BMP-3 commander: how to?

[A Canadian Cat]

37 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Thanks for beating me to explaining that  

LOL I never know if you are going to be right back and comment or be to busy to get back to a thread. 

 

37 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Bradleys have dedicated crews because it makes little sense to have an IFV that is dependent upon dismounts for core functionality, or put the other way dismounts which are saddled with core vehicle responsibilities.  Which is one of the reasons the BMP-3 is a flawed design.

And since the game is trying to be a simulation any flaws need to come through.  Which begs the question: we players should be admonished for hacking around this problem too - my self included apparently.

On the other hand it makes you wonder if the Russian army was in a hot war and started to suffer from a reduced support form their BMP3s what would (or do) the Russian line officers do about it?  What changes would the make to the way their squads operated or how the IFVs were used?  Would they assign someone from the squad to stay behind in the top chair?  Would they have the squad leaders stay in the vehicle?  Not use the BMP for a close fire support role?  I would be interested to know.

 

37 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Don't worry, we won't

I wasn't really worried

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

On the other hand it makes you wonder if the Russian army was in a hot war and started to suffer from a reduced support form their BMP3s what would (or do) the Russian line officers do about it?  What changes would the make to the way their squads operated or how the IFVs were used?  Would they assign someone from the squad to stay behind in the top chair?  Would they have the squad leaders stay in the vehicle?  Not use the BMP for a close fire support role?  I would be interested to know.

The problem is that doctrine is the result of the vehicle's design limitations, not a desirable concept on its own.  Therefore, to change doctrine in favor of the BMP inherently means changing doctrine in a negative way towards the dismounts.  The most plausible choice would be to defacto subtract a man from the dismount element and give it permanent (or near permanent) vehicle crew status.

And yes, people bending over backwards to figure out ways to keep a BMP-3 fully functional without dismounts is doing something wargame purists call "gamey".  It is something that the game allows, but in real life wouldn't happen.

Steve

[hattori]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Thanks for beating me to explaining that   Bradleys have dedicated crews because it makes little sense to have an IFV that is dependent upon dismounts for core functionality

lol, I am aware of this.  If you read the comment in context, it was that Battlefront is not above hacking things to make game play (and their coding load) easier for all of us.  I do get disagreeing with me is fun though

Adding a "Split leader" function as you suggested is also another workaround I would be happy with.  I was just putting suggestions that I thought might be easiest for you guys to do, since there are only 2 coders.  

[Battlefront.com]

Putting in features to support "corner cases" or things which aren't even realistic isn't something we'd do even if we had a dozen coders, so resources is not the issue

As I said, unless it can be shown that Russian doctrine regularly leaves a dismount in the vehicle while the Squad goes about it's infantry duties the game is accurate and players have to adapt their tactics accordingly.

Steve

[hattori]

A corner case is something that happens outside of normal operating procedures.  It seems that this issue is big enough now that most of us who play as the Russians (and read this forum) split off scout teams or buy sniper teams to correct an obvious flaw in Russian doctrine with our own tactics. (maybe the Russian army would benefit from playing Black Sea, you should see if you can hook up a bulk 'training' purchase from them  )

29 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

players have to adapt their tactics accordingly.

Exactly!  That is what the players were asking for!  They want to adapt their tactics to have better spotting, and are asking for a means to do this.  Perhaps you guys should just overhaul the squad splitting code to be completely customizable, instead of a few fixed choices.  To save it from being a real nightmare, you can limit the number of teams a squad can split into to 2.

I personally don't think it's the craziest thing for infantry units in real life on the ground on their own initiative to say, "hey, lets have someone stay in the BMP to have more eyes on over watch".

In the meantime, I will enjoy my mobile Russian death coffins

 

[VladimirTarasov]

Busy week finally back on the forum some interesting stuff happened lately

In regards to the commander seat in the BMPs, it is more than plausible for the Squad Leader to stay in the vehicle when operating. A scenario for example; the squad leader orders the dismounts to take control of a building while in close fire support the commander stays in the vehicle. A split commander option would be nice because even when doctrine doesn't call for there to be a permanent commander, at times the Squad Leader is more than capable enough depending on the given situation to stay in the commander's seat. 

