How long before ROE makes M1A2 suck dead donkeys in victory conditions

[Tero]

Can't say I did not go WOW when I read the choice for the settings.

Anyhoo, it all made me wonder about the bitesize the BFC has chosen.

Knowing the credo they have woved to upheld I can not see how they can not include ROE based victory conditions like "scratch that mosque and you will be covered ancle deep in manure, head first". Unless of course they will take to the Vietnam war era "in order to save the town we had to destroy it" line of actions. Since UN is in the mix I think that will not be very realistic though. In other words: what good is your more accurate heavy stuff if you can lose the game with the first well placed salvo during turn 0 ?

Another is the tech-spec aspect. For one, smoke screen isn't in the new game and I can not see how BFC can make do with a generic smoke for all occasions when even a poorer army can have all sorts of chemicals with multiple effects and composition. Then you have your classifieds which will make any and all speculation on the performance of the weapons systems impossible because the necessary tech-spec is not released and RL performance will not be reflecting the true capabilities.

I look forward with great anticipation to the first "Why does my M1A2 get killed so often by this-or-that supposedly inferior weapons system ?" piss-and-moan thread and how that will be resolved. Most propably all causes relating to M1's getting killed involve a bug of some sort in the game engine.

These are my first off thoughts. Any other pitfalls along these lines you may think of ?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Tero:

Knowing the credo they have woved to upheld I can not see how they can not include ROE based victory conditions like "scratch that mosque and you will be covered ancle deep in manure, head first".

Penalties for collateral damage were not included in CMX1, why assume they will be in CMX2 - unless I missed an admission by Steve?

[Dillweed]

From what I understand the game is going to be a "real" military op. Think Falluja not Mougadishu.

Your priorities are in order of importence

1) Taking ground/ killing bad guys

2) Keeping your men alive

3) Protecting civillians and their property

3 is ideal but 1 and 2 take priority. So civillian stuff not being modeled is not the biggest deal in the world.

[Barrold]

I wouldn't assume they were in, but I would think these kinds of political considerations are to be expected in this situation.

Different eras of course, but simply flattening a city block is not going to reflect well on the flattener.

Look at Fallujah. In a WWII situation, such a place would have been clobbered as a matter of course, but it was handled much more surgically.

If keeping a bunch of M.E. forces in some sort of coalition is part of the overall story, one would think excessive collateral damage would be included somehow.

I'll await official word before assuming it though.

BDH

[Dillweed]

Originally posted by Barrold:

I wouldn't assume they were in, but I would think these kinds of political considerations are to be expected in this situation.

Different eras of course, but simply flattening a city block is not going to reflect well on the flattener.

Look at Fallujah. In a WWII situation, such a place would have been clobbered as a matter of course, but it was handled much more surgically.

BDH

Think I read that something like 80% of the buildings were seriously damaged. In WW2 we would have just firebombed the whole city, but I'd hardly call Phantom Fury a "surgical operation"

[Barrold]

I said much more surgically. There wasn't widespread artillery barrages, carpet bombing, or extensive softening up of buildings unless enemy activity was more of less confirmed.

That there was damage is to be expected given the extent of the operation. It wasn't left as a huge pile of rubble as was often seen in WWII. That's all I'm saying.

BDH

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Penalties for collateral damage were not included in CMX1, why assume they will be in CMX2 - unless I missed an admission by Steve?

Collateral damage and how it affects the performance rating of the player is simply unavoidable when the game is set with parameters like this. Otherwise the game will not be accurate "historically" (for the lack of a better term).

[Tero]

Originally posted by Dillweed:

From what I understand the game is going to be a "real" military op. Think Falluja not Mougadishu.

I would say Beirut is more accurate as an example in most respects.

3 is ideal but 1 and 2 take priority. So civillian stuff not being modeled is not the biggest deal in the world.

Can you think of an Arab town without a mosque ? Even when no civilian stuff is modelled.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Penalties for collateral damage were not included in CMX1, why assume they will be in CMX2 - unless I missed an admission by Steve?

Collateral damage and how it affects the performance rating of the player is simply unavoidable when the game is set with parameters like this. Otherwise the game will not be accurate "historically" (for the lack of a better term).

CMX1 wasn't "historically accurate" in that regard either, so why should this one be? The designer sets the parameters; I am "getting" that this is a simulation of military equipment and manpower, not civilians and ROE. Unless I am still missing something?

