Reducing player's god-like capabilities

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think any across the board reduction in area fire effectiveness would be a bad idea.

[altipueri]

There was a CMBO scenario you were supposed to play this way. Dispersed paratroopers trying to take a village objective, but you could only tab between units at viewpoint one to play. (honor system). It was incredibly difficult.

"Drop to Destiny" was the scenario I think. I just tried it again.

[Erwin]

Re SlowMotion's query: "How should selectable waypoints be improved?"

Although we can now move waypoints we still cannot click on any line or waypoint to select that line and that unit. I am hoping that eventually, this (CM1) feature will be reintroduced as it saves a lot of time - especally in larger scenarios with lots of units.

Currently a player has to go back to another part of the map (sometimes quite distant in a large map), locate the desired unit, click on it, then go back to where its waypoints end in order to move the desired waypoint. A few seconds multiplied by perhaps dozens of units adds up over the length of a game.

I am hoping that eventually, this (CM1) feature will be reintroduced as it saves a lot of time - especally in larger scenarios with lots of units.

[Battlefront.com]

Steve - any comment on HistoryLovers proposal?

It's been proposed many, many times in the past. Even similar things were proposed back in CMx1 days. It's simply not a good idea. As others have said blind area fire is a huge part of actual combat. We have absolutely no way, at all, of realistically determining when an area fire shot is "legitimate" or "gamey". Many have tried to come up with a reliable method, but none have succeeded. Which isn't surprising because it's very doubtful there is a way.

Steve

[Wodin]

Funny people always want\request more realistic gameplay..yet if they had it they'd not be happy..the game would be pretty unplayable and infact hardly have any gameplay\enjoyment factor at all. It would be a confusing more or less hands off gaming experience.

Tigers Unleashed on the highest settings is an example of how realism can impede gameplay and make the game an extreme niche as many wont find any enjoyment in it at all.

Games have to strike a balance between realism and gameplay..I like mine more on the realism side of things..but still want an enjoyable game experience.

As the saying goes be careful what you wish for.

[Erwin]

+1 to Wodin's point. Verisimilitude is what gamers want.

"Realism" is what military trainers need. But, it's hardly ever "fun".

[General Lee Irked]

+1 to Wodin's point. Verisimilitude is what gamers want.

"Realism" is what military trainers need. But, it's hardly ever "fun".

Verisimilitude! Isn't that the noodle I get in my Vietnamese food?

[Migo441]

Yes, we all have our peculiar ideas about what's realistic, sensible in a game, or outright gamey.

Personally, I appreciated the feel of the CMx1 command delays and would be open to method that dumbed down area fire. On the other hand, I never give a second thought to zooming the camera around the battlefield at all angles, coordinates, and elevations.

I do appreciate the challenge of the developers. It's easy enough to consider one tweak/feature or another. But is the "cure" any better than the condition? With limited resources and development time, it pays to be thoughtful.

As some have mentioned, the best solution to the player-as-God problem is to add more players ala Co-play / multi-play. (Understood, that building multi-player into the game is not a high development priority.) The overall picture of the battlefield would be quite muddy and grand insta-coordinated movements of large units would be problematic at best.

[Freyberg]

Area fire without spotting is pretty inaccurate as it is. I wouldn't want to see excessive command delays. Armies like the Italians are hard enough to handle with their rudimentary C2 and lack of radios - quite inferior enough. Actually, based on playing with the Italian army (which I like a lot) and other CMFI forces from 1943, I think the CMx2 games are much more sophisticated at modeling inferior forces.

To me, Combat Mission models command at every level - you play the role of every commander from Battalion or Company level to the individual team, squad or vehicle, so a good player basically represents as good command at every level as you have the time or inclination to fuss over. It would lose more than it gained if you could only give commands as if you were a single overall commander - if you want perfectly abstracted strategy, there's always chess.

