Mr. Tittles

Good points. The one minute abstraction does not get that much mention (I think I brought it up earlier in this thread). You can also edit orders already given. Thats another thing that many dont mention. Cancelling parts of an orders string and repositioning the endpoints. A bit hyper controlled. Also orders can be added onto a orders-string. The turn time length may be a reflection of a infantry type game. For a tank type game, it could be shorter.

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by c3k: One: everything I've seen regarding the new C&C proposals focus solely on advancing/attacking. What of defense? How do you plot a reactive defense force? Reserve units shifting laterally? Just meant as a subject to be discussed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe I mentioned that on defense, a platoon can get a reserve SOP and perhaps a waypoint towards a trench line lets say. It could then act as a rapid counterattacking force if that position was threatened. If it had a radio, it might get several seperate lines so that it could back up other positions. Not just because of the radio but as an abstraction to show the overall command responsiveness and junior officer training, etc.

When we get into this phase of design we should all have a nice group think about ways we can leverage Relative Spotting and other systems to make CM more realistic. But at this point, we don't have the time to do that. Already spent too much time on this issue as it is Steve Did they get into that stage of development? Are they in it now? And more importantly, are the Aussie troopies enjoying 'CMAK for Greeks'?

Yes my thoughts exactly. People are wracking thier brains and they have to realize that much of the game is abstracted. Trying to figure out what is realistic and then abstract it is difficult sometimes. Sometimes abstracting something and deciding if its realistic can be found through playtesting (given objective playtesters who are not focused on some other goal of course). Heres an example: A design team on a game is testing and wants to see if its infantry model is sound. They decide a good test is if a reinforced platoon can stop a infantry company from taking a frontal assault on its position 8 times out of 10. They figure that is about historically correct given the power of MGs. They have 3 pairs of opponents and they find that they play the scenario out 20 times each. The pair play 10 times as attacker and then switch sides and play 10 times as defender. What they find is for the 6 ten trials, 5 times the attacker is stopped only 7 times out of ten and the remaining trial shows the attacker is stopped 5 times out of ten. They then adjust the game slightly, making the pinning effect greater from MG fire. They repeat and find that now 5 trials show that 8 times out of 10 (average), the attacker does indeed get stopped but that 1 trial shows still that 5 times the attacker gets through. They figure its just an anomaly and repeat the test. Again they get the same results. They inquire further and see that its the same player who is beating the odds. They ask how hes attacking and he explains that he plays to win. They say thats admirable and will he show them the wondrous technique. he further explains that he is a 'vet' and has fought in simulators and shot blanks and used grenade simulators (he likes to jab at his own chest with his thumb while he explains). They thank him for his military service and again inquire about his technique. He then explains that he Wins by initialling giving a squad an intricate movement order consisting of many small lengths of movement and assault orders. This extends all the way around the side of the position and into the enemys flank and rear. He whispers that he knows that he can constantly edit these pregiven orders by moving them in relation to events that are unfolding (out of his LOS). He cups his hands to his face and giggles maniacally. They congradulate him on his ingenuity but point out that they are doing a firepower test and its supposed to be a frontal assault. He shakes his head and mutters something about civilians. They also try to discuss with him perhaps the intricate move would require more planning than this short hasty attack would allow. He then explains in detail how it could happen. They explain that it couldnt happen every time. He says that doesnt matter cause it could happen. They grin and slowly back away and say they have to go get some lunch. [ October 27, 2004, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: I would like the game to activate units within a platoon and give them orders and once the platoons orders are finished, thats it. On to the next platoon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That is an option I never thought about. My guess is not all people would like it, but it would add a definite tempo to the game and, combined to time limit in TCP/IP, would induce kind of an "adrenaline" play.. This one worth thinking about, and to be placed under the "advance option setting" tab in the QB engine. Default setting "off". I guarantee that people who feel they have to win at all costs will not like it. Anything that limits the gamey over control and hyper war feel of the game is frowned upon by them. Unfortunately, they are much louder than most others. It would quicken up slow players if nothing else. This also brings up units completely out of any C&C. The lone truck crewmen and others. I say they should be given no orders but head away from the battle.

