CMSF and Platoon SOPs

[Bil Hardenberger]

After reading the RTS plans for CMSF I was initially very satisifed as I think this is going to be the way to go for the most realistic experience.

Upon reflection though, it seems that there might be a few problems with this in action.

1. If the units are given orders as in CMx1 (i.e. one at a time) then this are really going to be problems being able to keep up with the action, even for a Company level action (3 Platoons).

2. Steve hinted at some sort of SOP to help the TacAI.. but I am hesitant to buy into this without seeing it in action, or even in outline form...

3. I think you are going to have a click fest just giving orders to your units, changing orders, babysitting units as they close... etc. That is, not without having to constantly pause the action.. which would IMO defeat the purpose for the real time action.

Now some things that might help are detailed Platoon SOPs (that are standardized, but flexible enough that they can be changed as needed, similar to TacOps), and Platoon orders.

Platoon orders could be fairly generic.. but with the proper SOP's I think it would be possible to replicate any real order/action drill a Platoon might receive... sure in CMx1 you can get a Platoon into any real world formation.. but it would quickly fall apart in action.. even when there was no enemy activity. Some in game help in this area would be much appreciated.

I know its still early, and Steve and Co. have not released all of their plans (especially the UI for units larger than Squad)... but I thought it important enough to post about. Hopefully Steve can shed some light on the plans.. or send me an ALPHA version to shut me up

Bil

[Battlefront.com]

Bil,

This is a what I had to say in another thread (slight edits) about why there will be no detailed Platoon or Company based SOPs:

"Because it is a ton of work, that's why Yes, in theory we can do formations and the AI that goes with it, but man oh man oh man is it a lot of work. If we had to only do ONE formation for ONE type of vehicle in ONE type of situation... no problemo. But that's not the way things are.

One of the fundamental problems with doing this sort of AI work. First, we have to define what a formation is and what SOPs go along for each vehicle within the formation. Nex we have to define positions within a specific type of formation, what is expected of each position, what it should do in the event it can't keep in formation, how it should react to different types of threats in order to remain consistent with the formation, and probably other things like this. Then w Then we have to create a decision matrix for a simulated Platoon Leader so that he chooses the correct formation for the setting. And to do that the simulated Platoon Leader needs to know what all the possible settings are and how good, or bad, a particular formation is for each one. That, of course, means programming all possible formations and their parameters. Then we have to move along and do the same thing for Company level since the parameters are not inherently the same. Nor are the formations. Then we have to do this for every other type of unit, then do entirely different matrix so that the chosen formations and parameters can be influenced by what formations and parameters units that it is working with are using.

It's a big, stinking mess of AI work. Yes, the FMs and TMs make a lot of this work much, much easier... but it still means a lot of coding work. All the FMs and TMs do is make it more likely that the end result of all that work has a decent chance of generally working as intended.

We'd like to do formations, and I think we will someday, but it certainly will not be in CM:SF. I doubt it will even be in CM's second release."

Are we concerned that RealTime will be a click fest? Any game designer that says he isn't concerned is basically saying he doesn't care. I care, so yeah I am concerned All I can say is that we'll see how things go when we have a reasonable environment coded to identify the potential pitfalls.

One reason I am not overly concerned about the click fest potential is that the pace of CMx2 should be MUCH slower than CMx1 for a lot of reasons. The pace in CMx1, as we have discussed many times over, is unrealistically fast. Having detailed Platoon SOPs would probably, to some degree, speed things up again. That in and of itself wouldn't be a good thing.

Oh, and Bil... I haven't forgotten that you are one of the strongest advocates for a Command Level game so I'm not surprised by your post I suspect your standards for "click fest" are different than mine. Still, your concerns are valid since we don't want a click fest either, regardless of the level of control we are aiming for.

Steve

[JeF]

Hi,

I'm with Bil on this matter. We all know what game he has in mind. I had dream that some of the ideas developped in Airborne Assault would percolate into CMx2.

I understand that it is much more difficult to do in a tactical game that in an operational one. There are much more variable to handle for the AI. But some simple formation code wouldn't be so hard to do and migh save a lot of time to players while units move to contact.

My 2 cents,

JeF.

[Battlefront.com]

"Simple" formation code isn't simple Well, not if you want them to work the way you guys want them to. There is so much that goes into even small AI decision processes at the tactical level that NOTHING is simple. At the operational level it is almost the opposite. Good AI is still hard to get, but it comes more from the higher level decision making and not lower level "formations". The reason is fidelity.

