Some disconnect between the detail and the scope/scale of CMSF.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Like many I have now played quite a lot of CMSF and there is a disconnect between some of the detail and the scope and scale of most battles.

Most, but not all, seem keen on battles fought at the scale company v company and often near battalion v battalion. At that scale you tend to manoeuvre squads as squads… many of them at a time and of course your many AFVs. Even using pause this has to be done at some speed. However some of the detail in CMSF it more appropriate to a game where you command no more than a platoon…or less. I do not mean 1:1… which is a very good thing…. but let me give an example I have used before of what I do mean.

The position of doors matters hugely because short of blast it is the only way to get in and out of houses. But before ordering your troops into a house you have to know the position of the door. If you do not and just order your troops into a building the door may turnout to be on the enemy’s side of the building. Your troops will run round the building looking for the door and get slaughtered.

But looking down on the battlefield at 45 degrees from your own lines you will often not be able to spot the doors. Particularly in villages with mixed buildings. You have to spend a long-time just looking for the doors location… while not watching the battlefield .

You will have got the point… this is a level of detail that does not work in battles of the scale most… but not all… wish to play. There just is not the time to identify where all the doors are before ordering your troops about. 1:1 is great… but better a system close to CMBB/CMX1 when it comes to entering and exiting buildings.

This sort of thing matters… because it destroys the immersions of the game.

Great game… but as a fan of CMSF I hope BFC will be realistic about the scale and scope of the game and what fits best with battles of that scale.

Looking forward to many more CMX2 battles ,

All the best,

Kip.

[track]

The differences between the graphic presentation and the actual accuracy at which the things are resolved in the game might turn out to be the greatest undoing of the CMx2 series.

The game lets you assume that it is 1:1 what you see is what you get scale, but infact it is not and this leads into very odd-looking stuff and confusion.

The CMx1 was much more abstract, but it was presented in a way which did not lead in to any major misassumptions.

[jeffsmith]

I always enjoyed smaller "Byte Battles" in CMX1

because I could focus on small unit command

(In larger scenarios I often lost track even in WEGO)

I am finding that in CMSF I prefer the more limited battles

to even a greater degree, due to working in Real Time

[Battlefront.com]

Obviously I disagree that the increase in some details has created fundamental problems. For example, I do NOT go around looking to see where doors are any more than a battlefield commander does in real life. You make do with what you have when you have it. If my objective is a building on the far side of a city, I do not preplan where I'm going to have my guys set up shop to do overwatch to the degree of needing to know where the door for that particular buliding is. I just focus on the tactical location and get my guys into position using whatever forms of entry are available when I get there. That is what a real life commander does, right?

So, as the player I keep focused on the battlefield and do not get distracted by meaningless pieces of trivia. And by that I mean what forms of entry are available for the 30 buildings that are between my overwatch position and my current position. Frankly, I don't give a hoot because all I care about is the building that I'm trying to get to and any hot spot that comes up along the way. Since I can't know ahead of time where the enemy might compell me to enter a building (either offensively or defensively) I don't worry about it.

In short... don't worry so much about micromangement and the problems of micromangement become less of an issue.

As for the scope/scale of future CMx2 games... don't expect much of a change from the way it is now. For the last two years I have been quite clear that we aren't going to tailor fit CMx2 to 1+ battalions on each side. On the other hand we aren't going to do anything specifically to curtail it. So if you want to fight 1_ battalions on either side, go right ahead. Just don't ask us to skew the game in that direction because it's wasted breath

Steve

[kipanderson]

Steve,

I do not worry about where the doors are ahead of time.. I just get on with it like any one else.

The problem comes when I “do have to enter” a building…. run across a road to a building or some such thing…. but very often I cannot see where the doors are. I… and I am sure many people, tend to view the battlefield from camera position 3 or 4 looking down from behind my own lines. This means I often cannot spot the doors, very often in fact. I then have to stop the game just to go down with the camera to check out where the doors are. Then when I know I order my troop in..

It’s a shame because it take so long… if you don’t do that you risk your troops being slaughtered simply because the door was in an unfortunate position .