[DavidFields]

As a non-former military person, I do not use Area Fire enough. I seldom run out of ammo, and seldom need to go to vehicles to get more. I am used to games....but this is less a game than a simulation, and real soldiers are not going to trade their lives to save a few bullets. This is not a FPS, where the truppen inject a stim pack to come back alive, or just rest a moment--where, then, the ammo is the critical choke point to success.

Thus, my tactics need to improve, and that has been part of the steep learning curve for me with CM2. Losing ammo by having few people to carry it is a losing concept.

Thus, to me, modifying the Area Fire may be an issue, but it is less of an issue than, essentially, a tutorial for the non-military to learn what true military tactics entail.

[Vinnart]

I think any across the board reduction in area fire effectiveness would be a bad idea.

+ 1. Agree.

[LukeFF]

by which accounts? You mean all the German accounts, which manage to simultaneously deride the Russians as useless yet at the same time blame them for losing the war? Stuff like v.mellenthin's or guderian's books are ripping yarns, but HIGHLY suspect. Even the ETHINT reports aren't much better. They all suffer from the same basic problems:

1) written by a group who were collectively trying to restore their own reputations

3) written without access to even own-side archives, let alone enemy archives

3) written for a particular audience, who were keen to see the Soviet bogeyman brought down to size.

I'm not saying the Russians were all tactical geniuses. I am saying that "all accounts" aren't very reliable.

Oh, working from memory here, I seem to recall that v.mellenthin's book - for example - contains a significant internal contradiction. His overall assessment of the Russians was something along the lines of "brave and stubborn, but prone to fright and lacking initiative", but his accounts of actual battles are full of the Germans being surprised by the Russians seizing the initiative and doing unexpected things. It's like he were writing about two completely different opposing armies.

In some ways for some people, the Cold War has never ended.

[AntiApplicability]

History Lover,

It seems to me that both of your god-like issues really come down to the ability to act outside of the sergeant on the ground's knowledge. Why blast the hidden gun if no one has told you to blast it? Why go up to the second house on the left if your orders were the first house on the right and nothing seems different?

The answer I think this is that this the price of actually getting to control your units at the squad/team level while playing anything larger than section/platoon. Because the ability as a WWII BN commander to tell 2nd squad, 3rd platoon, A Co to move up to that hedgerow right there, and have the tank support him, is inherently godlike.

Non godlike, you would have told A Co to advance to Phase line Iron, and may not even know that hedgerow exists on your map. Maybe the orderly drew the grease pencil line wrong and A Co is actually at phase Line Gold, which is actually 300 meters west of there. 5 minutes of CM action may have happened before you get anything more than what CM would qualify as a "?" contact, and it is in the wrong spot by half a small CM map. Commo is bad? Make that an hour for a runner to find you and tell you 'A Co is in it pretty thick at phase line..uh..i think the captain said Iron". Your big decision is "can they handle it, do I need to help them with assets, is my staff making sure that the appropriate assets are being sent, and is there a way to change this fight for the better without spending stuff I might need later or in a more important place" That's about it.

Company commander? Option 1: You get a radio message of "contact, east" from the 3rd PL. That goes with the firing from the hedgerow one field left. Well, this map is pretty useless...its green for "light farmland." Better figure out if I need to send second platoon. Option 2: Yep, that's definitely contact. You suck mud and try to make a tactical decision about where to send second platoon, and if you need some assets from BN, while peering through some brambly bits of the hedgerow in between the ducking. Either way, not once did you tell 2nd squad to go there, do this.

But because you can tell teams and squads what to do,and that tank how to hunt, and see through the best eyes in the world that means that every corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, captain, major, and colonel is linked into the borg mind - yours. And it is inevitable that you are going to make the moves that are tactically sensible for each part of your borg collective. That is the price of avoiding the second paragraph.

However, I do concur that command delays of some sort, or other C2 limitations on elements out of command, would help with the issue without necessitating a rework of the fundamental nature of a squad sized unit game with Company + forces.

