Platoon leader without radio stays in command and control?

[YankeeDog]

... note, for example, that U.S. Infantry Plt. HQs are depicted as 3-man units in the game. By TOE, they are supposed to be a 5-man unit; two basic riflemen are missing.

Presumably, these two guys are the ones running around carrying messages, toting wire, etc.

Eventually, I think a somewhat more explicit modeling of wire comms would be an improvement to the game. But there's always going to have to be a fair amount of abstraction wrt comms stuff like laying wire, messenger relays, etc. Otherwise, the game is going to turn into "Communication Link Mission," rather than "Combat Mission."

[c3k]

^^^

A very quick idea of the top o'me head is to have a "trace" following behind every HQ unit. That would represent the wire network. If arty hits, the wire is cut. Let it self-heal, representing repair teams. The tracing would be historical movement data. I'd imagine that would be tough to code, as well as visually just a tangled mess. (Obviously every unit would have its own colored trace. Of course.)

Ken

[Michael Emrys]

Even so, wire comms would often not be practical, and indeed would usually not be practical for units moving forward on the attack.

Weeellllll...as a generalization that works well enough, but... Advancing troops usually had someone following them unrolling wire. But this would only work tactically (i.e., in a CM environment) if the advance was at a pretty slow pace, like on foot. And even then there would be a delay for the wire to reach whomever was authorized to use it and to get a field phone hooked up. It's not hard to see why BFC has put off trying to work out a model for it. Still, one hopes they get around to it soon.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

Weeellllll...as a generalization that works well enough, but... Advancing troops usually had someone following them unrolling wire. But this would only work tactically (i.e., in a CM environment) if the advance was at a pretty slow pace, like on foot. And even then there would be a delay for the wire to reach whomever was authorized to use it and to get a field phone hooked up. It's not hard to see why BFC has put off trying to work out a model for it. Still, one hopes they get around to it soon.

Michael

Yep; which is why some sort of wire comms model that takes into account how quickly wire can be laid, how quickly comms could be established over wire lines, etc. would be a cool thing to have, eventually.

Question is how things should be handled for now, until BFC gets around to adding a more explicit wire comms model. Right now, the game is probably fairly generous in terms of the C2 abilities it gives to units w/o radios, presumably to abstractly account for things like wire comms, runner, signal flags/flares, the possibility of temporarily assigning a radio to a specific HQ, etc. The current system isn't perfect, but neither would it be perfect to just have formations w/o radios drop completely off the grid and have no way of communicating with, or calling for support from, higher formations.

Tricky thing to balance.

[c3k]

The German battalion switchboard was a VERY valuable piece of equipment to a unit in the field. I'd hate to simulate that nodal failure point.

There's a balance between accurate verisimilitude and game play. Having served 26+ years (active and currently reserve) in the military, give me game play over verisimilitude every time. I've done enough milling about aimlessly for hours only to rush back to where I'd started, to last me a lifetime. I do NOT want my leisure time devoted to military administrivia.

I'm not saying that comms could not be done better. (Nice double negative, no?) I'm saying that the current system is okay. There are a lot of areas needing work. Does comms rate that status? If so, let's think carefully about unintended consequences.

Ken

[Michael Emrys]

I'm not saying that comms could not be done better. (Nice double negative, no?) I'm saying that the current system is okay. There are a lot of areas needing work. Does comms rate that status? If so, let's think carefully about unintended consequences.

Okay, I'm game. What unintended consequences do you have in mind? I promise to give it all the care I can.

Michael

[womble]

There's a balance between accurate verisimilitude and game play. Having served 26+ years (active and currently reserve) in the military, give me game play over verisimilitude every time.

Verisimilitude is important. And I don't think it's what you're thinking. Verisimilitude is tha appearance of truth (or realism). What you don't want (and I'm right with you - "hurry up and wait for the heavy artillery to clear the way" is no fun to play with) is a 100% faithful simulation of all military realities. You want something that looks close enough to be believeable.

