CMX2 and Vehicle Passengers

[Cpl Steiner]

I really hope CMX2 addresses the problems of co-ordinating vehicles and passengers better. In a typical CM game, I'm always having to fiddle about adding delay using the Pause command to get half-tracks to wait long enough for passengers to mount up before moving off. Or else, I'll give a squad orders to disembark at a particular spot, only to have them bail out of the vehicle and run 100s of metres to the designated spot over open ground under fire.

CMX2 should have order preconditions, which prevent a unit moving to its next waypoint if not met. Half-tracks could then only commence a move to the next waypoint once passengers have got in. Likewise, passengers should only move from a disembark waypoint to their next waypoint if successfully disembarked.

[PLM]

I agree, I'm sure it'll be fixed. Its obnoxious as hell.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by PLM:
I agree, I'm sure it'll be fixed. Its obnoxious as hell. Maybe it will even be worse. I remember the same discussion came out when squads were not permitted to advance to/from passenger status in SL. The cry went up that a squad could move 40 metres out of a building, up a hill through trees while carrying a heavy machine gun, but could not jump down from a truck in the same alloted timeframe.

The reply from the developers was that co-ordinating movement "should have been easy" but frequently was not.

Ever ride in the back of a military truck? They're loud, noisy and bounce around, especially going off road. Communicating with the driver of a seperate cab is often impossible. You need to co-ordinate where you want to be dropped off ahead of time. Sometimes you do that from a map; sometimes the platoon commander rides up front and where three trucks worth of men disembark is up to his whim. Driving over terrain you've never been to is a challenge; so is recognizing landmarks. I've done it - but never under fire.

I hope that these problems are reflected in CMX2 in some way, shape or form and that the player can't just transport his troops anywhere on the map he likes - it would be unrealistic in the extreme. In a way, the inelegant way CM does these things now actually represents - not deliberately, I think - the burden of co-ordinating the movements of vehicles and men.

[PLM]

Blah. Bull****. Thats an excuse, if there's problems coordinating then the delay can be worse. Bottom line is there is no good commands for coordinating movement between a truck and an infantry squad, it takes time, a lot of time. There are no commands for vehicles such as "wait til infantry mounts then drive here." Its realistic, if there's other delays involved like the actual mounting up then fine, but that isnt modelled.

[JonS]

Meh. I agree it's frustrating, but on the whole I agree with Dorosh.

Worst case; your transport has to sit stationary with no orders for some part of a turn while the infantry load up or dismount. Sad biscuits. Getting in or out of a vehicle takes time, and we're only talking about a fraction of one minute. It's true that in combat a lot can happen in a minute, but it still ain't a heck of a lot of time.

Also, if you're loading and unloading your transport within sight of the enemy (and to be fair, I do it too), you're probably doing it wrong. Complaining about being punished for that is probably a bit rich though.

Regards
JonS

[Michael Emrys]

I think Jon has it right. Once I got used to the way the system worked, I seldom had any problems with it, mostly because I didn't have any unrealistic expectations of how it should work. Doing stuff takes time, and sometimes I simply can't believe what players expect to be able to do in one single minute.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

The way it is now in CMx1 is deliberate. The player has WAY too much control over the coordination of vehicles and infantry as it is. The main problem is that you, the player, always knows where to have the two meet up. In real life that was a huge logistical problem that was so bad that it was generally not done. An APC would drive along with a squad mounted, then stop to dismount the. The APC would then sit around and give supporting fire, or it would withdraw. If it stuck around then the squad could fairly easily mount if it wanted to, but if they withdrew it could be difficult to get things coordinated for a pickup. In WWII most vehicles did not have radios or at least not radio communication directly with their supporting infantry. So from a CM standpoint, if you dismount and move your vehicles away from them... realistically you probably shouldn't be able to mount again for the rest of the sceanrio.

Back in the dark days of CMBO programming we required the vehicles to stop to dismount and mount. This meant that if the vehicle reached its last waypoint 30 seconds into the turn, it would just sit there with the infantry loaded up waiting for the next turn to come around. At that point the player would issue dismount orders and the infantry would take x seconds in C&C delay to dismount. Now THAT was unrealistic. The reason is that the coordination between the vehicle and infantry should be fairly simple to acheive since the two are together.

While I agree in reality this could be difficult, it probably wasn't in a tactical firefight situation. In such situations the infantry would likely bail when being fired at and/or if the vehicle came to a stop. The vehicle would also be ready to get a signal from the infantry to stop and dismount, then drive way or stay close as orders ahead of time would have specified.

So after much consideration we decided to allow infantry to dismount pretty much whenever and wherever they want. Mounting, however, we purposefully left the way it was because overall it's pretty realistic. I'm sure we could have come up with something a bit more realistic, but with the Borg spotting issues and Human intervention, this would have been more effort than it was worth.

In CMx2 things will be different, but it isn't possible for me to say specifically how. However, the thinking behind CMx1's treatment is pretty much the same now as it was 8 years ago.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
The vehicle would also be ready to get a signal from the infantry to stop and dismount, then drive way or stay close as orders ahead of time would have specified.Provided of course that the drivers didn't just decide to bug out in the meantime, something that was not exactly unheard of in combat.

Michael

[PLM]

Well whats the plan for CM2? Its often claimed that there's very little control for a commander when the battle begins and much of it is down the squad leaders. Part of the fun has always been playing as God. As each squad commander and each vehicle etc. Miniscule decisions such as precise movements of a tank isnt going to be coming down from any Company commander, its down to the tank crew completely. Whats the plan then? Is it just gonna be choose your setup and sit and watch a battle? I dont think so. No AI could ever handle that. So you cant complain about having too much control if you cant make it so there isn't that special area of control. If I can move a goddang tank to exact coordinates and locations I want, without the slightest influence fromm the tank commander, then why cant I put squad a in a truck and have it start moving? Or have them dismount. It takes time to mount, yeah it also takes time to dismount but that doesnt mean the slightest risk of my squad voluntarily dismounting in the middle of nowhere and running towards the position I wanted them to dismount should ever happen without fire involved just because there's no friggin good commands for coordinating a vehicle and its passengers. That sure as heck is nowhere near the level of control you have in other areas.

I suppose vehicles moving down a road, one after the other is unrealistic too??? Because that isnt possible, not as a set command. CM drivers cant manage to do something that civilian drivers do every day on roads, follow the vehicle in front of them. A slow vehicle followed by a fast vehicle results in the fast vehicle running up to the rear of the slow one and breaking abruptly. Does that make sense? Peoople say "hey you're dumb put the fast one in front." What if I dont want to??? What if I need/want that fast vehicle to follow a slow one in an important role, cant happen not without major pains. Is that too hard realistically to coordinate????? And if the leading vehicle stops, the one behind it cant a) stop a reasonable distance away or b) swerve around and continue driving.


How would it be realistic to not be able to mount the rest of a scenerio? What about ferrying troops. You mean a truck driver cant realistically understand the concept of moving between 2 points, hauling infantry down a road, turning around and doing it again??? No fire involved whatsoever. I dont buy it. And I've made scenerios where I can safely ferry troops lengthy stretches. If thats not a realistic tactic, or its too 'dangerous' even when not under fire then why the heck are trucks even available in CM? And I know halftracks should be able to do that near the frontlines especially in a job of ferrying troops in a safe stretch of ground and back and forth

[ July 25, 2005, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: PLM ]

[Cpl Steiner]

The biggest problem is units being knocked off vehicles by fire and having to run to their disembarkation point. The alternative is to wait until the next turn and then disembark them if they get to their destination, but this isn't very realistic when they have arrived at the destination and just sit there under fire for 30 seconds or so waiting for the next turn. They should bail out and seek cover almost before the vehicle has stopped moving, to allow the vehicle to get out of there as fast as possible.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by PLM:
If thats not a realistic tactic, or its too 'dangerous' even when not under fire then why the heck are trucks even available in CM? Exactly. Here's hoping there are no trucks in CMX2.

[Cpl Steiner]

Ever heard of an ambush.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:
Ever heard of an ambush. I've heard of an opposed beach landing, mass prison break, and commando raid too, doesn't mean it would make for a good game at the tactical level. :)

[Cpl Steiner]

Each to his own. Personally, I have always enjoyed ambush scenarios.

In any case, you cannot ignore transport vehicles in a realistic wargame. Transportation implies Supply, and Supply Lines are a major feature of any war. I imagine countless trucks have been bombed, ambushed or otherwise shot to pieces in wars over the last 60 years.

It is also realistic that front lines are so well known that units can just motor up to a designated area, dismount, and hike the few hundred yards to the front. I can imagine the scene, "Okay boys, the front's that-a-way, everyone remember where we parked".

[Cpl Steiner]

It is also realistic that front lines are so well known that units can just motor up to a designated area, dismount, and hike the few hundred yards to the front. Obviously I meant "unrealistic" in the above.

[Michael Dorosh]

I'm in favour of a realistic supply system. Bear in mind at the tactical level - company or battalion, which is CM's intended focus - this was not done with trucks. The company supply sergeant (CQMS or whatever you want to call him) may have established an ammo point, maybe moved forward with jeep, carrier, mule, or horsecart, and resupply to the forward companies was by runner, or by having the companies rotate out of the line.

As has been discussed before, this has nothing to do with the company commander - ostensibly the CM player - and so should be invisible "in game".

For a truly realistic approach, have the trucks be invisible and have men teleport onto the map as reinforcements do now. Would a company commander really have any control over the trucks other than to have the men dropped off in a specific place? Probably not. He'd make his needs known to the transport officer at the O Group preceding the action, and the trucks would go back to battalion control after their mission was accomplished.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It is also realistic that front lines are so well known that units can just motor up to a designated area, dismount, and hike the few hundred yards to the front. Obviously I meant "unrealistic" in the above. </font>[/QUOTE]I wonder if you know how transport moves were planned? Generally not on the fly, but using a map and available intelligence. And almost always well away from the front. Truck drivers don't like being shot at much, and don't do well under fire. It's why they're truck drivers. smile.gif But seriously, these things ARE generally well known otherwise the trucks wouldn't be used.

Almost all infantry battalions walked into action, regardless of nationality, except those lucky few in armoured halftracks - and even then, the vehicles were not uncommonly left out of the firing line. This kind of stuff gets planned ahead, they don't use precious gasoline just to tootle around the countryside. You pick a destination, then go to it - then the infantry does what needs to be done; patrolling, defensive positions, assault, deliberate attack, passage of obstacles, labour and construction, etc. etc. Trucks and gasoline don't get used on a whim - especially in armies where transport trucks are a rarity in an infantry battalion. German, British and Canadian infantry battalions didn't have trucks for transport - they had to rely on regimental or divisional transport units to supply their needs, and this most certainly had to be prearranged in advance. Meaning it was done well behind the lines, and the drivers had other tasks to get to; generally speaking truck moves were administrative, not tactical - ie well behind the front in 3 ton trucks or equivalent and not to move a unit up to the Start Line or Assembly Area. When a German, British or Canadian unit was in contact, or perceived to be imminently in contact, there were no trucks around.

