Action Square /spot

[Vinnart]

Yes Ian, I was referring to rejoining squads. I still want to do some graphical mock ups to make notes, but as I said earlier both a 2mx2m and 8mx8m action square models have their pros and cons. When it is all said and done the action squares as they are now keeps things simplest, and as Ken said they can arrange freely in that space. Improvements in how the AI arranges according to terrain would be a good thing to pursue in improving infantry control. Perhaps if there were just a way the player could force them into line formation would be enough to fine tune squad placements for players. If I could have one formation option it would be line.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Vinnart

[A Canadian Cat]

There are so many misconceptions in the original post that it's pretty much a pointless origin for any rational discussion of the matter.

 

Indeed but Ken and Vin have created something worth discussing so riff off of that.

[Wiggum15]

There are so many misconceptions in the original post that it's pretty much a pointless origin for any rational discussion of the matter.

...the only misconception is that you think it would be pointless to discussion the matter.

Dont post here if you dont like the discussion !

Edited July 6, 2015 by Wiggum15

[Lacroix]

There are so many misconceptions in the original post that it's pretty much a pointless origin for any rational discussion of the matter.

why U mad brah

[Vinnart]

Here are some graphics using the Sudden Strike 3 engine to illustrate 1:1 action squares. Below is our current system of 8mx8m action squares. If the sqaud were to line up as they do at times they would fill the first row of 8 little squares. 4 for A team, and 4 for B team. True they can set up any way within the 8mx8m square, but they are still limited to the confines of the 8mx8m square.

 

Below is what I have in mind in 1:1 action squares. Instead of seeing one big square highlighted the player would see smaller ones in line for example shown here. Each man of the 8 man squad would occupy one square. Shown they are spaced 2m apart. Just as the 8mx8m squares shift position with different facing so also you can rotate the line, "V", wedge. The sqaud/team stays together as a unit with its highlighted color, but they can assume any number of formations/placments. Like there is variation in placement in the 8mx8m square so too it is in the 2mx2m square. In this way the troops can huddle close as they do now if warranted depending on cover, or they can be spaced grid squares, or no squares as if they were lining up in the current 8m square. All of it is controlled using the grid as a guide. We can imagine either the AI controlling the formation it thinks best for situation or terrain, and an override where the player can control formation and interval. The interval would work similar to the PAUSE command being incremental. This INTERVAL command could have other uses as in how I imagined a FOLLOW command working to set spacing. Anyway just imagining things.

[Vinnart]

why U mad brah

 

Womble is just being womble. Don't mind him.

[ASL Veteran]

Human beings generally feel safer and more secure when they are near someone else.  Tight formations were a means of maintaining morale, discipline, and control over soldiers for centuries until weaponry became too deadly for such methods to remain viable.  Only the most highly trained and disciplined soldiers can maintain their fighting effectiveness when out of close contact with other soldiers.  Clumping in combat is a fact of life and artificially maintaining perfect or even expanded intervals between soldiers would be just as ... incorrect (I can't find the right word here) as how it might be in the game now.  Does anyone here think that a newly minted sixteen year old Volksgrenadier with about three weeks of substandard rushed training is going to maintain perfect field manual intervals with the other members of his squad at all times?  Even combat experienced American units with years of training would clump behind cover such as walls or in buildings and such.  Getting something like what appears to be requested in this thread into the game would be just as ridiculous as how some view the current behavior in the game.  There are numerous first hand written accounts by American veterans that describe German soldiers on patrols walking along in single file "conga lines" as some describe it.  Apparently German soldiers didn't pay that much attention to noise discipline either - from what I can tell late war German soldiers were noisy, incautious, and not very concerned about intervals.  To assume that all soldiers marched along in perfect Field Manual V formations with everyone maintaining perfect intervals is really a fantasy in my opinion.  Heck, I think we've all seen that news footage of those American soldiers in Vietnam firing blind over a wall at the enemy.  Where is that behavior located at in the Field Manual?

 

Edited to add that - I realized I'm in the Black Sea forum and not the WW2 forums, but changes in the game are typically ported back to the other titles and I'm not sure that all this complaining - at least for the WW2 titles, is justified.  I think a case could be made for modern American soldiers, but even there you should probably expect some clumping at some time.

