Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As already suggested there are a few solutions:

1. Make vehicles an exception. Solves the truck problem but makes conscript tanks and halftracks less conscripty.

2. Make trucks an exception, either by always making them Green at a minimum or as a manual workaround.

There are way too many weaknesses in the concept for it to work, and I guarantee on day 1 of such a feature being implemented there would be vast calls here for it to be removed.

There are a few solutions to that as well:

1. Make it optional.

2. Reply that "every great feature was met with resistance initially". :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 628
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We tried waypoint restrictions before with CMx1. We deliberately tossed that idea out the window for CMx2. Why? Because it didn't work well enough in concept to work well enough in the game itself. We are NOT going to try it again.

For wargamers there's a pretty low complaint threshold when it comes to perceived unrealistic restrictions on game execution. Something that works very well 90% of the time is generally not good enough. Even something that works well 99% of the time can flop if the 1% is a common experience. CMx1 Command delays suffered from quite a bit of the latter. The feature, overall, did a decent job of doing what we wanted it to do. But when it failed, it really failed. And often.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
We tried waypoint restrictions before with CMx1. We deliberately tossed that idea out the window for CMx2. Why? Because it didn't work well enough in concept to work well enough in the game itself. We are NOT going to try it again.

For wargamers there's a pretty low complaint threshold when it comes to perceived unrealistic restrictions on game execution. Something that works very well 90% of the time is generally not good enough. Even something that works well 99% of the time can flop if the 1% is a common experience. CMx1 Command delays suffered from quite a bit of the latter. The feature, overall, did a decent job of doing what we wanted it to do. But when it failed, it really failed. And often.

Steve

Well I am out of ammo then. I guess the only thing to discuss now is when does it come out? :P

I guess on a more serious note. Are there any plans to reign in how liberal you can be with squad/platoon as in where they are in relation to each other effecting command control capability? I'd love to see the concept you discussed earlier but as you mentioned that ain't happening. Could you tell us if you guys have something else up your sleeve or are we just staying status quo?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience, keeping squads and teams in contact with their platoon HQ is already important to their success simply because of the faster recovery from suppression and moral damage.

The problem is really what purpose do company and battalion HQs have in the game. The are ostensibly there to relay spotting information between platoons and between companies, but it has been my impression that his information filters through the system too slowly and unreliably for it to be of much use. In most cases by the time the information travels from one squad up to the company HQ and then back down to another squad the enemy unit will have already been spotted anyways or moved. So in practice, company and battalion HQs mosty function as backup platoon HQs in case the LT steps on a landmine. I'm not sure what the solution to this is, or even if there is one that doesn't cause problems. Most of the time I just don't worry about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is really what purpose do company and battalion HQs have in the game.

Yeah, their function within the game has never all that well defined. I think it is one of those things that all in all BFC was not that concerned with given their whole philosophy of what BFC should be about. IRL company and battalion HQs are a vital part of the CoC and coordinate the efforts of platoons and companies within the larger plan. But in the game, that is all done by the player acting via the squad and platoon leaders. What I usually do with them is keep them in the rear with the mortars to relay fire requests. If there are other radios available though they aren't absolutely necessary even for that.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
...what purpose do company and battalion HQs have in the game. The are ostensibly there to relay spotting information between platoons and between companies, but it has been my impression that his information filters through the system too slowly and unreliably for it to be of much use...

The transmission of info ought to be reliant on the quality and consistency of the C2 links to the HQs in question, so a Coy HQ that remains mostly static will have the best chance of maintaining C2 links to its platoons, and higher echelons, and "should" relay faster and more reliably. Whether that's the case in practice, I've no idea, because "hand-me-down" spotting is, as you say:

In most cases by the time the information travels from one squad up to the company HQ and then back down to another squad the enemy unit will have already been spotted anyways or moved.

...or not be relevant to the element to which the information is passed, and in all three cases useless, so the upper echelons seem to be better tasked with being...

...backup platoon HQs in case the LT steps on a landmine...

.. or standins when the Plt HQ is busy elsewhere. 4th platoon in an Ami infantry platoon, for example: if the MGs are in different places, you can put Coy with one and 4Plt with the other (and use a radio-equipped vehicle to keep the 60s in support contact - if they're in an indirect role, they hardly need HQ bolstering, and they could probably get enough of it via radio contact with 4Plt).

I'm not sure what the solution to this is, or even if there is one that doesn't cause problems. Most of the time I just don't worry about it.

I think the only "solution" if it is, indeed, a problem, would be to have higher echelon leadership bonuses be more distinct and distinctly beneficial, so that keeping Bttn static in the backfield, with his radios on-net gives more benefit than having him shepherd part of a split MG platoon or (Ifni forfend) half the Scout platoon... Another way of encouraging the "proper" use of upper echelons might be to allow their XOs to go and be the fire-eating motivator at the trouble spot/leader of the special mini-task-force sent to take the farm (or whatever), rather than being the Bull's teats they currently are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Or perhaps allow leaders to go forward while the operations team and signallers run the HQ proper?

Interesting approach... what game effect would you see that having? I can see what you're thinking to represent, but how would affect the CM battlefield differently to how the CO heading up to the firing line does nowadays?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Haven't been able to read the whole thread -- has a tentative release date been announced? Apart from historic Battlefront pre-release statement "it will be released when it's done" =-)

Not yet but like Dave said we need some more news! It's almost half way through January lets here some more—I've done worn that video out.

I have a birthday coming up on the 29th how about a present?

Mord.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this game is going to feature a lot of urban fighting can BFC please consider adding an 'assault building' action button. Maybe something where the troops throw grenades through windows and enter in a hunt type fashion?

I still have nightmares from trying to clear those dense urban areas in CMSF

Link to post
Share on other sites
If this game is going to feature a lot of urban fighting can BFC please consider adding an 'assault building' action button. Maybe something where the troops throw grenades through windows and enter in a hunt type fashion?

I still have nightmares from trying to clear those dense urban areas in CMSF

really nice idea,

oh and please the m40 m43 cap pretty please

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the old bugger is getting on, you know. He probably forgot and left a whole sack of them in the shop when he took his sleigh ride last month. Now you'll just have to wait until next Christmas to get your wish fulfilled, assuming you aren't too naughty in the meantime. But you know, you just might try to work out a deal with the Easter Bunny. Would you be willing to give up chocolate eggs?

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...