[ July 25, 2005, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
As has been discussed before, this has nothing to do with the company commander - ostensibly the CM player - and so should be invisible "in game".But would it have to do with battalion commander, which the player is in many scenarios?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sergei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
As has been discussed before, this has nothing to do with the company commander - ostensibly the CM player - and so should be invisible "in game".But would it have to do with battalion commander, which the player is in many scenarios? </font>[/QUOTE]But if I'm picking up what Steve is putting down, CMX2 will be focussed more downwards, to company level actions - the original intent of the CM series.

[Battlefront.com]

Trucks will be present in the first and second releases of CMx2 engine for sure. The reason is... ambush scenarios and missions where you are supposed to go from A to B with all of your units, such as convoy escort, escaping an encirclement, etc. However, I agree with Dorosh... in general trucks are not supposed to be a part of a companyish level engagement and therefore generally shouldn't be in scenarios depicting typical combat situations.

PLM,

Miniscule decisions such as precise movements of a tank isnt going to be coming down from any Company commander, its down to the tank crew completely. Wrong. It is down to the tank crew within the realistic SOP of tank crews as far as we can simulate it. A simple example:

It is not realistic for a tank crew to try driving through a lake, so we prevent it. This is a fairly no-ifs-ands-or-buts kind of thing and therefore nobody raises a stink about it. In fact, I doubt you even thought of it when you posted. But the reasoning behind the decision to not allow a player to put the tank into a lake is the same reason why we do other types of restrictions (as best we can). Crews aren't treated like infantry, for example, and artillery can't be used in certain ways without penalties. There is no difference between this and someone trying to use APCs or trucks in unrealistic ways. So expect us to continue enforcing realism on the player wherever possible. For those who don't like it, there are plenty of RTS games out there that don't give a flying fig about realism :D

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Trucks will be present in the first and second releases of CMx2 engine for sure.So no Napoleonics or ACW, huh?

;)

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Trucks will be present in the first and second releases of CMx2 engine for sure.So no Napoleonics or ACW, huh?

;)

Michael </font>[/QUOTE]First and second release of the ENGINE, not the specific modules. :-P Could be interpreted a couple of ways, couldn't it. The first release of the new engine could conceivably have 99 different modules from different time periods. Even if module 1 was ACW and module 2 was Napoleonic if module 3 had trucks, then it would still be correct to say that the first release of the new engine had trucks in it.

Ready for a grilled cheese sandwich yet? tongue.gif

[Cpl Steiner]

Trucks will be present in the first and second releases of CMx2 engine for sure. The reason is... ambush scenarios and missions where you are supposed to go from A to B with all of your units, such as convoy escort, escaping an encirclement, etc. Great news. Can't wait to ambush my first convoy in CMX2!

[juan_gigante]

I agree with everyone who says that disembarking / embarking is a pain in the butt. Far too often have I ordered "troops get off, vehicle pause 30 sec, then drive away", and my boys think "It's gonna move! Stay on!" and then they are way far away. Usually what ends up happening takes three turns. 1st turn: Vehicle drives to spot, waits for end of turn. 2nd turn: Troops get off. 3rd turn: Vehicle drives off.
It is mighty irritating.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:
I agree with everyone who says that disembarking / embarking is a pain in the butt. Far too often have I ordered "troops get off, vehicle pause 30 sec, then drive away", and my boys think "It's gonna move! Stay on!" and then they are way far away. Usually what ends up happening takes three turns. 1st turn: Vehicle drives to spot, waits for end of turn. 2nd turn: Troops get off. 3rd turn: Vehicle drives off.
It is mighty irritating. Try doing it for real in the field sometime. Ever hear a sergeant swear? Try it at night in blackout conditions with a new second lieutenant reading the map. Ever seen a sergeant major cry? :D

[MOS was 71331]

I largely agree with PLM's post above. While I admit that units under fire may be unable or unwilling to carry out fairly simple orders, I get frustrated when a jeep not being fired on won't move down a road past a stationary friendly tank on the side of the road and moves instead back forth through scattered trees next to the road. The straight line I plotted somehow turns into a jagged path with twenty waypoints, and I only see the waypoints remaining after the minute ends. I can only guess how many waypoints got executed in the minute after the movement started -- actually less than a minute because there was an eleven second command delay.

It shouldn't be all that hard to implement a command for a vehicle to move from one point on a road to another point on the same road -- and just wait for blocking traffic to clear rather than driving randomly into scattered trees or brush. (I say "randomly," because there's no logic apparent in all the two and three meter movements between the AI's waypoints.

[Battlefront.com]

The problem with simulating coordination on the battlefield is partly how it is presented to the user. The 1-2 minutes it takes to load a vehicle in CMx1 pales in comparison to hours it would likely take in the real world. So complain all you want about how unrealistically long it is to taks to load/unload, because in the real world it is unrealistically short by a huge amount. The most realistic thing we could do is not allow any vehicle to embark any unit during regular gameplay. So if realism is what you want, we can do that :D

Road movement and blockage is a tough problem to overcome amd it has absolutely nothing to do with a unit "not wanting" to carry out an order. If the player makes a path that intersects with an impassible obstacle an alternative path around it must be found. The TacAI plots the most logical (yup... it is very deliberate) path around the blockage. If you are seeing a really crazy TacAI path, then it isn't as simple as driving past something that isn't in the way. If it isn't in the way the TacAI won't be engaged to plot around it.

Steve

[juan_gigante]

The reason that everyone responds so harshly to the difficulty of transporting stuff and people is that we, as the player, have this god-like power over so much of the battlefield and our troops, and it kind of ruffles our feathers to not have that kind of control over small facets of the game. So whether or not it is easier or harder than in real life, it is irritating that embarking/disembarking, convoys, etc. are more difficult that other things in game. In essence, when everything else is so easy, it is annoying that this is so hard. Are were spolied brats? Hell yes! Do we want to be more spoiled? You betcha!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:
The reason that everyone responds so harshly to the difficulty of transporting stuff and people is that we, as the player, have this god-like power over so much of the battlefield and our troops, and it kind of ruffles our feathers to not have that kind of control over small facets of the game. So whether or not it is easier or harder than in real life, it is irritating that embarking/disembarking, convoys, etc. are more difficult that other things in game. In essence, when everything else is so easy, it is annoying that this is so hard. Are were spolied brats? Hell yes! Do we want to be more spoiled? You betcha! Speak for yourself, please. As indicated earlier in the thread, some people feel no hardship with the inability to unrealistically co-ordinate on map forces.

[PLM]

Well it ruffles my feathers because on the level of control, plenty of other things are capable of being done that you shouldnt be able to do while stuff like vehicle coordination is very difficult.

It isnt so much of a matter of coordination as being able to give orders. If you can send orders to units simultaneously with the command delay, then whats so hard about giving a vehicle the order "wait til infantry mounts, move to point A." If I can tell any vehicle or unit without a radio and in command to do anything at all, then whats so hard about getting a vehicle to perform certain tasks just like any other unit. Are other vehicles going to be one-use only just because they aren't part of a platoon or dont have a radio?

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
For those who don't like it, there are plenty of RTS games out there that don't give a flying fig about realism :D
I'm trying to get Rome Total War installed for some massive slaughter fun but I cant, I ruined installshield somehow and cant fix it. Been trying to fix it all day. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
So complain all you want about how unrealistically long it is to taks to load/unload, because in the real world it is unrealistically short by a huge amount.I wonder if the 'problem' is not so much realism, or percieved lack thereof, but with internal consistency, or percieved lack thereof.

[juan_gigante]

I think PLM hit the nail on the head. We can give units detailed orders in so many ways - except when it comes to embarking/disembarking. There, we're fumbling in the dark.

And Michael, after that whole "CM's next setting" thing, with 1939 East Front vs. Korea '06, I've started assuming that pretty much any blanket statement I post does not apply to you. I'm glad to disagree with you, and I respect your opinion and believe you make good points. I happily disagree with you and I hope that our disagreement makes us both better people. It just seems like we do that a lot.

[Gpig]

There was a great post somewhere's that was VERY helpfull regarding embarking/disembarking.

Filled with handy tricks and whatnot.

Since reading up and experimenting with it, I NEVER have difficulty embarking/disembarking my troops. In fact, I feel it is quite good/realistic.

One of those tips is ALWAYS compare command delays of vehicle and emb/disembarking troops in order to gauge your timing. If you think you've got enough time to get aboard before the tank leaves, good. Now add 10 seconds pause to that vehicle. smile.gif

Also, when DISembarking troops, plot the FIRST waypoint right on the ground next to the vehicle, that way the troops FIRST order in the que will be "executable" even if the vehicle stops for just a short period of time.

My 2 bits.

[ July 25, 2005, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Gpig ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:
I agree with everyone who says that disembarking / embarking is a pain in the butt. Far too often have I ordered "troops get off, vehicle pause 30 sec, then drive away", and my boys think "It's gonna move! Stay on!" and then they are way far away. Usually what ends up happening takes three turns. 1st turn: Vehicle drives to spot, waits for end of turn. 2nd turn: Troops get off. 3rd turn: Vehicle drives off.
It is mighty irritating. You must be doing something wrong then. With me, it's arrive at destination and troops disembark. Second turn, vehicle receives new movement order and proceeds on its way. No sweat.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by PLM:
...whats so hard about giving a vehicle the order "wait til infantry mounts, move to point A."It isn't hard at all. The procedure is to order the vehicle to move to the point where the personnel are to mount it. The personnel mount. Then you give the vehicle its next movement order. What's so hard about that? If you stop the vehicle close enough to the personnel, you can even give it a move order the same turn that the personnel mount, giving it a suitable delay, like say maybe half a minute. If you aren't good at guessing how long it will take the personnel to move and mount, then wait until they have completed mounting before giving the movement order to the vehicle. Simple and realistic too.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Actually, there are no nitty gritty orders in CMx1, only generalized ones. In fact, the Ambush order was removed from CMBO in order to have one less special case order to deal with. If you want to start talking about "wouldn't it be nice to have an order to do this" then we'll be here for months and the list will be nightmarishly long.

CMx2 uses the same core philosophy... more is not necessarily better.


Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I also don't have any problems with mounting/dismounting. The key thing is to not plan on doing it in places where you're likely to be shot at. And guess what? That's a realistic consideration :D

Steve

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
The key thing is to not plan on doing it in places where you're likely to be shot at. And guess what? That's a realistic consideration :D Hey! I already said that in the fifth post of this thread! :D

[PLM]

Well I pretty well consider the direct movement of squads and vehicles nitty gritty. You dont order a tank commander to move in an exact set path down to the meter. Even a tank platoon commander doesnt do that, its up to the actual crew. You play God very much so giving exact movement orders to the tank.

[Battlefront.com]

Jon,

Hey! I already said that in the fifth post of this thread!Sometimes a point only becomes noticed when it is mentioned 2 dozen times :D

PLM,
Well I pretty well consider the direct movement of squads and vehicles nitty gritty.You need context or discussions quickly become pointless. If you want to control every tiny thing possible in real life, unrealistically and without difficulty from even the most simplistic restrictions... this is not the game for you. CM was painstakingly designed to be as realistic as possible given the constraints of development time, playability, and hardware capabilities. Adding hundreds of Orders so a player can control every last detail a unit could possibly perform is just not the game we wanted to make.

It all comes down to where to draw the line. For us, realism is the #1 concern. No, we can't make a game 100% realistic. Why not? Well, you can check out about 1,000 posts of mine on this topic stretching back over 6 year's worth of archives if you feel up to it :D But that doesn't mean we have to throw in the towel and make a game with almost no realism in it. Far from it.

So when we come upon something that is unrealistic, and we can avoid it or restrict it in some way, we do. There are hundreds of examples of this in CMx1. Making the game deliberately less realistic, because someone doesn't like the realism of the feature, isn't of interest to us. In fact, it just reminds us what to make sure we don't do.

The vehicle mounting and dismounting might not be perfect, but it is fairly realistic and a lot more flexible than other games (the few that even have mounting as an option!). Trying to argue in favore of less realism just because you don't like having to deal with the realistic issues it raises is a non-starter argument.

Steve

[PLM]

I like realism because its great to succeede in realistic circumstances. Its just being a commander IRL isnt much more than giving orders from safety, not doing stuff like nudging your stug forward. IRL you command a battlefield of real humans which the AI cant simulate. I havnt practiced with mounting dismounting much. You might get to make some miniscule moves like that but you arent the guy interpreting your orders, and you can make precise movements which rarely get misinterpretted by the AI. The God part seems necessary on a lot of levels thats the way I feel about stuff like giving specific orders to disembark etc. Dont care for the way realism is portrayed

BTW, Steve is it me or have you been posting way too much in the past 24 hours. There's a game to be made

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v439/Poorlaggedman/gettowork1.jpg

[JonS]

Whose grass is that?

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by PLM:
Well I pretty well consider the direct movement of squads and vehicles nitty gritty. You dont order a tank commander to move in an exact set path down to the meter. Even a tank platoon commander doesnt do that, its up to the actual crew. You play God very much so giving exact movement orders to the tank. You don't actually play God. You play every single unit in your force. Not just the commander, but also the tank crew, the infantry squad and the AA gun. And because of that you are allowed to give every unit its orders in a way the unit might interpret something that it has been told from above. The command delays could be more variable, but basically there's nothing broken here.

Dschugaschwili

[juan_gigante]

I'm looking at the yellow lines that are coming out of the head of whoever's being whipped. If it's blood, it means that somebody at BFC (not Steve; I believe he's the one on the left) bleeds yellow, which clearly makes them an alien. I don't really know what else could cause the little lines... an explosion? Is this an explosive-tipped whip?

And about disembarking, I know that it is unrealistic to have it be super easy, but for an idiot like me who's lucky to find his own ass with both hands, it is pretty irritating. It's gotten to the point where I just don't move anyone on vehicles anymore. If troops come in halftracks, I unload them well away from battle so I don't have to worry about disembarking under any sort of pressure, and basically I assume that any gun I place won't move. Some times I move one and it's a happy surprise, but mostly they stay put. But that's also partially because of the slow movement and the monster unlimber times. Oh, well.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:
If troops come in halftracks, I unload them well away from battle so I don't have to worry about disembarking under any sort of pressure, Sounds almost historical to me. smile.gif

[juan_gigante]

Yeah, I'm thinking about suicide rushing the enemy lines with the halftracks when I'm done. Would that gamey it up enough so it wouldn't be historical? I'll also have 10 naval artillery spotters ready to nail anyone who pops up to shoot the halftracks, clearing the way for a skirmish line of bazookas, then engineers, Sherman Easy Eights, and Greyhounds. Too bad in CMAK I can't have Super Pershings or nearly as many SMGs.

[ July 26, 2005, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: juan_gigante ]

[Steiner14]

Good to hear, that BFC stays on the realistical route.
I'm sure, besides the conjunction with reality, one of the aspects that make CM so interesting even after years, is the difficulty of certain tasks, i.e. the synchronization of an attack. Less dificulties would not only mean less realism, but also less thrill and would reduce the long-time motivation a lot.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Steiner14:
Less dificulties would not only mean less realism, but also less thrill and would reduce the long-time motivation a lot. Yes, I too think BFC has struck a good balance on that account. I am of the opinion that in general, people who cry out for this or that rule change to make the game more "playable" are being short-sighted, and don't realize how far that might drive the game toward boredom.

Although usually tossed into the Grog camp, I can assure you that I definitely don't want a game that is an excessive strain to play either. That's why I stay well away from these monster scenarios with a regiment or more on each side. But a game that is too simple is also too easily "cracked"; a certain set of actions mechanically applied inevitably produces a certain outcome. At that point, interest drops off and boredom sets in. I play CM in the assured knowledge that something is going to go wrong with my "perfect plan" and I'd better be able to cope with that.

Michael

[juan_gigante]

Well, I think that making it easier to get guys out of halftracks wouldn't reduce their thrill of CM. In fact, I think that it would increase it. What is, after all, exciting about CM? Combat. What is the tense part, the part when you're on the edge of your chair, the part where you start yelling at the computer (SHOOT! SHOOT! DON'T SWITCH TARGETS! SHOOT!)? Combat. And what part should be the focus? Combat. Now, I'm not saying to make all movement, support, etc. a piece of cake. I just saying that every second I spend worrying about whether or not my squad will hop out of their halftrack is a second that I don't spend worrying about whether my Sherman will beat that PV IV to the trigger. It think that trying to get a flank shot on a Tiger is much more thrilling than trying to unload a gun off a truck.
Consider your own games. What do you enjoy more, trying to pull back your MLR under heavy fire, or trying to move a convoy? What moments from games long past would you like to revisit? Those when your valient ATG pulls down three enemy tanks in under a minute, or those when your valient ATG won't disembark from the damn jeep, despite clear orders to do so? Are you honestly trying to tell me that you would rather put effort into moving a convoy down a road than attacking an enemy position?

I argue here not for simplicity. CM is a complex game, and we all love it for that. Without its deep, rich, realistic layers, it's just another wargame. I argue for USER FRIENDLINESS. For cutting out the annoying stuff so that the player will be able to spend their time and energy on combat, which is, if memory serves, the primary purpose of the game.

Now, if a "Follow Vehicle" command was added to make convoys easier, would it dramatically cheapen the game? No! Instead of meticulously plotting every point for every vehicle, I do it once and I'm done. They all still have command delays - this isn't Starcraft - but it is significantly easier for the player to conduct the business of getting ready to fight. I think that no harm will be done if a little fat is trimmed.

Michael, you say making the game easier will drive the game to boredom. For me, dealing with tons of extra crap to dismount troops is boring. The combat, which is still complex and exciting, is what I care about. You mention "a certain set of actions mechanically applied". A set like those needed to embark troops.

I say one last time that the point of this game is exciting, complex, deep combat. Making it easier to plot the path for a convoy or easier to dismount troops will not cheapen that.

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:
What is, after all, exciting about CM? Combat. What is the tense part, the part when you're on the edge of your chair, the part where you start yelling at the computer (SHOOT! SHOOT! DON'T SWITCH TARGETS! SHOOT!)? Combat. And what part should be the focus? Combat.And what makes combat a thrill?
That you don't know the outcome.
IMO unpredictiveness (does that word in English exist? smile.gif ) in general increases tension.

Now, I'm not saying to make all movement, support, etc. a piece of cake. I just saying that every second I spend worrying about whether or not my squad will hop out of their halftrack is a second that I don't spend worrying about whether my Sherman will beat that PV IV to the trigger.The uncertainity forces you, to choose a more careful, a more realistical aproach to the problem. What's bad with that?
You want the unit hop out? Then make sure, they have enough time.
It's really that easy. But giving them more time, can make things dangerous. So it adds in general difficulty, uncertainity and tension.
It think that trying to get a flank shot on a Tiger is much more thrilling than trying to unload a gun off a truck. I'm not sure. What if the sucessful setup of the gun decides about an open or a protected flank?

Consider your own games. What do you enjoy more, trying to pull back your MLR under heavy fire, or trying to move a convoy?
What moments from games long past would you like to revisit? Those when your valient ATG pulls down three enemy tanks in under a minute, or those when your valient ATG won't disembark from the damn jeep, despite clear orders to do so?I understand what you mean, but i think this moments of frustration work more on a psychological level: we all know them and hate them, but they only happen, if we did something wrong - too much orders in too less time.
And what is so bad, about this happening: do you think in reality such things don't happen?
Imagine it, as the driver recognizing, he drove to the wrong place, or the Geschützführer (gun-leader?) thinking that.
Warfare means controlled chaos and you can't really complain, that CM doesn't give us enough control over it.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that you would rather put effort into moving a convoy down a road than attacking an enemy position?I don't see it as seperate things. They both are integral part of warfare each with their own problems.

Just think about the two week delay of the attack on Stalingrad: units didn't know where to go, the streets were jammed. This delay was decisive for the outcome.
And you want really complain about a gun not disembarking?

I argue here not for simplicity. CM is a complex game, and we all love it for that. Without its deep, rich, realistic layers, it's just another wargame. I argue for USER FRIENDLINESS. For cutting out the annoying stuff so that the player will be able to spend their time and energy on combat, which is, if memory serves, the primary purpose of the game.I think, you underestimate the impact of those "restrictions" on the whole gaming experience.

[ July 26, 2005, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:
I argue here not for simplicity. CM is a complex game, and we all love it for that. Without its deep, rich, realistic layers, it's just another wargame. I argue for USER FRIENDLINESS.We are in agreement about that. Where we disagree is in the specifics of what needs cutting and what doesn't.

Now, if a "Follow Vehicle" command was added to make convoys easier, would it dramatically cheapen the game? No!See? Now I happen to agree with that. IIRC BFC feels much the same way and the reason it was never implemented in CMx1 is that the coding of the engine would have made it too difficult to do. Hopefully that is one of the things that CMx2 will cure.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Steiner14:
...unpredictiveness (does that word in English exist? smile.gif )... Not until you created it, LOL. :D But the standard English word, in case you want to know, for what I think you mean to say is 'unpredictability'.

