The Wrong Left Turn and the Uncanny Valley

[Guest]

M1 Tank Platoon II was in my opinion a worthy successor to the crown.

And no, you wouldn't need to reimplement CMx1 if you started over from scratch, just cherry-pick the best stuff. That's what BFC did with CMx2.

[dalem]

Nothing much else going on so I thought I'd bump Michael's excellent thread.

Can faux 1:1 really be made to work?

-dale

[Hev]

Love the original post, very engaging and thoughtfull.....

Now for my two pence worth, I reckon the differences (the things that they changed between CMx1 and CMx2) are irelevant (bar one), its the fact that none of the new fetures work properly.

If guys moved between buildings properly and the fire from your guys looked realistic ie: thier individual fire hit individual locations (and all the other niggles were fixed) we would have a game that was SIMPLY THE BEST (needs to be read in best tina turner voice )

Imagine what the CMx2 ww2 title would look like with fixed mechanics..... OMG! Im getting wood just thinking about the massed artilery and the heavy machine gun barrages

Now to back track a little, the only thing *I* think they did wrong was not to include the QB generator.

Before if you wanted to test the defence capabilties of cooks with heavy tank support you could set it up in seconds, now you have to build the WHOLE scenario first!

Gone are the days of filling your spare hours with spur of the moment "what if" scenarios

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Hev:

Love the original post, very engaging and thoughtfull.....

Now for my two pence worth, I reckon the differences (the things that they changed between CMx1 and CMx2) are irelevant (bar one), its the fact that none of the new fetures work properly.

If guys moved between buildings properly and the fire from your guys looked realistic ie: thier individual fire hit individual locations (and all the other niggles were fixed) we would have a game that was SIMPLY THE BEST (needs to be read in best tina turner voice )

Imagine what the CMx2 ww2 title would look like with fixed mechanics..... OMG! Im getting wood just thinking about the massed artilery and the heavy machine gun barrages

Now to back track a little, the only thing *I* think they did wrong was not to include the QB generator.

Before if you wanted to test the defence capabilties of cooks with heavy tank support you could set it up in seconds, now you have to build the WHOLE scenario first!

Gone are the days of filling your spare hours with spur of the moment "what if" scenarios

Fine post! It's not the fact that the Forum has turned on BFC despite what some of the Beta Testers portray. WE all know that BFC is staffed by a good bunch of guys. I am looking forward to a wonderful gaming future with the CMII game engine, once it's fixed and working properly I will cheerfully ante up for it. I may pass on Shock Force but I don't think that BFC has given up on quality in their products. I just think Shock Force could have used more work (which it appears to be now getting) and that many of us were a bit stunned by the losses from the original game (s) and the state of Shock Force upon it's release. Personally I am still overcome by the loss of the simple and elegant Combat Mission interface. But I still have high hopes for BFC's future releases.

Edit to add:

Steve did say that we got "to much" from earlier releases for our dollar and that less for more is what they need to provide to stay viable as a company (or sumfink like that). I guess that may mean that once all the modules are purchased for a particular release it will be what I (we?) were expecting from BFC and their long line of fantastic Combat Mission games. I played Squad Leader, Cross of Iron and Crescendo of Doom back in the day, I never opted to buy GI:Anvil to Victory and only purchased Crescendo of Doom because COI was so fantastic...maybe that is where we are headed? Anyway I haven't given up, I will just wait awhile.

[ November 20, 2007, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[GSX]

Seems strange to me that Mr Dorosh was one of the field testers for this game, and even he seems to have disappeared from this site, maybe he has fallen on his sword?

[hoolaman]

I agree with Hev's post above, with the exception that I think the original post of the thread was silly and rambling.

While he admits several times that his thoughts are rhetorical, MD seems to just be pining after a few boardgames + CMx1.

The things that constrain what you might call "playability" in a 1970's boardgame are not the same things that constrain a 2000's pc game.

What was he really complaining about?

