Highest compliments on a superb design

[tankski]

Iron setting will certainly make controlling your forces more awkward, which could be an issue if you are playing Real Time. But none of the difficulty settings will change how the AI performs - it doesn't have an overarching command "brain", it is just following the battle designer's plans.

I always use Iron and Real Time, and, yes, I definitely use pause!

Clearly, the AI is not always so brilliant. I played a Quick last night and the 3.0 AI was too conservative, failed to grab a ridge from which it could have massacred my deploying British tank regiment, and let me surround its Panthers in the target village. I played the same forces in open flat terrain and the Panthers sniped me at long range and ate my lunch. It was appalling. I would rather a system like in "Tigers Unleashed" was used. In this game units out of command control disappear until " found." But TU is mainly for regimental/brigade level. Such a drastic penalty is probably too severe for the smaller scale of Battlefront's models. I think Iron's most interesting penalty for loss of command is to deprive you of being able to see other units when you are moving the unit out of command. Thus, fine-tuning moves become hard (unless you have a photographic memory).

[Macisle]

Maybe you guys are not getting the point of Iron, or maybe you simply still do not like it. What Iron does, and no other level is provide you very clear information on what your unit is aware of relative to your own units. Click on a unit, are the rest of it's platoon showing a "?". yeah you might have a C2 issue. I play exclusively on iron now just for that bit of info...

Same here. sburke turned me on to this and I ain't a-goin' back!

Iron + WEGO = Pure joy.

[Baneman]

... I think Iron's most interesting penalty for loss of command is to deprive you of being able to see other units when you are moving the unit out of command. Thus, fine-tuning moves become hard (unless you have a photographic memory).

I call it Iron's most annoying penalty.

Because I still will fine-tune my moves, it just takes much much longer.

[tankski]

Having come up from the ranks playing the first modern wargames, the cardboard variety, in my early 20s in the early 1970s, I can't get jaded by something like "Red Thunder". It is precisely what I dreamed about in those distant years when I read articles about the US Army's computer simulators for operations. After pushing silly cardboard markers for years, knowing I had too much intel, really playing cardboard chess, becoming inflated from easy victories because receiving a nasty surprise was remote, I was ready for Battlefront's designs. The latest generation are mature, and to my estimation, amazing. To see a British Sherman troop take two casualties instantaneosly and the third tank's crew bails out from their unhit tank is mind-boggling. Here it is happening in real time and vividly. To have a platoon of American Shermans decline to advance because the platoon leader is a goon and they fear the unknown ahead after a spatter of gunfire is beyond this wargamer's dreams. It's not just physics but it is also modeling psychology under stress, a level I have not seen in even the best individual tank sims.

[tankski]

There is one little thing I would like to see added to Iron. I think the information screens of out of command units should go blank. This reflects the lack of reports from them and would put the commander in a bind because he would not know why the units are not performing or he might give orders to units with damaged equipment to advance or attack. He would also not know their morale state or confidence. You could be repeatedly giving orders to a panic-stricken unit or try to send a unit without ammunition into battle.

[womble]

Having come up from the ranks playing the first modern wargames, the cardboard variety, in my early 20s in the early 1970s, I can't get jaded by something like "Red Thunder". It is precisely what I dreamed about in those distant years...

Pre-zackly. It's the best figures wargame out there, because it does things figures wargames can't without blind setups and umpires. And provides a semi-competent opponent for when you can't/don't want to play against another human.

To have a platoon of American Shermans decline to advance because the platoon leader is a goon and they fear the unknown ahead after a spatter of gunfire is beyond this wargamer's dreams. It's not just physics but it is also modeling psychology under stress, a level I have not seen in even the best individual tank sims.

This, though, I've not seen. Were they green and low motivation? With poor individual TC leaderships to boot? Had their larger formation already taken many casualties?

There is one little thing I would like to see added to Iron. I think the information screens of out of command units should go blank. This reflects the lack of reports from them and would put the commander in a bind because he would not know why the units are not performing or he might give orders to units with damaged equipment to advance or attack. He would also not know their morale state or confidence. You could be repeatedly giving orders to a panic-stricken unit or try to send a unit without ammunition into battle.

