Turn length, area fire, communications, and an extra difficulty level for 4.0

[Odin]

Unlikely I know, given that BF already seems to have ideas penciled in for 4.0, but I would love to see an extra difficulty level added to CM which focuses on increasing FOW. Currently, due to player input, I believe units in WWII CM titles enjoy 21st-century levels of 'battlefield awareness'. To make things a little more realistic for reflecting WWII FOW I have two suggestions.

The first is to have an option to increase turn lengths from 1 minute to 1 minute 30 seconds, or even 2 minutes. The premise for this suggestion being that it would require players to plan a little more and lower their ability to just react to events, and it would also have the added bonus of speeding up PBEMs. To aid this it might be useful to add a couple more movement commands eg 'move quickly to contact' (ie a quick hunt command), and a seek and destroy command which would order units to move until they made visual contact with the enemy, at which point they would fire on the enemy and only start to move again once the enemy is either destroyed or visual contact lost - this last movement command would be particularly useful for armour.

I also feel, where the WWII titles are concerned, too often area fire from squads can be directed at targets too quickly. In reality, back in WWII, due to poorer communication technology, units which did not have contact with the enemy would have experienced much lower levels of battlefield awareness than the input from the all-seeing CM player currently reflects. So my idea for increasing area fire realism goes as follows:

Unless a squad or 'non-HQ' vehicle has a command link with a platoon HQ or higher, said squad or vehicle cannot area fire on squares where it cannot see a sound or visual contact icon (or maybe squads without C2C could area fire on a location within three squares of a sound or visual contact). If a squad does have C2C with its HQ (which in turn should have radio, visual, or voice contact with other HQs), squads can area fire on any location. The reason I suggest this is because back in WWII squads would not have opened fire on a building or area unless they either believed an enemy unit to be located there, or had an order from higher up to do so. Yet in CM a squad or non-HQ vehicle can be ordered to fire on an area which the player knows to contain an enemy unit, despite the squad itself having no idea that the enemy is located in the vicinity. 

I realise these suggestions would not completely remove the advantage which players can obtain by being able to oversee everything on the battlefield, but they would IMO add more realism by getting players to plan more and not just react to events, as well as get players to think more about C2C .

Edited October 14, 2016 by Odin

[Vanir Ausf B]

Variable turn length is a good idea, although I feel that turns longer than 1 minute would require an SOP system rather than just a new command or two.

I personally am sympathetic to some sort of restriction or nerfing of area fire since lot of CM tactics revolve around abusing it, but this suggestion has been made many times and it is not popular so I doubt it will happen. The problem is that it eliminates recon by fire.

[Odin]

18 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Variable turn length is a good idea, although I feel that turns longer than 1 minute would require an SOP system rather than just a new command or two.

 

1

What do you mean by SOP (standard operating procedure of some sort I suppose)? Personally, I don't think having an option to increase turn length would require a complete overhaul, particularly if the extra couple of movement commands were incorporated to take account of a few extra eventualities. Ultimately, even if these extra commands weren't included, as things stand the AI will take over in a number of situations - eg stop a unit's movement, cause it to retreat, return fire, or just cower. Plus given that communication technology back in WWII was pretty limited compared to the modern battlefield, I don't think it unrealistic for a squad to halt for a minute and a half or so until they are given a new order.  

From a programming point of view I would guess that the increasing turn length option would be the easier to implement.

 

18 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I personally am sympathetic to some sort of restriction or nerfing of area fire since lot of CM tactics revolve around abusing it, but this suggestion has been made many times and it is not popular so I doubt it will happen. The problem is that it eliminates recon by fire.

 

1

I agree recon by fire is an important element, this is why I suggest that if a squad has communication links with its HQ (or maybe it could be extended to any HQ unit) it be allowed to fire on any square. Not perfect I know, as you may want to send a couple of scout teams forward, but I think it could offer a better balance than the current situation. I agree with you that many CM players wouldn't like this so I would only include it in the game as an extra difficulty level option

Edited October 14, 2016 by Odin

[Vanir Ausf B]

22 minutes ago, Odin said:

What do you mean by SOP (standard operating procedure of some sort I suppose)?

Like this:

Like I said, it's not a bad idea, although if implemented I suspect players would mostly use turns shorter than 1 minute instead of longer.