I was operating in a BMD unit and situational awareness through the commander seat was horrible(driver could see better than me). However on BMPs (speaking specifically about the BMP-2) the commander can opt to stay in and it would offer advantages to the squad+IFV effectiveness. But of course, if he must dismount and lead his squad through a situation he can choose to do so. 

 

[Machor]

@VladimirTarasov

Thank you for the insight! This kind of first-hand confirmation was what everyone needed.

Don't know about updates to the game, but at least we can now keep those commander seats occupied by someone without feeling guilty about being gamey. 

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, hattori said:

A corner case is something that happens outside of normal operating procedures.

Exactly.  And that applies equally to doctrine as well as user interface.  There are plenty of examples of CM not allowing people to do what can be done in real life.  For example, Tank Commanders dismount to scout locations for their tanks instead of driving there and then figuring out location.  Weapons Teams, in general, send someone forward to scout out an exact spot to put the weapon before the rest of the Team gets there.  But is this normal in a hot combat environment like CM simulates?  Not in our opinion.  And for 16 years people have been successfully playing and enjoying Combat Mission without these provisions because they are "corner cases".

4 hours ago, hattori said:

Exactly!  That is what the players were asking for!  They want to adapt their tactics to have better spotting, and are asking for a means to do this.  Perhaps you guys should just overhaul the squad splitting code to be completely customizable, instead of a few fixed choices.  To save it from being a real nightmare, you can limit the number of teams a squad can split into to 2.

No.

4 hours ago, hattori said:

I personally don't think it's the craziest thing for infantry units in real life on the ground on their own initiative to say, "hey, lets have someone stay in the BMP to have more eyes on over watch".

Crazy?  Certainly it is not crazy.  But it is not as easy.  Players want micromanagement features left right and center.  It's one of the most consistent things that can be counted on among wargamers.  Therefore, the list of "corner case" requests is extremely long.  If we catered to even a small number of them the game would be both less realistic and less playable.

Since the days before CMBO was released we've used the ASL "tinder" factor as an example of how "corner case" features can ruin a game.  In ASL you can light fires pretty much whenever and wherever you want.  Because there's no rules to reflect the reasons why soldiers don't go around torching everything the feature allowed gamers to do something without suffering consequences.  It allowed players to do something that was disproportional to the real world's battlefields.  The result was something supposedly designed to make the game more realistic which instead made it less realistic.

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

In regards to the commander seat in the BMPs, it is more than plausible for the Squad Leader to stay in the vehicle when operating.

Of course.  No disagreement here at all.  The question is out of 100 situations where BMP-3s dismount their infantry in a hot combat situation, how frequently would this happen?  Under what specific circumstances?  What limitations?  For example, would the Squad only go a few meters out of sight of their BMP-3, or could they range for 100m+ distance?

Again, the theory is not in question.  It's the application to CM's simulated battlefield that is at issue.

Steve

[Nefron]

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Players want micromanagement features left right and center.  It's one of the most consistent things that can be counted on among wargamers.

Yes, but it's not because we want to click on things. 

What gets on my nerves in CMBS is that the game is already so detailed in some respects, and requires plenty of micro managing as it is. With the way the engine is, I cannot step back and give general orders like take cover there, watch over that area, etc.

I have to manually position my ATGM team in a little square, and then check if they have the line of sight to the thing I want them to fire on, or is there a tree, or a rock in the way, and if there is, I have to somehow shuffle them around to get it to work. My Javelin team that is supposed to be on overwatch will lie prone into the tall grass and stare at the ground, and there is absolutely nothing that I can do about it. 

My point is that if a minute detail like an individual soldier being one meter to the right or left can affect the entire situation in a big way, then give me control over those details. Because the feeling I get is that the game lacks features, or is simply broken in some way, rather than it forcing me to take a hands off approach. This aversion to micro, and the distinction between what is and what's not micro management seems completely arbitrary.

 

[Kinophile]

I personally stay clear of the phrase the Game Is Broken, which always seems a little hyperbolic to me as the game manifestly functions as indicated - it runs,  the graphics work, the AI does it's limited little dance. Plus I've had some insanely fun RT games. 

