Jump to content

Tactical unit integrity


Recommended Posts

Something I'm still not clear about - it seems orders are given on a "unit" basis - but what constitutes a "unit" in terms of CM?

It appears to be the squad for infantry, and the individual vehicle for vehicles.

If so, is there anything in terms of command and control considerations to stop (discourage may be a better expression smile.gif) players from splitting their forces up into non-historical ad hoc formations?

Cheers,

B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

You understand correctly. A vehicle unit equals one vehicle, while Squad and Team units are contain several men each (ex: 12 for a US Rifle Squad, 4 for a German HMG42 team, etc.). All infantry based units have individual man for man small arms, though a team will only use its primary weapon at all but the closest ranges.

CM simulates C&C quite well. You are free to do whatever you want with your units, but there is a price to be payed in terms of reaction times. Units outside of C&C get whacked a delay penalty when they go to move. Trust us, this has a huge impact and therefore is a serious deterrent. The worse the units, and the better the HQ, the slower (i.e. longer delay penalties) they react to orders.

You can create ad hoc formations, but only along realistic guidelines. A platoon, for example, consists of 3 Squads and an HQ. You can put a Squad on each of three tanks if you like, but you should make sure that the HQ goes along for the ride somehow (like an HT or another tank). If the tanks move ahead of the HQ, the Squads will become separated and therefore out of C&C control. The penalty is that these units will react slower to your orders. This is a huge problem for a shock force like infantry on tanks. Imagine getting into a thick fight, dropping off your infantry in a field, and having them sit there for 30 seconds while they figure out what to do! Not very good if they are under enemy fire :)

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent solution in my eyes, and seems also much more realistic than anything I have seen sofar! Way above and beyond West Front also: in WF teams suffer from a penalty in their attack and defense values when out of command - as if their rifles suddenly can only shoot half as far. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read your explanation of separation of shcok troops (tank riders) with interest.

One thing which I am not clear on and would like to clear up is the following:

If Elite (or whatever rating is being used) soldiers become separated and enter a combat situation (e.g. the tanks they are riding on are ambushed) will they act relatively quickly BUT separately ?

I would imagine that Elite soldiers would know what to do BUT would lack co-ordination whereas Green soldiers are more likely to sit there and wait for their CO to come up ?

From what I have read it would appear that this would be governed by Action phase "reaction AI" and as such is already in but I was just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Your understanding is pretty good, considering you haven't even played the game smile.gif Elite infantry, in the case described above, would indeed react better to sudden fire than Green infantry would. What would happen is that the Elite guys would do what was best with minimal delay. Perhaps it would be jumping of the tanks and going to ground, or perhaps it would be to run to the nearest cover. Once in position they would likely return fire. Green units, well, who knows what they would do smile.gif

The real penalties come not from reactive stuff like above, but ACTIVE orders. Take the case about infantry loaded on tanks with no C&C. If they were Elite, you could drive them to a location and order them to disembark and carry out some plan or another with fairly little delays. But trying to do the same thing with Green troops would be more risky. You drop them off, and then they sit there, hesitating, before moving off to do your bidding. If nobody is gunning for them the delay isn't a big deal, but if this is NOT the case, well they are in a much worse situation.

Even better, combine the two situations. You take some infantry on tanks, w/o C&C, and they come under fire from enemy small arms. The units bail and do whatever it is that they do (assume the Elite do better things). Now it is your next turn and you want to do something about your messy situation. Well, the Elite guys can be ordered to start taking action 2-3 times FASTER than the Green ones could. This is a BIG deal. On top of that, the Elite ones are more likely to carry out your orders, while the Green ones might stay frozen in panic, run away, or even give up the fight if the enemy is too close!

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got a question along these lines.. Are AFV's always considered to be under C&C? Is the tank commander all that is needed for good reaction time? Or is there someone 'higher up'? Or are there command tanks? I guess I don't know how tanks were organized, so I'm looking for a history lesson as much as anything else smile.gif Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Michael emrys

In this theater and time all tanks had radios that were fairly reliable. So it is not too much of a stretch to say that tanks are always in command control even when not within sight of the unit commander.

It may be a different story when we get to the East Front though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The time-delay system, modified for troop quality, sounds good.

