a call for more variety in the WWII CMx2 game

[Battlefront.com]

YD,

So I'm hopeful that we'll see some expanded "unit functionality" for CMx2. I don't think it's realistic to expect more esoteric capabilities like infantry scaling cliffs with grapnels (what's that good for? Maybe 1-2 scenarios before the novelty wears off?), but I'm hopeful some other fun stuff will make it in. Some specific tactical engineering stuff like use of demo charges, bangalore torpedos etc. to clear paths through minefields and obstacles would be great, for example.

Yes. That's the way we're looking at it too. Dorosh's wetdream of being able to oder a unit to take a pee in turns is never going to happen , but certainly more WWII specific functionality is planned. That's all part of the evolution process of the engine itself.

But maybe I'm unusual amongst wargamers in that I have a life and wife and friends and a career, and can only spare maybe an hour or two a week for wargaming.

Well, definitely some have WAY more time on their hands than others. Dorosh's post count is 50% higher than mine and I'm paid to be here Of course his post count would be a lot lower if I had banned him the first half dozen times he really deserved it

Omenowl,

Other areas I think would be interesting is some hand to hand combat and triggers so you could design newer missions. I definitely think expanding the scenario editor would help.

Yes, we are definitely planning on expanding the AI options for scenario designers. Triggers is the first priority.

LongLeftFlank,

However, infantry -- the true heart of this game -- still acts very clumsily and requires continuous micromanagement to not get itself massacred whenever it moves. And this isn't a "modern battlefields are lethal" issue, it's a "why the hell did half my squad prance out into the open 20 feet left of where I ordered them to go?" issue.

Well, I disagree with you here in terms of emphasis. I think of the heart of CM:SF as the infantry and I also see it as largely functioning as it should. I also can't think of any other game that comes close to it either. That's because handling infantry from a sim standpoint is extremely difficult and time consuming. It's why most infantry in most games is seriously undermodeled. Vehicles are a piece of cake by comparison.

I'm more than happy to play primarily infantry battles, in RealTime no less. I don't disagree that you have to pay more attention to infantry rather than vehicles, but that's pretty much a function of the fact that a limited amount of things can hurt a vehicle and pretty much everything can hurt infantry.

Not only that, infantry units that get shot up for some reasons FEEL more "hurt" than a tank that's brewed up. I think gamers can more easily write off a vehicle loss than an infantry one. I'm not sure why exactly, perhaps because the vehicles are viewed as inanimate objects (even though they are crewed) and the infantry units are viewed as flesh and blood?

What I'm getting at is I think players have a different standard for vehicles vs. infantry. When they do something wrong with vehicles they are more likely to blame themselves. When they do something wrong with infantry they are more likely to fault the game for not doing more to protect their soldiers from harm. This gets us into a slippery slope area where players are at the same time demanding more obedience but also demanding more independence. It's very tough for us to navigate.

Obviously issues where infantry do things that they probably shouldn't need to be addressed. I think we've got the list of those problems down to a very small list of things to work on. Things will never be perfect, however, but we haven't yet stopped trying to move it in that direction.

Steve

[Code13]

Heh

The only time I get annoyed with infantry is to avoid blaming myself for my own stupidity since 99% of the time when they do stupid things its cos I told them to.

Interestingly, AFVs also suffer from this "bug".

In my experience CMxx is deeper, more complex, more involving and gives a better "real world" feel than any other wargame I have played and it is not mystery why I am still playing CMBO still.

Given that they have said further modules will include the units I want to play with, then fantastic. Just get on with it already

[orwell]

Not sure if this is appropriate here or if it should get it's own thread, but as BFC has responded to it several times;

Are there any estimates on the amount of content going into the Marine Module? If it's priced at $20, I assume the first $25 of CMSF goes into the engine, and the rest for content? Or will it have less?

Not a huge concern for me, I'm more concerned with, will the modules contain additional functionality that won't translate to the main game? If the variety of tasks get bumped up in the MM, if, if, those tasks are also part of regular Army duties, would those get into CMSF, or would they always remain part of the MM?

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dorosh's wetdream of being able to oder a unit to take a pee in turns is never going to happen

I would say that ToW is pretty close, though.

