Why the memorization game?

[Vinnart]

So, with the advent of CMBN I was going to uninstall CMAK from my PC the other night to make space since I haven’t played it since CMSF came out. Instead though, I decided to play some for old time sakes. The first thing that struck me was why was the decision to remove the ability to click on an enemy marker icon ( now replaced by the ? marker) to get what the last intel was on it. Meaning why is the intel lost to the player as it is now? If a squad has confirmed contact with a RPG, then loses contact the RPG turns to a “?” icon. Why not be able to click on the “?” enemy icon and get the last intel to show in the UI ala CMx1? Why lose the intel for the player? I liked the how the enemy spotting icons were handled in CMx1 compared to the current lose of info on last spotting and personally thought it was perfectly done in CMx1. In a sea of “?” icons I’m trying to remember what was this or that again. Before all one had to do was select enemy icon and last intel was displayed whether it be confermed, or possible visual or audio contact with last info available to the player. This would be absolutely useful for RTS play when action could be missed, and cannot be reviewed via WEGO.

[JSB]

I agree that at least the generic infantry/vehicle/armor nature of the threat should be available.

The actual "?" markers contrast too much with the precise naming of the enemy unit you have access to when selecting it, which I consider to be too precise (I know this point has been debated here but the explanation still escapes me).

[Erik Springelkamp]

The actual "?" markers contrast too much with the precise naming of the enemy unit you have access to when selecting it, which I consider to be too precise (I know this point has been debated here but the explanation still escapes me).

The explanation is simple: the game engine uses the actual 3D image to calculate all effects: hit location, sighting, etc.

Currently there is no provision for 'virtual' 3D models that are thought to be seen by the units, but not 'real' in the game. So if you see something, apart from a floating icon, it is the real thing. And if it is an officer, you could see that from the uniform if you zoom in, or if he is carrying a radio, or a rocket weapon.

So they give that information in the display, otherwise a player going through a lot of effort to zoom in on the model would have more information than the one just looking at the display info.

I think Steve said it is on their todo list to create virtual 3D images that represent what a unit thinks it sees, which would add a new level to the fog of war.

[Vinnart]

I am not looking for virtual 3d displays of what it thinks it sees. What I want is to be able to select "?" marker ala CMx1 to get the last known intel on the marker. Example; A squad gets confirmed contact with an RPG thus the enemy icon shows as an AT weapon, and if selected that info will show in the UI. When the squad loses contact with that RPG the icon will change to "?". One cannot select that "?" icon, and get the last intel of what that was as it was in CMx1. In this case selecting the "?" where the RPG was would show it was an RPG in the UI. In CMx2 one cannot select an enemy"?" icon, and thus the info on the last contact is lost to the player. One must remember what this "?" was, or that "?" was. It kind of reminds me of playing a game like Stratego where one must remember what this or that is. I think CMx2 went step backward with this. The old Cmx1 system would be SO much better especially when playing RTS when one could miss a sighting which turns into a "?" with no way of finding out what the friendly unit saw. CMx1 had this aspect perfect. The big question is why take steps backward, and remove this feature from CMx1. Not sure if this is changed in CMBN, but if not I will be bringing this up again.

[womble]

From what I've seen of CMBN, the '?' icons are only there in the higher levels of FOW. You can have it set so that you can always see the unit type icon once it's been spotted. I don't see the value in having a '?' that you can click on; if you can click it to find something out, it's much more convenient to be able to see it right off the bat.

The '?' are unidentified. They can move around. It doesn't make any sense to me that you can be certain that the "?" you're clicking on is the exact same contact, even. The AT team that the "?" was last time you had it positively IDed may have bellied away and been replaced with a sniper, or vice versa. Information on stuff you can't see should be imprecise. That's the whole point of FOW.

[Vinnart]

I am not sure if you have played Cmx1, but I if not you may not be getting the drift of the type of system I am describing. Enemy icons were handled perfectly in regard to possible contact, and verified contact. Regardless of what type of contact it was the LAST intell for that sighting was not lost to the player. I am not sure if anything has changed from CMSF to CMBN regarding “?” icons. The mode you are referring to I believe is the lowest Basic training setting. I do not play this mode because it gives TOO much info right off the bat. The only thing not known is what the enemy had for lunch. I prefer to play on veteran since it plays most like CMx1 in spotting info.

