The road ahead... a recap

[El Hombre]

IMHO there are 2 reasons why WeGo players through the course of the game end up doing a lot more management than RT players. The first of course is that you're given a pause every minute, which compels you to "do something" even if there isn't much to do, really. The second, and most important, is that you can't change anything during the minute of play. This pushes the player to be very very careful during those pauses, thinking through his commands because of the potential catastrophic results during the minute he has absolutely no control over.

The RT player on the other hand can be flippant about it and say "if **** happens, I'll deal with it" (and that behavior can and often does result in absolutely catastrophic consequences). RT entices the player to be more opportunistic than WG which is at the other end of the spectrum, making the player potentially micromanage too much.

I think that the optimal game environment is a middle ground that necessitates the following:

1- RT play with a pause feature (and therefore tcp play must have a pause)

2- A disciplined player who makes use of those pauses more often than he thinks he needs them

Unfortunately while 1 should I hope be achievable, 2 is very hard to abide by

Especially for players like me who actually enjoy the unexpected and unconsciously try to create a fog of war environment to reduce their godlike powers.

Speaking of godlike power, ironically enough, I really appreciate the inability to do anything for a minute in WG. It makes the player feel more human. The closest RT gets to that is the morale feature which can and does put a monkey wrench in the player's orders.

In the end RT and WG give you two different gaming experiences and CMSF should probably be played in both modes to extract the most enjoyment from it.

[Battlefront.com]

Good point about the "do something" aspect of the automatic pause inbetween turns. I've found myself moving and tweaking things just because I can

But again, we're looking at two different play styles for two different player types. I for one am VERY happy to have both available in one game. Although I tend to play RT I still very much enjoy WeGo when I do play it.

Steve

[sfhand]

Thanks

BTW, your idea of the RT/WG TCP/IP option highlights one of the primary differences in these methods of play. The "decision cycle" for WeGo is open ended, by default anyway. This means the player can pace himself as he sees fit because he knows he has infinite time to conduct his personal play style. In RT everything is on a continuum with no definite start/stop inherent in the system. It is just as disruptive for the WeGo player to have the turn start up suddenly as it would for the RT player to have a pause stuck in at regular intervals. The RT/WG multiplayer game would basically mean the WGer would get to play his normal way, the RTer would find himself playing in neither RT or in WG Modes, but rather something kinda inbetween. That would take some getting used to and there would be no solo play to reinforce it.

Yup, it's obvious that I find the play style differences between WG and RT fascinating

Steve

A couple of thoughts... The WeGo player's time between turns could be limited, either in the form of x seconds per turn or x minutes per game (e.g. 20 minutes of planning time per hour of game time, to be drawn upon at the player's discretion). The first model would seem to be the less complicated and the second would fit my style much more.

Which brings us to the perceptions being put forward of WeGo again. Obviously I can't speak for anyone but myself, but my experiences as a WeGo player seem much different than those being put forward. For instance, I don't usually spend a lot of time "micro-managing" units. Most of my time is spent during the set up. During the play back I often don't watch replays more than once because, and this is big, I am free to watch, i.e. I don't have to issue orders.

I recently played Trident Valley as blue force against a friend. My advance was 3 pronged. The only "micro management" aside from making sure paths were concealed behind ridgelines(which was mostly done during the setup) was to unhide a dismounted platoon and have it target a bmp. Everything else(targeting) was basically left to the AI. My limitation is that I can't believe that I would have been able to monitor the 3 different areas of potential conflict on the map in RT.

I would argue that situational awareness is the reason I prefer WeGo over RT - that and the fact that I doubt I'll ever be able to quickly use the UI. Every second I'm looking at the UI is a second I'm missing what's happening in RT (yes, I know about pausing, but at some point that will start costing me more time per turn than replays I often don't watch). Another underrated aspect of WeGo is the excitement generated by the fact that you can't immediately pull your guys out of harms way. This doesn't lead me to "micro-manage" it leads me to think of contingency plans prior to execution - maybe this is why my set ups usually take a long time.

Bear in mind, I prefer PvP and that colors my perceptions of both RT and WeGo.

[Battlefront.com]

sfhand,

A couple of thoughts... The WeGo player's time between turns could be limited, either in the form of x seconds per turn or x minutes per game (e.g. 20 minutes of planning time per hour of game time, to be drawn upon at the player's discretion). The first model would seem to be the less complicated and the second would fit my style much more.