I like this idea. Much more than the current concept of Iron contextually hiding information from you so you have to do something else in the interface to find it out (as opposed to doing something else with your units, i.e. getting them back in C2). Still not sure it fits with the conceit of being the squad leader, but it's closer than "locking the view to level 1".

[Hellas]

I think Iron does not offer any tactical challenge, because it's easily possible to aquire the info by deselecting any unit. It therefore creates an additional clicking overhead by deselecting the unit, see the information, and then reselecting it again to give orders.

Maybe a quite simple change could turn Iron into a REAL tactical challenge and an interesting mode: if it simply was not possible to select no unit?

Since always a unit would be selected, the player would have no ability to get the accumulated intelligence picture he can get now. He would always see it only from the perspective of a unit.

Would this only make it even more a clickfest? I don't think so.

Situation:

Two infantry units.

One unit is spotting an enemy unit the other unit doesn't have LOS. But I want to support the unit with LOS by ordering area fire on the enemy's position from the unit which doesn't have LOS.

Current "iron"

Deselect any units - the enemy appears - remember location - select the unit with no LOS and give it area fire order to the remembered enemy location.

That's what I always did in "Temple of Mars". And what I tremendously hate about Iron now: there is no higher tactical difficulty, all the info is available, but with one additional mouse click.

New "iron" without the ability to select no unit (always keeps a unit selected):

Situation: the unit without LOS = selected

Since I can no longer simply deselect it, suddenly the intelligence and C&C this unit displays becomes tactically much more important:

Because a simple mouse click is not possible to get the summary of all intelligence, the first thing that begins to count for me as player is:

Does the unit have LOS to the other friendly unit, that has LOS to the enemy? Because then I could select my other friendly unit, look where the enemy is, remember it, reselect it and order the area fire. But a communication link would be necessary. Now it's not necessary, now only deselecting any unit is necessary.

In this situation to have LOS betweent he two friendly units would be the most simple way for the player to achieve what he wants. It would immediately give the player a benefit for keeping his units in LOS to each other. Better LOS & C&C = easier gameplay for the player to achieve the task.

What would happen in case there was no LOS to the friendly unit which I want to support with area fire?

I could not select it anymore directly, since there would be no LOS or C&C link to it and therefore "iron" would not show a clickable unit icon. Punishment for a not good tactical situation for the wanted task.

The next thing that would matter was the availablability and quality C&C: since I don't see the friendly unit directly I could select the HQ (maybe in the hope it knows/sees more). If not I would need - in the chain of command or again in LOS - to find a unit with LOS to the enemy unit, either by the chain of command structure or by cycling through all units on the map (more about the the possibility of cycling through units later).

WHAT A GREAT REALISTIC PUNISHMENT for a player who does not care about a good C&C for a task he wants to achive.

Now let's think about the exciting impact on units with better C&C compared to units with weak ones (i.e. radio available or not).

The easy and natural solution in this mode would be: keep your units in good C&C/LOS and it becomes much easier for you to play. C&C and LOS among friendly units does no longer only matter mostly for morale but for you as player it becomes paramount to command your units effectively with the least hassle.

The player who is keeping up a strong C&C and LOS between his units would be rewarded by a much easier gameplay (he would have lots of directly clickable icons), while the one not caring about it would be left most of the time trying to find the needed unit.

But probably this mode could be made even more realistic, for those who seek the most realistic tactical experience possible:

By additionally disabling cycling though units on the map plus only allow the use of established/working chain of command connections to select units.

Ofcourse suited only for players who thouroughly understand how C&C works in the game and do not fear tactical difficulties because of C&C and communication restriction. Steel mode.

