Sucking Like a Hoover: Information Vacuum in the Combat Mission Pantheon

[Michael Dorosh]

I thought perhaps I'd split off a discussion on information presentation as I think it is generally recognized as important and I'm not getting a clear sense that there is any consensus. Nor would I expect any.

Information feedback isn't a new concept; the military has all kinds of relatively current buzzwords, of course, such as the OODA Loop ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop ). Even before anyone knew what to call it, the ability for a gamer to interface with the game's data was an obviously essential component of game design. A player of a game, regardless of whether it is a PC game, board game, console game, needs to have certain data presented to him in order to make intelligent decisions during gameplay. That's a given.

What is also a given is that it is sometimes desirable to conceal information from the player in order to enhance gameplay. This can be something obvious, like not revealing the position of hidden treasure or opposing players, or more subtle deceptions.

We can examine the first Combat Mission games to see how information was presented to the player. The CMX1 model was not without controversy - just about every aspect of the game's design had its share of both critics and supporters. Some examples of typical information feedback for the player are as follows:

Enemy location

"Fog of War", as it is known, was a very popular feature, and was expanded on during the life cycle of CMX1 with an enhanced ("Extreme") FOW setting. In short, the location of enemy units could be hidden from both the player, and the units under his command (not the same thing). How well units got spotted in the various setting was a matter of some consternation to some; personally I thought the system worked generally well. Landmines seemed too easy to spot. However, given the limited modelling of engineering capabilities, this tended to balance out in play. And sometimes a developer needs to do that - make one thing weaker than it really was in order to counteract something that has to be stronger than it was in real life.

I may also be one of a small minority to try and PBEM another human with FOW turned off. At least, playing without FOW seems to be akin to riding a moped or dating a fat chick - no one talked about it much. Not sure I ever finished the game; tried to bring back memories of the old Squad Leader days - even played against one of the old Avalon Hill staffers, but you can't go home again.

Unit Information

Each unit in CMX1 had a data screen which was interesting to me mainly for the kill data at the end of the game. Certainly for juvenile contests or tracking info in manual campaigns, it was interesting but not an essential. The info screen also contained raw data on in game firepower, penetration, etc. Perhaps it was useful to those unschooled in Second World War era weaponry or those devoted to competitive play. I didn't get much use out of it personally, though it did come in handy to find out which trucks had passengers on them and the ID of those passengers rather than cycling through the units with the "+" key.

LOS Tool

A very controversial subject. There were those - myself included - that argued that allowing a player to check lines of sight from anywhere on the map to anywhere on the map gave the player unrealistic co-ordination and control of his resources that a real life commander would lack. A counter-argument, possibly valid, was that the 3D world was imperfectly drawn and that the player needed an advantage in planning out his turns. I may be mis-remembering all the counter-arguments and am happy for some assistance here.

These were some of the issues we dealt with in CMX1, at any rate.

============================================================

CM:SF

The developer is presented the same issues in CM:SF, and perhaps even some new ones now that there are additional features in the game. I'm not familiar with any one thread that has dealt exclusively with the topic - if there has been apologies in advance and I'll appreciate any link to same. Perhaps a discussion would be of interest.

Campaign

I'm acutely aware of the fact that the "campaign" in fact isn't, but I should clarify my statement on that point. I don't mean to imply that the linked scenarios in TF: Thunder are somehow not fun or unsatisfying. Having contributed something like 15% of the scenarios in them, I have a small stake, and more importantly, I was first hand witness to the very talented stable of designers that put together the bulk of the scenarios, which cover a wide array of situations (from small infantry-only to large armour battles), in some fairly unique terrain configurations, all done with deliberation and anticipation of a positive reception by the community. Yet it strikes me that for all the intention that these scenarios be considered a "campaign", that the player feel he is either in command or at least experiencing life at the operational level of a modern task force, there isn't a single data screen describing what is in the task force, who is in the task force, and what the status of the various elements are from mission to mission. Never mind the inability to actually transfer personnel, select units for missions, actually design the operational plans and otherwise interact directly with the operational battlespace, I am talking about simply seeing who is who in the zoo. And you can't.

Unit information

The level of unit information seems frustrating to me, but this may be linked to FOW issues. That's an inelegant descriptor since we use FOW to describe what we know about the enemy in CM. I'm not sure of the best way to say "the real guy wouldn't know so you shouldn't" so bear with me. If the player is nominally a company commander (or more accurately, all the platoon commanders and the company commander simultaneously), would he really know how many bullets Pvt. Jones in the 2nd Fireteam of the 2nd Squad has? I can't give a yes or no. There is a lot going on right now in the unit display screen at present, with different coloured icons for status, ammo, in command, etc. as was present in CMX1. Is this optimal? I find the disappearing soldiers a bit unnerving though would be at a loss to suggest something better - with the exception that an overall status screen would be an excellent way of tracking this. Which brings back the question of would a real commander have that. We debated that in CMX1 also.

Those are only two off the top of my head. What other types of information feedback would people like to see? I know that an LOS tool has been suggested; I can understand the logic in using the fire command as a workaround and in wanting to restrict the ability of players to just scoping out lines of sight. I also get the counter-arguments that GPS and familiarity with the ground, and personal recce and all that stuff can also be factored in to a decision to let a player use a free ranging LOS tool, so I'm not necessarily looking to reopen that debate, just looking for other instances where informational feedback may be lacking.