The “?” are not always unidentified as in the case of the enemy RPG I am using for the example. When contact was lost the marker changed to a “?” when it WAS an RPG icon. True a few minutes later something else could have moved into the position, or nothing could be currently where the RPG icon was which turned into a“?”. It is not about always being CERTAIN. The whole point is that the LAST INTELLIGENCE for that marker was an RPG. This is information the player loses unless memorizing “?” markers if he see what they were. It is as if all is forgotten to the player, and to the units of what was spotted and where. Imagine the report of the soldiers” We saw an RPG in that spot a moment ago, but now I can’t remember what I saw in that spot”.

What I am speaking about is especially needed for RTS play where the player can miss information. One can be zoomed in, or concentrating somewhere else, hear some gunfire, and by the time the player gets to where the fight is all he sees is a new “?” with no way of finding out what that unit saw. There is no way to rewind to see that the “?” icon showed as an RPG icon just a moment ago. Now as an RTS player that just missed what one of his units saw is a big stretch. The Unit could have spotted infantry, ATGM, Tank, anything. With the old system it would be no big deal since the player could click the “?” and get what was the last info on that Spotting.

Positive ID’s would read: RPG.

Possible ID would read: RPG?.

Some kind of infantry, but not sure what type would read: Infantry?

And so on.. Just like in CMx1.

Again, the loss of the identifying system of retaining the last intell whether it is a possible or confirmed visual, or audio contact for enemy generic icons from CMx1 was something fixed that was not broken in the first place. This is the IT that is missing from the current generic enemy icons, no matter what spotting level one plays on.

[LJFHutch]

Not a huge issue but I definitely see where you're coming from. I find the perfect intel on known contacts much worse however

[leakyD]

I find the perfect intel on known contacts much worse however

Agreed.

At the squad/vehicle level, it's hard enough keeping track of you OWN platoon, much less the enemy.

Allowing too much granular intel takes away from what CM tries to simulate best: chaos.

On the ground, troops are going to forget stuff. New threat's comes up, and that's the priority until the next threat comes up. Hell, most troops (apart from officers) barely know what other platoons in their own company are doing or where they are on the battlefield!

Players who've never been in the combat arms of a military, much less been in combat, can never understand this.

In CM it's easy to get over zealous and over ambitious with gameplay. Doing so makes one want more info (intel) on what your units and the enemy's unts are doing.

This is why mastering the art of good tactics and flexibility will help win most CM battles. Good intel is nice (and degrades rather quickly), but good tactics and flexibility trump intel.

Just like in real life.

[Vinnart]

In CM it's easy to get over zealous and over ambitious with gameplay. Doing so makes one want more info (intel) on what your units and the enemy's unts are doing.

This is why mastering the art of good tactics and flexibility will help win most CM battles. Good intel is nice (and degrades rather quickly), but good tactics and flexibility trump intel.

Just like in real life.

I tend to think gamplay is a big part of a game. After all it is a game. It is not real life. Games have to have certain concessions to make them well, a playable game.

Agreed that Intel alone will never win a CM battle. However, the tactics and flexibility one chooses to use are based on intelligence. A prime example of this would be this:

First the RTS play:

A squad has spotted a ATGM in a trench. It is confirmed as it showed as an ATGM icon. The player missed this because their attention had to be elsewhere at that moment. After finishing what the player needed to do, they zoom out and notice a "?" in a trench. The player has no idea what was seen, and must re-recon what the WEGO player would be able to rewind and see. The enemy is in a good defensive position, and is not going anywhere. The player has no Intel to form his tactics around. If it was a HMG that was spotted there then one could make the decision to bring up a tank to kill it, but if it was a ATGM then one could warrant it a important enough threat to use the last bit of arty they have to deal with it. You see, you cannot proceed intelligently without access to that Intel. Remember you are playing a game. Real life probably wouldn't be a very playable, fun game. Don't you see the frustration? RTS play is chaotic enough without adding to it.

