The Perfect World

[NUTTERNAME]

A quote from Steve...

Battlefront.com Battlefront.com is offline
Administrator

Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 18,108
Default
Just so you guys know...

In a perfect world I'd make the game require two levels of planning. One would basically setup objectives, time tables, boundaries, and some basic parameters. Specific groups of units would then be assigned to specific portions of the overall plan. This would be done before the game started. In a sense, basically similar in concept (but not execution) as an AI Plan, AI Groups, and AI Orders that are in the game now.

During the game the player would issue tactical commands to all units. However, those commands would have to fit in with whatever the units were assigned to do. Firing artillery from Group 1 into Group 2's sector, without it being in the overall plan, would not be automatically allowed unless that was part of the plan. To override the plan certain game conditions would have to be met, including perhaps random approval/denial.

Just like in real life The end result would be that the player would have control over both the overall battle plan (unless locked down by the scenario designer) and also realistic levels of tactical control.

Unfortunate this is a mountain of work. Months and months of coding would have to go into this feature. Worse, we would have to make it optional because a lot of players wouldn't want to play with it. And that means spending a vast amount of our limited resources on something that isn't appealing to our whole audience.

Which you'll never see this in CM, even though it's a damned good concept for how to reign in unrealistic tactical control without systems that, tactically, make no sense at all.

Steve

I am sure this has been already thought up by others close to a decade ago. But let's pretend Steve is an original thinker.

Actually, the game already has 'objectives'. Not sure how he thinks the new 'objectives' are to planned out. Perhaps he means phase lines and such.

The game has one big time-table. Each scenario being so many minutes long. Plus (but not minus) a variable number of 'over-time' minutes. How he thinks his new-fangled idea uses these time-tables is a mystery. Does the player commit to taking an objective by XX minutes? What purpose does that serve? Wouldn't this be a scenario designer's function? Is this just for the attacker or does the defender also have some limitations (reserves or such)?

As far as his vague "fitting in with whatever the units were assigned to do" requirement, it doesn't really seem to be fleshed out what that could even mean. Are the units restricted to a 'portion' (sector) of the map? Are there penalties like command delays if they stray? Perhaps we are getting an inside look into the actual design-funky-process that BF uses. That is, blather vaguely about something without specifics and then dismiss it as too much work.

The sad thing is that Steve thinks he makes perfect sense and is above it all. Of course, his citing the amount of time it would take to do these things (whatever the hell they are), and the "spending a vast amount of our limited resources on something that isn't appealing to our whole audience" sort of doesn't take the whole CMFI crusade into account.

In any case, I am very interested in the soon to be released Eastern Front 3.0 product. The more I read at BF, the more I think it is not going to be much different than the latest CMBN+MG state.

 

[ksbearski]

A quote from Steve...



I am sure this has been already thought up by others close to a decade ago. But let's pretend Steve is an original thinker.

Actually, the game already has 'objectives'. Not sure how he thinks the new 'objectives' are to planned out. Perhaps he means phase lines and such.

The game has one big time-table. Each scenario being so many minutes long. Plus (but not minus) a variable number of 'over-time' minutes. How he thinks his new-fangled idea uses these time-tables is a mystery. Does the player commit to taking an objective by XX minutes? What purpose does that serve? Wouldn't this be a scenario designer's function? Is this just for the attacker or does the defender also have some limitations (reserves or such)?

As far as his vague "fitting in with whatever the units were assigned to do" requirement, it doesn't really seem to be fleshed out what that could even mean. Are the units restricted to a 'portion' (sector) of the map? Are there penalties like command delays if they stray? Perhaps we are getting an inside look into the actual design-funky-process that BF uses. That is, blather vaguely about something without specifics and then dismiss it as too much work.

The sad thing is that Steve thinks he makes perfect sense and is above it all. Of course, his citing the amount of time it would take to do these things (whatever the hell they are), and the "spending a vast amount of our limited resources on something that isn't appealing to our whole audience" sort of doesn't take the whole CMFI crusade into account.

In any case, I am very interested in the soon to be released Eastern Front 3.0 product. The more I read at BF, the more I think it is not going to be much different than the latest CMBN+MG state.