Edited July 6, 2015 by ASL Veteran

[ASL Veteran]

So about those intervals.  According to FM 21-75 the proper spacing between individual soldiers within a squad is 10 Meters.  That's about one man per current in game action spot.  The fire teams are split such that the lead team is the one commanded by the assistant squad leader with two men ten meters apart in a V formation behind him on each side.  The MG man is on the right and the GL man is on the left.  The second fire team is led by the squad leader and follows behind the lead fire team, also in a V formation.  The intervals between men is 10 meters.  The AT man is on the left with another GL man and then another MG man is on the right.  According to FM 7-7 there is a twenty meter interval between squads in a platoon so if you are moving in a column of squads each squad would have a lead team and a follow team as described above followed by the next squad twenty meters behind the last man of the team in front of it.  The interval between the lead fire team and the following fire team within a squad is not given so I assumed a ten meter interval between the two fire teams.

 

So a squad might have a width of approximately forty meters and a depth of perhaps fifty meters.  A platoon formation would then have twenty meter intervals between squads so a platoon walking along in column with each squad split up by fire team with each fire team in a V then the platoon might take up an area something like forty meters wide by perhaps 190 meters with approximately one man per 8 meter action spot.  I think it even recommends that the lead element be 100 meters ahead of the rest of the platoon which makes the depth of the formation even greater.

 

I don't know about you guys but having a squad spread out like that in the game at all times would be unwieldy if you can't control the individual soldiers of each squad.  You would end up with a lot of guys sitting in open fields because where the cover is located doesn't match where the soldiers are located if they are forced to maintain their intervals and formations.  It's unworkable in my opinion.

 

I should probably add that - while Vinnart's suggestion is interesting, according to the various Field Manuals I've just checked his spacing suggestion is not based on any sort of actual training - at least as recommended by the US military.  In fact, modern infantry formations could be done within the context of the current 8 meter action spot system without any adjustment to the maps at all.  It is just a matter of whether it would be practical or not.

Edited July 7, 2015 by ASL Veteran

[Vinnart]

So about those intervals.  According to FM 21-75 the proper spacing between individual soldiers within a squad is 10 Meters.  That's about one man per current in game action spot.  The fire teams are split such that the lead team is the one commanded by the assistant squad leader with two men ten meters apart in a V formation behind him on each side.  The MG man is on the right and the GL man is on the left.  The second fire team is led by the squad leader and follows behind the lead fire team, also in a V formation.  The intervals between men is 10 meters.  The AT man is on the left with another GL man and then another MG man is on the right.  According to FM 7-7 there is a twenty meter interval between squads in a platoon so if you are moving in a column of squads each squad would have a lead team and a follow team as described above followed by the next squad twenty meters behind the last man of the team in front of it.  The interval between the lead fire team and the following fire team within a squad is not given so I assumed a ten meter interval between the two fire teams.

 

So a squad might have a width of approximately forty meters and a depth of perhaps fifty meters.  A platoon formation would then have twenty meter intervals between squads so a platoon walking along in column with each squad split up by fire team with each fire team in a V then the platoon might take up an area something like forty meters wide by perhaps 190 meters with approximately one man per 8 meter action spot.  I think it even recommends that the lead element be 100 meters ahead of the rest of the platoon which makes the depth of the formation even greater.

 

I don't know about you guys but having a squad spread out like that in the game at all times would be unwieldy if you can't control the individual soldiers of each squad.  You would end up with a lot of guys sitting in open fields because where the cover is located doesn't match where the soldiers are located if they are forced to maintain their intervals and formations.  It's unworkable in my opinion.

 

I should probably add that - while Vinnart's suggestion is interesting, according to the various Field Manuals I've just checked his spacing suggestion is not based on any sort of actual training - at least as recommended by the US military.  In fact, modern infantry formations could be done within the context of the current 8 meter action spot system without any adjustment to the maps at all.  It is just a matter of whether it would be practical or not.

 

ASL I agree that much spacing would not play well. In light of that research, which is what I recall being taught about basic squad formations and spacing when I went through training in the Army, you contradict yourself in that you quote the manual in its spacing then say it is not based on any training.  I don't think we are talking spacing more than a few 2m action squares for game play puposes. My thoughts are that the terrain and circumstances warrant how the sqaud sets up in that it should be organic. Here in the pic below we have moved the sqaud that was in the line to the tree line. The sqaud conforms to the cover, and is something the AI could control. On the other hand being able to spread out, which real troops do too, would be a benefit if under artillery attack. What if under artillery attack the AI has free movement of squares within a certain radius. The squad is there in a pretty line then the arty starts coming in. The squad disperses moving to the nearest cover. In the pic below a some guys run to the tree close by, and other run to the clump or rocks. Again all controlled by the AI and the grid. This is how it was in Sudden Strike in that the troops when taking incoming would seek cover on their own within a so many action squares.  Like I said i have no real qualms in the current system, but this is about exploring possibilities pros and cons using Sudden Strike concepts adapted to CM.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Vinnart

[c3k]

Nice screenshot to show what you're talking about.

