Player Control and Fog of War

[dfgardner]

As an avid CM player I've watched with interest the ongoing debate between how much control a player should have over individual units versus the AI making decisions.

We've all experienced issuing orders to units and then seeing the AI do something unexpected, or not allowing us to issue enough detailed orders to have our units attempt to accomplish our goal.

As a former combat arms (infantry officer) let me offer an opinion for comment:

The AI actually models what happens in combat very realistically, i.e., even after you issue orders, you're not completely sure they will be carried out in the manner you wanted. I have found, in my actual experience, that this is closer to what actually happens "in real life."

Therefore, for me, the "hook" of this game is that it shows the effects of "fog of war" or human failings, on your orders.

Translated: you can never really be sure as a commander that your troops will carry out the full intent of your orders, until you see it done. This "if" factor, for me, is the essance of CM.

To change this fundamentally alters this game into most (all?) board wargames where the human commander has absolute control over all units.

[Old_Airman]

I'll second df's opinion on this. I have worked in numerous operations centers in my military career and I can tell you that commanders make HUGE decisions based on the slimmest of information. Orders get misintrepreted. Communications becomes spotty. Units are completely out of communication with command. Sometimes it is only the initiative of squad leaders that turns around the operation. And they do it without commo or orders to HHQ.

By the same token, the initiative or lack of it from the squads can sometimes spell disaster. As a commander, you must always try to anticipate what to do if a unit fails in its assigned task.

I don't think you want too many additional commands added to the game. It would ruin the magnificent uncertainty that seems holds one's attention. I think BTS got it about right.

By the way df, see you in Bastogne!

[Mannheim Tanker]

As one of the guys that had to interpret the orders coming down from above, I'll echo the comments of above. This aspect is certainly one of the tidbits that sets CM apart from all other wargames.

------------------

"Gun damaged are rare on Shermans because they die like red shirts on Star Trek" - Slapdragon

[dalem]

I'll jump in on any thread that favors Fog of War in the game. I've posted before that I think FOW is both the 'coolest' and most important part of the game for me. As a matter of fact, I think that squads that are out of command should be run by the AI, not me.

-dale

[Los]

Just to add on to dfhgardner's comments: it's interesting to see that the most vehemently oppose to this loss of controladdition of frustrating friction and FOW are either non-military types with little experience . (Not that there's anything wrong with that!)

Also an interesting twist, when someone starts harranging the situation that does have military experience it's usually someone at the grunt of crewman level, not someone that has had to lead a platoon or company and experienced the "joys" of command at that level. (It's a whole 'nuther ball game).

Los

[dfgardner]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>.....As a matter of fact, I think that squads that are out of command should be run by the AI, not me.

-dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very interesting comment. For what it's worth, I agree. Having out of command units perform actions they (read AI) thinks is best for the situation would really be interesting....might also head off some of the "gamey" techniques that appear from time to time.

[coralsaw]

A very good idea. Out of command should be out of player control.

Wonder though how the AI would be able to continue based on the last in-command order, as probably the squads would do in real life.

CoralSaw

------------------

The best things in life are sniped at...

[dfgardner]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Los:

.....Also an interesting twist, when someone starts harranging the situation that does have military experience it's usually someone at the grunt of crewman level, not someone that has had to lead a platoon or company and experienced the "joys" of command at that level. (It's a whole 'nuther ball game).

Los<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course I'm reminded of the famous comment "no plan survives the first shot."

The ability of the small unit leader to quickly react to a situation is what wins battles (IMHO). I think the various surprise moves the AI does from time to time is very realistic of what actually happens.

It's kinda like telling the first person in a line the real story and going to the end of the line to hear a totally different interpretation....now imagine doing that and shooting at the line and periodically killing or otherwise incapacitating one of the folks in the line.

[David Aitken]

Old_Airman wrote:

> commanders make HUGE decisions based on the slimmest of information.

Market Garden is testament to that...

"As the Irish Guards' war diary notes: 'Our intelligence spent the day in a state of indignant surprise: one German regiment after another appeared which had no right to be there.'"