By disabling cycling through units placed on the map and allowing to use the chain of command to jump from unit to unit only for working connections (the green light) it suddenly becomes possible to simulate a whole new tactical universe: if the player loses units out of command they just vanish for him and there is only one way to get them back under control: not by deselecting units like it works now in "iron" but by the necessity of using another unit to establish C&C/LOS so that this lost unit becomes selectable again. :cool:

If the chain of command was broken and there would be no LOS to other units, there simpy would be no possibility for the player to select this unit anymore in this mode, because it would just vanish like it does now in "iron" but without the player's ability to cheat around it by selecting no unit.

The player would be forced to search for this unit on the battlefield - with another unit! If LOS or any other connection was established between the two units, the unit (icon) would appear on the map, like it does now with "iron", so he could select the lost unit again.

Or in the case a unit without any LOS to friendly units was selected and suddenly loses it's HQ C&C connection: since this unit was selected and sees no friendly units anymore and has no C&C chain, the player would no longer be able to deselect it! He would need to move this unit back into LOS of a friendly unit ASAP or somehow establish C&C. :cool:

Imagine the tactical impact, if a radio equipped tank, standing alone without any friendly units nearby, would suddenly lose C&C to his HQ unit and therefore lose his chain of command.

He would vanish from the player's battlefield.

The player would probably need to send another unit somewhere over there, establish LOS, to be able to select this tank and give it oders again.

So you better never lose C&C or LOS to your units, when the enemy attacks.

On the other hand, it could become tactically very rewarding for knocking out enemy HQs.

Or imagine a company tank-HQ was eliminated and you have selected a tank from the 1st platoon when the order phase begins. Since the higher C&C to the company would be broken, it would be necessary, that one of the tanks of the 1st platoon somehow must see other friendly units, to give the player the ability to select other units.

Losing (HQ) units could result in very difficult tactical situations where units must be kept in place only, just to keep other units selectable.

I think this would be a very :cool: mode.

[womble]

By disabling cycling through units placed on the map and allowing to use the chain of command to jump from unit to unit only for working connections (the green light) it suddenly becomes possible to simulate a whole new tactical universe: if the player loses units out of command they just vanish for him and there is only one way to get them back under control: not by deselecting units, but by moving another unit which needs to re-establish C&C/LOS to become able to select it again. :cool:

No. Not cool. The whole conceit of the game is based around the player being both the Battalion/taskforce commander and the squad leaders. What you're suggesting would mean that any squad out of command, or any platoon out of command could do nothing at all except sit in place and fire according to TacAI rules, until their morale failed and they ran away. They could not fall back in a controlled manner if threatened. They couldn't complete the task they were assigned at the start of the mission, just because the radio guy at Coy HQ got shot. This is not only a bad gameplay idea, it's not even plausible. Losing the Company radio doesn't mean that the platoons forget what they were meant to be doing. Losing the Platoon radio doesn't mean the Looie doesn't know he's supposed to be taking that farmhouse. Being out of sight of the HQ doesn't mean that the team tasked with covering in the back door won't maneuver appropriately.

And lone Rambos shooting up entire squads of incautious enemies wouldn't happen, either. Or if it did, we'd never see it, removing a huge chunk of the point of WeGo: watching cool (or terrible) stuff happen to our poor bleedin' infantry.

[Hellas]

No. Not cool.

For me?

The whole conceit of the game is based around the player being both the Battalion/taskforce commander and the squad leaders.

Doesn't change it.

What you're suggesting would mean that any squad out of command, or any platoon out of command could do nothing at all except sit in place and fire according to TacAI rules, until their morale failed and they ran away.

No. They fullfill their last orders they received. If you are a good player and adapt to the difficulty of this mode well, you will avoid brittle situations or be quickly enough responding, before it's too late.

They could not fall back in a controlled manner if threatened.

That's like the fruitless discussions like what is more realistic: WEGO or RT?

It just is how it is. Everthing has it's pros and cons.

They couldn't complete the task they were assigned at the start of the mission, just because the radio guy at Coy HQ got shot. This is not only a bad gameplay idea, it's not even plausible. Losing the Company radio doesn't mean that the platoons forget what they were meant to be doing.

I don't agree. That's exactly what happened in reality. What do you guess, how often units were forgotten and suddenly noticed their left and right neighbours were gone because comm was broken?

