Skill Level: Iron

[Vanir Ausf B]

That would be challenging! The way it is now, one just has to click more often on empty terrain, in order to be able to locate each unit and select it.

I suppose. If you are in the habit of watching the replay while zoomed out in order to see all your units but with one of your units selected for some reason. I personally never do this so it's no extra clicking for me. If I have a friendly unit selected during replay it is to see something specific to that unit only (status or what enemy units he has spotted) or to watch that unit at ground level locked on.

But to each their own

[A Canadian Cat]

For me IRON would make much more sense, if platoon squads without C2 links (a) first and foremost, would be precluded from receiving orders and ...

Impractical since we, as players, are playing the role of Battalion commander, Company commander all the way down to team NCO.  If you could not control any element below the platoon directly those troops would not withdraw, try to establish contact again etc.  That is as the game stands. I suppose if BFC like the idea of such a features they could implement the code needed to make it work.  I just think it would be a lot more work then we think.

...The way it is now, one just has to click more often on empty terrain, in order to be able to locate each unit and select it.

Which is why I am not a fan of the iron click fest

[Bulletpoint]

Impractical since we, as players, are playing the role of Battalion commander, Company commander all the way down to team NCO.  If you could not control any element below the platoon directly those troops would not withdraw, try to establish contact again etc.  

Could be dealt with simply by making troops start to carefully withdraw towards the friendly map edge after some time, if there was no close enemy contact. Yes, they might get into trouble on their way back, but this is war, isn't it?

In the end, it's a game design decision... I think it would be interesting as an optional thing, maybe part of a difficulty level.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Bulletpoint

[Baneman]

Could be dealt with simply by making troops start to carefully withdraw towards the friendly map edge after some time, if there was no close enemy contact. Yes, they might get into trouble on their way back, but this is war, isn't it?

Can NOT see that working or being welcome ... imagine the first time you discover the remnant units you left on the VL in your ( now ) back area have carefully withdrawn to the map edge because you couldn't spare an HQ to babysit them....

[Bulletpoint]

Can NOT see that working or being welcome ... imagine the first time you discover the remnant units you left on the VL in your ( now ) back area have carefully withdrawn to the map edge because you couldn't spare an HQ to babysit them....

Well, if the VL is important to you, maybe you should spare a HQ to hold it. Would change the game, yes, and wouldn't be for everybody, that's why I said I think it could work as an optional thing...

"We finally took the town, and now it's up to you, hopelessly broken whimpering private Smith, to hold this strategically important location! Just stay here and fight to the death ok? Cheerio"

[womble]

For me IRON would make much more sense, if platoon squads without C2 links (a) first and foremost, would be precluded from receiving orders and (b) would be shown only as a generic symbol, a sort of reminder of their know location of their platoon commander before the C2 link was severed. 

That would be challenging! The way it is now, one just has to click more often on empty terrain, in order to be able to locate each unit and select it.

Yes, it'd be challenging. It would also be bullhockey. Squad and team leaders certainly have the initiative allowed to them to get/keep their element moving without being tied to the Ell Tee's apron strings. There are plenty of valid tactical situations where a platoon will be spread out over further than the Rupert can holler, but need to keep operating to achieve the plan the officer has put in motion, and where the troops can adapt to the situation in front of them to at greater or lesser extent.

The game's not about "being challenging". That is an emergent property of the simulation that it's aiming to be at the level (that is: you're the commander of every element) that it is pitched.

And snipers and scouts: what would they do? Sit as part of the rifle line?

I'd say "Be careful what you wish for: you might just get it," but I'm confident that BFC aren't total dreckheads, so wish all you want, and I'll be happy that you won't get it.

[General Jack Ripper]

"We finally took the town, and now it's up to you, hopelessly broken whimpering private Smith, to hold this strategically important location! Just stay here and fight to the death ok? Cheerio"

That's not what he said. It's more like telling Corporal Jenkins and his fire team to "sit here and watch, while we go off down the road."

I leave squads or teams behind on detached duty all the time, I'm sure a Sergeant or a Corporal is perfectly capable of "hide in those woods and watch the road" type of missions.

[Euri]

Dear Womble, 

Only one remark: We are discussing about the skill level which is supposed to the most difficult. Which makes the tone of your reaction to my post rather difficult to explain

[Bulletpoint]

That's not what he said. It's more like telling Corporal Jenkins and his fire team to "sit here and watch, while we go off down the road."

True, I was joking a bit  But the game currently allows you to place one single traumatised survivor on a victory location, and it will count as being yours, if I'm not mistaken.