We had an option turn clock for CMx1 TCP/IP. While this eliminates the "infinite" time available to the WeGo player, it still is a different experience. It's a state of mind thing, so it's difficult to explain, however it is definitely why people tend towards one form of play more than another.

Which brings us to the perceptions being put forward of WeGo again. Obviously I can't speak for anyone but myself, but my experiences as a WeGo player seem much different than those being put forward. For instance, I don't usually spend a lot of time "micro-managing" units. Most of my time is spent during the set up. During the play back I often don't watch replays more than once because, and this is big, I am free to watch, i.e. I don't have to issue orders.

My comments can only be seen as generalizations because everybody plays a little bit differently. However, there are similarities that bind certain people's play styles to each other, conceptually, more than to others. Everything is on a continuum.

Personally, I play WeGo like you do. I also loved having a short clock when playing competitive TCP/IP games in CMx1. I do very well with making snap decisions and I also like being able to finish a game within a reasonable amount of time. Other players refuse to play with a clock for their own reasons, which makes the two types somewhat incompatible even though both are playing WeGo. Since my personal style of play was already leaning towards RT, it's not surprising to me that I transitioned over to RT quite easily and find that I like it. I suspect that the kind of player that didn't want to play against me with a time clock running is the same player that absolutely doesn't like RT. Again, it's just a difference in mindset. Nothing wrong with that.

My limitation is that I can't believe that I would have been able to monitor the 3 different areas of potential conflict on the map in RT.

This very well might have been the case. It is definitely true that the larger and/or more spread out the battle is, the more difficult it is to manage in RT. Some players can handle a smaller or more concentrated RT game without problems may not be able to handle the large ones. Conversely, someone would have to hold a gun to my head to play a regimental sized CMx1 game Why? Because I would feel overwhelmed by the number of assets and objectives I'd have to manage. So it's kinda the same thing in reverse.

I would argue that situational awareness is the reason I prefer WeGo over RT

I think many WeGoers agree with this exactly.

Another underrated aspect of WeGo is the excitement generated by the fact that you can't immediately pull your guys out of harms way. This doesn't lead me to "micro-manage" it leads me to think of contingency plans prior to execution - maybe this is why my set ups usually take a long time.

This happens in RT as well, but not in the same way. When a complex plan starts to go wrong it is difficult to execute a contingency plan quickly. Sure, you're not locked out like in WeGo (though the lockout might amount to a couple of seconds if the issue happens at the end of a turn), but if you have a dozen units affected by the unexpected problem it takes a while to get things sorted out conceptually then to get your units to respond.

A good RT player takes into consideration contingency plans when doing setup as well. He should be looking at the battlefield, developing a plan, and having some sense of what to do based on various worst case scenarios. This is no different than with you in WeGo, except that the player might not issue as many, or as specific, a set of instructions as you do (remember, you can issue starting Commands in RT during Setup).

Bear in mind, I prefer PvP and that colors my perceptions of both RT and WeGo.

Our perceptions of how the game play are always based, to some degree, on our own biases. I have to try much harder than any of you to be balanced, though, because I'm the game designer Fortunately, I like both methods of play and most of the work I have to do applies to both equally.

Steve

[JonS]

... though the [WEGO] lockout might amount to a couple of seconds if the issue happens at the end of a turn ...

... and it might amount to 60 seconds if it happens at the start of the turn.

Who's strawman is better?

Better yet, how's about we say that - for WEGO - the typical lockout is around 30 seconds.

[Battlefront.com]

Heh... it's only a strawman if I meant it to take away from his point, and that wasn't my intention. It was merely a side comment to remind people that 60 seconds of lockout is not necessarily the case. Of course it also can be, for sure, especially if the end of the last turn involved close in fighting. It is also quite often uneven within the same battle. A couple of squads run into problems over here 1 second in, a tank over there spots three enemy tanks 59 seconds in. It's all over the place.

Steve

[Steiner14]

Conversely, someone would have to hold a gun to my head to play a regimental sized CMx1 game Why? Because I would feel overwhelmed by the number of assets and objectives I'd have to manage.

Ah, this brings back wonderful memories.

One of the most exciting things for me in CMx1 were big maps with even bigger forces, where attacker and defender had freedom about concentrating or splitting forces, freedom to attack/defend several targets simultaneously or let an iron first roll from one victory location to the next. Where decisions could be made if it were better to use a fast armoured Kampfgruppe that will support several infantry force groups, or if tanks attached to each force group would work better.

