Elvis vs. JonS DAR Discussion Thread

[Vark]

Would it be possible to have a slider that would allow the players to increase or decrease certain factors in the game? Or would it be possible to have different settings so players like Jason experience a more 'realistic' combat simulator and others a more fun experience. i do smile at the oft repeated 'it's just a game' defence as the original copy for the CMBO adverts was heavy with phrases suggesting just the opposite. In fact it revelled in repeatedly claiming that gamey tactics could not be used, only real tactics would give success and that it offered a whole new experience in gaming. Hyperbole sure, but don't be too surprised if veteran CM gamers hold the games it produces to those standards claimed. I play CM because it is a generational development over Steel Panthers, which I adored, if another game comes along and offers, what I think is a better simualation, I will junk CM, just as SP is but a fond memory.

[LongLeftFlank]

I've always agreed with Jason on the cover seeking, and continue to feel there's further room for improvement. I'd also love to see the TacAI being a bit more proactive about target seeking - I hate having to futz about with the unit facings just to get a LOS down a street or a keyhole shot - if I issue a Target order the TacAI just keeps saying "No Line of Sight". It would be a huge micro time saver if it would just accept the order and have the pixeltruppen at least wriggle around a bit in their Action Spot to try to draw a bead before canceimg it as a Fail.

And I also concur on snipers - they're simply too easy to spot.

Other than that though, I'm curiois what gamey tactics work in the game (and couldn't be discouraged by higher casualty VC) that would rarely work in RL. And what RL tactics don't seem to work in the game?

[LongLeftFlank]

Re the AAR, I have a question for JonS: in hindsight do you feel you shot off all your arty too early in an attempt to get annihilation fires on specific targets? Was there an option to use harassing fire instead to further depress his morale and ensure his final assault on the Bois never got going? As I've noted before, that seems to be the historical fate of most stalled attacks by either side in WWII although I'm open to challenge on that generalization.

[LongLeftFlank]

Personally I think we ought to just stop feeding the trolls.

I see a pot and a kettle here, pal.

[Michael Emrys]

Jason, by your definition you want a movie not a game.

I think you are mischaracterizing Jason here. I don't think that is what he has asked for at all.

"Real world tactics","military realities"? I love it when amateurs throw that one around.

You are forgetting that he has worn the uniform too.

I think we fundementally disagree on what CM should be.

That may be, but for my part I am not convinced that you understand what he is asking for.

To my mind it isn't a engineered historical reinactment system designed to perfectly reproduce real world results 9 times out of 10.

Agreed. But there may be a major flaw in the way that morale and the pixeltruppen response to is handled at present. If that is the case, and if BFC decides to tackle the issue at some future point, I have confidence that they can come up with solutions that do not diminish the fun factor by one iota, that will in fact enhance it.

If something along the lines that Jason is suggesting is implemented, it would not reduce the challenge for the player. It might change its nature and give a better insight into the problems faced by a real world leader. Why can't that be fun too?

Michael

[Pete Wenman]

I'm just re-reading Keegan's Six Armies in Normandy.

On the move of the A&SH to Gavrus "it had taken them over five hours to travel a little over a mile"

IMO the fidelity the Jason is after would require games to take hours, with very little happening, as each side carefully and slowly trys to gain the upper hand, before a few minutes of intense firefight, followed by more slow and carefully movment. -Repeat and cycle.

Fun ???? - maybe

[Other Means]

There's also abstract cover in place. For large items like trees etc that can be directly simulated, they are, for micro-terrain, grass etc there's still a modifier. I'd argue that this comes under simulation rather than design for effect.

They're getting as close as they can - certainly close enough for real world tactics to be useful.

You are forgetting that he has worn the uniform too.

You guys share? Eyew....

[futon river crossing]

Not the kind of game I'd want to play.

