Welcome to The Few Good Men

Thanks for visiting our club and having a look around, there is a lot to see. Why not consider becoming a member?

Thought Exercise

Bones26

FGM 2nd Lieutenant
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
1,090
Reaction score
453
Age
70
Location
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Gentlemen,

If I may pose the following thought exercises :unsure:to those willing to contribute their musings to the thread, it is this.

If you could design the ultimate PC wargame imaginable, something that would be a grognards wet dream, how would you describe it?

Bonus question…:), what game (other than Combat Mission) currently comes closest to meeting your quest for the ideal wargame?

Cheers!


"There's a good reason why nobody studies history, it just teaches you too much." ~ Noam Chomsky
 
Honestly CM hits pretty much the important things. Obviously there could be graphics improvements but to make the game better I would focus on the AI. I would like to see better autonomous actions over a larger span. In other words I would like to give a platoon more general orders about where to go and what to do if they encounter resistance and spend less time fiddling with details. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying don't allow us to take direct command of a squad for some specific orders I'd like to increase the opportunity for people truly play at a higher level of command. Right now you still have to get down and be the squad sergeant to get the company CO's orders to happen.

After that it would be in some of the details of the combat interaction that are current limitations: close in spotting (even dopes looking down at their phones don't usually walk into cars), night time (probably a special case of close in spotting problems), flares (it used to be dark), through and through AP rounds (can an AP shell really go through two of those vehicles, 12 of them?), limitations on area fire (I can see enemy in that windows but if they duck down I cannot fire on the window any more - WTH).

Please note I am not talking about "fixing" soldiers not doing exactly what I want (real life is messy Pvt Goober is a shitty soldier it says so in his reviews - get over it), or soldiers failing at what I asked them to do (really you expected them to get across that road covered by the MG and assault the building - no one could do that), general spotting claims (real life is messy and not everyone sees things at the same time - get over it).
 
For my own contribution to this thought exercise, I think it would be great if there was a truly fully scalable wargame game that would allow you to initially set-up and then incrementally drill down from the nation level to the platoon level and to play at any formation level be it army group to squad.

A game where you could first initiate the creation, composition & attributes of your countries armed forces and the subsequent strategic deployment of those military forces (i.e.: HOI scale), to then engage using those very same force compositions at the operational level in any of the particular theater of operations you may have deployed them to (i.e.: TAOW scale), and that then allow you to further narrow down your own engagement of these same assets and command them at a more tactical level (I.e.: Command Ops 2 scale), and finally to be able to take over & direct their actions at the very pointy end of the spear level (i.e.: Combat Mission scale).

All this being done with high degree of fidelity at each level as well as vis a vis the other levels so that continuity with the overall force deployment can be maintained. You the player, would then have the option to play and advance the game at any and/or all of the above levels depending on your mood or preferences, with the outcomes of your specific plans, directions & engagement(s) then being appropriately reflected in the game play both up and down the force’s hierarchy and going forward.

So, if for example you were to deploy your army group to an attack of a particular region and establish their objectives to secure what would constitute a victory, then once that plan was established, you could then switch to a particular divisions / regiment’s tasks within that particular army group and further fine tune their actions etc. And if you were to then assume command of a company from within that sub-group and your company level tactics you are directing at a lower level were not to succeed and an objective specific to them not secured, then that would be reflected not only in the details surrounding of the attrition, combat status & ready state of all the particular units involved, but would also engender the appropriate ripple effects strategically & tactically within all the other game play levels.

The genesis of this idea came from the way Command Ops 2 allows one to engage in the action at any time from either very broad to very detailed force management or any combination of the two and in between, coupled with extremely detailed asset modeling, order delays etc. and with a very competent A.I. all carried out on an open map concept. I thought if one could couple this with the way Armored Brigade allows the for the selection of the battlefield topography and add to that the manner in which Combat Mission provides for small unit tactics best suited for their ground level field of view, and I thought it would be interesting if this could all be wrapped up in a single package and a player could jump in or out any level of complexity all still within the chosen gameplay scenario / campaign or whatever.

Expanded further, this could also provide an interesting platform for a multi-player experienced that could be crafted to allow for individual participants to ‘command’ at various levels of a chosen force hierarchy and in that process gain “combat” experience to receive promotions to higher formations etc.

After all, it is just a thought exercise…

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
An enhanced CM using Virtual Reality.

Strictly speaking this could be done, by tying it in with something like Post Scriptum or Hell Let Loose.