The game is going to be redesigned. Not cleaned up for housekeeping purposes. And lets all join hands and repeat 'Options are Good'. I suppose if someone were not concerned about Borg spotting and OMNI-control, then they should be pretty happy with CMAK or CMBB. But the designers have already stated that they are going to address those issues as well as others (ie limitations of using delays, etc). [ October 26, 2004, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I would like to sum up some points: Waypoints Waypoints are initially laid out on the map before the start of play. They are strait lines that designate the approach a unit should take through that area. SOPs may be given at different points along the waypoints. The SOP at the start is followed till the unit gets to the end of the waypoint and a new SOP may take over. Tarkus' sketch is very close to what I would want. SOPs SOPs are platoon level standard operating procedures that function as standing orders. SOPs give a platoon level menu options (that are chosen whenever the platoon is activated) that will effect the command menus of the subordinate squads, etc of that platoon. So basically game play starts by activationg a platoon (its current SOP menu opens), selecting a SOP option from the menu, and then clicking on different squads of that platoon and choosing commands from whatever commands are present. When all platoon members have been given commands, a new platoon is activated. [ October 26, 2004, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Would an 81mm mortar shell really need to go through the armor to cause significant damage on the other side of a deck armor plate? Awhile back there was an extensive HE effectiveness thread. The main point of HE as a armor defeating mechanism was that it had to be set on delay. That is, it acts as a poorly designed AP round and thats what penetrated armor, not the HE itself. Mortar rounds are very thin walled themselves. They are like aircraft bombs in that they have high HE content. When a mortar bomb is set on instantaneous fuze and lands on a sheet of armor, the nose usually breaks off in one piece and the blast goes out the sides. Even if set on delay, the slow velocity and light weight and poor shape do not lend it to piercing armor.

It might go through a tiled roof (although Che Guevara in his "Basic tactics" reckons tiles or thatch will pretty well keep out 81mm bombs), but I wouldn't have thought it even slightly likely to get through a bunker roof. Do you have any evidence to back your statement up? All the best, John. </font>

No the idea is to do a LOS check for the selected unit only during the orders phase. This way, he can not target what other units have seen. He will only be able to tagrget what he sees. What the game does is a LOS check for every friendly unit to every enemy unit and therefore, the sharing of spotted units and enemy unit info. This is a means to curtail that. Forcing the player to activate a unit (select it) and issue orders to that unit and then NOT being able to come back to that unit and edit the orders (because you cycled through all the other units) would also curtail the unrealistic gamey orders that are given.

The Hetzer was used as a chassis for this gun also I believe. This was for the panzergrenadier regts?

I am starting to think that altering wayponts should be possible at the platoon level. Lets say we have a platoon that is advancing as flank security for an attack. His waypoints, for whatever reason..bad terrain, enemy observation, etc. are not ideal. The waypoint is modeled as a multi segment 'string' in this case. He should be able to change the line segments (either stretching them, adding a segment, etc). This might have the following consequences, delay of the change taking place (models his coordinating this change with command), temporary change of SOP (Lets say his SOP was CONTACT and now is temporarily changed to OBSERVE (this reflects a standing down while the coordination takes place, etc. Under certain circumstances (no radio/LOS to higher HQ) this may be ill advised as it could take awhile. Certain platoon HQs with poor command may not do it at all or the line segment may not exactly go where he wants. So there is command and plan editing on the fly. Initiative and command responsiveness could be modeled. [ October 26, 2004, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

A forest of sub-menus? Where? I am proposing adding one at the platoon. Thats a forest? Since the SOP types also has a menu (but it isnt used that much) I am adding two. I would like to reiterate a point I made earlier (just for clarification and for thos ethat may not have read the whole thread). DG brought up a good point in that his simulator had independant 'players' each making independant decisions that the other players did not have information about (or not complete info). This multiplayer realm is much different than CM. In CM, the player is judge, jury, executioner, cook, you name it. He can jump from unit to unit and give orders, jump back and edit orders because he has seen the perspective of the other units, optimize, gamilize, etc. I do it too. But I realize that what I am doing is unrealistic and want it curtailed. The point of waypoints, SOPs, etc is to limit the overly controlled and responsive way that units behave (especially in the attack). I would like the game to activate units within a platoon and give them orders and once the platoons orders are finished, thats it. On to the next platoon. [ October 26, 2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I see no reason why anything that anyone has proposed could not be optional. I think most people like the way the game is now, that is one minute we-go type of game. In fact, I think it should be possible to play the next CMXX in 'Classic' mode (basically CMAK). Having any of these options like waypoints, planning, SOPs, etc would just add levels of intensity to the game. Now some might find that as levels of complexity without any fun-time game enjoyment. Eh, thats OK. Its already been mentioned that CM has been sold to a military orginization as a training tool. Perhaps that alone justifies such 'complexity'. Personally its just more levels of enjoyment. If people feel they have to win and can agree on a tourney level of play, then the world wont collapse as we know it. [ October 26, 2004, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