I'm sure CMBN could simulate something like that - if you really wanted to. Imagine sending 2hrs of PBEM moves with nothing happening - woohoo - sign me up for that one

[Michael Emrys]

Imagine sending 2hrs of PBEM moves with nothing happening - woohoo - sign me up for that one

I'm not assuming that that is the only way to do the game. Remember, this is a small unit simulation. I think the game would play at about the same tempo, but if you took more than a certain percentage of casualties, the game would end and you'd get a message to try another day with fresh troops, or something like that. This just takes us back to the original spirit in which the games were conceived over a decade ago.

The problems arise when we as players want to model battalion or even regimental sized engagements minute by minute. That seems to me to be placing impossible demands on the game designer. Something of that size needs to have company or platoon sized units and turns representing something like an hour each. Then you'd see plenty of action on the screen as matters assumed their proper proportions.

Michael

[The_Capt]

I think you are mischaracterizing Jason here. I don't think that is what he has asked for at all.

You are forgetting that he has worn the uniform too.

That may be, but for my part I am not convinced that you understand what he is asking for.

Agreed. But there may be a major flaw in the way that morale and the pixeltruppen response to is handled at present. If that is the case, and if BFC decides to tackle the issue at some future point, I have confidence that they can come up with solutions that do not diminish the fun factor by one iota, that will in fact enhance it.

If something along the lines that Jason is suggesting is implemented, it would not reduce the challenge for the player. It might change its nature and give a better insight into the problems faced by a real world leader. Why can't that be fun too?

Michael

What I read is that CM is "broken" because it can't produce real world results. When I thought I was confused he compared it to a "pogo stick" for transportation.

I don't care if he was a Div Comd from whatever nation he was with, if he honestly expects true real world behaviour from a game being played largely by amateur enthusiast, he has never been on a two way range, or worse learned nothing when he was....either way I am glad it is a past tense reference.

The "major flaw" as you put it is called "game balance". An abstraction to keep the average player engaged without totally alienating him. Imagine true real world behaviour in-game. Troops taking an set of waypoints and deciding that is crazy and plotting their own. How about squads that simply refuse to budge because the guy who paid 50 bucks for game is an idiot and they don't want to die. You want CM Courts Martial expansion pack with that?

What I am very tired of is people reading a preview and stating "oh way too many people got killed, this must be a major flaw in the game", excluding a whole lot of other factors that can lead to the same end.

Sometimes it feels like some people won't be happy until BFC create CM JasonC or CM some other grog, totally failing to see the gem in front of them.

[LongLeftFlank]

I think you are mischaracterizing Jason here. I don't think that is what he has asked for at all.....You are forgetting that he has worn the uniform too.

.... If something along the lines that Jason is suggesting is implemented...

Come on Michael, admit it. You're really just fishing so you can bag the Ultimate Quote for your sigline!! From the Grog Who Knows It All.

[LongLeftFlank]

... And you can sign me up for the ultra-realistic slow slog of death scenarios. I fully intend to build some once I get my hands on this beauty -- labeled with the appropriate NC-17 warning of course.

Inevitable omniscience issues aside (bring on the Co-Play baby!), I want to stand in the shoes of the company or battalion commander as much as possible. I play the games largely to understand the history better, although I fully understand that I am greatly outnumbered.

[The_Capt]

... And you can sign me up for the ultra-realistic slow slog of death scenarios. I fully intend to build some once I get my hands on this beauty -- labeled with the appropriate NC-17 warning of course.

Inevitable omniscience issues aside (bring on the Co-Play baby!), I want to stand in the shoes of the company or battalion commander as much as possible. I play the games largely to understand the history better, although I fully understand that I am greatly outnumbered.

My friend, CMBN will open that door, trust me. I remember in CMx1, guys invented this crazy hardcore ruleset. They could only play from the shoulder of the Coy/Bn CO, no flying POV just what you could see and hear. Then they had other guys play lower subunit COs, locked on their own views.

