a call for more variety in the WWII CMx2 game

[thewood]

Syria's not all desert either. A significant portion is quite fertile.

[Omenowl]

Fire would be cool, but it depends on the type of fire. Grass fire would do little more than some haze or brief amounts of smoke (soldiers can step over the fire line). A forest on fire is very different where entire sections are impassible. Then again Saddam Hussein's burning of Kuwait would have a definite impact on the scenery and terrain.

Still how common would fires be in combat? I don't mean something catching on fire, but rather something that actually spreads. Also would this be within the time frame of a campaign? Could the scenario designer setup the humidity, temp, and flammability of the building or other terrain? Would it be common enough to model?

[Mord]

It seemed to be in CMX1.

Mord.

[thewood]

But it was in ASL, so it must real!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Why the letter? Because that's what I would describe a rules lawyer as and that's the sense in which I use it.

Ah; you're unfamiliar with actual usage of the phrase then. Makes it hard to have an intelligent discussion with you. Off topic anyway, and since further conversation on this line only further exposes you as a bigot, I suggest we drop the subject.

Personally I'd prefer that CM stayed clear of the kind of investment you describe. What really caught my attention with CMBO was how simple it was to play but how much depth there was such that I was still playing it when CM:BB came out.

On this we agree. Why does everyone assume that more features in CMX2 means less intuitiveness? The obvious answer is that there are a great many features now that lack that same ease of use and intuitiveness that did mark the first series. Things like LOS tools which are present but have to be fudged (and can't be for units without weapons). Lack of a unit display screen. Still don't have an overall unit menu from which to see who is still breathing and who is not. I've probably argued against such a thing in the past, but as the game gains in complexity and detail, so too must the interface. It simply has to.

And it is, of course. The right click menu (now space bar menu) for example, is back, to everyone's great delight. As the interface develops, there is nothing that says added features need to add complexity. As Peter suggested, if you only cross a river once every 100 games, what harm is there to including riverine craft? You can opt to never use them. If you really dig them, you can use them all the time. All that is lost is development time, and in my opinion, features such as prisoners, wire, and I'll add fire here for the boys, simply need to be included at some point anyway as they are not frills but rather pretty standard stuff in reading any common accounts of combat in the Second World War.

[thewood]

I'm not sure I am saying what I am thinking the right way, but here goes:

If you leave out the "odd" stuff and put in the no frills options, you get a boring game. CMSF has a lot of good stuff, but I feel I have played it out up to a point. It is starting to become a puzzle, and a repetitive one at that.

A good example is Matrix's Panzer Command: Winter Storm. To me it is an East front version of CMSF. Compared to CMBB, its a bare bones game that plays itself out pretty quickly, not for lack of units, but there are almost no frills. Infantry is an afterthought and its all about putting metal on metal. I played it for a week and went back to CMBB. They tried to use the module method, but it has been well over a year and they are just now getting ready to launch a new "module".

In CMSF, I find myself playing more red on red than anything because there seems to be some good tactical challenges that don't seem contrived. I was really hoping that after 6 or 7 months the next module would be out to add a little spice. Right now, most of the spice is getting a new patch and playing with stuff that is fixed. In my own layman's terms, I am agreeing with Dorosh, just not being so Canadian about it.

[76mm]

Battlefront's approach to CMSF thus far seems to be to include stuff that "usually" happens in battles of the represented scope. This is perhaps natural in a new engine, and the last seven patches have properly been focused on getting these fundamentals right. In many cases Steve has said that feature X or Y is desired, but they have not had time to implement it. Totally understandable and no big deal.

But in too many cases the response is that a certain feature hasn't been included because it is "outside the scope" of the game or "doesn't occur in real combat", etc. While ASL probably represents one end of the spectrum with all of its quirky capabilities and functions, I think CMSF has gone too far to the other end of the spectrum.