The WEGO player:

He just rewinds, and gets to see what that was, and he player also dosn't get to miss who saw it. Definitely got to see even for a moment that it is an ATGM, and chooses artillery as the safest way to deal with it. If it was a HMG no need to waste the arty, just bring up a vehicle. The player knows it is not at ATGM, so has less fear of losing the vehicle at least from what is that particular position. If it is a HMG he knows infantry may not be the best way to deal with it.

Try playing a scenario without reading the briefing first, and compare how well you do especially in the opening moves when you do read it. I find the loss of access to the information more gamey. Again. a real life squad reporting to it’s platoon leader” We just saw a an RPG at that position, but I can’t remember what I just saw, nor am I allowed to tell you what I just saw. Now what tactics would you like to use, and orders would you like to issue to deal with what I must keep a mystery to you?”

[Vinnart]

If one wants to be as realistic as possible, then we will have to consider all WEGO play gamey, as well as use of the pause button during RTS. One should ONLY be playing RTS HvH to be closest to real life. There is no rewind, and being in all places at once as in WEGO in real life. There is no PAUSE buttons in real life. You must also keep all camera views at ground level. Does that sound like the CM you want to play? We could call this skill level "Tripple super master grog level" And you must play with one arm to simulate you are injured

[Erwin]

Don't forget to also climb into an empty 50 gallon drum being beaten by your mates with baseball bats and having dirt, heated nails and CS gas dumped on you.

Yeah, there has always is a bit of a "controversy" about whether CM is a game for enjoyment or a highly realistic sim that can be used for training. I have realized there will never be a resolution of this discussion.

[leakyD]

Understand what your asking for, but it seems it may be out of the developer's vision with the path they have taken with CM.

Ideally, it'd be great to have a "MORE REAL" vs "MORE FUN" toggle or switch (or whatever), in addition to the difficulty settings (elite, iron, etc). More variation and options would help pull in more fans (= more sales for BFC).

But, due to limited developer budgets, sacrifices have to be made.

Maybe someday, as time allows, they'll be options for "more fun".

But, a bunch of us here are hardcore wargamers, vets, or both, and many are VERY VOCAL with their needs (which seems to fit in w. BFC's vision). If the resources are there for "more fun", they'll be crying for "more real"!

[Vinnart]

I don't see why it cannot be considered a happy medium of both, but I would gather the majority of the market are buying it to play a fun game that stimulates the strategic mind, or at least until the DOD knocks on BF’s door with a more profitable offer to make it to THEIR specs. I have said before that I wish CM were around 20yrs ago when i was in the military as I do see how the game can help a person visualize tactics. I think I would be a MUCH better tactical thinker then if it were available. Sometimes if I am at a traffic light to entertain myself I will look at the surroundings and say "ok if i had to take that position there where would I put a MG in overwatch given these surroundings". I do not recall being as tactically minded when I was 19 yrs old then. This type of thinking is influenced by playing CM.

In the end I always prefer realistic games, but never at the expense of losing fun, or making something more frustrating for the player than needs to be . From the RTS player’s standpoint, and those with CMx1 experience I feel I make a valid point in regards to improving situation awareness for the player. I enjoy CM so much I no longer really play anything else. I think BF always appreciates feedback from their players to improve their game. Compare the first build of CMSF to the present. If this were not the case there would presently be no sniper icon, no icon flicker showing casualties, no cherry pick in CMBN for quick battle ect… All these were the outcome of feedback, and all these things have improved the game. I only see few more SITREP enhancements such as this, and it will “Be All you can be!”. Remember that slogan? It was the one that got me.

[Vinnart]

Maybe someday, as time allows, they'll be options for "more fun".

I think the problem is that people automatically equate the word "fun" with "gamey". So, that there are no misunderstandings within the groghood. When I use the word "fun" for what I am getting at it means to me "less frustrating" which = "more user friendly", which = “more pleasurable to use in design”, which = more “fun”. Fun does not mean unrealistic, but could mean more convenient, and less frustrating to use. A pleasure. "Gamey" to me is asking for game physics that are not realistic I.E. unrealistic hit damage ect.., or making it more like "Command and Conquer". My proposals (this is not my proposal, it was in CMx1!) will not make for more unrealistic interaction between the actual units, but are intended for a more user friendly interface. Much in the same way as some of the other informative UI additions that have been made make it easier to play such the flickering friendly icon when unit takes casualties. Such things do not change game environment to make things "gamey" and take away from the realism, but rather make the UI more user friendly at a glance to control the game.

