hoolaman

Hello again, I thought I might give a link to this other thread which is relevant to the earlier discussion. movement command interface Anyhow, here is another picture to illustrate my grand plan . The "topographical map" parts are out of LOS as I explained above in this thread. It also allows for intel to be marked in advance (ie. bunker) to represent info from divisional recon or something some farmer told you yesterday. The large arrows represent orders from the company commander for each platoon of infantry. They are general corridors of advance for the platoons, and act like "company level" waypoints, which are of a certain width, say 200m. As long as the platoon remains within this area, it is following the last orders given to it by the company commander. Within this area, they are able to move around as the platoon commander sees fit, giving no command delays. If an order changes at company level, you can adjust the large waypoints to reflect a change in battle plans, but this would be subject to a long delay as order comes from the HQ. This would prevent the squad diverting to intercept infantry that they can't actually see, unless the higher HQ orders them to do so, and also prevent command delay for things that are just simply common sense, like minor adjustments in direction to get into better cover. Obviously there would be a lot of details to work out, but this allows different levels of command delay, right down to the level of the squads own initiative, which should have no command delay. I hope I have explained it a bit better than before!

If you look in "what do we want in the new CM etc." there is some discussion of command issues. Basically, "in real life" the tank or squad would only get one actual order from an officer, such as "advance along that ridge line" or something. The rest of the time, all movement, such as: spotting an enemy, deciding it is a very big threat to you living more than the next twelve seconds, reversing into cover, are all actions taken by the tank itself, and so should not be subject to any delay other than experience and luck delays in spotting an enemy unit. So the two have to be reconciled with each other. One could argue that the tacAI should deal with all target spotting and target selection according to some set of engagement rules, but this would only be tolerable if the AI was actually smart.

A similar idea that could accomplish that is to assign units a corridor of advance to their objectives at the setup. This could be like a 100m wide waypoint or like those big arrows you see on war maps. Any manouvering inside this area would be considered the initiative of the commanders on the ground, but any change to "the plan" from the company or battalion level would be subject to an appropriate level of command delay. So to totally reroute a platoon would require changing their axis of advance, which may require 2 or 3 or 10 minutes to get the orders from Major Bloggs. But while they are following "the plan" orders, Lieutenant Goober can order his men around all he likes. This would prevent a platoon from responding to something on the otherside of the map without getting an order from their (simulated) CO to do so. They would be locked into their last known orders, but still allowing for micromanagement. Another idea for spotting would be to limit the view to a units POV in certain circumstances, as per those rules whose name eludes me.