However,  you do have a point about some basic flaws, where some things need a real rebuild (eg infantry movement/tactics). 

But I'll wait until v4 to make up my mind.

 

Edited November 10, 2016 by kinophile

[hattori]

12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Since the days before CMBO was released we've used the ASL "tinder" factor as an example of how "corner case" features can ruin a game.  In ASL you can light fires pretty much whenever and wherever you want.  Because there's no rules to reflect the reasons why soldiers don't go around torching everything the feature allowed gamers to do something without suffering consequences.  It allowed players to do something that was disproportional to the real world's battlefields.  The result was something supposedly designed to make the game more realistic which instead made it less realistic.

While I understand you cannot resist disagreeing with me on virtually every post, this is becoming comical.

So we already have a 'split scout team' function, 'split squad', 'split anti tank', but for some reason, a 'split commander' method would totally ruin this game and is a crazy corner case that is a totally unreasonable request.  Okay then lol.

 

 

[HerrTom]

46 minutes ago, hattori said:

While I understand you cannot resist disagreeing with me on virtually every post, this is becoming comical.

So we already have a 'split scout team' function, 'split squad', 'split anti tank', but for some reason, a 'split commander' method would totally ruin this game and is a crazy corner case that is a totally unreasonable request.  Okay then lol.

I have to agree with hattori on this one - it doesn't seem too unreasonable and Vladimir has kindly shared that the Russian army sometimes does this.  I mean, if it's difficult to implement due to engine limitations or what have you, then great - it's an annoying little thing that we'll have to deal with.  Comparing it to ASL's tinder feature to dismiss it entirely seems hyperbolic.

With regards to separation: @VladimirTarasov, correct me if I'm wrong, but Russian mechanised infantry generally fight in close coordination with the IFV, right?  It's essentially a big heavy member of the squad and generally stays relatively close.  At least, that's how I recall the Soviet Army operating.

I also agree with kino here, too.  The game is hardly broken.  In fact, it's one of the most bug-free (and enjoyable) games I've ever played!  The only one that seriously bothered me was the BMP-2M LOD bug, and look! It's fixed!

[Erwin]

The game is very good and certainly not broken.  However, the game has some very irritating aspects/features which hopefully will be addressed in future versions.

In the meanwhile it's hard not to agree with Nefron;s point re: "...if a minute detail like an individual soldier being one meter to the right or left can affect the entire situation in a big way, then give me control over those details. ... This aversion to micro, and the distinction between what is and what's not micro management seems completely arbitrary."

One specific example is the dysfunctional targeting system used by support weapons units.  It's very common that the 3rd ammo bearer can spot an enemy unit, but neither the AI nor the player can move the HMG or gun a few inches so that the gunner also has LOS and can fire at the target.  This makes no sense and ruins the immersive/realistic feel of the game.

[VladimirTarasov]

4 hours ago, HerrTom said:

 @VladimirTarasov, correct me if I'm wrong, but Russian mechanised infantry generally fight in close coordination with the IFV, right?  It's essentially a big heavy member of the squad and generally stays relatively close.  At least, that's how I recall the Soviet Army operating.

Absolutely, IFV and infantry are always near each other. My squad is pinned down in the building? "Ivan, blast that building to shreds" it's key to operate togerther with these vehicles. It's also good that they are heavily armed with 30mm cannons. That's why BTR-82As have 30mm cannons, now instead of being a troop transport armed with a mediumish cannon, it now can function as a IFV of sort. 

Also it adds direct firepower support to our forces, if I'm advancing say from a treeline to open field to urban environments, I can have my BMD/BMP just shred points where I can take fire from. And again, Russian tactics do depend on heavy firepower. 

 

 

 

Edited November 10, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[VladimirTarasov]

17 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Of course.  No disagreement here at all.  The question is out of 100 situations where BMP-3s dismount their infantry in a hot combat situation, how frequently would this happen?  Under what specific circumstances?  What limitations?  For example, would the Squad only go a few meters out of sight of their BMP-3, or could they range for 100m+ distance?