Quote

I agree recon by fire is an important element, this is why I suggest that if a squad has communication links with its HQ (or maybe it could be extended to any HQ unit) it be allowed to fire on any square.

I like that idea, although I suspect that any time you completely disallow area fire you are going to run into issues and people are going to hate it.

Alternatively, area fire onto a position where no friendly unit has spotted an enemy unit or has an ? enemy marker is allowed same as it presently, but if any friendly unit does have a ? enemy marker on that position then friendly units without that marker that area fire on that position may randomly target an adjacent action spot instead of unerringly targeting the correct action spot. Something like that.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B

[JoMac]

I think we need something above 'Iron' Mode to give the 'God Player' less info...'Iron' has a nice FOW effect against the AI during the turn (less info for friendly AI), but the overall player still has to much info during the turn that can be used to instantly react in the follow-up turn. 

As far as 'Area-Fire' is concerned, I have implemented a 'House Rule' for 'Meetings' that Units can only Area-Fire within 1-Action-Spot of any type of Transparent Icon...I also have a 'House Rule' that say's a Player has no Control over 'Direct-Fire' and is only conducted by the AI (you can of course still use 'Area-Fire' or 'Firing-Arcs'). 

No...There is no need for a longer turn then 1-minute, and in fact, might make matters worse...What do you do about those sorry people who play Real-Time ? There is simply far to much (Unrealistic) Action in one turn as it is. 

Joe

 

Edited October 14, 2016 by JoMc67

[Odin]

10 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Like this:

 

 

Something like that would be great.

 

10 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Alternatively, area fire onto a position where no friendly unit has spotted an enemy unit or has an ? enemy marker is allowed, but if any friendly unit does have a ? enemy marker on that position then friendly units without such a marker that area fire on that position will may randomly target an adjacent action spot instead of unerringly targeting the correct action spot. Something like that.

 

2

I think this would be an excellent way of balancing out the recon by fire dilemma, BIG +1 from me

Edited October 14, 2016 by Odin

[Odin]

3 minutes ago, JoMc67 said:

I think we need something above 'Iron' Mode to give the 'God Player' less info...'Iron' has a nice FOW effect against the AI during the turn (less info for friendly AI), but the overall player still has to much info during the turn that can be used to instantly react in the follow-up turn. 

1

I couldn't agree more.

 

Also interesting house rule, I keep telling myself at sometime in the near future I will try to force myself to play under self-imposed harsher FOW rules, but because I only play PBEM I keep chickening out.

[JoMac]

44 minutes ago, Odin said:

I couldn't agree more.

 

Also interesting house rule, I keep telling myself at sometime in the near future I will try to force myself to play under self-imposed harsher FOW rules, but because I only play PBEM I keep chickening out.

Yeah, if you implement those two major 'House Rules' against the AI or PBEM (need to trust an opponent who shares Realism as much as you do), then at least, it's a good work around. 

Of course, to take Realism a step further, and this is just a Ball-Park thought...You could impose further C&C by having Platoons only operate in it's own Zone-of-Control Block, and can only change Grand Tactical Orders (not to be confused with Tactical Way-Point Orders) every 5 minutes (if Radio equipped) or 15 minutes (non-Radio equipped)...This will allow you to plan a Flank Movement (say at beginning of Game), and not have your opponent secure it's Flank in an instant (next turn)...All of this would include players to have Active and Reserve Forces.  

The above is something I'm working on against the AI, but will probably never impose on a PBEM opponent due to complexity, etc...However, I know Bill H has worked on something similar, but far more detailed. 

 

Edited October 14, 2016 by JoMc67

[Odin]

Implementing those suggestions would certainly make the AI more of a challenge. 

Re things that BF could do to increase the effects of FOW through an extra difficulty level, a really simple idea would be to add a time delay to area fire commands, of for example 20- 30 seconds. This could be increased to 45 - 60 seconds if the unit being ordered to area fire isn't in communication with its HQ. With BF's time  and resources being limited, including an extra difficulty level like this could be a quick and easy hit for those of us wanting extra FOW limitations.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Odin

[HerrTom]

On the topic of Fog of War, one thing that I think may be interesting (if not terribly annoying) is to take the idea of units being in contact and kick it up a notch.  What if you actually lose the ability to order or even see your units that are out of contact on some Ultra-difficult difficulty above Iron?  I understand that with the current game mechanics this may prove unwieldy and dangerous to your pixeltruppen, which may mean out of contact units should attempt to move back to friendly contact when they get lost...