If I were watching you play CMSF… fighting through some of the excellent villages that are turning up you too would have to stop the game to check where the doors are…. or get slaughtered .

You have to micromanage… that is what the game is… or you will for sure get massacred .

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Battlefront.com]

I don't use the height keys usually, but I'd guess I use height 2 more or less. Do you have a mouse wheel? If not, that could be part of the problem. Zipping up and down with that is a breeze. I don't even think about it. But if I were slave to the keyboard to manipulate height... yeah, that wouldn't be nearly as quick.

You have to micromanage… that is what the game is… or you will for sure get massacred

That's my point... I don't micromanage, I don't get slaughtered. And I play RealTime exclusively and rarely pause

Steve

[JasonC]

Personally, I so far prefer CMSF games that are at the scale of at most a single company on the largest side and preferably more like 2 platoons, and 1 or 2 platoons on the weaker side. That is, half a step to one step smaller than I liked in CMx1.

[Battlefront.com]

Personally, I always hated the depiction of houses and buildings as a cube that could be entered from either side just as easily as the next. Defending buildings was a LOT harder than it should have been because you had to worry about an assault on all 4 sides (or at least 2 or 3). I know I was not alone in that annoyance

Personally, I don't think we could possibly have credible MOUT warfare without explicit simulation of doors and windows. And don't say that CMx1 had great MOUT because I don't think anybody would be foolish enough to suggest that (or at least wouldn't have prior to CM:SF coming out). We put almost no thought into MOUT warfare in CMx1. The fact that it handled it as well as it did was accidental. We knew we weren't going to get lucky like that twice.

The funny thing is that just about everything in CMx2 was requested by CMx1 players. From what I can tell some should have been careful what they wished for (or whined for as the case often was ).

Steve

[c3k]

Steve,

To quote you from your above post, "...using whatever forms of entry are available when I get there..." This is in regards to how you approach buildings.

If I were to do the same, I'd also consider windows and breaches (whether formed explosively or by ramming through a wall) to be "forms of entry".

It seems that our CM:SF men are unable to climb through windows. Or run through breaches.

Any word on changing this?

Thanks,

Ken

[track]

Double post. Deleted.

[ September 05, 2007, 05:48 AM: Message edited by: track ]

[track]

if you want to fight 1_ battalions on either side, go right ahead. Just don't ask us to skew the game in that direction because it's wasted breath

I did not mean that something should done to the unit scale. Quite the opposite. What needs definately more detail and accuracy is the way in which the terrain features are presented in the game.

If unit presentation is 1:1 soldiers then the terrain should at least roughly be what you see is what you get. How would urban combat or WWII hedgegrow scenarios ever work properly if soldiers can see and shoot through tall stone walls (just one example). At least it leaves you as a player very confused about what is cover and what is not.

[ September 05, 2007, 05:46 AM: Message edited by: track ]

[dynaman200]

Maybe a highlight for doors and windows would be appropriate? Able to be turned on/off by the player.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

That's my point... I don't micromanage, I don't get slaughtered. And I play RealTime exclusively and rarely pause

Steve

And I can find my way around my house in the dark. That doesn't mean I make fun of visitors who turn a light on instead.

-dale

[Rocky Balboa]

I'm going to have to agree with Kip on some of his points. Here's what happens to me in RT. In the heat of battle I give a squad an assault order to enter a building directly across the street. I then realize; after they start to move, that the door is on the other side of the building so my soldiers are exposed in the open for a longer period of time and this has resulted in excessive casualties.

I do understand that you must model buildings correctly in order to realistically simulate a MOUT environment but it does become an extremely challenging task in RT (especially RT/Multiplayer were you cannot pause) to remember to check each building for entry points before issuing movement orders. This becomes a time consuming task especially were buildings are separated by alleys because its difficult sometimes to maneuver the camera to get a good view. This level of micromanagement is the reason that I don't play RT/Multiplayer. I enjoy RT against the computer because I can pause to make these choices, but WEGO is my playstyle of choice in multiplayer.

