C2 question

[Gekkibi]

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.

You made a very good question. I'm afraid we need an extensive testing or an answer from the programmers. The manual is way too vague. It only explains the basic commands and gives tiny amount of background of the vehicles. Especially the whole concept of C2 was really confusing when I started to play CM:SF (What do I gain if I maintain C2 link? Can differnet formations share C2? What are te penalties of lost C2? Can another unit take place of critical part of the C2 tree if HQ unit is destroyed? How about if the HQ is out of C2? If so, does it have to be XO / 2IC team, or can it be a regular squad? And so on).

[stikkypixie]

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.

Units who have <?> icons are more likely to spot that particular enemy. This has nothing to do with AI, purely with spotting rules. Spotting rules apply the same to the player as the computer.

A human can react to the <?>, while the computer will not, since the AI in CMBN is scripted.

[c3k]

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.

A lot of WWII tanks had comm ports for messages. About 1/2 the size of the shell port on the rear of some turrets. Germans had one on each turret side, as well as the rear hatch.

Perhaps that is simulating the tank crew noticing the gesticulating infantry, then opening the port, yelling back and forth, then closing again?

Ken

[Gekkibi]

Units who have <?> icons are more likely to spot that particular enemy. This has nothing to do with AI, purely with spotting rules. Spotting rules apply the same to the player as the computer.

A human can react to the <?>, while the computer will not, since the AI in CMBN is scripted.

I think he meant that do the spotting sharing apply to AI as well. If an AI unit spots my unit, can other AI units spot my unit more easily. SWAG say yes, but we can't be certain unless someone says "yes, because I programmed it so".

[c3k]

Germans gave thought, and access, to tank/infantry comms during combat. Later, they dropped the message port, but look at all the side and turret rear hatches the Germans had. The US had none.

Later, the US added the interphone to the rear of the tanks, allowing direct comms with the buttoned up tank. (Of course, they removed it, only to add it back, then removed it, then added it back. See Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. I suppose it will soon be removed, again. )

Ken

[Georgie]

I think he meant that do the spotting sharing apply to AI as well. If an AI unit spots my unit, can other AI units spot my unit more easily. SWAG say yes, but we can't be certain unless someone says "yes, because I programmed it so".

Yes, that is what I meant.

[thebigJ_A]

Didn't they stick telephones on the backs of tanks for infantry to talk to the commanders in the later parts of Normandy? I was just reading about it in D-Day The Battle for Normandy by Antony Beevor.

Well, not reading, listening to on Audible on my Kindle (love that service) else I'd quote the part that mentions it.

Edit: d'oh, I missed the post above that mentions these. Still, shouldn't they be in?

[Michael Emrys]

Still, shouldn't they be in?

They were, as you say, a late addition. Their use was not widespread and there was some difficulty in getting the infantry used to using them. Put all that together and maybe BFC felt their inclusion was not worth the effort at this time. Still...might be nice to see their effects modeled at some point in the future.

Michael