 

Okay... Give me Team B. I like orange squares. If I move Team B (with your proposal), I'll get 4 squares somewhere. Say, for argument's sake, next to a stone wall.

 

Only 3 of the 4 squares are adjacent to the wall. Darn. One is too far back. Now I have to "grab" that one man and move him. That's micromanagement. Right now, 8x8 squares put the team pretty much up along the wall. I can use the face command to tweak it as needed. Will one man not be up on the wall? Maybe. (Usually not. The face command gets them all up. Etc., with different terrain. If I put a team in light woods, they self-position around cover.)

 

There is no way to command a 4 man team using 1x1 (or 2x2) squares...unless you're just doing the same thing CM is doing now.  The only thing 1x1 or 2x2 squares would give you is the ability and the NECESSITY of commanding individuals. If the little squares are autonomous, then why have them? If they are, then that means I need to command individual locations. With a battalion, that would be...onerous.

 

There are no modern military forces, of which I'm aware, which countenance having individuals going anywhere. It's always the buddy system. 

 

As mentioned way upstream, there is some stringing out of the men into tight columns...when movement waypoints are too far away. If I keep the waypoints close, there is NO columnizing.

 

If I use the FACE command, at the team level, I can get the facing I want.

 

Are there some cases where the ability to move a single man would make a difference? Sure. Like ATG gunners and bocage. For the MOST part, these instances are rare and don't affect gameplay.

 

The drawbacks seem quite large. Micromanagement at the individual level would greatly reduce the scope of the game. A company would induce headaches. (Sure, a magic algorithm could manage the little squares so you don't have to, but that's just how the game works now. But then, when would you step in? And how?) The processing would be so much higher... 2m squares would require 16^2 more LOS checks pre-game. 1m squares would require 64^2 more.

 

Perhaps drawing up examples of when the proposed little squares would improve the game would help me see what you're thinking it would bring?

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

Edited to add: 2m x 2m action spots. Right now it's 64m^2. If it were 4m^2, that'd be a 16x increase in action spots. That means a 16 x 16 increase in action spot checking... That pre-game load screen? If it takes 2 minutes now, it'd take 32 minutes (AERTS). Ditto turns. Etc.

 

 

True, but the system is unchanged since CMSF. Two PC generations later might allow for 6x6m or 4x4 m without too much speed sacrifice?

[Stagler]

True, but the system is unchanged since CMSF. Two PC generations later might allow for 6x6m or 4x4 m without too much speed sacrifice?

 

You'd think so wouldn't you...

[agusto]

CM uses only a fraction of the available hardware resources - 1CPU core and about 3,5 GB RAM.

[A Canadian Cat]

True, but the system is unchanged since CMSF. Two PC generations later might allow for 6x6m or 4x4 m without too much speed sacrifice?

 

As far as I can tell there are two issues with that.  One, not everyone has a fancy new machine and BFC want the game to run on lesser hardware.  Two, this is not a trivial change at all.  The size of those AS is the core of how the scenario AI works, how the Tac AI works, how the terrain is rendered and on and on.  If they decide this is a good idea it will be a big deal and lots of work.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Yes indeed, more like a CM3x iteration of the game.

I think that what Vin explained could really be the way to go to make a step forward.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[ASL Veteran]

Squads are currently organized into either two or three teams which a player can split off and command independently.  The most common reason those players say they do that is because they don't like how the AI positions troops within the context of the two or three action spaces that the AI currently positions them in.  These players split their teams so they can place them individually.  The only thing Vin's suggestion does is to create a platform for players to complain about how the AI is placing soldiers within the 2m mini action spots.  The reality is that no matter what you do with regard to team and soldier placement there will always be someone who is unhappy with where a soldier is being placed and who will want to place that soldier himself.  There may be merit in the suggestion but the fact is that until players can place each individual soldier there will always be someone who is unhappy with where his soldiers are being placed on the map. 

[Kieme(ITA)]

Definitely true, you will never make some complainers happy, because they are only as long as they can complain. And guess, what, if single soldier placing was there, they would complain for "too much micromanagement"

Edited July 7, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Vinnart]

 

 

Okay... Give me Team B. I like orange squares. If I move Team B (with your proposal), I'll get 4 squares somewhere. Say, for argument's sake, next to a stone wall.

 

Only 3 of the 4 squares are adjacent to the wall. Darn. One is too far back. Now I have to "grab" that one man and move him. That's micromanagement. Right now, 8x8 squares put the team pretty much up along the wall. I can use the face command to tweak it as needed. Will one man not be up on the wall? Maybe. (Usually not. The face command gets them all up. Etc., with different terrain. If I put a team in light woods, they self-position around cover.)

