Idea and a question

[C'Rogers]

The following is a battlefront quote from a little while back.

Having said that, there are no 60 second hardcoded assumptions in CMx2 like there were in CMx1. So who knows... we might allow players to set their own turn times (within reason).

Firstly the more I have thought about it the more the above sounds like a good idea and hope it is implemented.

If it is though would be possible to have different turns in the game be different lengths?

By this I mean say there would be a 30 minute battle, the first three turns would be two minutes, with the next 24 turns being a standard one minute.

The reason this came to mind was tonight I was trying my first PBEM game with a friend. The one thing that came to mind that all we were doing the first couple turns was just open file, watch and see nothing happen, keep the same orders, resend.

Now fortunatly we were going pretty fast because we were both active and doing this more as a test run, but I have a feeling if we were going at a "normal" pace it might take a couple days before we actually got around to serious turns.

If the scenario designer could make the first turns longer this could speed the process up (with the latter turns being shorter this would speed it up without really changing the game). And if the scenario designer wanted he could make the last few minutes say 30 second turns if he expected a lot of heavy action. So you could have (as just a random example) a thirty minute battle with the first six minutes in three turns, the next twenty minutes as twenty turns, and the last four minutes as eight turns.

A minor point at best I realize, certainly wouldn't be a dramatic improvement, but one I thought to be worth mentioning.

Now a question. The following quote is from Winecape's synopsis thread.

8. Mouseholing is now possible.

What's mouseholing? My educated guess would be making little holes in walls to shoot/look out of via the term.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

If it is though would be possible to have different turns in the game be different lengths?

I would like to have each side have "turn lengths" idependent of the other side's, and for these to depend on when the commander was entitled to make a decision or change of orders (a decision point being reached in a plan, or a report arriving of something requiring a change of plan, or a phase being completed).

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

Now a question. [snips] What's mouseholing? My educated guess would be making little holes in walls to shoot/look out of via the term.

Pretty close -- what you describe I would call loopholing, moseholing is when you make a hole in a wall to move from room to room without having to go out into the street.

All the best,

John.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

...moseholing [sic] is when you make a hole in a wall to move from room to room without having to go out into the street.

John, would that term also apply to making a hole in a wall that does not have a door in order to enter a building from outside?

Michael

[Colin]

IIRC mouse-holing is the interior walls. It was of course used in Stalingrad moving warehouse to warehouse.

As far as CM is concerned however, I believe they are the same.

[MikeyD]

...and used by Israel on several occasions on the west Bank(?), to avoid strolling down the sniper-filled street.

Back to the question of variable-continuous turns. I'm wondering, in 'realtime' mode how will autosave work? Now CMx1 opens to the previous autosaved turn. How much movement we're likely to lose when we reopen after a crash in the new engine when there aren't 'turns' to revert to!

[Sirocco]

I think variable turn lengths as you describe would be a bad idea in practise. It depends on battles being predictable, with them being played out as expected, thus encouraging more "pre-defined" scenarios. I'm in favour, however, of players being able to set their own turn lengths, with the ability to change them in game. I know players will be able to pause the game and issue orders anyway, but I think some players would find that useful.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

[snips]

John, would that term also apply to making a hole in a wall that does not have a door in order to enter a building from outside?

I think I would call that "breaching", but that's purely a feeling based on no doctrinally-approved sources.

Then again, I would enter a building from the street through an existing opening, because the point is to get indoors off the street as quickly as possible, preferring windows to doors and upper stories to lower (if accessible, which is the hard bit -- I've never really believed that mucking about with ladders in FIBUA is a good idea).

Then again again, there might be reasons for holing a wall other than to clamber through it in person. I think it was Sydney Jary who summed up the essence of FIBUA as trying to knock a hole in a building so that flame could be introduced.

All the best,

John.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

I think variable turn lengths as you describe would be a bad idea in practise. It depends on battles being predictable, with them being played out as expected, thus encouraging more "pre-defined" scenarios. I'm in favour, however, of players being able to set their own turn lengths, with the ability to change them in game. I know players will be able to pause the game and issue orders anyway, but I think some players would find that useful.