I played EvE Online for many years, and I always dreamed of having a tie-in first person shooter that would be utilised along with the giant space battles we all hear about.
First a caveat, those of you who are familiar with the EvE universe are already typing about Dust 514, a FPS shooter that was tied in with EvE.... sort of, in a very abstract way, but the interactivity between pilots in EvE and the ground troops in Dust 514 was restricted to ground bombardment, that's it. No further interaction was possible.

No, I wanted to see a giant space battle over a space station for example, after the shields were battered down by the attacking fleet whilst fending off the enemy fleet, assault transports would make their way to the now vulnerable-for-a-certain-period-of-time station, whilst having to be defended by their fleet, and delivering their loads of attacking soldiers to the station docking ports, those ports would have to be breached, defences and defenders overcome, with the transport acting as a respawn point and resupply until exhausted or destroyed by the opposing fleet, whereupon a new transport would have to come in to support the attack.
The battle would be won or lost depending on if the attackers could take the station in the time available, say 30 mins?, or the defenders held out long enough or the attacking fleet was driven off by the defending one.

As for Combat Mission, I'm in much agreement with what @A Canadian Cat said, CM is an excellent game, it just needs some polish, bugfixing, and a few extra options (f.ex, the old 'move to contact' from CMx1 is sorely missed), also having graphics as good as @Paleolithic Monks screenshots wouldn't go astray either, but game fidelity is infinitely more important.
 
Hundreds of guys linked together in a massive multiplayer game. Only one guy on each side is the commander and he just has a map and radio. Unless he wants to venture to the front to see things for himself.

Some men control tanks. Others are individual infantrymen, machine gunners, mortar men, etc.. Some men control artillery.

So the game is part first person shooter, part strategy game (for the commander and subordinate leaders).

No "computer assistance" with enemy identification or plotting units on the map for you. You do all of that on your own. You do it based on what you are TOLD over the radio or what you SEE for yourself.

All of the map reading mistakes and communication mistakes that people make will show up big time.
 
@Nemesis not sure if you've heard of the FPS 'Natural Selection'? It does that on a much smaller scale than what you're describing, but the elements are there.

It's an Alien vs Marine FPS.

The Marine Commander is in the commanders chair, he sees an overview of the map, but for the most part the only hostile forces he sees are what his soldiers see. He directs and equips his soldiers, tells where and what to build, places structures (although his soldiers have to 'build' them). By gaining resources from structures, he can improve his soldiers stats and equip them with better gear (jetpacks, shotguns, HMGs, etc).

The opposing Alien side does not have a commander, but does have a 'hive mind' to make up for that - similarly to the Marine Commander, what one alien sees, all aliens see. Aliens have to coordinate by communicating amongst themselves, by attacking Marines and their structures they gain resource points to 'evolve' quickly, becoming more dangerous and gaining extra abilities. If killed, they must start over.
 
@Nemesis not sure if you've heard of the FPS 'Natural Selection'? It does that on a much smaller scale than what you're describing, but the elements are there.

It's an Alien vs Marine FPS.

The Marine Commander is in the commanders chair, he sees an overview of the map, but for the most part the only hostile forces he sees are what his soldiers see. He directs and equips his soldiers, tells where and what to build, places structures (although his soldiers have to 'build' them). By gaining resources from structures, he can improve his soldiers stats and equip them with better gear (jetpacks, shotguns, HMGs, etc).

The opposing Alien side does not have a commander, but does have a 'hive mind' to make up for that - similarly to the Marine Commander, what one alien sees, all aliens see. Aliens have to coordinate by communicating amongst themselves, by attacking Marines and their structures they gain resource points to 'evolve' quickly, becoming more dangerous and gaining extra abilities. If killed, they must start over.
I have not heard of it, but I am a big Aliens fan. Sounds awesome.
 
Seamless scaling
Human-level AI for all human actors
Complete realism in graphics
Complete realism in physical simulation
User-friendly interface
Perfectly balanced from a gameplay perspective
Turn-based


Bonus question: Medieval: Total War (the original first game in the series)
 
Well, I think if you take Hearts of Iron + Command Modern Operations+Command Ops 2 + the Graviteam Engine or Panzer Command Ostfront you would have the ultimate "leadership game" because you could be the commander in chief, a Theater, Army, Corps, Division, Regiment or battalion commander and in a stretch, a company commander. Game Turn options would be real-time with a pause or turn-based WEGO.
 
I think the thing I miss the most in many games is that things should matter more in general.

For example, if your men are exhausted, they should fight markedly worse and have noticeably worse morale. Not like in CM where yes, there's an exhaustion system, but it's hardly used for anything. It's just a meter that runs down and then you have to stay stationary for a little while before you can run again.