I leave squads or teams behind on detached duty all the time, I'm sure a Sergeant or a Corporal is perfectly capable of "hide in those woods and watch the road" type of missions.

Well, as long as those squads still have their squad leader or assistant leader, they are not leaderless. So, sure thing, they could be allowed to sit and watch and objective, but perhaps not receive any new orders. Whereas stragglers from squads outside of C2 and without their own squad leaders might be subject to the fall back rule.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Bulletpoint

[CAS]

I really would like this to be implemented into iron mode!

Looks like much of it already is in place. If you click on the units you get a realistic picture what the unit is aware of. If you un select the unit you should get a picture of what all units in C2 are aware of.

The problem is mostly for WW2 games with low number of radios.

I feel like cheating when i send a 2 men spotter team without radio into a outlook  position and i instantly can see everything they see.

Would be nice to give them a move order to a spotting position, a pause order and a move order  back into C2 where you get  icons for the spotted units.

 

If units reach the destination of their move order they should stay there. If the order gets interrupted by the enemy (or they have to flee) they should eventually move to the closest known friendly position to get into C2.

A sniper team should work just fine this way....

If friendly unit icons would be click-able you could use scouts as runners to give orders to units out of C2.

 

Last week I was playing the FI mission where you as the Italians have to defend a beach: The Italians had no radios at all!!!

This would need fixed cable communication to be implemented.

It would add so much to the game!

Imaging reestablishing C2 to a separated unit: you can hear a firefight in the distance... are they all lost? -is everyone OK?

 

In the real world even elite forces can get lost when C2 ist lost as we can see in "Bravo Two Zero"     link: Bravo Two Zero

 

[General Jack Ripper]

 

True, I was joking a bit  But the game currently allows you to place one single traumatised survivor on a victory location, and it will count as being yours, if I'm not mistaken.

Well, if there's no enemy soldiers on the objective, technically it's yours by default.

[womble]

Dear Womble, 

Only one remark: We are discussing about the skill level which is supposed to the most difficult. Which makes the tone of your reaction to my post rather difficult to explain

Whatever. Your idea ("make out-of-C2 elements unable to receive orders or be seen") has little or no merit. I say "idea" because what you were burbling about isn't any part of the current game. The most difficult would be if you had to play it from a blank screen, to take your "argument" to its patently ridiculous conclusion. And you're not the first, by a long shot, to ignore reality. See? Easy. Not difficult to explain at all. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

 

We are discussing about the skill level which is supposed to the most difficult.

"Skill levels" are nominally a difficulty setting but since the rules apply to both sides that is a misnomer. They are actually realism settings. I play on Iron exclusively because it's the most realistic, not because it's more difficult. In fact some people find Iron easier than Elite although for me they are about the same.

[Euri]

 

"Skill levels" are nominally a difficulty setting but since the rules apply to both sides that is a misnomer. They are actually realism settings. I play on Iron exclusively because it's the most realistic, not because it's more difficult. In fact some people find Iron easier than Elite although for me they are about the same.

 

The "*most realistic": Thank you for the correction because this is exactly my point. 

For me it is most realistic if the position of a squad severed from CC is its last known position to its platoon leader and the latter is unable to give further orders.

Similarly, on the squad level, it is most realistic if the squad is aware of the last movement order received by the platoon leader and when the execution of this order is completed or interrupted, then decisions are left exclusively upon the TACAI until CC is reestablished.

Best.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Euri

[sburke]

The "*most realistic": Thank you for the correction because this is exactly my point. 

For me it is most realistic if the position of a squad severed from CC is its last known position to its platoon leader and the latter is unable to give further orders.

Similarly, on the squad level, it is most realistic if the squad is aware of the last movement order received by the platoon leader and when the execution of this order is completed or interrupted, then decisions are left exclusively upon the TACAI until CC is reestablished.

Best.

you can apply those rules yourself now, no need for special game rules. Can't give orders to s unit out of C2?  Then don't.  For the AI though this would be a disaster, it can't think to that degree so as a starting point we will agree this is human behavior only. If there is nothing stopping you from applying those standards now, why would you need BF to develop the programming for it? 

[CAS]

I have been playing the game with these self restricting rules and it is possible with orders.

What is not possible today is the extra fog of war you would get if units out of C2 would not feed you with informations about the enemy.

 

All the talk about the insufficient AI...

I think the units are good at taking cover, fleeing and shooting back!

And that is all i would expect from a unit out of C2

 

 

[Euri]

What is not possible today is the extra fog of war you would get if units out of C2 would not feed you with informations about the enemy.

True that is key. Granted one can self impose certain rules that restrict further orders. But not being able to know where exactly is your unit or its status after the time you lost contact....I like this idea.

