While BFC is back, please tell me why... [whining inside]

[Darkmath]

... why hand to hand combat is no simulated at all?

I mean... how such a thing could be missing?

Is it going to be adressed in this patch?

Now, I hardly play with CMSF without thinking about it.

P.S.:

Sorry for b****ing

[MikeyD]

I recall the board discussed this early on. How could this be represented with any 'tact'? A U.S. soldier with 40+ pounds of body armor trying to wrassle a wiry 18 year old? A U.S. soldier plunging a k-bar into a prone Syrian? Opponents trading blows like rock-em-sock-em robots? Don't forget when the shoes's on the other foot too - a Syrian sliding a knife up under a prone soldier's armor vest. In the original conversation someone hit on the idea of those cartoon spinning fur balls with feet and fists poking out.

[Sequoia]

I think it's more of a priority issue since it's supposed to be rather rare in modern combat. They'll have to have it for WWII though. Maybe they'll add it to CMSF once Charles has it programmed for WWII, but then again they'd have to do some sort of animation I would think. It need be no more elaborate then the buddy aid however.

[Guest]

I'd think it's abstracted. Room-to-room fighting is certainly abstracted, and "shoot him in the face from two feet away" (as room-to-room is currently represented) seems to me to be a normal endpoint of a hand-to-hand fight.

Honestly, even if it *were* missing, and they did add it, it would likely be abstracted and not shown directly.

[MikeyD]

There is definitely a change in close combat. Everybody goes to full auto. Ammo comsumption skyrockets. But animations of stomping on people? We may never see that in this game.

[M1A1TC]

US Army shoulder arms do not fire full auto. Few quick 3 round bursts - more likely

What I want to see in the game - soldiers lining up for a door breach, kicking door in, clearing with a grenade, followed by soldiers bursting in, sectioning the space, etc.

[dalem]

I think the issue is less the lack of Ong Bak kicking and flipping, and more the desire for some sort of resolution to two enemy units standing in the same room for half the game.

-dale

[bitchen frizzy]

Yes, what dalem said.

This simulation engine is supposed to ultimately be the foundation for many BFC wargames to come, and designed to be flexible enough to cover units of all eras from cavemen to Space Lobsters.

Sooner or later, close combat must be addressed. Maybe visuals of bayonets spilling intestines would be too much for some viewers, but somehow the subject has to be covered. It's gonna be pretty difficult to do, say, a Civil War game without it.

Maybe blur out the image of people fighting, the way they do boobs and naughty bits on broadcast television.

[MarkEzra]

CMx1 was a good enough abstraction of hand to hand combat...which visually is none. The "inside a building fighting" must be abstracted in the CMx1 mode. No interior walls, no furniture...no TV's and no water beds making a mess of the apartment below. Units that are panicked...aren't gonna to participate much...just like CMx1...In playing many house fights only those troops that are panicked stay put for long periods...Don't find it disconcerting in view of the empty space that is abstracted as some guys living room, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, hallway, closets, and office with PC. Actually I identify with those guys cringing in the corner...pretty sure that's where I'd be!

[bitchen frizzy]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

CMx1 was a good enough abstraction of hand to hand combat...which visually is none. The "inside a building fighting" must be abstracted in the CMx1 mode. No interior walls, no furniture...no TV's and no water beds making a mess of the apartment below. Units that are panicked...aren't gonna to participate much...just like CMx1...In playing many house fights only those troops that are panicked stay put for long periods...Don't find it disconcerting in view of the empty space that is abstracted as some guys living room, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, hallway, closets, and office with PC. Actually I identify with those guys cringing in the corner...pretty sure that's where I'd be!

What if someone's found your hiding place and is whaling on you with a rifle butt?

The problem isn't that some pixeltroops duck out of close combat. Hiding in the wardrobe is realistic and if that's in the game that's wonderful. The problem is that close combat does not happen ever period, with the exception of close range small arms fire.

[YankeeDog]

You are aware that 90% percent of "close combat" would actualy be "close range small arms fire", with a liberal dose of grenades thrown in?