[Bulletpoint]

I like your ideas Odin, and actually I suggested something similar before.

Many different new rules could be implemented, but I think the basic idea should be to reward players for maintaining good command and control, and make it a bigger problem when the chain of command starts to break down.

[TheForwardObserver]

Something I've done to make my games against the AI a wee bit more challenging and enjoyable is I've made a mod that completely removes FOW icons for both friendly and enemy units.  Icons for units that are currently spotted are the only units that appear.  Also de-clutters the screen quite a bit.

[Michael Emrys]

16 hours ago, Odin said:

Something like that would be great.

It's exactly what I have been advocating—and BFC adamantly rejecting—for almost 20 years.

Michael

[James Crowley]

2 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

It's exactly what I have been advocating—and BFC adamantly rejecting—for almost 20 years.

Michael

Indeed. Similar to ideas myself and others have suggested but which have been roundly rejected time and again. Not only by BFC, to be fair, but by several forumites.

Much more restricted knowledge of the enemy and much tougher command and control of friendly forces are the equivalent of the Holy Grail to me and, it seems, about as likely to appear. 

[Odin]

2 hours ago, James Crowley said:

Indeed. Similar to ideas myself and others have suggested but which have been roundly rejected time and again. Not only by BFC, to be fair, but by several forumites.

 

 

 

That's sad to hear as ultimately CM stands apart from its competition on its ability to simulate RL tactical combat. What we are talking about would also largely be optional features, so those that didn't want to go down the extra FOW restrictions would not need to.

Edited October 15, 2016 by Odin

[Erwin]

Am a big supporter of more "options".  However, this one will make the game even harder and slower to play than currently.  The immediate need is to streamline the CM2/3 UI and make other improvements which enable faster play by making the way we issue orders and get our pixeltruppen to do what we want more efficient and ergonomical.  Once we can play a game in (say) half the time, that is the time to add options that (if chosen by the player) will slow the gameplay down again.

[sttp]

In addition to some of the other ideas for a new and more strict play mode, I'd love to see an option that would let you set a max camera height for a scenario, so that you could really only see the action from the ground or 20 ft. or whatever. Just another way to chip away at the "player has perfect information no matter what" problem.

[Odin]

10 hours ago, Erwin said:

  The immediate need is to streamline the CM2/3 UI and make other improvements which enable faster play by making the way we issue orders and get our pixeltruppen to do what we want more efficient and ergonomical.  Once we can play a game in (say) half the time, that is the time to add options that (if chosen by the player) will slow the gameplay down again.

While I'd agree it's not the prettiest of UIs and somethings take a while to learn, I personally think the UI works well once you've got your head round the basics. For example, rather than trying to move units individually I'll often move whole platoons or companies in one go by selecting the platoon/company HQ, and then adjust the movement paths of individual squads if needs be. While for target commands I pretty much always use the target briefly command to limit the amount of micromanagement required for targeting. Making good use of those two features alone saves me a lot of time.

A lot of the FOW suggestions put forward here would not add to the time it takes to micromanage the game (eg a time delay to area fire commands) and, ultimately, I don't play CM because it is a quick game, I play it because it is an accurate game. But I suppose it goes to show that different players have different priorities.

 

 

Edited October 16, 2016 by Odin

[Warts 'n' all]

10 hours ago, sttp said:

In addition to some of the other ideas for a new and more strict play mode, I'd love to see an option that would let you set a max camera height for a scenario, so that you could really only see the action from the ground or 20 ft. or whatever. Just another way to chip away at the "player has perfect information no matter what" problem.

Surely you can just impose this "option" upon yourself anyway already, just use Level 1 and 2 and no others.

[Michael Emrys]

11 hours ago, Erwin said:

The immediate need is to streamline the CM2/3 UI and make other improvements which enable faster play by making the way we issue orders and get our pixeltruppen to do what we want more efficient and ergonomical.

That would make me very happy. I now often do not play CM for the simple reason that it is so laborious. It is a great game, but jeez, it's like going to work.