Again, the theory is not in question.  It's the application to CM's simulated battlefield that is at issue.

There could be alot of applications depending on the scenario. And there have been a lot of times where I myself if I were in those situations would stay mounted in the commander seat while the rest of the inf do their thing. But of course, if there are coding limitations there isn't much to do about it  

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, hattori said:

While I understand you cannot resist disagreeing with me on virtually every post, this is becoming comical.

If you would listen, maybe we wouldn't have to go through this so many times.

4 hours ago, hattori said:

So we already have a 'split scout team' function, 'split squad', 'split anti tank', but for some reason, a 'split commander' method would totally ruin this game and is a crazy corner case that is a totally unreasonable request.  Okay then lol.

Customers have absolutely no appreciation for slippery slopes.  Every single pet peeve, feature request, or new idea that pops into each of our many customers' heads shouldn't be ignored or turned down because "it's just one more thing".  What customers fail to realize is how many "just one more things" there are out there.  Thousands.  Therefore, we have to weigh each and every single feature we include very, very carefully.  Justification is primarily based on need first and foremost.

So, can you tell me why YOUR "just one more thing" is more important than the THOUSANDS of other "just one more things" suggested over the years?  No, you can't.  You can pout and complain, true enough, but until you've had to manage the endless stream of feature requests like I have, kindly take into consideration that you've got blinders on.

As I said, this feature request flunks the first test, which is need.  Russian doctrine and design created this dilemma and until it is proven to us that the game is overall less realistic the way it is vs. real life, you've got no rational case to make for change.

4 hours ago, HerrTom said:

I have to agree with hattori on this one - it doesn't seem too unreasonable and Vladimir has kindly shared that the Russian army sometimes does this.  I mean, if it's difficult to implement due to engine limitations or what have you, then great - it's an annoying little thing that we'll have to deal with.  Comparing it to ASL's tinder feature to dismiss it entirely seems hyperbolic.

No, it's accurate.  In both cases there is a request for a feature that is "possible" in real life, but if given to players would no doubt be abused.  Thus in the end the game becomes less realistic.  And the fact that you don't understand that proves that you're not looking objectively at this.

In real life can a Russian Squad Leader stay in a BMP-3 while others dismount?  Yes, absolutely.  Are there provisions for it in Russian doctrine?  Sure, no problems there either.  As there are provisions within every organization for adapting to all kinds of very specific circumstances.  Absolutely?  Do we cater to each and every one of those possible deviations?  Absolutely not.  It would be impossible to do so for a variety of reasons.  Therefore we must be very, very careful when we cater to a "corner case" situation.

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

The game is very good and certainly not broken.  However, the game has some very irritating aspects/features which hopefully will be addressed in future versions.

We've been working on CMx2 since 2004.  We've continually improved the game over time.  And when we move to CMx3 it will benefit from those improvements just like CMx2 benefited from the 6 years of CMx1 development that came before it.

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

One specific example is the dysfunctional targeting system used by support weapons units.  It's very common that the 3rd ammo bearer can spot an enemy unit, but neither the AI nor the player can move the HMG or gun a few inches so that the gunner also has LOS and can fire at the target.  This makes no sense and ruins the immersive/realistic feel of the game.

There are limitations with what we can achieve.  We have consistently improved the TacAI behavior over the years and Upgrade 4.0 has even more of those improvements.  But it will never, ever, ever be as perfect as the way things work in real life.  And there will never, ever, ever be enough micromanagement controls made available to players to compensate for any of its shortcomings.  If someone wants perfection, might I suggest no playing CM (or any game for that matter) ever again.  Perfection doesn't exist.  What does exist is CMx2 and no other game system comes close to rivaling it for combat at this scale.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

8 hours ago, Nefron said:

Yes, but it's not because we want to click on things. 

What gets on my nerves in CMBS is that the game is already so detailed in some respects, and requires plenty of micro managing as it is. With the way the engine is, I cannot step back and give general orders like take cover there, watch over that area, etc.