[c3k]

Verisimilitude is important. And I don't think it's what you're thinking. Verisimilitude is tha appearance of truth (or realism). What you don't want (and I'm right with you - "hurry up and wait for the heavy artillery to clear the way" is no fun to play with) is a 100% faithful simulation of all military realities. You want something that looks close enough to be believeable.

Well, pure similitude would mean actually doing all the things we see. So, the perhaps the appearance of reality is what I'd like to avoid, since all we do is LOOK at a computer screen. I mean, who wants to actually run around getting shot at for entertainment?

Ken

[Michael Emrys]

I mean, who wants to actually run around getting shot at for entertainment?

SEALs? Rangers? I don't know, some of those guys are a little strange, y'know?

Michael

[c3k]

SEALs? Rangers? I don't know, some of those guys are a little strange, y'know?

Michael

I'd argue that they want to run around and shoot. Not too many folks really want to get shot at.

[Michael Emrys]

I'd argue that they want to run around and shoot.

Well, of course.

Not too many folks really want to get shot at.

I told you they are a little strange. For them, getting shot at just ratchets up the adrenalin high.

Michael

[LukeFF]

Combat Mission: Signal Corps. It could be a new title!

[Michael Emrys]

I'm still waiting to hear about c3k's unintended consequences. There must be some real doozies or he wouldn't have brought it up, surely.

Michael

[c3k]

Well, the inherent characteristic of unintended consequences is that they were unforeseen. So, you're asking me to foresee the unforeseeable. My statement, however, stands: if you're asking to include an entirely new, and parallel, comm channel to the game, you need to be careful of the unintended consequences which may follow.

One, easy, one: how would the game deal with the same information being relayed at different times?

[A Canadian Cat]

So, you're asking me to foresee the unforeseeable.

Ahh, the difference between "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns"

My statement, however, stands: if you're asking to include an entirely new, and parallel, comm channel to the game, you need to be careful of the unintended consequences which may follow.

Like it would suck if our guys had to wait behind the hill while the comm lines were layed to the FO who then had to call in the artillery strike. Only to find out the artillery are already busy doing something else and will only become available again in an hour or two. Smoke'em if you've got'em. We are going to be here a while.

[YankeeDog]

One, easy, one: how would the game deal with the same information being relayed at different times?

Dunno, but the engine must have some sort of mechanism to deal with this already, because it can happen in the game right now. E.g.:

Unit A hasn't spotted Enemy 1 at all, but units B and C have. B and C are both in C2 with A, but B's link to A is better/faster than C's link is (due to a better type of C2 link like voice vs. distant visual, or less links on the C2 chain, etc.). A will eventually learn about the location of enemy 1 via the C2 chain from both B and C, but will probably get more or less the same info at different times.

So this sort of thing must happen in the game all the time right now, but the game does not crash, so it has to have some way of dealing with this.

As far as I can tell, much of what it needed to more explicitly simulate wire comms is already in the game. Doesn't mean it won't require a fair amount of work to actually implement them, but the foundation is there.

[Michael Emrys]

Smoke'em if you've got'em. We are going to be here a while.

Will that be included as a new command in the UI?

Michael

[A Canadian Cat]

Will that be included as a new command in the UI?

Actually a smoking animation might be kind of cool for a unit that has been sitting still for a number of turns. Have a couple of guys move a bit closer and light up.

[mjkerner]

Actually a smoking animation might be kind of cool for a unit that has been sitting still for a number of turns. Have a couple of guys move a bit closer and light up.

I like this one! Never will happen, but still a great idea.

[iMolestCats]

Actually a smoking animation might be kind of cool for a unit that has been sitting still for a number of turns. Have a couple of guys move a bit closer and light up.

That would be pretty awesome...

[Baneman]

Actually a smoking animation might be kind of cool for a unit that has been sitting still for a number of turns. Have a couple of guys move a bit closer and light up.

It would make a brilliant little animation EasterEgg for BFC to slip in and then wait to see how long before we noticed

Would definitely add immersion in spades.

[Michael Emrys]

Actually a smoking animation might be kind of cool for a unit that has been sitting still for a number of turns.

Unless they are trying to set an ambush, in which case the smell of the smoke would give them away.

Michael