About lack of functionality: no other comparable wargame (that I now) has breaching and/or buddy aid implemented. Scavenging seems to be in, also. Intra-squad ammo sharing is modelled (in an abstract way). The assault command is working beautifully. Not too bad, I would say.

As for MD's list:

wriggle through barbed wire - without barbed wire, not really an omission.

interrogate civilians - without civilians, not really an omission.

split into individuals and search buildings - in a 'hot' war zone?

swim rivers - without barbed wire, not really an omission.

take prisoners + yes, prisoner management could be an issue in real-life.

climb cliffs - no Pont Du Hoe in CM:SF.

scale and rappel buildings - like SWAT?

descend by parachute - can be simulated as reinforcements

fly in gliders - can be simulated as reinforcements

capture trucks and drive them around - without trucks, not really an omission.

close assault tanks, - happens already

man enemy heavy weapons - which? tanks?

dig foxholes + Agreed. For longer scenarios.

fortify buildings - out of the time-frame of scenarios

search an HQ for documents, for example - can be simulated with victory conditions

send scouting parties out - you can't do that now?

wire something for demolitions + Agreed. Perhaps useful for bridges, most likely out of time frame.

conduct a snatch patrol - out of scale. Sounds like 'Hidden and Dangerous'

As for campaigns: having map damage not carry over from battle to battle is the greatest omission at present. The rest is good enough for me.

Best regards,

Thomm

[John Kettler]

I think Michael Dorosh has raised an excellent point regarding infantry capabilities in CMSF, as opposed to those available in real life. I'm certainly no expert, but I have watched loads of footage of modern MOUT training. From it, I can confidently assert that entry is by no means confined to all too easy to target doors. "Future Weapons" showed a currently available rig that'll create a "door" right through a typical Middle Eastern wall, with the added bonus of concussing and spraying the foe with chunks of said wall and filling the air with thick dust. Indeed, the film "Final Option" showed the SAS doing this sans such a prepared rig, then sending in a team of night goggled shooters to double tap the terrorists in the head with Browning Hi Powers. That was in the Seventies!

U.S. MOUT training also addresses getting into upper story windows (the ones less likely to be barricaded) via improvised or purpose built ladders, climbing poles and the like. Have also seen some interesting drills involving use of a plank with a soldier on it pressed up to see through, fire into, and enter an upper story window.

IOW, what in game soldiers can do in MOUT is a very narrow subset of what they can do in real life, and therein lies the beefing. Infantry's made for MOUT in a way that AFVs aren't, yet are relatively hamstrung as presently modeled. In essence, I'd argue that only allowing entry through doors makes the defender's task much easier than in the real world case. Since it's mostly the U.S., on the attack in CMSF, guess whose casualties wind up higher than necessary? FWIW, if we train to fight with grapnels and such in MOUT, then I think we ought to be able to do the same in the game.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ March 06, 2008, 03:00 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Code13]

Erm, dont breaching orders exist now in CMSF?

Personally, I think some people are wanting a totally different game in a different scale to CMx2 in some of the things they ask for.

Try Call of Duty 4 - Modern Warfare. That has all the things you want.

[76mm]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Snow? Really?!

Of all the things to model in a land combat game in Syria, this would be somewhere way down the list for me.

Ummm, I'm not sure what post you're responding to, but I think it is abundantly clear that I am asking for snow in one of the WWII modules, regardless of whether it was actually on the ground in the Bulge. Has someone asked for snow in the Mideast game, or did you misread the thread?

[76mm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dorosh's post count is 50% higher than mine and I'm paid to be here Of course his post count would be a lot lower if I had banned him the first half dozen times he really deserved it

I presume from the smiley that you're joking about Dorosh "deserving" to be banned. While Dorosh is certainly opinionated, and his opinions often seem to differ from yours, I find that his posts are thoughtful and civil.

Your threat to "enforce" the banning policy a few months ago kinda struck me the wrong way, even if you haven't banned anyone since then...

And no, I am not Dorosh's alt!

[ March 06, 2008, 05:07 AM: Message edited by: 76mm ]

[carlR]

Just read through this very long thread. I agree with what was said on P4.

It is scenario quality that makes or breaks these games.