[Sergei]

I thought Steve said rules of engagement were part of the thing? :confused:

[Tero]

Originally posted by Barrold:

I wouldn't assume they were in, but I would think these kinds of political considerations are to be expected in this situation.

Most military actions are also excercises in PR these days so with the background story like that there is no escaping the political aspect in such petty details as mission assignment. The game can not be a pure tech-spec military tactical simulation.

If keeping a bunch of M.E. forces in some sort of coalition is part of the overall story, one would think excessive collateral damage would be included somehow.

From the morale POV I would think that under the right circumstances even these coalition forces might turn on eachother or even the UN/US forces, even during the actual game.

I'll await official word before assuming it though.

This is a fishing trip.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sergei:

I thought Steve said rules of engagement were part of the thing? :confused:

I thought he meant as a way the game interface works - ie how the player gives orders to his soldiers - not necessarily how the soldiers interact within the game itself? :confused:

[Sergei]

Here's what Steve has said.

Civilians are much desired to include, but we're not going to be getting them in. For the kind of operation we are simulating they aren't extremely important. For Peace and Stability or Counter Insurgency ops they are critical. CM:SF isn't about either of those so we can get by without civilians. However, we do plan on being the first realistic simulation of civilians in a combat environment. Just not sure when we'll get to it

Yes, the new Victory Conditions do include ROE (Rules of Engagement) considerations along with others. For example, we will be able to weigh victory for stuff like "get your convoy to x location by y time without taking more than z casualties". We can do this in a way that is not necessarily apparent to the player ahead of time, or it can be explicate. In other words, Victory Conditions in CMx2 are going to be nothing like what they were in CMx1. That's one of the reasons why we expect CMx2 to be far more interesting

No mention of collateral damage. Hmm, in other words, MRLS'ing Damascus is a fair game?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

CMX1 wasn't "historically accurate" in that regard either, so why should this one be?

The setting is too close to contemporary reality to have enough immersion appeal if the game is degraded into FPS level killing spree with no regard to ROE. Or the ROE is not up to spec with the tech-spec accuracy.

If you have "unconventional" forces engaged in urban setting you gotta have penalties for hosing streets down with fletchette/beehive rounds with reckless abandon.

The designer sets the parameters; I am "getting" that this is a simulation of military equipment and manpower, not civilians and ROE.

ROE is an all important aspect in modern combat. With no ROE and related penalties for screwing the pooch.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Here's what Steve has said.

For Peace and Stability or Counter Insurgency ops they are critical. CM:SF isn't about either of those so we can get by without civilians.

He also said

The setting for CM:SF is 2007 Syria after a coup removes the current Assad government. I do not wish to go into the specifics of the backstory at this time, but the premise is that UN is called upon to remove the illegitimate regime.

Oh, and I actually kinda misses this bit:

The player commands these forces through an extensive, semi-dynamic campaign. The individual missions vary greatly from full up conventional fighting to small scale unconventional actions involving a few platoons.

To add insult to injury as it were it seems the new game is scripted.

Perhaps it will be the first CM:RPG. I wonder how they will implement multiplayer games though if there are no individual battles and no editor to make your own scenarios.

No mention of collateral damage. Hmm, in other words, MRLS'ing Damascus is a fair game?

Or perhaps the player simply gets his fire missions denied whenever they would be hitting too close to delicate terrain features.

A nice little deux ex machina, I'm sure.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I thought he meant as a way the game interface works - ie how the player gives orders to his soldiers - not necessarily how the soldiers interact within the game itself? :confused:

I thought that would be SOP more than ROE.

[Abbott]

To add insult to injury as it were it seems the new game is scripted.

Nah, just the Blue on Red solo-campaign is scripted. There will be scenarios, a quick battle generator. Blue on Red. Blue on Blue and Red on Red.

There has also been mention of a rough campaign generator of some type (maybe).

[Tero]

Originally posted by Abbott:

Nah, just the Blue on Red solo-campaign is scripted.

So we go back, oh, 15 years to the days of the very first C64 BoB game where you could get multiplayer Germans but solo games were all strictly RAF.

Now THAT is what I call progress.

Or was it Politically Correct approach to a deligate issue so as not to upset the US consumers when you can kill digital US servicemen in the best tech-spec accuracy available, courtesy of a US company.

There will be scenarios, a quick battle generator. Blue on Red. Blue on Blue and Red on Red.