------------------

...the pilot was able to circle and make a safe belly landing. According to O'Neal, 'this guy jumped out and ran up to me, shouting, "Give me a gun, quick! I know right where that Kraut s.o.b. is and I'm gonna get him".'

[Old_Airman]

I don't know if this can be done by BTS. It might be a programming nightmare. But you all know how the enemy appears as national symbol icons when they move out of sight of the friendly force. Maybe friendlies could also revert to a star or iron cross when they are out of sight or out of command. That would really be realistic. What are your thoughts on this?

[dalem]

As a followup, one of the things I really enjoyed about Atomic's V for Victory/WAW series was that as your units (battalions and companies in those games) became more and more disrupted and fatigued by combat, the chances of you seeing erroneous strength factors, etc., became higher. And if they were out of supply/command, sometimes they would gradually turn into "?"s and then sometimes literally disappear from your view.

If they ever got un-fatigued/un-disrupted enough, they could 'pop back'.

Now that's Fog of War.

For CM, my wish list includes something along those lines - squads (not teams) out of command would start turning into vague national symbols, showing incorrect placement and strength, then disappear as unspotted units. I trust the AI to do suitably 'out of command' stuff with them. Maybe modified by Veteran/Green status? Send aleader over to get them back in command and they're okay, etc.

I don't know, maybe this is impossible, but I sure would like it.

-dale

[ScoutPL]

OK, my two cents. Units going out of player control as they go out of command presents a number of problems. This problem oftne manifests itself on the battlefield but is solved by ensuring your subordinates have a good understanding of the mission, the plan, and most importantly the commanders inteent. How would you stick that info into the AI? I think a player should either have to give more in depth commands at the beginning of the game (it would then be up to tthe AI as to whether the units followed the last set of orders) or have at a minimum a short list of general commands every few turns to give to out of command units. Honestly, I dont think an AI can be programmed to take into consideration the plan, the commander's intent, individual experience and training that a real world "out of command" squad leader would possess.

[flyingcursor]

I agree with you Scout. No matter what is done to the AI, it's still a computer simulation and subject to the limitations of the current technologies and knowlege base. Where is the line drawn? If we want to have the ultimate fog of war, the whole game interface would be from a command bunker/trailer and you would click on a little radio to talk to troops and update a topographical map (probably inaccurate) with litte push pins. One of the coolest aspects of CM is the way you can get right in with your troops. Certainly it's much more then a real commander gets but we're back to the fact it is a game. It has to be kept fun as well as model it's invironment. As for me, reality is somewhat lacking which is why I play war games to begin with.

------------------

"Both sides agree not to bomb civilians" - Washington Post, Sept 3, 1939

[flyingcursor]

Just thought of something else. In CC1 there were lots of times when my troops wouldn't move when I wanted or occasionally a battle-crazed soldier would charge and take out an enemy machinegun. I remember one battle where Germans in the bocage were cutting my infantry to bits. Suddenly the shooting from the south stopped and I noticed one of my half-tracks had gone on it's own to wipe out the bad guys. I thought that was the ultimate of cool AI. While CM is the best wargame I've played, I notice that my troops are pretty good about following orders even green tired ones. Nor to they seem to show much initiative. So I guess I am (clearly opposite to my last post) wondering if there couldn't be a bit less control. I like the idea of the units out of command to act on their own.

[Schrullenhaft]

FOFCIIW - Fog of Fear,Confusion & Idiocy in War

Old_Airman - there are several points that are problematic with your suggestion (though it is an admirable idea). To lose control over units in such a manner may be more frustrating to most gamers than it would be worth simulating. Another point would be of non-com initiative. Often commissioned officers were killed early on in combat situations (especially junior officers who had the initiative to get their units acting). In real life this could be crippling to a number of units (especially "green" units), but in CM all of a sudden you could have a platoon that is "out of commission" because they lost their leader (which could be accurate under a number of situations). However that places as an even greater value on HQ units; probably more so than in real life. Which brings me to the next point that some (though definitely not even half) of senior non-coms in the unit could lead the unit for the rest of the battle. Effectively this could be just a single squad acting under the player's control once a platoon HQ was lost. But it seems a bit excessive to make the whole unit/formation "hands off" after losing its HQ. Maybe your idea just needs polishing to eliminate the some of the less likely tactics some players can use (though BTS's command delay does a whole lot for that already).