For me battalion and regimental sized battles offered a tactical freedom and therefore unpredictability that i think can't be found in small scenarios which are mostly decided after two or three won tank battles.

[CogNative]

"WeGoers want more structure, RealTimers want more chaos."

Can't we have our chaostructured and enjoy it too?

"the game mechanics are 99% identical for each style of play"

We Have a BINGO!

But as a closet WEGO who is infatuated with a new RT lover can't you fix my 'entertainment itch' for my RT replay with a chaotic replay?

I just ordered Marines so you all understand:D

CogNative

[orwell]

Will modules ever switch from being in-house or special contracted deals to a open system that any player that meets the requirements, including having enough content to justify a module, can develop? I'd imagine this group would be rather small considering all the skills needed to create the content that goes into the module, but I wonder whether it would extend the life of CMSF further once focus has shifted to WWII?

[Battlefront.com]

Well, that group would then, in effect, become a contracted arrangement At present we don't see ourselves working with more than one external group. One problem we have is that although much of the work can be done by outside individuals/groups, the data still has to be formatted and compiled into code. This has to be done by us for now since we don't have time to create an SDK (Software Developer's Kit) that would automate the fusion of external work with our code.

The other problem is that even Modules require some new coding work. For example, the Marines required coding for the M32 and SMAW. For WW2 there will be even more fundamental coding needs. This is stuff that absolutely must be done by us. Therefore, we need to be careful to not have too many Modules going on at one time or we'll find too much time taken away from evolving the game itself.

Steve

[orwell]

I realize it would be a contract, I just meant something like it being open to multiple groups instead of just the one. However, what you say makes sense, and there's only one Charles. Thanks for answering, I really appreciate being able to speak directly to those running the operation. At a less busy time I'll have to see these marines in action.

[salwon]

SDK

Did anyone else just drool a little bit?

[El Hombre]

Did anyone else just drool a little bit?

No, not really. With a sim this complex, good luck making an SDK without dumbing things down enough that the... ahem... slightly demanding players on this forum will scream murder to the poor chap using that SDK.

[Gromit]

Steve:

I have in the last three years been cobbling together the bits and parts of ideas for my own WW2 game, and as reference material I purchased Truppenfuhrung for its value in establishing proper German tactics.

In the end of the introduction section there exists a now famous emphasized paragraph I imagine you are familiar with:

"The first criterion in war remains decisive action. Everyone, from the highest commander down to the youngest soldier, must constantly be aware that inaction and neglect incriminate him more severely than any error in the choice of means."

Captain A.C. Wedemeyer, an American student exchange officer in late 1930s Germany summed it up as thus:

"Better a faulty plan or decision permeated with boldness, daring, and decisiveness, than a perfect plan enmeshed in uncertainty."

I think we can all agree that what made the Germans a particularly fearsome enemy was their ability to apply the lessons of Clausewitz, Moltke, and Seeckt regardless of the situation at the moment and the weapons of war. Whether an attack, defense or some other action, they usually had men ready to take advantage of a given situation. (I leave the reasons for their ultimate defeat for another discussion.)

Is there any hope of this German "personal initiative" aspect making its way into the artificial intelligence of CM: Normandy?

Just curious

[Battlefront.com]

For the Germans only? No. The US and Commonwealth Armies operated under the same tactical principles as the Germans did, largely because they emulated German advances in infantry and mechanized warfare during and after WWI. Trust me, any Allied officer worth his salt had read most of the same classics that the German officers did (including Rommel's "Infantry Attacks"). In turn the Germans were influenced HEAVILY by British, French, and American mechanized warfare theorists. Ironically, initially the Germans paid more attention to the likes of Liddell-Hart, Fuller, Patton, etc. than did their own militaries

My point is that by the time 1944 comes around there isn't much tactical difference in terms of theory. The Germans should not have some sort of different means of acting, at least not at the tactical level that we simulate. Plus, the day we would be able to program the AI to carry out subtle differences in tactical execution is the day we quit wargaming and get our Nobel Prizes in Artificial Intelligence

Steve

[Gromit]

For the Germans only? No. The US and Commonwealth Armies operated under the same tactical principles as the Germans did, largely because they emulated German advances in infantry and mechanized warfare during and after WWI. Trust me, any Allied officer worth his salt had read most of the same classics that the German officers did (including Rommel's "Infantry Attacks"). In turn the Germans were influenced HEAVILY by British, French, and American mechanized warfare theorists. Ironically, initially the Germans paid more attention to the likes of Liddell-Hart, Fuller, Patton, etc. than did their own militaries