* reams of data for the computer to sift through. So much data, that we can't have WEGO TCP play anymore. We were almost in danger of PBEM being cut out, too.

* individual bullet tracking is in, but what about the brain behind the gun? There is no data on personalities; every soldier in every squad is a cookie cutter with the same physical - and mental - attributes as his mates.

* area fire commands still snap to an 8 metre grid; machine guns don't rack entire building fronts; they hammer a single window on the front of a building.

* map scale is reduced; where we could play comfortably on 4 square kilometres in CM:BB, high end systems chug away on maps smaller than that in CM:SF. Real time control of anything more than a reinforced platoon on a "medium" map is probably impossible in most situations anyway if anything like actual tactics are going to be employed against a human opponent using a dynamic defence.

That plus a few complaints about the QB editor, LOS issues etc? Seems like just padding out the same old complaints about about the game in a JasonC length philosophical epic.

None of these issues are a result of the concept, but only as a result of the implementation. The team designing and coding CMSF put these restrictions in on purpose because thats the best they could come up with under the conditions. The future, maybe even the not-too-distant future may see all these improved dramatically.

Given a bigger programming team, more resources, and more clout with hardware makers, with the same design philosphy of 1:1, this game could have been all that was promised. Therefore it is not the fault of the basic 1:1 philosophy, but BFC may indeed have bitten off more than they can chew.

[z1812]

Hi All,

The original post is spot on the money. Well done Mr. Dorosh.

regards John

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by GSX:

Seems strange to me that Mr Dorosh was one of the field testers for this game, and even he seems to have disappeared from this site, maybe he has fallen on his sword?

Maybe you need to get your eyes checked?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

I agree with Hev's post above, with the exception that I think the original post of the thread was silly and rambling.

While he admits several times that his thoughts are rhetorical, MD seems to just be pining after a few boardgames + CMx1.

The things that constrain what you might call "playability" in a 1970's boardgame are not the same things that constrain a 2000's pc game.

What was he really complaining about?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> * reams of data for the computer to sift through. So much data, that we can't have WEGO TCP play anymore. We were almost in danger of PBEM being cut out, too.

* individual bullet tracking is in, but what about the brain behind the gun? There is no data on personalities; every soldier in every squad is a cookie cutter with the same physical - and mental - attributes as his mates.

* area fire commands still snap to an 8 metre grid; machine guns don't rack entire building fronts; they hammer a single window on the front of a building.

* map scale is reduced; where we could play comfortably on 4 square kilometres in CM:BB, high end systems chug away on maps smaller than that in CM:SF. Real time control of anything more than a reinforced platoon on a "medium" map is probably impossible in most situations anyway if anything like actual tactics are going to be employed against a human opponent using a dynamic defence.

That plus a few complaints about the QB editor, LOS issues etc? Seems like just padding out the same old complaints about about the game in a JasonC length philosophical epic.

None of these issues are a result of the concept, but only as a result of the implementation. The team designing and coding CMSF put these restrictions in on purpose because thats the best they could come up with under the conditions. The future, maybe even the not-too-distant future may see all these improved dramatically.

Given a bigger programming team, more resources, and more clout with hardware makers, with the same design philosphy of 1:1, this game could have been all that was promised. Therefore it is not the fault of the basic 1:1 philosophy, but BFC may indeed have bitten off more than they can chew. </font>

[hoolaman]

In what way? Sure I like to argue but I think I acknowledge when a point is well made. I don't think yours was.

You started a thread about design philosphy and give examples of more and less elegant board-game designs. You then cite problems with CMSF presumably in evidence that a simpler more "Design for Effect" would not have introduced these problems. You then say 1:1 may not be the wrong way to go after all, and we can't go back to CMBB, but cite more boardgames as evidence that abstraction is good.

Eight pages of replies including mine gave a pretty solid argument that the 1:1 design is fine, if only it weren't buggy and poorly implemented.

Hypothetically if BFC had more resources the game would have been less buggy and better implemented, that is not idiotic.

