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?
Register

Combat Mission : Is it a game or a simulation?

Josey Wales

Josey Wales

FGM Company Sergeant Major
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Jul 22, 2016
Messages
750
Reaction score
963
Location
Berkshire, UK
Website
www.youtube.com
Is CM just a game or can it be officially classified as a simulation of combined arms warfare?

When I say 'just a game' of course I mean one of the best games ever made for a computer and don't mean to belittle what it is. What I am trying to get at is, does CM meet the criteria necessary for it to be classified as a simulation?

That then brings up the question as to what are the criteria something has to meet to be able to be classified as a simulation?

When I first started playing CM I saw it as a simulation due to it's sheer depth. I don't think I've ever played anything quite with the depth that this series of games has. Later, I started to see it more as 'a game', primarily because I saw other games such as Steel Beasts and DCS as actual simulations as they attempt to actually put you in the cockpit or the cupola so to speak.

Now I've flipped back and think it is correct to call CM a simulation. There are 2 reasons for this is reversal;

1. I think it is correct to call games such as Steel Beasts and DCS simulations, but they also fall into the category of being 'simulators'. This in my mind frees up the definition of 'simulation' to be available to apply to games like CM which don't actually put you in the cockpit or the cupola but nevertheless attempt to realistically imitate the battlefield.

2. A recent post of the BFC forums confirms that a modified version of CM is being used as an analytical tool by the UK MOD (Ministry of Defence) and this ties in nicely with the Wikipedia definition of a computer simulation: "A computer simulation is an attempt to model a real-life or hypothetical situation on a computer so that it can be studied to see how the system works. By changing variables in the simulation, predictions may be made about the behaviour of the system. It is a tool to virtually investigate the behaviour of the system under study"

I'm interested to hear the communities' thoughts on this.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, I was always told it's not a real simulation unless you're freezing your balls off in soaking wet clothing, haven't slept in 36 hours, and was last fed an inedible meal swimming in a rain-soaked tin half a day ago . . . :whistleo:
I suspect that's not what you mean here, is it? :sofa:

More seriously, it will be interesting to see where this discussion leads. :unsure:
 
I wonder what modifications are used for the military sim, and what scenarios they try.
My imagination runs wild here. Could there be outlandish ones? Like vs. higher tech...or aliens?? Or (hopefully not) putting down civilian unrest?

Speaking of wild imagination - maybe life is itself a simulation...so we may be engaging in a simulation within a simulation! :giggle:
 
I understand that the NZ DoD use a version of CMx2.
If a simulation is an attempt at abstraction of real life, then yes, I believe that BF are trying to emulate real life as far as technology and finance will allow them.
Flight sims, a la DCS, are incredibly detailed and deserve the tag simulation. Same with top of the shelf car sims. But they are always going to be a simulation, real life is always harder.
 
To @Josey Wales original question, I think Combat Mission is still just a game which simulates tactical level infantry combat better than most other games out there. I consider it a game because users can play multiple roles in the same experiential setting. To my mind a simulation puts users in a single role for the duration of the exercise; the purpose of such simulation being to teach, train, or enhance a person's knowledge or skills pertinent to the situation(s) being simulated. In my way of thinking, ARMA3 is a simulation in a game while Combat Mission is a game played in near realistic simulation.

I suspect the balance between reality and play drives game developers crazy. The best games are fun in a realistic sort of way; human bipolarity never ceases to amaze . . . :unsure:
 
Concord said:
I wonder what modifications are used for the military sim, and what scenarios they try.
Click to expand...

I remember reading a post from Steve at BF about a year or two ago where he was saying that in reality spotting is much harder and takes much longer to do than modelled in game but that it has been modelled this way in order to make the game more playable. So I think this is one of the differences you might see in a modified version for military analytics.

Also, I imagine TOE's will be relevant to modern formations, both friendly and potential enemies.
 
I think of CM as "just" a game. It's a game that tries to model actual tactical combat as closely as it can within the limitations of it's programming and the hardware it is being run on, but at the end of the day it's still a game. Not that that's a bad thing. I love playing games, and I doubt very much I would like actual combat. Too much death, pain, and generally being uncomfortable, don't you know. :)
 
The thing is since the mechanics of the fighting are simulated you can use the game as a simulation if the player "plays" the game like they would with real soldiers. For example if you want to use this as a simulation for a company commander. If that player looks at the game play as if they really were in charge of a company of real soldiers then I think we can view the game as a simulation.

If the player looks at it as a game then they can play it as a game.

The difference comes in the decisions you make after the simulation has metered out the effects of the enemy action on your soldiers.

The game part of the product does not prevent you from rushing headlong into enemy fire. It does not prevent you from sneaking on the corner of the objective and declaring victory because you "deny" your enemy some objective. But if you are using it as a simulation then you would get no credit for gaming objective rushes and you would fail the class for rushing headlong into enemy fire.

So, I think the CM games are simulations that can be played as games.
 
I usually play the game trying to minimize casualties as much as possible.
It could be classed as 'role playing', but it's one of the reasons I enjoy campaigns so much - because playing that way also derives a benefit to the unit and the side over time.
So in a way, 'caring' about the soldiers is another layer of simulation for me.
 
HOA_KSOP said:
It’s only a simulation when you play it in real time. Life ain’t Turn based...unless you’re mTk.
Click to expand...

It's only a simulation when you play WEGO. Life includes living, experienced soldiers under your command who can think and act for them selves ... there is no time for one person to act like 150 without a turn based system.
 
I can only imagine the real difficulties of being a company or battalion commander.
Even with modern day comms, the difficulties in staying up to date with the changing situation minute by minute, or trying to understand the situation based on a map.
And the real stress compared to making those decisions while sitting comfortably at your computer in your home.
Still, no other game I have played has shown me what combat might be like on that level. It's an engrossing game for sure.
End all war though... :(
 
A Canadian Cat said:
It's only a simulation when you play WEGO. Life includes living, experienced soldiers under your command who can think and act for them selves ... there is no time for one person to act like 150 without a turn based system.
Click to expand...

Which is kinda my point. You have to have a plan, you have to have trained people and a doctrine to support your plan. All in real-time...because the only time a commander is going to have all 150 people on the same page is at the mission brief.
 
No I mean your point is incorrect.

There is no way a company commander can play this game in real time because there is no time for one person to give the orders that a company co, four platoon leaders and 12 squad leaders would do playing real time.

You are mistaking the time crunch that one person would face with a need to play in real time. Playing in real time would yield totally unrealistic results because the one person would be torn between the details in one area and the details in another. When the real issue is incomplete oveeall information and managing the volume of information coming in.

Probably to simulate a company commander they would have to be in the other room on a phone while someone playing the platoon commanders and squad leaders in WEGO mode. And even then there would have to be a time limit on the phone conversation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top