HTH. smile.gif

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

There is an inherent difference between "user friendliness" and "realism" and "playability". Here they are...

Realism is what governs CM's overall character. We look to see what is realistic, and what is not, and simulate things accordingly. This is our Prime Directive smile.gif

Next comes playability. How well does that feature work in the context of all other features in the game. Does one run into problems with another and reduce overall realism, or does it allow for a gamey cheat, etc. etc. etc. If so, then we try to fix it so that it is compliant with the Prime Directive.

Last comes useability. Is the feature, which is realistic and playable, present unreasonable user interface issues for the player. If so, we redesign the user interface so that playability and realism are not harmed.

Other games do things the other way around... the make the game simplistic to use, simplistic to play, and realism.... well, not even the remotest of concerns for most games. The ones that do care about realism to some degree usually stop short at graphics and names of weapons and so forth.

The issue being argued about here SHOULD be argued at the useability level. But that isn't the case. Instead it is being argued about at the realism level. People might THINK they are asking abtou useability or playability, but in fact they are asking for compromises to realism. Because the interface is dead simple to use (sorry folks, it really is) and not that hard to master (most people don't have a problem) WITHIN the confines of realistic behavior, I see absolutely no reason to change anything. It's working just fine.

Now, something like Follow... there we have a real issue. Units should be realistically able to coordinate their movement based on the unit directly in front of them. If the unit in front stops, so should the one behind it and the one behind that, etc, etc. That is not possible in CMx1, mostly because of the difficulty in programming such a thing from an AI standpoint (given the nature of the engine's existing code). The ramifications of no Follow command are unrealistic and do limit certain types of tactics and tactical scenarios from behaving the way they should. So the argument for the Follow command is primarily about realism, but it is also about playability (vehicles do crazy stuff that increases their chances of getting knocked out), and useability (there is no easy interface for a work around, not to mention to get the behavior directly). That means the Fix O Meter tilts strongly in favor of us doing something about this issue for CMx2.

Hopefully by illustrating these two side by side you can see there is a HUGE difference between the two and our reaction to them.

Steve

[c3k]

Gents,

What is a more complex undertaking in a combat zone: calling in an artillery strike; laying an ATG on a moving target; unloading a squad out of a half-track near the farmhouse?

In CMx1, I can call in an artillery strike, of any caliber, with one command: "Target". Yes, there may be a delay. Suck it up.

In CMx1, I can have my anti-tank gun acquire, aim, compensate, choose ammo, and fire on a moving enemy vehicle with one command: "Target".

In CMx1, to unload a squad from a half-track near a desired location requires multiple, coordinated, unrelated commands. Inherent in doing so also requires an in-depth knowledge of how the game engine functions, adjusting for known and anticipated command delays, and finesse in the placement of movement orders.

Hopefully, CMx2 will include a simple command: "Unload". The game engine will take care of all the details. Sure, give me a delay. Sure, give a chance of the troops cowering and refusing to unload. But don't make me, the PLAYER, have to do all the work in CMx1 to ensure a successful unloading.

Thank you,
Ken

[Battlefront.com]

I would compare unloading infantry with anticipating WHERE to fire that artillery and WHERE to position the AT gun, not the commands to use them. The command for getting infantry out of the Halftrack is simple. Select the infantry and click on the ground where you want it to unload. That's all. No different than the one click to call down artillery, no different than the one click for the AT gun to target something.

Yes, there is some more subtle points to learn about how to unload or load infantry. There are tactical considerations and anticipation of unknown events that the player must evaluate. The players that know how to do this well get an advantage, just like the one who knows that calling down a 82mm mortar strike on a big building is probably a waste of ammo, or that by the time that 155 strike lands all that enemy infantry is likely to be somewhere else, or putting an ATG on an exposed hill might give you excellent LOS that works both ways, or firing an ATG that has a slow rate of fire at a fast moving vehicle near the gun's max range is a waste of ammo and exposes oneself to enemy fire with probably little net positive effect.

Or are you saying you want to boot up the game, make 3 clicks, and have to do nothing for the rest of the turn?

Seriously guys... I just don't get it. You're complaining about an aspect of the game that requires mastering. Why not complain about everything else in the game that isn't braindead obvious to even a 5 year old? There are RTS games that do that sort of gameplay quite nicely ;)

Steve

[Soddball]

I would like CMx2 to give me a foot massage and bring me a beer whilst I'm playing it.

[melb_will]

And it must have cupholders. 2 at least. Maybe even three.

[Cpl Steiner]

It is possible to get passengers and vehicles to coordinate pretty effectively by adding command delay etc. However, it is fiddly, and can result in stupid results when it doesn't work, such as a vehicle moving off before its passengers have got in, or the passengers advancing over open ground, whilst under heavy fire, to the place they were supposed to have disembarked out of their armoured transport.

My point would be that, as it is possible, but fiddly, to get these things to coordinate, why not let the computer do what computers are for, and take the pain out of adding all those pause commands. I mean, adding pause to a vehicle to get it to wait for a squad to mount up is more or less the same as having a waypoint "trigger" such as "move to next waypoint when passengers have got in". Why have fiddly manual ways of doing stuff that the computer is very good at doing automatically. This is not a realism issue, as the manual method achieves the exact same result, but is just a pain to get right.

[aka_tom_w]

OK....

I have only been following this thread a little bit.

I have read Steve's posts and what he says all makes sense.

Steve says:
"The 1-2 minutes it takes to load a vehicle in CMx1 pales in comparison to hours it would likely take in the real world. So complain all you want about how unrealistically long it is to taks to load/unload, because in the real world it is unrealistically short by a huge amount. The most realistic thing we could do is not allow any vehicle to embark any unit during regular gameplay. So if realism is what you want, we can do that."

In my experience trying to make this loading of vehicles with passengers it ALWAYS works if you give it enough time.
( 1 -2 minutes)

Once the passenger and the vehicle meet up it always takes at least one full minute (one turn) to mount up. This seems unrealistically short in my opinion. I would say it "should" take longer.

I am not exactly sure what folks are complaining about here.
If the expectation is that troops and vehicles should meet up in the same minute AND the troops should get on AND the vehicle should proceed on its way ALL in one minute then that is simply unrealistic.

I find it unrealistic that a transort can be loaded and on its way in a one minute turn. I think it should take more than one minute to get 8-12 men on board ANY vehicle and on its way.

The game works fine the way it is with regard to this issue IMO.

-tom w

[CobaltTiger]

It seems to me that almost everyone is arguging something other than the points brought up in the first post. Really he was only asking for two things:

1) Vehicles: Stay here until troops are loaded, then move
2) Troops: Stay in vehicle until you reach disembark point (unless under fire etc)

Is that really so unreasonable? He wasn't arguing against command delays, or asking for a way to make everyone arrive at a destination at the same time. He just wanted a way to smooth out the endpoints a bit.

If you want to argue for realism, having a truck sit there for 40 seconds after the infantry finishes mounting or having troops jump out short of the destination (or arrive at the destination and sit around until the next turn) isn't particularly realistic.

Sure, you can minimize the delays by fiddling around with pauses and having a knowledge of how the engine works, but, the argument is, why should that be necessary when command delays and similar should already be factored in? If you're worried about troops jumping on and off a vehicle too quickly, by all means add in a embark/disembark delay. I've always felt it silly how troops will plop down onto the ground immediately and then move off after their command delay anyway.

[c3k]

Gents,

CobaltTiger has summarized the transport problem succinctly.

CMx1 puts too much detail into the player's control of the transport issue. I want a pickup point, a move, then a disembark point. How that is implemented in CMx2 could be a GREAT improvement over CMx1.

A solution would be to place a pickup point for the squad/hq/gun at the end of a movement order. Place another pickup point at the end of a movement order for a vehicle. Then LINK the two units together. ("Pickup at/with" - the first click selects the location, the second click selects the unit which will be paired up with the first unit. Similar to "Shoot and Scoot".)

Neither unit would move from the pickup point until the pickup is accomplished. (Excepting orders changes, enemy fire, loss of control, etc.)

Thanks,
Ken

[juan_gigante]

Okay, then add a huge "Loading Delay". Like the unlimber time for guns and other set stuff. That would also be good, because if you're loading a 20mm Flak, it can take less time than a 150mm Infantry Gun. The problem isn't the time that it takes.
The problem is, as Steiner points out, that unless you use this whole battery of commands properly, it's very much possible that annoying stuff will happen. Simplfying the unloading process won't cheapen the game; there will still be tactical decisions to be made. I'm not asking for an unload command that would magically teleport my gun to the perfect spot; I'm asking for a command that eliminates the hassle. It can still take time, it can still be risky, and it can still require tactical consideration, but it would make the process streamlined. As I have said earlier, I would rather worry about how the actual battle is going than about whether or not my boys will get out of the truck or not.

[c3k]

Steve,

In my example comparing the calling of arty or firing an ATG to transporting infantry, you stated that the "WHERE" of locating your assets is important. You also mention that unloading infantry is as simple as clicking on the ground where you want them. True: to a point.

Trying not to be too tedious, but here's an example refuting your claim.

I select a half-track with a squad to move 200 meters, then unload the squad. I place the squad's first movement point 10 meters from the end of the half-tracks move. During the turn, the half-track doesn't go 200 meters (shocked, immobilized, bogged, bad path, whatever). My squad will STILL unload regardless of the distance to the endpoint of the half-track's move. Bad juju if that means they have to slog 190 meters across open ground.

The tactical nuance and subtlety of transport is NOT simulated by that. That's a game engine shortcoming. It forces unloads. Uploads can also be missed due to similar circumstances. That produces the result of an empty transport moving forward while its would-be passengers sit back at the pick-up point.

If I choose the wrong unload point, my men will suffer. Too close, my transport is chewed up. Too far, my men don't close with the enemy in time. That can be simulated by a SIMPLER transport design in CMx2.

Thanks,
Ken

[juan_gigante]

c3k, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Or what about when you are trying to unload, and you've got the halftrack in place. You give the troops a move order to near the halftrack with, say, a 10 second delay. I then give the halftrack a move order with, say a 30 second delay, assuming that the troops will get out, right? Wrong. They figure that the halftrack will eventually move, so they stay on. Here's the kicker. If the move order is short enough, the halftrack does it, comes to a stop, and my boys hop out, and move the 100 yards or so across open ground back to their original unload spot. And infantry squads are pretty fast and resilient compared to guns. God, if that happens to a gun I can nearly guarantee its demise. That kind of thing is what I dislike.
An unload command would prevent that because it could be a set thing that would prevent the halftrack from moving until whoever was out. They would get out, it would go. If you think that taht would be too quick, make it a slow process. Give 'em a delay. But make it one, simple command so that mix-ups like that can be avoided.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by CobaltTiger:
If you want to argue for realism, having a truck sit there for 40 seconds after the infantry finishes mounting or having troops jump out short of the destination (or arrive at the destination and sit around until the next turn) isn't particularly realistic. Done much driving in the field, have you? ;) Actually, the unrealistic thing is having a truck on the map at all in most cases...