I think a alternative to the always present perfect communication now, established by the player, would be a very nice addition.

Losing the Platoon radio doesn't mean the Looie doesn't know he's supposed to be taking that farmhouse.

Yes, it doesn't mean it. If you have given them the orders to move up there then they will follow them no matter what happens to comm.

If you haven't given them orders and they are just sitting around and waiting for additional orders and the comm is broken, then you as player will just need to find a solution for this problem.

Not more, not less.

And lone Rambos shooting up entire squads of incautious enemies wouldn't happen, either.

Two or three men have taken whole platoons as prisoners or HMGs have eliminated whole companies.

So this argument is moot.

And I'd also argue, that a good player will establish a sense how robust his C&C/comm among units is. I guess those playing mostly "iron" currently and not cheating around it, already have developed a very good sense about the robustness of C&C and comm.

Exactly that would do this mode, but without the ability for the player to cheat by jumping into a god-like position.

Or if it did, we'd never see it, removing a huge chunk of the point of WeGo: watching cool (or terrible) stuff happen to our poor bleedin' infantry.

Only when playing in this mode.

Contrary to your view, I would find it thrilling if I have lost comm, not to know what is happening right now and if it was my task as player to establish contact with the lost units ASAP before bad things happen.

And since good players adapt very well they anticipate problems before they usually happen and therefore prepare accordingly. It's just a matter to ADJUST TACTICS to the given game mechanics. Tactics for "elite" are very different to tactics at the most easy level. Move up a reserve comm link unit, before it's too late, for example.

If you don't want it and want to be always in control of everything, fine, nobody suggested to force you to play it.

Just like now nobody is forced to play WEGO and be not able to interact for a whole minute - also something that would never happen in reality.

It would be an additional, more difficult mode for those who seek the challenge, with a huge emphasis on simulating the importance of C&C.

[Jock Tamson]

Graviteam Tactics implements some of these ideas and it works quite well. There is a moving "window" for orders. Each order issued uses up a bit of the window, so if you start to heavily micro a particular element, it will start to eat into your ability to issue commands to other units, until the window has moved sufficiently to create more space for further orders. So the player is rewarded for planning moves and then sticking with them. Additionally, not all orders cost the same so orders to eg a radio equipped AFV cost a bit less of the window.

Obviously, it is not quite suited to CM but the point is that there are some good ideas out there that deal quite well with the "God's Eye View" issues, particularly in single player (which GT is, exclusively).

[womble]

Doesn't change it.

The hell it doesn't. It removes any opportunity for a squad leader to give direction to his squad in the absence of his El-Tee.

No. They fullfill their last orders they received.

A squad leader (at least in the German and Allied systems) has at least some initiative to adapt to the situation. What you're proposing would be that they would be forced to follow the in-game orders (waypoints, movement modes, targeting options) they were given when they moved out of sight. No 2nd Lieutenanat in the world would have "Move 30m over there, pause 30s, Run 50m that way" style orders that are obeyed. Those are an abstraction combining general "Sergeant, take 1st squad and go round and cover the back door," orders and the in-field nous of the NCO and his dogfaces in interpreting and executing those orders. Experience and skill which the TacAI, to date, lacks.

If you are a good player and adapt to the difficulty of this mode well, you will avoid brittle situations or be quickly enough responding, before it's too late.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Your suggestion doesn't just apply to "brittle" situations, it applies to perfectly feasible tactical evolutions that would be rendered into such "brittle" situations by the squad leader (that's the player) not being able to adapt in the way that they should be able to if they were on the ground.

That's like the fruitless discussions like what is more realistic: WEGO or RT?

Not really. There is no question that removing all potential initiative to adapt (other than by failing a morale check) reduces the realism.

I don't agree. That's exactly what happened in reality.

Bull. Yes, sometimes units without direct control got things wrong and didn't know what to do. But most of the time the Company or Platoon was operating as if they had no comms with their superior. The superior HQ wasn't sitting on the other end of the blower nursemaiding them through ever hedge crossing or building entry.

