausing for example). OTOH I can't think of any better way to deal with the second situation other than order delays.

I have to admit that, now I have written this, both systems are *potentially* good at one of these two situations and poor at the other. WeGo with delays handles the second situation fairly well, but not the first. RT with no delays *may* handle the first situation well but not the second. So I guess they will be two different games in a way, and as Steve says, for small scale battles (more of the first situation) RT may be the better simulation, whereas for larger battles (more of the second) WeGo may have the advantage.

I think I understand the design decision now, or at least this aspect of it. Thanks Steve for patiently explaining things. I will still have to see for myself which system I prefer, but thankfully I will have that choice.

P.S. Steve, I'll send you another email about the AI research.

[kgsan]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Kgsan,

We have made no firm decisions. The problem with moving to Ardennes is that means we have to do a winter set of everything plus new vehicles, TO&E, and probably other minor stuff I'm not thinking of right now. It's a lot of work. However, we do have the desire to simulate this setting, so we'll have to see how it goes.

Steve

Steve, thanks for the response. I think a concern of a lot of us old CM fans is that the game/module approach will only give us coverage of a few narrow pockets of WWII before y'all move on to space lobsters, etc. I think most of us certainly understand BFC's desire to release the games in smaller increments which will allow for a well-earned recoupment of your time and effort. The hope is that if even if you just produce a West-front and maybe East-front WWII game/series, the succesive modules for each would, over time, fill in a lot of the front's equipment and units, at least for the major combatants. However, if the scope of the modules is very narrow, and y'all only plan one or two WWII game/series, then obviously that hope is off the table. I think we are just trying to gauge where BFC envisions going. We'd love to keep throwing money at y'all for more comprehensive WWII coverage if you'll let us.

[ October 08, 2006, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: kgsan ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We have made no firm decisions. The problem with moving to Ardennes is that means we have to do a winter set of everything plus new vehicles, TO&E, and probably other minor stuff I'm not thinking of right now. It's a lot of work. However, we do have the desire to simulate this setting, so we'll have to see how it goes.

Steve

Heh...some of the fighting in the Ardennes (notably at the end of Kampgruppe Peiper's penetration) was done with no ground snow present at all, so you'd need to do terrain for both no snow, light snow and deep snow...

[pad152]

Which is why CM:SF in RealTime is not a "clickfest" in my mind. Sure, if you put two players head to head, the one that can think faster and click faster will have an edge. That's not a bad thing. In fact, it is a realistic thing.

I know Halloween is coming but this just sounds scary! Beyond the RTS tank rush, the biggest issue I have with RTS games is if you spend time to manage unit A at one end of the map, things go to hell on the other end of the map! This to me was the big killer of Close Combat 3D, while you were trying to position a tank, your other units were being killed out of view! Most of the time you had little or no idea what happened to your units. So either you played zoomed out to see all of your units, or tried to rely on the unit AI which sucked. Made you wonder what was the point of the 3D! If you rely on the unit AI, then it's all up how good the unit AI is and not the player. Is it the player wining or the AI!

I was very disapointed with Distant Guns, the game to me played more like a movie and not a game because of the limited control over units! Point units in a direction and set weapons free, that's it, the side with more or better ships wins! It's all up to the unit AI and not the player, where's is the fun in that! The player has less control because of the limited real time.

Highway to the Reich games, you give orders to unit A, the AI orders sub-units B,C,D. Is it you in control or the AI?

I don't play games just to watch a movie!

[Wolfpack]

I'm still waiting for the early WWII game which at one point was on the list, but apparently is getting shoved back further and further. Seeing Normandy rehashed again is nice and all, I'm sure I'll get it, but hopefully someday, I'll get to see the game I want. Oh well, I've had a pretty big run of good luck lately, and if this is as bad as the bad news gets, I'm still way ahead of the game.

[Battlefront.com]

Pad152,

Beyond the RTS tank rush, the biggest issue I have with RTS games is if you spend time to manage unit A at one end of the map, things go to hell on the other end of the map!

There's pretty much nothing to be done about that. There are two extremes and something in the middle. One extreme is the Tank Rush problem where the individual units are pretty much balanced 1:1. So if I have 4 units guarding a pass, and you come in with 20, I'm going to get slaughtered and fast. Terrain, elevation, type of unit, etc. don't matter. It's simply a numbers thing. So if you aren't there not only do you get slaughtered without the possibility of doing something useful (like targeting a specific enemy unit and hoping to at least take that one out) but you usually can't even get over there fast enough to get a good look at the attacking force. Sometimes you don't even notice you were attached (depends on the game).

