Will upcoming patch require past scenarios to be upgraded?

Discussion in 'Command Ops Series' started by HelmutHerr, Dec 7, 2017.

  1. hubee0

    hubee0 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2017
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    13
    My 5 cents. I am afraid, that the current sales model may not be convenient for the developer in a long run. Let's assume that more and more custom (community created) scenarios appear. They can be of similar quality to commercial scenarios. Users will be able to play a lot of interesting scenarios for free, not bothering about payable DLC. Free core engine certainly helps gathering wider community around the game. But it is a double edged sword.
     
    simovitch likes this.
  2. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,908
    Likes Received:
    252
    Maybe. But I don't see a flood of user generated scenarios.
     
  3. Werewolf13

    Werewolf13 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    2
    Is that $10 per module or $10 for all owned modules together?
     
  4. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,908
    Likes Received:
    252
    Just one payment of $10 and that will pay for the upgrade of all your existing modules, no matter how many you own
     
  5. TMO

    TMO Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2014
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re accessing woods with mechanised infantry and light tanks (or any other unit), you can set their movement class in the estab editor to ‘foot’. You’d probably want to tweek their movement rate though. Massive compromise I know but it would allow you to infiltrate through woods and outflank.

    Regards

    Tim
     
  6. john connor

    john connor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,822
    Likes Received:
    85
    Easier still you can change the woods movement properties on the map in mapmaker to permit motorised movement at a highly penalised rate.
     
  7. TMO

    TMO Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2014
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the map maker (which from another thread you might remember I don’t have the mm manual) can you differentiate between light and heavy tanks when setting movement penalties?

    Regards

    Tim
     
  8. john connor

    john connor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,822
    Likes Received:
    85
    No. You're right, Tim. It's not quite as refined a work-around as messing with the estabs. It's just motorised or foot in mm. Motorised includes everything with tracks or wheels. We have suggested to Dave a few times that it would be nice to have motorised broken down, but apparently that's a lot of coding work.
     
  9. TMO

    TMO Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2014
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    0
    But you're approach is interesting. Btw, the current estabs for Br motorised inf coys have 10 15cwt trucks as transport (I assume) for the infantry. A late '44 inf coy would have 3 15cwt trucks carrying stores, tools and greatcoats. When infantry were lorry-bound they would use dedicated 3t troop-carrying vehicles (TCVs) which iirc were slightly longer than a standard 3t lorry.

    Regards

    Tim
     
  10. jimcarravallah

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Messages:
    629
    Likes Received:
    45
    I was checking on the current defaults for MapMaker (both Matrix Version 5.1.28 and Steam Beta 5.1.31) and here is what I found for movement rates:

    Orchard: Motorized -- 6, non-Motorized -- 37
    Woods: Motorized -- 4, non-Motorized -- 30
    Light Woods: Motorized -- 12, non-Motorized -- 40
    Broken: Motorized -- 8, non-Motorized 37

    and, for comparison's sake

    Highway: Motorized -- 100, non-Motorized -- 100

    Since these values can be adjusted by the scenario designer, if there are scenarios that don't permit limited motorized movement through woods or broken terrain, it was by the scenario designer's / mapper's decision rather than a default of the game.
     
  11. Werewolf13

    Werewolf13 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    2
    That's fair...
     
  12. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2014
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    13
    I think the BAINBw is not the best place to raise such an issue, the best candidate for the Game is the institution that would be using it, and that's the Command & General Staff College (FüAkBw).

    I raised the issue of Computer-Assisted simulation last year there, not specifically with CO in mind. Truth is, there is absolutely no interest and in fact, they have been reversing that sort of development by replacing Computer-Assisted Simulations with umpires again. And I have to admit, they convinced me of that approach since then.

    Cheers,

    A
     
  13. jimcarravallah

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Messages:
    629
    Likes Received:
    45
    What they run into is the cost to run combat simulations to train commanders at the expense of reducing the readiness of "go to war" equipment vs. cost of training commanders without stressing their readiness position.

    You balance the cost of fuel, dummy ammo, gadgets to "umpire" combat, and stress on the equipment against a simulation that may have a one time development cost that is less than the recurring fuel, ammo, equipment and "umpire" cost to meet the same ends.
     
