Units and how they are controlled

[Gpig]

Everyone here knows the Demo scenario from CMAK, Frughulswhind (or somefink).

The Axis forces attack the (mostly) green U.S. forces at the desert Mosque.

I was curious to what that same scenario might look like in the set-up phase for CMx2. As in CMAK there was a cemetary in front of the Mosque and in it were a few units from a U.S. Platoon.

The Plt. HQ (10 men), the 1st squad (12 men) and a bazooka team (2 men) all the way over to the left. Also, just over a wall in the next field was a 37mm ATgun and it's crew. (and beyond them were the other 2 squads of the platoon, OUT of C&C.)

I'm evnvisioning this through my CMx1 lenses but with 1:1 representation.

I'm VERY curious how defensive positions will be arranged. Fox holes manned. C&C shown, etc..

Can't wait, can't wait, can't wait . . .

[JonS]

O/T: I really enjoy your pics Gpig. Some Z pics for Urban Dead would be neat

On topic: I'm confused. Steve keeps talking about 1:1 control (see 2nd line of 1st post in this thread), but saying that a team is the smallest thing we can give orders to. Huh? How can we have 1:1 control if we don't? What does 1:1 control - in the sense Steve is using it - actually mean :confused:

Regards

JonS

[juan_gigante]

We don't have 1:1 control, only representation. That just means that instead of having 3 little guys in CMx1 per squad, we now have a bunch, all of whom run around and do stuff. But even though you see every guy, you only give orders to the squad as a whole.

[aka_tom_w]

....or you can give orders to half squads, teams or sharp shooters.

Meaning the men in each squad will NOT be individuyally controled by the player.

BUT they will be represented in a 1:1 fashion Unlike CMx1

ok?

-tom w

[JonS]

not ok, since Steve keeps specifically tallking about "1:1 control", and not just in this thread either.

[Mord]

The smallest unit is a Team, the largest is a Squad. Vehicles, heavy weapons, and other such things are represented indvidually. Generically we refer to these as "units".

As the commander of a force your focus is at the unit level. You command a Team, Vehicle, Gun, etc... not the individual Soldiers that make up that Team, Vehicle, Gun, etc. That means you can not micromanage the LMG gunner of a Rifle Squad in CMx2 any more than you could in CMx1. Yes units will look, and act, far more realistic than they were in CMx1... but the focus is firmly on the unit.

Steve

Mord.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'm sorry I'm not reading that in this thread at all. His first post was quite clear we would not be controling the individuals. I haven't read anything that would indicate otherwise but maybe he was inexact in his wording describing how we would control 1:1 squads.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

I'm sorry I'm not reading that in this thread at all. His first post was quite clear we would not be controling the individuals. I haven't read anything that would indicate otherwise but maybe he was inexact in his wording describing how we would control 1:1 squads.

Right I get that ... so what does '1:1 control' mean then, since the we seem to be issuing commands to the same sized elements in both CMx2 and CMx1 (vehs, guns, teams, squads, 1/2 squads, etc)?

Jon

[Cpl Steiner]

Regarding the great diagram by GPig...

Am I just being thick or would you be able to see much if you were in a foxhole with a wall infront of you. I've thought this was a bit strange in other scenarios.

I suppose it would be okay if you just dug the whole deep enough so that from a standing position you can just see over the wall. However, that should make the foxhole less effective if you have to take cover from a mortar round dropping on your own side of the wall. Dig it any deeper though and you'll have to get out of the hole to see over the wall.

Thoughts please!

[Gpig]

Well THAT opens up a can of worms.

Yes, LOS/LOF would be imparied by even a low wall while in trenches.

Maybe in CMx2, troops behind walls will not suffer from the problem where they were considered as being in "OPEN" terrain. Despite having cover behind the wall.

In CMx2, will we be able to leave men in the "OPEN," but behind a wall (which should give excellent cover)? And on top of it, we could did foxholes a little bit farther back as fall back positions.

