Jump to content

C2 & Information Sharing


Recommended Posts

This is really informative - nicely done.  Information move along quite quickly too. Can you point us to the key for your icon mod, please? I know you said the Marder icon was a sound contact form the scouts but as I kept reading I forgot and thought (from the pcitures) you were passing hard contact information up the chain - which made no sense.  I now think that the icon was confusing me.  What does a '?' icon look like for the Marder and what does a fully spotted Marder look like?

 

The icons are: Johnsy's Floating Icons from GAJ's site.  The Marder was originally a sound contact but the scouts also got a direct view of it from inside the west building.  I don't think there is a difference in the look of the icons, I am using, between sound and what was once spotted.  Below are screenshots between an actual sighting and sound / what was once spotted.

 

Spotted%20Marder%20II_zps4upvd5qu.jpg

 

Unidentified%20Marder%20II_zpskgmfl3xf.j

 

Ian,

 

Speaking of icons.  I noticed the icons you are using in http://community.battlefront.com/topic/119230-allies-cmbn-buying-the-farm-crowd-sourced-dar/   The icons look kind of cool.  Which mod is that?  

Edited by MOS:96B2P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really surprised information can be shared at a distance of at least 480 metres without a radio..... I always assumed I had to run the scouts back to the platoon to report on findings.

 

But if I read the test correct, they can report at any distance, as long as they have visual contact with the platoon leader?

 

Yes.  I was also surprised.  However, remember I was using a custom made map.  The 480 meters I did the test on was daylight, completely flat, no trees, no bushes, no fences, no tall grass, no smoke, nothing at all to obstruct vision.  Both units had no suppression, were not moving and were facing each other.  I made this unrealistic environment to see how far "distant visual" could go.  When I got to 40 action spots I decided that it was a long ways and stopped testing.  As I think back on all the missions I played I don't think this circumstance happens very often for infantry who are usually moving quick, hunting or prone on the ground.  Then add in all the cool chaos provided by a Combat Mission.  So while it is possible for the very long "distant visual" C2 it probably does not happen very often.   :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah thanks for the explanation. That is a confusing icon for a sound contact. I'll have to look at the mod to see how it works I guess.
 

Speaking of icons.  I noticed the icons you are using in http://community.battlefront.com/topic/119230-allies-cmbn-buying-the-farm-crowd-sourced-dar/   The icons look kind of cool.  Which mod is that?  


Actually those are mine. They are inspired by some work done by billy_sp way back in 1.0 (his newer stuff is here: http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods/search?search=bill&commit=Search).

 

You can find mine here: http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods/search?search=A+Canadian+Cat&commit=Search

The goal was to create a set of icons that used the period tactical symbols of the armies involved.

 

and the modern ones here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118057-nato-tactical-symbol-icon-replacements/

I still want to create Russian icons but have not got there yet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Units in Combat Mission Shock Force drop out of radio C2 while moving on foot.

CMSF%20C2%20with%20Foot%20movement_zpse9

 



Units in Combat Mission's World War II titles drop out of radio C2 while moving on foot.  But not in vehicles as Kuderian pointed out.

No%20Radio%20C2%20While%20Moving_zpsx0yg

 

 

Units in CMBS maintain radio C2 while moving.

Modern%20US%20Moving%20with%20C2_zpskx2d

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Lt.,

 

I forgot to mention earlier that the experiment was done on Iron skill level.  Which is almost identical to Elite skill level.  The below link has an entire thread with screenshots on the topic.

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/119218-skill-level-iron/

 

OK, I was considering the differences between Elite and Iron as discussed here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/116617-suggestion-for-a-better-iron-difficulty/page-2#entry1555904

 

There is no C2 indicator used for horizontal information sharing.  Those indicators (the eyeball etc.) are only for vertical C2.  The 1st Bn. XO moved to within horizontal information sharing distance (Up to four action spots) of the 4th Battalion unit.  Soon after, the icon for the Marder was visible to the 4th Bn. unit when the 4th Battalion unit was clicked on demonstrating the 4th Battalion received the information.