Frankly, I haven't touched the game in months, and have only played sparingly at all, but I found the game to be a rather tedious exercise in firepower (things like troops in buildings getting wiped out by small arms fire, etc.) and devoid of the "little things" that make combat such a fascinating and unpredictable affair. It is one thing to quibble about particular features, but to me a tactical wargame which leaves out so much (rivers, foxholes, barbed wire, slopes passable to infantry but not vehicles, prisoners, etc., etc., etc.) just seems awfully sterile. The niggling bugs and feeling that I was fighting with the interface to get troops to do what I wanted didn't help (sounds like many have been fixed in recent patches, but I wouldn't know).

Admittedly, much of my boredom with CMSF probably stems from the subject matter and contemporary warfare in general (which is probably to a larger extent than earlier periods a tedious exercise in firepower) rather than the engine itself, but to me the constant justifications for keeping features out and the very narrow focus of the games/modules are not an encouraging sign.

To repeat for the umpteenth time, I have no problem with the module concept, but I hope that future games and modules are a bit more expansive than what we've seen so far.

[Paper Tiger]

While I'd LOVE to see more burnable terrain in CMSF, I shudder to think what it might do in terms of frames per second. Although it looks really cool, I'd like to be able to toggle off the smoke from burning wrecks as 20-30 of them KILLS your frames. Imagine what a burning village or field would do to your performance.

[Oddball_E8]

just to weigh in my oppinion here (wich is pretty lightweight i know) i have to say that on the matter of subject interest i have absolutely no bias... i love russian stuff and thats about it... thats why i play more CMBB than CMAK for example (but i still, to this day, play both) and thats also why i was really looking forward to CMSF ("despite" it being a modern setting)

however... i stopped playing CMSF after about a month or so... played a little again after 1.05 (i think) but lost interest pretty fast again...

so its really not about the fact that its not WWII or that its with the wrong kind of countries represented... i love everything russian-made when it comes to warfare...

no i just lost interest because the game felt so thin and thats not a good thing...

recently, i played a hotseat battle with my friend in CMBB where i actually bought a jagdtiger just for the fun of it... and he spent the entire battle trying to outmanouver that beast (and finally did)...

we both agree that that was one of the best battles we've ever had..

but if CMBB came out today on the CMx2 engine that battle would never happen because the Jagdtiger was "not common enough in combat to be included"

now that is exactly what i have a problem with here... dont cut out the rare stuff just cos its not in every battle... instead put it in there just to get that one in a million battle that is so much fun to play.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Why the letter? Because that's what I would describe a rules lawyer as and that's the sense in which I use it.

Ah; you're unfamiliar with actual usage of the phrase then. Makes it hard to have an intelligent discussion with you. Off topic anyway, and since further conversation on this line only further exposes you as a bigot, I suggest we drop the subject. </font>

[John Kettler]

Steve,

The last time I checked, Army doctrine was "we train the way we fight." From this, it ineluctably follows that the Army views what it's teaching as important enough to justify the time spent teaching it, given all the other things combat infantry not only has to know but make second nature. All I'm trying to do is give the CMSF player running infantry the same set of capabilities the real world infantry has, together with the limitations attached thereto. That said,

a force looking for a quick victory may not be properly equipped for MOUT, but we can hardly say we don't know what to expect anymore after Fallujah (obviously fought by the Marines) and similar. CMSF troops ought to be able to carry out the same actions as their real life counterparts, with the same gear. Were I the Syrians, I'd have barricades, boobytraps, blocked stairwells and such all over the place, leaving the U.S. with an agonizing set of choices: advance through the fire-swept streets or hack room by room through a place deliberately designed to hamstring mobility and produce casualties at every turn. So many possibilities! At Ortona, the Germans deliberately removed the backs of buildings on the far side of the street, turning them into shooting galleries when the British entered them.

It may or may not be feasible for you to model entry by other than doors, for I don't know what your code and coding resources permit, but I fail to see why, at the very least, the grunts wouldn't be pitching or firing grenades into a house, lighting up the windows, etc., prior to dynamic entry.