Anyway, I believe I have exhausted my idea; let's hope someone from the developers is reading this taking notes :-)

[Bulletpoint]

And think of the possibilities of friendly fire between troops outside of command..

[sburke]

not to be the downer on the parade, but the coding effort involved means this is highly unlikely ever to happen. BF always evaluates effort versus demand/return. This one is a lot of effort recoding AI not to mention the fog of war aspect and the friendly fire just mentioned. The number of players who function on iron versus something requiring even more micro management is just not going to be something for the mass of the user base.  Just trying to set expectations. 

None of these rules could be applied to the AI, it just isn't that smart and according to BF most of the user community is single player only. 

Edited October 6, 2015 by sburke

[Bulletpoint]

 

None of these rules could be applied to the AI, it just isn't that smart

Well, there *is* no AI as such, so if we need all mechanics to be usable by a non-existant AI, there's not much that could be added to the game

Air support that can do friendly fire? The AI will hit its own troops. Artillery missions? The AI will choose odd targets and waste its shells, it will choose targets barely in LOS so it won't see the spotting rounds, making barrages go wildly off course, and even if it does see the spotting rounds, it could still hit its own troops. Armoured Troop Transports? The AI won't know when to dismount, so will just get shot to pieces. Ammo Dumps? AI won't know how to run back to resupply. Tank commanders spotting from the turret? How will the AI know when to button up?

So, why should we have any of these things in the game? Sure, H2H players have a lot of fun with it, but the majority of players are single-players, right?

[sburke]

these are all apples to orange comparisons.  I can try and address them individually, but you'd likely just have more. The AI Plan the designer creates can accommodate much of these to some degree, not all but some.  However if you start including more options to actually neuter the AI - yeah, BF is going to say no.

And you never addressed the main point - this is a LOT of work.  The number of users who would really want this is likely too small a subset. ergo it is not likely to happen.  You are however more then entitled to keep wishing and asking.

 

 

 

 

[CAS]

Would be nice to have a official comment on the amount of work needet....

We can only guess.

If you look at the first page of the threat you can see that the manual states:

 If you have a friendly unit not in line of sight or in contact with another friendly unit, then the only way to find this unit is by either re-establishing contact with another friendly unit.....

 

Looks like the feature was about to be implemented?

Problems with the Code? Bad Gameplay?

 

Hard to Imagine the Ai could have Problems with the extra fog of war. The AI does not seem to react with dynamic movement orders to enemy Contacts in the first place?!  

 

 

[sburke]

Nah that is just a very old uncorrected statement.  Iron has never been like that.

As to the AI question, that is correct the Fog of war is irrelevant to the AI, however coding in the FOW for a unit that is supposed to be under your control but out of C2 is not a minor deal. That would have to be added as more overhead to identify during the spotting cycles which units can report their info to you and when.

 

Anyway this seems to be pointless.  I really don't want to rain on your parade, if folks want this on their wish list, have at it.  To set expectations though, BF does not often respond to users suggestions - they commented on that recently as to how much time that would eat up for them.  I'll see if I can't find the post.

[J Bennett]

I guess I must be a "casual" player because I usually play "warrior" level, though i occasionally also play Elite or Iron..

I get it there is lots more fog of war and command and control problems at the higher levels, I just find warrior more fun , I like to see more actual tanks, guns and troops on the field than just ? marks and "ghost " vehicles etc. Anyway to the thread starter  96 B .   Thanks for your service.  46N  here hooah.. My mos no longer exists.

[Bulletpoint]

these are all apples to orange comparisons.  I can try and address them individually, but you'd likely just have more. The AI Plan the designer creates can accommodate much of these to some degree, not all but some.  However if you start including more options to actually neuter the AI - yeah, BF is going to say no.

And you never addressed the main point - this is a LOT of work.  The number of users who would really want this is likely too small a subset. ergo it is not likely to happen.  You are however more then entitled to keep wishing and asking.

Point is: there is no AI. The human designer is doing the thinking and making the enemy move. There's no AI to be neutered.

I don't think my examples are apples-to-orange comparisons. The human designer could also take into account friendly fire, if he wanted. Right now, many scenarios don't seem to care too much about placing enemies within C2, which means they can set up some very odd (but effective) defenses with the enemy scattered all over the map for maxium ambush effect and to avoid real strongpoints that can be targeted by artillery. But there's a reason for why real life armies don't just scatter their soldiers all over a forest and hide behind every single bush.

As to how much work it would be to add an optional extra level of C2 difficulty, well, I don't know. And you don't really know either, I assume  But maybe you're right.