I think a alternative to the always present perfect communication now, established by the player, would be a very nice addition.

Some alternative might be nice. Just not your suggested implementation.

Yes, it doesn't mean it. If you have given them the orders to move up there then they will follow them no matter what happens to comm.

What, like the mindless automata they weren't? So if they need to pause a bit to neutralise an unforseen enemy element, they won't, and will just keep marching to their deaths until they fail a morale roll? Just like the AI does? Great game, that would be.

If you haven't given them orders and they are just sitting around and waiting for additional orders and the comm is broken, then you as player will just need to find a solution for this problem.

And what if the situation is that the company was waiting until it heard fire or spotted friendlies at a certain location (no C2, still, just seeing friendlies taking the other farm, say)? No need whatsoever for comms to exist for the company to adapt to the battlefield and execute its mission orders. Only it can't because the one game-artefact crucial link is down. No. A thousand times no.

Two or three men have taken whole platoons as prisoners or HMGs have eliminated whole companies.

So this argument is moot.

No, you just haven't understood it. IRL, these things happen. In the game they happen because the player has some control over those elements. Do you really think that a single chain of waypoints issued in one go and then followed mindlessly because the scout team you sent out while in C2 moves out of control of their LT is a good simulation of the guts, skill and determination of the men who achieved such heroic results?

And I'd also argue, that a good player will establish a sense how robust his C&C/comm among units is. I guess those playing mostly "iron" currently and not cheating around it, already have developed a very good sense about the robustness of C&C and comm.

Possibly, but not really relevant. The game isn't there to teach us about itself. The game is there to be played.

Only when playing in this mode.

Contrary to your view, I would find it thrilling if I have lost comm, not to know what is happening right now...

Mostly nothing, since you wouldn't be giving long order chains to be a "good player" and avoid those "brittle" situations. Yay. And if you find it more thrilling never to know that Feldwebel Kurz played hide and seek (not that he could, since you couldn't give him any movement orders) with a squad of Amis and killed half of them before they ran away, why not play RT without pausing, when you don't have time to watch any of the little dramas, or even keep proper tabs on how large formations are doing?

And since good players adapt very well they anticipate problems before they usually happen and therefore prepare accordingly. It's just a matter to ADJUST TACTICS to the given game mechanics.

Oh, silly me. I thought it was the job of the player to adjust their tactics to the tactical situation not the artificial constraints of a stupid idea.

Tactics for "elite" are very different to tactics at the most easy level.

No, not really. You just have to be quicker off the mark in BT, but you have the information available to know when you can be. It's still based in RL tactics.

Move up a reserve comm link unit, before it's too late, for example.

So you'd need the Company CO and the Platoon CO to conduct an enveloping attack that had platoon elements moving out of sight of the CO?

Oh, and how do you get from the Infantry Battalion to units in the Armour Company that's supporting them? There's no C2 link.

If you don't want it and want to be always in control of everything, fine, nobody suggested to force you to play it.

But you are suggesting that BFC waste valuable programmer-hours that could be spent on something useful and in keeping with the simulation on something that's poorly conceived and adds nothing to the simulation except in your own imagination.

Just like now nobody is forced to play WEGO and be not able to interact for a whole minute - also something that would never happen in reality.

That's what the TacAI is for. To cover the short gaps when the player can't influence the squad leader. Its limited capacity is, to a degree, capable of that sort of compensation. It is another matter entirely to have an AI which can do "as well" (for that limited value of "as well") over a longer time period. That you don't comprehend this speaks volumes.

It would be an additional, more difficult mode for those who seek the challenge, with a huge emphasis on simulating the importance of C&C.

An emphasis on C2 at the expense of the game remaining much of any sort of simulation at all.

Go look at some of the formations in FI, or even American Glider Infantry around D-Day. They don't have radios at platoon level. Which means that, as far as your suggestion is concerned, those platoons could never operate out of sight of their company commander. Since a platoon can be considered to be the smallest unit you assign a complex task to, your suggestion would mean that you'd lose control of entire capable-of-independent-operation legs of the formation.