In our enthusiasm to improve the GAME, let's not lose sight of the goal. And that is why there are levels of FOW and other optional degrees of playing most good games. Lets say you want a simple game and then you decide to use no FOW. Its important that the game is easy and you have to win. I would never say that everyone must use extreme FOW or any other option. So I would hope that any improvements in C&C and FOW levels would be options. Don't you? As far as a preplanning mapfest, for certain scenarios, like meeting engagements, the scenario designer might preset all the waypoints initially relieving of doing that. This models the situation realistically forcing an initial meeting. For other scenarios, there may be pre existing waypoints/SOPs but you can edit them if you are inclined. See? Not so hard.

I quite like some of your ideas about SOP and limiting the types of orders available to the player. I am not sure I fully understand what you mean though. If a platoon commander assigned "hold fire" or "cover" SOP orders, why would the company CO come along and change them? After all, the player inhabits the minds of both, the player would have a consistent plan in mind. If it is easy to change from attack to defend, and therefore have access to all the orders, what is the point? The company HQ, which is the ranking HQ in the scenario, is changing the SOP for that platoon 'on-the-fly'. The SOP given to a platoon HQ generates SOP options (a menu at the platoon level). Depending on the SOP option, the individual squads/weapons command menus are limited to certain actions. So individual order menus are driven by the SOP option taken. I feel there is SO much coordination and freedom to order anyone to anything that a change must hem in the total freedom to more realistic actions. [ October 26, 2004, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Er its on you again Pengster. Ive been waiting and playing poker like the useless lump that I am. Send me a turn ya filty git ya. (I did win 277.50 today AND redesign a whole new C&C interface too. And watered the grass. Almost forgot.)

The Initiative Switch could also happen at the platoon level. A Platoon under a MOVEMENT SOP that suddenly comes under fire or sights the enmy, may trigger either a Waypoint string (it makes a new attack line, on the fly, like our intrepid hero DG, or it may switch SOP to ATTACK also. So initiative is also at the platoon level. But theres a flip side to this coin. If you want initiative, then you have to accept self preservation and cowardice. An example is a platoon that is attacking nicely is suddenly hit by arty. Its in ATTACK SOP but the platoon HQ has suffered 2 casualties. The platoon is thrown into COVER mode in the middle of an assault. Its screwed.

Initiative might be modeled as follows: During the platoon activation method, the platoon (being under a SOP) gives a option which is really a 'general' order. {Review: Lets says its DEFEND. The platoon level SOP type brings up an options list: 1. FIRE 2. HOLD FIRE 3. CEASEFIRE 4. COVER 5. HOLD POSITION} Each of these options allows only certain squad and individual elements of the platoon to see a command list with limited commands depending on above. {Review: The platoon HQ is selected and SOP DEFEND option COVER. Clicking on his sub-units pops up the individual elements sub-menu. It reads: 1. Sneak 2. Withdraw 3. Hide 4. Covered arc 5. Pause 6. Rotate} But to model initiative, there could be random advances, etc thrown in the order menus that simulate initiative beyond what the platoon is doing. The player may opt to use it or not. If the unit incurs casualties, then there may be ramifications for this action.

Rexford recently did a very good analysis of German Tank Gunnery. He used actual AT school requirements (they had to hit X ranged target within Y rounds), battlefield reports (number of rounds per kill) and then the dispersion data from the guns to come at a very good model for tank gunnery. The name of this thread should be an anectodal type.

There were many probs with late KT. Including no sights! In Panzerjaeger, the author describes being offered to man one with his ATG crew. They declined!

I think that C&C on AFV and C&C of infantry forces is so different (in WWII) that I do not think that AFV experience should cloud up a discussion of infantry experience. Even in WWII, controlling a AFV platoon approach a very deadly ideal. A 5 tank platoon could operate in near-borg-time. Given the proper training and communications and an experienced leader, a 5 tank platoon could operate at near CM control. But controlling a infantry platoon is a much different matter. They are very naked and have no body armor. They rely on drills out of neccesity. when under fire, they can nearly disappear from a commanders view as they flatten out. A single tank is really one weapon (main gun plus coax) and a bow MG. Both of which are linked to the TC through intercom (typically). There is such inter tank control and limited things to control (basically need to issue orders to either driver or the gun crew~gunner/loader) that they can be CM modeled. A squad in an infantry platoon is not that inclined to get away from the platoon. The individual squad NCO is more busy with his 8-10 fire systems and where they are. He needs to stay ib close touch with the platoon HQ and knowing whats going on in the squad. Loose cannons and muskateering is frowned upon.

