Units and how they are controlled

[Gpig]

Heh heh. Yeah, nothing like two weeks off to rest the wrists. (Except for the occasional beer tipping exercise.)

Gpig

[Salkin]

Very nice drawing Gpig !

I can almost taste CMx2 on the tip of my tongue .

Sweet, sweet addiction here I come .

//Salkin

[Barrold]

I am definitely getting that ol' familiar stoked feeling as I hear more and more information.

BDH

[Cpl Steiner]

I'm definitely starting to worry a bit that the game can't possibly live up to expectations. I know, "Heresy", "Trust Battlefront", "They've pulled it off before" etc., but this game just seems so much ahead of anything else available.

For me, the acid test will be street fighting. Can you imagine a platoon of infantry, like the ones shown in Gpig's drawing, firing weapons out of windows, blowing holes in walls, chucking grenades across narrow streets from upper floors, stacking up at doorways etc. If they can pull that off, the game will be a classic.

[Cpl Steiner]

Better just rephrase the above post in case people take offence. I sincerely hope and pray that the game lives up to expectations, and think Battlefront are the best people to pull it off if anyone can. All I'm saying is that I won't be that surprised if I get a slight let down feeling when I actually own the game. I think this is only natural as we are all hyping up our own expectations beyond all reason.

[Barrold]

On most things a motto of "Always anticipate disappointment" seems warranted, but I have noticed one thing about Steve's pronouncements. When he releases a detail, it genuinely appears to be well past the "gee that's a cool idea" phase.

Items that are undetermined have been clearly labeled as iffy. However, our imaginations can be our worst enemies as we can envision the vivid action played out over remembered scenarios from dozens of computer or board game battles.

The best we can hope for is to continually look for better immersion as experience and technology combine to push these games forward to the goals we have set in our minds.

I remember Dan commenting months ago about the graphics of some WWII game or another as being the easy part of the process. A pretty picture being just that unless the goods behind it make it move like the real deal.

In these departments, BFC has seemed quite willing to hire additional expertise when needed to handle those departments that leave Charles best able to deal with the truly difficult coding. This would be things like effecting the realistic detail accurately depicting the disciplined rush of a squad assaulting a building and keeping it from looking like two-dimensional orcs yelling "Zug Zug" for example.

With their philosophy of not letting it out until it meets their vision and their goals to the best of their abilities, I have no doubt that by the time it is released, our expectations will be properly tempered to the fit the game's performance. If it disappoints, it will likely be from an unrealistic expectation. It won't be generated from the hyperbolic claims of BFC either, but rather the desire to see the vision of our imagination realized.

If you think about it, this is not such a bad thing, if only for the fact that it keeps the demand for better products going even when the latest game blows you away for awhile. Maybe when we're 70 years old having heart attacks while playing virtual Stalingrad we'll be 100% satisfied. I am willing to bet that some would still complain that the sewer smell just doesn't seem exactly right.

BDH

[Pvt. Ryan]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

I'm definitely starting to worry a bit that the game can't possibly live up to expectations.

I've been thinking that the game is going to blow our minds once we see it. We've been told of new features in dribs and drabs, but when the whole picture is revealed I think we are going to be very pleasantly surprised.

[dalem]

Now I've gone and peed Gpig's pants.

Seriously though, I don't consider myself to be much of a graphical "eye candy" kind of guy - quite honestly CMx2 could have all the improvements under the hood and look exactly the same as CMx1 and I'd still be a happy camper - but I'm starting to get the idea how CMx2's graphical improvements and 1:1, etc. might not just pull me in, but actually help me enjoy the game more.

Remember the infantry attack on General Ripper's SAC base in "Dr. Strangelove"? Until SPR and BoB came out I sort of considered that the epitome of combat movie film (less grainy and jumpy than the real thing!). Some guys shooting at faraway things, some guys running crouched over, some other guys just crouched down and looking around cluelessly... Then that M1919 sets up and fires off a burst and puffs and chunks start whizzing off the HQ building in a large pattern downrange. Louder than hell and definitely makes you feel lucky to not be facing the angry end of an MG - any MG.

Anyway, I'm getting the feeling that placing the camera POV right in the midst of a CMx2 squad might give me a view kinda-sorta like that.

CMx1 took us close to that. CMx2, I think, is going to take us closer.

And if it takes us too close, beware guys, because then I'm gonna have to go and pee Steve's pants and Charles's jar.

Or hell, it could just blow chunks and make me wish for a professionally programmed bulldozer sim. One never knows.

-dale

[Barrold]

Blade goes up...blade goes down...blade goes up...

Seriously though.

I like that scene too for the same reasons. Sometime back about a billion years ago, I mounted a fierce defense in Panzerblitz against a friends determined swarms of Russian armor. Crappy roll after crappy roll allowed a huge pile of destroyed counters to accumulate in front of my erstwhile defenders.