Modern military hand-to-hand combat training puts heavy emphasis on keeping your most deadly asset, i.e., your firearm, in the fight. You only resort to stuff like bayonets and fistifuffs if (a) you are somehow separated from or otherwise unable to bring your firearm to bear, or ( there is some kind of special situation, like you want to take live prisoners for interrogation.

Not saying that putting steel up in 'em *never* happens, and the U.S. military does train for this. But Hollywood and tends to exxagerate the frequency of it happening, esp. in modern combat.

[aka_tom_w]

This thread might be more productive (maybe?) if it was re-titled close combat abstraction missing (or something definitive like that)

The issue is relevant because friendly and opposing units and soldiers appear (in some cases) to be sharing the same room or even the same square meter of floor space without any interaction or combat. I am thinking of images or in game examples I have seen where one live friendly soldier is laying prone under one prone opposing soldier, sometimes they seem to pass in the same space (exactly the same space) and not even spot each other.

I would be happy with something like the same audio cues from CMx1 so you could just hear the close combat and imagine the rest, but we don't even get that, they just share the same space and nothing happens in the room sometimes.

[bitchen frizzy]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

You are aware that 90% percent of "close combat" would actualy be "close range small arms fire", with a liberal dose of grenades thrown in?

In the CMSF setting, that's true. But those remaining 10% of cases stand out when in those rare instances soldiers get really close to each other and... nothing happens.

What about the Civil War? Or Napoleonic wars?

The engine under the hood of CMSF is supposedly flexible enough to allow games of any wars, any era. If close combat cannot be simulated, that's a real problem for games set outside of early 21st-century Syria.

[Paul AU]

Mikey made a point about “tact”, which only made me think; BFC weren’t shy of setting their game in what is a proxy Iraq, a ‘war’-in-progess, a deeply disturbing all-to-real analog of “a U.S. soldier with 40+ pounds of body armor trying to wrassle a wiry 18 year old” – so I don’t think “tact” would hold them back, because, it hasn’t.

This is a detractive aspect of Shock Force that was tentatively mentioned a few times early on, but hasn’t had much play since. I’ll understand if you need to ask me why; but it’s one thing to “model” The Great Patiotic, the Last Good, war, 60 years ago, and another to make a playground out of… let’s just tactfully say, The Current Situation(s).

Which on another level echos my own disinterest in 1-to-1 representation. I actively don’t want to see casualties at all. CMx1’s casualty counter was enough for me.

(Of course I’m aware that this is after all, a war, game. But still).

“Maybe visuals of bayonets spilling intestines would be too much for some viewers…”

Maybe, in more ways than one.

[aka_tom_w]

It would not be wise to suggest the engine cannot model or abstract close combat, I would suggest it just takes time to put it in (somehow).

In the CMSF setting, that's true. But those remaining 10% of cases stand out when in those rare instances soldiers get really close to each other and... nothing happens.

Yes..

As per my earlier post, that is the issue for me and it might not have anything to do with close combat resolution or lack of close combat being modeled graphically, (although it appears that way) it might be something else like spotting or close in room proximity walls and furniture abstraction always thinking those two soldiers are separated by an unseen wall and can't do any real combat.

But if it was Jack Bauer at my command in there, he would know how to identify, locate and kill the unseen targets right through the wall with only one round!

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by bitchen frizzy:

The problem isn't that some pixeltroops duck out of close combat. Hiding in the wardrobe is realistic and if that's in the game that's wonderful. The problem is that close combat does not happen ever period, with the exception of close range small arms fire. [/QB]

Close Combat is abstracted only. It was Abstracted in CMx1 and it is in CMx2. Panic/hiding is represented in both engines the same. The history of the hand to hand combat "problem" pre-dates CMBO. It comes up with each new game. If it were in (along with defined interior spaces!!) you'd hear a roar of approval from all. YankeeDog points out the fact that it actually rarely occurs. I expect, the actual reason it has never been included has far more to do with the technical difficulties and resource management issue that arise.

[bitchen frizzy]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

It would not be wise to suggest the engine cannot model or abstract close combat, I would suggest it just takes time to put it in (somehow).