Just cal me “Groggy” I’m the “Fun” enhanhanced GUI design dwarf grog

[LJFHutch]

If one wants to be as realistic as possible, then we will have to consider all WEGO play gamey, as well as use of the pause button during RTS. One should ONLY be playing RTS HvH to be closest to real life. There is no rewind, and being in all places at once as in WEGO in real life. There is no PAUSE buttons in real life. You must also keep all camera views at ground level. Does that sound like the CM you want to play? We could call this skill level "Tripple super master grog level" And you must play with one arm to simulate you are injured

That's how I play Pausing is cheating!

[leakyD]

Of course WEGO is gamey. The whole thing is gamey. Anything apart from the real thing (ie- combat) is not real!

:eek:

CM is 1/2 game and 1/2 simulation.

Conflicts occur when some players want "more real" an others want "more fun".

It seems one player's "fun" is another player's "gamey', and another players "real" is one player's "not fun".

CM, as in life, is full of compromises.

Personally, I would love fully deformable terrain. This, I feel, would add to the immersion and "realism" of the game.

However, develpement budget does not allow for it. At best, CM has partially deformable terrain. Not what I want, but better than nothing.

Do I like this? No. Do I accept this? Yes.

Hopefully, in time, most of the commuiy's needs are met. Maybe.

[MikeyD]

why is the intel lost to the player as it is now? If a squad has confirmed contact with a RPG, then loses contact the RPG turns to a “?” icon. Why not be able to click on the “?” enemy icon and get the last intel to show in the UI ala CMx1?

In real life I don't think there exists a function to click on your surroundings and tell you who it was you last saw standing there. At least it doesn't work that way for me. Maybe its an iphone app.

[Cranky]

"Maybe its an iphone app"

It is:

http://mashable.com/2009/12/05/augmented-reality-iphone/

[Vinnart]

That's it damn it! I'm getting me an iphone! Perhaps a whole new industry can open up. Apps for Combat Mission.

[Vinnart]

Just to confirm this feature does not give the player any more, or special information than has not been revealed to him already through recon. It simply allows the player to re-access that information if missed during RTS play in an organized efficient way. This is not gamey, and in no way takes away from the realism, but rather adds efficiency at a glance. Also, I think it adds realism quit frankly. I can’t imagine a battalion commander’s maps being blotted with “?” for contacts during a briefing. I am sure their maps are as detailed as possible to KEEP TRACK of the accumulated recon reports. We had contact with armor here, RPG teams there, ect…

Liken it to this: You have traveled the world and are standing before a world map. You can look at the map and have to recall it all from memory I went here, and I went there in regards to the visual, OR you can put map pins on the map to recall the information at a glance. It is the SAME information only presented in a more efficient way.

I got an app for that!

[leakyD]

Liken it to this: You have traveled the world and are standing before a world map. You can look at the map and have to recall it all from memory I went here, and I went there in regards to the visual, OR you can put map pins on the map to recall the information at a glance. It is the SAME information only presented in a more efficient way.

Please go into a firefight and see how much you can recollect during, and after.

Answer: not much

"Efficiency" "Memory" "Recollection" are holy grails that rarely exist on the battlefield. Over weeks and months of combat, yes. Over the scope of a CM battle, no.

Battle is chaos. He who manages the chaos better will win. Period.

The problem is that battlefield intel degrades rather quickly. At ALL levels, but especially as you move up the CoC.

From my recollection, few individual units are tracked at battalion level (I was driver for a brigade infantry colonel for 5 months, so I've been in a few TOC's and seen a few maps, but this was 20+yrs ago, so things might have changed). Mostly companies, with perhaps special platoons, were tracked (again, could be wrong - been a while...)

This degradation of intel needs to be modelled somehow.

Intel in CM isn't perfect, but as players move up in difficulty, they are forced to fall back to using good tactics and flexibility instead of relying on intel.

This, I feel, pretty accurately represents the dilema of the commander during battle: Do I rely on intel or more on tactics/flexibility?

More granular difficulty settings would accommodate more player styles.

Maybe a "more intel" difficulty toggle, able to be used in conjunction with a "harder AI" difficulty toggle would help. That might satisfy what you're looking for.

[LJFHutch]

Just to confirm this feature does not give the player any more, or special information than has not been revealed to him already through recon. It simply allows the player to re-access that information if missed during RTS play in an organized efficient way. This is not gamey, and in no way takes away from the realism, but rather adds efficiency at a glance. Also, I think it adds realism quit frankly. I can’t imagine a battalion commander’s maps being blotted with “?” for contacts during a briefing. I am sure their maps are as detailed as possible to KEEP TRACK of the accumulated recon reports. We had contact with armor here, RPG teams there, ect…

Liken it to this: You have traveled the world and are standing before a world map. You can look at the map and have to recall it all from memory I went here, and I went there in regards to the visual, OR you can put map pins on the map to recall the information at a glance. It is the SAME information only presented in a more efficient way.

I got an app for that!

Aye, and the app is called a "pencil"

[Vinnart]

Aye, and the app is called a "pencil"

Yes, plenty of time to grab a pencil during RTS play to mark down what your unit saw, but you missed because your attention was elsewhere. WEGO guy can just pull out his app and mark away rewinding till his hearts content

Believe me only those who have RTS, especialy HvH know where I am coming from with this to aid in much the way the replay does for the WEGO player Imagine WEGO with NO replay!

Perhaps there is a better way to address this issue of missing, and tracking intel. I don’t know. On the CMBN forum there is a suggestion of a log box with perhaps audio cues, as used in other RTS games. The more I RTS with CMSF the more I see the need in it as well as it works for other games.

Absolutly, intel degrades, and could not see this functionality in effect for faded “?” icons. For fresh spotting like the player just missed that he would not have missed if playing WEGO then the frustration remains. I say again, this feature was in CMx,1 and I am sure no one complained it was there, nor has anyone complained about new features such as the flickering icon when casualties. Why? They are features to improve situational awarness to aid the player. It is the same principle. They just make the game easier to play. That's all, with no taking from realism.

Anyway, from what I read earlier in this thread BF is looking at ways to improve "?" system, and that is a good thing.

[Vinnart]

Intel in CM isn't perfect, but as players move up in difficulty, they are forced to fall back to using good tactics and flexibility instead of relying on intelMore

The Intel in CMx1 was much more obscure for the most part on possitive I.D. of enemy units. Even in Iron mode the enemy unit is ALWAYS positive I.D as to what type of unit it is. There is no generic infantry as in CMx1. There is that's a Forward observer, or a ATGM ect.. You even get the enemy’s rank, and unit designation right off the bat. I find the only real difference in playing in Iron mode is the longer arty times, and medic aid times from the other modes. In essence CMx1 was much more "Irony" than CMSF Iron although including this feature. My tactics do not seem to change no matter which difficulty level playing on. Good tactics, and flexibility will always be needed to win a CM battle. You cannot win by intel alone, but it plays a big part. Try winning on tactics, and flexibility alone I.E. setting up good overwatch ect.. without good recon info.

Winning the information war in deception and foreknowledge is one of the 6 key tenants as stated in the "Art of War", so intelligence gathering must be VERY important. I don't think Sun Tzu was wrong. Ironically he does not mention the words tactics and flexibility in the top 6.

They are:

1.Win all without fighting.

2. Avoid strength, attack weakness.

3.DECEPTION, and FORKNOWLEDGE.

4.Speed, and preparation.

5. Shaping the enemy.

6.Charicter based leadership.

I have heard many the commander say battle is “controlled chaos”, otherwise it would simply be chaos with NO command and control. I have played RTS multiplayer 8v8 HvH games that were much faster, had much larger forces to control, and were much more chaotic than CMSF. The complete chaos only added to the frustration in aspects of gameplay. It did not make the game anymore entertaining, or give it a more realistic feel. All it did was make one ask how could the command and control be improved.

[Erwin]

In RL one has other people to help out. If you're the CO or BN Co you'll have staff.

Staff is what play aids simulate.

Once again, when one wants to have fun playing a game why make things more complex just to give yourself a headache. That's why I found IRON level to be a joke. Every time you deselect everything you see all your units. So, what's the point? (Well, yes I understand that it increases the C&C complexity.)

Or, is the concept that if you do not have a photographic memory, you have no business playing this game?