 

That's what I thought, so you are just "assuming" that if you move the 1st Bn XO "close enough" to 4th Bn then (eventually) something happens and information is apparently "communicated"/"shared" with them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...you are just "assuming" that if you move the 1st Bn XO "close enough" to 4th Bn then (eventually) something happens and information is apparently "communicated"/"shared" with them?

No, he's not "assuming", he's "empirically observing". Big difference. He's even observed the limit on the separation between the units that must be adhered to before information will pass between them.

 

An assumption that could be tested is that it has to be the XO (I expect it doesn't) that passes the info.

 

As to the range for "distant visual", and information passing back to an HQ, it doesn't seem unreasonable in the given lighting conditions that a binocular-equipped HQ could discern standard hand signals for "enemy armour sighted, over there, 200m," or whatever. Especially given the constraints of Iron, where the subordinate unit has to have actually spotted the HQ to get its C2 link (and so the HQ, having assumed better vision aids will probably have spotted its subordinate).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he's not "assuming"........before information will pass between them.

 

The assuming bit is this:  That there is "information carried and passed between 1st and 4th Bn in the situation described.  I would expect it to go the other way as well, if 4th Bn had spotted something, then that something would "appear" to 1st Bn HQ/units, probably at the same time.

 

As a game mechanic goes, it is all quite cool and well, but what does that really mean in game terms?

 

Practically (apart from Bil's idea on how it could be used with self imposed rules), how does, for example, a 4th Bn unit "knowing" the approximate location of an enemy unit that a 1st Bn has spotted really affect any unit from 4th Bn then spotting the same enemy unit?  What difference would it make to the time it may take a 4th Bn unit to spot the enemy unit (given it was within LOS) if it had this "shared information" compared to if it had no information on the enemy unit?

 

If it takes say 60 sec to spot without this information, does it take 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, 5 etc seconds to spot if it did have this information?  Has any real reduction in "spotting speed" ever really been properly confirmed/tested?  We would only really know this from conducting specific tests and not from casual observation from playing games.

 

Probably the next line of testing.

Edited by Lt Bull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The assuming bit is this:  That there is "information carried and passed between 1st and 4th Bn in the situation described.

Nope. That's demonstrated. Not assumed. There is information passed, because the "tentative contact" icon appears, when it otherwise would not. It might, just, still be coincidence that the XO got in "horizontal sharing" range just as the "up to Brigade and back" time expired. That could easily be tested for by getting the XO across much earlier or much later.

 

You're correct that the effect of having that information is nebulous. But there's no reason a "?" received from another battalion would be any less (or more) helpful in spotting than a "?" received from a company-mate team, or an immediate HQ; that would mean extra tracking of attributes of the "?" markers that would be onerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.  I was also surprised.  However, remember I was using a custom made map.  The 480 meters I did the test on was daylight, completely flat, no trees, no bushes, no fences, no tall grass, no smoke, nothing at all to obstruct vision.  Both units had no suppression, were not moving and were facing each other.  I made this unrealistic environment to see how far "distant visual" could go.  When I got to 40 action spots I decided that it was a long ways and stopped testing.  As I think back on all the missions I played I don't think this circumstance happens very often for infantry who are usually moving quick, hunting or prone on the ground.  Then add in all the cool chaos provided by a Combat Mission.  So while it is possible for the very long "distant visual" C2 it probably does not happen very often.   :)  

 

Agreed that it doesn't happen often, but it still seems a bit off. I wonder what the real gameplay difference is between "vocal distance" and "distant visual". Maybe leadership bonuses are stronger close by?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed that it doesn't happen often, but it still seems a bit off. I wonder what the real gameplay difference is between "vocal distance" and "distant visual". Maybe leadership bonuses are stronger close by?

The implication is that the more and closer your C2 links are, the better the bonus (however it's derived). Whether Voice Only is better than Sight Only, or vice versa, would take some seriously detailed and well-designed testing to find out, but we're at least meant to believe that the benefits of remaining in voice and sight range are greater than only one of those, and greater still than distant sight. Not sure anyone's done any testing to check they really work that way, that's been presented on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a sunday morning what if :)

 

What if CM would only allow area fire at or near a contact? That would make C2 much more important especially for the mortars (and life more difficult for players of course).