[Hellas]

The hell it doesn't.

...

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

...

Bull.

...

Just not your suggested implementation.

...

No, you just haven't understood it.

...

The game is there to be played.

...

No, not really.

...

That you don't comprehend this speaks volumes.

If you want to discuss with me, learn to behave like a civilized human first.

[cool breeze]

And here I was, before reading Hellas most recent post, thinking it was nice and thoughtful of Womble to make such a thorough reply.

On further consideration I still think it was a nice post of him to make. True friends show their true freelings He was just honestly talking about his feelings in a helpful way. He is very passionate about this game and really wants BFC to spend their time on the egame in a way he feels will benefit him.

After you both explained your positions so well, I agree with both of you. I agree with Womble that it is an idea better not implemented via code by BFC. I agree with you (Hellas) that steel mode is a cool idea that would be cool to play (but probably not by me). It seems like something that can be done entirely with self restraint and house rules in the existing Iron Mode. I would very much like to see an AAR or DAR of a battle played like that.

[Hellas]

Cool breeze,

I think that's an excellent idea that steel-mode can be simulated with self restraint and house rules. So it would be the best to try it out first and report the experiences before making conclusions how great or bad it was.

[womble]

If you want to discuss with me, learn to behave like a civilized human first.

I don't care to discuss this with you. If you talked less nonsense, I'd be less blunt.

[sburke]

Hello Gentlemen. Swords or pistols? If pistols you will need to walk 20 paces then wait till my signal to turn and fire.

[sburke]

In a more diplomatic tone, I do agree with womble. While these kinds of ideas "might" sound interesting, at heart they create a multiplicity of issues. First is the game becomes extremely difficult to play from a user management perspective (and this comes from someone who only plays iron mode).

Let's just take a couple examples.

Ex 1. You are advancing your forces to assault an enemy position. He drops a smoke barrage..... you now sit there with nothing to do till the smoke clears as you can't see anything. All your units have lost C&C, nobody does anything, you can't establish C&C with more than one unit at a time until the smoke clears.

Ex. 2 Night turn... oops okay now you are simply f**ked. Your units have to bunch up to keep visual C2 making them very inviting targets and making you incapable of moving out scouts.

In and of themselves the ideas in a general sense are not bad, but I can't see a way to make them game controlled events w/o breaking the game.

This was the most interesting idea I have seen to try and achieve what you are hoping to see be built into the game. This is simply a set of self imposed rules for the player, but it is very well thought out and you can do it now.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1475850&posted=1#post1475850

[A Canadian Cat]

Hello Gentlemen. Swords or pistols? If pistols you will need to walk 20 paces then wait till my signal to turn and fire.

Oh no I want them to walk 20 paces with swords too - Charge!

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1475850&posted=1#post1475850

I remember that thread. It did sound interesting but it made my head hurt to think about implementing it. This coming from a guy that thinks Iron is too much extra work.

[sburke]

Oh no I want them to walk 20 paces with swords too - Charge!

I remember that thread. It did sound interesting but it made my head hurt to think about implementing it. This coming from a guy that thinks Iron is too much extra work.

Heh heh yeah it is a long read, but the gist of it and where he started was pretty basic. Say you want to coordinate an attack between two platoons. The quickest and most reliable method if an option is for the two Lts to meet. They can then share maps, plan supporting fires, phase lines, fallback positions etc. So he figures I need to move 2nd pltn HQ to where 1st Pltn HQ is (assuming they know where each other are), leaves them there for a few minutes and then back voila!! off the attack goes. If something disrupts the plan they then have to either have radio comms or back they go for a face to face.

Squads have to be in communication to implement an order. Scouts need to communicate back before their observations can be acted on etc. As he noted, you don't need to write anything down, you just need to understand the logic. How does x unit share what it knows or wants to do with y unit?

This is why i don't see the game being able to do this. The TAC AI would have to have some set of responses to know what it should do when losing C2 otherwise it just stops and you have no ability to control them and they can't act independently. What it should do is so dependent on a huge number of variables as to be useless.

