Some proposals to enhance infantry control experience

[Wodin]

The only thing I'd lie is formations. As for giving commands to waypoints..thats half the tactical game experience and fun. Setting out your complex movements then seeing them take play out.

[winkelried]

What do you mean MAY become complicated? Would say we're long since there. I have no idea how people play CMBN or CMFI at battalion level, as some do. I'd be thrilled to be able to competently run a platoon of infantry or a company of armor. Guess everyone has o start somewhere. Not looking forward to real city fighting, where things get even more complicated.

reinforced batallion level is still ok - the map is bigger and you'll often get different smaller engagements developing and areas where there is not much going on. i think it is rather difficult in RTS, but i can handle those battles pretty well in WEGO since you can replay the action at different locations on the map. sure each turn takes a while to handle.

[winkelried]

At about the same time there is the Franco-American invasion of southern France with the drive up the Rhone Valley.

waiting for v2 to continue work on my 11. Panzerdivision vs 36. (Texas) infantry division campaign

[mjkerner]

waiting for v2 to continue work on my 11. Panzerdivision vs 36. (Texas) infantry division campaign

Ooohhhhhh, can't wait for that, winkelried!

[LongLeftFlank]

If they really want to do Market-Garden correctly, they are going to have to tackle urban combat in a big way. So it might come earlier than you are expecting. But who knows, maybe they just won't be able to get that one together in time for its scheduled release and it will have to wait for the v3 upgrade.

A few observations:

I'm hoping SBurke will back me up here, but in my (fairly extensive) CMSF/CMBN experience there is no urban infantry combat tactic -- modern or WWII -- that a careful player can't replicate *very* nicely indeed in either RT or WeGo mode. That includes recon around corners, mouseholing and ersatz fortified buildings (and assaults on same).

However, there is a good bit of micro involved, especially in Unit Facing commands, to ensure your pixeltroops end up making best use of the partial but solid cover afforded by nearby building and compound walls, as opposed to lingering in the open.

This also assumes a thoughtfully designed map that strikes a reasonable balance between a clump of buildings carelessly tossed down based on a cursory scan of a period aerial photo, and to paraphrase Erwin, COMBAT MISSION:RAT MAZE.

On the other hand, I have found it virtually impossible to program the AI to do much more than hold static positions in an urban setting. The troops have only two speeds: crawl and run, and given the strictly clock-based AI Orders, the latter move all too often ends in a massacre, with entire squads mowed down in narrow streets while pig-headedly trying to beeline to their next waypoint.

Also, units in an AI Group select their next destination squares randomly (within the "painted" area), which can mean a unit that was moving down A Street will then decide to shift over and go down C Street, exposing itself to additional hazards, unless you've set separate AI plans and groups for each advance. Which, in addition to being a hideously complex choreography (you're now coordinating many separate groups and plans) brings you hard up against the 8 (or 16) Group limit pretty quickly. There are a few workarounds but they are few.

[JonS]

However, there is a good bit of micro involved, especially in Unit Facing commands, to ensure your pixeltroops end up making best use of the partial but solid cover afforded by nearby building and compound walls, as opposed to lingering in the open.

Funnily enough, that more or less mirrors the experience of real commanders in urban terrain.

[Wodin]

Not one game made yet has managed to do urban fighting well..esp a tactical 3D game.

My dream game will finally be able to create Stalingrad Street Fighting..not sure when that will be though.

I'd love to see the boardgame Streets of Stalingrad converted to the PC. Or the TCS boardgame system converted to PC covering Stalingrad, both higher scales though than CM series.

[A Canadian Cat]

AT infantry section's behavior just awful. IRL, they HAVE TO use hit and run tactics to stay alive. So you HAVE TO have ability to order them like this: "go there, wait for 30 seconds/or until target spotted, fire your bazooka, fall back IMMIDEATLY or move to other fire position" Instead, we can only designate it a fire sector and specify target type "armor". Upon contact, their just keep standing there and fire again and again for at least a minute (until you'll get to controlls for next turn in PBM; in real time it's better, but you have to move them to other possiton manually) Often this results in its premature death.

Indeed there are issues to deal with in an urban setting. I had an example of "you cannot give the right order" just yesterday. My opponent had a tank sitting in a back yard for several minutes. This tank had no infantry screen to speak of and I managed to work a team around behind and to its left side. Of course the moment they were in position and were given the order to pounce bad things happened.

What I wanted to order was to sneak around that building behind the tank and close assault it from behind. But all I could actually order was a series of way points that went around a building and up behind the tank. The trouble was that the tank started moving backwards. So, my men instead of sneaking up behind the tank ran down the street right past it to where the tank used to be. As soon as they were in front of the tank they were spotted an gunned down.

What should have happened, since the tank moved back towards them while they were behind the building, was step out from the building and take that sucker out.

I know this is a hard problem. I would like to see work done in this area. After all what self respecting soldier would run in front of an enemy tank when you were already behind it.