I have to manually position my ATGM team in a little square, and then check if they have the line of sight to the thing I want them to fire on, or is there a tree, or a rock in the way, and if there is, I have to somehow shuffle them around to get it to work. My Javelin team that is supposed to be on overwatch will lie prone into the tall grass and stare at the ground, and there is absolutely nothing that I can do about it. 

My point is that if a minute detail like an individual soldier being one meter to the right or left can affect the entire situation in a big way, then give me control over those details.

That is the standard micromanagement mentality.  "If I only had more control then I'd be happier" works for a very small number of players, and CM does not cater to that audience. 

The issue here is that if one is going to take an extreme position then one should expect something very different than what we offer.  If you want a game that does everything for you, then you're looking for what we call a "command level" sim.  Such games avoid the sorts of problems you mention by abstraction.  There's nothing wrong with those sorts of games, but it isn't want CM is and nor is it what CM players want.  They tend to want more detailed, more realistic environments which do show these sorts of details.  That's a pretty big task for a game developer to tackle, but we're just crazy enough to do so.  Most are either not crazy enough or not talented enough to even try it.  Hence us being virtually alone in this spectrum of wargaming.  And we've been virtually alone for 17 years.

8 hours ago, Nefron said:

Because the feeling I get is that the game lacks features, or is simply broken in some way, rather than it forcing me to take a hands off approach.

Hehe... "broken".  That's never an argument that goes very far here.  A player's individual perception of what is, or isn't, fun/useful is up to them to decide.  I can no more tell you that you should love the game the way it is any more than I can tell a Pokemon Go player that he should love it.  It is up to you to decide.  But the term "broken" is more towards a statement of fact which absolutely doesn't apply to CM.

8 hours ago, Nefron said:

This aversion to micro, and the distinction between what is and what's not micro management seems completely arbitrary.

Of course it is arbitrary because it always comes down to an individual's specific concept of what is or isn't micromanagement.  There is also the fact that cumulative features create different dynamics in terms of player perception of playability.  There is absolutely no way for us to completely model real life and even if we did there is absolutely no way for it to be automated to the degree you wish it to be.  There's slippery slopes all over the place and we have to navigate them because if we didn't the game would be a muddled mess that only a couple of people would want to play.  Which would mean we'd go out of business and then there would be nobody making detailed 3D tactical level games above first person shooter scale.

Steve

[hattori]

29 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Customers have absolutely no appreciation for slippery slopes.  Every single pet peeve, feature request, or new idea that pops into each of our many customers' heads shouldn't be ignored or turned down because "it's just one more thing".  What customers fail to realize is how many "just one more things" there are out there.  Thousands.  Therefore, we have to weigh each and every single feature we include very, very carefully.  Justification is primarily based on need first and foremost.

Right on schedule lol.

You talk to me as if I have no appreciation of these things -- I would have thought by now it would be clearly obvious I have worked in software development.  At what point did I ever say I wanted this now, or it had to be done?  Never.  I'm pretty sure I have made frequent comments appreciating the devs are likely overloaded with stuff.  Did I give a suggestion to throw in the queue (because a LOT of people have talked about this before I said a word), and some ideas how to implement it?  Yup.

34 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

If you would listen, maybe we wouldn't have to go through this so many times.

I seriously laughed out loud at this one, I was going to say it to you.  It's pretty obvious you don't read my comments.  I think you skim them, and already have some predetermined ideas you're going to oppose whatever I have to say, and look for some angle where you can argue with me.  

Since you are so free with advice, I will give you some as a business owner through my own hard experience.  Dismiss and talk down to your customers at your own peril.  Your choice though.

[HerrTom]

*Excuse me, Steve.  I'm having a bad day and probably shouldn't be on forums!*

 

Edit the Second: I still am curious why/how you think splitting a commander will be abused.

Edited November 10, 2016 by HerrTom
Second thoughts

[Battlefront.com]

49 minutes ago, hattori said:

Right on schedule lol.

You talk to me as if I have no appreciation of these things -- I would have thought by now it would be clearly obvious I have worked in software development.  At what point did I ever say I wanted this now, or it had to be done?  Never.  I'm pretty sure I have made frequent comments appreciating the devs are likely overloaded with stuff.  Did I give a suggestion to throw in the queue (because a LOT of people have talked about this before I said a word), and some ideas how to implement it?  Yup.

