Is 1:1 infantry modeling just a form of Anal Retentiveness?
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:33 pm
I have given much thought to this subject and its implications on wargames at this scale.
I am talking about games that model individual vehicles (perhaps tracking each crewmens status) and infantry at the squad level and below. This major design consideration, unit size, is a significant parameter in how the rest of the game falls into place. As it is now, it seems very difficult to model individual infantrymen. Close Combat had this to a degree, and it actually worked to a platoon scale or so. But it had its limitations as far as modeling armor, and also larger infantry battles. The player as commander was overtaxed.
In WWII combat, at the scale these games are modeling (company(s) of tanks and infantry); would a battle commander really have the ability to get timely nose-counts as far as infantry are concerned? This fog-of-control over ones own units is mis-modeled in my opinion when a commander can click any unit, no matter what its state, and get a nose count.
I suppose its just a civilians point of view that has been interjected into a military situation. Many of these developers are not military types.
My hope would be that a game would track these details but not always report them to the player.
As an example...a half-squad is sent forward over a hill and is out of LOS of all other friendly elements. It has no wireless means of communication. It is bush-whacked and takes casualties. Does the player get to see what shot him up? Does the player get to see how many casualties the unit has? Is the unit in any state to 'recieve' orders? Does the player even get to see anything but a friendly question mark?
In a real fire-fight, many means of communications break down. A commander might get an idea of casulties from a runner from the aid station. That is not exactly real-time.
In modern methodical warfare, armies like the USA might approach almost real time casualty reporting. But it is never exact. For WWII, 1:1 is a mistake and a slope that has been, or will be, slid into.
I like the abstracted infantry in PC and combined with improved relative spotting/Intel, can actually simulate warfare better. It achieves a balance of fun and realism that is the real goal.
I am talking about games that model individual vehicles (perhaps tracking each crewmens status) and infantry at the squad level and below. This major design consideration, unit size, is a significant parameter in how the rest of the game falls into place. As it is now, it seems very difficult to model individual infantrymen. Close Combat had this to a degree, and it actually worked to a platoon scale or so. But it had its limitations as far as modeling armor, and also larger infantry battles. The player as commander was overtaxed.
In WWII combat, at the scale these games are modeling (company(s) of tanks and infantry); would a battle commander really have the ability to get timely nose-counts as far as infantry are concerned? This fog-of-control over ones own units is mis-modeled in my opinion when a commander can click any unit, no matter what its state, and get a nose count.
I suppose its just a civilians point of view that has been interjected into a military situation. Many of these developers are not military types.
My hope would be that a game would track these details but not always report them to the player.
As an example...a half-squad is sent forward over a hill and is out of LOS of all other friendly elements. It has no wireless means of communication. It is bush-whacked and takes casualties. Does the player get to see what shot him up? Does the player get to see how many casualties the unit has? Is the unit in any state to 'recieve' orders? Does the player even get to see anything but a friendly question mark?
In a real fire-fight, many means of communications break down. A commander might get an idea of casulties from a runner from the aid station. That is not exactly real-time.
In modern methodical warfare, armies like the USA might approach almost real time casualty reporting. But it is never exact. For WWII, 1:1 is a mistake and a slope that has been, or will be, slid into.
I like the abstracted infantry in PC and combined with improved relative spotting/Intel, can actually simulate warfare better. It achieves a balance of fun and realism that is the real goal.