 

There is no way to command a 4 man team using 1x1 (or 2x2) squares...unless you're just doing the same thing CM is doing now.  The only thing 1x1 or 2x2 squares would give you is the ability and the NECESSITY of commanding individuals. If the little squares are autonomous, then why have them? If they are, then that means I need to command individual locations. With a battalion, that would be...onerous.

 

There are no modern military forces, of which I'm aware, which countenance having individuals going anywhere. It's always the buddy system. 

 

As mentioned way upstream, there is some stringing out of the men into tight columns...when movement waypoints are too far away. If I keep the waypoints close, there is NO columnizing.

 

If I use the FACE command, at the team level, I can get the facing I want.

 

Are there some cases where the ability to move a single man would make a difference? Sure. Like ATG gunners and bocage. For the MOST part, these instances are rare and don't affect gameplay.

 

The drawbacks seem quite large. Micromanagement at the individual level would greatly reduce the scope of the game. A company would induce headaches. (Sure, a magic algorithm could manage the little squares so you don't have to, but that's just how the game works now. But then, when would you step in? And how?) The processing would be so much higher... 2m squares would require 16^2 more LOS checks pre-game. 1m squares would require 64^2 more.

 

Perhaps drawing up examples of when the proposed little squares would improve the game would help me see what you're thinking it would bring?

 

Ken, I still don't think you are seeing how it works. You can still get close spacing like you have now in that just as there is range of AI placement for the current squad there is variation and movement within the 2mx2m square for the individual soldier. Just as the squad is not always centered in the 8m sq. so the individual is not either. This keeps things more organic looking, and allows for more flexibility of placement by the AI in the sq. In the scenario with the wall lets say it is 3 squares long. The dudes are not going to set up at the wall 4 abreast with one not being covered by the wall. He would move behind the wall in a square behind the 3 guys in front just like now. They conform to the cover. We are not taking away anything in how close the troops can be, we are only expanding to not being limited to a 8mx8m square shape. If I did a pic with the models you would see it would look no different on the surface, but underneath the grid would look different.

 

Again, we are not moving individuals unless it happens to be one guy like you could get now. We are still moving squads/teams. One of the things I hated about Sudden Strike is you had to control only individuals, no squads. We definitely do not want that. Here we remain moving squads. They are connected, but not all bound to the same 8m square and its shape. That is really the only difference, beyond a more flexible grid system to program to.

 

Facing works the same way except you could rotate a line like and pic 2. The troops still conform to cover. In many instances I could see the grouping of soldiers very much like now, but adding flexibility to spread out in shapes not limited to 8m sq. That would be different.

 

There would be some more micro management to this system in that a player COULD override the AI to set a formation for example like in pic 2 of the spread out line if they wanted to. For spacing lets figure two AI settings tight, and spread out to keep it simple which the AI can control with the player being able to over ride, AND the AI being able to override. An example of this would be for what I said about the wall with the guy with no cover moving to another square for cover. Another example is in my 3rd pic. The squad that was in the spread out line was ordered to the tree line. When there the AI changes from the spread out line to a closer formation to conform to the cover, much like we have now.

 

I am not suggesting CM needs to adapt the 2x sq action system. It is only talking about the "what ifs" of such a system in its pros and cons. I am not seeing the problems you are talking about because it has already been done in Sudden Strike, which I have experienced.  I am adapting that games concepts to see how it could possibly work in CM. No one is saying it MUST be like this. Its imagination time .  I think the current system is good albeit a bit limited. Like I said all systems have pros and cons.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Vinnart

[ASL Veteran]

ASL I agree that much spacing would not play well. In light of that research, which is what I recall being taught about basic squad formations and spacing when I went through training in the Army, you contradict yourself in that you quote the manual in its spacing then say it is not based on any training.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here, but perhaps I can clarify my previous posts a bit and what I'm driving at.  Some players are unhappy about the way Infantry act in Combat Mission.  They want formations, SOPs, and other things.  Well that's fine as far as that goes, but the reason they say they want these things is that they say CM isn't 'realistic' without such things and that Combat Mission's depiction of infantry combat fails because of it.  However, there are two problems with this.  1. Troops in combat aren't always going to follow strict Field Manual guidelines as to how to act.  In fact, more often than not I would say that they will not follow Field Manual guidelines.  The thrust of my original post is that, while some complain about how Combat Mission treats infantry combat, it isn't necessarily unrealistic the way it is now.  Could there be improvements at a micro level?  Sure, but overall Combat Mission's treatment of infantry combat not as flawed and unrealistic as some would have us believe.  Units moving in single file is probably more common than soldiers moving in a V formation.  There are only a few types of terrain where a full Field Manual V formation would be practical.  Most of the time single file is probably the better or more common option.