 

Downside would be that recon by fire becomes impossible. That could be accepted or it would be allowed to target short for 15s to anywhere in LOS (like now). The latter  is a loophole to still fire anywhere (especially in RT) but makes it at least cumbersome.

 

Before I forget: +1 to you MOS! Very good and informative, thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh?

What if CM would only allow area fire at or near a contact?

CM does only allow area fire at or near a contact. If the unit you're giving orders to hasn't spotted the unit yet then you can't target the unit directly, the best best you can do is target the ground under or near the contact, and that type of fire is area fire. And you can recon by fire - I do that often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh?

CM does only allow area fire at or near a contact. If the unit you're giving orders to hasn't spotted the unit yet then you can't target the unit directly, the best best you can do is target the ground under or near the contact, and that type of fire is area fire. And you can recon by fire - I do that often.

 

I can area fire anywhere I like if I have LOS to the AS. No need for a contact. Thus you can use (especially) mortars in an unrealistic way if you as the player know where an enemy unit is but the mortar unit does not.

Hence my proposal to only allow area fire at or near contacts (sound or full). That is in spirit of Bills proposal but not going all the way but as far as the engine would make that possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I see. The other unstated bit was "no fire where there's no contact or sound". That's the piece of your idea I missed :)

 

Yeah, that'd be a really bad idea. Really bad.

 

Yeah, I don't like that idea, either, as it would disallow the player from carrying out very valid tactics like covering fire on terrain where the enemy hasn't shown their presence yet but there's very good reason to believe they are occupying said terrain.

Edited by LukeFF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't like that idea, either, as it would disallow the player from carrying out very valid tactics like covering fire on terrain where the enemy hasn't shown their presence yet but there's very good reason to believe they are occupying said terrain.

 

That is why there is the 'fire anywhere but only 15 seconds' clause. That is not enough time for mortars to get more than one bomb out.

Playing styles differ but I would really very, very seldom target an area with aboslutely NO contact.

The point of this is to emphasize the necessity of C2. To really get that info to the support units and not just by the all knowing eye.

 

Actually this would level the field a bit as the AI can't area fire at all.

 

But no need to fuss about it, won't happen. Taking abilities away from players is not popular anyway and BFC wouldn't want to open that can of worms. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is why there is the 'fire anywhere but only 15 seconds' clause. That is not enough time for mortars to get more than one bomb out.

True, but, oh heck there's all sorts of problems with that. Mortars need to adjust, so they need to fire more than one bomb. Small arms fire doesn't need to adjust, but 15 seconds of fire isn't really enough to do anything useful (try more like 2-3 minutes) whereas 45 seconds  - the remainder of a turn - is more than enough time for the enemy to really mess with your plan which depends on them being suppressed.

 

I understand you're casting about for ways to try and make your idea work, and you recognise that the idea is unlikely to be implemented anyway, but the central problem is that this idea just isn't very sound. Yes, there are some problems that come from the player's god-like overview, but introducing artificial and a-historical constraints isn't the way to fix them :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see this being the basis of a set of C2 rules for especially dedicated players... this is something I've been thinking about for a while now.. just hadn't thought of an easy way to implement it.

 

Examples:

  • No orders allowed to take advantage of a contact until the HQ for that formation is aware of it... if a platoon leader is aware of the enemy contact, then it can react to it and be given orders to that end (only for squads and teams in command)... but a neighboring platoon not aware, could not.  
  • A Company HQ aware of the contact could order his Platoons and support units with that information in mind, but only if they are in command.

Hmmm... I'll have to see what I can come up with.  Any takers on playing an AAR game in this fashion?  It would take the game to a new level and would be best played in Iron mode.

 

I remembered reading the below topic/thread.  It took me awhile to get around to finding and linking it.  Peregrine is very knowledgeable about C2 and has some interesting ideas about C2 rules that are a good reference on the subject.  I thought his thread may spark some creative thought on the topic.  While I don't understand all the details of his rules (as you can see by my questions in post #19 on the thread) they seemed very well thought out and they evolved over time as he gained experience with them.  If Peregrine is still around it would be interesting to hear his thoughts, and the thoughts of others, on C2 and the way to implement C2 rules in the game.        