So what makes you think either of the above cases is "unrealistic"? You think transport drivers get issued marked maps and do recces and know exactly where to drop passengers off to within a metre?

I've driven troops on occasion - funny thing, in CM you don't simulate the slow crawl of trying to find a 'black route' in the dark, or a clump of trees in the daytime which is somehow supposed to look different from every other clump of trees, or be able to find "the tall hill" when all the hilltops are covered in trees and you don't know which one the platoon commander meant, so you drive slow then boot the infantry out at someplace you "think" was 'the spot.'

Realism? If you wanted realism, your troops would rarely if ever get out where you tell them to, or better yet, would never get in a truck to begin with.

[Battlefront.com]

Guys... again you are talking about stuff that is unrealistically precise in terms of coordination (at least in some cases). If you want to make sure your passengers disembark at the correct spot, then have them plot their first movement in relation to the end point of the vehicle's. When the vehicle reaches its endpoint, it stops, and the passengers get out. It's that simple and it will work all the time every time.

Guys bailing out of disabled vehicles is generally a good thing. The game system isn't sophisticated enough to alert the passengers as to why their ride is kaput, so they just assume the worst (i.e. enemy fire) and bail. If they have movement orders they assume they should not sit around and instead move towards their objective. I agree that if the first waypoint is far away they probably shouldn't, but really... how far do they get before the turn ends and you can redirect them? 200m? I doubt it.

If you are trying to do more complicated things than that, they are most likely unrealistic. The argument to make the behavior less convoluted to achieve these things is, therefore, the wrong direction. What we should be doing is figuring out a system that prevents such unrealistic behavior. Like not including trucks at all smile.gif

So I'll state again... most of the examples I've seen so far are either overstated or unrealistic. Therefore, not much interst on our part to address them in CMx2. There might be some changes though, simply because there are changes to the way things work in general. Therefore, it might be that you'll be happier with CMx2's system. But it won't be because of the arguments in this thread. Most are bunk :D

Steve

[CobaltTiger]

So let me get this straight. It's unrealistically precise for someone to bang on the roof of the truck and shout "We're all in!" to the driver so the truck can take off? And yet it is not unrealistically precise to, say, issue a specific target to a unit?

What is so terribly wrong with making it less difficult to do something that is already largely possible in the current engine? Again, we are not advocating "precision drops" or anything like that.

Yes, if a mishap occurs we can stop the troops, stop the truck, issue new orders to get them back together, then issue new orders to have them resume going wherever they were going. But why not save us the rare headache when troops decide it's a good time to bail out for no reason (and I've seen it happen before in a hotseat game, so I can assure you they weren't under any kind of fire) and let us say "Stay in that truck until you get where it's taking you, the truck becomes disabled, or you come under fire."


So what makes you think either of the above cases is "unrealistic"? You think transport drivers get issued marked maps and do recces and know exactly where to drop passengers off to within a metre?Apparently they are issued maps, because I can already order the trucks to drive to a specific destination within a meter already. Along with any other vehicle in the game. You can't call having precision control over one vehicle unrealistic when we have it over all vehicles. If we can order a tank to fire on a specific target, why can't we order a truck to take off as soon as everyone is loaded?

[eyepilot]

Look you guys, Dorosh is right (this time)*-) I figured out a long time ago there is an unrealistic amount of transport vehicles available anyway. Juan ,you finally "got" it by unloading your troops far away from the heat. As for me, I know its going to take a couple of turns and some God like re-directs in the orders of those movements.1/2 tracks with troups are not assault vehicles but transports and support vehicles. Guns take a long time to set up and you don't back into your uber position or you will pay dearly.Transport vehicles need be used properly or not at all. Combat movement takes time and this is modeled very well IM"H"O.

[juan_gigante]

I don't mind having to exercise caution and not being able to drive my halftracks all over like they've got 100mm armor. I do mind the inconvenience of many unloading commands, the risk of mess-ups and the fact that nearly all the annoying hassle that we could deal with is not included - except for this. I am willing to accept how this is in CMx1, but I merely hope that another embarking/disembarking system will be in CMx2. Steve said there will be changes in CMx2. I am looking forward to seeing what they are when the time comes.

I think that this is one of those issues that poeple can become very, very polarized on. I know that I'll never convince Dorosh and the "it's good" crowd that I'm right, and it would take a hell of a lot more from them to convince me. I've said my piece several times already, and I merely hope that BFC will consider my opinion when deciding how to do things in CMx2.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:
It is possible to get passengers and vehicles to coordinate pretty effectively by adding command delay etc. However, it is fiddly, and can result in stupid results when it doesn't work, such as a vehicle moving off before its passengers have got in...Sorry, but I have to repeat: the obvious way to avoid this is to wait until the passengers are in the vehicle until you give the vehicle orders to move. What's fiddly about that?

The other slightly fiddly alternative if you want to save a little game time: if you are reasonably assured that the personnel are going to be in the vehicle early in the turn, you can give the vehicle its movement orders with enough delay so that it doesn't start moving until late in the turn. This one takes a bit of finesse and learning, so for some players, it might not be worth it, I don't know. For them, waiting until the next turn to start moving the vehicle is perfectly reasonable and realistic too.

..or the passengers advancing over open ground, whilst under heavy fire, to the place they were supposed to have disembarked out of their armoured transport.This puzzles me. The only times I can think of when this is likely to happen are when the vehicle stops due to being disabled through fire or bogged down. If that is happening to you enough to make a fuss of it, I have to think that you aren't transporting passengers in a sensible manner. Now, one could say that in the event of an ambush, the proper behavior of the passengers would be to bail out and got to ground/get into nearby cover. And in fact, that's what I see them do in CM, except in CMBO.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by CobaltTiger:
It seems to me that almost everyone is arguging something other than the points brought up in the first post. Really he was only asking for two things:

1) Vehicles: Stay here until troops are loaded, then moveThey will do that. All you have to do is wait until the troops are aboard before you give the vehicle its movement orders.

2) Troops: Stay in vehicle until you reach disembark point (unless under fire etc)I ask again: When don't they do that?

If you want to argue for realism, having a truck sit there for 40 seconds after the infantry finishes mounting...I think you may be making the mistake of confusing the graphic on the screen with what's really happening. On the screen, the troops appear to walk up to the vehicle and immediately take their seats. But that's not what's happening inside the box. In reality, they would sort of straggle up to the vehicle, start loading their equipment on (which, depending on what they are carrying, can be a several minute operation right there), then one by one climb on board and settle themselves. Even for the most lightly equipped infantry, all that can easily take a minute. Remember, these guys may also be tired and/or frightened and not moving as fast as fresh as a daisey.

I think part of the blame for this misunderstanding lies with the manner in which BFC has chosen to graphically depict the loading process. Perhaps in CMx2 you'll get to see and hear more of what's really going on, and then the one or two minutes that the loading process takes won't seem so odd.

I've always felt it silly how troops will plop down onto the ground immediately and then move off after their command delay anyway. I think that's the same thing I am talking about.

smile.gif

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Ok, we're getting to the old "if the game can't be entirely realistic, then why bother trying" argument. That's one of the oldest, and weakest, arguments to make in favor of something. So guess what its impact is :D

Things like this are on a slippery slope. The line has to be drawn somewhere by setting a standard. The standard we set in CMx1 was that if we could prevent something unrealistic, we would. If we couldn't, then we would try to at the very least not make it any easier to exploit.

The problem with any wargame is that you have a God like view of the battlefield. That does NOT mean that every unit is simulated to have a map. No, what it means is that we can't prevent the player from having that sort of control because to do so would mean no game. The other extreme is to say "we can't make it totally realistic, so let's not even try". That is the RTS mentality and we firmly, and obviously, reject it. The more someone argues in favor of making the game deliberately less realistic, the more we will make sure to NOT do what the person is asking.

Think about command delays. We got a rash of crap about that using the same exact argument that ColbaltTiger is using. i.e. "you can't make the game absolutely realistic, so cater to requests for less realistic game features". Instead, we need to see arguments that counter ours on the Realism standpoint if that is what is to be affected. Realistically you guys shouldn't have trucks and rarely HTs, so understand that you're on shakey ground already :D

Steve

[PLM]

I dont feel the vehicle mounting/dismounting business was intentional, I feel its a flaw in the game and if things had turned out slightly different then we'd have better coordination.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CobaltTiger:
[qb] Done much driving in the field, have you? ;) Actually, the unrealistic thing is having a truck on the map at all in most cases...You keep saying that, but I think you're being narrow minded about it. Yes, it is exceedingly rare that troops in an assault or move to contact will be anywhere near trucks.

But what about special circumstances? Ambushes, specifically. When the 82nd Airborne was in it's first tour in Iraq, the standard unit SOP was to dismount and assault enemy positions when their patrols or convoys were ambushed. You've got to have a functional, flexible mechanism for disembarking - even if it does involve your dreaded trucks.

To simply write off a possibility because it isn't used in the traditional view of close combat is asinine. Most modern wars involve lots of patrolling and reactions to ambushes, especially when you compare it to the number of 'traditional' fights a unit experiences. A game set in Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq, Korea or any number of places could very realistically utilize trucks on the battlefield for some scenarios.

If the DoD were ever interested in a training module based on CMX2 and they saw that there was no provision for a convoy fight, they'd walk right out.

So please.. stop simply dismissing them. It's stupid and it's tiresome and you're not adding anything to the existing issue at hand when you bring it up.

[Migo441]

I don't do this lightly, but I'm compelled to join the Dorosh-Is-Right-(This Time) crowd.

I agree the loading/unloading could be easier with additional commands or modfied behavior. However, I keep coming back the fact that a minute only takes 60 seconds.

;)

If you want to try and massage the coordination with command delays, great. Go for it. Otherwise, as others have said, just alot a full turn for the loading or unloading. A minute isn't too much to ask to get a full squad of soldiers (or possibly multiple smaller units) and their equipment on or off a vehicle.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Originally posted by CobaltTiger:
[qb] Done much driving in the field, have you? ;) Actually, the unrealistic thing is having a truck on the map at all in most cases...You keep saying that, but I think you're being narrow minded about it. Yes, it is exceedingly rare that troops in an assault or move to contact will be anywhere near trucks.

