Christmas Bone

[Vark]

Mentioning abandoned guns, reinforces the shock value of armour which seem to have been, on occasions highly effective, and apparently absent from CM's morale modelling.

[Broadsword56]

Not that we're obsessed over this tank-squishing stuff -- we're just biding our time here, rocking back and forth in front of the CM hot stove, cracking walnuts and speculating and waiting for the first seasonal sounds of tank treads from the East.

[76mm]

I agree, which kinda makes the requests for tank crushing in CM moot: in CM terms, these guns were all already destroyed before the tanks rolled over them.

No, it's not moot, because the reason the guns were abandoned was because the crews were about to be steam-rolled by an armored vehicle. Do AT crews in CM flee under such circumstances?

Ive just finished the book cited by Vanir, which was interesting for several reasons. In addition to the already mentioned overrun attacks, the author cites extensive use of smoke grenades (for cover and to simulate being knocked out), hand grenades (infantry defense), and a captured MG42 (anti-infantry, air defense).

[Sgt Joch]

I don't doubt there were instances where tanks physically rolled over guns, but I don't think this was standard practice.

I have seen many references which make it clearer that references to overrunning guns or infantry usually refer to overunning their positions, which would usually imply using direct fire to kill, rout, capture enemy troops and dismounts to spike the guns.

Any tanker would usually think twice about running over any object, especially artillery pieces. It would be too easy to throw a track or damage the running gear, leaving the tank immobilised deep behind enemy lines.

[Vark]

I've just read an extract from a Russian soldier, who took several hours to realise why the KO'd Panther, in front of his position, had red tracks!

[JasonC]

"The list of armor types the Germans didn't have in the theater summer '44 is quite alarming."

The day Bagration started that is true, but the operation took a month or two, and within a week the Germans were sending reinforcements to the theater from AG South. Those reinforcements included PDs with lots of entirely "modern" armor, Panthers and Tiger Is etc. By the end of the operation, there were even early deployments of King Tigers on the westernmost extreme of the salient it created. About the only 1944 armor that didn't make the whole fight at some point, would be Jagdpanthers.

[norvandave]

I definitely agree on having Command Delays. It's just not realistic that a squad or platoon can instantaneously change their plans and course. It will take a little time to organize things, longer if using green troops.

[HistoryLover]

I definitely agree on having Command Delays. It's just not realistic that a squad or platoon can instantaneously change their plans and course. It will take a little time to organize things, longer if using green troops.

I agree. I was much more difficult to synchronize movements and therefore felt more natural to me.

The problem Steve mentioned, that it doesn't make sense to wait to move a unit quickly out of danger or over a street could be solved, if the first movement was without a delay. Additional movements would add delays.

[MikeyD]

Simple solution. If you want a command delay then delaying giving your command. Maybe issue commands every other turn instead of every turn.

[Dadekster]

That's so crazy...it just might work!! Nawww....nuke the entire site from orbit--it’s the only way to be sure.

[Michael Emrys]

That's so crazy...it just might work!! Nawww....nuke the entire site from orbit--it’s the only way to be sure.

Is this a response to MikeyD's post immediately above? If so, it strikes me as a bit odd.

Michael

[DMS]

What about simulating field phones and messengers? Can't imagine playing side without radios.

[A Canadian Cat]

The problem Steve mentioned, that it doesn't make sense to wait to move a unit quickly out of danger or over a street could be solved, if the first movement was without a delay. Additional movements would add delays.

That problem was my biggest beef with command delays. Remember we are playing the role of all the officers and NCOs from the tank commander on up. So, it is crazy for the tank commander to have to wait 30s to get his tank our of LOS of an enemy tank.

I really like your idea of having a free command. There could still be issues with that but it would be better. Perhaps any number of commands within 100m could be free and after that the delay kicks in. I have a situation currently where a troop of three Stuarts zoomed down a road at full speed and ran right into a Tiger. And I mean ran into. The first Stuart stopped right in front of the Tiger. The Tiger got two of them on the first turn. Now my orders for the Stuart could not be as simple as one way point to get out of trouble - not with the current pathing algorithms. I needed four to get him a wall and bocage between him and the Tiger. I still do not know how this will turn out.

I like this idea actually. I thought that command delays would just not be possible because of this problem and personally I would rather not have them and suffer this kind of problem. Yours is an interesting approach and could work to get the best of both worlds. Personally I like the idea of a free radius since it simulates the difference between just maneuvering your vehicle around obstacles vs planning to go to the next field or over the next hill. That free radius would have to be calculated so it was better to pay the command delay than to wait for the remaining commands to execute before adding more inside the free radius. So perhaps 100m is too big.

Nice - I wonder if Steve has considered something like this.

[Duckman]

The list of armor types the Germans didn't have in the theater summer '44 is quite alarming. Nashorn seems to have done much of the heavy lifting in this timeframe.

Now there's a freaky vehicle. If we get bigger maps this ungainly animal could be a beneficiary.

[76mm]

I don't doubt there were instances where tanks physically rolled over guns, but I don't think this was standard practice.

