C2 & Information Sharing

[MOS:96B2P]

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.

 

This looks pretty cool.  Kind of like a modified task matrix.  The idea to use Excel I think will go a long way to allowing Command Friction to be detailed but still manageable.  It looks like leadership and training will play a role...............  This just gets better all the time.  So unit initiative is allowed two seconds after a new task assignment was not provided possibly because the unit is out of C2???  I know, I know, I will wait for the blog.    I look forward to this one.  You should probably just stay home from work until it is completed.    

[Bil Hardenberger]

So unit initiative is allowed two seconds after a new task assignment was not provided possibly because the unit is out of C2???  I know, I know, I will wait for the blog.  

 

Don't forget that time counts down in CM  

 

 

 

It looks like leadership and training will play a role...............

 

Indeed they will.  They effect unit flexibility.

[MOS:96B2P]

Bil created Command Friction.  This is a very interesting C3 system that is partially automated using Excel.  Very cool stuff.  The link for it is below.

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/119732-command-friction-applying-c3-effects-in-combat-mission-playtest/

 

Combat missions is such a cool game to begin with and then all the creative time, thought and effort that is added by scenario designers, moders, U-Tube videos, Twitch, the forum, graphic novels [bud B], game clubs, blogs, GAJ site, various how to instructions, gifting CM games to other players, CM conventions (First annual in Texas), the concern and support for Michael Emrys is all genuinely amazing.  And this is just a few things I could think of off the top of my head.    

 

So anyways, Command Friction is yet another example of the creative power of the great Battlefront Community.  

 

[Bulletpoint]

Looks interesting. I wonder if command friction will some day make it into the main game as an optional super-iron difficulty setting

[John Kettler]

MOS96:B2P,

 

Simply tremendous work! I have no idea how I missed this post. You have identified, and tested, many things that have long bugged me about the game, where though Borg Spotting is gone, the player still knows altogether too much about the tactical situation (we're sort of stuck on that one) and then can react at blazing speed. It just so happens that I found Bil's Command Friction post first, which then led me here. 

 

Questions

 

1. Does Long Visual have separate value for naked eye and with binos?

2. What role do lighting and environmental conditions play, if any, in determining the distances involved?

 

Observation

 

I believe the discoveries you've made, and the resulting game refinements now possible for those desiring them, highlight yet again something I've been trying to get addressed for years--flying ears! Though reluctantly dragged into accepting the need to be able to check LOS a priori from waypoints, there is and has been no way for me to stomach the player's ability to move ears anywhere on the map at will. To me, this is a major realism killer and needs, in my view, to be addressed soonest by nailing the ability to hear to the positions of those doing the hearing. There should be zero ability to move ears about and conduct acoustic real time recon to any desired depth of the foe's known or suspected locations. If LOS is tied to a unit's current or planned location, then why can't the same be done with ears? After all, they're attached to the same soldiers. There were no shotgun microphones in WW II, and I feel safe in asserting that only some dedicated intel unit would have such capabilities now. Combat intel isn't manna from heaven. It must be obtained, frequently at great risk to those seeking it for higher.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[womble]

There should be zero ability to move ears about and conduct acoustic real time recon to any desired depth of the foe's known or suspected locations. If LOS is tied to a unit's current or planned location, then why can't the same be done with ears?

Reason? Because sound travel speed is modelled. So when you move your viewpoint around, distant explosions are heard only after the appropriate time delay. If your listening point were fixed to a unit's location, that wouldn't be possible. To my mind, the current ability to hear (and therefore localise) mortars firing (which is pretty much the entire extent of the advantage derivable from "acoustic recon") is a bug. I derive this opinion from the fact that there's a switch to turn off sounds from unspotted units, which doesn't currently work properly.

[Odin]

Mos +1 for starting this thread. 

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).

 

 

 

Posel this is something I've also mulled over in the past. If WWII units' ability to 'borg spot' (is that the correct term?) was further limited in CM, I think it would improve the simulation aspect of the game. 

 

For example, could BF create an extra difficulty level for its WWII titles by incorporating an extra level of C2 (or C3 if you will)? EG If a squad cannot see an enemy unit there would be only two types of situation said squad could 'area target' a position:

 

- If its HQ unit has LOS on the position to be fired on, and the squad is within C2 of its HQ.

- Or if the squad has a sound contact, or previous visual on an enemy unit, it could fire on the location without the need for a C2 link (maybe area fire could be extended to 3-4 squares radius from the location of a sound contact).

 

I realise this wouldn't drastically alter gameplay or eliminate borg sportting, but I think this, or something similar, would help to limit borg spotting's impact on play.

 

As with Bill's suggestions if you've got a trusted opponent, or are playing the AI, you could do this off your own bat without the need for an extra difficulty level. But if such addition could be done without a complete coding melt down I'd love to see it in future releases.  

 

As for Bill's suggestion concerning movement, that sounds great but I guess it is something which could not be coded without drastic changes to the game. Looking forward to seeing how you get on with it though Bill!

Edited June 2, 2015 by Odin

[Odin]

Having given it some more thought you could tweak this rule slightly, by having two criteria.

 

The first would apply to HQ units equipped with radios. This could be represented as an advantage in CM by not making necessary for such HQs to have LOS on an area to set a squad area target of the area.

 

Going by this assumption, in a CM game a radio equipped HQ unit could order a squad to advance to a position outside of its C2 range and then area target a position at the end of the movement order. 'In game' this could be represented by a squad being given a movement order when within C2 range; and provided an area target is set before the squad leaves C2 to take place at the end of its movement order, the squad can then undertake an area target of the specified area (eg building) once outside of C2 range. this could be likened to a RL situation where a platoon commander gives a squad an order to move to a new position and then suppress a building etc once it has reached its new position. 