  14. Tzar007

    Tzar007 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2017
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    3
    Generally speaking, AI is making such leaps recently that I think such trends can be reversed again quite soon. I'm also a regular chess club player and what Google did 2 weeks ago with their DeepMind AlphaZero engine in a 100 games chess match against the current strongest chess program in the world (Stockfish) was revolutionary and is quite the talk in the chess world. AI is going to be that "4th Industrial Revolution" and we're now starting to see it.
     
  15. GoodGuy

    GoodGuy Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    24
    Well, the LGAN course ("Lehrgang für den Generalstabsdienst/Admiralstabsdienst national", 2 years) is the most sophisticated course and the place where tactical and operational command is being taught.
    Thing is, unlike with say tactical command training in a German Panzerdivision (where simulators can be used), the bulk of the teaching in the LGAN (and lower level courses) still involves didactic teaching, means teacher-centred instructions. That's like in the early 1900s.
    So, you have to convince them to get to more modern methods of teaching.

    I suggested the BAINBw, as it's a sub-department of the ordnance department (which is responsible for biddings and procurement) and as it is the IT procurement branch of ordnance , so they a) know if there's a budget and b) they are more open-minded regarding software solutions, especially if it's about software that has the potential to save a lot of money (for fuel, maintenance, repairs, targeting and F&F laser devices, personnel, etc.).
    Also, the FüAk is part of the forces, but the ordnance department is part of the civilian/ministerial branch, including armaments. The FüAk may express their preferences (to go back to old-school methods, or the other way around), but the decisions are formed elsewhere, and other countries are ahead already.

    That is for tactical training, when they go out to the field, maybe even up to Bn level, to practice coordination and tactical approach. That level does not include operational training/teaching and is taught in lower courses.
    Whatsoever, "outdoor" training costs a lot of money, there are large numbers of laser devices for infantry military exercises and also for AT and armored vehicle exercises, for instance, and they are using umpires, correct. Operational level teaching is provided on-site, though, in the academy.
    http://www.fueakbw.de/index.php/de/lgan

    Years ago, West Point was tinkering with Close Combat, the Marines got their own version. Not because CC is an extremely realistic simulation (3D simulators are way more effective/powerful nowadays), but because it gave a cadet or a Marines NCO an idea about what kind of management skills you need (tactical approach, flanking manoeuvres, effects of shock, panic and fear, use of the right gear at the right time, coordinating a platoon, etc.) to handle small units.

    Their teachers/management may not be interested for 3 other reasons:
    • a) They may not like computer simulations
    • b) The software they were using was too abstract/complex, not customizable, or did not deliver an analysis of the progress/performance of the student
    • c) Using software (with the participants on their PCs) may reduce the instructors' total hours (of didactic teaching), as the students could use the programs with less teaching. So, in a way, it's like union workers doing everything to prevent the introduction of robots in the manufacturing line.
    With quite some new solutions or methods, it takes a live presentation or a hands-on seminar, to show people the usefulness of such solutions, in many different sectors (civil and military).
    In the medical sector, it took surgeons decades to use software in the anteroom of the operating theatre. With the software used there, surgeons are able to minimize medical malpractice and confusion: it prevents that wrong body parts are processed (uh !), it keeps track of artificial parts (say knee joint) applied, etc., so it became a main tool for quality management in the operating theatre, once they were conviced that software in the anteroom could increase safety and quality.

    Depending on what kind of software they were using, they may be used to bland abstract NATO "simulators", that rather resemble AWACs screens. No immersion, just lines and primitive counters. Well, unless I missed something. But I doubt that common operational scale software has the visual and detail level of CO2, if there is any op-level piece, at all.
     
    #35 GoodGuy, Dec 16, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2017
  16. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2014
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    13
    Hello,
    I think this is an interesting discussion, but probably not the right thread to have this debate. I would like to have the right of reply once. Everyone is welcome to open a thread or send me a PM to chat about that.

    As an opening statement: I understand that you all want to see CO, and wargaming as a whole, emancipated, funded, and finally suceed. I am on your side,Ialso want to see all that happening. I just expressed my pessimissm in regards to a German Government Contract.

    A good AI is not all that it takes to have a feasible simulation for military practitioners. Instructors need to be able to drive the simulation into a certain direction at any given moment, to guarantee that the student`s learning goals are achieved and you need to ensure proper debriefing so he understands what went wrong and what worked. You don't sit anyone in front of a programme, without an instructor, and expect him to learn anything.