Michael

[James Crowley]

4 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

That would make me very happy. I now often do not play CM for the simple reason that it is so laborious. It is a great game, but jeez, it's like going to work.

Michael

Sadly that is the effect that it is having on me.

Anything larger than a Tiny or Small  battle and I break out in a cold sweat.

So much micro-management required to get things to happen as you would want.

And, if you are playing H to H against a half-decent player, you have to do that if you want a chance of winning.

At least playing against the AI is a bit easier, as it isn't trying to be 'clever' and often delivers an opponent that exhibits behaviour closer to the reality of combat that I have read about.

[BletchleyGeek]

22 hours ago, Odin said:

A lot of the FOW suggestions put forward here would not add to the time it takes to micromanage the game (eg a time delay to area fire commands) and, ultimately, I don't play CM because it is a quick game, I play it because it is an accurate game. But I suppose it goes to show that different players have different priorities.

CM is accused quite often of not being a quick game, but really, setting up a quick firefight on a small map takes perhaps 3 minutes? Also, if I want quickness, I play in RT. It is a very different experience from WEGO, its scope is narrower, but also more intense.

And you don't give a iota in accuracy in the simulation. 

[PhilM]

On 16/10/2016 at 10:46 AM, Odin said:

While I'd agree it's not the prettiest of UIs and somethings take a while to learn, I personally think the UI works well once you've got your head round the basics. For example, rather than trying to move units individually I'll often move whole platoons or companies in one go by selecting the platoon/company HQ, and then adjust the movement paths of individual squads if needs be. While for target commands I pretty much always use the target briefly command to limit the amount of micromanagement required for targeting. Making good use of those two features alone saves me a lot of time.

A lot of the FOW suggestions put forward here would not add to the time it takes to micromanage the game (eg a time delay to area fire commands) and, ultimately, I don't play CM because it is a quick game, I play it because it is an accurate game. But I suppose it goes to show that different players have different priorities.

 

 

Me too (my bold bit above) ...

On a very unscientific, top of my head, estimate, of the time I spend playing CM:

75% is watching the replays;

20% is deciding what orders I want to give;

5% (max, possibly less) is actually inputting the orders.

So, even adding to that 5% - or saving from that 5% - is a marginal effect.

 

For example I now hardly ever give fire orders to my guys. Helps with any "guilt" over my knowledge that an area-firing unit shouldn't have. Plus, not wanting to give Steve and the guys at BF a big head, but the targeting AI the units possess is almost 100% guaranteed to give a better result as the minute unfolds compared with my usually less than optimal choices ...

[Odin]

2 hours ago, PhilM said:

Me too (my bold bit above) ...

On a very unscientific, top of my head, estimate, of the time I spend playing CM:

75% is watching the replays;

20% is deciding what orders I want to give;

5% (max, possibly less) is actually inputting the orders.

So, even adding to that 5% - or saving from that 5% - is a marginal effect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I reckon  I'm roughly with you there Phil, possibly 70% watching replays and 10% inputting orders for me (although higher in the setup phase, first few turns, and turns where reinforcements arrive), but even so the actual input of orders  is by far the smallest element of my playing time. I'm not saying I wouldn't want to see a 'move via cover' option for example, in order to take away the need to plot movement paths at all times (although I would still probably want to plot my own paths a lot of the time), but if there are significant constraints due to man hour shortages which BF can put into improving the game mechanics for 4.0 and 5.0, for me there are more important elements to improve.

Although I admit I have absolutely no know knowledge of programming, my gut feeling is some of the simpler 'FOW' ideas, like having options to extend turn times or adding a time delay to area fire (with an extra delay for units without C2C), wouldn't take an inordinate amount of time to programme, so I hope BF can crowbar some sort of extra FOW options into the game in either 4.0 or 5.0 .

Edited October 17, 2016 by Odin

[MOS:96B2P]

4 hours ago, PhilM said:

<Snip> For example I now hardly ever give fire orders to my guys.  <Snip> the targeting AI the units possess is almost 100% guaranteed to give a better result as the minute unfolds compared with my usually less than optimal choices ...

This is an interesting dilemma, to assign targets or let the AI pick targets, and one I encounter on most missions.  In fact this topic could probably have its own thread ..................