Player Control and Fog of War

[gene]

Here's my 2 cents worth regarding what I think are the two main topics of this thread:

1.Fog of War impact on player controlled units.

2.Player controlled units out of C&C.

1.I agree with df. IMO the "fuzzy" logic used by CM for player controlled units is excellent. Player controlled units should not act as robots, but as rational / semi-rational (when the shooting starts) soldiers. If I'm not mistaken, the game manual mentions the possibility of player controlled units refusing to obey what they perceive to be "suicide orders".

Here's an example: while playing the Aachen scenario as the Germans I ordered a panzerschrek? to move to the rear of a building and attack a Priest SP gun. After completing its movement the Panzerschrek? just sat and watched - IT DIDN'T FIRE. Why? Because the stupid German Commander (ME) wasn't paying attention; the Panzerschrek was actually a SHARPSHOOTER (Hey I said I was stupid) who probably refused to attack the Priest with a rifle. I realize there may be occasions when my guys will refuse to carry out my orders, but as df stated earlier, this also happens in the "real world".

2. I may be in the minority here, but I don't think its necessary to temporarily place units out of C&C under Computer control. Here's my reasoning:

The human player assumes multiple personas in CM. You or I could "be" any of the following:

- Company / Battalion Commander ( A0, A1, etc. )

- Platoon Leader ( B0, C0, etc. )

- Squad Leader ( B1, C1, etc. )

- Team/Vehicle Commander/Individual soldier ( T1, V1, etc.)

My thought is that when a squad / team is out of C&C, I am still that squad leader / team / soldier. However my effectivness as a combat unit is reduced by longer delay times, no Leadership benefits, etc.. In addition there may be times when I want to place units out of C&C ( e.g. Point / Recon ). I know this is risky, but the decision is up to me ( I may get an early warning, but at the risk of losing my squad). IMO CM does an excellent job of penalizing unit capabilities when they are out of C&C.

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stefan-

I never said my idea was a good one, just what I would enjoy. But seriously, I was thinking along the lines of a platoon that loses its Lt. (or whatever) would still be run by the Tac and Strat AIs to its best advantage locally (maybe), so still trying to kill the enemy and advance, but maybe (again with the maybe) not. And f a vet platoon has a better chance of not freezing/dying than a green, then it seems 'right' to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding platoon-level orders in the game scale, though.

-dale

[kmead]

I agree strongly with DF's opinion that started this thread. I have jumped into several threads about micromanagement of individual units and dissatissfaction with the TACAI performance of our orders. Many people expect what I see as the impossible. How many times have we all gone back to a saved turn to change some seemingly minor order that ends up changing the entire outcome of the game. ( I recently changed an order for a StuIII to stay in place instead of advancing 25m, it was able to see an anti-tank team and reversed itself (no order) to safety and then went on to be part of what gave me a tactical victory) I think many blame the game for their own shortcomings as a leader (shields up, halon extinguishers at the ready...), chance and a our own inability to give the 'right' orders have a much greater outcome on the game. Had one not put the (unit name here) in that position it wouldn't have had to try and fight its way out of the situation in a more satisfactory way. The Germans lost the war, which means that each individual unit over the course of the last half of the war (41 onwards) had to have lost a larger number of engagements than they won. Not all those soldiers were hacks, they lost because of circumstances beyond their control (no art. support, lack of ammo, bad luck, the skill of the opposing unit etc), the game gives a simulation of what happens in battle. Argueably, it is a flawed simulation but when all is said and done, a very satisfying simulation all the same. The NYT writer really captured it well when he wrote: "When I finally won a battle after having my head handed to me a few times, I felt as though I'd planted the French flag atop the Eiffel Tower. And that beaming sense of pride is different from the rather clinical reaction I've had when I've been successful at other war games. This didn't feel like a game. It felt like a battle.' Its why I signed on the dotted line to buy this game last summer.

[Spacewrangler]

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

-dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You see, I disagree with this. There has been a lot of talk about how unrealistic the fact that you can control squads out of your field of command and how the delay time should be LONGER because in real life you would have to send a runner down to the squad from the Lt. and tell them what to do, etc.

Ok, I think this is 100% wrong. Remember, every squad still has a Sgt. in command. Sgt.'s didn't win their ranks in a lottery, and if TV and movies serve me right, they often times knew more than their Lieutenants.

But seriously, you should be able to command your out of command units, and the command delay is not too short. I think the command delay is simulating the Sergeant making up his mind, perhaps making an educated guess like "what would Lt. want me to do now?"

It works for me.

[Old_Airman]

Well df, your topic sure has generated some discussion. To get back to df's point that in other discussion threads there seems be comments that suggest some gamers playing CM want more commands to gain further control of their squads and companies. DF, myself and most of you who commented in this thread do not really want that to happen. We all seem to like the uncertainty and surprize of have units go out of command or having them do something outside the parameters of orders given.

I myself would not want BTS to make wholesale changes to the game engine to accommodate more FOW or FRICTION if it makes the game unplayable or reduces the enjoyableness I now experience with the game. That being said, I would say to BTS the first rule that a doctor learns is "first, do no harm." The game is winner and I wouldn't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

However, the idea of having friendly units revert to national symbol icons or sound contacts may be a tweek in the programming that would enhance our desire to have a little more FOG and FRICTION in the game. This tweek would not necessarily change the way the AI employs the unit when it is out of command . It would, however, force the commander of the unit to redeploy his HQ unit to get a fix on his errant squad or platoon.

[dalem]

I agree with Old_Airman - I don't think it's 'broken' and needs fixing, it would just add enjoyment for me personally. A wish list kind of thing.

I am very enamored of the game in its current format and don't see a need for any changes.

-dale

[ScoutPL]

DF, I think we have disagreed to agree? Is that possible? Actually we're both saying the same thing, just differently. I like the "fuzzy logic" just like it is. Too much more would be extrememly unrealistic and not fun. Too little would make the game a cake walk (provided you had an inkling of how to fight a company or battalion to start with). I think we both agree on this one: CM Rocks!!

[dfgardner]

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

DF, I think we have disagreed to agree? Is that possible? Actually we're both saying the same thing, just differently. I like the "fuzzy logic" just like it is. Too much more would be extrememly unrealistic and not fun. Too little would make the game a cake walk (provided you had an inkling of how to fight a company or battalion to start with). I think we both agree on this one: CM Rocks!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scount PL: I agree 100%. Just trying to offer opinion that essance of this game is the fuzzy logic and the believable "unbelieveable" moves the AI sometimes makes (allows?) for units is what's got this player hooked.

In nutshell, I think level of command and control is just fine the way it is, and really does not need much tweeking.....now, if I could just figure out a way to keep track of all the mods!!

[Old_Airman]

So DF, after your last move when the squad in question did not fire at my scout car, you take back all you have said in this thread!! Did I read your email correctly that you wanted to MICROMANAGE your squads!!! Oh, how the winds of war change so rapidly!!

Death to the American invader!!! See you in Bastogne, buddy!!!!

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

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.

Shakespeare (Henry V)

[dfgardner]

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

So DF, after your last move when the squad in question did not fire at my scout car, you take back all you have said in this thread!! Did I read your email correctly that you wanted to MICROMANAGE your squads!!! Oh, how the winds of war change so rapidly!!

Death to the American invader!!! See you in Bastogne, buddy!!!!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I meant to say is that I don't want anyone who's in a PBEM game with me to have control....I, of course, demand complete control over my units! ;d