I don't see how variable-length bounds depend on the course of a battle being predictable. Rather, they are an attempt to get away from the traditional but entirely silly wargamerism that commanders will have a chance to change all their orders at regular intervals. In particular, there is simply no way you can get inside your opponent's Boyd loop when each player goes around their command cycle in lock step at exactly the same small and regular interval.

All the best,

John.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

...I would enter a building from the street through an existing opening, because the point is to get indoors off the street as quickly as possible...

Exception: If the building contains live and armed enemy troops, it is reasonable to suppose that they will be covering existing openings. Assuming that you don't simply wish to demolish the building, approaching it from a blind side and blasting your own opening might be the safest way to get inside and subdue the occupants. Consider the case of a rescue mission for hostages, for instance.

Michael

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt:

...I would enter a building from the street through an existing opening, because the point is to get indoors off the street as quickly as possible...

Exception: If the building contains live and armed enemy troops, it is reasonable to suppose that they will be covering existing openings.

</font>

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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

I think variable turn lengths as you describe would be a bad idea in practise. It depends on battles being predictable, with them being played out as expected, thus encouraging more "pre-defined" scenarios. I'm in favour, however, of players being able to set their own turn lengths, with the ability to change them in game. I know players will be able to pause the game and issue orders anyway, but I think some players would find that useful.

I don't see how variable-length bounds depend on the course of a battle being predictable. Rather, they are an attempt to get away from the traditional but entirely silly wargamerism that commanders will have a chance to change all their orders at regular intervals. In particular, there is simply no way you can get inside your opponent's Boyd loop when each player goes around their command cycle in lock step at exactly the same small and regular interval.</font>

[juan_gigante]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys

Consider the case of a rescue mission for hostages, for instance.

When terrorists took over the Iranian embassy in London, SAS entered both through windows and through holes made in the walls with sledgehammers. I know that many CT forces have sledgehammers available for this purpose. I'm pretty sure that the Seattle PD SWAT team does.

[Fly Pusher]

I was wondering if the TAC AI could provide feedback to the game engine to define how much was 'going on'. Then the end of the turn could be defined as occuring after enough has happened to require a new orders phase (with thresholds at both extremes to prevent things getting out of hand).

In this way long march routes where nothing much is happening may stretct to 2-3 mins and super hectic all out mayhem may be sufficient to fill a 20-30 second turn.

Just a thought....

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

The point is if scenario designers define the turn lengths; shorter turns here, longer ones there. That pre-supposes the approach you're going to take as a player.

Ah, I see. I agree that having the scenario designer determine the bound length would be a bad idea. But I said a bound should end at "a decision point being reached in a plan, or a report arriving of something requiring a change of plan, or a phase being completed". Those would depend on how the player made his plan. I don't see how any of those depends on the scenario designer, unless the scenario included part of the higher plan that the commander represented by the player had to conform to (a real-life constraint I think most wargamers would be unwilling to be bound by).

With the important proviso that it's not "when the player sees a need to do so", but "when the simulated commander has the information avialable to him to do so". Again, probably a fair reflection of command constraints that exist in real life, but a mechanism some wargamers would think of as "no fun". And it would definitely involve transmogrifying CM into what Kip Anderson calls a "command game". I'd love it, and I suspect quite a lot of CMers would enjoy the challenge of fighting a company or battalion with the very few levers of control a real OC or CO has; but it hardly sounds a commercial proposition when a plooky youth's dollar is worth as much as anyone else's. I wonder if there would be a commercially worthwhile market for such a game aimed at the more mature wargaming audience, and priced around, say, the $150 mark? $250? $500? Considering that people buy new PCs with their gaming needs in mind, I find it hard to believe that the serious gaming market couldn't bear products at these prices and higher.

All the best,

John.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

I wonder if there would be a commercially worthwhile market for such a game aimed at the more mature wargaming audience, and priced around, say, the $150 mark? $250? $500? Considering that people buy new PCs with their gaming needs in mind, I find it hard to believe that the serious gaming market couldn't bear products at these prices and higher.

What kind of phone would you need to play it on?

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

When terrorists took over the Iranian embassy in London, SAS entered both through windows and through holes made in the walls with sledgehammers. [snips]

Yes, but those were interior plaster walls, not external structural walls (thus qualifying as "mouseholing").