I have seen many references which make it clearer that references to overrunning guns or infantry usually refer to overunning their positions, which would usually imply using direct fire to kill, rout, capture enemy troops and dismounts to spike the guns.

Any tanker would usually think twice about running over any object, especially artillery pieces. It would be too easy to throw a track or damage the running gear, leaving the tank immobilised deep behind enemy lines.

Dunno; I hadn't really thought much about this issue until reading the book Panzer Destroyer, but it sure seems rather common from his account, I will have to keep my eyes open for similar stories.

I would agree with you about the potential dangers of the tank throwing a track, but it didn't seem to stop them.

I would think that for SP guns in particular this might be a viable tactic--the alternative is to sit and pivot and thunk away with a few main gun rounds (no turret and no MG), all the while a sitting duck for the target and any remaining guns--I would think it would be safer to go full speed ahead on an overrun, at least from the flank.

[womble]

I really like your idea of having a free command. There could still be issues with that but it would be better...

Not better enough. As you note, many simple actions, because of the current pathing engine, are best done with several "commands" (i.e. waypoints). "Driver, face the tank left" is usually fastest done using 3-4 close-together waypoints, and that's more realistic than having the vehicle turn on the spot, in many cases, and certainly more realistic than some of the results of just putting a waypoint out at 90 degrees to the current facing.

Perhaps any number of commands within 100m could be free and after that the delay kicks in.

Distance isn't a good measure either. In the same way that confining your camera view to level 1-at-the-unit-location is too restrictive: "drive through the farmyard, avoiding the farmhouse in the middle" if the farmyard gate is over 100m away, why should I receive a command delay for that? Particularly because the "avoid the house" bit is just "organic driving", or could be planned for while the initial drive up the lane is undertaken.

Then there's the issue of driving up a ziggy-zaggy lane.

Or handling split squads over "assault-move"ing unsplit ones.

Or long march orders in covered ground "Go east to the south east crossroads and then turn north." The NCOs would get the conscripts moving and sort out what they're going to do at the crossroads while they were making the initial march.

The issues just keep piling up, and for what? Some "gamist" abstraction to cater to some people's impressions of what they think handling inexperienced troops ought to feel like? An additional abstraction added to the reductionist simulation would certainly add unwelcome artefactual nonsenses. It would be a retrograde step towards the "old" model.

[A Canadian Cat]

Sure, good points. No matter where you put the line it will have an arbitrary feel for some situation. I agree. I also actually agree that it is better not to have command delays at all.

However: if it were to come back (which I don't actually think it will) something needs to be done to allow emergency maneuvering. I was just throwing out a suggestion. I actually think the "free inside a radius" would be the best way to do it - but again still worse than leaving command delays out entirely.

I just remember from my CM1 days that long delays for simple driving out of danger and borg spotting were really really really annoying.

[slysniper]

I just remember from my CM1 days that long delays for simple driving out of danger and borg spotting were really really really annoying.

Command delays was not a good system in CMX1 and it cracks me up that some would really want it back.

So I hope BF never listens to those request.

But it seems to me a easy way to represent command control problems is to create just that. Command control problems

So units that are out of control could just be limited by the amount of orders you are allowed to assign it within the minute time frame.

So if a unit is only allowed to receive one or two commands "lets say" because it has lost contact. It would limit you as to what you could do with it, but also prevents it from being totaly stupid . like sitting in the open for 30 seconds for a time delay built into the game like it was in CMX1

With this at least you could direct a unit to cover and fire at a logical target or something. but be prevented from doing any intellegent actions.

I just jumped into this without reading all the past post so excuse me if something along this line has been mentioned. But this simple concept seems very correct to me as to how it should act in the game. Because it also seems to reflect well with RL. Soildiers are going o do a few basic things to stay alive without having to receive orders from commanders, but seldom would they do much beyond basic things if they feel lost or uncertain as to what others are in the unit presently trying to do without having been given commands.

[Sergei]

Command delays was not a good system in CMX1 and it cracks me up that some would really want it back.

So I hope BF never listens to those request.

But it seems to me a easy way to represent command control problems is to create just that. Command control problems

So units that are out of control could just be limited by the amount of orders you are allowed to assign it within the minute time frame.

So if a unit is only allowed to receive one or two commands "lets say" because it has lost contact. It would limit you as to what you could do with it, but also prevents it from being totaly stupid . like sitting in the open for 30 seconds for a time delay built into the game like it was in CMX1

With this at least you could direct a unit to cover and fire at a logical target or something. but be prevented from doing any intellegent actions.

I just jumped into this without reading all the past post so excuse me if something along this line has been mentioned. But this simple concept seems very correct to me as to how it should act in the game. Because it also seems to reflect well with RL. Soildiers are going o do a few basic things to stay alive without having to receive orders from commanders, but seldom would they do much beyond basic things if they feel lost or uncertain as to what others are in the unit presently trying to do without having been given commands.