A crap scenario with esoteric gear is still a crap scenario and no fun to play.

A great scenario with limited gear is still great (like the CMBO demo)and lots of fun to play.

It really is that simple.

CMSF just needs a few more great scenarios.

[SgtMuhammed]

Dorosh deserves to be banned just because, and this from a guy who loves the silly bugger.

John Kettler,

You won't get any argument from me about allowing entry through windows. We did some funky stuff to enter buildings, including having a guy hold on to one end of a pole while the rest of the squad lifted him into an upper floor window! Ah good times.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by 76mm:

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

Snow? Really?!

Of all the things to model in a land combat game in Syria, this would be somewhere way down the list for me.

Ummm, I'm not sure what post you're responding to, but I think it is abundantly clear that I am asking for snow in one of the WWII modules, regardless of whether it was actually on the ground in the Bulge. Has someone asked for snow in the Mideast game, or did you misread the thread? </font>

[Splinty]

I was trained for all kinds of entry procedures to include top down and roof assaults. Not once during my last tour, did we perform anything but dynamic (kick-the-door, go in violently) or passive (gentler-but-still-careful) entries. We normally just didn't have the time or assets to do things any other way. Not to mention when you do top-down entries you have to clear all the other buildings around the target, which kind of eliminates the element of surprise.

[SgtMuhammed]

Good point. To be honest I always felt the upper floor entry techniques were rather dicey.

I wonder though if proceedures were the same during the initial invasion.

[Huntarr]

This command enables an infantry unit with demo charges to blast

a manhole through a building wall, exterior or interior, as well

as through tall stone or brick walls, allowing the unit and any

other units that would follow to pass through the wall. The

time it takes to conduct this command varies based on unit

experience, and can range from one minute to several minutes

per wall.

Restrictions - only available for infantry units carrying demo

charges.

Example - moving in a city down an open street can be lethal

when the enemy has a few well position machineguns in place.

A much more safe but time consuming method is to blow holes

in adjoining buildings, avoiding the open street entirely. Another

good use for this command is to enter and storm a

building from an angle the enemy isn’t expecting.

Why even waste time and resources on silly fluff when we already have the combat command in place? Adding unnecessary novel maneuvers is a total waste.

Focus on OpAI, TacAI, Air/Arty Support.

[SgtMuhammed]

Blast is not always an option though. Not all infantry carry blast charges.

I agree though that this is a nice to have but not necessary feature. I think if the obstacle options are increased then we will need to see in increase in options to deal with them.

[M1A1TC]

Here are some photos from when my unit trained for MOUT Ops before our deployment. We did a lot of things with ladders and planks, involving entry through first and second floor windows, not through doors

[Code13]

Hmm

How many MOUT units in the field carry 30' ladders?

Maybe thats what the slatted armour on the sides of the Strykers really is, ladders...

What if there is enemy infantry on the bottom floor, isnt climbing up a ladder past them, like, suicidal?

Serious question, why attempt to gain entry by the second floor into an enemy held building?

[M1A1TC]

Its always easier to clear a building from the top down. Thats why, for example, SWAT officers fast rope on the roofs

[YankeeDog]

Is scalling ladders and zipping down ropes really something US forces would be doing in the middle of a hot firefight zone?

I mean, I definitely see the utility for SWAT and the counter-insurgency stuff, where US forces are hunting down individual snipers or small teams of gunmen in a dense urban environment.

But as has been repeated as nausaeam, CMSF is not a counter-insurgency game. It's a wargame. Dragging out a ladder or setting up a rappelling line in the middle of a firefight seems intensely impractical to me.

But I don't actually know. . . any of you guys who actually walked the walk and talked the talk have any knowledge of this kind of thing being done in the kind of tactical engagment that CMSF is intended to represent, rather than hunting down and rooting out isolated insurgents?

Still pretty new to the game, but so far in CMSF I've just followed the tactic of throwing about 30 seconds of at least 7.62mm fire, and preferably 12.7mm or higher, before I enter any suspect building. Then I have the guys hunt to just outside the door under heavy overwatch.

It's worked like a charm thus far. Usually, any enemy in the building open up once they've been fired upon, and I can direct aimed fire onto them. Only rarely has my clearing team discovered any remaining survivors once the shooting is over. And when they do, the resistance is usually pretty weak and easily neutralized.