But what about special circumstances? Ambushes, specifically. When the 82nd Airborne was in it's first tour in Iraq, the standard unit SOP was to dismount and assault enemy positions when their patrols or convoys were ambushed. You've got to have a functional, flexible mechanism for disembarking - even if it does involve your dreaded trucks.

To simply write off a possibility because it isn't used in the traditional view of close combat is asinine. Most modern wars involve lots of patrolling and reactions to ambushes, especially when you compare it to the number of 'traditional' fights a unit experiences. A game set in Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq, Korea or any number of places could very realistically utilize trucks on the battlefield for some scenarios.

If the DoD were ever interested in a training module based on CMX2 and they saw that there was no provision for a convoy fight, they'd walk right out.

So please.. stop simply dismissing them. It's stupid and it's tiresome and you're not adding anything to the existing issue at hand when you bring it up. </font>When they stop banging the "realism" drum, I'll stop dismissing them. It is okay for them to cry "unrealistic" but what they advocate is actually far LESS realistic. Drivers in CM can't get lost; they do in real life all the time. Since you bring up modern examples, there is a very famous truck convoy in Iraq that comes to mind. So should that be in CM also? If so, how to implement it? Would be a boring game if your convoy of reinforcements never showed up at all.

But - we can already do that one in CM with a low percentage chance of showing up. Unfortunately that chance is per turn, not per game. If CMX2 can give us a 50/50 chance of reinforcements not showing up at all within a 30 minute timeframe, now THAT would be realism.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:
I don't mind having to exercise caution and not being able to drive my halftracks all over like they've got 100mm armor. I do mind the inconvenience of many unloading commands, the risk of mess-ups and the fact that nearly all the annoying hassle that we could deal with is not included - except for this. I am willing to accept how this is in CMx1, but I merely hope that another embarking/disembarking system will be in CMx2. Steve said there will be changes in CMx2. I am looking forward to seeing what they are when the time comes.

I think that this is one of those issues that poeple can become very, very polarized on. I know that I'll never convince Dorosh and the "it's good" crowd that I'm right, and it would take a hell of a lot more from them to convince me. I've said my piece several times already, and I merely hope that BFC will consider my opinion when deciding how to do things in CMx2. I don't disagree that the orders are not "working" well from a gameplay standpoint in CM. I just think it is silly to holler they are "unrealistic". (I'm not saying you've done that yourself.) Change the commands to make them easier (gamey, if you will), just don't try to convince people that it is more "realistic" because it isn't. A truck driver picking out a spot on a 9 square kilometre map with precision is something of a fantasy, but then again, so is a lot of what we do in CM. It's what makes it a fun game, not a great simulation. That's my only major criticism of some of the conversation here.

I heartily approve changes that will make for a fun game - but balk at calling it "realism" when it clearly is not. That just weakens the argument, from my perspective. And apparently from Steve's also. ;)

[RMC]

So would this be a good time to bring up having a unit report screen?

[aka_tom_w]

It sure is hard to agree with Dorosh but I would have to say he as got this part right:


"Maybe it will even be worse. I remember the same discussion came out when squads were not permitted to advance to/from passenger status in SL. The cry went up that a squad could move 40 metres out of a building, up a hill through trees while carrying a heavy machine gun, but could not jump down from a truck in the same alloted timeframe.

The reply from the developers was that co-ordinating movement "should have been easy" but frequently was not.

Ever ride in the back of a military truck? They're loud, noisy and bounce around, especially going off road. Communicating with the driver of a seperate cab is often impossible. You need to co-ordinate where you want to be dropped off ahead of time. Sometimes you do that from a map; sometimes the platoon commander rides up front and where three trucks worth of men disembark is up to his whim. Driving over terrain you've never been to is a challenge; so is recognizing landmarks. I've done it - but never under fire.

I hope that these problems are reflected in CMX2 in some way, shape or form and that the player can't just transport his troops anywhere on the map he likes - it would be unrealistic in the extreme. In a way, the inelegant way CM does these things now actually represents - not deliberately, I think - the burden of co-ordinating the movements of vehicles and men."

-By M Dorosh
AND having had personal experience with this aspect of military transportation his opinion with regard to realism "should" ( this time ) carry some wieght. (or something)

The game is fine the way it is and it should be more challenging (NOT easier) to co-ordinate in CMx2 IMO smile.gif

-tom w

[ July 28, 2005, 05:03 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[PLM]

Its just the way its portrayed thats frustrating

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by RMC:
So would this be a good time to bring up having a unit report screen? Maybe wait until the dust settles a bit.

;)

Michael

[Cpl Steiner]

This seems to me to be an issue more about game design than realism.

If it is unrealistic for a vehicle to pick up troops and move off in under 60 seconds, then fine, it shouldn't be possible. The truck should have all move orders disabled once a squad has been ordered to embark onto the truck. Likewise, if it is unrealistic for a squad to disembark in under 60 seconds, the squad on the truck should have all move orders disabled whilst the vehicle is moving.

However, how realistic is it that all troops embark or disembark on the very same second, just because the action phase is 60 seconds long? Wouldn't it make more sense to have conditions attached to waypoints to achieve the same thing? The game engine could still add in some delay to account for the guys loading on equipment and arguing about who sits where.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it that a half-track crew ordered to transport a squad across some open ground is going to set off with an empty passenger compartment, needlessly braving enemy fire, just because the squad was late. The game engine should prevent you from causing this to happen as, guess what, it's unrealistic!

[JonS]

... or, since you didn't make your intentions (read: orders) clear to the drivers, they set off with an empty passenger compartment, needlessly braving enemy fire, because the squad was late. Sounds realistic to me.

[PLM]

How is it the tank commanders in CM dont misinterpret my orders when I order them to exact coordinates in the best possible positioning? Oooh lets not go there but lets pick on the poor transport guys all the way. :rolleyes:

It doesnt add up in any way shape or form. Are we going to take a jab at everything to do with coordinating or just transporting because there's a load of coordination that goes in CM yet for some reason we're going to brush off the lack of specific commands with transporting for realism as if it was ever seriously intended. I dont think so. It doesnt match up with the rest of the game. Why dont they make the unit pauses approxomate then? Or how about a chance of the unit not executing orders at all because they 'forget' or 'misinterpret'

[JonS]

Lets see: Tanks go to the exact coords I give them, and hey, waddayaknow, Trucks go to the exact coords I give them . Where is the problem again? :confused:

[CobaltTiger]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Think about command delays. We got a rash of crap about that using the same exact argument that ColbaltTiger is using. i.e. "you can't make the game absolutely realistic, so cater to requests for less realistic game features". Instead, we need to see arguments that counter ours on the Realism standpoint if that is what is to be affected. Realistically you guys shouldn't have trucks and rarely HTs, so understand that you're on shakey ground already :D I'd just like to restate that I'm in favor of more command delays when we're dealing with transporting units. And you have to admit that it's a bit hypocritical to say that we're making weak arguments and then turn around and say something along the lines of "Oh, they shouldn't be there anyway so you guys should be happy with what you have." :D Dismissive answers like "Your arguments are weak" or "You shouldn't have transports anyway so be happy" are not real answers.

I'm also not in any way saying that if it can't be realistic, why bother trying. Please. I'd be off playing one of the Command & Conquer games if that was the case. I understand that the realism line has to be drawn somewhere, and I'm glad it's as high as it is. What I'm getting at is that if we're able to give "unrealistically precise" commands for other vehicles, why the double standard with transport? If we're able to give targeting commands to AFVs, why not transport commands to transports? Cpl Steiner summed it up beautifully. Rather than just telling me I'm wrong, please explain to me why a "wait for troops to board before moving" order is so over the line?

[JonS]

Originally posted by PLM:
Why dont they make the unit pauses approxomate Actually, I hope BFC do do this, with more variation for units out of command, and less variation for units under command of 'good' HQs.

I'd also like to see speeds vary, and especially with environmental conditions. Speeds 1/4ed at night, trucks driving far more slowly in rain, or fog, etc. Variations in reload times, with occasional inexplicably long delays for when some numpty drops a round on his foot. Variable opaqueness of fog, night, rain, or smoke from turn to turn, so units that were right-at-the-limit suddenly become completely exposed, then completely obscured, even if nobody moves. Buildings that take longer to move through as damage accumulates, not just a sudden step-function when they get rubbled. Shall I go on?

[PLM]

How about you explain the difference in the scenerio of a tank commander understanding and executing precise orders and a truck driver udnerstanding and executing precise orders before I even feel the slightest urge to defend my views.

I was just talking with a tanker last week and we talked about an occasion in the Persian Gulf when one tank split from its unit and went off to the right with permission, the other tanks ran into the enemy and had to hault. When the other tank was ordered back that tank got lit up accidently by its own unit because they didn't realize how far ahead they were even they knew a friendly tank was heading back.

My point everybody is attacking the idea of coordination between vehicles and infantry as if its nigh on impossible. I'm asking, what the hell is the plan for CM? It doesnt add up that you can expect a tank to move to exact positions but you cant expect a truck to begin moving after infantry mount up or shortly after without involving delays which can cause all sorts of problems even when fire isnt involved. If you can relay orders to a tank and guide them to precise positions, then what in the hell is so hard about other areas of coordination. And if we're going to simulate difficulty in that area, then are we going to simulate difficulties in other areas (such as moving tanks and units in general).

The idea of serious lack of coordination and misinterpretation of orders is not present in CM. But this flaw in the game regarding mounting infantry is being brushed off as if it were intentional, I dont think so. I feel really something or other when I'm complaining about something that doesnt add up in the game and get told its supposed to be like that when its not even simulated close to what the reality is supposed to be. I really dont believe, if you can give orders to trucks at all, why they cant pick up infantry and start moving without having to give them separate orders timing to take off regardless of being mounted. Do I need to go "PS. Dont leave without the infantry squad"?

[ July 27, 2005, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: PLM ]

[JonS]

No, you're wrong.

I can give a tank precise orders to move up and over a hill to a very specific location, but I can't give it targetting orders until it gets there. Or at least, not until it's clear of LOS obstructions. I can give it a covered arc, and hope that'll do the trick and it'll pick the right target, and that no other threats appear outside the covered arc. But that's it. And if I want to target something that isn't an enemy unit (say, start laying a smoke screen, or target a building) the covered arc won't even work. I'll have to wait till the next orders phase.

With a truck I can give it detailed movement orders up and over the hill to a point I designate as the PUP. And I can give the unit to be picked up orders to mount the tpt unit. Then, in the next orders phase, I can give orders for the tpt to move off. Or, if I'm feeling really cocky I can give the infantry unit 'mount' orders, jimmy around with pause orders, and give the tpt unit move orders, then hope that my timing is accurate, but that's it.

Where is the difference?