There is something though to note in these rules. It significantly slows the player down. AI plans particularly pre trigger plans may become completely out of whack compared to what the designer may have been expecting. Scenarios may not allow enough time etc.

[Hellas]

Ex 1. You are advancing your forces to assault an enemy position. He drops a smoke barrage..... you now sit there with nothing to do till the smoke clears as you can't see anything.

Sburke,

I do not agree. Smoke does not appear from one minute to the other out of nowhere. It needs time to develop. So I would argue, if you have units that should reach a certain spot and smoke begins to fall, you better either quickly give them the orders before they lose their C&C/comm, so that they can fullfill the task on their own - with all the beautiful risk involved.

Or you decide to wait the fog out.

Or you take counter measures, like moving units into shouting distance before it's too late and lose them out of sight.

Smoke does only block LOS. C&C in shouting distance still works.

And CM models sound (contacts) beautifully!

Therefore a friendly unit that vanishes, only vanishes for the player as selectable unit or visible unit. It does not vanish as unit. The sound contacts it maybe will create, i.e. with shooting at enemy units, also create sound contacts for friendly units that are still under control of the player! :cool:

Imagine the increased realism (and tension!) when it comes to outposts without comm and LOS: Although the unit is no longer visible for the player, if it begins to shoot and friendly units close enough for sound contacts and under control of the player hear it, they show a sound contact to the player.

So while waiting for an enemy attack, the player, instead of knowing everything what is happening at the isolated outposts, just receives sound contacts. Very, very :cool:

All your units have lost C&C, nobody does anything, you can't establish C&C with more than one unit at a time until the smoke clears.

That's not necessarily the case: If units are close enough together to stay in shouting distance, even units without radio are under full control.

Units with radio stay in control, too.

Ex. 2 Night turn... oops okay now you are simply f**ked. Your units have to bunch up to keep visual C2 making them very inviting targets and making you incapable of moving out scouts.

That's a reason, why night attacks usually were avoided. If you lose sight, you no longer know, who is behind the sound you just heard. The danger in the heat of a fight to move thirty meters too far to the left and suddenly be running in front of a friendly unit is just too dangerous.

Therefore it's realistic if things for the player become tactically more difficult to handle, too. But not impossible.

This mode probably would just lead to a different tactical handling of units just like all modes do. It's also not intended to be an easy mode. It's meant to be the most difficult mode CM can be played.

I read about discussions about missing night illumination or flares. Now imagine the possibilities that feature could have in "steel"-mode. Shoot a flare and your lost units become visible and clickable again! :eek: :cool: So better give them orders before LOS will be lost again.

Let's stay with the night example, which I think is a nice one showing the benefits:

You start with a platoon and all units are under C&C and therefore visible. Then you need to spread out and do not have a HQ to keep up the C&C. A wonderful tactical problem because the spreading would go beyond the LOS of the furthest unit.

What would happen in reality, if a unit in darkness is sent away beyond shouting distance? It receives it's orders and vanishes.

And what would be the result in the game in this mode? If the player wants to really commit such a task and send the unit beyond C&C, he would issue orders that make the unit return back into C&C somehow.

And now comes the best of all into effect:

And besides the beauty of CM sound contacts, there would be another beautiful effect thanks to unit memory: the returning unit which would get back under C&C would bring with it it's sound or visual contacts to the player's knowledge! :eek:

And if the unit does not return? After the estimated time the given orders would take, you would get nervous. No sound contact? No shooting? You know that something must have happened but what? Again it's the player's task to find out what happened to the unit.

This was the most interesting idea I have seen to try and achieve what you are hoping to see be built into the game. This is simply a set of self imposed rules for the player, but it is very well thought out and you can do it now.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1475850&posted=1#post1475850

Thanks for the heads up. The programming effort would be huuuge. If possible at all.

How much, compared to this hugely complex system, would it cost to block the keys for cycling through units, block the unselecting of a unit by clicking on the map and add a logic that checks, if the C&C-link is established as green, before allowing to select that unit?