The imagination pictured all of this happening as a movie in my mind, but until CMx1, these types of scenarios really didn't have any sort of accurate realization outside of the mind's eye. I think as long as the fundamentals of accuracy accompany whatever the graphics in this type of game that the simulation will bring you along.

The truer the depiction on the screen of the environment can only help enhance the experience one wants to get as part of the reward for playing. It should also fulfill the other part by allowing the mental challenge of directing your forces to victory in any number of situations.

I think most would agree that having just the eyecandy without the second element does nothing to fire the imagination needed to put yourself in the scene. If they do this right as I expect, it is hard to see where that immersion is not increased greatly.

It's effect on your excretionary activities shall remain a difficulty though as your reaction can hardly be viewed as an incentive for excellence from Charles.

BFS5

[Battlefront.com]

Barrold has it right. Since I started managing a Forum for CM, waaaaaaay back in 1997, I've been very careful to state only that which we are sure we can do and to either not discuss or to clearly qualify that which we are not sure of. It is the main reason why our releases have always underpromised and overdelivered.

I don't intend on screwing up a good thing by blabbing away about pie in the sky stuff before we know if we can do it. Uhm... like... uhm... why do you think it took us nearly 2 years to start up an official CMx2 Forum? Why do you think I've been so vague and mum on CMx2 before now? Not by accident, I assure you

The list of things I talked about during CMBO's development was massive and harldy anybody believed we'd deliver 1/10th of what we promised. Heck, even when things were in the game and working people wouldn't believe it. I remember the first time someone besides Charles and myself played the game... the infamous Alpha AAR battle between Fionn and Martin (Moon). These guys were two of our most dedicated supporters. After they got the Alpha they were absolutely blown away. It was then that they confided in us that they actually were expecting to find out that we were full of crap and the game wasn't nearly what we said it was. Instead they found out it was more than we revealed on the Forum. Then the Beta Demo came out and thousands of doubters (including MadMatt and KwazyDog ) ate their words quite gleefully. Rune and many of the strongest and most loyal supporters of Battlefront and CM were also likely in the "semi-doubter" category. Then the full game came out and the rest chowed down their words of doubt heartily.

Now, the above paragraph is not some sort of ego chest thumping exercise on my part. It is simply a statement of documented facts surrounding a similar situation with us and you all. It should count for something.

Is there a chance that people will be disapointed? Hell ya... especially since some of you guys have imaginations that defy... well... imgagination But will we deliver on the features we're talking about here? Yes. And a lot more that you know absolutely nothing about, but we fully expect to be able to deliver. Until we do, however, we're keeping our mouths shut so we do NOT build up expectations based on hype.

Steve

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

No, that is a pretty huge thing and we can't touch that with a 10 foot pole right now. Too many other more basic things to do.

I take it the SOP related orders are "sticky" so the out-of-CC units will not become total zombies.

But to switch weapons completely you need to switch your ammo pouches. I have enough combat gear, modern and WWII era, to know that this is not an easy process. Certainly not in a minute as you suggest. Whenever I read about switching around weapons it is CLEARLY done ahead of something deliberate, like a recon patrol or an assault on a known enemy position. It isn't done on a whim.

Why would there be a need to switch the weapons and gear around ? Why not move them men already donning the gear around ? You can simply call "(men with) automatics on me, all others on section leader" or "AT team up, everybody else cover".

1:1 Representation... you figure out what his chances are

Can you order sharpshooters/snipers or even entire squads to single out leaders ? And how do you protect your leaders in such a case ?

[Battlefront.com]

Units outside of C&C are still within your control. They just won't benefit from being "in the loop", something which CMx1 couldn't simulate nearly as well.

Why would there be a need to switch the weapons and gear around ? Why not move them men already donning the gear around ?

Because that violates ever sensible principle surrounding unit cohesion?

You can simply call "(men with) automatics on me, all others on section leader" or "AT team up, everybody else cover"

Er... I am unaware of that happening on any scale worth mentioning. It goes against all WWII military doctrine that I know of. No doubt some units did it, but I doubt it was on the fly. What I have read about are exceptional circumstances where the weapons would be switched around. That means 2nd Squad would still be 2nd Squad, but armed with lots more firepower than it ordinarily would. I know the Finns did this quite a bit with some small units (Sissi?). IIRC we modeled it this way because it was pretty much defacto the way those units fought.

Can you order sharpshooters/snipers or even entire squads to single out leaders ? And how do you protect your leaders in such a case ?

You don't because you aren't allowed to micromanage your units. Yes, a sharpshooter/sniper should have a higher chance of hitting a leader. Many leaders made an effort to not be noticable, but to a trained shooter this made little difference most of the time. Leaders are usually the guy giving orders so you don't need to have red stripes down the legs and glittering metal bits all over the tunic to know who is the best guy to shoot at

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Units outside of C&C are still within your control. They just won't benefit from being "in the loop", something which CMx1 couldn't simulate nearly as well.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Why would there be a need to switch the weapons and gear around ? Why not move them men already donning the gear around ?

