jim crowley Posted June 23, 1999 Share Posted June 23, 1999 I'm new to this board so please excuse me if this topic has been covered previously. I've played all (I think !)of the PC versions of WW11 tactical land-combat games (being my principal area of interest)and was wondering if CM is going to be able to offer something that none of them has been able to simulate to any degree of realism-namely C&C. By and large, the majority of such games offer FoW in regard to the 'enemy' side and, in some cases a limited C&C based on morale recovery/ammo resupply relative to proximity of leaders/HQ's. None of them offer limited control over and limited information about'friendly' forces. For example, take a squad/platoon stuck out on a extreme flank, possibly out-of-sight of other 'friendlies' and with no radio. It spots enemy activity close by (out-of-sight of any other units) In all games produced so far, you as player and CO of the friendly side are immediately and unrealistically aware of that enemy activity, the exact location of your own unit, its precise condition and can order it to attack/retreat or whatever, based on that info. My reading of WW11 accounts, which is fairly extensive, suggests that situational awareness of friendly units and their condition was fairly sparse, in the heat of battle. It was quite common, on all sides, for commanders to lose contact with various elements of their command, often for quite long periods of time. They would, therefore, not have access to the military intelligence that those units had obtained relative to enemy strength and disposition and subsequent decisions were often based on incorrect assumptions. This simply cannot occur in any of the current crop of games. Will CM feature anything of this nature? Apologies for the length of the message. Cheers Jim P.S. Any news on approximate release date? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted June 23, 1999 Share Posted June 23, 1999 This is a tricky one, one that BTS has probably beaten their heads on the table before. Problem is that lots of gamers don't like their units being totally out of their control, even if battlefield conditions should dictate areas outside a commander's radius of influence. The only reasonable alternative would be to establish for each unit an entire doctrine for actions to take while out of command. I imagine a menu of actions that covered every situation in the game would be both bulky (sheer data) and cumbersome in use. I once oversaw/refereed a miniatures game for some friends in which, if a unit was judged out of command, it fell to me to direct the actions for that unit according to the doctrine that each player made. It was a nightmare; there was always some situation that wasn't covered, players constantly griped about how I moved the out-of-command units (even though I was keeping within the doctrine) I really don't think it's possible with current tech to enable each individual unit to have its own agenda and follow them realistically--that's some heavy heavy AI. Besides, given the vagaries of WW2 command-and-control, in most battles, the player quickly would be reduced to commanding the small fraction of units that were in direct contact. I'm buying CM to command the units, not to watch the AI move them 'cause they're too far away. DjB ------------------ A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing personal opinion. remove the caps letters in my address to email me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted June 23, 1999 Share Posted June 23, 1999 ps Jim, glad to see another person slinging ideas around. DjB ------------------ A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing personal opinion. remove the caps letters in my address to email me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted June 23, 1999 Share Posted June 23, 1999 Since it is "just" a game, the most important thing is that the human player and the computer opponent play by the SAME rules, however realistic they are. So if there is no fog of war for the human player there should not be any for the computer commander either. The only true and possibly satisfying solution for this dilemma would be multi-player campaigns (with restricted communications). And even this would mainly make for an empty screen most of the time. Last but not least you could possibly give all your orders in the first turn and then just let the game play it out, so that your troops act only on their own initiative. Also a delay in distributing commands (like it is implemented for buttoned-up tanks, if I remember correctly) might add to realism. Regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted June 23, 1999 Share Posted June 23, 1999 There was a goodly discussion on this sort of thing a while back. The basic conclusion was that yes, in a perfect wargame the player would have no control over units out of communication, limitted, if any control over your subordinates subordinates, and would not have the "god's eye view" of the battlefield. But, the perfect wargame would also have amazing AI that would be good enough to handle all those lower level decisions intelligently and in sync with the general "game plan". Sadly, AI just isn't at this point yet (and may never be), and even if it was, most gamers would hate being told they can't micromanage. So, the player must wear many hats, playing both the roles of his LT's, and to a lesser extent, his squad leaders. This isn't to say that there is no representation of C^3, indeed its better than all games to date(rivalled perhaps by PITS/TOP). But its still primarily limitted to command delays. Or at least thats my understanding. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 24, 1999 Share Posted June 24, 1999 Jim, Check out http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000267.html for our previous discussion on this topic. Scroll down to my message about the "many hats" problem. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim crowley Posted June 25, 1999 Author Share Posted June 25, 1999 Thanks for the replies. I was fishing to see just what C&C elements are being included in CM and what views folk had on the subject. I am not for one minute suggesting passing control to 'subordinates' on a permanent basis and, yes, I too want to be able to control all of my units.I want to 'wear all the hats'. Just not all of the time. That's simply not realistic. The tactical battlefield was a confusing (as well as a dangerous) place. Battalion and company commanders had a hard time knowing who was where and what they were up to. But they could, and obviously did, manage to get a reasonble grip on the situation overall and direct their troops towards the chosen goals. To ignore this confusion, which was sometimes only slight but often almost total, is to ignore a fundamental element of what is being simulated. I accept that there must be a compromise if the simulation is to be enjoyable as a game, but it seems to me that this area is being all but forgotten. My concept of 'acceptable ' C&C, for what its worth, would be, broadly, as follows: Company command, say four platoons plus tank troop. At the start of each turn check for CC with each platoon/troop HQ. This could be done on a percentage chance if HQ has a radio (90-95% ?) or decreasing percentage for increasing range if no radio (time for runners etc). All in CC? Great! You now wear platoon commanders hats and issue orders to squads (who undergo a similar check) Platoon A, out of CC. Then you can't give orders to those units for that turn. So what do those units do? Probably not much in reality. Sit and wait for orders, fire at any visible enemy, retreat if shot at. That's about all. Pretty much what they would do any way, so no great extra strain in AI. More importantly though those units do not 'spot' for you (as company commander) they just react without your knowledge. They could be ghosted-out in much the same way as previously spotted enemy units. So suddenly you have a less than perfect picture of the battelfield.For part of the time. Next turn CC re-established with platoon A (the radios' working again or the runner got through); once again you can be platoon C.O. Etc.Etc. That type of CC might not be perfect but it would go some way towards simulating the reality of tactical combat. Suppose a squad is cut off and surrounded by the enemy. How do you give it orders? How do you know what state it's in? In reality you can't and don't. In most tactical games - no problem, therefore no reality! Scatter your platoons and squads far and wide; in the real world - toal chaos! In most tactical games, little more than minor irritation. Is that realistic? You tell me. Work out your company or battalion level battle plan using perfect, instantaneously transmitted information from all of your troops. Wouldn't those guys back then given their back teeth for that! Didn't happen though. Not often anyway. Always happens in tactical games. Realistic? Pease don't get me wrong. I think the general concept and the inherant detail in CM is excellent. The graphics are surperb and the overall intent is laudable. But it is being sold on the corner-stone of 'realism' Realism is many things to many people but you cannot escape that confusion and loss of control are an inherant part of tactical combat. If the AI can control all of the enemy units all of the time; if it can deprive you, as player, of knowledge of those units; if it can 'ghost-out' those units at applicable times; if it can counter-mand the fire orders for your units with more practical ones; then why can't it do that for some of your units just some of the time! Sorry for the rant (and length) I just happen to think this is an important and overlooked area in tactical computer gaming. Cheers Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted June 25, 1999 Share Posted June 25, 1999 I may be wrong, but my sense of things is that units probably spent long period of time out of control of their superiors. Without radios and beyond shouting range, you are, at best relying on runners. This would result in quite a delay, not to mention some reduced squads due to lost runners (lost to fire that is). Obviously this wasn't how any side fought the war. What really happened is that the attack (or defense) was planned out in detail before hand.. a platoon knew what its role was going to be for the whole battle, and what it wasn't explicitly told, it figure out. This is where AI has problems. It doesn't have the brain to figure out just what CPT Miller meant by "Take Hill 452, then advance by bounding overwatch to the forest along with 2nd platoon." Having out of communication units just "sit there, fire, and retreat" isn't realistic. So, given the choice between two unrealistic solutions, I'll choose the one the lets me give orders and play the game. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 25, 1999 Share Posted June 25, 1999 Chris, We reached exactly the same conclusion. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted June 25, 1999 Share Posted June 25, 1999 There is a lot of good stuff being tossed around by many here. I'd like to give a quick bird's eye view of what it's like to command a company on a very simple manuever lasting about 30 minutes. This happened last year. (this is long, please bear with me) I have a rifle company consisting of three platoons of seasoned veterans, however they are learning a new way to fight. (from guerilla to conventional) They are from country X who is fighting country Y on the horn of Africa. (And has been on and off for 30 years) Today they are organized into 2 plts, the third is detached on another op. (3 squads per) with one or two MGs (PKMs) and one or two RPGs per platoon. There is no weapons platoon and the company commander is away with the BC (don't ask why) which leaves 2 PLs, but a group of strong NCOs. No weapons platoon. There are two advisors. Commo consists of two small hand held radios. There is no back-up. Our task is to move to contact against a small village (really a farmstead with about 4 huts) where suspected enemy have a small logistics point. Anywhere from squad to platoon strength. The terrain looks like Mars, high mountainous desert with some scrub. We are about 1500-2000 meters from the OBJ at a rally point and can clearly see the target. Ahead of us is a plain, with a a 200m high ridge on the right and a deep gully on the left. It's five in the afternoon (still 100 degrees) and we have to get this done and link up with another company so time is an issue. (I would have preferred waiting for night) We call the paltoon leaders and platoon sergeants together and visula inspect the target. No one is visible but there is a herd of camels which they use to transport stuff with. We decide that one platoon will move along the floor of the gully in a concealed route to the OBJ. They will move out first and establish security and support positions which can overlook the tgt with MG fire PLUS establish position on surrounding ridges that will block a dirt road that provides access to the area. The second platoon (with me) will move out a few minutes after the first and we will hug the ridge on the right which provides concealment from the target for most of the way. (BTW I have a two man OP up there to ensure there are no surprises as we move). The need to establish security constantly bleeds off guys. We will ahve to cross a road, at some risk, then head off further to the right and enter a gully that will take us nearly to the target. This platoon will provide the bulk of the assault forces. SO we are moving generally in platoon columns somewhat parallel to each other. Which ever platoon makes contact first, the other can attack from the flank in support. We make some coordination then split up. I go with the pl I'm with to hear how he briefs to his Squad leaders. The men , who are in the prone in folds of the ground are briefed in small groups. I take a knee and look down to see most of the skeleton of a human body sticking out of the ground. Not encouraging. A large battle has been fought in this vicinity before. There's unexploded ordinace everywhere. Now everything I explained up to now has taken about 15 minutes. ****ty troops would have required my personal supervision of every move and discussion and could have extended things to 45 minutes. There will be no further contact between the platoons, radio or otherwise until plt 1 is in position (and they will just say "in position" on the radio. WHICH BRINGS ME TO A QUESTION. IN CM DO YOU HAV E TO GIVE ORDERS FROM TURN TO TURN OR CAN YOU SET THINGS FOR A NUMBRER OF TURNS IN THE FUTURE. So 1 plt moves off slowly and carefully descending into the gully. When the last man disappears 2 pl;t stands up and shakes itself out into a platoon column of squads in column. But as we move out I switch them into an arrowhead of squad columns. tehlead squad is in column with 50 m between teams (Always make contact with the smallest element") MOvement porceeds ok for about ten minutes. There is a small finger leading off the ridge to our right that we use to over. I'm in the middle of the platoon (conpiscous with a radio in one hand, M4 in the other and two machine gunner teams behind me. It's amazing to watch these guys deftly scamper up and down craggy ten meter undulations like nothing. The terrain is easily described as rough or broken. (If I had a scanner I could show you guys) ANOTHER QUESTION: IF NO ACTION OCCURS, CAN ACTION PHASES BE STRUNG TOGETHER UNTIL CONTACT IS MADE ala HPS SIMS? As the lead fireteam goes over the finger there is a blast of firing and everyone hits the dirt. **** is cracking over head. WHat the heck! Wisely, the second fireteam of first squad runs up to the lip of the finger, gets in the prone, and starts returning fire to support the point team. I listen to the shooting and wave for both back squads to deploy left and right then signal eth SLs to me. Not waiting for them I run up to the lip of the ridge and see our guys ina pretty big firefight with some unknowns across the small gully on the finger across from us. The SL says it's about a squad and I agree. SOme **** wizzes by me and I back down as the SLs arrive. (As a CO or PL you are running around trying to direct stuff, pointing, shouting, carrying a radio trying to look matter of factly, and it is very easy to forget that you stick out like a sore thumb.) I tell them to set up left and right with the MGs and prepare to trap these guys. I order the first squad to pull back. Maybe we can suck these guys after the fireteam in contact since they