'Seeing' what a unit can 'see'....

[Redwolf]

I read something recently where Steve said that he proclaimed that he issued most orders while in the "overhead view". Since he plays RT and issues orders like that...I suspect that he is actually playing 'Close Combat'....not Combat Mission.

And you think that is different from most of the fanbois?

 

[Fleischer]

I just realized it's a zen thing. Some of our customers are only focused on choosing a path to get to a specific end destination. Others are much more interested in knowing the details of the path and to weigh the choices within against the choices in other paths. Others want to choose a path, enjoy their time on it, and don't really care where the wind up.

These are three totally different and largely incompatible ways of playing a game. That's because the game's very core, and soul, needs to be tailored to just one of these groups. We've chosen the latter.

Very revealing. I guess the question here is whether this really was by design or a consequence of the fact that they couldn't manage to make a game that was tailored to players who want to think, plan and make decisions and see a correlation between doing a good job at those things and actually winning games.

Making a game that is all about the "experience", or for players that are just "in for the ride", is a lot easier than making a game that has a good deal of internal consistency and predictability and that models the outcome of different types of player paths appropriately. At some point in time, I think they realized they weren't capable of making this latter type of game, and so the customer base was swapped out as if nothing had happened - the grogs replaced with people who are just happy to see Tigers and Shermans shooting at each other while being ensured they are playing a "realistic" war simulation by the bullet trajectories and other stuff that is useless from a tactical point of view.

Steve typically frames this into a question of micro- vs. macro-management, which is obviously not the case.

 

[Redwolf]

Steve typically frames this into a question of micro- vs. macro-management, which is obviously not the case.

Right.

The major reason why I like CMx1 so much (and TacOps) is that they are efficient wargames.

They are efficient in that you can exercise the control given to you by the engine and the UI in a reasonable amount of time per turn.

Using it as an autopilot thing and just hoping for the best with semi-random placement of units might be fun, but it is not what I like. Exercising all the control given by the engine is, apart from not possible in some not-so-edge cases such as walls and foxholes and trenches, way too time-consuming in CMx2. No wonder it is more fun as a game where you don't value precision an enjoy the ride. The military simulation aspects is long gone by then.

 

[Fleischer]

Right.

The major reason why I like CMx1 so much (and TacOps) is that they are efficient wargames.

They are efficient in that you can exercise the control given to you by the engine and the UI in a reasonable amount of time per turn.

Using it as an autopilot thing and just hoping for the best with semi-random placement of units might be fun, but it is not what I like. Exercising all the control given by the engine is, apart from not possible in some not-so-edge cases such as walls and foxholes and trenches, way too time-consuming in CMx2. No wonder it is more fun as a game where you don't value precision an enjoy the ride. The military simulation aspects is long gone by then.

Also, the more you micro-manage in CMx2, the more its uglier sides become apparent. I can understand why Steve wants us all to be birds-eye generals.

 

[Redwolf]

Also, the more you micro-manage in CMx2, the more its uglier sides become apparent. I can understand why Steve wants us all to be birds-eye generals.

Yeah.

Except if that is really what you want to play then Panzer Command actually gets pretty good. Because they have usable pathfining, not to mention formations.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I guess the current map that Elvis vs. BilH is using is a good example for this feature. For the life of me, that terrain is just bewildering and I can't guess who can see what from where.

I usually try to find 'Vital Ground' as the Germans used to say. That is, before starting the game. I look for places that give a good intel source of approaching enemy, ambush sites, etc. I don't really have the time to fly about and get down to ground level and futz around with the LOS tool. I would just like to highlight a 'action spot' and get a general idea of what can be seen from that point. Making it 'hard' is just a way of wasting my time. Of course, a scenario designer might decide that I can only check these 'sights' from a designated setup area. That would be fine also.

And, yes, the whole 'micromanage' smokescreen is just typical Steve. The game allows breaking squads down into 2-3 elements. It is naturally making players micromanage by its very design. Good players use drills and tactics and this is not performed by the TacAI very well ... so what else can you do but get down and give the orders?

Steve also blathers about 'intuitive' players and other non-sense. I really think he will say anything just so it doesn't result in more coding. Or realistic modeling.

If you have been following the Elvis/BilH thing, it is immediately apparent that BilH is not 'fighting like a Soviet' (another Steveism). He is using any gamey thing to win. He studies the decals now. He has turned this feature into another micromanaged trick. Abuse of information because...it can be abused.