All the best,

John.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt:

I wonder if there would be a commercially worthwhile market for such a game aimed at the more mature wargaming audience, and priced around, say, the $150 mark? $250? $500? Considering that people buy new PCs with their gaming needs in mind, I find it hard to believe that the serious gaming market couldn't bear products at these prices and higher.

What kind of phone would you need to play it on? </font>

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

But I said a bound should end at "a decision point being reached in a plan, or a report arriving of something requiring a change of plan, or a phase being completed".

Well, that would be an interesting spin, although, as you point out, it's a real niche feature. And it would be a nightmare to code, not to mention opening a can of worms related to C&C issues which we'd be arguing about here given every little oddity that cropped up.

And, in actual fact, I suspect that the new C&C features might just obliquely do what you, and many others - myself included - are looking for the game engine to do. Time will tell.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

[snips] And it would be a nightmare to code,

Errh, why?

People have been writing discrete-event simulations (i.e., with variable-length intervals between events) on computers at least since 1959.

Are you one of these callow youths who programs video/phone/PDA/toaster devices, and thinks Java is an advanced O-O language?

All the best,

John.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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

[snips] And it would be a nightmare to code,

People have been writing discrete-event simulations (i.e., with variable-length intervals between events) on computers at least since 1959.</font>

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt:

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

[snips] And it would be a nightmare to code,

People have been writing discrete-event simulations (i.e., with variable-length intervals between events) on computers at least since 1959.</font>

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt:

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

[snips] And it would be a nightmare to code,

People have been writing discrete-event simulations (i.e., with variable-length intervals between events) on computers at least since 1959.</font>

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

[snips]

You're not changing the scheduling, you're suggesting intervention at a point in time defined by events. And defining what constitutes an event is where the problem arises.

While something might be obvious as an event to you and I, coding that to a reliable standard is much more complex and time consuming, because events have to be set into context.

It's not the events themselves that trigger the intervention points, but the commander becoming aware of the fact that the situation requires his attention.

Of course, the nervous commander could insist on SITREPs every five minutes, so as to be sure not to miss anything, but he could also be pretty sure (assuming a reasonable model of how his subordinate comanders direct their attention) of nothing ever getting done.

All this involves focusing on rather a different set of things to model than those that traditionally fascinate direct-fire modellers, but I cannot see how that translates into "complexity" or any particular difficulty in coding.

"It would make CM into a command game" is an argument I can accept for Battlefront not doing it, but "It's too hard to code" is not.

All the best,

John.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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

[snips]

You're not changing the scheduling, you're suggesting intervention at a point in time defined by events. And defining what constitutes an event is where the problem arises.

While something might be obvious as an event to you and I, coding that to a reliable standard is much more complex and time consuming, because events have to be set into context.

It's not the events themselves that trigger the intervention points, but the commander becoming aware of the fact that the situation requires his attention.

[snip]

"It would make CM into a command game" is an argument I can accept for Battlefront not doing it, but "It's too hard to code" is not.</font>

[C'Rogers]

I think variable turn lengths as you describe would be a bad idea in practise. It depends on battles being predictable, with them being played out as expected, thus encouraging more "pre-defined" scenarios.

Yes the suggestion make a big predicition on the part of the scenario creator, but he is already making a big predicition when he sets how long the battle will be.

The suggestion was meant more as a possible way to speed up early turns then an option to make battles more realistic.

Perhaps a simpler and more doable idea would be if turns are variable then the variable could be changed by both players during the game. If nothing is really happening both players could agree to lengten the turns (or if the action is heavy they could agree to shorten it).

I was wondering if the TAC AI could provide feedback to the game engine to define how much was 'going on'. Then the end of the turn could be defined as occuring after enough has happened to require a new orders phase (with thresholds at both extremes to prevent things getting out of hand).

I once had a similair discussion about something like that being implement for operations. That the operation would end when the action toned down and go into longer turns. Ideally that would be great, though I doubt the feasibility a bit.

As a side note: Will operations be around at all in the CMx2 engine or have they been done away with? I haven't really seen any mention of them.

Thanks for the replies on what mouseholing is (even if the exact answer is debated).