probably only think they are up against a patrol. My calls to 1st platoon are unaswered on the ****ty radio. (hopefully Eric, the other advisor, doesn't have his head up his ass.) It takes s a few moments for the squad leaders to run back and get ready then we shout for the exposed team to pull back as we return fire. AT this point I'm nearly horse since firefights mean lots of shouting and running around to personnaly tell people what to do. After the shooting starts, everything relies on two principles: 1. Being flexible, that is being able to change everything on the fly and know it will work due to the quality/experience of your leaders and men. and 2: moving and acting before the other guy. There's time to be tired later, but for now, leaders have to hussle their asses off to make people move in an environment when every instict screams Hide! or Run!. Note that as a leader in combat, this often requires kicking, slapping, pushing and physically moving people, and tons of yelling. Anyway, The team gets up in one gaggle and hauls ass back past us in a hurry, we I can see some figures manuevering towards us. Now teh rest of us haul ass down the finger to the next pile of rocks (this is great infantry country). Imagine the surprise on the enemy when they chase after our guys (they are not very well trained, these guys, which goes for most of their countrymen who rely on old WW2 soviet style numbers tactics), when they come over the finger and a whole platoon is waiting for them. There is massive fire, (the establishment of fire superiority is key to winning firefights. Whoever SOUNDS like they're squared away will suually scare the bejeezus out of the other guys and start degrading their will to resist. ANyway, some fall, the rest run, we get up and bound to the top of the ridge, I'm running around to each sqaud emplacing them where I want them. Leaders trying to control movement so noone shoots any friendlies, no one gets too far out ahead. The G's are now thoroughly spooked, and disappear over the far side of the finger and there is more fire. It's first platoon which has come out of the draw per our previous contingency plan (always have one of those) plan and cut them off.) Some survivors surrender, others throw down their weapons and scatter. A few scattered shots ring out. The big challenge is to get our guys to stop shooting before the two platoons hit eachother, but these guys haven't survived 10-15 years of fighting by being stupid. Now it's running around, consolidating, reorganizing, etc etc. Of course the whole plan to advance stealthily on the OBJ is shot (plans never survive) and speed is of the essence. We quickly in a two minute parlay set up a two platoon advancing in parallel, dropping off MGs and security teams in a hurry. Whoever was at the huts have run off, but they've left a stash of ammunition which is cool. Plus a ton of foul smelling and slightly dangerous looking Camels. We scatter the ugly smelly beasts (no time totake them with us and killing camels here is like shooting a religeous icon-they're too valuable) A few peole actually live in the huts. they're deathly afraid we're just going to massacre them. instead we jsut interrogate them since some of the guys in the company know them. Intel is gathered, We blow up everything we can't carry (which is mnost of it. They keep the PK ammo and theextra RPGs.) and haul ass to take our prisoners back plus get out of the area before help arrives. Later when there is time for an AAR we find out that when our point element moved over teh finger the ran perpendciualrly into a squad sized patrol that was moving to our front, The terrain is crazy and can hold whole companies! During the fight most of the guys had little to no idea of the big picture though the leaders had various levels of understanding. This whole way of doing things fast is new to them. Despite what you see on TV, most combat around the third world goes like this: Two forces bump into each other, both sides go to ground and fire either wildly or sporatically until someone makes a mistake or decides to leave. There's not a lot of agrressive fire and manuever. That requires training and will. Plus in the desert it's too damn hot to run around like an idiot. Anyway, notice that in this particular instance (Caveat:no two fights are alike!), things sort of proceeded in pulses. Plans were made and disemminated, then carried out. SOmething pops up. Things occur very much On the fly at that point until the leader gains control of the situation and issues new orders. There then is another fluury of mevemnt/activity until some other result occurs, leaders then adjust/or reorganize, whatever. In movies you see leaders doing lots of the fighting. If you are busy shooting that normally means youa re neglecting your primary job which is controlling things, and it's almost always chaos. We could have been wiped out ten times from ten differnt directions. But that times we weren't. Luckily. This is the first day of three days of continuous combat operations that ends in a crazy battalion sized night raid. (Note, we've already been working with them for a month straight back in the rear.) We had no casualties except a gushed shin (mine) from a lousy jagged rock. Note that the average joe civilian was safely at home 10000 kilometers way blissfully unaware that this is business as usual for some of their countryman. Two months later I would be back home at my civilian job pushing papers and worrying about budgets and where I am going to find more episodes of Thomas