RE: Michael's point that "In this theater and time all tanks had radios that were fairly reliable. So it is not too much of a stretch to say that tanks are always in command control even when not within sight of the unit commander."

I'm not so sure that tanks should be exempt. Just because a tank has a radio doesn't mean it is effectively in command control.

There is still a psychological factor in being able to see supporting forces from your unit.

Also, there's no guarantee that radio communication will lead to effective communication:

"Attack the hill?"

"What hill?"

"The one by the farm!"

"What farm?"

"Near the bridge on the stream!"

"I don't see any bridge... in fact I don't see any stream..."

Even in these days of IVIS and GPS systems units get lost and confused. The old Mk 1 eyeball is still a handy and reliable command tool.

So I'd be inclined to build delays in for tankers as well.

RE: Michael's other point about the East Front... I reckon over there it'd be the same, but _worse_ smile.gif

Rocky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen to that, when the Russians started building the T55 and T-62 (and especially it must be noted in the lower-spec export models) they included a two-way radio ONLY for company commander, battalion commander, regimental commander and divisional commander models.

The grunt tanks and platoon commander tanks only got a 1-way "receive only" radio ;).. It's not that they couldn't have given them a two-way radio its just that Soviet doctrine felt the resultant radio chatter would detract from good C&C.

On the Eastern front in WW2 Entire Soviet tank regiments had 2 or 3 radios between them hell, the corps commander of Soviet Tank corps (1938 pattern organisation) had, what in the west, would have passed for a battalion commanders radio. Entire Soviet tank corps got shot up for this failing but at that time Soviet training, doctrine and most importantly productive capacity just was not up to providing each tank with its own radio.

By not providing radios they force tank companies to stay together and felt that what they lost in tactical flexibility they made up for in the shockl value of such concentrated tank formations.

BTW if an early-war add-on is made it'll be great fun to see the British TCs getting out of the hatch to command using flags. (Land battleships indeed ;) ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you guys going to do anything to simulate the difficulties in getting the tankers to do what the grunts want them to... It seems like the tanks should have reaction penalties if their not in direct communication with the inf.. for example, just because the the inf platoon up ahead knows exactly where the MG42 is, doesn't mean the M4 knows too, at least not right away, unless possibly if he has a rider on the back who can draw his attention to it.

Chris Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Chris,

Unfortunately, what you have outlined applies equally to all sorts of stuff. How would a .50cal know to shoot at a enemy rifle squad just because a friendly one needed the help. Or what would prevent an FO from bombarding something 800m away because someone else knew that in 2-3 minutes a convoy (currently out of LOS of the FO) would be coming around the bend.

There is NO easy solution to this realism question. Delays can't be handed out because who is to say WHY the unit is targeting something. Maybe it decided to shoot at a clump of infantry all by itself, not because some out of contact infantry squad requested it.

Oh, and how the heck would we stop movement orders based on information the unit couldn't possibly react to? Like pulling back a Stuart because someone else saw a Tiger around the bend.

No wargame ever made has simulated this very important battlefield reality. Unfortunately, we don't know of any way of doing it sort of putting in an AI judge that asked you why you were doing something. If it didn't like it, it could prevent you from doing it.

User: "I want permission to move my Tiger backwards 50m"

AI Judge: "Why?"

User: "Because I feel like it."

AI Judge: "Well, I think it is because your out of contact infantry unit over there saw a US Bazooka team sneaking up on your Tiger. Move request denied".

User: "OK, then I want to shoot into the bushes"

AI Judge: "At the Bazooka team your Tiger can't see? No way Jose! Request denied"

See the problem smile.gif

Tanks will have their own delay penalties and restricted ability to sense danger (when buttoned up at least) during the Action Phase, but this is more akin to similar delays that all other units have. In other words, it is NOT meant to simulate the communications link with infantry, rather its poor ability to see what lurks around it.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your point about it being nearly impossible to simulate the lack of inter unit coordination and communication in combat. I've long believed that one of the most unrealistic things about the wargames we play is that we use this wonderful overhead map that shows us exactly what the terrain looks like, where our men are, and what they have spotted, and allows us to have our units act on this knowledge. That being said, I don't think theres any way to really correct for this, and in any case, it doesn't hurt the fun factor at all.. though kudos to you guys for making enemy spotting fuzzy (Sir, Pvt Doyle reports a MkIVf2 Panzer with an elite crew and a jammed bow machine gun, at 100 yards. Shall I order the 60mm to drop a round in their hatch?).