As I stated before these entry points are necessary for a realistic MOUT Sim but I think this illustrates how important WEGO is for multiplayer. Unfortunately, even with patch 1.03, the pathfinding and TAC/AI still does too many strange things to make WEGO feasible for me. Perhaps with some more tweaking and the ability adjust the turn timer, I might be able to play multiplayer again. :cool:

[ September 05, 2007, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Rocky Balboa ]

[Guest]

Hey, BFC, point well taken. There are obviously people out there that can play the game and do well regardless of the issues discussed.

I've noticed, though, that most of those people *don't* use infantry. They don't dismount, they don't clear buildings. If they do, they do so after pulverizing the area. If that's your bent, so be it. I tend to think that you would play a more balanced game, though.

That said, then, I wonder: how do you, as an expert player, clear buildings, cross streets, etc., using infantry? How do you *not* take massive casualties in a MOUT environment?

Edit: in-game, obviously. I understand that MOUT is a difficult environment to fight in regardless.

[ September 05, 2007, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Phillip Culliton ]

[Dirtweasle]

One problem with the doors is if you drop a waypoint in front of the door to change from FAST to HUNT or ASSAULT or whatever it causes the squad to re-group, do a little shuffle, then and only then crash the door. This results in needles casualties as one can imagine. I have not had much better luck just dropping a way point into the house either...

[z1812]

Hi All,

When the pathing works properly micromagement can obviously be reduced. My observations are that pathing works about 80% of the time. However entering buildings is one of the higer ratio actions for poor pathfinding. This is based on playing 1.03. Not extensive testing but what I have noticed so far.

Sqauds I have ordered to enter a building will sometimes ignore a door in front of them to run around to the opposite side

So I would have to agree with Kip that this is a drawback to tactical movement.

Regards John

[ September 05, 2007, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: z1812 ]

[Battlefront.com]

c3k,

To quote you from your above post, "...using whatever forms of entry are available when I get there..." This is in regards to how you approach buildings.

If I were to do the same, I'd also consider windows and breaches (whether formed explosively or by ramming through a wall) to be "forms of entry".

It seems that our CM:SF men are unable to climb through windows. Or run through breaches.

Any word on changing this?

The breach thing is still a bug. Much improved in v1.03, but there is still some circumstance that causes the pathing to send guys the long way around. We'll fix that.

As for window entry... this is really tough to support. It shouldn't be possible to do without a rather large delay and having guys go in basically one at a time, which is a terrible thing to do if the enemy has a chance of shooting at you from either inside or out. So what happens when you click to enter a building and the wall with a door is only slightly further away than the one with the windows? Your unit piles up and drips in via the window side. Now we get into a whole new set of problems that have no easy, clear cut way around.

Will we eventually support going through windows? Probably in the future, but not any time soon.

Track,

If unit presentation is 1:1 soldiers then the terrain should at least roughly be what you see is what you get. How would urban combat or WWII hedgegrow scenarios ever work properly if soldiers can see and shoot through tall stone walls (just one example). At least it leaves you as a player very confused about what is cover and what is not.

This falls into the "bug" category, at least most of the time. We fixed most of the problems with v1.03, but obviously something is still in there. As I've said before, the complexity of the terrain is a big challenge for us in terms of bugs like this. CMx1 was far more rudimentary in terms of terrain, therefore it was more often than not that one behavioral problem had one simple fix once it was discovered.

dynaman200

Maybe a highlight for doors and windows would be appropriate? Able to be turned on/off by the player.

Not a bad idea! It's not something we can do right away, but I've made a note of it for the future.

dalem

And I can find my way around my house in the dark. That doesn't mean I make fun of visitors who turn a light on instead.

When it comes to knowing where an entry way into a particular building is, or isn't, I have no more advantages than any of you. The only person that has a possible advantage is the person who actually made the scenario.

Rocky Balboa,

I'm going to have to agree with Kip on some of his points. Here's what happens to me in RT. In the heat of battle I give a squad an assault order to enter a building directly across the street. I then realize; after they start to move, that the door is on the other side of the building so my soldiers are exposed in the open for a longer period of time and this has resulted in excessive casualties.