Gpig

[Cpl Steiner]

I definitely remember Steve saying that defensive positions would now be modelled in 3D, so a soldier's LOS/LOF should in theory be slightly different if he's in a hole than if he's not. I also remember Steve saying that soldiers are unlikely to fire through an object that blocks their LOS/LOF due to the way the game engine works (i.e. less abstraction).

I have a board game called "Firepower" (Avalon Hill 70s or 80s classic). In that, each soldier was considered to be height 2 when standing, height 1 when kneeling/crouching and height 0 when prone. Foxholes could be dug 1 or 2 heights deep, representing shallow and deep foxholes. A crouching man in a shallow foxhole could just see over the top, but would be completely invisible in a deep foxhole. Likewise, a man standing in a 1 height deep foxhole could see over a 1 height high wall, but his whole upper body was exposed if a grenade came over the wall and exploded.

This level of detail would be great fun and would add whole new tactical considerations to the game (or at least the Tac AI).

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Gpig:

/snip

I'm evnvisioning this through my CMx1 lenses but with 1:1 representation.

I'm VERY curious how defensive positions will be arranged. Fox holes manned. C&C shown, etc..

Can't wait, can't wait, can't wait . . .

What I like the most about this image is the lightning bolts to represent C&C.

I had the very same image (in my head) of a little "zap" line representing a radio order being given under an expanded C&C system. Maybe a "sound wave" zap for a sound based order/alert.

It would have excellent practical applications, rather than being eye candy: explaining which end command delays come from, tracking who knows what and when.

Nice one Gpig, and I hope Steve and co. are listening.

[GillFish]

Two questions, same flavor: will some form of the infamous ‘split-squad’ command still exist? i.e. can I send two men forward to scout for my unit? Second question: can my tank commander exit his vehicle to scout ahead?

[Mord]

Originally posted by GillFish:

Two questions, same flavor: will some form of the infamous ‘split-squad’ command still exist? i.e. can I send two men forward to scout for my unit? Second question: can my tank commander exit his vehicle to scout ahead?

First, the feel of CMx2 is similar to CMx1 despite the 1:1 control (and the fact that just about everything is different [smile] ). The smallest unit is a Team, the largest is a Squad. Vehicles, heaby weapons, and other such things are represented indvidually. Generically we refer to these as "units".

As the commander of a force your focus is at the unit level. You command a Team, Vehicle, Gun, etc... not the individual Soldiers that make up that Team, Vehicle, Gun, etc. That means you can not micromanage the LMG gunner of a Rifle Squad in CMx2 any more than you could in CMx1. Yes units will look, and act, far more realistic than they were in CMx1... but the focus is firmly on the unit.

Squads in CMx2 are unique "containers" for Teams. This means a Rifle Squad is made up of between 2 and 3 Teams, depending on nation, timeframe, and type of unit (of course). You order the Squad and the Teams behave according to the Squad Commands. For example, one Move Command instructs the Teams to leap frog each other, with the stationary one offering overwatch protection. Another Move Command might just get the guys all running at the same time. The choice of Commands is yours to make, the behavior is carried out by the TacAI accordingly.-Steve

You can split squads as far as I know. I think vehicle teams will be just that teams that can't be split.

Mord.

[Zalgiris 1410]

I'm liking this whole tread, thanks BFC I definately don't want to have to micro-manage each and every single trooper, since my focus is at the squad/team level of control especially considering the large sized games I perfer.

Cool diagram Gpig and I also like your lightening bolt 'zap' C&C lines, awesome and better then all those bold red lines that I'm a bit sick of now.

I'm all tapped into your descussion with Cpl Steiner on LOS/LOF issues with troops behind walls and the reality of foxhole depth effects on their exposure. Very interesting, my only suggestion to the topic, since I agree with what's been said, is that there could also be sandbagged up foxholes (think of sangars)availlible to be included as an option for such cases as positions behind a wall.

