Georgie Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I've noticed that spotting info will travel up the chain of command in the spotting organization, ie battalion or indepent company, from the spotter but will not be available as spotting info to another organization, ie another independent company or battalion. Is this the way its intended or is there a bug or am I doing something wrong? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Yes, because there is no link between the two entities . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gekkibi Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 It's not such a big problem for mission makers in CM:BN because you can include some key units / vehicles directly into already existing hierarchy. However, it's a huge problem (at least in my opinion) in CM:SF where luxuries such as individual MBT's or scouts (ya, really useful scouts they are...) are outside of normal C2. So at least it's one step in the right direction. I hope this is changed in future games. Example: It's odd that an attached tank platoon don't communicate with an infantry company... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 It's odd that an attached tank platoon don't communicate with an infantry company... Not too odd in WW II. In fact, unless special arrangements had been made and/or the two units have worked together before, it was fairly typical. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gekkibi Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Not too odd in WW II. In fact, unless special arrangements had been made and/or the two units have worked together before, it was fairly typical. Michael I agree with you, but lets not make this too complicated. Example: If an infantry squad spots an enemy tank on a ridge line I bet they would use some form of verbal- or handsignals to communicate with a friendly tank parked just 5 feet away from the squad. At least this kind of spotting sharing should be possible in CM:BN. Edit: Other example would be Kampfgruppe Engel campaign (a small strikeforce consisting of some infantry platoons, tanks, engineers and so on). The engineers must have some kind of grudge against infantry platoons, because they sure are not talking to each other. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted February 20, 2013 Author Share Posted February 20, 2013 I agree with you, but lets not make this too complicated. Example: If an infantry squad spots an enemy tank on a ridge line I bet they would use some form of verbal- or handsignals to communicate with a friendly tank parked just 5 feet away from the squad. At least this kind of spotting sharing should be possible in CM:BN. Right now in the editor a single gun or tank etc can be attached to a battalion or independent company and they are included in the chain of command. It would be good if a company of medium or heavy antitank guns or any other independent company could be attached to a battalion in the same way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gekkibi Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Right now in the editor a single gun or tank etc can be attached to a battalion or independent company and they are included in the chain of command. It would be good if a company of medium or heavy antitank guns or any other independent company could be attached to a battalion in the same way. Yup, that's what I said in an earlier post. It would be great if we could create our own C2 trees, or to add new branches to already existing tree. This would make kampfgruppe Engel campaign much better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted February 20, 2013 Author Share Posted February 20, 2013 Does an anti tank gun crew make use of enemy tank positional info that it gets from C2. For instance a tank is with in effective range of an anti tank gun but the gun crew hasn't spotted it yet. Will the gun crew look more carefully in the indicated direction and possibly spot the tank where as without the C2 info they probably would not have spotted the tank? Or am I dreaming again? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gekkibi Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Does an anti tank gun crew make use of enemy tank positional info that it gets from C2. For instance a tank is with in effective range of an anti tank gun but the gun crew hasn't spotted it yet. Will the gun crew look more carefully in the indicated direction and possibly spot the tank where as without the C2 info they probably would not have spotted the tank? Or am I dreaming again? What would you do if you would be the gunner and someone says that there's a tank hidden behind a bush across the field, but you haven't seen it with your own eyes? You would try to spot it of course, because now you know where to look at. In other words, it helps them to spot the enemy tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted February 20, 2013 Author Share Posted February 20, 2013 What would you do if you would be the gunner and someone says that there's a tank hidden behind a bush across the field, but you haven't seen it with your own eyes? You would try to spot it of course, because now you know where to look at. In other words, it helps them to spot the enemy tank. Great, thanks Gekkibi, that makes it worth the effort to create a C2 chain to the AT guns and on map mortars and MGs in a scenario. Gotta hand it to BF on the AI that they created. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I agree with you, but lets not make this too complicated. Example: If an infantry squad spots an enemy tank on a ridge line I bet they would use some form of verbal- or handsignals to communicate with a friendly tank parked just 5 feet away from the squad. At least this kind of spotting sharing should be possible in CM:BN. Edit: Other example would be Kampfgruppe Engel campaign (a small strikeforce consisting of some infantry platoons, tanks, engineers and so on). The engineers must have some kind of grudge against infantry platoons, because they sure are not talking to each other. I believe any unit if close enough will share info, regardless of the entities they belong to. You can check it out by having two units (from separate formations) close to each other, but only one of them having eyes on a target. The other should get a <?> given time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gekkibi Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I believe any unit if close enough will share info, regardless of the entities they belong to. You can check it out by having two units (from separate formations) close to each other, but only one of them having eyes on a target. The other should get a <?> given time. Haven't seen this happen in action. I'm all about tanks (you could call me a virtual tanker), and it frustrates me when a tank knows nothing about enemy positions even when a nearby squad of grunts are engaging enemy positions. Maybe I should do a little field test and verify this... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Haven't seen this happen in action. I'm all about tanks (you could call me a virtual tanker), and it frustrates me when a tank knows nothing about enemy positions even when a nearby squad of grunts are engaging enemy positions. Maybe I should do a little field test and verify this... It's been a while since I tested this, so it would be nice to have some verification 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gekkibi Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 It's been a while since I tested this, so it would be nice to have some verification It seems the tanks haven't been close enough. You must be more or less in adjacent grid before they share the spotting info. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebigJ_A Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 It seems the tanks haven't been close enough. You must be more or less in adjacent grid before they share the spotting info. Isn't it a bad idea tactically to line up your units right next to each other, though, bar thinks like ammo teams? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gekkibi Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Isn't it a bad idea tactically to line up your units right next to each other, though, bar thinks like ammo teams? Naaw, it's called "handicap" when your opponent can wipe your entire force with one well placed artillery barrage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 It seems the tanks haven't been close enough. You must be more or less in adjacent grid before they share the spotting info. They will share sometimes up to 3 action spot away, maybe 4 (I don't remember for sure; it was last year when I tested this), but not reliably. In the same or adjacent action spot is by far the best. Oddly, in my testing it made no difference if the tank was buttoned or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gekkibi Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Oddly, in my testing it made no difference if the tank was buttoned or not. I realized the same when I tested it earlier today. It would be better if they could share spotting if they have visual or sound contact (not including radios) with eachother. A simple "waving arms" + "points a direction" would give the TC necessary information where to look. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 If an infantry squad spots an enemy tank on a ridge line I bet they would use some form of verbal- or handsignals to communicate with a friendly tank parked just 5 feet away from the squad. At least this kind of spotting sharing should be possible in CM:BN. Agreed; it should be possible. Working out the exact probability in a specific instance is going to be very complicated however because there are so many factors that are involved. From what I am reading, during much of the war, communication between infantry and armor in the US Army was very, very problematical. It got better towards the end, but never ceased being problematical. As far as the situation in other national armies is concerned, my reading hasn't gotten that far, so I am unable to make a firm comment. My SWAG though is that they faced the same problems and would have only made greater progress if they had made a concerted effort starting well before the war. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Yup, that's what I said in an earlier post. It would be great if we could create our own C2 trees, or to add new branches to already existing tree. This would make kampfgruppe Engel campaign much better. Yep. I've mentioned this before and still think it would be a good idea. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 A simple "waving arms" + "points a direction" would give the TC necessary information where to look. I'm curious, have you ever commanded a tank in combat? I confess I haven't, but I've read a lot of stuff written by and about guys who have. And what they have to say is that it is an extremely busy job, especially after the lead starts flying. What they and the infantry accompanying them agree on is that it was really hard for the grunts to get the attention of the guys in the iron boxes and to convey useful information once they had it. It happened, but it was often hard work and it might not happen right away. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 There's lots of evidence to support that there was communication between tanks and infantry in an informal manner. However, I haven't seen any evidence that it was a formal tactic or doctrine. Maybe someone with some intimate knowledge of U.S. armored divisions can shed some light - I think this is the one place where infantry and armor might be formally in communication some how. In anticipation of the Market Garden module I've been reading lots of 1st and 3rd person accounts of the 101st Airborne. I've come across several instances where U.S. Airborne troops worked directly with British armor, communicating with the tank or armored car commanders that usually were unbuttoned. The most widely known account was in Band of Brothers where E Company was supported with several British tanks as they approached Nuenen. They alerted the tank commander about a camouflaged SP gun. However, it didn't do much good since the commander ordered his tank forward into full view of the ambushing SP Gun anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gekkibi Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I'm curious, have you ever commanded a tank in combat? I confess I haven't, but I've read a lot of stuff written by and about guys who have. And what they have to say is that it is an extremely busy job, especially after the lead starts flying. What they and the infantry accompanying them agree on is that it was really hard for the grunts to get the attention of the guys in the iron boxes and to convey useful information once they had it. It happened, but it was often hard work and it might not happen right away. Michael No, I didn't serve in armoured brigade, and even if I did I wouldn't have seen any actual combat. I know it's not the same thing but I have been TC in virtual battles and know that engagements can be pretty hectic (especially if we're playing WW2 mod). Still, I have always tried to maintain situational awareness, especially if friendly infantry is closeby. Time to time they have shouted to me if I'm unbuttoned. Arma 2 + invasion 44 mod rocks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 With the situational awareness that tanks have in CMBN then communicating with them by hand signals should be fairly easy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 What would you do if you would be the gunner and someone says that there's a tank hidden behind a bush across the field, but you haven't seen it with your own eyes? You would try to spot it of course, because now you know where to look at. In other words, it helps them to spot the enemy tank. I rethought this and in real life your statement certainly makes sense but does the computer defensive AI make use of C2 spotting info? When you are playing against the computer and attacking does C2 afford the computer AI the same advantages and limitations that it affords the human player? I think that its important to know this because it influences the set up of a computer AI defense in the construction of a scenario. I've tried to find this info in the manual but haven't been able to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.