Where we're headed from here... a quick glance

[Cpl Steiner]

I've read lots of military novels about historical military actions and a recurring theme within them was the idea of a page showing the unit roster with men crossed off as casualties during the story. There was one about British paras at Arnhem. Another was set in a hypothetical WWIII with British or American units fighting off a Soviet mechanized battalion. Even sci-fi novels like "Starship Troopers" and "The Forever War" have had unit rosters. The whole essence of a campaign seems to me to be about following a unit through a series of battles and seeing what happens to it. BFC understand the first part - they just don't seem to understand the second part, about seeing what happens to the unit.

If some others are quite happy with the game as it is, good for them, but I am sure a lot would like some sort of unit roster to track through the campaign. As I said earlier, it would seem to be a not impossible task to implement if enough people wanted it.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

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

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

Ok lets put this another way ... why are all of you core unit fans hell bent on making this game unrealistic?

Here's the thing; it's a game. You don't get more unrealistic than that.

People aren't arguing for Hamstertruppen, just a sense of actually caring what happens to units. If you don't care for what happens to your units in a campaign you pulled the rug out from under the whole concept. </font>

[Secondbrooks]

I agree quite much in this. I'm not so much about core troops (wouldn't actually care less), but how troops under my command have performed... Hard to say whatkind it should be, but i would welcome somekind stopping moment between missions. I've found out that it's major spirit-lifter in many games atleast for me. It doesn't neseccary have to have anything functional, like upgrading units/weapons in some games.

There has and will be idea of core units, 'my boys'. It's called humannature (for atleast part of humans). It might not be there when things go well, but after months of heavy fighting and tens/hundrerds of men dead + multiple amount of wounded and troops are getting weary to fighting/marching/being alert. Now these are good moments to give atleast little rest for My boys when My batallion receives attachments from higher command. It doesn't mean that they will be sent in first wave to be slaugthered (like in games), but overall they are prone to get hardest tasks and less rest.

Part of units which will be tossed from unit to unit over and over again ain't easy one, i've read enough about this.

[ April 21, 2008, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

I never made it past the first scenario of the campaign that came with CMSF. I had no connection with whatever units that were under command. It was just another scenario in a bunch of connected scenarios. And that isn't a real campaign, not in the sense the wider community - the wider potential customer base, if you will - would see it. A good campaign needs presentation that makes you care. You might label that as useless chrome, but it's what helps lift a campaign system off the page and brings the experience to life. You want to know who your platoon or squad leaders are, you want to be excited by their achievements, you want to feel it when you lose people you've tracked through battles. How can you do that when campaigns by default don't identify core units? And when there's no easy way to track achievements? That's the point about the current, flat campaign system. Like QB's it feels half finished, uninspired.

While I struggle to understand why Sirocco never went past the first mission and yet managed to reach this conclusion (and there were some fun missions in there), I agree that the campaign felt like it was nothing more than some interconnected scenarios with a thin story draped over it. I could see a lot of benefit and immersion in a unit tracking "scoreboard" that the campaign designer has the option of including in a campaign, if he so chooses.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

While I struggle to understand why Sirocco never went past the first mission and yet managed to reach this conclusion (and there were some fun missions in there), I agree that the campaign felt like it was nothing more than some interconnected scenarios with a thin story draped over it.

The point isn't whether scenarios weren't fun, it was the sense of "ownership" that was lacking, and you don't need to play through an entire campaign to see that. I finished the first one, then the second loaded, and I exited. I didn't feel compelled to continue.

[Webwing]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

a lot would like some sort of unit roster to track through the campaign. As I said earlier, it would seem to be a not impossible task to implement if enough people wanted it.

That would be nice.

Steve mentioned something about this, I just can't remember in which thread.

Not sure how simple/hard that would be to implement though.

-

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

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

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

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

Ok lets put this another way ... why are all of you core unit fans hell bent on making this game unrealistic?

Here's the thing; it's a game. You don't get more unrealistic than that.

People aren't arguing for Hamstertruppen, just a sense of actually caring what happens to units. If you don't care for what happens to your units in a campaign you pulled the rug out from under the whole concept. </font>

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I'd really rather see BFC's time go to stuff like improving pathfinding, adding features like on-board mortars, water, more scripting options to the scenario editor, etc.

All good things, but if QB's are busted, and the campaign is as flat as a pancake, not as many people will get to see those features.

[cool breeze]

If rosters and QBs are make or break deals for you I dont think you represent a big chunk of war gamers. Its strange to me that you require rosters to make the campaign immersive enough yet you talk like QBs (very unrealistic and devoid of immersion adding briefing)are more important than scenarios. Who do you imagine wont see the important game play features that are added because of lack of roosters and de-emphasized QBs?