You are right. I'm not suggesting that it cannot. I'm saying that it does not and if (but only if) that means that it cannot then that's a problem that will have to be fixed eventually.

[SlapHappy]

If it's not an issue (and I'm not saying it is) it begs the question: "What are two enemy combatants doing lying two meters apart in a trench - telling each other dirty jokes?" Shouldn't somebody already be dead or sumfink?

[bitchen frizzy]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

Close Combat is abstracted only.

Really? As I understand it, in CMSF it isn't in at all, except for close range small arms.

It was Abstracted in CMx1...

Irrelevant, for purposes of this discussion. CMX1 is a different game with a different representational scale. In CMX1 we couldn't even see individual soldiers, so it hardly mattered what individuals did in close combat. (Even in that game, though, we could hear the soldiers smacking each other. Not so in CMSF, IIUC.)

YankeeDog points out the fact that it actually rarely occurs.

For the third time, the new CMSF engine is intended to be the basis for many wargames to come from BFC, in many different settings. What part of that don't you understand?

I expect, the actual reason it has never been included has far more to do with the technical difficulties and resource management issue that arise.

I expect the actual reason is squeamishness, since BFC intended this CM engine to be very flexible.

A future game in a medieval setting is going to look pretty d--n silly on screen if close combat cannot be represented!

It's not missed much now because - as you and others have said - close combat in modern war is very rare. That will change as the software is applied to other settings.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by bitchen frizzy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

For the third time, the new CMSF engine is intended to be the basis for many wargames to come from BFC, in many different settings. What part of that don't you understand?

</font>

I think the point your missing is that, just because it's missing in CMSF, doesn't mean the game engine isn't structured in such a way that it can be added relatively easily at a later date.

To use an analogy, if you built a race car to be driven only during daylight races, and you were on a tight build schedule, you might leave out the headlights to save time. But if you knew you were going to be racing the same car some months later in a nighttime race, you might leave space for the headlights, and wiring to hook them up, so they can be dropped in later. Similarly, CMSF does not include much in the way of hand-to-hand combat modeling. But this doesn't mean the engine isn't capable of it. It just means BFC decided to focus its programming, modeling, and animation resources elsewhere for now.

This is all speculation on my part, of course. But BFC has made a big point about how the new game engine is much more modular than the old one, making it easier to add new functionality at a later date. I always assumed this was the kind of thing they they were talking about.

I mean, really, the game doesn't currently model Crushing Claws of Death, but obviously such fuctionality is going to be essential to CM:Space Lobsters of Doom.

Cheers,

YD

[dalem]

Originally posted by Paul AU:

“Maybe visuals of bayonets spilling intestines would be too much for some viewers…”

Maybe, in more ways than one.

They could go "300" on the deal and have elaborate slo-mo graphics of soldiers made up of apparently 600 gallons of cranberry sauce under high pressure sweatily spraying their insides all over the terrain tile.

That'ud be something. Maybe a nice little Easter Egg in the WWII version for when a Sherman gets plugged by an 88?

-dale

[MarkEzra]

This part I understand:

"It's not missed much now because - as you and others have said - close combat in modern war is very rare. That will change as the software is applied to other settings."

[bitchen frizzy]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I think the point your missing is that, just because it's missing in CMSF, doesn't mean the game engine isn't structured in such a way that it can be added relatively easily at a later date.

No, I'm not missing that point. Actually, I'm also inclined to believe that it can be added to the game engine. But why not discuss it and ask about it? This is a discussion board about the game, such questions ought not be taboo.

[YankeeDog]

Sure, if you want to... but I'm not sure what of substance there is to discuss until BFC actually gets around to tackling a historical period where HtH combat is more important. What with how busy BFC is with fixing features already in the game, I doubt you'll get much more out of them other than a "Yes, it's possible, but we're not working on it right now."

But if there's some nuance of HtH combat modeling you think might be interesting to consider, by all means, expostulate. I'm bored.

Cheers,

YD

[Omenowl]

I think it could be modeled with a tertiary weapon if they are out of ammo and within a short range (7 meter or so). Each weapon has a range it won't be used (grenades for example or a unit with a sniper).