the Tank engine for my kid to watch.... Cheers... Los P.s. Sorry for the ramble. Take it or leave it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 25, 1999 Share Posted June 25, 1999 Thanks Los for that personal 1st hand tidbit of small unit actions. I must say, pretty much everything that you said sounded pretty normal to me. It also is another good reminder about why I did not choose the military as my first vocation. I would sign up if there were need, but would much rather stick to making wargames I am very glad that you are alive and well and watching Thomas ('though I always liked Sesame Street better ) On to your questions... You can give orders that last any number of turns. The more orders you give, the longer the distance, the longer they will take. Some, like Hide and Ambush, will last until they are triggered or you cancel them. In fact, you are very much encouraged to make the sorts of plans you gave to your platoon (and through them squad leaders). You give them their march paths that will take them, say, 5 minutes to execute if nothing goes wrong. Changing orders, or starting fresh ones when the old ones expire, creates a C&C delay which can be costly. The worse the troops, the more that are out of C&C, the more disorderly and delayed your advance. You can not keep the turns Resolving without going through each Orders Phase. But if nothing happened, and you don't wish to review the turn a second time, it is as simple as hitting the "Go" button to compile the next turn. Chances are that you will not do this often. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 25, 1999 Share Posted June 25, 1999 Jim, The problem with simulating C&C the way you describe is that it is not realistic. In fact, it is less realistic than the way CM is now. You suggest that if a unit is out of C&C that it should not be allowed to get any new orders. But the thing is, units are most often not in C&C in real life, especially in WWII. The individuals leading the units are responsible for using their best judgment about what they should be doing. And in CM, since you are the player, that judgment rests on your shoulders. And since you have total knowledge of your own forces positions and states, you can act on that information regardless of what C&C exists. Sometimes the real world unit would, as you suggest, sit and wait for Big Daddy to tell them what to do once out of communication. But other times the unit might decide to push on, or push on in a different direction. So to arbitrarily say "you can't move this turn" is not going to get you more realism. In fact, it is likely to condemn some units to unrealistic casualties and lost opportunities. Other problems happen when units are in the thick of it. Do you really think that a Company HQ needs to issue orders through its Platoon HQ for 1st Squad, 2nd Platoon to sprint down an alley way to take a tank from the rear? If it saw that opportunity, it would take it or not take it regardless of orders. This is the Many Hats. You, and only you, are qualified to make the kinds of decisions for your units (we could let the AI do the moves, but since it would be for the majority of your units once fighting starts, I don't think many people would be happy ). What we have are C&C delays based on the quality of the unit. So in my example here a really good unit might be able to run right after that tank with only a 10 sec delay out of C&C, while a crappy unit might take 50 seconds. Since timing is so important, the crappy unit is most likely going to miss its opportunity (or panic at the crucial moment), so you will learn that they are probably best left where they are (which is pretty realistic). Nope, the only TRUE way to have C&C simulated is to remove all control from all units not under your direct command. Anything less than that is a balance between game, realistic control, and realistic outcomes. You will find that CM simulates C&C better than probably any computer wargame before it. Not perfect, but very well thought out Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted June 25, 1999 Share Posted June 25, 1999 Great story Los... Makes half of me wish I could be in your shoes, and the other half damn glad that I wasn't.. well, ok, probably more than half. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted June 25, 1999 Share Posted June 25, 1999 Re: Units sitting in waiting... One of the most important concepts that we picked up from the Germans, and which today remains an important part of combat orders is understanding the commander's intent. It's not enough to say, you have to take that hill. Units need to know that they are taking htat hill (for ex.) in order to interdict an enemy avenue of approach through a gully on the far side. This way if something happens along the way (and it will) or if you get on the hill and see that there's a smaller hill on the far side which blocks your line of fire into the gully, the subunuits can make on the spot corrections to their positioning or actions in order to cover that gully. Certainly many battles have been lost becaus eunits just asat there and didn't use their initiative and often whole armies (early war Russain for example) are inculcated with a general directive NOT to veer from orders. So to me at least it seems CM is moving along the right track. Sure some Armies or units would be less apt to display this initiative and maybe that'sbuilt into teh numbers somewhere.This is essentially backing up what Steve is saying, just in case I'm not clear. Cheers... Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 25, 1999 Share Posted June 25, 1999 To add to the initiative thing... Units react differently to circumstances depending on their quality and condition. For example, a Tired unit ordered to Run is not going to do that unless someone is shooting at them in a big way. A Green unit is not likely to advance well under fire unless there is a LOT of cover. In any case it will likely take longer because of hesitation. A Crack unit caught out in the open will most likey keep going if that is what it was ordered to do, even if a few of its men drop. All in all the infantry stuff in CM "feels right". I think I have said this before, but I am perfectly happy to play battles with no vehicles (either because they all got whacked or none were there to start with). I can't say this about any other game. CC2 comes close, but it is a different feeling. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatsby Posted June 25, 1999 Share Posted June 25, 1999 In another thread I pointed to the field service manual 105 that the US used for tactics..and to battle commentaries by veteran officers... Over and over again they talk about initiave...that each individual soldier must be able to make decisions when they are out of command and control...this was of course a majour contribution to the art of small unit tactics by the germans.. where in theory a private could take command of a platoon... It did not work out too well for the Americans in WW2 basically because the men were draftees and not professionals and the lack of unit cohesion due to a ridiculous relacement system...Its hard to have initiave when you have no idea who you are fighting with... Even though not a soldier I have seen my fair share of combat as a journalist... what always astounded me was the lack of any real command and control once the firing started...and the total suprise by which each individual reacted.. and that they reacted differently each time..until...that particular type of combat numbness descended and a group of men who previously had hugged the earth began to move forward or retreat( even harder) as one... The one thing that no wargame I have seen (and I have seen them all) has been able to simulate is how hard it is to move men as a military group.. and I am not even talking under fire...I have seen two companies try to pass through each other in dense terrain(not even jungle,,just woods) and watched them get hopelessly entangled lost and take a good hour to get back on track...Trying to pulll out of fixed positions at night for example is one of the scariest manouvers I have ever been part of.. and these were veteran soldiers... CM seems to be trying to simulate this and for that you should be commended a...but without beating a dead horse here.. the difference between a soldier who has been under fire for three days and one who has been under fire for an hour is extraordinary...what was once impossible to even consider(a flanking manouver..running to cover in atree line for example) is performed as if by rote...three days before LOS could have been screaming at those same men until his throat gave out... so one last try...in a campaign game after a day of combat I would really like to see some bump of experience..or something...to indicate that they are performing better... LOS I am sure can attest to what being under fire does to a soldier...in terms of his ability to react, to follow orders, and most importantly to take initiative....green troops will rarely..a handful maybe take psoitions, figure out fields of fire etc(u have to lift your head to do it)...but the next day and I have witnessed this..a majority of the men will be able to act on their own... I still like James Jones explanation of this.. he says that you are so revved up and terrified that you just simply run out of adrenalin...and that essentially you don't have the energy to be afraid or not to act...and that it is indifference in some ways which explains the change in performance... JOhn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 25, 1999 Share Posted June 25, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>so one last try...in a campaign game after a day of combat I would really like to see some bump of experience..or something...to indicate that they are performing better...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree I think the problem for you is that our ratings for experience are not as finite as you would like them to be. We have to pick specific milestones to judge if a unit is "better" than another. These milestones are not infinite, and instead are generalizations selected to represent a range of factors and a range of quality of those factors. Is a unit that gets shot at all day long going to be better the next day? Most likely. But would "better" really be noticable at CM's level? We think the answer is a solid "no". A unit with the lowest rating, "Conscript", is not going to become good enough to be knocked up to "Green" after one day's fighting. As stated before, "Conscript" does not simply mean the unit hasn't been shot at, but also takes into account physical condition, willingness to fight, understanding of tactics, unit cohesion, etc. One day's worth of fighting is not going to change any of these things very much, if at all (esp. the physical and willingness bits). So in real life the unit MIGHT not cower at the first sign of trouble on day 2 (though I still think it is more than likely it would, and near certainly would on the second sign of trouble ), but the unit isn't going to be "better" on the whole. For all other unit types, including Green, what you are asking about is not an issue at all as the unit has already had that first baptisim of fire. In the end most scenarios won't take you through a full day's worth of combat. Think about it... 6-10 battles spaced apart by 1-2 hours only simulates abou 6-20hrs on the clock. It *can* be more than that, but CM's primary design is not focused on simulating long periods of elapsed time. This is what our campaigns are designed to simulate. So coming up with a special rule for Conscripts, even if we agreed with the need for it, is not the best use of our time. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatsby Posted June 25, 1999 Share Posted June 25, 1999 asked and answered...thankyou John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted June 25, 1999 Share Posted June 25, 1999 Please also don't forget that in CM whole squads are rated for experience, not individual men. So while I would not be surprised that maybe a couple of soldiers per squad indeed learns something after coming under fire for the first time, I seriously doubt if you could "upgrade" a whole squad within such a short time. Instead I would expect that it takes quite a bit of time until a whole squad starts acting and performing "better", because it not only takes courage, but also experience to work as a team under fire. The fact that somebody starts shooting back on the second day of combat still doesn't turn a regular squad into veterans, IMO. I was squad leader during my Army times and - although we never had somebody fire at us with the intent to kill - my guess from the experiences there would be that it takes weeks if not months of daily action to really see a difference. Let's take night maneuvers as an example. After learning the basic stuff, you go out and don't see a thing. People are confused. It takes a lot of practice and time to have people act as a squad. I could imagine that if somebody is firing at you, it takes even longer, TBH. Another thing I would like to add is the learning curve. While going from Conscript to Green and Green to Regular might be done relatively fast, the higher up you go the longer it should take. Some things, like Crack units, might be just completely out of reach for a normal Regular unit, since it not only takes years of experience but also special training - no matter how long somebody shoots at you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted June 25, 1999 Share Posted June 25, 1999 "I still like James Jones explanation of his.. he says that you are so revved up and terrified that you just simply run out of adrenalin...and that essentially you don't have the energy to be afraid or not to act...and that it is indifference in some ways which explains the change in performance..." Are you talking about "Thin Red Line"? I haven't seen the movie, many say its a disappointmnet, but the book remains one of my all time favorites and is still one of the best descriptions of what goes on in your mind in combat. And by the way, Mazzy and Tills are hillarious. I would highly recommend this "non-standard" account. Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatsby Posted June 25, 1999 Share Posted June 25, 1999 Moon: I would agree with everything you said especially the distinction between elite and crack... I am not talking about the affects of combat on already batt;e hardened troops...I was speaking of the affect of being "bloodied" on troops which had never been underfire... In my limited observer experience I have seen a notable difference o the quality of the actions performed underf fire from one day to the next.. Now I am talking being under fire for a whole day.. meaning those lapses in the middle of a firefight while everyone just takes a break from fatigue... where guys decide to eat drink water...thoise actions take superhuman effort...I've been near a mortar barrage where I wouldn't have moved my little finger because I was afraid I would get dead... the effect of being iunder fire taking casualities does affect "never under fire" troops...Styeve has already answered that this will not be in affect in CM...what I wanted was to see a difference after a day and night(even if no combat.. the tension of being on watch you might as well be and if there is a probe well..)on green troops...Basically its a difference of opnion that's what makes horse races... I have had a number of older non coms tell me that the affect of combat on the long term on men is not particularly affected by the situation.. winning losing...etc... in th emoment yes.. panic...or conversely courage...but the kind of automaton quality that veteran troops has is not dependent on the situation... I think I am goign on about this... because its always beent he thing that suprised me...how that cliched 1000 yard stare bespeaks competence as well as exhaustation and disgust...and there is such profound wisdom in a 20 year old boy who looks at a mortar going off a few yards away with the same expression as he has when opens up his lunch... John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatsby Posted June 25, 1999 Share Posted June 25, 1999 LOS: Yes the book is by far the best on men in combat.. The movie was a huge mistake about a prticular character...anyway yes that's what oiw as referring to... between Tolstoy and Jones its the best you're going to get...about what's it like to be very very afraid John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts