Battlefront.com Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 GSX, No problem. It's a big topic that touches on so many things which are basic to CM, technology, and even game design limitations. There is an information sharing radius that doesn't rely on C2. However, I believe it only applies to units within the same formation. Which it shouldn't, logically. Hopefully that can change for Normandy. With poorer C2 people will need all the help they can get Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 dan/california, I admit that I hadn't thought thru the ability to shoot thru your own side in regards to formation mattering less. It is a significant point in the discussion. Yup, and the shooting through friendlies is because the resources (especially AI) to get around that thorny problem is massive. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveDash Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 GSX, No problem. It's a big topic that touches on so many things which are basic to CM, technology, and even game design limitations. There is an information sharing radius that doesn't rely on C2. However, I believe it only applies to units within the same formation. Which it shouldn't, logically. Hopefully that can change for Normandy. With poorer C2 people will need all the help they can get Steve That's excellent & interesting news Steve. Thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 The "problem" seems to be that information sharing only happens via C2. I've had numerous times where a machine gun unit or javelin unit cannot see a target that a bunch of infantry, who are right next to them (9 or 12 eyes) can see (yes they both have LOS). In reality, they'd be able to say "hey it's over there". Implementing a small radius around each unit that could bypass C2 would also mean that one could split squads more often and thus gain a much greater control over formations. Someone with more knowledge is welcome to prove me wrong, but this is how it seems to be for me. One place where I notice this frequently is with the "airguard" on Strykers. Many times, I've had the airguard spot an enemy and start firing, but the vehicle gunner manning the RWS remains blissfully unaware of the target, sometimes for quite a long time. I would think that, within seconds of spotting an enemy, one of the airguard is going to duck his head back into the vehicle and make sure the gunner knows where the target is, so the RWS can be brought to bear. So yeah, local info sharing independent of the C2 chain would be a great thing. Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Ah, which would be correct if you weren't so very wrong and i figured simple solutions are the best ones. guess not this time around. still, i cant belive that if you "fix" something wich would speed up the battle is not counterable through other means. anyways, iam not the developer, so looking from the outside and giving good suggestions is probably easier, as we all know There is an information sharing radius that doesn't rely on C2. However, I believe it only applies to units within the same formation. Which it shouldn't, logically. Hopefully that can change for Normandy. With poorer C2 people will need all the help they can get yea i saw the item in one of the patch logs, i read them pretty carefully, but i though it works also with cross formations. this explains a lot to me now, why it somethims doesnt seem to work, or in fact does not work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Adam, Right... that's what I figured. We went through this with CMx1 as well. Wargamers, especially traditional board wargamers and computer games with little innovation beyond that, have this insatiable "need" to know numbers. Because in those old games numbers helped in the evaluation process. "My gun can penetrate up to an 8. What's the armor rating of that tank? 6? Oh boy, I got that thing nailed!". So the desire is understandable, but not relevant to CMx1 or CMx2 due to their complexity. When we made CMx1 we deliberately made the game too complex under the hood to offer people such simplified tools for analysis. First of all because it's boring to almost everybody out there, even most wargamers, to look at a game as a series of numbers instead of the things which they represent. I want to command a Panther tank, not something with Firepower 5 and Armor 6 with a Movement of 5! Second, we wanted to get the simulated results to be far more realistic. This is my point to Redwolf. Steel Panthers had a very simple, abstract system which produced horribly unsophisticated and unrealistic results because the system lacked real world modeling and real world accountability (so to speak). So the results were often ridiculous. To counter this more complex systems with more variables and more interdependencies are needed. By their very nature, complex systems rely upon many variables and carefully interconnected equations which are completely situation specific. Third, we wanted people to view the game as a natural environment in which to interact with. If the terrain or a particular unit doesn't "feel right", then we want that to be what people think. Not "oh, I think that should be 15.79 and not 15.50 because this thing over here is 16 and therefore... blah... blah". So even if we could give people data like this we wouldn't. Much better to have a discussion about the effects and what is "right" (which is almost always subjective) than to focus on numerical data. CMx1 was great in all of these respects. CMx2 just took it a few steps further so that there's almost no abstracted number we can give you that will mean anything. And that's a very good thing. What counts as a "solid hit"? The system understands a hit to the shin is not the same as a hit to the torso or head. There's some fuzzy interpretation to keep things in balance with the rest of the sim, but basically if you get a center chest hit on a guy you're more likely to drop him hard. If you winged a polygon on his upper arm it might not even register as a wound, though the guy will probably go for cover. Pandur, still, i cant belive that if you "fix" something wich would speed up the battle is not counterable through other means. The problem is we already have several very big problems which are absolutely impossible to counter and yet still have a game So anything which makes these problems worse is a bad thing if there isn't a quick and easy solution to counter it. In this case there really isn't because you're talking about allowing a behavior that shouldn't happen. To counter that we would have to take a behavior that SHOULD happen and do something unrealistic to it. For example, if a soldier passes through another soldier we could have it artificially pause when it next stops. This would counter the speed of going through someone else, but it might mean that the soldier is paused in a very bad spot which, realistically, he'd never stay still in. So then maybe we code things so he only pauses when there's really good cover. Well, what happens if you are in the middle of an Assault and now that soldier is sitting around instead of rushing the enemy as he should be? Worse, what happens if he intersected with soldiers 6 times on the way to that safe spot? Now his cumulative penalty is rather larger. Then we have to figure out some other fix for the fix to the fix for a problem that isn't actually fixed. Better solution is to leave it alone instead of chasing a small problem so that it becomes a major development and testing distraction. The curse of a good game designer is he sees the unintended consequences and therefore is a bit of a party pooper Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Pandur, yea i saw the item in one of the patch logs, i read them pretty carefully, but i though it works also with cross formations. this explains a lot to me now, why it somethims doesnt seem to work, or in fact does not work. I double checked with Charles after I couldn't find it in recent release notes. The way I described is how it used to work, but at some point he did change it so unrelated units can share intel if they are quite close. However, there's a time delay (small, but still there) which is probably what is being picked up on by people. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 For example, if a soldier passes through another soldier we could have it artificially pause when it next stops. i was more thinking along the line of making the movement a little slower. if you add artificial pauses to limit their speed you essentially have the same as befor, wich leads the fix ad absurdum. but i beginn to see the problem now... . I double checked with Charles after I couldn't find it in recent release notes. The way I described is how it used to work, but at some point he did change it so unrelated units can share intel if they are quite close. However, there's a time delay (small, but still there) which is probably what is being picked up on by people. iam 99.9% sure that it was either noted down in a change log OR you said it yourself in one of the countless posts of yours. i defenitely read it somewhere befor it was said here. in fact this was at least some month ago, i have no idea where i got it from though. EDIT: got it, Version 1.10 feature list, Misc section * Spotting info is "passed along" to friendly units that are immediately adjacent (roughly within 25m or so) much like it already works with passing it along the chain of command. i said, i read them carefully 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Well, the way they are doing it now does have the benefit of conserving processing power for troops that are still in the fight. Also would a bad routing animation/pathfinding be worse than none? Finally they have to sort our everything related to units exiting the board. Which I do hope is on the list. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 We went through this with CMx1 as well. Wargamers, especially traditional board wargamers and computer games with little innovation beyond that, have this insatiable "need" to know numbers. Because in those old games numbers helped in the evaluation process. "My gun can penetrate up to an 8. What's the armor rating of that tank? 6? Oh boy, I got that thing nailed!". So the desire is understandable, but not relevant to CMx1 or CMx2 due to their complexity. When we made CMx1 we deliberately made the game too complex under the hood to offer people such simplified tools for analysis. First of all because it's boring to almost everybody out there, even most wargamers, to look at a game as a series of numbers instead of the things which they represent. I want to command a Panther tank, not something with Firepower 5 and Armor 6 with a Movement of 5! Second, we wanted to get the simulated results to be far more realistic. This is my point to Redwolf. Steel Panthers had a very simple, abstract system which produced horribly unsophisticated and unrealistic results because the system lacked real world modeling and real world accountability (so to speak). So the results were often ridiculous. To counter this more complex systems with more variables and more interdependencies are needed. By their very nature, complex systems rely upon many variables and carefully interconnected equations which are completely situation specific. Third, we wanted people to view the game as a natural environment in which to interact with. If the terrain or a particular unit doesn't "feel right", then we want that to be what people think. Not "oh, I think that should be 15.79 and not 15.50 because this thing over here is 16 and therefore... blah... blah". So even if we could give people data like this we wouldn't. Much better to have a discussion about the effects and what is "right" (which is almost always subjective) than to focus on numerical data. CMx1 was great in all of these respects. CMx2 just took it a few steps further so that there's almost no abstracted number we can give you that will mean anything. And that's a very good thing. The curse of a good game designer is he sees the unintended consequences and therefore is a bit of a party pooper Steve This quote, various Steve postings in this and in the "Is This Right" thread make me say Amen Brother. Carry on in the direction you are on, I for one will support with my pocketbook. There are enough stats/probability driven knockoffs/rehashed tactical games already. I too was more than tired of them 10 years ago when the first CM beta came out, CM has always appealed to me intuitively as being 'right'. Call me a brown nosing, shoe licking fanboy, it's like water off a duck; not saying it's perfect, of course not, but I would rather play a flawed CMSF than another SP, ASL or PC ever again. Your comments/detailed explanations here and elsewhere are very much appreciated, and I can definitely relate to the 'sees the unintended consequences and is a party-pooper' part. I build houses and I can state for a fact 99/100 customers have not got a clue about what's involved or required or possible in 'making their dream a reality'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Considering my own complete failure in that regard here lately, I might have some idea! The even more interesting question is if the engine would produce those result NOW with WW2 weapons? Almost all of which have some combination of lower ROF, and lower accuracy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Questions seem to be welcome though - so here's another one: is it a design goal in CMx2 to have terrain in which troops within LOS of each other, and with LOF, simply cannot damage one another? I dunno about that, but... In other words, do there exist (or do you want there to exist) "high cover" places where bullets alone cannot do the job, forcing players to use other means to kill? Where small arms can do no better than suppress infantry? In MOUT scenarios I've come across numerous buildings that had to be stormed (grenades + assault) because I couldn't eliminate the occupants using massed gunfire from the outside alone. Quite a lot, actually. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 There was something like triple cross posting happening here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I couldn't eliminate the occupants using massed gunfire from the outside alone. Quite a lot, actually. i didnt found any such buildings in CMSF so far, where would they possibly be ? if the occupants are not suppressed by massive gunfire and actively shooting at you, any massed blue gunfire directed at this persons will destroy them rather quick. i dont know if you tried to area fire them out of the house. i can see why this should not and does not work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 i didnt found any such buildings in CMSF so far, where would they possibly be ? if the occupants are not suppressed by massive gunfire and actively shooting at you, any massed blue gunfire directed at this persons will destroy them rather quick. i dont know if you tried to area fire them out of the house. i can see why this should not and does not work. Where could they possibly be? MOUT scens. As you probably know from having your own troops deployed in buildings, there are some buildings that are death traps, and some that are the opposite thereof. That has a lot to do with angles, windows, proximity... in short, there are tons of variables, as Steve says, and very often they add up to troops being frustratingly difficult to dislodge from buildings. I had a team in one scen that was backed into a corner, fighting out from an oblique window... if the enemy had wanted to eliminate them, they would have needed a lot of RPGs OR a direct assault. Cover values had nothing to do with it. It's not the building, per se, it's what you do with it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 i see, but in youre example you play with differnt forms of keyholeing i would say. i mean thats naturaly no position where you can bring "massive" firepower in. i can think of many such situations in the pooh mission for example, but thats more becouse your inf overwatch, youre vehicles, in short all youre supportive firepower is useless in just this one spot possibly only one team can see. but the enemy sits there with a full airborne squad and bolts your guys down. now if you would be able to direct massive firepower as i imagined when i read youre post, these guys would be cut down in no time. its like one and the same house can be a deathtrap and the opposite thereof. depending on placement of your units and the enemy ones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 i see, but in youre example you play with differnt forms of keyholeing i would say. i mean thats naturaly no position where you can bring "massive" firepower in. True, and it's only one example. More often than not, it's guys prone inside a building who "pop up" to engage your guys and then go prone again. Also, on occasion, "massive" firepower is... twenty-odd guys with rifles and LSWs. now if you would be able to direct massive firepower as i imagined when i read youre post, these guys would be cut down in no time. its like one and the same house can be a deathtrap and the opposite thereof. depending on placement of your units and the enemy ones. Ahh. In responding to Adam's post I was specifically responding to his question of heavier stuff being anything MORE than small arms. So... yeah, if you bring in RPGs, tanks, etc., pretty much any building will become a death trap. But if you've only got a platoon of Brit riflemen, for example , eliminating enemy troops hiding in a building becomes much more touchy. So, yes, it's situational, but that was where I was headed. I dunno what cover values are, but I can say that there are positions where only small arms do nothing more (reliably) than suppress infantry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 pretty much any building will become a death trap The most recent AI infantry's tendancy to bugger out the back door when things get too hot is genius on BFC's part. The building changes from exposed deathtrap to LOF cover for the AI forces. And when your men rush the building expecting to find defenders inside, the building turns into a trap for your own guys! People critiquing MOUT battles based on distant memories of v1.08 patch battles are really missing something. V1.2 will be even more improved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Adam, Heh, I know... and I also knew when I asked that I probably wasn't going to get the answer. The irony is that it's a good thing I, or even Charles, can answer such a question. If we could then that means we've been lying about how complex the modeling is Oh you could throw a bone like the basic values of cover offered by grass, dirt, etc. The bare, base tiles. I don't think that would be too complex or hard to answer. No, it wouldn't be too hard. There wouldn't be a single value for each, though. The thing is what good is it to you to have those numbers? For example, let's say here are the cover variables for prone infantry: Grass - .0325 Tall Grass - .0441 Dirt - .0012 What does this information tell you? Nothing. You can't even try to argue that the values aren't weighted correctly in relation to each other because you have no idea how these variables are used. And neither do I, so I can't help you there either So it doesn't have anything to do with purposefully, and philosophically, keeping information from you players. It's just that we've done our jobs to make the terrain (and other things) as complex as we possibly can in order to have the most realistic simulation possible. The side effect of that is that getting a peek into the system's numbers has zero practical value. Are there any plans to change the routing system? Personally I liked CMx1's system of having routed troops run for the hills but ultimately stay on the board - and take casualties as they rout. Are the exclamation marks in CMSF place-holders for a better routing system or are you happy with it? Eventually we will have the computer resources and AI to have individuals running away in some way that can be seen as realistic. Until then the "!" will remain. Pandur, i was more thinking along the line of making the movement a little slower. Which then has their exposure be greater the 99% of the time they aren't running into anybody i defenitely read it somewhere befor it was said here. in fact this was at least some month ago, i have no idea where i got it from though. It is in a ReadMe for one of the patches, for sure. This is the sort of thing we document when we release a patch. So it was in the v1.10 patch list? Well, in my defense when I looked at it I was hungry and probably not concentrating hard enough to find it dan/california, Finally they have to sort our everything related to units exiting the board. Which I do hope is on the list. Yup. Adam, Questions seem to be welcome though - so here's another one: is it a design goal in CMx2 to have terrain in which troops within LOS of each other, and with LOF, simply cannot damage one another? (Such situations as were very common in CMx1 with low fp and high cover.) In other words, do there exist (or do you want there to exist) "high cover" places where bullets alone cannot do the job, forcing players to use other means to kill? Where small arms can do no better than suppress infantry? This is an arid environment, so those opportunities in the game are as they are in real life... not all that prevalent in the natural environment. Buildings, walls, and other manmade things offer intermittent possibilities of LOF based on the stance of the soldiers taking cover behind them. In real life if I see the top of a wall I can shoot at it. If I know someone is behind it because he keeps popping his head up then I know I can theoretically hit the guy. But if he stops popping his head up, or his buddies are shooting back at me so that my outgoing fire is not as well aimed as it could otherwise be, then the small arms effect won't be nearly as effective as it could theoretically be. And of course if the enemy stays prone behind the wall, small arms are not very effective at all. For natural terrain it's not all that good for protecting soldiers. You can see plenty of examples in the game of soldiers opening up on each other and not hitting, but most of that is due to weapons accuracy and not cover. However, cover does have the potential to reduce accuracy, therefore it is a factor even if it isn't obvious. But by and large the natural ability for terrain to shield a man sized object from aimed fire is not good. Using the topography (ditches, hills, etc.) are pretty much your own sure bet because LOS isn't possible either. Ron, This quote, various Steve postings in this and in the "Is This Right" thread make me say Amen Brother. Carry on in the direction you are on, I for one will support with my pocketbook. There are enough stats/probability driven knockoffs/rehashed tactical games already. I too was more than tired of them 10 years ago when the first CM beta came out, CM has always appealed to me intuitively as being 'right'. Call me a brown nosing, shoe licking fanboy, it's like water off a duck; not saying it's perfect, of course not, but I would rather play a flawed CMSF than another SP, ASL or PC ever again. Your comments/detailed explanations here and elsewhere are very much appreciated, and I can definitely relate to the 'sees the unintended consequences and is a party-pooper' part. I build houses and I can state for a fact 99/100 customers have not got a clue about what's involved or required or possible in 'making their dream a reality'. Thanks! We do like to think positively of the enormous chunks of our lives spent making this stuff dan/california, The even more interesting question is if the engine would produce those result NOW with WW2 weapons? Almost all of which have some combination of lower ROF, and lower accuracy. It certainly would make a big difference for some of the things Adam is talking about. When you see someone out in the open and you only have a chance to take a few shots before they move or respond, that's definitely a different thin than spraying the spot with 10 times the amount of lead. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 The most recent AI infantry's tendancy to bugger out the back door when things get too hot is genius on BFC's part. The building changes from exposed deathtrap to LOF cover for the AI forces. And when your men rush the building expecting to find defenders inside, the building turns into a trap for your own guys! People critiquing MOUT battles based on distant memories of v1.08 patch battles are really missing something. V1.2 will be even more improved. It has changed my tactics completely. Now the entire focus of my MOUT tactics are to get a LOF to the back of a building before I try to take it. Which jives nicely with several detailed AARs I read about Fallujah, and gives great confidence BFC is getting the bigger picture right. It is a beautiful thing to watch a red squad scurry out the back into the LOF of a crack sniper team. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Now if the AI could just get them to scurry all the way across thee street into the next building over in a sane manner things would be really rolling right along. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.