Likewise, barbed wire and truck tires make dandy obstacles for blocking stairwells. In fact, one such obstacle alone resulted in significant U.S. casualties in a MOUT exercise I saw. The OPFOR rained down grenades and lead on attempt after attempt to come up that thoroughly impeded stairwell. You may recall that I argued strongly for both in the early days of CMSF development. Burning tires are great for blocking normal LOS and channeling movement, a fact repeatedly observed in battles all over the Third World.

Speaking of lighting things up, one of the ways things catch fire is from tracer. This is readily confirmable from battle accounts going back to at least WW II. Another is from explosions. Both are "natural processes" in battle, quite apart from the deliberate ignition model some are concerned about. When you start mixing incendiaries and explosives of various sorts with flammable interiors, propane tanks and such, these things happen!

Taking prisoners, if nothing else, for interrogation has been with us since warfare began. Many patrols and such are sent out specifically for that task alone. The Russians call it "capturing a tongue," and it is a high priority task. Seems to me to be a very basic aspect of any wargame at this level. Remember the

4 Ss? Secure. Silence. Separate. Speed. IOW, once captured, disarm POWs of visible weapons, then check them for weapons and documents and hold them under guard. Don't let them talk to each other, for this gives officers and NCOs a chance to shut up those who might otherwise talk. Separate the leaders from the men. Same reason. Get the POWs to the rear, or at least out from under fire, ASAP. Time is of the essence both in finding out what they know and in seeing what they had when captured. I'd love to see some sort of

Subdue command implemented, which would represent cold cocking/sapping a sentry, grabbing a sleeping officer, etc. If you wanted to be cute, you could even tie the likelihood of doing it quietly to the unit and HQ attributes. The task then becomes bringing this worthy back alive. I believe we've made a number of significant captures in Iraq exactly this way, either by stealth or surrounding a place and entering suddenly and in overwhelming force, leaving no time to even react.

Steve, I know full well that resources and cash are finite there, but given what you've bitten off, and what you're facing in modeling WW II, I think some excellent points have been made as to why certain things need to be represented in CMSF which presently aren't when it comes to infantry.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by Oddball_E8:

but if CMBB came out today on the CMx2 engine that battle would never happen because the Jagdtiger was "not common enough in combat to be included"

now that is exactly what i have a problem with here... dont cut out the rare stuff just cos its not in every battle... instead put it in there just to get that one in a million battle that is so much fun to play.

I wouldn't say we'll never get the unusual stuff, we'll just have to pay for it in add on modules. My expectation is once it's all said and done we'll actually see more vehicles covering the western front after the first two WWII games are done along with their modules. Maybe I'll be wrong but I have hopes.

[Huntarr]

Well hell since we need to add anything that occasionally happens in combat, I want to make sure the Marine module gets......

Silly String!

Yes that's right Silly String. Hopefully some of you know what I'm talking about. Since it happened we have to model it.

[ March 08, 2008, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Huntarr ]

[Sequoia]

You mean for spraying into a room to look for trip wires right? I always wondered if that was real or a joke hoax.

How about those little robots with the camera on them that are used to enter a building to look for traps, ambushes etc. What are they called?

Huntarr, am I right that you're a beta-tester for the USMC module?

[Huntarr]

http://www.robotmatrix.org/RobotResourcePage.asp?urlBody=http://www.irobot.com/sp.cfm?pageid=140

iRobots' Packbot Scout.

Sequoia the answer to your query is "Aye sir."

[Childress]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

I'd like Helicopters landing, Parachute drops and landing craft in the game, but I can live without them because they aren't really much more than eye candy in terms of the actual combat.

Peter. [/QB]

Exactly. That's useless chrome. Though some aircraft effects would be welcome.

My personal preferences for future developments are, in order:

1- Squashing the few remaining bugs; pathfinding, movement order quirks (e.g., apparently Quick=Fast-fatigue), WEGO issues, etc.