You're saying that a unit waiting for 30 seconds (which is no time at all compared to what it takes to convey orders through a command chain in real life) is a problem for gameplay. But your suggested alternative seems even worse: with a limited number of actions your units would be limited to moving to the next bend in the road and then stop and wait for further orders. With the original command delay system you could at least plan things, this system would only allow your troops to inch forward one step at a time.

My favourite system was in Steel Panthers 3 where you assigned objectives for formations. Leaders at every level had command points and moving would use up command points, first the squad's, then platoon's etc. if they were in C&C, but moving towards the formation's objective was free. Oh, and changing the formation's objective mid battle would cost lots of command points. This resulted in armies with poor leadership like Red Army having to more or less stick to one plan with little capability of improvising whereas elite forces could run circles around them.

[Canada Guy]

Sergei,

This is sort of a variation of what I had suggested before but with further refinement which I like.

I also agree with SlySniper. It is a C&C problem but command delay was a way of representing that problem. I am in favour of command delays because I think that modeling the actual problem (restrictive tactical flexibility and C&C for differently trained armies at different periods of the war) may be harder to model. Delays were a cheap and easy way to model something that may take BF months to figure out a good replacement system.

If I had my druthers though, I would like to see something akin to the Command points suggested which would be closer to the actual problem.

Conscripts have 2 CP, Green 3CP . . . up to Elite with 7 CP plus additional CPs for being in contact with a leader. Yes, a bit gamey but perhaps better than command delays.

The suggestion to not issue commands to reflect this is sort of disingenuous as you play to the rules of the system with scenarios built using those rules. Even if it was toggleable, I would use it but I am not going to start using improvised rules inside a game . Even more difficult when playing against an opponent.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Are Italian troops too easy to use and too flexible in CMFI? How about people try using Soviet troops before declaring a need for major new game features.

[BletchleyGeek]

Are Italian troops too easy to use and too flexible in CMFI? How about people try using Soviet troops before declaring a need for major new game features.

This is a good point: I tend to think that the notion of 'acceleration' or 'how quickly a given force can change its mission' is already implicitly accounted for. Consider the following example:

You command a force consisting of three infantry platoons: P1, P2 and P3. Each of these platoons has its own objective. As they progress towards it, say that at 30 minutes mark, P1 comes to grief in an ambush, and you assess that its combat power isn't any more enough to subdue enemy opposition. You replan and decide to change P2 mission so that the weakened platoon P1 and the fresh platoon P2 cooperate towards seizing P1's original objective.

How much time are you going to need to 1) have P1 to fall back and regroup (so suppression levels and fatigue goes down) and 2) re-orient P2, ensuring security and redeploy any fire support assets? Will depend on the actual situation but it won't be an instantaneous change. That time is indeed 'command delay' (in this particular case it is the time you need to change from an 'Aufstragtaktik' approach or Recon Pull stance, into a 'Befehlstaktik' or Command Push stance).

More to the point re: the Italian Army. Perhaps the most important usage of artillery is to suppress enemy positions so you can move with security. Italians have those little light mortars - which are quite an asset - but they usually require LOS to be used (unless you can find a conveniently located reverse slope position so you can use an HQ for spotting and have the mortars fire from a covered position). Italian units are usually either unable or very slow acquiring those fires, and the Brixia mortars will need to maneuver in order to get into position. How long does take for an Italian infantry unit to call for indirect fires or maneuver direct fire support units so to suppress an enemy and be able to start moving? The time you have your force taking cover and basically, sitting on their hands, is also 'command delay'.

[Vark]

So a Soviet conscript company, pivots 90 degrees and heads for a new objective with no time delay. This is worse than an artificial time delay, which often forced you to consider where you would be at the end of a move order? If the delays were long, due to troop proficiency, you'd end them in cover, or give singular waypoints, bit more realistic than the first case.

Sergei, SP III had a good system, but you could cheat by setting objectives at the opponents base line, thus allowing considerable room for manoeuvre. Still, waiting for my useless PLO command to regenerate CP's, so they could exploit a gap in the IDF's defences after a 130mm bombardment, (CP's were expended for calling in indirect fire/air support)was a revelation. Eventually, he had enough to change the company objective, by which time the Israelis has speedily deployed reinforcements!

[poesel]

Sorry, but all solutions I've read so far are worse than what we have now.

Why? Because they fix some situations and break others. There is no net gain - it's just different.

Now we have a game that works and is fun to play. It has unrealistic reaction times through god-like communication, ok. But this is a premise of the game: that we can control every unit on the field every minute. If you want to change that you want a different game.

[MikeyD]

These posts remind me of those old crime TV shows where the serial killer leaves the cops a note "Stop me before I kill again!"

If you think issuing immediate orders is gamey then don't do it. If you think overflying enemy positions investigating the terrain to gain an advantage is gamey then don't do that either. Same for hugging map edges to avoid a flank attack, replaying a move sequence over and over to detect the source of incoming fire, or having troops area fire on a spot though they can't see the opponent. None of these apply to the AI since the AI is incapable of doing any of that. So its largely a question of self restraint. Nobody claims that Honda has a design flaw because it allows theirs car to be purposefully driven into a ditch. The operator needs to take some responsibility.