As for gameplay issues, well that is probably a lot more complex, but I find the main problems with the old system are as follows. - Relative spotting. - Command management, ie. Playing as both omniscient being and yet still having to steer that tank around that rock. (closely related to the borg spotting issue) - Treating a squad as an indivisible unit. (okay, there are half squads, but they are all treated as one entity) - The simulation of real command and control. - One minute turn time. On relative spotting and command management, I can see the problem the developers must have had in the first place. You cannot simultaneously be the panicked tank crew behind enemy lines, observing the enemy columns march past, and also have the limited situational awareness of a platoon, company or brigade leader. The problem is you can send other units to deal with something you shouldn't know about. There is the option that all methods of battlefield communication be simulated, but this would require that the player take on a certain rank, below which he does not directly see what the front line units see, which I think is what BFC wanted to avoid, lest you end up playing half the battle with your out-of-command units shrouded in darkness and controlled by AI. I think, a "paper map" would help solve this problem as I mentioned above with a few additional possibilities. I think areas out of LOS to any units should be invisible, whether they are black or represented by a situational map or cartoon 3d symbols or whatever. To elaborate on my idea, a stylised paper topographical map could be rendered over the unseen parts of the map. It would still be rendered in 3d with all the slopes so you can get an idea of the terrain you are approaching. Imagine a "topographical map mod" where the grass is all a paper texture, and there are black lines at the gaps between each elevation and you will get the idea. There is a way to partially implement battlefield C&C. All panicked units or even maybe even suppressed units would lose their ability to spot, similarly, all vehicle crews lose the ability to spot, unless they are at their vehicle and it has a working radio. These units may disappear from the map, and be marked on the paper map as "lost contact" or "last known position", until they regain contact. OR They may stay on the map to be commanded things like retreat or whatever, to allow for the fact that you, the player still control them, but the units they see would not appear to you the player, unless they return to friendly lines, in which case their observations appear on the map as "enemy infantry sighted" or "tiger tanks", which may or may not be a correct or helpful observation. This may require some better simluation of battlefield comms. Runners, radios, heliographs, semaphore, three blasts from a whistle, three quick shots. All these can give varying levels of info to be marked on a map. Maybe your runners get killed. Maybe a squad is truly cut off, and no inbound or outbound communication is possible, should they dissappear from the map and be marked out of contact, or should you have the option of controlling them. Maybe there is a delay in getting orders out, maybe the radioman eats a mortar shell and no further radio comms are possible. All these would be interesting if they could be implemented without limiting the players involvement adn immersion. This also would make it more essential to model every man. I would like to see a 2IC take over command if the HQ is killed, taking on new bonuses. Runners would have to be selected individually and taken from the ranks, reducing firepower. One guy would have to carry the radio, and if he bites it, no more radio. Also, if a squad is panicked, it is unlikely that allof them would be panicked, one guy who is made of sterner stuff, or more experienced, may either rally them or run to get help. This would make it possible to model entry points to buildings. Each man must get in the door one by one. Maybe through a hole you just blew with satchel charges. Also very basic fortifications, like build roadblock or something like it that is possible within the timeframe of one game. My last point is about the 60 seconds turn time. Either much smarter tac AI or much more fine control in the orders system must be included for it to be truly effective. For example, you give an order to an on board mortar to fire at some infantry. The platoon commander and the company commander are right next to him observing the target. The mortar fires, and after the first shell hits, the enemy soldiers run away, but the mortar fired all his ammo at nothing because you can't stop him within the 60 seconds, even if all the top brass are there, but he should know himself that he is firing at nothing. It is a silly arbitrary amount of time anyway. Why not 30 seconds. If the 60 sec we-go is to be retained, there needs to be a vast new range of orders. Setting dispositions, like what do do on enemy contact, what cover to seek under fire, specifying how many rounds to fire, firing for effect, ie fire 3 rounds, wait and see if anyone moves, then fire another three rounds. A hold fire command. A ammo conservation disposition. Also lots of formations for squads, platoons, companies.

Hello, I posted above as hoolredux, but I have found my old password. From the bits and pieces thrown to us by BFC, I think it is clear that the new game will have a very different graphics engine, which will be much more sophisticated. Perhaps we can discuss the standards of graphics we expect or care about as compared to some current games. I would like to see terrain that compares "codename panzers". http://www.panzers.de/index.php?page=screens.us.panzers#mpdemo08 or something like the new ground control 2 game, or this as I mentioned before: http://www.codemasters.com/games/uploadedimages/battlefield_command_battle.jpg Starting with the scenery and the map, I would like to see: - A map editor with tiles (or the equivalent) that allow much more organic roads, slopes, rivers etc. (certain to happen anyway) - More destructible terrain and scenery, especially buildings which can have holes blown in walls. - Better lighting effects including dynamic lighting and decent reflective dynamic water and mud. - 3d Particle model for smoke and dust. - Little touches like civilian vehicles and breeze blowing flags and such. Dead cows, but maybe even live ones. In short, an believable immersive environment with all those little touches that get you in the game. Graphics are not all important, but they are very important, and it seems BFC are looking at making the new game up 2004 standard. I will be glad to see the change from the horrible 1998 CMBO graphics that persist even in CMAK.

If you ever notice how many people a sniper can kill with one shot, you would see that the one shot is an abstraction of several shots, like a "burst" of sniper fire.

I believe that Hitler's exposure to poison gas in WW1 was a big factor in Germany not using gas. But the WW1 gas experience turned the whole world away from poison gas. The German high command, ironically, could be very humane in many matters, until their enemies used nasty tactics first. eg trying to avoid bombing civilians and not using gas (and yes I realise this was very selective humaneness considering other activities of nazi Germany). Don't forget, pre-Nuclear Bomb, there would have been similar "deterrent" scenarios for gas. If you use it you know you would get it right back at ya.