[JonS]

Why not consider that troops behind a wall in a foxhole use the cover that best suits their needs of the moment? So, they can be though of as out of the holes behind the wall to observe in that direction, and down in the holes for all other directions or arty/HE fire.

Abstraction - yes.

Easier to manage - yes.

[Battlefront.com]

Hmmm... if I said players will have "1:1 control" anywhere that was a big mistype. I've gone through great pains over the last few months to separate 1:1 Control from 1:1 Representation of Soldiers. They are two entirely different concepts. CMx2 has 1:1 Representation, not 1:1 Control. You do get to control individual weapons systems, like an ATG, but you do not have control over the individual Soldiers manning it. Except, of course, as the semi-indirect result of your commands to the unit as a whole. In other words, you tell a Squad to shoot at something, individual soldiers will aim and fire. But you don't onder the individuals to do that.

1:1 Control, at CMx2's scale, is not a viable system. It would appeal only to micromanagement freaks, and even then probably most of those types would tire of the game quickly. 1:1 Representation... totally different story!

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

The system we have is similar to Firepower, though by accident since none of us know of this game. The concept semi-existed in CMx1, but we need to do a lot more with it for CMx2. The main reason why is LOS/LOF and the 1:1 Representation of the graphics. We can't possibly have guys position their weapons, torso, head, arms, etc. dynamically based on chaotically sized terrain. It just isn't possible. So instead we need to have standardized sizes (like tables, chairs, doors, etc. do in real life) so the code and graphics can get things right. From a simulation standpoint this doesn't compromise anything, thankfully, though it makes CMx2 possible.

Steve

[Dogface]

Battlefront.com typed

First, the feel of CMx2 is similar to CMx1 despite the 1:1 control

wbs bolding mine. italics mine also.

I think that sentence is what is throwing jons off. Although in the next few sentences you type that the smallest unit the player can control will be a Team. So maybe he just stopped reading after the 1:1 control thing.

[JonS]

no, I read the whole thing. My confusion was in trying to reconcile the two.

Thanks for the clarification Steve.

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, and for the record there are actually three concepts I talk about when mentioning 1:1

1:1 Control The ability to control the actions of individual soldiers. CMx2 does not allow this.

1:1 Representation Soldiers simulated as individuals in a direct way. CMx1 had a little bit of this (individual small arms, crew positions, etc.), but overall the system was not what I would call 1:1 Representation. CMx2 has portions of its sim that are akin to the CMx1 things I just mentioned, but by and large the Soldiers are separate from the units they belong to.

1:1 Graphics Quite simply put, it is the modeling of everything Represented in a graphical format. In CMx2 all Soldiers, and I mean every single last one of them, is represented in 1:1 detail. However, you can have 1:1 Representation without 1:1 Graphics and vice versa. But it can be pretty messy if not done right.

CMx2 keeps 1:1 Representation and 1:1 Graphics in balance with each other. Because it is impossible to simulate a real world environment with everything 1:1 Graphical represented, we must take shortcuts when we can. But when we do so we check to make sure it works with the 1:1 Representation. Likewise, when we find we can't simulate things on a 1:1 basis in terms of Representation, we make sure the 1:1 Graphical representation is OK with that. It's tough sometimes, but so far we haven't hit anything that has caused much trouble.

Steve

[Mord]

I just peed in my pants.

Mord.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Just keep it in your pants Mord, that's no excuse, leave it alone.

Excellent explainitary post BFC, I am now more clear then I was before, I hadn't realise there were 3 concepts involved, thanks.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Mord:

I just peed in my pants.

*Hands Mord a monogrammed 'I like to rock' pair of depends <tm>*

Thanks, Steve, for taking the time to explain the concepts of the new engine.

Looks quite innovative so far. :cool:

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The system we have is similar to Firepower, though by accident since none of us know of this game.

Steve

so you are telling us the new game looks like this?

are you refering to manaSoft's FirePower?

I am just curious

-tom w