Then why are you taking such an aggressive, dismissive, and increasingly insulting tone?  You made a suggestion, so have others, and I've dutifully responded to it respectfully and rationally.  Obviously you disagree with my point of view, which I'm comfortable with because we know we can't please everybody.  And now you're

49 minutes ago, hattori said:

I seriously laughed out loud at this one, I was going to say it to you.  It's pretty obvious you don't read my comments.  I think you skim them, and already have some predetermined ideas you're going to oppose whatever I have to say, and look for some angle where you can argue with me.  

Hmmm... this is exactly how you're behaving.  And since you are taking up a position of opposition (and an increasingly disrespectful and aggressive one, I might add) what should I do?  Not respond to your arguments at all?  I can easily do that, but here I was thinking you wanted to have a discussion.  My mistake?

49 minutes ago, hattori said:

Since you are so free with advice, I will give you some as a business owner through my own hard experience.  Dismiss and talk down to your customers at your own peril.  Your choice though.

I've handled customers the same way for 17 years and guess what?  We're still here while more than I can count are not.  You can take whatever lessons you want from your own experience, but from my experience I find that our customers generally respect us for having a solid opinion instead of blowing smoke up people's backsides so nobody's feelings are hurt.  Each to his own, of course.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

36 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

Thank you for the psychoanalysis, Steve.  You're right, I probably am not objective.  I usually dismount everyone from BMPs and deal with the spotting and leave it at that.  Out of curiosity, how would this suggestion be destined to be abused?  I would like to understand more...

Hell, if the reason is simply "We don't feel like doing it," fine.  It's your game, do what you want.  But I'm not following the arguments you're making.

The problem with any simulation feature is the path towards "unintended consequences".  What works in isolation very often does not work well with some other game aspect.  In order for something to function without counter balancing consequences we often have to implement other features (or change existing ones).  Those in turn may require their own modifications, additions, or other changes.  That's often not the case, of course, but we have to approach each thing as if that's what might happen.  Otherwise we waste time on something that has to get pulled (which, unfortunately, still happens).

In this case we know two things:

1.  The BMP-3 is under designed for its role as an IFV.  In particular it's small seating capacity.  That's very clear when looking at other nations' IFVs and even previous Soviet designs.  Not to mention major criticism within the Russian military towards the BMP-3.

2.  Squads are designed to operate with a dedicated, trained leader.  When the leader is absent the squad under performs in many ways.

The BMP-3 does not offer the possibility of being fully operational AND having a fully operational squad.  That means the Squad Leader has to choose, very carefully, when he is or isn't dismounting with his squad.  Which in turn means that if we allowed the Squad Leader to remain in the BMP-3, then there must be a significant downside for the player in doing so.  Currently the game is not designed to give the player this sort of disincentive other than being short the Squad Leader's body/gun.  And that could result in a misuse of sub-splitting a Squad.

When we look at the desirability to add something we first go through this process about evaluating if there is a real need for a feature and, if so, to what extent.  The potential for opening up a can of worms is then looked at.  Then we evaluate how the feature would work from a UI standpoint and see how it fits in with the game as a whole (including "one too many things to do" concept).  After that we look at the technical implications and make a determination if it is possible to do and, if so, what it would take to pull it off.  Finally, we have to decide if this is something worth putting ahead of the thousands of other things you guys are looking for.

If a feature runs into problems anywhere along this line of thinking, it's in trouble.  If the desire for the feature is high then we try to come up with a way that doesn't flunk a critical test.  But if desire is low, we don't put the energy into it any further.  Instead it goes onto the heap of user requests which may, or may not, ever see the light of day.

The problem with this feature request is it seems questionable that we should do it from a conceptual sense.  The technical issues (which are substantial) that it would require in order to work come next.  Which is why it's not likely going to happen.

36 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

And yet we have a guy who was "in it" says that he would do just this.  At any rate, do we need this right now give me give me?  Absolutely not.  Call it a nice-to-have.