You want the deep end go ahead. But any game that forces the player there is doomed in my opinion. I seriously applaud anyone who wants to learn more as a result of CM. So long as you are willing to do the legwork and not expect the game to do it for you.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Yee gods. Where is this purple prose coming from?

from a bad command of (any) language and a weak character?

instead of using cliches in a banal attempt to underline an argument in a forum post i could of course have been more technical, as there are a good number of papers to quote about the subject.

btw if someone is interested in the group dynamics of WW2 units (no, this does not specifically deal about surrendering one way or another), i am currently rereading the free english translation of "Infantry Company as a Society" -- a sociological look done of a Finnish WW2 MG company during the war by a guy who served in the unit. since it's free and contains a good introductory part into the subject (deals with other similar studies with different nationalities and periods), it's worth reading. possibly extremely boring, but some may take joy in it and some of course say there's nothing new or worth reading in it.

Knut Pipping; Infantry Company as a Society (PDF)

anyway, it's great that CMBN has surrendering.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

I understand the analogy, I just don't understand exactly what you want.

my comment was more about the logic behind the argument than anything else.

if something i'd love to see good C3 effects. i was a bit surprised to see things like a mixed bag of units acting together without a single "HQ" anywhere. but since i haven't played the game, what do i know. i'll be happy playing CMBN anyway. it's already got such a huge list of improvements (regarding both CMSF and CMx1).

[Wicky]

I've always enjoyed explaining to Americans that the game of Cricket has Test matches that are scheduled to last 5 days with the chance of a draw as a result! (lots of time where nothing much happens and then flurries of action and even occasionally a draw can be quite exciting) -

Then there are 1 day games, and the current fad with Twenty-20 games that last a couple or three hours just like quick battles.

With these variations on a game there are those purists who say that Tests are the finer form form of the game and treat with 20-20s with same disdain as a gourmet chef does to McDonalds.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i don't see why realistic suppression effects etc would lead to 4 hour battles. instead of dying, your platoon just does something else or is pinned until someone else does something else.

there's plenty of room for stuff that couldn't be done in such short periods in the real world but stuff that can be done in the game. stuff that couldn't be done because of the amount of organizational work it would have required, not because of realistic weapon effects. in real world it might take two hours to organize and transmit a new plan for a unit, but in a CMBN style game it takes only as long as the unit stays pinned rallying.

of course getting ultra realistic C3 stuff would be pure heaven, but i think it's safe to say it's not going to happen.

[LongLeftFlank]

Well when the first wave bogs down and goes to ground, that's when the second wave goes over the top, if the objective is urgent enough. And assuming that there is a second wave.

Another question for JonS and Elvis: I noticed some wire entanglements and mines as part of Jon's defenses. Did those come into play at all -- e.g. forcing Oliver's Army to avoid certain areas?

[Michael Emrys]

What I read is that CM is "broken" because it can't produce real world results. When I thought I was confused he compared it to a "pogo stick" for transportation.

Yeah, well Jason does get carried away in his language at times, it's true. But then, so do you:

The "major flaw" as you put it is called "game balance". An abstraction to keep the average player engaged without totally alienating him. Imagine true real world behaviour in-game. Troops taking an set of waypoints and deciding that is crazy and plotting their own. How about squads that simply refuse to budge because the guy who paid 50 bucks for game is an idiot and they don't want to die. You want CM Courts Martial expansion pack with that?

...

Sometimes it feels like some people won't be happy until BFC create CM JasonC or CM some other grog, totally failing to see the gem in front of them.

See? Nobody in my recollection has asked for that, nor have they asked for anything that might result in that. For the moment at least, you are doing battle only with figments of your own imagination.

Now why don't we just ratchet down the blood pressure and the rhetoric just a little and try to calmly wait until we have the game in front of us, when we can all see just how things work out?

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Well when the first wave bogs down and goes to ground, that's when the second wave goes over the top, if the objective is urgent enough. And assuming that there is a second wave.