My point is that by the time 1944 comes around there isn't much tactical difference in terms of theory. The Germans should not have some sort of different means of acting, at least not at the tactical level that we simulate. Plus, the day we would be able to program the AI to carry out subtle differences in tactical execution is the day we quit wargaming and get our Nobel Prizes in Artificial Intelligence

Steve

Difference in terms of theory? No, I totally agree. But the execution on the battlefield is where I feel the Germans might be allowed some extra advantage in initiative. After all, their discipline policy was by far the harshest of the western powers, all the men knew that they were subject to questioning regarding their actions if even a hint of inaction, cowardice or desertion was suspected. The burden of proof was on them, not the Army itself.

I was thinking along the lines of attributes for the German combat leaders and the chances of producing a leader "ad hoc" from a given formation when the previous leader is incapacitated.

As to how to incorporate these ideas... well, of course, that's the real tough part. Don't know if it would even be possible in a game of this type. Not too hard to accomplish in a boardgame, but CM? Hmm... I suppose you are correct that it would fall under the law of diminishing returns wrt the AI.

Alright, so given your position Steve, just what will end up differentiating the sides in CM:Normandy? I am sure I wouldn't be alone in saying one of my pet peeves is a game where all the various sides are essentially the same with some window dressing differences (graphics, colors, costs) to try and offset the ubiquity of it all (bleh).

I want to see advantages and disadvantages that help broaden the "suspension of disbelief" factor for CM. I'd like to hear your ideas and point of view!

[salwon]

Alright, so given your position Steve, just what will end up differentiating the sides in CM:Normandy? I am sure I wouldn't be alone in saying one of my pet peeves is a game where all the various sides are essentially the same with some window dressing differences (graphics, colors, costs) to try and offset the ubiquity of it all (bleh).

My name is Steve, so I feel equipped to answer I don't see what you mean though - the TOE for both sides are completely different, so even an even fight will bring about tactical nuances. And when you bring Russia into the mix, they organized the rifle companies differently, so that would lead to changes that the scenario designer would have to implement...

There's unlikely to be AI changes between the sides, simply because the necessary AI hasn't even been determined for something as simple as chess! But the differences in equipment and organization should necessarily lead to a different feel to each side.

[istari]

Remember too that there will be differences in Condition, Experience, Leadership skill etc. As with CMBB, veteran German troops may be Weakened Veterans with superb +2 NCOs, while Americans are Fit Green troops with +0 NCOs. That will make a real difference.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, what the other guys said The differences in tactics comes out due to differences in equipment, organization, and capabilities. This was true in CMx1 and with a far less sophisticated underlying simulation.

A new thing, with CMx2, is the ability to script each side differently. If you want to simulate a Human Wave infantry attack vs. a combined arms attack, that can be done in the Editor. In CMx1 the AI basically had to figure out for itself what to do with the forces it had, and it did so very generically.

Steve

[Gromit]

Remember too that there will be differences in Condition, Experience, Leadership skill etc. As with CMBB, veteran German troops may be Weakened Veterans with superb +2 NCOs, while Americans are Fit Green troops with +0 NCOs. That will make a real difference.

It's been so long I had forgotten about those factors. Works well enough for me. I guess I have just always enjoyed games more if they possessed a bit of rpg-like quality to them. *shrugs*

Looking forward to updates in any case.

[~Viajero]

All this about tactics etc in CMx2 is very well etc, but... screenshots planned for when? :-)

[Bannon DC]

I'm wondering how fortifications will differ in CM2X for WWII. Also, will you include landing craft so we can actually fight it out on the beach? Amphibious Shermans? Funnies?

Thanks

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I'm wondering how fortifications will differ in CM2X for WWII. Also, will you include landing craft so we can actually fight it out on the beach? Amphibious Shermans? Funnies?

Thanks

No beaches AFAIK.

[Battlefront.com]

Definitely no amphibious ops. That's pretty much a separate game from our point of view.

Lots of different types of fortifications are planned for WW2.

Steve

[afreu]

What about making it possible to import custom-made 3d modells into CM:SF as soon as the WWII game is on the way? If Battlefront already moved on to the next version of the game there is no reason to prevent users from adding own content. Or?