Hmmm, doesn't PCO kind of do something like this already...you issue commands as a small unit leader, tell the small unit how to move and how to respond and it does it,as a unit. You can tweak your squads one on one, but the game models small unit behavior and can be played without tweaking all the sub units. I would think in PCO it would be a hop and a skip for you to add some higher levels to issue orders on what objectives to take and if you are in comm, the unit does it. Then you click on small units to issue tactical movement and finally you tweak the individual unit. PCO already models c & C breakdowns, small unit behavior, reactions, you just add a company-battalion-regimental comm structure and you could do what Steve wants to do.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Hmmm, doesn't PCO kind of do something like this already...you issue commands as a small unit leader, tell the small unit how to move and how to respond and it does it,as a unit. You can tweak your squads one on one, but the game models small unit behavior and can be played without tweaking all the sub units. I would think in PCO it would be a hop and a skip for you to add some higher levels to issue orders on what objectives to take and if you are in comm, the unit does it. Then you click on small units to issue tactical movement and finally you tweak the individual unit. PCO already models c & C breakdowns, small unit behavior, reactions, you just add a company-battalion-regimental comm structure and you could do what Steve wants to do.

I think PCO models the reality of platoon command and control in WWII better than CM. A bit overdone, and confusing, but it is actually a better simulation. But I think Steve is getting at modeling the 'big picture' of an attack plan and it surviving contact with the enemy.

CM-WWII seems to suffer from CM-Modern preceding it. The uber-info sharing on the modern battlefield has polluted the historical WWII game.

The lack of things like command posts and wire commo etc. or any discussion of how WWII infantry attacks usually pushed forward command posts amazes me. Winning an infantry battle usually meant getting a HQ situated on the objective in a command post. Be it a shell hole, trench or the enemies abandoned position, it was about moving forward the command. If we play Steve's hypothetical design, I would give so many points for getting a good order platoon HQ at the 'objective' and many more for getting the Company HQ there. In fact, I would like to have a pre-game plan that has lines of advance for each HQ unit. Sub-units of these HQ units are penalized with delays when they are too far from the lines. As much as Steve derides delays (his own invention he says), they model battlefield reality in WWII very well if done right. They were a bit of a kludge that was never really refined.

 

[ksbearski]

I think PCO models the reality of platoon command and control in WWII better than CM. A bit overdone, and confusing, but it is actually a better simulation. But I think Steve is getting at modeling the 'big picture' of an attack plan and it surviving contact with the enemy.

CM-WWII seems to suffer from CM-Modern preceding it. The uber-info sharing on the modern battlefield has polluted the historical WWII game.

The lack of things like command posts and wire commo etc. or any discussion of how WWII infantry attacks usually pushed forward command posts amazes me. Winning an infantry battle usually meant getting a HQ situated on the objective in a command post. Be it a shell hole, trench or the enemies abandoned position, it was about moving forward the command. If we play Steve's hypothetical design, I would give so many points for getting a good order platoon HQ at the 'objective' and many more for getting the Company HQ there. In fact, I would like to have a pre-game plan that has lines of advance for each HQ unit. Sub-units of these HQ units are penalized with delays when they are too far from the lines. As much as Steve derides delays (his own invention he says), they model battlefield reality in WWII very well if done right. They were a bit of a kludge that was never really refined.

What you are describing would be very good. I think you could do it with OCO with little hassle. I like the idea of CP's gaining the objective and points for that.

 

[phil395]

Sub-units of these HQ units are penalized with delays when they are too far from the lines. As much as Steve derides delays (his own invention he says), they model battlefield reality in WWII very well if done right. They were a bit of a kludge that was never really refined.

Didn't the tabletop wargame Striker have command delays...?

 

[Redwolf]

Oh I am glad that Steve doesn't have the opportunity to implement this.

Every time there is a large difference in how effective a weapon or capability is between CM and the rest of the world CM is always very pessimistic. Too bad that other games are often backed by people with more military credibility.

