Jump to content

C2 & Information Sharing (REDUX)


Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, akd said:

Lol, I had no idea.  Intuitively it should be the other way around (full unit shown by default, HQ details shown when clicking on "HQ").

Sorry, it was just the order I posted the screenshots.  When you first start a mission and click on the HQ squad you get the full unit view.  So you are correct the full unit is shown by default. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting one.  A scout team from 1st Battalion uses a StuG’s radio (the StuG is from a Panzerjager Bn.) to send a report on a Soviet AT gun to 1st Bn. HQ.

ZdOCRgLh.jpg

ZtKOjtVh.jpg

Scout team moves to within 32 meters of the StuG and horizontally shares information about the AT gun. 

PYyJ2u2h.jpg

AeQ0mivh.jpg

5GryRQxh.jpg

The scouts use the StuG's radio. If you look in special equipment the scouts have no radio of their own.  It does not matter if the StuG is buttoned or Opened Up as long as the scouts are on the StuG they can use the radio.  So this will not work for games that do not have tank riders.  However on map mortars can be two action spots (about 16 meters) away and use the radio.. 

fWty0lBh.jpg

m04HNvrh.jpg

 

Edited by MOS:96B2P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I think it matters but worth asking ... what is the Command relationship of the Stug to the Infantry Battalion - eg was it a single vehicle pick attached to the Inf Bn HQ or something different? I note from the image that it belongs to 2 Bty/Pzjg Bn which suggests that you've bought a battery of them and it is probably not part of the Inf Bn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

Not that I think it matters but worth asking ... what is the Command relationship of the Stug to the Infantry Battalion - eg was it a single vehicle pick attached to the Inf Bn HQ or something different? I note from the image that it belongs to 2 Bty/Pzjg Bn which suggests that you've bought a battery of them and it is probably not part of the Inf Bn.

Two separate battalions on my test map.  One Infantry Bn. and one Pzjg Bn.  However the Pzjg battalion was mostly HQ units with a few StuGs for test purposes.  This is one of the things that make this interesting.  The StuG, belonging to the Pzjg battalion, does not report the contact to the 1st Battalion (not in the same vertical C2 as 1st Bn. and no C2 bridge to share  the information).  This I expected. 

However the scouts use the same StuG radio and are able to report the contact to their 1st Battalion HQ.  They must have had the StuG radioman temporarily switch frequencies to send the SPOT report :D.   At least that's what I'm telling myself so I can sleep at night................:lol:.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was wondering too, as am using the british infantry battalion and wanted to see whether the carrier section headquarters could use its carriers radio when dismounted (a la the mortar section using an nearby vehicle radio for indirect fire requests when they have none).

But they could not. So when was reading that thought “huh how did you manage it then” until I got to the part saying that the scouts were mounted on the tank.

Was wanting to see because the carrier section detachments cannot get voice c2 (only visual) with the carrier section headquaters when the latter is mounted in the carrier, dismounting the carrier section headquaters regains that voice c2 link with the detachments, but then looses the radio link with the carrier platoon headquaters.

Am on my phone the moment at work so in the quick check of the goto relevant threads I did not see an answer (nor do I remember one). But am going to query on the benefits of voice over close visual other than the obvious. And what people consider the best thing to do with an carrier section given that limitation of them, maximise section headquarters c2 to platoon headquaters at the expense of section detachments c2 to section headquarters, or vice versa. But maybe can wait to get home and provide an better described question etc.

 

Edited by Oliver_88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Two separate battalions on my test map.  One Infantry Bn. and one Pzjg Bn.  However the Pzjg battalion was mostly HQ units with a few StuGs for test purposes.  This is one of the things that make this interesting.  The StuG, belonging to the Pzjg battalion, does not report the contact to the 1st Battalion (not in the same vertical C2 as 1st Bn. and no C2 bridge to share  the information).  This I expected. 

However the scouts use the same StuG radio and are able to report the contact to their 1st Battalion HQ.  They must have had the StuG radioman temporarily switch frequencies to send the SPOT report :D.   At least that's what I'm telling myself so I can sleep at night................:lol:.      

So, in a nice way, what your saying it's a possible CM Game Flaw/limitation or oversight...An interesting Observation, nonetheless.