 

This could even finally give radio equipped XO teams a job to do other than act as medics or reserves for Company HQs. IE if a platoon is split up, a Company XO team could be dispatched with a squad moving outside of its platoon HQ's C2. This would maintain the squad's the ability to communicate with its HQ and maintain its area fire capability.

 

 

A second criteria/sub-rule would apply to HQs without radios (eg Italian or Soviet). These 'radioless' HQs would be required to have LOS on a position (and C2 with a squad) for the squad to area target a position.  The point being to give HQs which lack the ability to communicate with other HQs outside of their direct verbal or visual range an extra disadvantage. From my understanding of it, in RL if a unit lacked radios and, therefore, the ability to co-ordinate with other units it faced a massive disadvantage. At the moment I don't think such units in CM face as big a disadvantage as they would have done in RL.

 

 

It's not perfect I know, but I hope it makes sense. Guess I should give this a test run in a game against the AI!

Edited June 2, 2015 by Odin

[Bil Hardenberger]

Odin, you might be reinventing the wheel a bit.. my system (now being playtested) does take into account reaction times for radio versus non-radio equipped units.

 

I do however like your ideas about area fire and might incorporate them (I will of course give you credit if I do).

[Odin]

Hi Bill, yeah I thought you have a more detailed version of the suggestion I posted above which only impacts a unit's ability to area target. Although my suggestion is much more limited, it can be used by just referencing the information available in game, rather than having to keep records. Here's an example taken from a turn. It's based on two Soviet platoons' abilities to area fire on a German bunker.

 

Infantry platoon HQ's awareness of German bunker 

 

Infantry squad within HQ's C2

 

Scout team without C2, but with a sound contact on the bunker

 

T34 unaware of bunker's presence, as is its platoon HQ

Edited June 2, 2015 by Odin

[Ivan Zaitzev]

Frustrated by the lack of radios in the Italian Army I did a little testing of my own in CMFI.

I purchased an Infantry battalion and trimmed it down to an HQ, recon platoon and one company. I then purchased three FO teams (only infantry unit with radio?) under the command of the HQ. Placed 1 FO with the recon team, 1 with the HQ and 1 with the company. All three clusters of units where out of contact. When the recon platoon spotted my target, information was shared vertically with the FO team but not among the FO teams and not among the other clusters of units, of course.

Second attempt, I purchased the same as before but instead of purchasing 3 single teams of FO under the command of HQ, I purchased a different unit, a Forward observer section. I then purchased two single FO teams inside this section. The original FO team acts as a HQ. Again I created three clusters of units. Placed the FO HQ with the Btln. HQ, 1 FO with the scouts and 1 FO with the company. When the scouts spotted my target information was shared horizontally to the FO, then upwards to FO HQ, horizontally to Btln HQ. Downwards from FO HQ to other FO team and horizontally again to the Infantry company.

 

Edited May 14, 2017 by Ivan Zaitzev

[Erwin]

Complex to remember how this works, but very interesting.

[Bud Backer]

I regularly go back to this thread, it has so much information. You actually get more out of it the more experience you have as you start understanding nuances in how C2 works. 

[Erwin]

Yes, this needs to be a sticky as it covers questions that come up regularly year after year...

[Sgt.Squarehead]

+1

[General Jack Ripper]

Mod: Please Pin or do Sumfink!

[Bud Backer]

As it stands right now, I go to any post by MOS and click the link on his signature. 

Edited June 27, 2017 by Bud Backer
Typo

[domfluff]

Yeah, this is probably the single most useful thread for any CM game - this definitely should be pinned.

Arguably, it's the kind of information that should be in the manual as well, but that's a different (and much older) argument.

[JoMac]

The whole problem with Info Sharing (other then Squads/Teams talking to each other to get right firing position, etc), and why it shouldn't be allowed is that the God-Like-Player already has control over the Battlefield...If the Player sees an Icon, then he can simply move troop quantities around/about in reaction as he sees fit to engage, spot, whatever...(that in RL would take to much time, etc).

God-Like-Player coupled with Info Sharing is just to much and gives unrealistic results.

 

[sburke]

3 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

The whole problem with Info Sharing (other then Squads/Teams talking to each other to get right firing position, etc), and why it shouldn't be allowed is that the God-Like-Player already has control over the Battlefield...If the Player sees an Icon, then he can simply move troop quantities around/about in reaction as he sees fit to engage, spot, whatever...(that in RL would take to much time, etc).

God-Like-Player coupled with Info Sharing is just to much and gives unrealistic results.

 

Then don't move your troops in response to sound icons- it is your choice.

[Bud Backer]

Seems like this is exactly what Bil's Command Friction is meant to deal with.

[A Canadian Cat]

And on a more basic level info sharing has nothing to do with the god like player's view. Information sharing means that unit B can get a ? icon from the view of unit A and hence it will be quicker for unit B to fully spot the enemy it they move to a location where they have LOS to the enemy.

The player's god like view only needs unit A to spot the enemy to allow all thier units to react. The sharing with unit B has nothing what so ever to do with it.

[Xorg_Xalargsky]

Makes you wish, what if co-operative play was a possibility, each player controlling a platoon, only being able to communicate with other players while in C2...

[A Canadian Cat]

Now that would be cool!

[Bud Backer]

That would be beyond cool!!!