To pick up the specific example, as discussed on the tacops list about the issue of who can call in what artillery. It seems that active captain+ officers around the world all agree that there are pretty much no hard limits of who can call an artillery strike on what. Of course the identity of the caller, the authenticity of the targeting information and the tradeoff of expending the resources are all being considered. But no artillery officer could randomly deny supporting troops in contact without a good reason.

And let's not go with the interesting ways in which CMx2 decides who is in contact with what. I cited my "build your own battery" example often enough or did I?

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Oh I am glad that Steve doesn't have the opportunity to implement this.

Every time there is a large difference in how effective a weapon or capability is between CM and the rest of the world CM is always very pessimistic. Too bad that other games are often backed by people with more military credibility.

To pick up the specific example, as discussed on the tacops list about the issue of who can call in what artillery. It seems that active captain+ officers around the world all agree that there are pretty much no hard limits of who can call an artillery strike on what. Of course the identity of the caller, the authenticity of the targeting information and the tradeoff of expending the resources are all being considered. But no artillery officer could randomly deny supporting troops in contact without a good reason.

And let's not go with the interesting ways in which CMx2 decides who is in contact with what. I cited my "build your own battery" example often enough or did I?

Not sure he is pessimistic as much as just wrong-headed.

And as far as your specific example...you are also wrong headed. In fact, you demonstrate exactly what I was observing. Namely, the confusion about comparing present day military capabilities with WWII capabilities.

But thanks for playing.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Steve is an original thinker. I wouldn't have thought of this. Mostly because it makes no sense...

Not easily, no. However, we have degraded spotting capabilities as we've gone along. The problem is that the fidelity of spotting matters more when things are up close and less likely (in real life) to be missed than when they are much further away. That's because time is one of the variables and when things are up close time becomes disproportionally important.

Think about it this way. If you're walking 1 mile down a very long and straight rode, is it more important to see a car 1 mile away the instant it appears or is it more important to see a car 0.1 miles away the instant it appears? Definitely the latter.

Due to the massive demands on the CPU and RAM for spotting checks (which are in turn multiple LOS checks) there's some practical limitations on how sophisticated the system can be. Making it more context sensitive comes at a cost. Sure, you might have a much better spotting system but now you have 10fps on the best machine out there.

I'm not saying there's nothing that can be done to make the game better, just saying that at the end of the day it is a game and a home computer has it's limitations. We also don't have $50 million to spend, so there's that too CM probably already has the most sophisticated and subtle spotting system out there bar none. Over time we can likely make it even better, however compared to real life it will never be as subtle.

Steve

Uh, again with the bad car analogies. Hmmm. What if the car 1 mile away has a 75mm weapon and 5X optics and I don't have anything but eyeballs?? What if the discussion is about being in a tank sized target instead of a human sized one? 0.1 miles is less than 200 yds. So if walking one mile down the road, I would stop and hit the dirt since I would probably hear armor before I see it.

He is remarkably stupid and thinks he is smart. Perhaps a classic American business owner. Luckily, I suspect he has very little input or understanding of the actual inner-workings of his own product.

 

[mOBIUS]

You always see it when it 'appears'. If you didn't it wouldn't be appearing.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

You always see it when it 'appears'. If you didn't it wouldn't be appearing.

In CM, this isn't always true. You can 'see' an enemy unit but can't target it, perhaps through 'shared' info. Also, it can be the case that an enemy unit is in a action spot that you can see but it has not been spotted yet. It hasn't 'appeared' because the spotting routine has not revealed it. I think it was said that the routine is limited to once every two seconds or some such.

It is funny in those threads that a supposed sherman tanker has said that most of the spotting comes from the tank commander with his hatch open. But he then goes on to state that he wouldn't want realism because it wouldn't be 'fun enough'. It is great that he debunked MikeyD's silly comments about sherman periscopes being so vital.

In any case, it is my experience that using periscopes and vision blocks is for near target and ground appreciation. Spotting and identifying targets at 1000 meters comes from a TC having his head up and using binocs or perhaps a gunner that has his weapon's FOV zoned onto a likely enemy position. the German hull MG position would likewise have a slight optic advantage since it is equipped with a 1.5X sight. But drivers and other hull position crewmen typically get limited visibility and therefore spotting.

