The Blue Bar Returns!

[CogNative]

You make some entertaining points. PLAY = engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose. Spot on for me. I hire BFC as my computer war game play therapist buy purchasing their products to relax. I enjoy being able to create maps, control my virtual troops and occasionally win. Having played CMx1 'seriously' for a brief time I truly enjoy the freedom the CMSF RT feature has added to my play time. I know many war gamers in the BFC customer camp are serious about details and war game realism.This is their hobby like football, soccer, or cricket is for much of the world. I suspect WEGO offers many features they need for their hobby so the fuzz about 'realistic' is important to them. Showing a quick-witted intelligence BFC play therapy offers most everyone what they need RT or WEGO minus the OS X and RT playback feature:D

[GSX]

Not that my experience on the two-way range is all that extensive, but I'm pretty sure company and battalion commanders don't get a unlimited one minute review of their battles. It'd be realistic to have nothing shown that the commander didn't see for himself, with a radio log off to the side of significant events.

Totally agree, thats why I made the distinction between a wargame and real life.

No wargame is ever going to be real life. And RT is great for small platoon sized battles with a few vehicles. In fact for that scale it works great.

It fails miserably for larger battles where there is a lot going on as what you end up doing is either 1 of 2 things.

1. Micro manage to the hilt by hitting the Esc Key every 30 seconds and roaming over the map.

2. Letting the AI do things for you at one point when your doing something else at another. The AI isnt good enough to be left in control for any length of time in SF. This method usually leads to success at the point of control and very mixed results elsewhere.

In Real Life a commander can rely on the platoon leaders etc to deal with a situation in hand. This is where CM differs from RL, real life 'I' is far better than game 'AI'.

This is where from a pure wargaming point of view WEGO will almost always be a better option for the serious wargamer.

[Smaragdadler]

To even further stretch my point -> Think it like a billiard simulator...A mod which would change the background landscape panorama to something, which creates the impression of beeing in a club-cellar whould not be just some gag, but a real try to make that, what Combat Mission tries to simulate, more 'real'.

Combat Mission simulates wargaming, not war. -> compare it with SteelBeastPro and see the difference!

[Smaragdadler]

And that's why the ingame statistic screens should come back!!!!

[Smaragdadler]

There should even be some option for showing under-the-hood calculation for combat like in better RPG (Baldurs Gate, Neverwinter Nights). Basicaly the hit-messages from CMx1...

[GSX]

Combat Mission simulates wargaming, not war.

Couldnt agree more. Wargaming is an art of itself.

CM in all its formats is a damned good game, its not war, wont teach you about war and wont help you fight a war.

Its about mostly grown men playing with pixel kit against each other to have fun and it will be a very long time before it gets anything more. And personally if it did it would be far less enjoyable.

Just take CMSF for example. Although a good game its not a simulation of reality by any means.

[GSX]

And that's why the ingame statistic screens should come back!!!!

Agree again. The stats screen was an excellent addition, I still remember a Hero Pak who took out 15 Soviet tanks, made the scenario that much more exciting and fun even though I lost. Its little things like this that make games truly great and immersive.

[Battlefront.com]

As I've said in many previous discussions about "realism", it's all relative and always imperfect. RealTime has some aspects which make it more realistic than WeGo. WeGo has some aspects that make it more realistic than RealTime. But neither one is an accurate portrayal of real combat. Wargames are, by their very nature, artificial. Therefore, to some extent people arguing over general levels of realism of one vs. the other are missing the point.

Having said that, there is clearly a difference between a game which does simulate things very realistically, at a low level, compared to a game that more-or-less relies on "hit points" and "game balance" at its very core. In that sense CM:SF is the most realistic combined arms depiction of modern tactical combat in existence. By far. Compared to even CMx1 it is far more realistic. WeGo or RealTime doesn't matter in this case since the low level modeling is identical for both.

I do agree that wargames can't fully convey what real combat is like. I do disagree that good ones can't teach specific lessons about real world combat. For example, Close Combat and CMx1 both simulated morale. Players found out that if their units were beat up and unmotivated that they wouldn't obey orders and/or fight. This in turn has a huge impact on combat, whether it be your side or the enemy's that is shattered. It's a lesson that officers need to learn and get some sense of how it affects combat.