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by cool breeze:

Who do you imagine wont see the important game play features that are added because of lack of roosters and de-emphasized QBs?

Those that never buy the game or DL the demo.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Combatintman:

Gibsonm - Too many tasks there surely? I'd plump for the same TASKORG and just say 'Secure Hill 123' and let OC X Coy Gp sort it out.

Maybe, just trying to show that you don’t have two units on the same piece of dirt reporting to different people, trying to achieve different things - which is what someone wanted to do as a way around this.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

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

I'd really rather see BFC's time go to stuff like improving pathfinding, adding features like on-board mortars, water, more scripting options to the scenario editor, etc.

All good things, but if QB's are busted, and the campaign is as flat as a pancake, not as many people will get to see those features. </font>

[Combatintman]

Gibsonm - I know its a pleasure to have a fellow professional on here - I didn't know the context of the statement (as we all know - without a map we could both be talking Japanese!) - I suspect that one was a mission and the other was a task within X Coy Comd's mission. Anyway - might need some Commonwealth Support here and looking through your posts and knowing that you actually know what you are talking about ... watch and shoot...!

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by cool breeze:

If rosters and QBs are make or break deals for you I dont think you represent a big chunk of war gamers. Its strange to me that you require rosters to make the campaign immersive enough yet you talk like QBs (very unrealistic and devoid of immersion adding briefing)are more important than scenarios. Who do you imagine wont see the important game play features that are added because of lack of roosters and de-emphasized QBs?

I hate scenarios. I hated them with CMx1, and I hate them with CMx2. Too often I found I was having to execute the designers plan, rather than construct my own. And I'm not alone in that.

At the end of the day, if BFC are committed, as they are, to reducing content, the games must make up for that by utilising what content there is to its greatest effect.

You don't like a more rounded QB system? Don't use it. You don't like more chrome on campaigns? Skip the roster, or whatever is used, screen.

[Cpl Steiner]

Consider this. The game already tracks losses of core units from scenario to scenario. It effectively already has a roster system. You just can't see it. It would seem to me like such an easy coding task to implement (extract data, display on screen) that I can't imagine it not being done eventually - even if we have to wait until the WWII game.

I would envisage the roster looking a little like the TOE screen in the unit purchase part of the scenario editor but with the greyed out unselected units removed and changes to the roster due to combat highlighted in some way. Perhaps each squad would have another tree menu associated with it, showing the men in the squad. Perhaps KIA and WIA text would appear next to some men, with a line through their name. Perhaps the word "Replacement" would appear next to new members of the unit. Maybe you could also show the squad leader and portrait as it appears in game etc. I'm sure lots could be done. I think it would actually be quite a fun programming task, because the data is already there.

Oh and medals would be good too. Purple Heart for wounded etc.

[Killroy]

I'm happy to see a new Quick Battle feature is going to be in the next module(s). Just doesn't feel like combat mission without it.

I hate scenarios. I hated them with CMx1, and I hate them with CMx2. Too often I found I was having to execute the designers plan, rather than construct my own. And I'm not alone in that.

You are correct there I never play scenarios either. I have all 3 of the CMX1 series and I've only ever played the quick battles with random setups.

[ April 21, 2008, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Killroy ]

[Combatintman]

Sirocco

Here goes with this ...

Question 1 - have you ever served in any kind of contemporary military organisation? If the answer is yes then you ought to learn more about your profession.

Question 2 - there is no question 2

The bottom line (and this is what is good about CMSF is that people who comment on these forums might actually have been there and done it - that means that there is no grog speak about the range of a Brown Bess or the merits of the Ausf IVG versus the Ausf IVF because nobody is still alive - people who talk about this stuff have seen the elephant - which means that the game should improve thanks to that input).

So wind your neck in sunshine and time to tell you why - based on your own statements and my experience as:

1 year TA Infantry as a rifleman and anti-tank gunner

22 Years Regular Colour Service

Employed at HQs at the following levels:

Joint

Theatre

Corps

Division

Brigade

Battalion

Operational tours in:

Iraq

Afghanistan

Bosnia

Northern Ireland

Spent 3 years employed at the Land Warfare Centre employed as an Observer Controller (namely wargaming was my job amongst other things). In the US its like the National Training Center (sic) if that helps.

Been shot at and been blown up and had one of my blokes wounded in action (who was not a core unit by the way - and I'm still in touch with the bloke thankfully)

Also - not that its relevant but I have been wargaming since 1978 - so I know the systems and stuff.

So lets run through some stuff then:

You quoted this:

Originally posted by Combatintman:

Ok lets put this another way ... why are all of you core unit fans hell bent on making this game unrealistic?

And then said this:

Here's the thing; it's a game. You don't get more unrealistic than that.