But maybe I'll discover this tactic isn't always so successful as I play the game more. . .

Cheers,

YD

[SgtMuhammed]

YD,

That is a pretty good approximation of how we used to do it in the Army. In Berlin we had all kinds of neat toys to help with building entry but it usually ended up being bust a door or window and get in as fast as you can.

[Other Means]

It would be good if in Assault into a building with a spotted enemy, the soldiers threw grenades etc in before entry.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Player fatigue, or boredom, or whatever you want to call it, will be alleviated by one of a few conditions:

a) greater variety in units

greater variety in terrain

c) greater variety in types of scenarios

d) greater capabilities of the units

Counter argument:

Chess.

Fewer unit types than CMX2 (6 in all, and each side has exactly the same).

Less terrain - black and white tiles

Same scenario every single time

Unit capabilities very limited.

To be honest, the damand for such a vast array of things to do reminds me of an ASL player I used to know. I shall call him now, as I did then, Colonel Blimp. Now the Colonel was a member of a wargames club, that indulged in many games of a Saturday afternoon, generally simple fare with pretty models that anyone could pick up and make a decent attempt at playing. The Colonel, would turn up week after week and join in these games, but he always had ASL weighing his backpack down, in the hope that someone would take up the challenge.

Occasionally, one of the newer members would be foolhardy enough to step up to the plate, and out would come the cardboard and the encyclopedic set of rules. Always Colonel Blimp would reign triumphant, primarily because he knew all the rules and his opposition didn't. He occasionally got involved in other games, but typically ones with rulebooks that classified as offensive weapons and that were typically won by the person with time enough to learn all the rules.

I can't help but think that the good colonel would find a kindred spirit in Herr Dorosh.

Keep the micromanagement out and play the game.

[Battlefront.com]

Rollstoy,

That's a good breakdown of the "missing" elements and how relevant they really are. I'd also like to point out that this list would fare less well when compared against CMx1.

John Kettler,

IOW, what in game soldiers can do in MOUT is a very narrow subset of what they can do in real life, and therein lies the beefing. Infantry's made for MOUT in a way that AFVs aren't, yet are relatively hamstrung as presently modeled. In essence, I'd argue that only allowing entry through doors makes the defender's task much easier than in the real world case. Since it's mostly the U.S., on the attack in CMSF, guess whose casualties wind up higher than necessary? FWIW, if we train to fight with grapnels and such in MOUT, then I think we ought to be able to do the same in the game.

This gets into the whole question of what exactly are we simulating. Are we simulating what really happens in frontline MOUT warfare, or what happens in training facilities in the US? Are we simulating the conventional phase of a conflict or the aftermath COIN situations? These questions have to be answered first before reasonable expectations can be set.

So let's take your first proposition that "if it can happen in theory then we should simulate it". In a vacuum this is a statement I don't disagree with. However, I look at it from the opposite position and therefore rephrase it to read "if it only happens in theory then we shouldn't simulate it". Meaning, where theory and reality overlap we should simulate it with a degree of emphasis proportional to the amount of overlap. Meaning, something that happens very rarely in the real world should be considered for implementation, however it should be lower down the list than other actions.

Why is it important to NOT try to simulate everything that can theoretically happen but doesn't in real life? Simple. If it isn't used in real life there are obviously reasons why. These reasons, in game terms, must be simulated in addition to the behavior itself. This means we are, in effect, spending a lot of time simulating something so it can happen and then coding a bunch of stuff to make sure it's practical to use. Doesn't this strike you as counter productive? It certainly does to us

OK, so what are the ramifications of simulating something that doesn't really matter much in real combat besides the obvious development cost (i.e. something else will have to get dropped so this feature can go in)? The best example I can use is one that was quite contentious back in the CMBO development days. And that is the ability to deliberately light things on fire.

The argument by some (I'm 99% sure Dorosh was one of them) was that in real life anybody can light anything on fire if the materials are compatible. True, no argument there. Further, some (like Dorosh, I'm sure) argued that ASL had it in the game and so should we. Arguing for inclusion based on someone else's design decision is never going to fly with us, so that part of the argument was (and will forever be) rejected. So really it comes down to "in real life you can light fires, so you should be able to light fires in the game".

