Something I'm wondering about . . .

[Crimguy]

I was speaking with a fellow wargamer who is also considering buying POA2 (we both will - we just want to see how the patches work out). We came across the same issue with the game, and I'm hoping someone can resolve this for me.

I read most of the manual (thanks for supplying a pdf!), and noticed that this is one detailed sim. No wonder it takes 20 minutes per turn on the larger scenarios. This is what I'm wondering: isn't all this accuracy and detail re: sighting, weapons paths, terrain, etc. lost when it's essentially hex-based? Doesn't that abstraction (units occupying hex locations) render much of the aforementioned modeling somewhat moot?

Unless the hexes are a simplification, and the units are actually occupying more accurate locations, it seems all of this detail is compromised by the hex-based underpinnings.

Please enlighten me. I'm not trying to rank on the simulation - this issue was brought to my attention and I think it's a genuine issue.

Thx,
matt

[meade95]

Good question.

[Don Maddox]

Every simulation has this problem to some extent, it's just a matter of degree. The issue brings up a whole host of programming problems (challenges?) for the developer.

First, the simulation has to use some sort of system to pinpoint and display the current location of a given unit. Every simulation uses some sort of grid reference system underneath for the software to operate, however, it isn't always obvious to the player. The Close Combat games may look like they don't use such a system, but there are a finite number of locations on the map. It is simply a matter of (a) whether or not they are visible to the player and (b) how large they are in proportion to the map.

The obvious solution to this problem seems to be, of course, to make the locations/grids/hexes as small as possible, thus the simulation is more accurate. This approach, however, creates a whole new series of challenges. For the second function that the system serves is to show the physical area the unit occupies. This is called the unit footprint. Making the location system too small isn't an option for every game, otherwise we have a situation where an armored brigade has a footprint of 50 meters! :confused: An obviously flawed calcuation that directly leads to the ability to both cause and sustain way too many casualties in way too small an area. Not good.

Developers are forced to compromise to a degee to balance the need for a more accurate location system with the conflicting requirement of unit footprint. The larger the units the game attempts to simulate, the more abstract this system will become.

Decisive Action attempted to get around this issue by implementing an inovative system in which location and unit footprint were two entirely different animals. The location system was simply used to display where the unit is on the battlefield and show which type of terrain it occupies. A circle appeared around each unit showing its current footprint and effective range of its weapons. There is, of course, abstraction involved in this system too. The unit has to occupy some type of terrain, so the terrain at the exact center of the unit footprint was used for combat resolution. This sometimes can lead to a situation where the unit occupies an open area, but this area is surrounded by dense urban buildings.

No matter what a developer does there has to be some type of location/footprint system behind-the-scenes. The only thing a developer can do is try to make the scale of the units involved (squad, company, battalion, etc) match the scale of the location system (the hexes). That involves a bit of compromise and everyone has different tastes on which scale they like to play.

The only sure way around this issue is to create a simulation with exceedingly small locations and every unit represents a single solider or weapon. Very accurate, but it would take a main-frame computer to run a squad-sized engagement! Until we get to that point we're going to have to accept a degree of abstraction. POA2 does a good job of masking this, but the issue is still there under the hood.

[Crimguy]

Which still begs the question: understanding then that there is a certain abstraction regarding where specifically units are on the map, doesn't that naturally render moot the painstaking accuracy involved in POA's environmental, ballistic, and sighting model? Some units appear to be quite small, e.g. a tank platoon, which can in turn be reduced to an individual unit, e.g. a lonely M1A1), that is nonetheless occupying a uniform, flat, hexagon-sized swath. Does that tank occupy the entire hexagon? Is it now subject to the same rules as another hex that is occupied by 3 infantry platoons and a M3 section? The 125mm round going towards that hex that was fired from a T-72: where and what is it hitting? It sounds like essentially all the ballistics calculations are subject to a modifier is no more than a probability of which unit is in the way of the round. I'm assuming, mind you, that the above modifier depends partially on the unit's footprint/silhouette in the database, the intended target, the range, etc. It seems, though, with the hexagon map, the units therein are being generalized greatly with regard to facing, defilade, silhouette relative to the firing unit, and line of sight.

I realize the need for some kind of compromise. I'm just wondering if the computational power would have been better served by having a higher resolution terrain/positional model. I don't really look at Close Combat for an example, but IIRC the resolution in Combat Mission was quite good, as was Steel Beasts and ATF.

I love detail, but I'm a bit luke-warm on its application here. I'm worried that what the computer sees is little more than the screenshots of Panzer Campaigns with 3D turned on (see here: http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/PZC/PZC_Sicily/sicily4.jpg ).

Thx for the detailed reply,
Matt

[Don Maddox]

Well, I can only speak to the issue in general terms. It's a problem for every wargame developer. Scott is probably the only one who could answer detailed questions on what the computer actually "sees" and how it applies that information to combat resolution.

It's a good question, but I suspect the answer may be...complicated.

[tws71669]

Well, if they wanted to spend more time on the graphical aspect I suppose that;s a question of design pursuit or style. I see the hex system as more indicative of range and terrain matters in POA2. The units actual footprint as Maddox mentioned is a very different thing.

If I understand how POA2 is using its numbers, the hex is just a placeholder to a large degree and the units individual physical characteristics coupled with the physical environment and the technology of the attacker and defender being employed have a more influential role than mass-per-hex... as in mass that occupies space.

that makes it clear as mud I'm sure... but I am trying to distinguish between hex as location not as the unit itself... ultimately I would like to know what Scott has to say as I am basing what I say only on my tinkering with the sim and reading over and over the manual.

Regards,
Tiberius

[Crimguy]

Well, if they wanted to spend more time on the graphical aspect I suppose that;s a question of design pursuit or style. I see the hex system as more indicative of range and terrain matters in POA2. The units actual footprint as Maddox mentioned is a very different thing.
If I understand how POA2 is using its numbers, the hex is just a placeholder to a large degree and the units individual physical characteristics coupled with the physical environment and the technology of the attacker and defender being employed have a more influential role than mass-per-hex... as in mass that occupies space.
that makes it clear as mud I'm sure... but I am trying to distinguish between hex as location not as the unit itself... ultimately I would like to know what Scott has to say as I am basing what I say only on my tinkering with the sim and reading over and over the manual.

Regards,
Tiberius
That's kind of what I'm hoping the answer is - that the hex is more of a placeholder, and the unit occupies a more specific spot in the virtual space, if you get my meaning.

The graphics themselves mean nothing to me, although I love the maps they're using. What I'm finding most intriguing is the unit sighting system, and how it appears you don't have "G*d's Eye" like you do in Combat Mission. Very impressive!

[Don Maddox]

I don't fully understand the fog-of-war effects myself yet, but I do like that you don't even have complete information on your own forces. That's something that's very realistic, which I don't remember seeing in a wargame before. In many wargames there is some fog-of-war with enemy units, however, the player usually has complete control and knowledge of his own forces.