  

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/110861-command-layer-in-ai-battles/?hl=%2Bcommand+%2Blayer+%2Bbattles

Edited by MOS:96B2P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand you're casting about for ways to try and make your idea work, and you recognise that the idea is unlikely to be implemented anyway, but the central problem is that this idea just isn't very sound.

 

Unfortunately you are probably quite right. :)

I was going to propose that this rule was only for mortars but then remembered that the number one counterpoint for this idea is that it would make smoke unusable - d'oh!

So the rule is now that on-board mortars can only area fire non-smoke bombs on or near contacts... ok, I'll stop here. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah thanks for the explanation. That is a confusing icon for a sound contact. I'll have to look at the mod to see how it works I guess.

<snip>

You can find mine here: http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods/search?search=A+Canadian+Cat&commit=Search

The goal was to create a set of icons that used the period tactical symbols of the armies involved.

<snip>

 

IanL, I tried out your floating icons.  I am getting use to them and they are working out pretty well.  I agree your fog of war (sound contact) icon is a little easier to understand.  I recommend this icon mod which can be found at the above link for anyone who is interested.

 

The sound contact with the new fog of war icon.

IanL%20Icons%201_zpstg9ldnwb.jpg

 

IanL%20Icons%202_zpsvk50znqx.jpg

 

IanL%20Icons%203_zpscxxriocz.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding targeting locations with no "known" enemy contacts.

 

An anecdote from General Abrams' biography. (He was the battalion commander who led Patton's drive to Bastogne. Eventually became top-ranked US Army general and they named a tank after him.) He was the VIP visitor to some tank training location in Germany in the mid '70's. They had their best tank crew take him down the training lane. Pop up targets popped up, and they shot them. Etc. They were the best because of their accuracy and speed through the course. General Abrams was furious. He had them redo the course, but he told them to imagine Soviet anti-tank teams behind every piece of cover and concealment. He had them machinegun every bush, lob HE shells at every structure, stay turret down and observe, move forward with "marching" fire, etc. Told them that's how he'd expect them to fight for real.

 

What does that mean to us? Well, the ability to area fire at unknown enemy is somewhat important to a successful attack or defense. (It'd be nice if the AI would do it, too. But that's a whole 'nother can o'worms.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IanL, I tried out your floating icons.  I am getting use to them and they are working out pretty well.  I agree your fog of war (sound contact) icon is a little easier to understand.  I recommend this icon mod which can be found at the above link for anyone who is interested.

Thank you.  I am glad you like them.

 

Just to be clear my FOW icons are just modified version of the original icons.  What I did was keep the symbol - solider, vehilcle, etc and put it in a frame to match my force icons (its a bit bigger that the original icons).  The other icons are totally of my own making for the WWII titles and based on a Mill Symbol font for the modern title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remembered reading the below topic/thread.  It took me awhile to get around to finding and linking it.  Peregrine is very knowledgeable about C2 and has some interesting ideas about C2 rules that are a good reference on the subject.  I thought his thread may spark some creative thought on the topic.  While I don't understand all the details of his rules (as you can see by my questions in post #19 on the thread) they seemed very well thought out and they evolved over time as he gained experience with them.  If Peregrine is still around it would be interesting to hear his thoughts, and the thoughts of others, on C2 and the way to implement C2 rules in the game.        

  

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/110861-command-layer-in-ai-battles/?hl=%2Bcommand+%2Blayer+%2Bbattles

 

FYI, I am finishing up my own set of C2 rules (calling them COMMAND FRICTION).  Just need to do some tidying up and run through a test or two, then I'll post it all on my blog, complete with an example play through of several turns using the system.

 

I did not read Peregrine's rules in full until today.. he has some interesting concepts in there, but I think you will find that mine will be different though it appears our goals are the same.  I applaud him for what he has done, and to do it with no note taking too!. That part eluded me.. ;)  for mine I created an Excel workbook for keeping track of unit orders and to track when they can be changed.  I tried to automate as much of that as possible.

 

Here is a teaser:

 

COMMAND%2BFRICTION-Workbook.png

 

 

“Knowledge isn’t power. The ability to act on knowledge is power.” – Michael Schrage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...