Things like ammo levels and whether you're flanked or surrounded should also play a big part in unit morale. Weather should matter more. If you keep your men sitting in a foxhole for an hour in -20 degrees, they should start to lose stamina and morale.

And then I miss more gravity and inertia to battles. CM does well in this regard, but games like Total War make battles feel lightweight because units run around at ease and whole units can change facing and direction immediately at a doubleclick on the mouse.

There are also too many battles in games like Total War, and most of them are pretty inconsequential. Real history had fewer pitched battles, because armies are not easy or cheap to raise, and because in real life, if you manage to gather 100 bandits and the baron comes riding after you with 500 men, you probably prefer to just scatter into the countryside rather than to make a stand on some hill. But in TW, the player is often forced to fight such small scraps that have no consequence. Real battles often decided the outcome of whole wars, and fates of kingdoms. In TW, they are just... meh.
 
Bonus question: Medieval: Total War (the original first game in the series)
I thought it was Shogun...
@Bulletpoint
You're right, and I also played Shogun. But I just meant the first MTW, and not MTW2.

Somehow I feel MTW1 was the first game in the series, but maybe that's just because it was the first that took place in my part of the world.

Or maybe it's because I spent so much more time playing that than Shogun, which was a great game, but more limited.
 
CM would be my game, but I'd like to see them mitigate the GOD factor along the lines of @A Canadian Cat 's hard-cat rules. I spend way too much time trying to make my units react to enemy elements they know nothing about. Additionally, I'd like to see changes that would make turn mechanics simpler (e.g. waypoint manipulation, LOS/Targeting, etc). Wouldn't it be nice to be able to delete waypoints, area fire sound contacts, and replace, or throw-away ammo that you mistakenly acquired, and now you find your men tiring quickly, and not being able to move at the speed you want. Also, I like to play at ground level where I can use the terrain like real people would do. To that end, it would be nice to find those spots without often losing your unit selection, and having to start over again. Finally, some kind of tool that would aid in managing MP vs MP campains and tournaments with things like casualty retention, and replacements.
 
I think the thing I miss the most in many games is that things should matter more in general.

For example, if your men are exhausted, they should fight markedly worse and have noticeably worse morale. Not like in CM where yes, there's an exhaustion system, but it's hardly used for anything. It's just a meter that runs down and then you have to stay stationary for a little while before you can run again.

Things like ammo levels and whether you're flanked or surrounded should also play a big part in unit morale. Weather should matter more. If you keep your men sitting in a foxhole for an hour in -20 degrees, they should start to lose stamina and morale.

And then I miss more gravity and inertia to battles. CM does well in this regard, but games like Total War make battles feel lightweight because units run around at ease and whole units can change facing and direction immediately at a doubleclick on the mouse.

There are also too many battles in games like Total War, and most of them are pretty inconsequential. Real history had fewer pitched battles, because armies are not easy or cheap to raise, and because in real life, if you manage to gather 100 bandits and the baron comes riding after you with 500 men, you probably prefer to just scatter into the countryside rather than to make a stand on some hill. But in TW, the player is often forced to fight such small scraps that have no consequence. Real battles often decided the outcome of whole wars, and fates of kingdoms. In TW, they are just... meh.
@Bulletpoint

Insofar as any of the military games I've personally played, I find Command Ops 2 comes closest to incorporating most all of the features you've highlighted. In particular I find the implementation of fatigue, morale, suppression on unit performance, as well as their enemy intelligence and unit order delay features are extremely well done. Watching your tactics very gradually unfold and play out while you continually have that internal debate if perhaps you should act now or maybe you could instead wait some more before deciding to parcel more forces directly into a local battle, or instead hold in them reserve to exploit or defend a flank etc create just the right amount of tension & engagement I believe we all want in a military game.
 
CM would be my game, but I'd like to see them mitigate the GOD factor along the lines of @A Canadian Cat 's hard-cat rules. I spend way too much time trying to make my units react to enemy elements they know nothing about.
That would be nice. I don't have any easy design ideas to accomplish this.

Additionally, I'd like to see changes that would make turn mechanics simpler (e.g. waypoint manipulation, LOS/Targeting, etc). Wouldn't it be nice to be able to delete waypoints, area fire sound contacts, and replace, or throw-away ammo that you mistakenly acquired, and now you find your men tiring quickly, and not being able to move at the speed you want. Also, I like to play at ground level where I can use the terrain like real people would do. To that end, it would be nice to find those spots without often losing your unit selection, and having to start over again. Finally, some kind of tool that would aid in managing MP vs MP campains and tournaments with things like casualty retention, and replacements.
Some good in the weeds ideas here too.
 
Back
Top