Admittedly the TacAI could always use some more tweaking (that will be an endless desire) in certain situations (and maybe correct some perceived inaccuracies too). Unfortunately tweaking is probably the wrong word for it since the "common sense" actions the player wants the TacAI to make are extrememly hard to program in (and be flexible at the same time that a game like CM would require).

Anyway, I usually take the confusion of the battlefield as a normal sign that all hell has broken loose and I'm doing the wrong thing again. CM is wonderful in that respect compared to many of the games on the market (though the CC series didn't do to bad in that respect either). You can't win battles with pure statistics and numbers (unless you're an actuary).

[dalem]

Oh, don't misunderstand me; I don't trust the AI to win the scenario with them - that's the point. I trust it move them around (maybe) and shoot (maybe) at the right targets (maybe). Or run away or die or surrender or simply do nothing.

That's Fog of War.

-dale

[Monticello]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL:

OK, my two cents. Units going out of player control as they go out of command presents a number of problems. This problem often manifests itself on the battlefield but is solved by ensuring your subordinates have a good understanding of the mission, the plan, and most importantly the commanders intent. How would you stick that info into the AI? <stuff snipped.> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aye, there's the rub. As a compromise, I believe BTS increases the response time to compensate for HQ sending a runner to "correct the orders".

One possible means to simulate the unit's understanding of the CO's intent would be to include gamer programmable Battle Plans for selected units. This would be similar to the preplanned combat tactics that fighter pilots use. To a certain extent, you can do a crude version of this by visually following the terrain then using waypoints and pause.

Additionally, as discussed previously, having gamer-selected SOPs similar to TacOps will help units cope with surprises during the action phase ... when the Battle Plan breaks down.

[This message has been edited by Monticello (edited 10-05-2000).]

[dfgardner]

Perhaps the point of the thread has been lost. The thrust of my post was that the most intriguing part of this game is the way the AI acts out orders, whether in or out of command.

Sometimes the units just don't seem to "fire" at the target you want them to (line of sight issues aside etc) or fire at the unit you don't want them to, or become "unhidden" when approached etc.

That bit of "just don't know" factor is well modelled. Those players who want their "electron soldiers" to do what the commander exactly wants are missing the point (IMHO)....the unexpected factor is what makes this game stand out from all the board games I've played, and many of the computer games.

[ScoutPL]

DF wrote,

"That bit of "just don't know" factor is well modelled. Those players who want their "electron soldiers" to do what the commander exactly wants are missing the point (IMHO)....the unexpected factor is what makes this game stand out from all the board games I've played, and many of the computer games. "

"IMHO" you misunderstand the meaning of commanders intent and a plan. Commanders intent is simply an endstate the commander wants to accomplish by the end of the mission. For example: "Village seized, hasty defense established oriented to the west, unit ready for follow on missions." When the lowest private understand the commanders intent, junior leaders can rise up to take fallen leaders places and still accomplish the mission. They probably wont do it the way the commander had originally envisioned, and the synchronization and coordination that he spent hours prepping will go out the window. But at the end of the day the mission will still get accomplished. Probably with higher casualties since those are what the plan is intended to minimize. Most military's realized long ago that a plan only survives to first contact. (Old cliche, right?) THEN the good ones realized that to go forward without a plan was even worse! Without a plan we would have exactly what you seem to be praising, squads running around in absolute chaos, shooting at the enemy, each other, or sitting on their duffs doing nothing. Want to know what happens without a plan? Check out Commissar's post in which he complains about not being able to take a building without horrendous casualties. Most of the things a unit is required to do to take ground and minimize casualties are amazingly complex when actually executed. Thats why most armies rely on battle drills. BD's are like football plays and are practiced over and over by infantry squads and platoons. When suddenly faced with a bunker, a mine/wire obstacle, or a building the squad or platoon knows exactly what to do, down to the last man. If all of the leaders were lost in the first few seconds of contact, the unit would still have the training and experience to take out the enemy, by pure habit(once, of course, a junior leader had risen from the ranks to take command and pull the unit out of the shock it would certainly be in). Can an AI be programmed to do that? Probably. But if I'm there as the player already doing it why bother. Perhaps BTS has inadvertantly simulated the junior leader stepping forward to take command or the isolated leader acting on his own initiative by keeping the units under player control.

