unbottoned armor working together?

[user1000]

I had 1 m20 and 1 M15 CGMC halftrack just over the peak of a hill facing toward the enemy unbuttoned, 6 min later the guy in the m20 ducks inside and the CGMC starts turning it's guns toward the enemy and fires.

This is the first time I have seen this happen, were they working together to spot the enemy? Unbuttoned voice commands simulated here? There was no incoming fire on the m20 or CGMC before it fired. Would it be simulating trying to bait the enemy out into visual site in real life using something reflective mirror (m20 commander) then he ducks for the half track to nail them? Weird huh?

Edited June 24, 2017 by user1000

[user1000]

Forgot to mention both vehicles were close together. Easily within talking distance 20 ft apart.

[Apocal]

Yeah, units can pass spotting info either vertically (up and down the chain of command) or horizontally (directly unit to unit). There was a big topic on it somewhere, I can't remember which forum though, since the general CMx2 stuff is scattered all over the place.

[domfluff]

Horizontally, information is shared within four action spots.

This is really important, since it means you can get spotting information with a scout team, then run it up to an armour platoon to give them the locations of AT guns or the like, which (it seems) makes it easier for them to spot them.

[JoMac]

4 hours ago, domfluff said:

Horizontally, information is shared within four action spots.

This is really important, since it means you can get spotting information with a scout team, then run it up to an armour platoon to give them the locations of AT guns or the like, which (it seems) makes it easier for them to spot them.

I still think Scouts (and other units) give C&C Info to fast, and usually all the same or next turn...This is something that should take place before a Game Begins. 

[user1000]

15 hours ago, domfluff said:

Horizontally, information is shared within four action spots.

This is really important, since it means you can get spotting information with a scout team, then run it up to an armour platoon to give them the locations of AT guns or the like, which (it seems) makes it easier for them to spot them.

Wow never new you could do that. So you are saying I can take a scout team up a hill, get info on the armor and pass it to the tank destroyer at the bottom of the hill. Does the enemy icon show for the TD even though they are at the bottom? The scouts need need talk to the TD commander so It has to be unbuttoned? I think BF should add a talk icon or something to tell when that happens would be cool.

Edited June 25, 2017 by user1000

[domfluff]

1 hour ago, user1000 said:

Wow never new you could do that. So you are saying I can take a scout team up a hill, get info on the armor and pass it to the tank destroyer at the bottom of the hill. Does the enemy icon show for the TD even though they are at the bottom?

Yes.The contact icon, at least, which may or may not be accurate by the time the armour rolls around. Having radio comms would allow for this to be shared more easily (i.e., scout unit can spot, relay information up to their HQ, which can relay information down to the rest of the platoon. Another member of the platoon may be able to share that information with the armour, horizontally.

Not all recon units have radios of course - Italians ones don't, and two man scout teams usually won't either. That's why it's important that the platoon scouts stay in LOS with their squad at all times, and not get too far ahead.

1 hour ago, user1000 said:

The scouts need need talk to the TD commander so It has to be unbuttoned?

I'm not sure. Some early testing seemed to indicate that, but it's not entirely clear. Obviously US M10's are open-topped, and Shermans sometimes had telephones attached to the rear for buttoned-up communication.
 

12 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

I still think Scouts (and other units) give C&C Info to fast, and usually all the same or next turn...This is something that should take place before a Game Begins. 

It does seem very quick - usually within a few seconds. Obviously anything like this is going to be an abstraction - something like "there's an MG in the blue building" seems pretty straightforward to me, but some things are rather more complex. I think I'm more or less happy with how this had ended up, but there is certainly room for greater fidelity (which is always the case in any hardcore sim, of course).

[Michael Emrys]

2 hours ago, user1000 said:

Does the enemy icon show for the TD even though they are at the bottom?

Eventually. And only as a "rumored" icon, not something the TD could shoot at immediately. But they would know to search in that direction to acquire a target and might spot it sooner.

Michael

Edited June 25, 2017 by Michael Emrys

[Bulletpoint]

5 hours ago, domfluff said:

 

7 hours ago, user1000 said:

The scouts need need talk to the TD commander so It has to be unbuttoned?