Or have they gotten it right and less information is better? A "cleaner", slicker interface, easier to use, less clutter, faster play?

[ March 07, 2008, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Cpl Steiner]

Michael,

Regarding the Campaign, the CM:SF manual (p.27) states, "Combat mission makes no attempt to inform the player about which units are core or auxiliary, in order to remove the temptation for player abuse of auxiliaries (i.e. treating auxiliary units as "disposable").

Obviously this is the drawback with any campaign system. If you tell the player which units are important in advance, the temptation is to keep these units safe and let the other "attached" units do all the donkey work. BFC have obviously thought about this and decided to just not tell the player which units are important.

However, I agree with you, that such a policy is kind of like throwing the baby out with the bath water. If you don't know which units are important; if there is no unit roster screen, complete with casualties crossed off, the ability to transfer personnel to balance out losses etc., then half the fun of having a campaign game in the first place is removed.

It seems to me that if BFC were really concerned about player abuse of auxiliary units, they missed a trick. The simple solution would have been to award the enemy some VPs for eliminating auxiliary units, thus forcing you to baby-sit them rather than use them as cannon fodder. Mission briefings could say things like, "you're getting a platoon of M1s for this one, so don't lose them!". High command obviously looks very unkindly on officers who squander their attached units.

The simpler explanation is that a true campaign with unit rosters, transfers, etc., would have put the game back several more months and BFC probably just thought the extra effort wasn't worth it.

[thewood]

I think sometimes the debate can simplified (maybe oversimplified?) to whether its a game or a simulation.

There are times in every game where it is more like work than fun. Sometimes in CM1 I would find myself crossing that line. I cross it much more often in CMSF. I personally found CM1 more fun than work. I have the opposite feeling for CMSF. I keep playing hoping I find that tipping point where its more fun.

Related what to what Dorosh is saying, if its a game, why not have a LOS tool. If its an iron man simulation why let someone have a view other than from the inside a command track. IL-2 gives players the option of whether its a simulation or a game. I haven't figured out what CMSF is yet, but whatever it is options between being a simulation and a game are somewhat limited.

So after a long ramble, the question on information really can only be answered when we can answer what CMSF is at its core; simulation or game.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by thewood:

I think sometimes the debate can simplified ... to whether its a game or a simulation.

I agree. So to simplify things more and to be sure I understand you, would you argue that a game requires more, or less, information be supplied to the player than a simulation? I think you could go either way, really. A simulation to my mind requires more real world data than a game does as it performs its calculations, but also possibly reports on that data far less to the player (FOW).

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Michael,

Regarding the Campaign, the CM:SF manual (p.27) states, "Combat mission makes no attempt to inform the player about which units are core or auxiliary, in order to remove the temptation for player abuse of auxiliaries (i.e. treating auxiliary units as "disposable")...

It seems to me that if BFC were really concerned about player abuse of auxiliary units, they missed a trick...

The simpler explanation is that a true campaign with unit rosters, transfers, etc., would have put the game back several more months and BFC probably just thought the extra effort wasn't worth it.

I can't say what would have cost developmental time or not; I have no idea. You've identified a key quote from the manual that states the lack of a TF display screen was a deliberate feature. Not reporting data to the player is one of those design decisions that gets made as we all acknowledge. I agree with you that the rationale doesn't seem firm; the "core units" could probably be divined by any player from the unit designations during play, but moreover, the carryover of units - any units - from mission to mission seems inconsistent to the point of being inconsequential as far as how the units are treated in any game. That is to say, any player will treat all the units under command with kid gloves not because of the tactical situation, but because the structure of the linked-scenarios is so mysterious one has no idea what will come next or how they will impact each other. And in the context of a real world campaign, that may seem correct on the face of it, but I'd argue that operationally speaking there may indeed be times when a real world commander might be inclined to put forth a "maximum effort" (in the sense of the word as General Savage purported to know it in 12 O'Clock High) regardless of casualties - having access to that kind of context is one thing, and is present in a limited way, but having actual control of that context in a true campaign setting would be quite another. The player would have far more freedom to use (and abuse) units in a system in which he interacted with the operational context. In that sense, I'm not sure the lack of feedback as far as TF unit status is realistic, as is stated in the manual. Given the current linked-scenario format, I think the negative impacts it would have would be minimal - especially since "auxiliary" units tend to appear rarely enough. I don't think even with perfect knowledge of them that abuse of the so-called auxiliaries could dangerously unbalance the scenarios - and if they did, that would be the scenario designers' fault, not the decision to include a TF status screen.

[ March 07, 2008, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[thewood]

I think the type of data changes. If its a simulation, the question becomes what would a real-world commander have access to. If its a game, you give players options on information, because no two players want the exact same info. I still look at IL-2 as a good example. You can play it almost like an arcade game or make highly "realistic" with no outside views and manual cowl controls. I look at CM1 as more of a game, but could optionally be played like a simulation, but not with the fidelity of CMSF. The issue with CMSF is that its not easy to play it like a game, picking and choosing the info you want. You get what BFC gives you.