I understand your praise for the random psychological effects of combat on the CM units. And I agree it is well implemented. BUt to carry it further would swing the pendulum too far I think. You would end up with an attack or defense falling apart rather rapidly.

The uncertainty of combat is also well modelled, but you have to understand that that exact same uncertainty has been around since before Alexander and armies have had, for a long while now, established ways of dealing with it.

The thing I praise CM for is its the first game where you really have to exercise good tactical judgement to get a Major Victory and still have enough boys left not to go to bed that night feeling like a butcher.

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dfgardner:

It's kinda like telling the first person in a line the real story and going to the end of the line to hear a totally different interpretation....now imagine doing that and shooting at the line and periodically killing or otherwise incapacitating one of the folks in the line.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not coming to any of your parties!!!

Michael

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old_Airman:

I don't know if this can be done by BTS. It might be a programming nightmare. But you all know how the enemy appears as national symbol icons when they move out of sight of the friendly force. Maybe friendlies could also revert to a star or iron cross when they are out of sight or out of command. That would really be realistic. What are your thoughts on this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's good.

Michael

[HawkerT]

I just want to add to the generel consensus and the most exellent ideas from the gentlemen of this thread.

I believe that having units out of command controlled by the AI, in conjunction with being able to give initial overall orders upon which the AI would control said units, would lift this great game into the skyes and possibly solve several minor problems on the way.

1: The AFV crews should of course go out of control the instant their chariot is knocked out, and maybe only go into control again if in command by a company or platoon HQ. This would make gamey use of crews much harder.

2: The ability to give initial overall orders could be a springboard for removing the 'capture the flag' fights and instead focus on tactically important areas (defined by the scenario designer and guestimated by the player(s)).

I know this is possibly naive hopes, but anyway I just wanted to commed the big thinkers of this thread.

Here's to the dreams that makes CM go further ...

Frans

[Stefan Fredriksson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem:

I'll jump in on any thread that favors Fog of War in the game. I've posted before that I think FOW is both the 'coolest' and most important part of the game for me. As a matter of fact, I think that squads that are out of command should be run by the AI, not me.

-dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for jumping in here. I see your idea, but it has one flaw...

In real life, the squad - even though out of command - would probably know, more or less, where they are supposed to go or do. Before mission, plt leader shows map, briefs etc.

But if I lost control of them in middle game, and they started doing things on their own, it would be like disobeying orders.

Unless - you plot for them exactly what they're supposed to do the whole game.

Hopefully this will come through understandable, so I don't look too stupid

[Stefan Fredriksson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyingcursor:

...If we want to have the ultimate fog of war, the whole game interface would be from a command bunker/trailer and you would click on a little radio to talk to troops and update a topographical map (probably inaccurate) with litte push pins....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly! Who has ever claimed CM to be a simulator for company/battalion-commanders?

I think delay is the absolutely best solution for squads out of contact.

[dfgardner]

Originally posted by ScoutPL:

DF wrote,

"IMHO" you misunderstand the meaning of commanders intent and a plan. Commanders intent is simply an endstate the commander wants to accomplish by the end of the mission.

Ah, but don't you have the ability to set a Commanders Intent by your movement and fire orders? In fact, if you wanted to, you could preplan all the moves for all units simply by adding the number of waypoints. You could also direct your units to fire at certain areas each movement turn.

For the sake of discussion let's assume you did what I just outlined. The message I was trying to convey is that many players seem to question why the AI did not exactly execute the orders programmed. My thoughts are in "real combat" that doesn't happen either and to attempt to give a player absolute control over actions of all units, would alter this game in such a manner as to take the charm out of it.

In effect the AI (read individual unit leader) is interpreting the commanders intent already as it executes your programmed orders. The fact that the AI from time to time does not execute the orders precisely, is what is enjoyable in this game, and should be left untouched.