The other extreme are Command style games, like Highway to the Reich. In this sort of game you, the player, are hardly necessary at all, even at hotspots. As you say, it is even difficult to know if your orders are being carried out or the AI's are being executed. So this is the exact opposite of the problem noted above.

NOTE - there is nothing inherently wrong with either of these two game styles. They are completely valid and work fine within their own style. Criticizing the game itself is like saying you don't like a particular style simply because it isn't targeted towards your play preferences. For example, singling out a type of children's game for criticism because you aren't a child, or saying you think flightsims are boring compared to tank sims. It's very much a "different strokes for different folks" kind of thing.

Now, I did say tht there is a third way that is in the middle. That's where CMx2 fits. As I've described before, the tactical problems associated with the Tank Rush tactic don't exist in CMx2. I have 1 HMG in a well hidden and well situated spot, you have 20 foot infantry units. You advance into my kill zone, I likely lay waste your original plan and perhaps dramatically reduce your ability to maneuver (broken units, casualties, etc.). And this can all be done without me being present.

What can't happen automatically in CMx2 is for a nearby tank or rifle platoon to move into position to aid the HMG in beating the snot out of the attacker. That requires the player's intervention. And that is the way it has to be in order to avoid the other extreme problem and that is having the AI controlling the game and not you. Also, as I've said before, there is a reason why there aren't tactical Command style games... the AI to do this even remotely well is just too much to even contemplate. Operational level games, like Highway to the Reich, and higher level games... completely different thing.

I know that RealTime is not going to please everybody, but neither is WeGo. What we are doing is giving players the choice and keeping those choices distinctly different from each other.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

I know that RealTime is not going to please everybody, but neither is WeGo. What we are doing is giving players the choice and keeping those choices distinctly different from each other.

Steve

Excellent Smithers ....

That should keep most folks more then happy.

(IMHO)

Thanks for keeping us up to date!

-tom w

[pad152]

I know that RealTime is not going to please everybody, but neither is WeGo. What we are doing is giving players the choice and keeping those choices distinctly different from each other.

Good luck, I really hope you can pull this off, you know what they say about trying to please everybody!

I just hope we don't have less control (fewer options in WeGo) because of the support for limited real time.

[Other Means]

Steve, as more possible middle ground, in that it would help in most situations, is there some form of *group* AI?

The classic example is 20 PzII's hail-shooting a KV1. Will something like that be possible?

I'm expecting a resounding "NO" as I've a fraction of an iota of a glimmer of an idea of how hard it would be to do.

But if the gas has been turned up under Charles' jar, he might have cracked it - any chance?

[Battlefront.com]

We'll see what we can get in there for tactical level coordination. CMx1 had quite a bit of it, so expect at least as much in CMx2.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

thanks for the update

-tom w

[cassh]

Pad152 said -

the biggest issue I have with RTS games is if you spend time to manage unit A at one end of the map, things go to hell on the other end of the map!

Steve said -

I have 1 HMG in a well hidden and well situated spot, you have 20 foot infantry units. You advance into my kill zone, I likely lay waste your original plan and perhaps dramatically reduce your ability to maneuver (broken units, casualties, etc.). And this can all be done without me being present.

Regarding the issue you’ve raised in the quotes above about a friendly unit getting engaged/engaging an enemy without the player knowing.

Can I make a request/suggestion that may solve this problem/dilemma?

In real world military SOP you have what is called a “Contact Report”, whereby you call in to your superior unit HQ/CP to report a contact (an exchange of fire) with the enemy and briefly outline who what where etc. so that they can get a picture of what is going on.

Why not simply utilise this real world procedure and have a ticker-tape wire flash up in the form of a textual contact report that can be clicked on to take you to the unit.

“CONTACT: Charlie-Two-One taking machine gun fire from north-east.”

“CONTACT: Charlie-Two-One enemy infantry element platoon strength engaged 300m our south.”

It is a simple event log with variables for [FF call sign/ID], [enemy unit type?], [enemy unit size?], [direction?], [distance?], [type of fire?] with the question marks being answered when know.

Anyway just a thought!

[John Kettler]

Pad152,

Precisely the same problem on the Amiga version of SSI's Red Lightning is what almost permanently soured me on computer wargames. The game was World War III fought in Germany with conventional and chemical weapons. The problem? The battle was fought over ten screens, and what galls you at a micro level cost me Germany at the macro level. Got so wrapped up in one screen that I won there and was completely overrun in the others. Way too much to keep track of! Fortunately, I later got into Panzer Elite and CMBO.

cassh,

Your idea has been done before, back in the Commodore 64 days, I believe. Don't recall the game's title, but it was in gray scale with little squares for units. When one took fire or something else went wrong, a message would appear as a crawl across the bottom of the screen.