In a CM game it matters if your tank is 1.2m too far forward of a piece of cover terrain. It matters when one squad is out of LOS with another one for even a small amount of time. It matters if the terrain transitions from dense urban to a city park. At the operational level very little matters other than the higher level stuff, which is also needed for tactical level games.

Go into CMx1 and purchase a platoon of tanks, randomly generate a map, and try to move them from A to B against no opposition. Each turn write down your thought process for choosing the formation, paths, and things like arcs. Keep this up each turn even if you don't change a thing (i.e. justify why you should stay with what you have). Do this for 120 times to simulate roughly 30 minutes worth of TacAI decision making (i.e. the TacAI would need to reevaluate every 10 seconds or so).

Now, do this same thing for other randomly generated maps using different random generated variables.

Now do this with other friendly units.

Now do this with enemy units.

Now do this again about 200 times to get a sense for the variables you need to focus on, roughly what weights to assign them, and then create flow charts that explain when to do what and when based on a wide range of situations (terrain, weather, enemy, type of mission, etc.).

Now picture us doing this in code.

Now picture this being "easy"

Steve

[RSColonel_131st]

Well...okay

If formations and stuff are out, how about generic "platoon-wide" orders?

For example, it would be nice to get all units in a platoon to mount/unmount their transports with a single click or two.

[Battlefront.com]

I would like there to be some Formation type Commands. However, I don't think there are many that would be useful. Dismount is one, but most all Commands require very specific parameters based on conditional elements. We'll see what we can do since the benefits of group orders is obvious.

Steve

[Bil Hardenberger]

Steve, I think all I am asking for is some simple controls (for at least this and the second release.. after that?) to help control the Platoons without having to constantly give them orders.

Simple formations for Platoons: Wedge, Line, Column, Vee, etc... just something that can help them maintain distance and position while moving, (for example a TP in Column on a road).

Eventually things like bounding overwatch and other movement techniques would be nice... but for now, just something to help control the Platoons. Especially in RT.

Oh, and it would be nice if turret orientation and scanning direction were automatic as well dependant on formation.

Bil

[M1A1TC]

I already asked for formations and SOPs, and Steve posted that it is too hard to do. Read about it under "CMx2's new movement system explained " thread. I was dissapointed to hear that very much.

Here is it again:

"Because it is a ton of work, that's why Yes, in theory we can do formations and the AI that goes with it, but man oh man oh man is it a lot of work. If we had to only do ONE formation for ONE type of vehicle in ONE type of situation... no problemo. But that's not the way things are.

One of the fundamental problems with doing this sort of AI work. First, we have to define what a formation is and what SOPs go along for each vehicle within the formation. Nex we have to define positions within a specific type of formation, what is expected of each position, what it should do in the event it can't keep in formation, how it should react to different types of threats in order to remain consistent with the formation, and probably other things like this. Then w Then we have to create a decision matrix for a simulated Platoon Leader so that he chooses the correct formation for the setting. And to do that the simulated Platoon Leader needs to know what all the possible settings are and how good, or bad, a particular formation is for each one. That, of course, means programming all possible formations and their parameters. Then we have to move along and do the same thing for Company level since the parameters are not inherently the same. Nor are the formations. Then we have to do this for every other type of unit, then do entirely different matrix so that the chosen formations and parameters can be influenced by what formations and parameters units that it is working with are using.

It's a big, stinking mess of AI work. Yes, the FMs and TMs make a lot of this work much, much easier... but it still means a lot of coding work. All the FMs and TMs do is make it more likely that the end result of all that work has a decent chance of generally working as intended.

We'd like to do formations, and I think we will someday, but it certainly will not be in CM:SF. I doubt it will even be in CM's second release."

[MikeyD]

In WWII Tiger I Battalions has their own formations to maximize the Tiger's firepower potential. I had even tried constructing a couple CMBB scenarios using Tigers in proper formation, but CM maps are usually too small, LOS is too restricted, and once the enemy was engaged the whole thing immediately fell apart. Besides, how often does anyone actually play eight Tigers at a time? I doubt you'll be seeing many CMSF 8k square flat open terrain maps to get a good Abrams wedge formation running... then again, when we see what the game engine can do maybe we WILL all be playing giant all tank flat terrain maps!