[A Canadian Cat]

The other issue with urban fighting is the problem with area fire. The fact that you can only area fire to the centre of an action square is ok when visibility is not tunneled down streets. But it becomes an issue when you cannot target the front of buildings two or three doors down. Clearly your men and or tanks can see the front of the building down the street but you will not be able to target them because the neighboring building blocks your LOS to the *centre* of the further building's actions square.

This leads to frustrating occurrences when you have tank support and your infantry are clearing building by building. Your tanks cannot effectively suppress the occupants of the building down the street while your men move to the next house. Further more if the enemy is at the windows firing and your tank spots them the enemy can be fired at. So your tank has LOF to the font of the building down the street while the enemy are up and shooting but as soon as they duck you cannot fire at the front of that building any longer. Even though you know they are there because you were just shooting at them.

[Broadsword56]

+1 to Ian's analysis of the sad state of affairs when it comes to CMx2 and urban combat.

The real-life tactics just don't work in the game. And it's sad because in most other types of terrain, the real-life tactics do work, or at least work reasonably well enough.

No other 3D game I know has ever cracked this particular AI problem. In Achtung Panzer:Operation Star, which some on these forums have said rivals CMx2, infantry AI is so poor that AFVs can drive unsupported through villages and kill all the infantry hiding in the buildings.

Some FPS games can provide amazingly realistic and detailed urban combat situations, but then the experience usually is only as good (or bad) as the humans controlling the individual soldiers. All we can do is hope that BFC finds some breakthroughs in coding and tac AI to address these.

[GerryCMBB]

I really agree with this.

I do realize there was fighting outside city areas in relation to the operation but surely the iconic fighting was in an urban setting?

Right now I cannot see how that works well. I struggle to see where to place infantry in buildings so that they can defend a piece of terrain (currently defending in a Villa. Imagine the Villa divided into 3 connected buildings A, B, and C. I placed a unit on the Floor 2 of building B and it is able to targets units in Floor 1 of Building A (basically firing through the ceiling - no holes in it so I didn't imagine they would have that LOF.).

Also hard to know how much waypoint management to get them into a particular building location so that they don't take a dangerous path. They still run through walls to get into some (all?) buildings.

I know there is abstraction of some kind going on but that is not defined and you have to figure it out as you play. Some of the strange things I see in terms of firing is a unit in the middle of a building floor firing at targets more than 100m away through a part of the building where there are no windows or doors. Some say imagine holes in the walls. Even if we can do that they couldn't fire from the middle of the room through these holes; they would have to have the rifle next to the hole.

Take care,

Gerry

If they really want to do Market-Garden correctly, they are going to have to tackle urban combat in a big way. So it might come earlier than you are expecting. But who knows, maybe they just won't be able to get that one together in time for its scheduled release and it will have to wait for the v3 upgrade.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm hoping SBurke will back me up here, but in my (fairly extensive) CMSF/CMBN experience there is no urban infantry combat tactic -- modern or WWII -- that a careful player can't replicate *very* nicely indeed in either RT or WeGo mode. That includes recon around corners, mouseholing and ersatz fortified buildings (and assaults on same).

The only way I have been able to get infantry to fire or look around building corners is to give them a movement order out into the middle of the street. Am I doing it wrong?

And don't get me started on the overly strict ban on AT rocket use from structures. That's a self-inflicted wound.

[Michael Emrys]

reinforced batallion level is still ok...sure each turn takes a while to handle.

Understatement of the decade. I tried to start a slightly less than battalion-sized game the other night. After spending something like three hours just on the setup turn (without getting more than halfway through it), I gave up. It just wasn't fun any more.

Of course, this wasn't helped by the semi-random way that the game plops your units down at the start. I first have to go through and sort out which units belong to the same command structures. Then I have to place each one in its starting location. The whole thing would be a lot easier if at the start, instead of on the map, units appear in floating boxes, one for each company say. You go to a box and select a unit by clicking on it, then click on a location on the map and voilá! it is placed. You can give it facing or deployment orders, have passengers mount vehicles or dismount or whatever you normally would at this point. Then you go onto the next unit you wish to place.

I think my greatest wish for CM is REDUCE THE WORKLOAD. Please.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1354560&highlight=cerebral#post1354560

[GerryCMBB]

How was urban fighting in CMBB? Did the higher level of abstraction help it for example?

Thanks,

Gerry

[Michael Emrys]

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1354560&highlight=cerebral#post1354560

Unhelpful. Each company came from a different battalion.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

Battalion+ size games are my favorite in CMBN. Sorting out the units is just a matter if double clicking on the HQs then using group move. The icons are clearly marked. The only thing that takes a long time is the planning and plotting first turn moves.

To the extent that CMx2 is more work I think is simply a function of having more infantry units due to 1-1 modeling. I don't know what can be done to alleviate that other than going back to abstracted 3-man squads. I typically don't split my squads during setup unless I'm expecting immediate contact.

[Michael Emrys]

Sorting out the units is just a matter if double clicking on the HQs then using group move.

Yep, an old trick I've been using. But I still have to go through each roster and figure out where I want to place each unit individually. Only if you don't care how units are arranged can it be made to go any faster, but then you have a greater mess to sort out to get them to start moving. The time you save at one end you lose at the other.