So I think I make a pretty good non-contradictory argument, and I don't think your original post was brilliant or even very good. Don't take it personally.

[hoolaman]

I should also add for completeness that a significant percentage of the replies in these eight pages argue that 1:1 in CMSF is bad, is mis-matched with the underlying engine, and the sacrifices that have been made to put it in there are not worth it. These are valid points, but are all based on the reality, not the philosophy.

If you want to argue that CMSF as it stands will never be a good game or a satisfying simulation; that BFC has bitten off more than it can chew, ok, that is entirely possible.

But that is a different thing to arguing that a game of this type should not be attempted because it is fundamentally too hard to get right and will never be capable of suspension of disbelief. I don't agree with that at all.

It seems in your OP you are kind of putting up the first point in evidence of the second.

You said:

Just because we have a computer to do the computations for us, it doesn't make the design philosophy any more "correct."

It doesn't have to make it less correct either. The things that make a tabletop game playable are different to the things that make a PC game playable. A good boardgame design produces good results but doesn't require you to take all week calculating turns.

If a computer can do these more complex calculations seamlessly, even if it just for the sake of better graphics, why not?

[ November 20, 2007, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

[dalem]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

The things that make a tabletop game playable are different to the things that make a PC game playable.

BUT some things that would make a bad tabletop game also make a bad computer game. Like scale mismatch.

-dale

[redbear]

This is a excellent post is right on the money. I think that the game will improve with the modules, that the modules won just be a new units added will come with a better representation of 1:1 this game is still on development.

[76mm]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

You started a thread about design philosphy and give examples of more and less elegant board-game designs...Eight pages of replies including mine gave a pretty solid argument that the 1:1 design is fine, if only it weren't buggy and poorly implemented.

I don't think that Michael's argument is essentially about "bugginess"--as someone else on this thread pointed out, the problem with 1:1 design is that to do it you either need to:

1) have players control each of the individual soldiers--I think everyone agrees that this is not workable and certainly not fun;

OR

2) Hand this level of control completely over to a TacAI, which is really just another form of computer-driven abstraction and incredibly difficult to implement well, given how difficult it is to program an AI to handle all of the situations that arise in this kind of game. If the AI explicitly tries to model and represent 1:1 action in the game, it will inevitably (pending significant advances in AI development) leave players asking "why are my soldiers acting like idiots/zombies/automatons?" BFC certainly has outstanding programmer(s), but do they have the resources to develop a "next-level" AI that can make individual pixel troopers behave in a believable manner under all circumstances?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by 76mm:

2) Hand this level of control completely over to a TacAI, which is really just another form of computer-driven abstraction and incredibly difficult to implement well,

Or possibly just "difficult to make look like it is implemented well."

I have no intention of re-entering this debate, but I think the original post has been well understood by 76mm. I think with the patches, there has been cause for many people to shift their viewpoint. And as I understood it then, and have had no reason to change my belief, there is a LOT going on "under the hood" that HAS been "implemented well." As we all gain in experience with the game, and more suggestions are being implemented into the newer versions, we are all getting a truer vision of what CM:SF is capable of, myself certainly included.

That's all I will say on this.

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by 76mm:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hoolaman:

You started a thread about design philosphy and give examples of more and less elegant board-game designs...Eight pages of replies including mine gave a pretty solid argument that the 1:1 design is fine, if only it weren't buggy and poorly implemented.

I don't think that Michael's argument is essentially about "bugginess"--as someone else on this thread pointed out, the problem with 1:1 design is that to do it you either need to:

1) have players control each of the individual soldiers--I think everyone agrees that this is not workable and certainly not fun;

OR

2) Hand this level of control completely over to a TacAI, which is really just another form of computer-driven abstraction and incredibly difficult to implement well, given how difficult it is to program an AI to handle all of the situations that arise in this kind of game. If the AI explicitly tries to model and represent 1:1 action in the game, it will inevitably (pending significant advances in AI development) leave players asking "why are my soldiers acting like idiots/zombies/automatons?" BFC certainly has outstanding programmer(s), but do they have the resources to develop a "next-level" AI that can make individual pixel troopers behave in a believable manner under all circumstances? </font>

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[76mm]

there is a LOT going on "under the hood" that HAS been "implemented well."