Fair enough then - bring on the hovering M1 Abrams

I made it perfectly clear to start with that the clue is in the title with wargaming but what you fail to grasp is that the essence of wargaming is 'war'. I've been there and done that.

You said:

People aren't arguing for Hamstertruppen, just a sense of actually caring what happens to units. If you don't care for what happens to your units in a campaign you pulled the rug out from under the whole concept.

So act like a real commander in real life and care for every person under your command rather than core units and auxilliary units.

You said:

The point isn't whether scenarios weren't fun, it was the sense of "ownership" that was lacking, and you don't need to play through an entire campaign to see that. I finished the first one, then the second loaded, and I exited. I didn't feel compelled to continue.

You also said:

You want to know who your platoon or squad leaders are, you want to be excited by their achievements, you want to feel it when you lose people you've tracked through battles.

So by your own admission you've never tried it.

What about factoring in the proportion of aux losses to core losses and either crediting or debiting the "score" accordingly? You could win the battle but effectively be relieved of command for poor leadership. Of course coding that to take into account unit types would take some thought.

But then you'd just reload and start again - check out the thread about the latest campaign - I think the second person who'd tried it had reloaded after mission 1 or 2 despite the fact that the campaign designer had said 'don't do it'

Well for me - it kills me when I take hits but I also can see the long term objective - we call it the endstate. So if you don't feel compelled to continue then fine - I am trained to fight through to the finish and the reason I'm trained to do that is because stuff like that happens sometimes. So that is gritty reality and that is what this wargame is coming close to simulating in the eyes of the professionals.

So - I don't really give a flying thing that begins with an 'f' about what you are saying - what I know from the sharp end is that this system and the game that has been created here - works in general terms. It is true to the essence of modern warfare and yes there are problems but the system works - now if you can give me an argument based on actual experience vice a couple of games you might have played regarding why I and Battlefront are wrong about core units then bring it on. Otherwise be prepared for me to start the 'hovering M1' and 'whatever happened to hexes' threads - because that is what you are asking for.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Combatintman:

So that is gritty reality and that is what this wargame is coming close to simulating in the eyes of the professionals.

Originally posted by Combatintman:

What I know from the sharp end is that this system and the game that has been created here - works in general terms. It is true to the essence of modern warfare and yes there are problems but the system works.

Combatintman,

I realise much of this is aimed at a certain other poster but I'd like to say it is always good to hear this from people who have seen real military service, as this is what the rest of us hope we are getting but can never be sure. It encourages me to stick around for the next patch, and the next, etc., in the hopes the game will eventually become a wargaming classic. Damn it, I feel like booting the game up right now!

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Combatintman:

have you ever served in any kind of contemporary military organisation?

I stopped reading at this point.

[Combatintman]

Sirocco,

Why? Oh and I get irony (I'm British). So just for sh1ts and giggles tell me why you refused to read on.

[gibsonm]

I’m not sure if this will be constructive or not but as someone who wants to keep CM:SF on the simulation side of the Simulation:Game cusp these are my thoughts:

1. I think core units aren’t relevant. For a given mission everyone in your Combat Team / Company Squadron group are “core” to you as if they weren’t needed, the Task Force / Battlegroup CO wouldn’t have given them to you to begin with.

2. I’m happy with a roster showing sub unit effectiveness, indeed for those who know what I’m talking about, I’d love to see decision graphics (where the composition and effectiveness of a callsign is incorporated into the one graphic).

3. If you want to go down the path of listing each soldier’s achievements and promoting them “in game” on that basis and awarding them decorations, etc. then you have lost me and CM:SF’s effectiveness as an “in service simulation tool” will be degraded.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Combatintman:

Why? Oh and I get irony (I'm British). So just for sh1ts and giggles tell me why you refused to read on.

You're attempting the arguing from authority gambit, and I refuse to play.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

2. I’m happy with a roster showing sub unit effectiveness, indeed for those who know what I’m talking about, I’d love to see decision graphics (where the composition and effectiveness of a callsign is incorporated into the one graphic).

3. If you want to go down the path of listing each soldier’s achievements and promoting them “in game” on that basis and awarding them decorations, etc. then you have lost me and CM:SF’s effectiveness as an “in service simulation tool” will be degraded.

I wouldn't like to see medals/promotions, either. The timespan covered isn't relevant for one thing. And I'd be quite happy to see something along the lines of point 2. I disagree about the lack of importance for core units, though, when it comes to campaigns for gameplay reasons, as previously stated.

[gibsonm]

Well, we’ll just agree to differ then.

[Combatintman]

Sirocco,

Yes the arguing from authority gambit clearly has no value at all does it? I can see that from all the threads about pathfinding, hull down positions, infantry disembarking ad bloody nauseum.

Supersonic Bradleys anyone?