2- Adding more functionality and flavor to infantry ops.

3- Addressing the quickbattle morass.

4- Adding environmental effects like fire, arty smoke and such.

...99-Inlcuding more nifty vehicles and troop types.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Childress:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

I'd like Helicopters landing, Parachute drops and landing craft in the game, but I can live without them because they aren't really much more than eye candy in terms of the actual combat.

Peter.

Exactly. That's useless chrome. Though some aircraft effects would be welcome.

My personal preferences for future developments are, in order:

1- Squashing the few remaining bugs; pathfinding, movement order quirks (e.g., apparently Quick=Fast-fatigue), WEGO issues, etc.

2- Adding more functionality and flavor to infantry ops.

3- Addressing the quickbattle morass.

4- Adding environmental effects like fire, arty smoke and such.

...99-Inlcuding more nifty vehicles and troop types. [/QB]</font>

[Childress]

Lol, I'm agreeing with Dorosh and he's dissing me... Moderators?

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by Childress:

Lol, I'm agreeing with Dorosh and he's dissing me... Moderators?

To paraphrase Harry Truman: If ya want a friend on this forum...Get a Dog!

[abneo3sierra]

It seems that some people in this thread are confusing the current cm-sf with the topic which is a world war 2 title,nothing regarding snowing or not in syria, etc.

Huntarr..We are coming to get our rope back

[JasonC]

"Those of you who find what we're offering to be inadequate, you're welcome to move on to some other extremely realistic 3D tactical wargame that gives players 10 times more stuff than they're paying for. At present that would be CMx1"

Xactly. Don't see that it is something to be satisfied about, but if it is, fine. As for impossible to please, I am pleased with CMBB, though yes I've found my share of fault with bits of it, obviously. I expect to be playing CMBB well into the future.

I long for a game up two levels in scale, showing division level fighting with company sized units, with a WW II setting. CMSF mechanics as they are now but set in WW II, on the other hand, I don't think would surpass CMBB in any way, leaving me at your option number 3.

One man's opinion...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Childress:

Lol, I'm agreeing with Dorosh and he's dissing me... Moderators?

Not dissing, just trying to understand....

Seriously, what's the difference between "chrome" and "flavor"???? :confused:

I mean we obviously agree, it just seemed contradictory to dismiss chrome in one sentence and call for flavor in the next...

But even more seriously, what kinds of enhancements to the infantry model would you suggest? I think that that is what we are discussing and agreeing on and I would quite honestly be interested in your take on it, if you had some specific ideas.

[Battlefront.com]

This topic keeps wondering around

Since we started making CM, some 10 years ago, we have stuck to a singular philosophy and we will never swerve from it. And that is that CM will only simulate the common aspects of tactical warfare. No grappling hooks for situations that happened about 2-3 times in all of WWII (at least the ETO), no para dropping that happened about 3 times in the ETO, no setting fire to cows and having them scare the enemy (probably happened one time at least!), and so on and so forth. We don't give a rat's ass if it is theoretically possible if it wasn't something that was (or is, in the case of CM:SF) commonly seen on the battlefield. Simulating outliers with the same weight as common functions is just not what CM is about and it never will be.

In particular this means no purposeful lighting of fires. We have had this discussion dozens of times before, usually with irate ASL players who think that without this tactical warfare can not be credibly simulated. It's complete bunk and they know it, but I think they like to forget it so they can argue for it anyway

What is our primary aversion to simulating things which could theoretically happen that in fact don't have a strong history of being used? I've already outlined this a few pages ago and it appears not much attention was paid to it. In short, if we simulate the ability to do something we ALSO have to simulate the reasons why it wouldn't be very useful/practical/possible. Since it's a complete and utter waste of our time to simulate something and then simulate making sure it isn't used, we just skip the intensive coding/testing cycle and don't have it at all. That way we avoid the gamey use of something without strenuous development effort.