Michael

[WynnterGreen]

Urban combat will always be a cumbersome and difficult proposition as long as the 'action square' is the games mechanism for locating units and movement.

When a unit can't be formed up behind a wall because the action squares happen to be misaligned with the building, there's a fundamental problem with the physical mechanics of the game.

The only thing I've thought of that might be a possible work around for the current game mechanic, and I have absolutely no idea if it's actually feasible, is to have some kind of option that allows units to be 'stacked' against buildings and walls.

A mechanic that functions somewhat like mounting a vehicle, but instead 'mounts' the unit into a position hard up along the length of a selected wall.

'Mounting' a unit against the wall could also allow for coding to represent individuals taking up the firing/observation positions on corners. Equivalent to an individual becoming the gunner in a half track.

'Hiding' would mean the 'gunner' stays back and doesn't expose himself, or observe, equivalent to [open up] or [closed] in AFVs.

Company of Heroes might be a bog standard mainstream market RTS, but positioning units in that games is infinitely more user friendly and functional than in Combat Mission, which is a shame.

Sadly the entire engine is reliant on 'action spots', so it's extremely unlikely that we'll see much of an improvement.

Not one game made yet has managed to do urban fighting well..esp a tactical 3D game.

On of the best games I've played for urban fighting was a game called Full Spectrum Warrior, released in 2004.

For it's time it was amazing.

Modern era fire team, squad based game play with an emphasis on suppression, zone cover and movement.

It actually initially began it's development through the US military to be used as a positive reinforcement of doctrine, recognizing that a high percentage of incoming recruits had grown up using entertainment software products.

Later it saw a a commercial release.

It's now a free download, sponsored by the US Military.

[winkelried]

Understatement of the decade. I tried to start a slightly less than battalion-sized game the other night. After spending something like three hours just on the setup turn (without getting more than halfway through it), I gave up. It just wasn't fun any more.

First thing I do anyway - put the whole force into a "parade" formation to get an overview what is available in which setup zone. There was a thread where this was proposed to the scenario designers to provide this already with the scenario - a good idea i believe. and then the usual system (as learned in the army ;-) ) : first key weapons then the rest ... depending on the mission.

and yes, how CMx2 drops units initially is a bit of a mess and makes things not easier.

i currently play a game with 2 inf coys (echeloned) and 3-4 armored coys. got the setup in an hour or so. maybe i am just a bit quick

what is also pretty ok in scenarios is, when you begin with a smaller force and the force then builds up in stages with reinforcements.

[winkelried]

Unhelpful. Each company came from a different battalion.

Another point I put up already somewhere I believe. As a scenario designer or in QB force selection you should be able to create task forces and to assign/attach/subordinate units to the task force commander instead of having several independent companies floating around ... would make a few things easier :-)

[winkelried]

Yep, an old trick I've been using. But I still have to go through each roster and figure out where I want to place each unit individually. Only if you don't care how units are arranged can it be made to go any faster, but then you have a greater mess to sort out to get them to start moving. The time you save at one end you lose at the other.l

Yep. would be nice if you could define at least some basic formations to units maybe on platoon level. e.g. having a scout team for a platoon leading (move to contact) and the platoon following in a formation (T, column) and stopping when the scout team establishes contact. or to have a tank unit (platoon would already be cool) to run in wedge, line, column etc. this would also be VERY helpful for the scenario designer when programming the AI.

[Baneman]

...

A mechanic that functions somewhat like mounting a vehicle, but instead 'mounts' the unit into a position hard up along the length of a selected wall.

'Mounting' a unit against the wall could also allow for coding to represent individuals taking up the firing/observation positions on corners. Equivalent to an individual becoming the gunner in a half track.

'Hiding' would mean the 'gunner' stays back and doesn't expose himself, or observe, equivalent to [open up] or [closed] in AFVs.

...

That's a great idea.

Might require work on the buildings to code a "slot" on each wall, but sounds doable.

[winkelried]

Equivalent to an individual becoming the gunner in a half track.

'Hiding' would mean the 'gunner' stays back and doesn't expose himself, or observe, equivalent to [open up] or [closed] in AFVs.

you can use Open Up/Close also for halftracks - does exactly what you describe - or did i get the question wrong?

[WynnterGreen]

you can use Open Up/Close also for halftracks - does exactly what you describe

That's the point.... you could the same commands for an urban warfare 'mounting' system as are currently used for vehicles.

Instead of 'mounting' a vehicle, infantry could be 'mounted' into fighting positions aligned against walls and buildings.

This would be optional, like mounting vehicles.

The unit could be left in the action spots available in the street, as is the situation now, or attached, 'stacked', against the wall of an available building using the same [mount]/[dismount] system currently used for vehicles.

It would create a huge amount of new flexibility for units in urban terrain and uses an existing game mechanic, [mounting]/[dismounting], to achieve the improvement.

The AFV [open]/[closed] equivalent in an urban warfare option would be having the unit set-up an observation, firing position at the corner of the building in the direction the units facing, or remaining fully concealed behind the wall.