Many years ago CMBO was used for an infantry captain's course at Ft. Benning (USA). There were two types of students... active US Army and ROTC. The Army guys had no problem with the fact that their units didn't do what they were instructed to, while the ROTC guys tried to blame the game because their ideas weren't being executed as they imagined. There were other differences between the two groups that clearly showed that even CMBO, not modern warfare and less sophisticated than CM:SF, was able to demonstrate certain lessons to guys who will be doing this for real someday. In that sense, wargames can be useful as a training tool when combined with other training.

Steve

[CogNative]

"Players found out that if their units were beat up and unmotivated that they wouldn't obey orders and/or fight. This in turn has a huge impact on combat, whether it be your side or the enemy's that is shattered. It's a lesson that officers need to learn and get some sense of how it affects combat."

This very feature was emphasized last night when my 208x208 tiny but very intense home brew scenario. "Apocalypse Now" style CAS with a twist of "All your available ordinance on my pod NOW!" ... comes to mind. As much as I tried my virtual troops were not going to get any closer to the hot zone till they chilled. When you get at level #1 and watch the action, listen to the firefights it feels pretty darn convincing even though I know it is not real and just a war game.

"In that sense CM:SF is the most realistic combined arms depiction of modern tactical combat in existence. By far. Compared to even CMx1 it is far more realistic. WeGo or RealTime doesn't matter in this case since the low level modeling is identical for both."

Agreed. Maybe my preference for the RT style relates to my small scale maps and unit numbers but I am happy I have WeGo options.

[Apocal]

CM in all its formats is a damned good game, its not war, wont teach you about war and wont help you fight a war.

You do realize that part of predeployment training is playing a few different wargames (Harpoon for myself, Close Combat Marines and VBS1 AKA Operation Flashpoint for my brother, and Steel Beasts Pro for two tankers I know), right? I'd almost say that CMSF has a niche somewhere, but I don't know if the military is interested now that VBS2 is (or will be) supporting massive amounts of players and Steel Beasts is so versatile.

[Battlefront.com]

CM:SF is used a bit by the US military officially and unofficially. Very niche, unlike Steel Beasts and VBS2. CM:SF has three major "deficiencies" that are holding it back from more widespread interest by the military:

1. The player has too many hats to wear. The military is very used to thinking in terms of "roles" and appears to find it difficult to comprehend how to use a game like CM:SF to its best effect with more traditional classroom training. CoPlay would fix this very well, but we're not in a position to invest in that yet.

2. Lack of "tools" for a more structured learning environment. This includes things like the student setting up his own OPORD/FRAGORD at the beginning, more detailed AARs, and other statistical features which would allow for better grading of the student's performance. These features are very easy for us to add, but time consuming and generally not something non-military customers would care about.

3. Full game replay, with some features like "book marking" particular points of interest so the instructor can get back specific points of the battle easily. Obviously this is a feature that is of interest to all CM players, but at present we don't think it's possible for us to do it in a way that has much practical appeal to regular gamers (i.e. we think a dedicated computer has to be networked to record the play).

These features would make one Hell of a training tool for the military to use. Unfortunately, without military funding to hire more programming help we don't see any of this happening soon. The features are either too much for us to bite off right now with just Charles at the helm. Eventually we'll get there, but not because the military wants this stuff. We'll get there because these are (mostly) things you guys want and we feel give us a commercial benefit.

Steve

[CogNative]

3. Full game replay, with some features like "book marking" particular points of interest so the instructor can get back specific points of the battle easily. Obviously this is a feature that is of interest to all CM players, but at present we don't think it's possible for us to do it in a way that has much practical appeal to regular gamers (i.e. we think a dedicated computer has to be networked to record the play).

If I were to use an old but perfectly functional Mac G4 as dedicated computer networked on my home LAN to record the CMSF / Normandy 2009 full game replay would that work? As PC's become obsolete about every three years. I suspect many CMSF folks would have an old PC sitting around or could find one to use for their dedicated networked recorder.

RT - Full game replay! Now we are talking staggering spectacles of recreation and box office.

[Apocal]

2. Lack of "tools" for a more structured learning environment. This includes things like the student setting up his own OPORD/FRAGORD at the beginning, more detailed AARs, and other statistical features which would allow for better grading of the student's performance. These features are very easy for us to add, but time consuming and generally not something non-military customers would care about.

I would love a sim where I could write a FRAGO that would be understood and carried out by AI subordinates. I would easily pay three to five times as much for a company/battalion level wargame like that with CMSFs level of fidelity. From a mil-perspective, not so crucial once Co-op is in. I mean, the students can write fragos on a piece of paper and pass it around.