I've just been playing this game for a few weeks, as I was out of town for a long time, so please excuse if my questions have all been answered long ago.

But can anyone explain to me how the 8m "Action Spot" grid (or whatever it is) allows for 1:1? From what I've seen on the forum, no one seems to really understand how the Action Spots work, but it is not really intuitive how having LOS/LOF based on 8 meter can allow for implementation of 1:1, at least for infantry, especially in MOUT ops.

My biggest complaint though (and the reason I haven't even been able to complete a single scenario), is that too often my troops just sit there like inert blobs and get blown away without even returning fire. Occasionally they will, but too often they won't. Sometimes I can get them to fire back by manually giving them orders, but sometimes not. Is this a "feature" or an AI glitch? Who knows? Maybe I'm just doing something wrong, or maybe I would recognize some genius on Battlefront's part if I understood what was going on based on designer's notes, etc. But right now I find it frustrating and unfun.

[76mm]

Double post.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'm afraid it's not true 1:1 but an approximation of 1:1. Some people decry the 8x8 grid but it's a bit better then most people suppose. In short the 8x8 grid is principally used to determine if LOS is possible. If yes, then a more fine grained LOS check determines whether or not it actually does.

The system itself is quite good but has some rough edges that need smoothing out and the odd bug that needs fixing.

Various possible reasons why your squad got shot to pieces without returning fire. Spotting of enemy squads in buildings is particulairly difficult. Definitely too difficult when they are firing, IMHO. Also the range of the M4 is a mere 300m so beyond that someone with a bigger gun is going to shoot you to pieces. Did the SAW or the marksman return fire?

[76mm]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

I'm afraid it's not true 1:1 but an approximation of 1:1. Some people decry the 8x8 grid but it's a bit better then most people suppose. In short the 8x8 grid is principally used to determine if LOS is possible. If yes, then a more fine grained LOS check determines whether or not it actually does.

Thanks for this clarification; hopefully they'll figure out how to overcome the shortcomings of this approach in urban terrain. My brain hurts just thinking about it...

Also the range of the M4 is a mere 300m so beyond that someone with a bigger gun is going to shoot you to pieces. Did the SAW or the marksman return fire?

It's happened to me many times with both infantry and vehicles, so it is hard to generalize. But if my guys are in a building and don't fire back (against small arms fire), I kinda thought they'd at least hunker down and survive. But they got wiped out. I guess they picked the wrong building!

Anyway, I need to play around with the game more, but between the interface, realtime, and the need to pay so much attention to individual units trying to get them to fire, etc., it is taking me a while to get the hang of this system.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Learn to cope with the interface or realtime. Both... not a great idea.

And don't worry too much about the above issues, 1.05 is much better IMHO.

[Hev]

The action spots have to play more of a role then just checking to see if LOS is "possable"

Most of us have seen outgoing fire "snap-to" the center of an action spot so i imagine something deeper is going on.

The thing i realy dont get is this: If the action spots in CMx1 were 20 meters and the CMx2 spots are 8 meters, why did we never see this sort of thing in the previous games?

[hoolaman]

I am pretty sure the underlying grid in cmx1 was 1x1 or thereabouts.

Thats why you could get a 20x20 map tile with road, scattered trees and grass and have guys either in them or out of them.

Since nobody knows exactly how CMSF works, we can't compare the two, but Steve has stated himself that CMx1 was capable of much better resolution of LOS.

He also stated that the action spot hexes are used in pathing, LOS and LOF calculations, not just for an easy way to do a coarse LOS check.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

I am pretty sure the underlying grid in cmx1 was 1x1 or thereabouts.

Close. It was 2 x 2. Treeburst155 had some brilliant terrain mods that identified the grid down to the pixel.