Edited by JoMc67
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Oliver_88 said:

Been sent up to Brigade and back down. ;)

Yeah, all that in a minute or two of time....Glad they are using Modern Day Radios...Oh wait, but this is WWII, never mind :-(

In all seriousness, it's the all too quick (God-Like) C-2 info sharing that we have access to in the same scenario...The only info we as players should have is the info that's giving to us at beginning of scenario (or at least increase the access to this info 3x fold in time).

Well, at least I wasn't in my Ranting Mode...Much :-)

 

Edited by JoMc67
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have any particular evidence to show that this is too-quick for wireless communications in WWII?

13 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

 

...The only info we as players should have is the info that's giving to us at beginning of scenario...

 

I'm going to take the liberty of speaking for @Battlefront.com here and say no one would actually play this game - no matter how many of you are about to lie and say quite the contrary.

Edited by Rinaldi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

In all seriousness, it's the all too quick (God-Like) C-2 info sharing that we have access to in the same scenario...The only info we as players should have is the info that's giving to us at beginning of scenario (or at least increase the access time to this info 3x fold).

I am largely agreeing with you. Info sharing seems a bit quick to me at times too. If I understand you correctly, you are advocating no info sharing during the game though (before the part I bolded), which strikes me as going to an absurd extreme. There are already impediments to communication, such as radios going out or terrain blocking visual LOS. I don't know if a tweak to those factors is called for; I am comfortable with their current values so far. Those things can slow down info sharing already, but in some cases it seems to be moving too readily. In the real world messages get garbled or misunderstood. I could stand to see that a little bit better modeled, but to be honest, a little of that goes a long way and too much will only frustrate and antagonize players, which is I think Rinaldi's point.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

<Snip>  In the real world messages get garbled or misunderstood. I could stand to see that a little bit better modeled, but to be honest, a little of that goes a long way and too much will only frustrate and antagonize players, which is I think Rinaldi's point.  

+1 This.  The C2 in this game is pretty amazing.  IMO it could be more realistic if it was slowed down some but it's working just fine as is.  Also the above experiments were done on a test map under ideal circumstances.  If any of the HQ teams had been moving on foot (Foot movement breaks radio C2 in all titles except CMBS) the time to run the information up to Battalion would have been longer.   It's interesting to experiment/play with and discuss but definitely nothing to get upset about.  Its all good.     

Edited by MOS:96B2P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:

If any of the HQ teams had been moving on foot (Foot movement breaks C2 in all titles except CMBS) the time to run the information up to Battalion would have been longer.

Clarification: I think what MOS refers to here is radio C2 and is perfectly true. However, if there is a clear LOS, vocal and visual C2 can still occur between walking units.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

Clarification: I think what MOS refers to here is radio C2 and is perfectly true. However, if there is a clear LOS, vocal and visual C2 can still occur between walking units.

Michael

Yes.  Thank you.  I was still able to edit the post and added "radio". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 10:16 AM, Michael Emrys said:

I am largely agreeing with you. Info sharing seems a bit quick to me at times too. If I understand you correctly, you are advocating no info sharing during the game though (before the part I bolded), which strikes me as going to an absurd extreme. There are already impediments to communication, such as radios going out or terrain blocking visual LOS. I don't know if a tweak to those factors is called for; I am comfortable with their current values so far. Those things can slow down info sharing already, but in some cases it seems to be moving too readily. In the real world messages get garbled or misunderstood. I could stand to see that a little bit better modeled, but to be honest, a little of that goes a long way and too much will only frustrate and antagonize players, which is I think Rinaldi's point.

Michael

Basically, It's one thing to receive/convey info (which might only take a few minutes through radio, etc), but then the Player is allowed to essentially develop a Plan and act on that plan the very next minute (which, in RL, to develop and initiate a plan would take anywhere from an hour or day...depending on situation/circumstances like size of battle-Company vs. Regiment, etc).

Thou, and in saying the above, the same argument can be said for spotting Enemy Icons on the Battlefield, and having a Player react against them in an instant. 

So, I will just leave it at that...