[Battlefront.com]

Full game replay would likely require some sort of recording client on an independent computer as far as we can tell. This isn't too much of a technical problem, rather a time consumption one. We have a lot of features that are also high up on peoples' wish lists that could be added easier and with more certainty of success.

Yes, the military could hand write stuff, use real radios (or phones), and other things to work around "limitations" within the game. However, this increases the amount of imagination necessary for someone at the higher end of the decision making spectrum. That's where we have always run into problems. Therefore, the more obviously tailored for a classroom environment CM is, the more likely we can get some attention.

The thing is we've known for years now that a military contract with an R&D element is almost impossible to get. One military contractor (who loves CM) described the chances of a small developer like us getting hit by lightning as slightly better than getting a contract. It's really sad, since a fairly modest amount of money thrown our way would yield one Hell of a battalion leadership trainer. Oh, and we could deliver it quickly too, not in years like so many other projects out there.

Our plan is to eventually have all the significant features the military really wants (mostly CoPlay related) in the game for commercial reasons anyhow. It's just that if someone with the right pull could offer us a modest contract now we could do everything sooner for both the military and you guys. Failing that, we just keep on doing what we've always planned on doing. Since we are quite happy with how things are going, it's not a bad thing

Steve

[ChrisND]

Write your congressman folks.

[SlapHappy]

I find it difficult to believe that CM's attention to realism doesn't attract more military attention.

Not saying it isn't so - I just find it hard to believe.

[Battlefront.com]

It has attracted a lot of attention. The problem is guys in $5000 suits with bags full of money attract more

Steve

[CogNative]

"...the amount of imagination necessary for someone at the higher end of the decision making spectrum. That's where we have always run into problems.....The problem is guys in $5000 suits with bags full of money attract more"

You got a real future in politics Steve:D

[Steiner14]

It has attracted a lot of attention. The problem is guys in $5000 suits with bags full of money attract more

Steve

I already wanted to reply, that you need a contact-person, that makes you a contact for a presentation. A fancy, colorful, multimedia presentation...

Decision-makers in the western world have become like little children (they also take no repsonibility, but the cash). They are not interested in facts and deep knowledge of the problem - they only want Power-Point-Sheets...

[GSX]

The trouble is that CMSF doesnt or wouldnt really add anything to infantry training.

Who would it be aimed at? Certainly not a Company Commander, that leaves Platoon and Squad leaders (members?). What can SF teach a Platoon leader thats better than actually running around on the ground with his men?

I suppose it could be used as a very basic tool for practising assault techniques etc, laying down a gun group and suppressing for an assault team. But even there it fails becuase of some aspects. One being that you cannot assault a building except by a door. CM-1 actually represented building fights better where you could just assume that your men went through windows etc.

I honestly cant see what real benefit SF would bring to the US or UK military untis that would carry out the actions as depicted in SF unless it was turned into a super simulator. Then unfortunately it would probably cease to be a game for everyone else.

Just my humble opinion though.

[panzermartin]

How about minor militaries like the Dutch or other not so prestigious european armies. CM would be ideal for low budget training imo. As said, a very active, mamoth military organization like the US will require a similar approach with flashy presentations and marketing tricks to impress. Europeans, or canadians/australians may not have the US miltary budget but I think they might be more interested in a less glossy tactical trainer. Even the glorious royal navy has installed windows OS for submarines systems in an attempt to cut unecessary expenditures in these diffcult times gor the global economy.

[ChrisND]

Speaking as former infantry, I'm not all that hot to the idea of CMSF used for infantry training. Personally, I believe our infantry could be out on the training ranges a hell of a lot more than they are now. However, as a tank / mech trainer...?

[dan/california]

Unquestionably range/live fire exercises should be maximized to the extent possible. The question is would the game be a useful training tool over and above live exercises.

[Steiner14]

IMO CM is without doubt a very good training tool for tank tactics.

But IMO it's good for infantry training, too: because it helps to get a better understanding of tactical problems in a shorter amount of time (on the field): reading the topography faster, understanding tactical problems of given situations faster, finding solutions that are not complex but simple and work.

Therefore it safes time (soldiers learn faster) and blood. What else can someone expect from a training-tool?

[dan/california]

It also allows a larger scale than all but the largest ranges/exercise areas as I understand it. And it doesn't require the platoon to learn to hate their brand new Lt while he figures out where his *&*%% is. There will be plenty of time later after all.