 

So that's point number one - people complaining that Combat Mission's treatment of infantry combat is unrealistic may be correct in some limited instances, but certainly they aren't correct in all instances.

 

2. The proposed solutions so far don't follow what is in the Field Manuals.  So once again - the complaint that Combat Mission infantry combat is unrealistic is tackled by a proposed solution that is equally unrealistic.  What does this mean?  This means that it is just a canard for at least for some who are saying that infantry combat is unrealistic without infantry formations.  They don't really mean that Combat Mission infantry combat is unrealistic without infantry formations.  What they really mean is that they want to place individual soldiers because they don't like how the game currently places soldiers within an actions space.  They want more control / better placement rather than less control and "actual" infantry formations.  Therefore all proposed solutions, no matter what their merit, will lead down the road of individual soldier placement because fundamentally that is what is the underlying factor in these types of complaints.

[Stagler]

Would probably stop some daft infantry behaviour if this was implemented.

[Vinnart]

ASL I think like Ken you may not be seeing It the way I am in actual workings. You are absolutely correct in that the spacings spoken of in the field manual do not translate into  the game environment for playability. What works in reality, and the the game environment will always be different because there is no substitute for reality except reality. You can try yo mimic, but the two will always remain unique. For example troops in reality do space out more than they do in the 8m sq, but the 8m sqr works for a playable game. As far as formations, and spacing in reality it is not rigid, but "organic controlled". A squad will start out in an organized wedge placement like described in the field manual with everyone in their perspective positions in the formation, but as terrain and circumstance dictate it remains organic to change in flexibility. An example is the squad in the wedge makes contact. At that point both A and B team will come on line to maximize firepower. The wedge morphs into a line. If the same wedge comes under arty attack the formation will likely break up with a scramble to move to the closest cover. Another example of how duplicating reality may not work in a game environment is how CM models arty. Because the troops are spaced close together there is a bit of abstraction to make arty work with the game. When CMBN first came out one arty shell was killing entire squads/platoons. It just did not work in the game. So realistic spacing that far as the manual says would not work either to have good player control.

 

  Again, i am not saying the current system is bad, and suggesting it MUST be what i am talking about.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Vinnart

[BTR]

I still think that if a fireteam (4 squaddies) get two tiles allocated instead of one, the world won't burn and we'll get a much more lose and representative infantry behavior. I really think modern warfare setting demands more spacing than WW2 one. 

[ASL Veteran]

I still think that if a fireteam (4 squaddies) get two tiles allocated instead of one, the world won't burn and we'll get a much more lose and representative infantry behavior. I really think modern warfare setting demands more spacing than WW2 one. 

I think your point is valid.  The issue at the moment (with spacing in game) seems to be that the game only places one team in each action spot.  No teams spread over more than one action spot or at least I haven't seen a team spread over more than one action spot.  If we were to get teams to spread over more than one action spot then that would seem to mean that we would have to have more teams.  More teams capable of being split off which isn't necessarily supported by the organization of modern squads.  I don't know for certain (only Charles would know), but I'm going to assume that this one team per action spot is probably a hardcoded limitation in the CM engine that was designed into the game when it was originally conceived and it would either be difficult or impossible to overcome. 

[A Canadian Cat]

Oh I am sure it is baked in.  And as you say only Charles knows but I strongly suspect that changing the code to allow each team to spread its members over two AS would be considerable less work, and have less wide ranging effects, than changing the AS size to 4X4 or 2X2.  Note I am not trying to say it's easy I just think it would be a more likely path forward.  Assuming BFC decides it really is necessary.  Like you have said I am also not sold on this as a pressing need.

 

Now mind you moving to smaller AS size is attractive to me to help solve other issues with LOS and LOF especially in urban environments.  One day some tweaks in this area would be nice.  Perhaps an alternative would be to follow the lead of finite element analysis where the mesh size is made finer where needed around areas with more detail (in our case forest edge and urban streets) and more coarse where it is not (such as fields and other open spaces).  But really we are just spit balling cause none of use really know what might work or how much effort it would really be. 

[c3k]

True, but the system is unchanged since CMSF. Two PC generations later might allow for 6x6m or 4x4 m without too much speed sacrifice?

Map sizes have increased. We can now have 16 square km maps. That is significant.