[HistoryLover]

It's been proposed many, many times in the past. Even similar things were proposed back in CMx1 days. It's simply not a good idea. As others have said blind area fire is a huge part of actual combat. We have absolutely no way, at all, of realistically determining when an area fire shot is "legitimate" or "gamey". Many have tried to come up with a reliable method, but none have succeeded. Which isn't surprising because it's very doubtful there is a way.

Steve

Hi Steve,

are you talking about my first probosal at the beginning of the thread, which indeed was not good, or about the second proposal (p.2, top)? Don't let the comments distract you. It does not reduce area fire effectivity, it INCREASES it, but it reduces it's capability of extremely gamey results, that blind units knock out more guns (or mortars and HMGs), than the units on the field which have spotted the threats.

Without a contact in reality nobdy is shooting eight grenades into a spot. But instead the fire is spread.

[Vark]

We also have a strange situation where buildings now attract too much fire, as they can be targeted effectively, whereas area fire is far less effective for the weapons who regularly used it. As has said before, CM is a squad based, squad led game, the platoons are just there to provided an accurate TO&E, not to represent the realities of command. If it were, your most important units would be the HQ runners and platoon company HQ units.

CM1's platoon and company HQ's special abilities were a passing genuflection to C3, which CM2 has all but dropped but it failed to represent the strategic corporal concept, which C2 does so much better. At the heart of it, this is the games Achilles heel and it's a testament to the quality of the products design and the dedication of BF staff that it has not proved commercially fatal. The only alternative is miniature wargaming, with double blind systems, which require far more resources and crucially time to set up and play.

AA, you forgot the, guides bringing forward the second company, at 23:00, mistake a key marker and it takes two hours to sort the confusion out, delaying the whole operation. Or regrouping the company after a successful night time assault takes 45 minutes, using flares and whistles.

[poesel]

I'm still not sure if everyone has really understood HLs proposal.

It is about: increasing the spread of area fire into areas without contacts

It is NOT about: forbidding anything

[Vanir Ausf B]

It is NOT about: forbidding anything

Of course it is. It's about forbidding the concentration of area fire into a single action spot.

[Jock Tamson]

Of course it is. It's about forbidding the concentration of area fire into a single action spot.

It wouldn't forbid concentration. It would modify the chances of area fire concentration in one AS, based on whether the targeting units have observed the target, or have a shared contact through their C2 chain.

I think it is a good idea.

[Vanir Ausf B]

No, even then, except in the case of buildings. Look at his picture worth a thousand words on page 2.

[poesel]

No, even then, except in the case of buildings. Look at his picture worth a thousand words on page 2.

Sorry but I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Area fire has already a spread as it is now. Part of it is range finding, part is weapon inaccuracy and some part is intentionally done by the shooter.

What we speak about is the last part.

HLs proposal is about increasing the spread if the shooter has no clear indication of an enemy in the target area.

This would not limit the ability to do recon by fire or similar. It would however limit the players ability to concentrate fire on a spot where the shooter would have no inclination to shoot at. I haven't played CMx1 but AFAIK this is what was called Borg spotting. Now the player is the Borg.

The solution is not perfect but it is IMHO better than current in any way I can see. The exemption of buildings is also not perfect but could be ameliorated by spreading the shots over the floors.

Also it has been asked here several times that HMGs should have the ability to use suppressive fire like a mortars linear barrage. This proposal would work towards that wish.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Area fire has already a spread as it is now. Part of it is range finding, part is weapon inaccuracy and some part is intentionally done by the shooter.

What we speak about is the last part.

I did some testing a couple weeks ago that showed that the shooter deliberately spreads area fire over the entire action spot, but only that one action spot. There is some leakage around the edges, depending on weapon dispersion, but the vast majority goes into one AS.

This would not limit the ability to do recon by fire or similar. It would however limit the players ability to concentrate fire on a spot where the shooter would have no inclination to shoot at. I haven't played CMx1 but AFAIK this is what was called Borg spotting. Now the player is the Borg.