I'm not sure. Some early testing seemed to indicate that, but it's not entirely clear. Obviously US M10's are open-topped, and Shermans sometimes had telephones attached to the rear for buttoned-up communication.

 

The tank does not need to unbutton to receive spotting info from nearby units.

[domfluff]

Cheers

[General Liederkranz]

I remember someone saying on this forum that open-topped vehicles receive spotting info from nearby infantry *faster* than closed-topped buttoned-up vehicles. That makes sense, and I feel like I've seen it happen, but I've never done any testing to see if it's true.

[Bulletpoint]

21 hours ago, General Liederkranz said:

I remember someone saying on this forum that open-topped vehicles receive spotting info from nearby infantry *faster* than closed-topped buttoned-up vehicles. That makes sense, and I feel like I've seen it happen, but I've never done any testing to see if it's true.

People imagine all sorts of things about this game. I know, because I also used to imagine that unbuttoning helped share info

But you can just drive a buttoned tank straight past an infantry unit, and it will pick up everything that unit knows, without even stopping.

[Erwin]

The C2 system is fascinating.  After what... ten years of playing CM2 I have never deliberately used recon or scout units to bring back info to the main forces.  I think that time constraints usually force one to move ahead without reporting back.  I then make shameful use of "borg spotting" to allow follow on forces to attack known targets.  But, am loving the idea of using scouts properly like described above.

[domfluff]

It's actually a really good idea in practice. I don't know whether they actually spot faster from a contact marker, but troops certainly turn to face possible contacts, which we know will have the same effect.

Usually the distinction isn't all that great (e.g. you might still be better off area firing HE on known AT gun positions), but in a game series as brutal and unforgiving as CM, any tiny edge can help.

[user1000]

what about aircraft from CAS relaying info back to armor or troops via radio? There's armor or a column spotted at map grid #######

Edited June 27, 2017 by user1000

[A Canadian Cat]

19 minutes ago, user1000 said:

what about aircraft from CAS relaying info back to armor or troops via radio? There's armor or a column spotted at map grid #######

There was not enough air to ground coordination in WW2 for that. Plenty of Intel *was* gathered that way but not in real time to battalion and company commanders.

[Michael Emrys]

3 hours ago, IanL said:

There was not enough air to ground coordination in WW2 for that. Plenty of Intel *was* gathered that way but not in real time to battalion and company commanders.

Normally I would agree with that. Photo recon missions for instance had their intel distributed at the army level, which then filtered down to corps, division, and whatever units it would have been relevant to, a process that would take 24 hours or more if it arrived at all. However...after the Cobra breakout and subsequent pursuit across France and Belgium, cab rank fighter bombers were assigned to the spearheads and communicated via ground control officers situated in those spearheads. Normally it would have been a case of the GCOs calling down the fighters after contact with the enemy had occurred, but it is not to hard to conceive that if the circling planes did spot something ahead of the advancing column they would at least have tried to contact the guys on the ground with the news. But this was something of a special case and only seemed to happen when the armies were on the move and easier to spot. And don't forget, weather played a huge role. After the middle of September it was overcast a lot, so not much air to ground action was possible.

Michael

[JoMac]

The whole problem with Info Sharing (other then Squads/Teams talking to each other to get right firing position, etc), and why it shouldn't be allowed is that the God-Like-Player already has control over the Battlefield...If the Player sees an Icon, then he can simply move troop quantities around/about in reaction as he sees fit to engage, spot, whatever...(that in RL would take to much time, etc).

God-Like-Player coupled with Info Sharing is just to much and gives unrealistic results.

 

[domfluff]

And yet... the system in Combat Mission is one of the best ones I've ever seen. One of the problems with aiming at a high fidelity simulation is that the limitations become extremely apparent - if cover was abstracted to a "+1 DRM in Light Woods", or whatever, then the bar is set a lot lower.

Clearly it's not perfect, but the fundamental problem - how to stop the player acting on spotting contacts - is not one that has an easy solution, I think.