Sure, I can see how this happens. However, when we start listing off possible "heat of the moment mistakes" the list will probably be quite long I'm not saying that there isn't something that we can do to make things a bit easier, but inherently the information is there and if you don't use it (for whatever the reason) problems will ensue. That being said, I think there are user interface improvements we can make (perhaps similar to dynaman200's suggestion) that would make things easier to see for a specific building that you're interested in. If I could snap my fingers today and make something happen, this would be how it looked...

Select unit, issue Movement Command, place over building, some sort of graphical indicator shows which side can be entered for that building. This would be unobtrusive and would give you the information you want right there and then when you need it. You could "browse" entire blocks of buildings this way too simply by moving the cursor around prior to clicking down a Command.

Unfortunately, I can not snap my fingers and make something like this happen, so it's going to have to sit on a list until we have a chance to do something with it.

Phillip Culliton,

That said, then, I wonder: how do you, as an expert player, clear buildings, cross streets, etc., using infantry? How do you *not* take massive casualties in a MOUT environment?

By taking my time. This is the one best piece of advice I can give any player regardless of what the situation is, but especially in MOUT. Keep your guys in good positions, give them time to make sure they know what the enemy is doing around them, and take "baby steps" when maneuvering. Meaning, if you want to clear a block of buildings, don't give a Squad a chain of Commands that will take it from one building to the next in sequence. Instead, order it into a single building and then wait to see what happens. Then reposition and reconfigure the supporting units, perhaps choosing a new "point" squad, and then enter the next building on your ToDo List. It takes a LOT longer to do this, but the results are a LOT better. Nothing gets your guys cut down faster than rushing ahead or trying to do too much all in one go.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

z1812,

Sqauds I have ordered to enter a building will sometimes ignore a door in front of them to run around to the opposite side

This is a known problem which I think I alluded to in the v1.03 release notes. The problem is with Squads only. What happens is each Fire Team in a Squad is independent of the other in terms of pathing and therefore each one chooses its own way into or out of a building. Often, if not most of the time, one of the Teams sees the other one as blocking the nearest entrance so it seeks an alternative. Undesirable results follow.

This isn't so much a bug as it is a problem with the logic of Squad internal coordination. That makes it more difficult to address than a bug. However, it is high up on my list of improvements to make because I completely agree... even ONE time like this is too many. Even if nothing bad happens as a result, the heart attack you get when you see 1/2 of your Squad running into unknown territory sucks

Steve

[Guest]

Steve, thanks very much. I have a follow-up question: how do you do all this in real time (especially since you pause so rarely )?

Also, the actions I would take to follow your suggestions would qualify as micro-management for me... how do you do all this without micro-managing, without getting down at street level and checking sight lines, picking out your entry points in the next building, etc.? I may be off, but your response regarding avoiding micro thinking leads me to believe you *don't* do stuff like this.

Thanks again.

[Battlefront.com]

Phillip,

Steve, thanks very much. I have a follow-up question: how do you do all this in real time (especially since you pause so rarely )?

By not worrying what my guys are doing In other words, I put them into good positions and let them stay there until I am ready to do something. If there is shooting I monitor and tweak what they are doing, then move to something else if there is something else to do. There are times when my forces basically sit and don't move for something like 5-10 minutes. Instead I just redirect fire and give thought as to what to do next.

That's really the key. The CMx1 WeGo philosophy of "a unit not being ordered to do something was a unit being wasted" can really cause problems in CMx2, especially for RealTime.

You might remember various discussions about "time compression" problems with wargames in general but CMx1 specifically. The compression happens because people manipulate too many things too frequently with too little time inbetween actions. This works in most wargames because you have the God's Eye advantage coupled with turns which makes everything more predictable. RealTime makes the God's Eye far more difficult to acheive and rushing things tends to open oneself up to unintended consequences. So take your time and things tend to unfold in a more positive way.

Also, the actions I would take to follow your suggestions would qualify as micro-management for me... how do you do all this without micro-managing, without getting down at street level and checking sight lines, picking out your entry points in the next building, etc.? I may be off, but your response regarding avoiding micro thinking leads me to believe you *don't* do stuff like this.