[Battlefront.com]

PLM,

I dont feel the vehicle mounting/dismounting business was intentional, I feel its a flaw in the game and if things had turned out slightly different then we'd have better coordination.Soooooooo... what you're saying is that I'm a liar? That's a pretty bold statement. But I'm sure you have something to back that up with.

Steve

[JonS]

Originally posted by PLM:
Do I need to go "PS. Dont leave without the infantry squad"? What about the - not especially rare - case where I'm loading an entire platoon; four carriers, carrying a total of three sections, the pn HQ, and a spt team or two. What then? Do I need to go "PS. Dont leave without the infantry squad. Oh, and wait till the rest of the platoon, including those spt wpns which aren't really part of this pn but are tagging along anyway, are loaded up the other carriers too."?

I can do that now, easily, by myself, the way everyone except you seems to have figured out. Why would I need or want another order to do it for me, just so I might save a few seconds in a turn that only has 60 of them anyway?

[Battlefront.com]

ColbaltTiger
What I'm getting at is that if we're able to give "unrealistically precise" commands for other vehicles, why the double standard with transport?Because there is no double standard. JonS stated it quite well (and he was not the first), but I'll go one further and spell it out even more clearly. It is just as easy/difficult to order a tank and a truck to a specific spot. It is just as easy/difficult to get troops on a tank as in a truck. And it is just as easy/difficult to get them to disembark from a tank as a truck.

You claim there is a double standard... where?


If we're able to give targeting commands to AFVs, why not transport commands to transports?Apples and oranges. A target command is a single unit deciding what it is going to shoot at. Transporting, inherently, involves the coordination of two otherwise independent entities. The actions, and reactions, of each rely upon the other's actions and reacations. They are entirely different concepts. What you should be doing is comparing how the game handles transporting on tanks vs. trucks. That is apples to apples. And guess what? They are identical behaviors.

Cpl Steiner summed it up beautifully. Rather than just telling me I'm wrong, please explain to me why a "wait for troops to board before moving" order is so over the line?Why not have 10 dozen other orders for things like "don't fire until you have a 90% chance of hitting" or "move into this field, but only if your MG on the other side of the map isn't engaging another enemy unit" or "if someone in the unit starts to panic, shoot him as a coward". And if I thought about it long enough I could probably list at least a dozen order requests from people that actually have some merrit (like the Follow order). If we put in every last user request, regardless of merrit, we would have a game that you'd all complain was too complicated and too nitty gritty, divorcing you from the ability to focus on the Big Picture and the overall flow of the battle because you are concerned about issuing 1st Squad, 3rd Platoon the "garrotte" order to take out the enemy picket without altering anybody to your presence.

It's all about design choices. Deliberate most of the time, other times simply byproducts of philosophy. In the case of the way passengers embark/disembark, it was a very deliberate system. And not the first one we came up with either. The first one was too difficult to use smile.gif

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

ColbaltTiger,

Dismissive answers like "Your arguments are weak" or "You shouldn't have transports anyway so be happy" are not real answers.I already gave you guys real answers, but they are being ignored. Heck, I got one guy saying I'm lying about it being a deliberate design decision, and instead just trying to cover up some big blunder. A "blunder" that many people just don't see existing. And the people saying it exists are having a pretty darned hard time illustrating why the design is unrealistic and wrong within the context of the simulation.

I'm also not in any way saying that if it can't be realistic, why bother trying.All I am doing is taking your logic and carrying it to its logical conclusion. Don't feel bad though... it's a common train of thought that I've had to point out at least a couple thousand times over the last 7 or 8 years. I'm not so sure I'd say that makes you in good company, but it certainly is true to say that you have a lot of company :D

The argument started with the position that the way CM works now is totally unrealistic and frustrating. The realism argument fell apart pretty quickly and turned into the usual "the kid next door has a choo-choo, so why can't I have a choo-choo?" type argument. And that is you want what you want and it really doesn't matter why things are they way they are. You just want it. That's what this is all boiling down to. The justifications are simply there to not make it appear that you aren't asking for a choo-choo ;)

I'll state this very clearly once again...

I agree that the current system of loading/unloading isn't totally realistic. However, I think it is well balanced within the context of the game and to the extent we are able to simulate reality AND the choices all game designers have to make in terms of how far they are going to bend the user interface to accomodate a special case scenario that users have an unrealistic expectation about. Could we simulate passengers more realistically than we currently do? Given time and energy... sure. Same can be said for probably any feature in CMx1's three games. But do we need to? No. It doesn't even make my top 50 list of things I'd like us to do better. So no, it is not going to be a high priority to "fix" in CMx2 because it isn't all that broken to begin with. I'd rather start with modeling soldiers and artillery handling better.

Steve

[PLM]

I can give a tank precise orders to move up and over a hill to a very specific location, but I can't give it targetting orders until it gets there. Whats that got to do with anything.

I'm talking movement orders, simple basic monkey logic movement orders that dont exist such as rendezvous. Absolutely nothing to do with ordering a unit to fire at a unit it cant see when it can see, I think thats what cover arc is for. Sure. Stuff can go wrong but it goes wrong in all the wrong areas which leads to a different outcome.

Is anybody gonna argue that the concept of rendezvous is unrealistic? Is the concept of rendezvous between vehicles and squads unrealistic? I can foresee some tankers getting impatient and moving on their own if infantry takes long enough to arrive to mount up. But I'll be darned if thats gonna rely on a timer without the ability to communicate to that tank crew that you want them to carry an infantry squad somewhere. I dont believe commanders very often give CM style orders of relying on ordering a unit to hault X time so another unit can meet up with them without either unit being 'aware' of the rendezvous. It doesnt make sense and the arguement is laughable. I know the game isnt perfect and everybody agrees but that right there me and I think a number of people despise.

Soooooooo... what you're saying is that I'm a liar?Well I really refuse to believe you fully believe in the most realistic situation a transport vehicle would make one drop off and end there. I dont know what kind of situation you're thinking about. I've made a bunch of scenerios trying to represent a frontline with unit movements over long range in relatively safe conditions. In a way it simulates the 'rear' areas or a mini rear area. It certainly involves some risks operating transports that close to combat but I think any commander can see the advantage in speed when force is needed somewhere and its not there and you have transports available.

That's a pretty bold statement. Oh I'm sorry I dont have the money to go to college to fullfill my dream of creating my grand strategy game which I've had drawn up in my head for years that would kickass if I had the software and the advanced programming skills that scumbags charge thousands for and publishers aquire your soul for. Maybe thats a good thing though cuz I can express distaste with any God-like creature anywhere on the interweb I want cuz I'm takin off August 2nd at noon to go spend the next several years of my life in the Army getting raped, ammassing some money to earn the divine right to put my ass in everybodys way and pretend like I know every goddamn thing. Btw I hate publishers and definately wanna see more independent developers and less of this satanist bastard publisher control treating game development as a business ruining games by early release and sometimes axing them all together. What happened to Civ War Generals III BF.com?!?!?! Smash publishers with an iron fist. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[ July 27, 2005, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: PLM ]

[CobaltTiger]

Battlefront.com
Because there is no double standard. JonS stated it quite well (and he was not the first), but I'll go one further and spell it out even more clearly. It is just as easy/difficult to order a tank and a truck to a specific spot. It is just as easy/difficult to get troops on a tank as in a truck. And it is just as easy/difficult to get them to disembark from a tank as a truck.

You claim there is a double standard... where?The double standard is that it is possible to give a stationary AFV a precise order related to its primary function: "Fire on that house over there" but it is not possible to give a stationary transport (regardless of type) a precise order related to its primary function: "Don't move until the troops are on". The potential ramifications of the first are much greater than the second, so why must the second be brushed aside? Comparing the transport capabilities of a tank or a truck is irrelevant. They are both transports and they should both be able to wait until the troops are on before moving.

Apples and oranges. A target command is a single unit deciding what it is going to shoot at. Transporting, inherently, involves the coordination of two otherwise independent entities. The actions, and reactions, of each rely upon the other's actions and reacations. They are entirely different concepts. What you should be doing is comparing how the game handles transporting on tanks vs. trucks. That is apples to apples. And guess what? They are identical behaviors.You make a good point, but "Wait for troops" has nothing to do with a second unit. There might not be a squad coming. The vehicle might sit and wait indefinitely if the player forgets to tell a his squad to hop in the truck or if the squad gets shot to pieces on the way there. The vehicle simply checks a flag -- Am I loaded or am I not loaded? Don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.

Why not have 10 dozen other orders for things like "don't fire until you have a 90% chance of hitting" or "move into this field, but only if your MG on the other side of the map isn't engaging another enemy unit" or "if someone in the unit starts to panic, shoot him as a coward". And if I thought about it long enough I could probably list at least a dozen order requests from people that actually have some merrit (like the Follow order). If we put in every last user request, regardless of merrit, we would have a game that you'd all complain was too complicated and too nitty gritty, divorcing you from the ability to focus on the Big Picture and the overall flow of the battle because you are concerned about issuing 1st Squad, 3rd Platoon the "garrotte" order to take out the enemy picket without altering anybody to your presence.Now you're just being silly. Nobody is asking for those things and nobody in their right mind would expect them to be considered. All of your examples are talking about a much much finer level of control than I am proposing. I doubt I would be playing CM if it was that complicated.

It's all about design choices. Deliberate most of the time, other times simply byproducts of philosophy. In the case of the way passengers embark/disembark, it was a very deliberate system. And not the first one we came up with either. The first one was too difficult to use smile.gif

Steve Just because it's deliberate doesn't mean it is the best way to do something. Did you forget all those posts you made about how the grogs will hate it but the change is for the better? :D

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
It sure is hard to agree with Dorosh but I would have to say he as got this part right: **three paragraph long treatise in its entirety snipped** Gee, Tom, I feel so....validated....somehow that you agree with me. And thank God you repeated my entire post with those vague quotes so it looks sorta like you are the one saying it. Now that my post has your seal of approval, I guess the other kids will just plain old have to like me now...

Hey...

waitaminit....

That's completely at odds with my quest for a Mortal Enemy! :mad: You fool! You've - quite unwittingly I'm sure - undone years and 18,000 posts of prepa

Aw, shucks. Who can stay mad? You're back on the Christmas card list, now that we're both sitting at the sycophant's table. Pass the Kool Ade. smile.gif

Hugs
MAD

[JonS]

Originally posted by PLM:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I can give a tank precise orders to move up and over a hill to a very specific location, but I can't give it targetting orders until it gets there. Whats that got to do with anything. </font>[/QUOTE]Elementary, my dear Watson. In example 1 we have the tank moving, then doing something (firing). In example 2 we have a truck moving then doing something (picking up passengers). See if you can wrap your monkey brain around the similarities.

[ July 28, 2005, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Michael Emrys]

Heh, heh. Reading some of these posts reminds me that it is almost August, and we know what that means, don't we kiddies?