My gut feeling is that Steve is not that influential in the absolute inner workings of the product. He seemed very disoriented when discussing the mortars in that thread. His main function seemed to be some sort of cheerleader trying to drum up a frenzy for the new product. To be honest, it seems very much like the old stuff. That is, BilH can gamily abuse the Soviets just like any other nationality.

 

[mOBIUS]

And, yes, the whole 'micromanage' smokescreen is just typical Steve. The game allows breaking squads down into 2-3 elements. It is naturally making players micromanage by its very design.

Games that have the basic infantry unit as the squad recognize that the US Marines are the only squads that actually operated in independent fire teams in 44-45. And this was because they each had BARs. Fire teams is a post war concept. WWII games that break down infantry into teams lean on the fact that squads had different sub units based on their weapons. But these didn't act as independent units.
http://www.dererstezug.com/1944Gruppe.htm

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Games that have the basic infantry unit as the squad recognize that the US Marines are the only squads that actually operated in independent fire teams in 44-45. And this was because they each had BARs. Fire teams is a post war concept. WWII games that break down infantry into teams lean on the fact that squads had different sub units based on their weapons. But these didn't act as independent units.
http://www.dererstezug.com/1944Gruppe.htm

If the game breaks up the squad, it should model that being small unit tactics. Instead, it is abused and fire teams are operating all over the place. The game does not limit the number or kinds of orders units can receive either. It all adds up to unrealistic pro-attacker behavior.

I could see something like a two man scout breaking off a squad if there was a platoon HQ in direct contact. It would be limited to an initial movement order 'string'. But to have these scouts all over and reporting or 'Borging-Back' detailed info is just gamey.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

As far as using a LOS tool from a 'future' waypoint. It would not be so gamey, IF, the unit is then obligated to that movement order. Otherwise, you have 'great' players that make you wait for turns and check every little nook and cranny. And they can cancel all orders and therefore reap great info for no risk.

The whole immediacy of units responding to orders, and cancellation of orders, is just more attack-happy syndrome. The game favors the attacker.

How many 'Charles-Years' of programming would it take to make a movement order non-cancelling IF a LOS was taken from the end-point? How long would it take to have a limitation on the number of movement orders anyone could give one unit? An abstraction, but the unlimited aspect is just as bad. Would this take more than a half day? Since it is during the orders stage of the game, how much testing would it take?

Steve's Response "NO CODING!!! NO CODINNNGGGG!!!!"

 

[mOBIUS]

As far as using a LOS tool from a 'future' waypoint. It would not be so gamey, IF, the unit is then obligated to that movement order. Otherwise, you have 'great' players that make you wait for turns and check every little nook and cranny. And they can cancel all orders and therefore reap great info for no risk.

I think it is a philosophy difference between what I think is a turn order and what CM assumes what is an order. In my mind to give orders is to assume the position as platoon or troop commander and at that moment give the sub-units a task (as if it were something that is signaled to the sub-units) to do in the turn. His job is then done and you can go about tweaking movement of sub-units to carry forth this order.

In CM it seems that the orders are a guide to manage the events of entire turn. The orders are a way to make the WEGO turn model events as if the turn was RT. It is only natural that sometime during the time period of a turn that in RT you could check the LOS from some spot your units can’t even see at the start of the turn. Thus the WEGO orders allow you to do it.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I think it is a philosophy difference between what I think is a turn order and what CM assumes what is an order. In my mind to give orders is to assume the position as platoon or troop commander and at that moment give the sub-units a task (as if it were something that is signaled to the sub-units) to do in the turn. His job is then done and you can go about tweaking movement of sub-units to carry forth this order.

In CM it seems that the orders are a guide to manage the events of entire turn. The orders are a way to make the WEGO turn model events as if the turn was RT. It is only natural that sometime during the time period of a turn that in RT you could check the LOS from some spot your units can’t even see at the start of the turn. Thus the WEGO orders allow you to do it.

Orders are actually able to be given beyond the turn's timeframe. And they can be canceled immediately at the start of the next turn. And new futuristic commands given immediately after that. The amount of control just makes the game diverge from reality.

And this hasn't really changed since CMx1. The design issue of Orders Limitations or the Limitation of Movement Menu Options is so far away from what the gamer's game with, that it is now the defacto standard. The fact they threw out command delay and replaced it with near-instantaneous comprehension and execution of orders makes the game hyper-attack-happy.

And, I see no future design implementation that will even address this. They are in Crank-Mode. till the handle falls off.

Does CM3.0 really seem like a quantum leap besides some toys?