Regards,

John Kettler

[dan/california]

The single most useful thing it can have is good formation commands and route finding. All units form standard column x or line abreast y ect.

[Battlefront.com]

cassh,

The problem with this is that it isn't so easy to do and have it work. I've played plenty of games with some sort of "report" function, either written or audio or both, and they don't work. Why? Too much information going on. You hear way too much chatter, or see too many bits of report text, that you tune them out. Especially when the stuff hits the fan.

What you want, in a game, is for a unit to report something significant. Significant in game terms generally means something you don't already know. That could be a unit showing up somewhere that you didn't think there was an enemy unit, it could be one of your guys cracking that you thought was handling itself fine, or it could be as simple as a dude having finished its movement and is now sitting around idle. We can put in hooks, very easily in fact, to report all of these things as they happen. What we can't do is figure out which ones are "old news" or "don't bug me with that!" types of information. So you instead get information overload and don't get any value from the system.

Now, this is completely different if you are in command of a very small force. For example, a platoon consisting of 3 Squads and an HQ where the smallest element "reporting" is a Squad or the HQ. In this case the information is going to be rather relevant and the volume low. It would probably work. But you're probably going to be commanding 30 units or so on average (reinforced Company). That's potentially 30 elements yapping at you at any given second. Even if one element reported only one time every minute that's some bit of information hitting you every other second.

So there is the conundrum!

Steve

[hoolaman]

I disagree with what (I think) Steve is saying.

An audio or text cue that some thing has been spotted or even more importantly that fire is being taken, similar to the "enemy armour ahead" sounds in CMx1, would be very useful. A tiny flash of text at bottom of screen would be very helpful in RT and helpful even in WEGO.

Whether it is worth delays in us getting the game is questionable but doing it in a way the player can ignore if they choose would be quite handy.

An even better idea is to make these messages to the player dependant upon certain C&C limitations: eg. a unit out of command cannot report a text alert to the player.

An example is the myriad of alerts that come up in HOI. You can check the "don't show this type of alert" box at any time if you feel a category of messages is not important.

[Kineas]

My idea: just report everything, and give the player filters ('log levels' if you like) with an UI so during gameplay he could change it anytime.

A scrollable text window would be fine.

Or an autoscrolling 3 line and an 'event viewer' dialog.

Sound messages are ok in the CMx1 way.

[Other Means]

I'd much prefer audio notification. If you get jumped and suddenly you've got 30 units yammering at you, well, tough. That's exactly what *would* happen.

[birdstrike]

Maybe something like an additional "report" command we could issue only to units we want to tell us about their information.

e.g. we could activate "report-mode" for recon squads, while units at the back, or already involved in heavy fighting could have it turned off.

[aka_tom_w]

What about good old "warning labels".

That was the best way in CMx1 IMHO

Turn on warning labels in the first turn, but they don't actually "pop up" until the unit has something to report. When the lead starts flying warning labels show up and you see where its from from very far away, like level 5 way up over the action.

NOW true, once you get into the battle everyone is reporting EVERYTHING and they all in trouble and all the labels are useless so then you turn off warning labels. That system worked very well for me.

Thanks

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Other Means is correct.

The problem I don't think you guys are grasping is that CMx1 used Absolute Spotting. Once an enemy unit was spotted we gave one shout and that was it. In Relative Spotting it becomes more difficult, because the same exact enemy unit might be spotted dozens of times. Think of it...

You are messing about with a platoon to defend against a T-72. You have another platoon which you think is not in LOS. If we have a single message for the unit being spotted then no matter what happens the other platoon won't alert you its in LOS now. If we don't have a single message then you're going to have a LOT of chatter. Way, way too much to deal with.

CMx1 also did not give any messages about outgoing friendly fire, guys reaching their objectives, or any other thing like that. Just the occasional one off message about something big coming your way. And that was just about it.

The scrollable message window is useless. You will not look at it, I can promise you that. At best it will start out as a distraction, then it will become a useless piece of UI. And there is nothing in the UI now that I would bump in favor of such a display, so it would have to be up in the 3D area, which is a bad idea since we already have a couple of pieces of UI already.

I've got some ideas how we can get you guys what you want without resorting to the stuff we've been talking about here. However, we are going to hold off until we get some real testing under our belts before we go and code it. Therefore, for now just know that I'm on the case

Steve

P.S. We will have some audio alerts, for sure, but you likely won't hear them unless you're close. More or less like CMx1

[Kineas]

Maybe you can assign an importance value to the (FOW affected) messages. And in any given secundum you only display the most important message, if any.

Btw have you thought about an end-turn report window in wego mode? It's easy to miss events even with the replay feature. Later, of course.