Now, having said that you guys seem to be confusing the issues. Just because something isn't in CM:SF now we aren't saying it shouldn't be in the future. Also, this logic doesn't directly apply to the inclusion of uncommon/rare units. We are predisposed to giving rare stuff lower priority, but that doesn't mean they won't happen at all. Two examples that prove this are in CM:Marines:

1. BMP-3

2. T-90

The BMP-3s that Syria has are few and only held by a single unit (the Airborne division). The T-90s are actually not in the Syrian's hands at all. Yet we are going to have both in the next Module. So those worried about never seeing a Jagdtiger in CMx2 should put those worries aside. Heck, you might even finally get to see a Maus! But no, you won't ever get 300 different vehicles to play with in one go for $45. As I've said, it is impractical from a development timeline and cost perspective.

Personally, I can understand why someone prone to liking WWII (especially ETO and/or Eastern Front) would find CM:SF "boring" and "sterile". However, I don't feel that way myself. To me it is exciting and dynamic in its own way, which is a different way than a temperate environment. Yes, modern warfare is more about concentration of firepower than WW2, but again that means a different gaming experience to enjoy instead of having only one paradigm to explore.

It should be mentioned that a lot of people felt the desert component of CMAK was a complete waste of time. In fact, I would bet that most of the people that bought CMAK did so to basically have CMBO in an updated form. I certainly remember the reaction to when we announced CMAK... lots of people yawned and then demanded we remake CMBO. I know, lots of collective amnesia here when it comes to complaints about CMx1, but the Forums are here for anybody to go back and see what I mean.

What I'm saying is that without any changes to the modeling at all, swapping in WWII stuff in a lush temperate environment will be a completely different experience. I'm not saying it would be a perfect one (there is no such thing as perfection, after all), but a lot of the complaints I see today would vanish without much in the way of additional features. Fortunately for you guys, we are going to add a lot of the COMMON stuff you are looking for. Lighting fire to guys jumping out of planes with grappling hooks and potted plants (or whatever else was in ASL ) excepted!

Steve

[ March 08, 2008, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

John,

Steve, I know full well that resources and cash are finite there, but given what you've bitten off, and what you're facing in modeling WW II, I think some excellent points have been made as to why certain things need to be represented in CMSF which presently aren't when it comes to infantry.

I don't disagree. However, some think that because they can make a case for A and B features to get in that means we should include the rest of the alphabet while we're at it. It's a bad argument and we're honest enough to say so when we see it. So remember that just because I argue against being able to order infantry to use their helmets as latrines doesn't mean I'm arguing that we shouldn't add something like barbedwire.

For example, positional warfare has a lot more relevance to WW2 ETO than it does in our hypothetical Syrian example. I've gone over the reasoning why it was de-emphasized in CM:SF in another thread fairly recently, so I'll not recover that ground again. However, I've NEVER said that there would be nothing more done in support of positional warfare in the future. I'm sure from time to time I've said the opposite, in fact. If not, I'm saying it now that some additional features associated with positional warfare will be seen in WW2 games.

Another example is the whole prisoner issue. Surrendering units will be directly simulated in the WW2 game probably along similar lines as CMx1. But no, you won't be able to interrogate prisoners, assign guys to escort prisoners back to holding areas, etc. There are reasons for this and they aren't always programming. Interrogations, for example, RARELY had an effect on the immediate tactical battle. In fact, often times the information dragged out of prisoners was of no value at all even after it was recovered because more often than not soldiers don't have a clue what is going on beyond what their immediate unit was doing just before captured. So there is no reason to include this even if we had oodles of coding and testing time available.

Again... additional features that are relevant and practical to do will be included in future releases. Things that are not relevant or practical will never be included. This philosophy worked just fine for CMx1, despite the complaints, so we plan on sticking to it.

Steve

[Pvt. Ryan]

So, there will be motorcycles in the WWII game?