That all being said, I still think their is room to simulate the trouble infantry and armor often had in coordinating their attacks. You know, the kind of stuff that those little telephones on the back of the tanks were designed to deal with (I think Closing with the Enemy or Citizen Soldiers goes into some detail about this). My understanding is that tanks were rarely an integral part of a force at CM's scale, rather they were assigned as attachments. It could be as simple as giving a little extra command delay to the armored forces if the CO of the op is infantry (or vice versa if its primarily an armor show).

Also, am I right in assuming that once a unit is spotted, all other units with LOS also spot it? I'd rather see a system where if unit A spots an MG and fires on it, unit B can only use area fire at the MG until it independantly (but with a bonus since A is pointing it out) spots it. But maybe thats a bit too complex. No matter what you do I'm sure I'll love the game. Incidently, may I suggest May 11th as a release date? Thats the day of my last exam, so I won't have to fail all my finals.

Chris Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Hahaha!! That Private Doyle sure has one heck of a good eye, don't he? smile.gif

Penalizing armor for no other reason than the fact that they are supporting infantry makes things worse. It doesn't simulate what you want it too (i.e. poor coordination of infantry and armor), but does make the tanks slower than they should be. Again, who is to say that the tank is acting on information that the infantry have given it. Maybe the tank spotted something to shoot at on its own, so why should it get slowed up simply because there is an Inf CO? And how is the game supposed to decided if information was conveyed via phone, yelling, telethapy, etc. Nope, just isn't possible to simulate this without a fully comprehensive system.

In any case, armor shouldn't be singled out. The communication problems you would like to see corrected (and we agree that in theory they should) apply just as much, and perhaps even more, to infantry. Right now I can tell 3 MGs to shoot at one target, and 3 squads to shoot at another. That kind of coordinated fire is unrealistic, just as it would be to have a tank target something that an infantry squad 300m away spotted first. But short of ruining the game, there isn't anything we can do about this.

We have thought about the "you can only shoot at what you actually have spotted" system. In theory it is easy to do, and in theory it would be fun to play. But in reality the calculations are more complex and we aren't sure it will be that fun to play. And since you are God of the battlefield, you can STILL have units act on knowledge that they should not have. My example of the Stuart running away because someone else saw a Tiger is a perfect example. So this is a partial solution to targeting (I can think of a 1/2 dozen cheats off the top of my head smile.gif), but not to unrealistic coordination of tactics. But we might give it a shot for the next Combat Mission. At that point we will have a stable, well tested, polished game engine to test with. Right now there are too many other questions that need to be answered.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's an easy way to simulate a more realistic coordination (or lack of) of forces in CM - change the 1 minute action turns into 10 or 15 minute turns. This simulates the orders a CO issues on a tactical level and the feedback that comes from the battlefield. While 1 minute seems to short, I think 10 minutes would be a much more realistic time after which it is possible to adjust you tactics.

However, while more realistic, would it be fun to play? I doubt it. It would degrade the player from a player to a spectator. I think there is a limit as to realism - after all, CM is a warGAME.

A big part in enjoying wargames for me is to tactically outmaneuver my opponent. To fully enjoy this, a Godlike overhead view on the map is obligatory. Without it, strategy and tactics are reduced to mere reactions. This is VERY realistic ("no plan survives contact with the enemy") but no fun IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moon: Actually, I'd argue that 15 minute turrns would be less realistic. True, that might be closer to the response time of a CO commanding his companies in real life, in the game, even with amazing ai, we have to accept that the human must take some responsibility for the lower echelon positions, issuing orders that would normally originate from the platoon or squad level. With the current state of AI, I agree that watching your junior commanders bungle everything and only being able to correct them ever quarter hour would be pretty frustrating. I always thought that this was how SSG's Great Battles series partially got its reputation for great AI.. your guys were made just as stupid as there guys.

Chris Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...