OK. Still wading through the tidal wave of new data.

[Abbott]

Or was it Politically Correct approach to a deligate issue so as not to upset the US consumers

I would say that is a very good idea when they are your largest customers. But IIRC Steve explained making a campaign from the Red side may not be all that enjoyable for the solo player when a scenario may only include a sniper and some mines.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Quick follow ups...

Snipers, be they solo or in teams, are accurately portrayed. No abstractions like in CMx1.

Red on Red should be possible, yes. Probably a lot of fun too.

Suicide bombers are possible. IEDs for sure. IED counter measures are also planned.

MOUT warfare is indeed a central part of CM:SF, though there will be plenty of non-MOUT type scenarios in the Campaign. Remember there is a lot of variation on the type of urban environments. They can range from a small, but dense, town to something like the modern section of a large city. Mission type and forces radically affect the nature of combat and therefore the tactical challenges. We'll probably cut off building heights to 6 stories. From a tactical simulation standpoint more than that seems to be unnecessary as well as uncommon.

Steve

[ October 09, 2005, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Abbott:

I would say that is a very good idea when they are your largest customers.

Yup.

But IIRC Steve explained making a campaign from the Red side may not be all that enjoyable for the solo player when a scenario may only include a sniper and some mines.

Since the solo campaing is scripted why would the Red campaing have to be exactly the same as the Blue, only from the diffrent side ? I would assume the Red campaing could take different routes since I doubt the US side would be killing off the entire force, save one sniper and some mines, in every scenario.

[Abbott]

I am hoping to see user made Red campaigns. Steve also mentioned "Modules" that would/could add campaigns.

[Battlefront.com]

First off.. we will have vastly different means of figuring out Victory Conditions. These will be set, on an individual scenario basis (and global paremters for Campaign) to reflect various real world situations. For example, it is planned that you can assign a "don't damage this building more than x%" to something like a Mosque or map wide. Go in and blow up everything... you lose even if all the bad guys are dead. Move through to your Objectives and miss the fact that a bunch of bad guys were holed up in a building you decided to bypass instead of checking out, you lose again. So on and so forth.

The single player campaign is the NORMAL situation for games out there. Very, very few are two player. It is expected that few people are interested in playing multi-player campaigns, due to the time requirements. So why cater to something few people would ever play? Better to optimize the game experience and have a much more enjoyable and challenging campaign. That's why most campaigns are like this.

At a later date I will explain the CMx2 campaign system. As I said, it is semi-dynamic. That means two people playing the campaign will likely experience a different series of individual battles based on performance. This differes from a dynamic campaign where the battles themselves are created on-the-fly based on performance. The latter is extremely hard to do and have it be much fun. I hated the Steel Panthers campaign and Panzer General bored me to tears. CC2 was pretty good, but it also had serious problems with generating on-the-fly battles (I got in a rut once and was bounced back and forth between two stupid battles something like a half dozen times).

Will we include a campaign from the RED perspective? It is not currently planned, but I wouldn't rule it out. We'll just have to see how things develop.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

First off.. we will have vastly different means of figuring out Victory Conditions. These will be set, on an individual scenario basis (and global paremters for Campaign) to reflect various real world situations. For example, it is planned that you can assign a "don't damage this building more than x%" to something like a Mosque or map wide. Go in and blow up everything... you lose even if all the bad guys are dead. Move through to your Objectives and miss the fact that a bunch of bad guys were holed up in a building you decided to bypass instead of checking out, you lose again. So on and so forth.

Will this also be the way it is in QBs?

[Battlefront.com]

I'm not sure what to do with QBs yet when it comes to this stuff. This is one of the dilemas we faced even back in the CMBO days. Making QBs nothing less than randomized stand alone scenarios means keeping the features of scenarios rather limited. The other option, to make QBs far more powerful to keep up with better scenarios, is a terribly tough thing to do from a development standpoint. So... either we keep the creativity of scenarios to a level that QBs can keep up with or we allow the two to float independently of each other. To some extent we are going with the latter choice. However, to what extent I don't know yet. Ask me again in a couple of months.

Steve

[Martin Krejcirik]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

So... either we keep the creativity of scenarios to a level that QBs can keep up with or we allow the two to float independently of each other.

Steve

Don't limit scenarios, I woun't mind ditching QB altogether if necessary. QB's are unrealistic.