:eek: :D

Michael

[PLM]

Originally posted by JonS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PLM:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I can give a tank precise orders to move up and over a hill to a very specific location, but I can't give it targetting orders until it gets there. Whats that got to do with anything. </font>[/QUOTE]Elementary, my dear Watson. In example 1 we have the tank moving, then doing something (firing). In exampkle 2 we have a truck moving then doing something. See if you can wrap your monkey brain around the similarities. </font>[/QUOTE]I didnt know a truck picked up its passengers in mid travel. A truck doesnt have to move to pick up passengers. It sits there with orders to move to point Jon when it recieves Michael as cargo.

The lack of potential coordination between units is just given an exclamation mark with vehicle-passenger situations.

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Drivers in CM can't get lost; they do in real life all the time. Since you bring up modern examples, there is a very famous truck convoy in Iraq that comes to mind. So should that be in CM also? If so, how to implement it? Would be a boring game if your convoy of reinforcements never showed up at all.

But - we can already do that one in CM with a low percentage chance of showing up. Unfortunately that chance is per turn, not per game. If CMX2 can give us a 50/50 chance of reinforcements not showing up at all within a 30 minute timeframe, now THAT would be realism. With a little knowledge of statistics, you can do that in CMx1.

For example, giving reinforcements a 3% chance of arrival on Turn 8 of a 30 turn scenario gives an approximate 50% chance of the reinforcements arriving at some point in the game. If the reinforcements won't do any good if they arrive after, say Turn 25, then change the first turn of entry from Turn 8 to Turn 3. The total chance of the reinforcements arriving during the scenario is above 50%, but the chance of them arriving between Turn 3 and Turn 25 is about 50%.

[juan_gigante]

Whoa, PLM, I was on your side until that last paragraph of your most recent post. Maybe you should calm down a little. Remember, the guys making CM are an independant developer. They're the good guys here. I don't know exactly who you were attacking there, but I hope it wasn't BFC. Because even though we might have minor quibbles about little stuff (which I actually admit I'm kind of wrong on), these guys are fighting the good fight, trying to help us out. And they deserve our respect.

[Battlefront.com]

CobaltTiger

You make a good point, but "Wait for troops" has nothing to do with a second unit. There might not be a squad coming. The vehicle might sit and wait indefinitely if the player forgets to tell a his squad to hop in the truck or if the squad gets shot to pieces on the way there. The vehicle simply checks a flag -- Am I loaded or am I not loaded? Don't make it more complicated than it needs to be. It's what the action is simulating, not what it takes to program the thing. It is a piece of cake to give the player all sorts of control over stuff. But just because we can doesn't mean we should if we want to have things be realistic.

My example of the difference between a single unit making a targeting decision and a truck coordinating with infantry was not about the programming. It was about the problems, in the real world, with the coordination aspect. That is the answer to the question you've been asking about why we treat targeting "differently". It's because it is different in real life from a conceptual standpoint. Again, we get back to the main problem of this thread. What you transport guys are asking for is inherently unrealistic within the context of the CMx1 game system. All arguments about Playability and Useability that you trot out are therefore unimportant. So we come right back to the realism bit once again...

It is unrealistic to have a truck drive from A to B and pick up troops with precision. At least in the vast, overwhelming situations that would be the case in CMx1 style tactical battle. Therefore, any feature that makes this easier to do, in game terms, means that the simulation becomes less realistic. Period. Are there exceptional, situationally sensitive, situations that one could argue for more control along realism lines? I'm sure, but the problem for a game designer is trying to figure out how to allow the exceptional stuff without opening the door to abuse. Oh, and keeping the system Playable and Useable. Which brings me to...

Now you're just being silly. I knew you'd say that :D It is almost always the answer I get when I start to make this point. So obviously I have a response at the ready. A little dusty from lack of use recently, but oh boy it was used a lot back in the months following the release of CMBO and CMBB. So here it goes...

Nobody is asking for those things and nobody in their right mind would expect them to be considered. All of your examples are talking about a much much finer level of control than I am proposing. I doubt I would be playing CM if it was that complicated.Exactly smile.gif The problem is everybody thinks that their pet request is reasonable, wouldn't have a negative impact, and is far more important than any other suggestion made by anybody else. But why should we select your idea over all others, especially ones that have far more merit and would probably increase realism (like a Follow/Convoy type command)? This is the typical thing I find with "it's very simple and wouldn't be a problem" arguments is that they are never made in the context of the hundreds of other similar suggestions we get. So if we lower the bar to let in yours, why should we not also implement all the others?

Just because it's deliberate doesn't mean it is the best way to do something. Oh, of course you're absolutely correct. And I never said the way we implemented it is perfect. What I am arguing about is the Realism aspect, not Playability or Useability. Unless I am convinced that there is a problem with the Realism, a problem with the Playability, and a problem with the Useability... I don't see any reason to change the way it is. The problem is that the arguments here are being aimed at Useability and Playability at the expense of Realism. That's why there is resistence to change.

Did you forget all those posts you made about how the grogs will hate it but the change is for the better?I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I don't care about pissing off the Grogs if it is in the best interest of the simulation. Ironically, the Grogs are the ones arguing against changing the system. Usually they are first in line for wanting more micromanagement control, even at the expense of Realism.

Steve

[jim crowley]

Steve,

this is a bit off-topic for this thread but while you are here....(assuming you still are)

I know its not quite cat-out-of-the-bag time yet but you recent bones vis a vis graphic details and all those dead parrots left me wondering.

Whilst very detailed representations will no doubt increase the immersion factor will they have any broader application?

Currently, a squad with its three generic figures is largely, as I understand it, an abstraction.

The CMX2 squad however, with its 9 very detailed(?)figures, all doing their own little things, sounds very un-abstract.

So, if a grenade hits, say, the MG42 team will the firepower of the squad immediately change to reflect this and might the MG42 be damaged and out for good? And so on. In fact, will we see the grenade hit a specific part of the squad?

Or, is the CMX2 squad just a prettier abstraction and the MG42 or whatever reappears elsewhere ,as it does with CMxx and the grenade does generic damage to two random characters?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jim crowley:
Steve,

this is a bit off-topic for this thread but while you are here....(assuming you still are)

I know its not quite cat-out-of-the-bag time yet but you recent bones vis a vis graphic details and all those dead parrots left me wondering.

Whilst very detailed representations will no doubt increase the immersion factor will they have any broader application?

Currently, a squad with its three generic figures is largely, as I understand it, an abstraction.

The CMX2 squad however, with its 9 very detailed(?)figures, all doing their own little things, sounds very un-abstract.

So, if a grenade hits, say, the MG42 team will the firepower of the squad immediately change to reflect this and might the MG42 be damaged and out for good? And so on. In fact, will we see the grenade hit a specific part of the squad?

Or, is the CMX2 squad just a prettier abstraction and the MG42 or whatever reappears elsewhere ,as it does with CMxx and the grenade does generic damage to two random characters? Hey Jim - this was discussed in detail previously - a search of the forum, or a look at aka_tom_w's bones thread will yield you dividends.

[jim crowley]

Hey Jim - this was discussed in detail previously - a search of the forum, or a look at aka_tom_w's bones thread will yield you dividends. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Thanks Michael; I thought I had caught most of them there bones, obviously not!

I must have a good hunt through tom_w's thread when time permits.

[CobaltTiger]

Steve, believe it or not I'm happy with that answer. :eek: I think you were correct that I was looking more at those rare exceptions than at the broader picture. Or perhaps you simply bonked me over the head enough that the gears started turning again. In any case, thanks for taking the time to explain your view to me. It's deeply appreciated.

My last comment about "how the grogs will hate it" was just drawing a paralell between you telling the grogs they're wrong and me telling you you're wrong. :D But since you've won me over you can feel free to disregard that bit.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Ironically, the Grogs are the ones arguing against changing the system. Usually they are first in line for wanting more micromanagement control, even at the expense of Realism.Gee, and all this time I thought it was the grogs who always argued for more realism. I guess I'm not a grog after all.

:confused:

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks Colbalt :D

Michael, you are correct that Grogs are the ones who THINK they are always arguing for more realism. Usually theory and practice line up nicely, but sometimes the arguments wind up being more like this passenger thing. Yes, it might be more realistic for more control in some situations, but if there is no good way to control the context of the use... things can become LESS realistic oveall.

To see what I mean, go back to the ASL rule list and check out all the low level details that are simulated. Each one of them can be seen as Grognardy since the average gamer wouldn't care about them (and would steer clear of the game because of the sheer volume of them!). But how many of those Grogy rules, which in and of themselves are realistic, lead to totally unrealistic (gamey) tactics and usage? From what I can tell, quite a few.

The trick is to balance individual features in with the Big Picture of the game. This might mean that something realisitic, but uncommon, can't be simulated or simulated to the extent realism would encourage without making the simulation as a whole less realistic. We've had long and involved discussions about such things, such as crews from abandoned weapons/vehicles, exotic weapons, the whole Rarity pricing system, etc. We're willing to sacrifice the outlier stuff so that the core can be better. In the words of Spock, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few :D

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
To see what I mean, go back to the ASL rule list and check out all the low level details that are simulated. Each one of them can be seen as Grognardy since the average gamer wouldn't care about them (and would steer clear of the game because of the sheer volume of them!). But how many of those Grogy rules, which in and of themselves are realistic, lead to totally unrealistic (gamey) tactics and usage? From what I can tell, quite a few.

Such as?

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, now your testing my memory about discussions that took place, largely, in 1997-1999. That hurts my head :D

The one that leaps to mind is lighting buildings on fire. Sure, it is realistic to be able to light a building on fire, but in reality (at least in the West) it was rarely done. In the East it wasn't common either, except for scorched earth operations which aren't combat ops.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Oh, now your testing my memory about discussions that took place, largely, in 1997-1999. That hurts my head :D

The one that leaps to mind is lighting buildings on fire. Sure, it is realistic to be able to light a building on fire, but in reality (at least in the West) it was rarely done. In the East it wasn't common either, except for scorched earth operations which aren't combat ops.

Steve Ah, good one. I suspect demo of a bridge is another one.

Yes, I remember the odd scenario of Crescendo of Doom with all of Board 5 (the forest board) in flames... :D

I will, however, lobby for inclusion of that most famous of all grog-rules that never seemed to make it into the official rule books: the "Damsel in Distress" rule. You know, like the DYO Squad Leader or Sniper! scenario where the hottest girl in school is being held hostage by your current enemy of the week, and you and your friends - represented by the best units in the order of battle - have to go rescue her. In fact, this should be the demo mission for the first CMX2 module. smile.gif

<font size=0> Ok, kidding, but only just...I know you all did such things in high school...</font>