There are perfectly legitimate reasons why a shooter may want to concentrate fire into a specific AS. Lets say your unit is facing a line of bocage that you want to suppress so you can advance a squad, but only one corner of the bocage has LOS to the ground you will be advancing over. There is no reason why the fire support unit should be forced to spread fire outside that area. Or maybe the area you want to suppress is more than 1 AS wide but you have several units available to provide fire. These situations are not rare.

It also risks making recon by fire less effective. The point of recon by fire is to make the enemy think they have been spotted, thereby inducing them to reveal themselves by either return fire or moving. If area fire is always a linear spread of some arbitrarily set length then it will be readily apparent if incoming fire is aimed or area, thereby telegraphing if the unit has been spotted or not.

Also it has been asked here several times that HMGs should have the ability to use suppressive fire like a mortars linear barrage. This proposal would work towards that wish.

Yes, but it was desired as an option, and one with adjustable parameters. No one would want mortar fire that is always linear. Well, at least I don't

[poesel]

There are perfectly legitimate reasons why a shooter may want to concentrate fire into a specific AS. Lets say your unit is facing a line of bocage that you want to suppress so you can advance a squad, but only one corner of the bocage has LOS to the ground you will be advancing over. There is no reason why the fire support unit should be forced to spread fire outside that area.

That is literally a corner case.

As I said a few posts up the method does not work very well for special landmark features which CM obviously can not automatically detect. IME I would rate that a seldom occurrence to have a reasonable need for shelling a single AS without contacts.

Or maybe the area you want to suppress is more than 1 AS wide but you have several units available to provide fire. These situations are not rare.

Several weapons over several AS would yield nearly the same number of shells per AS as now. Depending on number of weapons, AS and type of spread (linear, gaussian, etc...)

It also risks making recon by fire less effective. The point of recon by fire is to make the enemy think they have been spotted, thereby inducing them to reveal themselves by either return fire or moving. If area fire is always a linear spread of some arbitrarily set length then it will be readily apparent if incoming fire is aimed or area, thereby telegraphing if the unit has been spotted or not.

If you would receive 'spread' area fire you would know that you have been spotted. Which is the point of recon by fire as you say. The only difference is that you know that you have been spotted but not (yet) by the actual shooter.

That means that your unit is probably not being destroyed and you may get the opportunity to remove yourself from the position. IMO a good and realistic thing since the shooter does not know your position - how could he be very accurate?

[Freyberg]

How about 'point fire' and 'area fire' for units, but you can only 'point fire' to something you have an ID on, whether by spotting or through the C2 net.

[sburke]

Play drunk. It increases of fog of war and likelihood of command errors. Save all turns and then do a public aar.

[Vanir Ausf B]

That is literally a corner case.

As I said a few posts up the method does not work very well for special landmark features which CM obviously can not automatically detect. IME I would rate that a seldom occurrence to have a reasonable need for shelling a single AS without contacts.

I would argue that the corner cases are actually the majority. What about rounded or irregularly shaped terrain features? What about linear features that are diagonal to the shooter? The proposed system only really works for terrain that is both linear and exactly parallel to the shooter.

Several weapons over several AS would yield nearly the same number of shells per AS as now. Depending on number of weapons, AS and type of spread (linear, gaussian, etc...)

This only holds true if the area is equal to or larger than whatever generic spread length the units are forced to use, and also only if it is perpendicular to the direction of incoming fire.

If you would receive 'spread' area fire you would know that you have been spotted. Which is the point of recon by fire as you say. The only difference is that you know that you have been spotted but not (yet) by the actual shooter.

You wouldn't know that at all, unless you were to presume that area fire is only used in the above situation and never against suspect terrain in which nothing has been spotted. Also, because the length of spread is reduced when a contact marker is present the opposing player would know for sure whether or not the firing unit(s) had a contact marker.