It would be nice to know the actual spotting routine details. I imagine each spotter is evaluated for each enemy unit for each action spot it occupies. That is, a spotter is not spotting each enemy soldier (for example). But supposedly, each soldier is a potential spotter. I suppose that means every tank crewmen is also a potential spotter. In any case, I imagine the spotter routine evaluates each spotee starting with the nearest to the farthest. Perhaps there is a limit to the number of 'spotted' units that can be spotted in one routine. This might simulate 'over-load' and fear of the proximity of the close enemy. It also helps with the cpu clock-cycles, etc. Facing and spotter condition (pinned/whatever) are probably factors. Certainly spotee actions are also factors such as if it is moving/shooting or hiding or in cover etc.

But to get to the case of tanks/SP/ATG spotting far targets (let's say 1000m+), I think a command like 'OverWatch' might help. It basically down-plays battlefield observation for near targets and starts it's routine at 500m or so. Perhaps using the covered arc command, limited to something like 45 degree arc, concentration of overwatched areas can be achieved.

I can see issues when the Germans are fighting numerically greater Soviets where armor might be overwhelmed with close infantry enemy units and not seeing further enemy armor.

 

[[hirr]Leto]

Steve is an original thinker. I wouldn't have thought of this. Mostly because it makes no sense...



Uh, again with the bad car analogies. Hmmm. What if the car 1 mile away has a 75mm weapon and 5X optics and I don't have anything but eyeballs?? What if the discussion is about being in a tank sized target instead of a human sized one? 0.1 miles is less than 200 yds. So if walking one mile down the road, I would stop and hit the dirt since I would probably hear armor before I see it.

He is remarkably stupid and thinks he is smart. Perhaps a classic American business owner. Luckily, I suspect he has very little input or understanding of the actual inner-workings of his own product.

Just wondering, but has Steve ever taken a Taco Bell Late Night Drive through early morning gut crunch into your Kashi recently? What is with all this ad hominem stuff in your criticism? Calling a guy stupid for one obviously not well through through decision that is perhaps a bit subjective to his own personal tastes? He's managed to keep his little company afloat and consistently delivers products that people continue to buy... and talk about on message boards...

I respect him more for being a successful small business owner (successful being that he is still in business) more than I do for people who punch a card and criticize the world for not conforming to everyone's specific color of toe jelly flavors.

Cheers!

Leto

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Just wondering, but has Steve ever taken a Taco Bell Late Night Drive through early morning gut crunch into your Kashi recently? What is with all this ad hominem stuff in your criticism? Calling a guy stupid for one obviously not well through through decision that is perhaps a bit subjective to his own personal tastes? He's managed to keep his little company afloat and consistently delivers products that people continue to buy... and talk about on message boards...

I respect him more for being a successful small business owner (successful being that he is still in business) more than I do for people who punch a card and criticize the world for not conforming to everyone's specific color of toe jelly flavors.

Cheers!

He's stupid. And if he makes another "through through" statement. He gets called out for it.

Didn't you used to be funnier? Or was that the egg-nog?

 

[[hirr]Leto]

Didn't you used to be funnier?

Nope. But you appear to be consistently strong with your skill set.

; )

Cheers!

Leto

 

[Redwolf]

I think it's great progress. It is much more specific. We went from not recognizing problems at all to a state where "lack of resources" was blames, but in a way that implied that the players were demanding too much word to be done on part of of the development team.

Now the resources to be blamed specifically are CPU and other machine resources. That's good. While it is admitting that the algorithms in there cannot be improved to do all these checks faster with the development resources at hand it's still much better than the previous state.

Also, some of the LOS and who-spots-whom-first stuff was really screwed up in CMx1, too, so this isn't a case where we have taken steps back in favor of prettier graphics.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I am picking up that BF is again leaning towards the 'Funzo' aspect as another excuse for the game's problems. Like 'Fun' is some design goal that downgrades and over-rides all other aspects of the wargaming experience. I bet the Germans didn't have that much fun during Bagration. We will see... Before June 22nd ...so it's said.