    Just to clarify for bystanders: The LGAN puts heavy emphasis on operational leadership, it is not made primarily for tactics.

    I disagree partly with this assessment. The FüAk would have a major say, and (since you, Gunnar, seem to know your way around) BMVg FüSK I 3. No Simulation would be introduced without the FüAk having at least a veto. The BAINBw would surely know if there is an existing budged though.
    But that is really nothing to discuss here. If you can work your magic with the BAINBw in favour for one of our most favourite game, I surely won't stand in the way of that.

    I am not sure what you mean by "That is for tactical Training". I stated two facts, in short:

    1.) I rose the issue in regards to computer-aided simulations with the College.
    2.) they were not interested.

    That is not really up for interpretation.

    I agree with this approach to wargaming, but also think that such a approach can hardly be unumpired, or not aided by instructors. When laptops and other IT-equipment was introduced by the Army Academy in late 2015, that the students could take home and do their course work, I also suggested to include a simulation. My idea was, a.) that the students could solve tactical problems as homework and bring their solutions and results back to class (so they could get teacher feedback on their work), and b.) to be able to have excercises in their freetime among their peers, making the connection to the prussian characteristic of making "war a hobby for officers" and the original Kriegsspiele by Reiswitz. I knew that wouldn't get through,but I wanted to have it noted, so someone in the future can pick the idea up if he likes.

    On the Platoon-level, I would find the application of simulatiors even more doubtful.

    Don't get me wrong, but I think it might be quite a leap to think to know why these people have been opposing this.

    I agree.

    They are professional enough to understand that a product they might procure tomorrow is not the same as the product they procured yesterday.

    And here we slowely drill down to the core of our disagreement. Such a software we are talking about does not, and I would say "never", reduce the workload for staff.It increases it. A Computer doesn't tell you what you have been doing wrong and how you could have performed better. It needs to be maintained, the scenarios need to be written, staff and operators need to be trained in using it and so on.

    That's the point. You surely know that in tactics/operations training you discuss for the majority of the time your decision-makig. Instructors want to know WHY you arrive at the decisions you arrive at. So basically, the most interesting things for your instructors happen in your head, and even before you hit the first button.

    That doesn't mean that every new invention will make it at some point. I have not seen Tanks with double turrets again....;)

    The cosmetics do not matter. As every CPX, you set up your CP and do not even see the computer that is running the simulation. You radio your decisions back to a.) the umpire who then uses the simulation, or b.) your umpire who then uses his experience to produce an outcome according to IMP (Intrinsic Military Probability). That's how you produce immersion, not by sitting in front of a screen.

    No, they don't. Especially not in this case.

    The Exercises the LGAN-Participants do, have never seen a single tank moving. So there is not calculation, in the likes of "how much does it cost to have actual tanks driving around" VS. "how much does a software cost that simulates these things". That counts for more CPXs all over the place, that's what makes a CPX a CPX. You don't need Units driving around in the field to teach Operations and Tactics.

    In the case of the FüAk, they have a Pool of retired Generals and Admirals who get invited to umpire the major CPXs. the smaller one are umpired by instructors. So for the participant, nothing changes. He still sits in his simulated TOC and issues his orders. The question is rather, do we want a computer programme ON TOP of the umpires/instructors we already have.


    Okay, I will leave it at that. If anyone feels the need to, send me a PM or open another thread.

    Cheers,

    A
     
    #36 Iconoclast, Dec 17, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2017
  17. 共工熙雲

    共工熙雲 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2017
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    6
    Excuse me, when will the update patch be released? Does it cause players' homemade scripts to be unused after the upgrade?
     
  18. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,908
    Likes Received:
    252
    The Upgrade (note this is more than a patch) is not ready yet. We're still working on conversion code. It's not going to get done before Xmas.
    Not sure what you mean by homemade scripts. The term script normally means a set of instructions in code or interpreted language. If, however, you mean user created or customised scenarios, then our aim here is to allow these to be automatically converted. You won't be able to automatically convert stock scenarios. We're actually working on the code to handle this right now.
     
  19. Kurt

    Kurt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    877
    Likes Received:
    36
    liking the Gif , looks like linear algebra , complex number geometry and some quantum theory . Is that you in the picture Gunnar ?
     
  20. Kurt

    Kurt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    877
    Likes Received:
    36
    The Indian and Chinese military are happy to spend lavishly , perhaps one of those could fund CO2 .
     

Share This Page