As is, it's still a good idea to maintain good C2, or share around spotting information (e.g., running up an XO unit to pick up the spots from the recon team). That way, you're giving the TacAI as much of a hand as you can. Area fire can still happen, but blind area fire is inaccurate, and may not be the best way to deal with AT gun you just spotted.

[General Liederkranz]

I also like the info sharing rules because they make it easy to impose realistic house rules on yourself when playing the AI. Beyond the real benefits that @domfluff notes of keeping C2 and deliberately moving units to spread around information, when I'm playing the AI I also force myself not to let units react to unspotted enemies and not to let them fire unless they have "suspected" icons in the area. I find this more fun and challenging, and having the infrastructure of info sharing built into the game makes that possible. Probably no game can eliminate God-Like-Player Syndrome, but I love that CM does as much as it can to mitigate it through programmed rules, but then also gives us the tools to further mitigate it voluntarily if we want to.

[Bulletpoint]

11 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

The whole problem with Info Sharing (other then Squads/Teams talking to each other to get right firing position, etc), and why it shouldn't be allowed is that the God-Like-Player already has control over the Battlefield...If the Player sees an Icon, then he can simply move troop quantities around/about in reaction as he sees fit to engage, spot, whatever...(that in RL would take to much time, etc).

That's actually an interesting idea. I like the current spotting/contact system, but I agree with you that it gives the player too much information. Maybe an idea would be for an optional difficulty mode where units aquire and share spotting info as usual, but where the player cannot see these icons? Currently spotted enemy units would still be visible though.

[domfluff]

So... turning the icons off would achieve that.

The downside is that you won't have any feedback as to whether someone has picked up a sound contact, or similar.

[A Canadian Cat]

16 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

The whole problem with Info Sharing ...

God-Like-Player coupled with Info Sharing is just to much and gives unrealistic results.

 

??? that makes no sense. If there was no info sharing the player could still react to any contact icons. Despite @Bulletpoint extrapolating that you meant no ? icons should be displayed that still makes no sense. Every encounter would become a surprise with no warning and mass movements that makes lots of noise would be undetectable. 

Yuck.

 

15 hours ago, General Liederkranz said:

I also like the info sharing rules because they make it easy to impose realistic house rules on yourself when playing the AI. Beyond the real benefits that @domfluff notes of keeping C2 and deliberately moving units to spread around information, when I'm playing the AI I also force myself not to let units react to unspotted enemies and not to let them fire unless they have "suspected" icons in the area. I find this more fun and challenging, and having the infrastructure of info sharing built into the game makes that possible. Probably no game can eliminate God-Like-Player Syndrome, but I love that CM does as much as it can to mitigate it through programmed rules, but then also gives us the tools to further mitigate it voluntarily if we want to.

Exactly. Not to mention that if you pay attention to C2 and share those contact icons the troops who recieve that info do better spotting that enemy. Part of the fun of playing is seeing that happen in game.

[Rinaldi]

lmao it's just more mindless grumbling and pining for the fjords @IanL: "God-Like-Player coupled with Info Sharing is just to much and gives unrealistic results. " is just another glorious cheap shot from the peanut gallery from this particular user.

C2 is great in CM, and really there's few competitors. Graviteam is about the only other game of this vein who's C2 remotely pleased me as much as CM's.

@Michael Emrys strikes a good point with flying column cover; became pretty common in a relative sense. I think they managed to maintain at least 2 birds for a combat command doing attack-recce's when the weather would allow it. Kind of makes me wish the WWII titles had dedicated Forward Air Controller roles that allowed for more robust ground-talk than what we have now (re: Planes report back on the invisible contacts they often engage). Also kinda makes me wish the UAS concept was cannibalized to abstract spotter-planes. These would enhance the game, but there's certainly no hole left by them not being in.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Rinaldi
Spelling, etc

[domfluff]

There's always a degree of danger with doing that kind of thing. There were a few attempts to use strategic bombers (!) at the tactical level, which were pretty disastrous, but nevertheless could be represented at CM's scale. The problem with making that an option is that now that's an option in every Quick Battle forever, which can seriously warp the game, particularly in the competitive, multiplayer sense.