Because that violates ever sensible principle surrounding unit cohesion?

You can simply call "(men with) automatics on me, all others on section leader" or "AT team up, everybody else cover"

Er... I am unaware of that happening on any scale worth mentioning. It goes against all WWII military doctrine that I know of. No doubt some units did it, but I doubt it was on the fly. What I have read about are exceptional circumstances where the weapons would be switched around. That means 2nd Squad would still be 2nd Squad, but armed with lots more firepower than it ordinarily would. I know the Finns did this quite a bit with some small units (Sissi?). IIRC we modeled it this way because it was pretty much defacto the way those units fought.

Can you order sharpshooters/snipers or even entire squads to single out leaders ? And how do you protect your leaders in such a case ?

You don't because you aren't allowed to micromanage your units. Yes, a sharpshooter/sniper should have a higher chance of hitting a leader. Many leaders made an effort to not be noticable, but to a trained shooter this made little difference most of the time. Leaders are usually the guy giving orders so you don't need to have red stripes down the legs and glittering metal bits all over the tunic to know who is the best guy to shoot at

Steve </font>

[pad152]

No, the player will not be able to modify Squad size. However, we have a lot more flexibility in offering alternative Squad compositions than we did in CMx1. This means we could have the standard organization as default and offer a special "Assault Configuration" (or what not) for the player to use. We aren't going to go hog wild with minor variations, but if there was a common alternative organization we will allow this. We also are allowing a LOT more flexibility to Order of Battle, which IMHO is the bigger issue.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Units outside of C&C are still within your control. They just won't benefit from being "in the loop", something which CMx1 couldn't simulate nearly as well.

OK

Because that violates ever sensible principle surrounding unit cohesion?

What is unit cohesion ? As per basic training each man has a primary and a secondary function (even a tertiary one). The men are trained to follow procedure the guestion is how much of the training manual procedures survived in the combat zone.

Er... I am unaware of that happening on any scale worth mentioning. It goes against all WWII military doctrine that I know of. No doubt some units did it, but I doubt it was on the fly.

Regular units one particular army at least used this expedient when conducting ad hoc counter attacks (then again in other instances they would use a more general ON ME command to take control of any unit within their reach to keep the momentum of the attack when reorganization would have stalled the attack). Another example is rolling up trenches and other positions. Men bearing automatics pair up with guys whose task was to throw the grenade and when it goes off the automatics guy sweeps the section.

Another example (admittedly a hyperbole) would be when Pzfausts were first introduced a guy (any guy) who knew German would read instructions while the guy (any guy) using the weapon would conduct his first live fire shoot against a live target.

All this relates also to the entire tactical and doctrinal aspect of said army. The premise was that at the end of the battle the (defensive) positions must remain in friendly hands so if a unit was beaten back it was obliged to take the positions back by any means necessary. And that meant that the most effective weapons (automatics) would be gathered in the shock unit which would spearhead the counterattack.

What I have read about are exceptional circumstances where the weapons would be switched around.

That would defeat your premise of experts within the unit.

That means 2nd Squad would still be 2nd Squad, but armed with lots more firepower than it ordinarily would.

Yes. But would the 2nd squad comprise of the same men it would comprise in the parade ground ?

I know the Finns did this quite a bit with some small units (Sissi?). IIRC we modeled it this way because it was pretty much defacto the way those units fought.

The practise was not limited to sissi units.

Besides, sissi units were mostly automatics anyway.

You don't because you aren't allowed to micromanage your units. Yes, a sharpshooter/sniper should have a higher chance of hitting a leader.

IMO it should be their SOP to try and single out leaders.

[pad152]

No, the player will not be able to modify Squad size. However, we have a lot more flexibility in offering alternative Squad compositions than we did in CMx1. This means we could have the standard organization as default and offer a special "Assault Configuration" (or what not) for the player to use. We aren't going to go hog wild with minor variations, but if there was a common alternative organization we will allow this. We also are allowing a LOT more flexibility to Order of Battle, which IMHO is the bigger issue.

I hope we could modify/customize a squad/team. The limits would be max size of a team/squad and man requirement for the weapon (LMG 2 man, HMG 4 man, etc). Example; Ability to edit the crew weapons from a pistol to a SMG for tank crews.

1. There was very little that could be edited in CM1 (change the color)! What will be able to edit in CMx2?

2. Any thoughs on ammo/fuel supplies (re-supply) infantry from a stock pile or truck, ammo carrier?

3. Ability to man/unman vehicles/weapons? Example: Start a mission with the tank crews in a building down the street from their tanks.

4. Any new mission types? raids, blow up a ammo/fuel dump, bridge, etc. Rescue mission find a downed airman, POWs.

5. Any New building types or objects. Expample: Ports, Docks, Airfields, Guard Towers?

6. What about Trains, Gun Boats, Staff Cars, Grounded Aircraft, horses, motorcycles, fuel carriers, repair vehicles, command vehicles?