I'd argue that the beauty of a such a mode would be, that the already present "iron"-mode PLUS the available great sound-contact system PLUS the unit memory about contacts would finally form a system, where the player really needs every part of it, to master the highest difficulty level.

-The implementation of the "iron"-mechanics would turn from nice additional indicators for the player, which he tries to overcome, to the base of his C&C.

-Instead of sound contacts of enemy units being a nice, helpful addition, they would turn into tactical indicators of highest importance for the player to know what happens to own units that are out of C&C.

-The mostly redundant unit memory would be turned into an extemely precious source of intel if a unit out of C&C would return into C&C.

And the best: all that is already available in CM. All it needs to form a new CM-experience, was to disable a few clicks and keys in the game and give that mode a name.

[Vanir Ausf B]

A brief FYI to any newcomers, so you know what kind of headwind you're up against: the idea of removing player control of out-of-C2 units in Combat Mission has been proposed -- by last count -- 442 times since 1999 and has been shot down by BFC on 441 previous occasions. They are quite adamant that CM will never be a command level game. And yes, that is what removing control would turn it into.

Remember, they even took out command delays because they don't mesh with the Combat Mission paradigm.

[sburke]

I'll try one more time, after that if you are not convinced, have at it and push as hard as you can. I won't spend too much time trying to convince someone the game can't do something if they really desire that thing. What I would suggest is playing a scenario and then thinking about how these changes might affect play. They are major alterations and deserve that kind of review.

So anyway back to smoke. You are approaching my defenses. I know and you know there are certain covered approaches. Say your units are moving through avoiding the areas I have under LOF. All is going well..then I drop a few smoke rounds... suddenly your covered approach route is now a dead end until the smoke dissipates. I can keep that up quite a while. I have arty smoke, UK smoke mortars, couple rounds from my shermans, an on board mortar. etc. So now in order to move forward you HAVE to move out of the covered approach route. In reality your guys should just continue to advance. Instead they are stuck.

Night attacks were not usually avoided in the small unit sense, patrols were sent out to capture prisoners, recon enemy positions etc. JonS has a very nifty little night patrol in CMRT - unplayable by these rules. As to flares.. really? you are gonna fire off flares just to spot your guys and get them back in C2... think about that one just a wee bit longer and I think you'll agree that is a spectacularly bad idea. Might as well just yell "hey guys where are you? When you get to that hedgerow yell back and let me know where you are okay?!"

I'd disagree that your proposal is workable without AI routines. Having units just stop and become inaccessible just isn't (imho anyway) a viable game. I am not trying to just be a downer, I get the intent, I just don't think the suggestions you have so far are truly going to do what you think and the unintended consequences would make it something you wouldn't want to play. Enough of pissing on your parade, if you still like the idea go for it.

[Pelican Pal]

If understand your proposal it isn't very good.

So You are playing the role of a company commander. 3rd Platoon on the far flank has lost its radioman. Losing its C2 link to the company commander.

Under your rules I would no longer be able to tell 3rd platoon what to do. Which is absurd. Because 3rd Platoon is still capable of acting as a independent element in battle and executing actions on its own. They would still be able to actively defend they village they were in and then decide to pull back to the rest of the company if they get pushed too hard.

Combat Mission is a game where you command every role from Regimental Commander to Fireteam Leader. Even if the regiment's commander isn't able to maintain c2 to the fireteam leader the FL can still act independently and intelligently.

[Hellas]

Under your rules I would no longer be able to tell 3rd platoon what to do. Which is absurd. Because 3rd Platoon is still capable of acting as a independent element in battle and executing actions on its own. They would still be able to actively defend they village they were in and then decide to pull back to the rest of the company if they get pushed too hard.

Pelican Pal,

a good argumentation. Chapeau!

Remains the suggestion to disallow no unit being selected.

[Pelican Pal]

You just create an insane amount of busywork for the player. They could still literally do the same thing they do by deslecting a unit, but it would takes minutes to do instead of seconds.