Is 1:1 infantry modeling just a form of Anal Retentiveness?

[Yoozername]

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.

[Laryngoscope]

My hope would be that a game would track these details but not always report them to the player.

Agreed.

[elmo3]

Thankfully very few games force us into the role of one and only one commander on the battlefield. Usually we are allowed to move up and down the chain of command and play different roles. It would be a boring game that only allowed us to see the walls of our command bunker while waiting for reports to come in over the radio or on foot. Somewhere between that and the need to unzip and then zip the fly of every soldier who needs to take a leak is where most good designers end up with their model. A good designer always remembers he is designing a game that is to be played for fun.

[Yoozername]

elmo3.  Do you imagine anyone has suggested that?
 
I am addressing what a real commander COULDN'T know.  There is a difference and its called gaminess.

[Mobius]

One way of looking at it I found on global security is for command to be aware of the combat power of a unit two levels down. However, this was seen more of a goal as it not always possible even in the modern army.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

elmo3. Do you imagine anyone has suggested that?

I am addressing what a real commander COULDN'T know. There is a difference and its called gaminess.

There is no one real commander in Panzer Command. That was my point. We get to play the role of many commanders so we don't need to worry about that kind of gaminess. If that doesn't work for you then Panzer Command is probably not the series for you.

[Yoozername]

Well thanks for clearing up your point.  Unfortunately, it has little to do with this thread.  I am talking about the evolution of games at this scale.  You are talking about...what are you talking about again?
 
That's a good note Mobius.  And its what I am talking about. 

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Well thanks for clearing up your point.  Unfortunately, it has little to do with this thread.  I am talking about the evolution of games at this scale.  You are talking about...what are you talking about again?

That's a good note Mobius.  And its what I am talking about. 

It has everything to do with this thread.

He's is talking about WHY games at this scale allow for the kind of intel you correctly state is unrealistic IF, and ONLY IF, the player is supposed to be playing the role of ONLY the overall commander of the forces involved.

[Waffenamt]

A good place to have started this thread would've been over at Battlefront - but I guess if you're banned from there .... [:-]

[freeboy]

This is alway an issue when games use a command and control structure, there will always be some give and some take. do you really want to control the individuals, or the tanks? or the sqauds etc etc.. and always some will be on the I want everything and some on the let the ia handle these and lets try to model ccommanding, etc. I find either approach works, but as the scale goes up, ie towards larger units, my personnal preference is for less individual control and more generic, ie move there with engage orders. etc

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Nick Schieben
A good place to have started this thread would've been over at Battlefront - but I guess if you're banned from there .... [:-]

I don't think the subject would get a fair hearing there. I saw one guy try to bring it up with a very rational arguement against it get slapped down. Heretic! BF is heavily invested in 1:1 infantry modeling now. There is no retreat.

[Reichenberg]

If you are not happy with how C&C is portrayed in wargames (PC, CC, CM, ToW...) so far, maybe the following is something for you:
http://www.wargamer.com/articles/talacosi_preview/
 
It is probably not my cup of tea, but if people are into these kind of games... voila.
 
Uwe