 

Edited by JoMc67
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JoMc67 said:

(which, in RL, to develop and initiate a plan would take anywhere from an hour or day...depending on situation/circumstances like size of battle-Company vs. Regiment, etc

You're confusing the tactical layer with the operational layer. In CM, all of the planning you are talking about happens before the battle, thus allowing the battle to happen. The briefing is a summary of this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

You're confusing the tactical layer with the operational layer. In CM, all of the planning you are talking about happens before the battle, thus allowing the battle to happen. The briefing is a summary of this. 

Oh, No, I'm not confused between them one bit...Correct, all the planning happens before the Battle starts (and, why we have that battle in the first place), and why my initial argument of having limited C2 during a Scenario still stands (because, anything more would happen before hand).

Edited by JoMc67
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that information cannot be sent to and acted upon in any significant way by lower level leaders is simply preposterous. Emrys summed up my thoughts on the entire debate wonderfully. Further; you play every leader in a CM scenario, from the ASL to the Bn CO; humans aren't automatons. A Cpl is going to react as he sees fit if he's operating in an information vacuum. 

Edited by Rinaldi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, JoMc67 said:

Oh, No, I'm not confused between them one bit...Correct, all the planning happens before the Battle starts (and, why we have that battle in the first place), and why my initial argument of having limited C2 during a Scenario still stands (because, anything more would happen before hand).

 

9 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

The idea that information cannot be sent to and acted upon in any significant way by lower level leaders is simply preposterous. Emrys summed up my thoughts on the entire debate wonderfully. Further; you play every leader in a CM scenario, from the ASL to the Bn CO; humans aren't automatons. A Cpl is going to react as he sees fit if he's operating in an information vacuum. 

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue with desire for "more realism" is that RL issues are often frustrating and annoying.  That is not what one wants in a game - primarily aimed at the entertainment market who play for fun and relaxation.  Desire for more and more detail and "realism" is what sent the cardboard wargame industry almost into oblivion in the 80's as the vast majority of customers gave up trying to play increasingly complex and "unplayable" games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Radios play an important role in C2 so I thought I would add the below screenshots from my notes to this thread.  These screenshots are also posted in at least one other thread and buried somewhere on the forum.  The below shows how it is possible to Buddy Aid a radio and continue to use it for C2.  However this does not effect the ability to call for artillery.  The ability to call for artillery requires a troop that has artillery calling authority and is not dependent on the radio. 

 xBqb3qih.jpg

hSKIiJ6h.jpg

vILEptJh.jpg

l2RCFBZh.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

...possible to Buddy Aid a radio and continue to use it for C2.  However this does not effect the ability to call for artillery

So, if an unit can call for artillery it does not actually need the radioman or a radio??   If this is correct, would it still need the Leader at least?   

And if a regular inf unit (without artillery privileges) gives buddy aid can they pick up a radio?  But in this case (presumably) it would be useless for both C2 and artillery calling(?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Erwin said:

So, if an unit can call for artillery it does not actually need the radioman or a radio??   If this is correct, would it still need the Leader at least?   

Correct.  The no radio situation is often referred to as the land line abstraction.  Yes you need a leader. A leader with artillery calling authority is what matters.  In CMBS some enlisted troops can call for artillery.  Especially on the US side (maybe all US enlisted?).  So in the WWII titles needing a leader is more noticeable.  

 

1 minute ago, Erwin said:

And if a regular inf unit (without artillery privileges) gives buddy aid can they pick up a radio?  But in this case (presumably) it would be useless for both C2 and artillery calling(?).

They can pick up the radio.  The second part of your question is interesting.  In theory they may be able to use the radio to keep their fire team in C2 with higher but I have not tested this.  In one of the examples above an infantry team was able to ride on a Stug from a different battalion and use the Stug's radio so maybe.............  The experimenting never ends.........:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:

 They can pick up the radio.  The second part of your question is interesting.  In theory they may be able to use the radio to keep their fire team in C2 with higher but I have not tested this.  In one of the examples above an infantry team was able to ride on a Stug from a different battalion and use the Stug's radio so maybe.............  The experimenting never ends.........:)

A squad or team can use a buddy-aided radio for C2; I’ve tried this and it works. As long as their immediate HQ still has a radio of its own of course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...