That's how I played even in CMBO. If I was attacking I would have a column of platoons. Each platoon would be in squads abreast so that any contact would have a good chance of receiving the firepower of the entire platoon. Once they made contact, their job was to seek local cover and bring the enemy under fire if possible. The second platoon would be following close enough to rescue the first if necessary but far enough back so that they would be unlikely to come immediately under fire. This would leave them free to either reinforce the first platoon or start probing for an open flank. The third platoon would be following the second platoon and would comprise the company reserve to do with as the situation required.

Any reason why that can't be done in BN?

Michael

[BFCElvis]

Yeah, well Jason does get carried away in his language at times, it's true. But then, so do you:

See? Nobody in my recollection has asked for that, nor have they asked for anything that might result in that. For the moment at least, you are doing battle only with figments of your own imagination.

Now why don't we just ratchet down the blood pressure and the rhetoric just a little and try to calmly wait until we have the game in front of us, when we can all see just how things work out?

Michael

When I got as many units as I could at the foot of Hill 144 I saw that I could put together a beaten up but battle effective group of Pioneers. That is probably when I saw the best way into the Alamo.

[The_Capt]

Yeah, well Jason does get carried away in his language at times, it's true. But then, so do you:

See? Nobody in my recollection has asked for that, nor have they asked for anything that might result in that. For the moment at least, you are doing battle only with figments of your own imagination.

Now why don't we just ratchet down the blood pressure and the rhetoric just a little and try to calmly wait until we have the game in front of us, when we can all see just how things work out?

Michael

Michael, don't play the Peng-flank on me. Are we really going to play good grog, bad grog?

I have the freakin game in front of me, you git!! How many hints do I have to drop?!

I could roughly fit the Grand Canyon in the gulf between what you (and the rest of the peanut gallery) think you know and what you really know. Don't sit in the cheap seats and throw stones and then and try to call it help.

Make you a deal, you find a better WWII tactical 3-D game when this comes out and I will personally reimburse the cost to buy it.

[JonS]

Re the AAR, I have a question for JonS: in hindsight do you feel you shot off all your arty too early in an attempt to get annihilation fires on specific targets? Was there an option to use harassing fire instead to further depress his morale and ensure his final assault on the Bois never got going? As I've noted before, that seems to be the historical fate of most stalled attacks by either side in WWII although I'm open to challenge on that generalization.

Yes.

Yes ... sort of. That's dependant on knowing where the enemy is and being able to react in time. I seldom had that luxury.

I've been toying with the idea of adding more artillery/mortars to both sides later in the game. But I probably won't. Neither of us used our artillery brilliantly, but on the other hand we both used it adequately. I'm not particularly interested in adding more artillery just because. It might be realistic (in fact, adding more artillery after 45-60 mins would be HIGHLY realistic), but it'd also make for a naff scenario.

[JonS]

instead of using cliches in a banal attempt to underline an argument in a forum post i could of course have been more technical, as there are a good number of papers to quote about the subject.

Your cartoon cutout, Captain America characterisation is not only wrong, carried with it an internal contradiction. If no one ever left their mates in the lurch, why would anyone be tormented by anything for decades after?

You need better sources, not a better command of the language.

anyway, it's great that CMBN has surrendering.

Yes. Yes it is.

[JonS]

I think the game would play at about the same tempo, but if you took more than a certain percentage of casualties, the game would end and you'd get a message to try another day with fresh troops, or something like that.

Think carefully about what you just asked for there. If that were part of the game, this AAR Battle would have probably been over at the 20-25 minute mark. The fight for Hill 144 would never have happened. The fight between the JgPz and the Shermans would never have happened. The set up and battle - brief as it was - for la Campagne would never have happened. Elvis would never have had to come up with a new plan on the fly. I would never have needed bother move my reserves about. The duel between the 50mm and the Sherman would never have happened. The MG suppression of the infantry moving up the centre would have been utterly irrelevant. The sniper's influence on the battle would have been negligible. Neither of us would have learnt a darned thing about improvisation and making do and changing plans.

None of those things - which individually were handled quite realistically - would have happened because the battle would have ended on the forward slopes of Hill 154.

I, for one, am profoundly glad that the battle did not end there.