 

[ksbearski]

Just wondering, but has Steve ever taken a Taco Bell Late Night Drive through early morning gut crunch into your Kashi recently? What is with all this ad hominem stuff in your criticism? Calling a guy stupid for one obviously not well through through decision that is perhaps a bit subjective to his own personal tastes? He's managed to keep his little company afloat and consistently delivers products that people continue to buy... and talk about on message boards...

I respect him more for being a successful small business owner (successful being that he is still in business) more than I do for people who punch a card and criticize the world for not conforming to everyone's specific color of toe jelly flavors.

Cheers!

Leto

No, Leto, you're still damn funny!

ksbearski

 

[NUTTERNAME]

One shouldn't take Steve's ramblings for much more than they are worth...which is not much since he admits to not knowing the inner-workings of his main product. The whole "I will have to ask Charles..." shtick (after berating people, threatening them, arguing stupidly, getting off topic and agreeing with his lapdogs, etc.) is getting old.

The recent 'spotting' thread is a prime example. His thoughts on the Panzer Brigades reveal not only does he not know what he is talking about in regards to CM, he has no clue about the historical facts regarding these units (and no one calls him out either... so maybe this needs to be in the 'Threads going downhill fast'...thread). His main concern being that the CM modeling of the awful historical tactical use of the these inexperienced panther crews relies on having a bad player be in charge of them (I vote for Elvis...the worst armor commander ever). He even thinks that the panzer brigade panther crews should not be modeled as 'green' since he thinks that the Germans had adequate training throughout the war! It is as if his knee-jerk reaction to arguments is centered around anything but CM requiring change. That is his main managerial function; putting down any revolt among the masses. He would have made a great general. That is, a French one in the first world war.

While it is nice that Leto likeys that Steve is a small business owner (I am one also btw...so lick my dayglow toe jam), it comes with it's limitations. I sense that BF wants to have a 'standardized' product that they can slap a new coat of paint on and recycle it as new goodies for the market. They have already shamelessly said that the reason for jumping into 'Bagration' is because they can re-use tank models/uniforms/etc. So, being the educated consumer, I am expecting big show-stoppers as far as 'Features' since they are 'dropping' a new rev on the engine.

Unfortunately, just like that game 'Hungry-Hungry-Hippos', they have bitten off more than they can chew. Or am I thinking of that game where you bash those stupid animals with a hammer and another one keeps popping up? In any case, it's about the maps again. Biggins this time. Which will uncover even more issues with things like spotting and hippos. Or Elephants. With pink toe jam coming out their 88mm trunks. And does the 'Standard Product' make the jump from 1944 ETO to 1944 EF as seamlessly as BF hopes? Will Realtime(TM) play be even more popular given multi-kilometer sized maps? Will Panzer Brigades be modeled the same on the EF as the western front? Oh! It's a Brave New Perfect World!

 

[mOBIUS]

They have already shamelessly said that the reason for jumping into 'Bagration' is because they can re-use tank models/uniforms/etc.

What's wrong with that? It's just smart.
They can spend their model budget on Russian tanks and troops.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

What's wrong with that? It's just smart.
They can spend their model budget on Russian tanks and troops.

And it was just stupid to make such a big deal about the CW vs. MG 'freebies'. What's good for the goose is good for gander.

As far as spending their budget on models...I don't believe they will do any great amount of models. That is, EF will be a new 'Family' starter and they don't want to get into the same situation with models or formations that they had before. I would not expect T34 minerollers nor OT34 flamethrowers right out the box. But, realistically, if they start with the Bagration battle, these were immediate players. But, who knows? If the game is so far along, they should make some sort of official announcement soon. so, the budget is spent already I would think.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I hate to admit it, but calling out people's stupidity is just so much damn fun. I know, Mom used to say "Be Nice", eh, but what's that ever get ya? anyway...

Steve claims that Panther tanks should be rightfully spotted first over shermans because [drumroll] "They are bigger". This is just a laughably stupid remark. Especially for both vehicles sitting in the open. Please compare a sherman tank to a King Tiger...what's that? You can't see the sherman? It's that tiny speck on the right...Stupid.

http://media.moddb.com/cache/images/groups/1/3/2074/thumb_620x2000/King_Tiger.png46.png

View attachment 44494