I had access to nothing that would have not been availible to my counterpart in WW2, save maybe a radio in every callsign under my command. Would your WWII counterpart have a M8 armored car? Perhaps a Stuart? The Bradley can not be compared to these AFV. especially if they ran into a German tank at most ranges.

Perhaps I can propose a modification to the platoon orders scheme. Just to review: Clicking on a 'platoon' (actually any HQ on the battlefield that can control surrounding units) brings up its assigned SOP type. Lets says its DEFEND. The platoon level SOP type brings up an options list: 1. FIRE 2. HOLD FIRE 3. CEASEFIRE 4. COVER 5. HOLD POSITION These Options have a menu effect on the individual units under his command. Fire commands allows the sub-units to designate targets. Hold fire allows the sub-units to designate arcs (no enemy inside them at the time). Ceasefire attempts to get all firers to stop. Cover allows all sub-units to attempt to move to better positions or hide if needed. Lets say we have a platoon. Its in DEFEND mode (He just entered the area through a movement based SOP). Has just entered a farm position and is not under fire nor firing at this time. The platoon HQ is selected and SOP DEFEND option COVER. Clicking on his sub-units pops up the individual elements sub-menu. It reads: 1. Sneak 2. Withdraw 3. Hide 4. Covered arc 5. Pause 6. Rotate Each of these commands would have an extremely short delay as long as the movement types are very short. There is no delay-penalty for combining them. Since the platoon direction is COVER, stealth bonuses are slightlty greater. Since the platoon is presently not firing and there is no incoming fire, this also allows C&C bonuses to apply (hearts and stars, etc). The initial planning waypoints do not effect these short initiative based moves. Sneaking in any direction is about the same. Lets say its the next turn and a sound contact is noticed on the right flank and a HMG in front of the platoons position opens up on a neigboring left hand platoon. The platoon HQ is selected and HOLD FIRE is given. Each of the subords have the following menus: 1. Covered arc 2. Hide 3. Rotate 4. Split Squad Again there is no delay except possibly rotate or split squad to units outside the red control line (black liners). Even then its very short. The right flank squad is rotated towards the sound contact, given a covered arc that will open up on favorable terrain but he does not hide (need to know whats over there). Covered arcs are issued to cover all open terrain in front of them but not the HMG position. The next turn shows that the HMG continues to fire and the sound contact on the right is some half squad that appears to be withdrawing out of LOS. Also, behind you the company HQ shows up. He immediately chews you out for not firing at the HMG and changes your platoon SOP to ATTACK! The HMG is right along the attack waypoint. Next turn the platoon ATTACK! menu shows.. 1. ASSAULT 2. FIRE The left hand platoon is firing at the HMG. They will give you cover but wont move theselves. You use ASSAULT SOP menu option. Individual elements menus show: 1. Assault 2. Advance 3. Fire 4. Sneak (sneaking towards enemy) 5. Rotate 6. Split squad 7. Pause Now here we see the platoon HQ's issuing of MANY individual orders possibly racking up substantial delays. If he gives just one squad a assault order and the other two Fire orders, he will have minimal delay on the assaulter. [ October 25, 2004, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I think that DGs simulator experience is not either very realistic nor applicable to a wargame like CM. This is not meant as an attack on his military experience but I am wary of people using that example to base modifying CM (or any wargame) on. The reasons it is not realistic has been discussed and he admits he has uber info and no real consequence for his actions. But the reason it is not applicable to CM is that CM models one player doing all these actions that the simulator could with individual players. Each is making these small decisions and initiatives without the borg-view that the CM player has. Unless CMXX is designed for multi-player same side options, then we are still back to Borg-Central UNLESS we accept abstractions that limit this 'accepted' battle view. People should read battle accounts from WWII and know why DGs M1/Bradley simulator is not relevant. In the desert the Germans would move so slowly with thier tanks as to be imperceptible. Why? They did not have the M1s speed, stabilized gun, info systems and a host of other major weapon systems differences. I cite Seek, Strike and Destroy for this. Lets not base a discussion on improving a WWII game by applying hyperwar principles.