Correct For the most part I eyeball it, approximate, guess, etc. I always played CMx1 this way too, so for me the move to CMx2 was very easy. We've had long discussions about different play styles in the past. Mine is probably best described as "intuitive" while others are more "control" based. There is nothing wrong with either of these play styles, however intuitive play tends to work better for RealTime games. Especially when Pause isn't an option.

Steve

[Guest]

Hmm. That's kind of my play style as well. There are long stretches, after reaching good positions, where I will sit and watch (and my troops will be doing the same). I might have one or two maneuver elements clearing a building in my rear or finding a good position for their MMG, but very often everyone will just be watching for the enemy.

It's when it comes time to move, though, that things fall apart. I move slowly as well (I guess I fall into the "control" category, since I tend not to just eyeball it but instead try to see it from my moving troops' eyes), but when the crap hits the fan I get slaughtered.

My holding elements get cut to pieces at long ranges, my (usually few) maneuver elements get killed in ambushes (well, sometimes it's just enemies under their noses that they don't spot). I tend to Hunt a lot and use Target Arcs to set zones of fire.

My results seem to be a lot less positive than yours. I guess it might be experience, or better tactical thinking, or that you feel less need to "control" your troops. I feel like I'm doing the right things but still losing many more troops than I would expect to.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi again,

Well, it's difficult for me to say what might be going wrong between your tactical thinking and ingame execution. For sure trying to do things from the eyes of your units is going to take more time, so without a pause I don't see that as being practical to do in RealTime.

The only thing I can suggest is that in modern combat, particullarly MOUT warfare, distance is a double edged sword. In some circumstances it pays off to keep your guys fairly densely organized and their supporting fire capabilities focused on short distance threats. In other situations you want exactly the opposite. And of course combined arms is critically important. All of these things were important in WWII, but thanks to the high lethality and rates of fire of modern day weapons... you don't have as much chance of recovering from a surprise as back then. If a Kornet gets your Abram's flank into its crossharis, the Abrams is likely going to be toast on the first shot even if the enemy is 1000m away. In WWII you could generally count on a miss or two to give you some sort of warning.

Mind you... I'm not saying a real life US Army Major would give me a passing grade for how I handle my troops. I make mistakes just like everybody else. But that's just it... they are mistakes and mistakes have the potential to be catastrophic. IN that sense, contemporary is no different than WWII. Three real life examples:

1. A young and arrogant 2nd LT lead his platoon into the middle of a bunch of German bunkers. Unfortunately, the bunkers were occupied and the area the platoon was situated in was the pre-established kill sack. A single soldier, a grizzled NCO who was advising against the move, managed to escape. The rest all died or were left wounded on the battlefield. This happened within a few seconds.

2. A certain famous tank encounter in Normandy by a certain SS Tiger Ace. Need I elaborate?

3. Also in Normandy, August 14th the Aufklärungs Battalion of the 2nd Panzer Division was surprised US 213nd Tank Destroyer Battalion. The results? Within a few minutes the bulk of the German Battalion was wiped out. All of its halftracks were destroyed.

My point here is that in real life there is a fine line between having the upper hand and watching an unmitigated disaster unfold. If CM:SF didn't simulate the latter then it wouldn't be a very accurate portrayal of warfare

Steve

[kipanderson]

Steve,

Yes…if you could come up with some way to make life easier, make spotting doors less time consuming and like hard work then that would be the problem solved. .

To me CMX2 is very much “son of CMX1”… ultra Squad Leader . There is something magical about this scale. The scale of Squad Leader and the CM games is in my view… the smallest/lowest you can go and still create realistic wargames. If you manage to make CMX2 just a touch less hard work we will have perfection. CM games are still the only PC games I play. Although I take quite lot of wargames for a test drive… they never quite make the grade.

If you ever feel like trying an operational game…. do not hold back. There is a niche waiting for a quality WEGO operational game.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

If you ever feel like trying an operational game…. do not hold back. There is a niche waiting for a quality WEGO operational game.

Airborne Assault was released several years ago. It's been followed up by other theatres IIRC.

Any game where you order squads around, on the other hand, is not "operational". That's as goofy as the suggestions being bandied about on the Matrix forum.