In multiple discussions about this the simple question was put back to the fire bugs... show us evidence that this was a standard, or even semi-common, tactic in real world battles at CM's level of operations. Even though collectively we've all read thousands of stories of combat in the ETO, I can't recall even one person coming up with an example of lighting stuff on fire being mentioned at all. Or at least mentioned within the context of CM's scale, for sure.

OK, so if lighting fires is completely possible in theory (we accept that it is), why was it not done in real life? Obviously because there were reasons that both sides felt that this caused more problems than opportunities. Hence it wasn't practiced by either side in any relevant way. So why on Earth should we simulate just half (the burning) aspect and not the other half (the disincentives)? How could that possibly benefit the appreciation of actual warfare? And how could it possibly be worth our time to put in something like this AND then code it to not be useful?

That's the crux of the arguments for and against the inclusion of theoretical behaviors which are not borne out by actual use.

Where does that leave us with something like window entry, ladders, and the like within CM:SF? Well, I think Splinty answered this pretty well:

I was trained for all kinds of entry procedures to include top down and roof assaults. Not once during my last tour, did we perform anything but dynamic (kick-the-door, go in violently) or passive (gentler-but-still-careful) entries. We normally just didn't have the time or assets to do things any other way. Not to mention when you do top-down entries you have to clear all the other buildings around the target, which kind of eliminates the element of surprise.

This isn't news to me, BTW, rather it confirms what we've understood about the practical use of the sorts of things M1A1TC was trained to do. Which makes sense. Quite a bit of training is to get soldiers prepared for all circumstances, not to get them prepared for just the most common ones. By definition this means they will practice doing things that aren't likely to be used. Moon said the same thing about his training in the Bundeswehr years ago. They showed them how to do window entry and then told them to never attempt it. And to emphasize why one of the trainees was kind enough to blow his own foot off while climbing through a window (for which he apparently went to jail for, which seems rather harsh!).

Anyway, what I just wrote has been our simulation philosophy since before CMBO was much beyond the design stage. Some 10 years later we still see it as the only way to go. Those of you who disagree are welcome to do so, but understand that our logic is quite sound and consistent. It is also highly defensible. Someone saying that they should be able to light anything on fire any time they want "just because" is not in the same position.

Or put another way... before someone says we should simulate guys going in through windows with ladders, they first need to establish that it is a fairly common activity within a real world high intensity combat situation. If the person can't do that then that's where the discussion should end.

Final comment about Dorosh... he has been in the middle of some doosies on this Forum for which technically I should have banned him for. Certainly the virtual lynch mobs felt that was what I should do. He knows this, I know it, and anybody unfortunate enough to have seen those times also knows it. I felt it was only fair to tip him off that I'm not likely to stick my neck out for him again. Throwing out ridiculous charges and then ducking the challenge to them doesn't give me much incentive to make special exceptions for him in the future.

Steve

[ March 06, 2008, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[GSX]

Yes, its all to easy to put Mr Dorosh down (the guy has a name and we Brits hate the surname thingy). Yes he may be at times annoying and short with others, but, he does make excellent points on occasion and has a breadth of knowledge that puts most of us to shame.

Its all too easy to laugh off some of his insights and I get the feeling that its done for effect rather than substance.

Slagging of Mr Dorosh seems to be the flavour of the day but no matter your opinion of him he knows more about ww2 western aspects than the majority here.

[Battlefront.com]

Flamingknives,

Funny story

As I said a few posts ago, that's exactly what happened with Charles. The original intention, as many of you old timers know, was for him to make a computerized version of ASL for Avalon Hill. He got a small truckload of stuff and sorted through it. At some point he said "Holy Crap! Why would anybody want to play this on cardboard, not to mention a computer?!?" and so that's as far as it got. IIRC only some graphics had been coded at this point, definitely not a single bit of the game mechanics.

The point is not to call the ASL guys weenies and say they are wrong for liking ASL. Each to his own, I say. Which is why ASL fans shouldn't try to make CM into ASL by specious arguments. The two game systems are, on purpose, completely different. And so they shall be forever more.

Steve