And that's a reasonable position to take.  There are lots of examples within CM where someone can say exactly this thing.  There's reduced flexibility within US units sometimes as well because it's not possible to implement a way to do anything and everything that's possible in real life.  Maybe some day this will come into the game.  It's entirely possible, especially if we identify some very common need for such a feature.  Then it becomes less of a "corner case" and more of a "need".  That changes the equation significantly.

Steve

[HerrTom]

Thanks for taking the time to respond to me, Steve.  I thought a lot of that regarding the squad leader is already handled by the game mechanics, but now that I think about it in your terms, you're pretty right.  I thought losing the squad leader was a hit on C3 on the squad, but splitting squad as-is doesn't actually affect that.

[VladimirTarasov]

27 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

2.  Squads are designed to operate with a dedicated, trained leader.  When the leader is absent the squad under performs in many ways.

Not to nit pick into your post, you have the experience making games and balancing things but even if I were to die say in battle, I had a senior rifleman which could have still led my squad. Not much of a penalty to a Russian squad with the SL gone (other than if he died which ofc will either drop morale or send the team into a revenge mode) inside the IFV. But anyways, I almost always disembarked with troops (because I was in a BMD, try being a commander in one please) but BMP-2s and BMP-3s both have better commander optics than a BMD. Also better seating, also better positioning, also... Let's just say better everything! 

27 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

1.  The BMP-3 is under designed for its role as an IFV.  In particular it's small seating capacity.  That's very clear when looking at other nations' IFVs and even previous Soviet designs.  Not to mention major criticism within the Russian military towards the BMP-3.

Actually, BMP-3s are looked upon well in the Russian military. BMP-3s have 7 INF plus 2 crew where as a M2A3 has 6 dismounts and 3 crew as standard. 

Edited November 10, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[Nefron]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

That is the standard micromanagement mentality.  "If I only had more control then I'd be happier" works for a very small number of players, and CM does not cater to that audience. 

The issue here is that if one is going to take an extreme position then one should expect something very different than what we offer.  If you want a game that does everything for you, then you're looking for what we call a "command level" sim.  Such games avoid the sorts of problems you mention by abstraction.  There's nothing wrong with those sorts of games, but it isn't want CM is and nor is it what CM players want.  They tend to want more detailed, more realistic environments which do show these sorts of details.  That's a pretty big task for a game developer to tackle, but we're just crazy enough to do so.  Most are either not crazy enough or not talented enough to even try it.  Hence us being virtually alone in this spectrum of wargaming.  And we've been virtually alone for 17 years.

 

I understand that perfectly, and I consider this game to be very heavy on micro, and I love it. I know that it's expected of me to micro units into little squares and plan each move in details, etc. 

It's the situations in which some of these little details matter very much, and I'm powerless to influence them that are the problem, but for some reason that should be handled by the AI, and it frequently gets handled in a completely unrealistic and immersion breaking way. 

I don't understand why aren't you embracing the micro all the way. Why is it OK for me to place an IFV in an exact spot, but it's not OK to tell it to use ATGMs, etc. 

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Hehe... "broken".  That's never an argument that goes very far here.  A player's individual perception of what is, or isn't, fun/useful is up to them to decide.  I can no more tell you that you should love the game the way it is any more than I can tell a Pokemon Go player that he should love it.  It is up to you to decide.  But the term "broken" is more towards a statement of fact which absolutely doesn't apply to CM.

Quote

If I have a situation where my two man Javelin team easily spots stuff on the move, but cannot fire on it because they immediately go prone and lose LOS, I consider that to be broken. I have a realistic and reasonable intent, for them to be in overwatch on that hill, that the game simply won't let me express. That is not my fault.

This is a specific example that stuck in my mind from a user created mission (Myrne roadblock or something).

I understand that you are resource constrained, and being a developer I know that it's never so simply as adding a button or two and calling it a day. However, I think these problems need to be addressed, and that letting the player decide is going to be the easier way. I don't think any amount of tweaking the TacAI is going to produce much better results. 

[Stagler]

Maybe a way of getting around this is adding an additional split squad option (alongside scout team, at team, fireteam etc) which just splits off the SL, and the rest of the squad is led by the senior soldier/asst. SL?