New (or Restored) Combat Mission Commands

[Probus]

In the spirit of improvement of the Combat Mission games. I thought I would ask a question similar, but narrower in scope, as the general "Engine Improvements" thread.

What new commands would you like to see added or added back to Combat Mission and why.  Also include a brief description of what the command would do.  If you see problems with a suggested command or improvements to it, feel free to add some constructive criticism. If you don't understand an aspect of the new suggested command please ask the author to explain what that aspect.

So I will start. Here is an example of the format:

COMMAND: Description & Details. Conditionals.

----------

FOLLOW: The unit is commanded to FOLLOW the selected unit at a speed that will catch it up to the unit and then maintain a reasonable distance from it so that the following unit does not have to constantly use the PAUSE command.  If the following unit is shot at, it will (stop or continue?) following.  Not sure which action would be best.  Maybe the algorithm could check the HIDE status to determine what action to take under fire. If HIDE is on then the unit seeks cover under fire.  If HIDE is off the unit continues to FOLLOW the selected unit.  If the followed unit stops the following unit stops and if the followed unit is knocked out, the following unit seeks cover.

[SimpleSimon]

We've all been wishing for a FOLLOW command for years. I know i'm really starting to desire that the MOVE command default to the prone state when under fire rather than converting inexplicably to QUICK. It has very little contextual usefulness right now as a result.

I also think that AT guns and especially light guns should have their QUICK move enabled, and are far too unwieldy in their current state especially being unable to re-crew. I can see it being very tiring for the crew, but you can literally watch YouTube videos of 2-3 reenactors shoving the Pak 36 or 19-K around with some serious dash. 

[Centurian52]

I don't have a new command suggestion to add, but FOLLOW does sound like a really good idea. It isn't strictly speaking essential, since it can be mimicked by tedious repetition. But it would be a massive quality of life improvement to, for example, give a complicated series of commands to only one vehicle, and then simply give all the other vehicles in a column the FOLLOW command targeting the first vehicle, or the vehicle in front of themselves.

[Probus]

Exactly @Centurian52!

[Howler]

On 8/9/2021 at 10:56 AM, Probus said:

FOLLOW: The unit is commanded to FOLLOW the selected unit at a speed that will catch it up to the unit and then maintain a reasonable distance from it so that the following unit does not have to constantly use the PAUSE command.  If the following unit is shot at, it will (stop or continue?) following.  Not sure which action would be best.  Maybe the algorithm could check the HIDE status to determine what action to take under fire. If HIDE is on then the unit seeks cover under fire.  If HIDE is off the unit continues to FOLLOW the selected unit.  If the followed unit stops the following unit stops and if the followed unit is knocked out, the following unit seeks cover.

WWII US tanks traveled maintaining 25yd distance between units in the formation. Dunno the doctrine of other nations. So, let's say that's 3 action spots (3 x 8m). In line formation the leftmost tank would be 100-125yds away from the rightmost vehicle. When stuff happens, what are you're expectations again? Let's say the formation as a whole is in LOS. Let's also assume - each vehicle is immediately aware of the situation. What conditions apply?

Repeat the exercise when flanks are out of LOS and situational awareness is not exact. What conditions apply?

How is bogging handled?

What happens when LOS is not uniform?

What happens when Hunt or Hulldown is used?

What happens when situational awareness within and without the formation is uncertain?

We seem to put a lot of effort into a "feature" that would rarely function as intended. Why clutter the panel with a command that could only ever be used and reasonably expected to WAD when traveling on a road? And, not even reliably at that.

Yes, it's tedious now. But it works by not promising anything and therefore - not breaking a player's heart when stuff happens!

[Probus]

37 minutes ago, Howler said:

We seem to put a lot of effort into a "feature" that would rarely function as intended.

I gotta disagree with you @Howler. Now I might be wrong, but this command could really help at the beginning of games. I often get into traffic jams that just compound themselves when in RL, the drivers wouldn't act that way unless they were under fire.

  This command could get my rear echelon units to their destinations 2-3 turns quicker if there was a Follow AI.  Also, this may help with bridge crossings. 

I also think it would be useful in scenario design for the AI.

[mjkerner]

BFC already tried a FOLLOW command several years ago and it just didn't work. I doubt they'll try again. Howler's points are the tip of the iceberg, I imagine.

[Howler]

6 hours ago, Probus said:

I often get into traffic jams that just compound themselves when in RL, the drivers wouldn't act that way unless they were under fire.

IRL, drivers understand tonnage moving at speed does not stop on a dime. Tanks traveling in column will maintain 25 yards separation (IRL). I'm not disputing the tediousness of "plotting-pausing-plotting-pausing". I simply don't share your impression that we're an easy fix away from correction. But, I'll keep it at that as I don't wish to detract further from good functional specifications that could help BFC restart this effort. No sense in clogging this thread up with negativity.

[chuckdyke]

9 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

it can be mimicked by tedious repetition.

Do you ever do 'back chaining' when using the movement command? People usually do forward chaining only. It makes the process a lot let tedious.  

[z1812]

Formations would be nice. Line, Column, Skirmish, etc. 

[chuckdyke]

Bail Out, Disembark Commands. Problems an experienced crew can't replace a green or conscript crew. Truck drivers can't acquire munitions from their truck as they bailed out from an undamaged truck. But a driver from a halftrack can. Nothing dramatic but putting dots on the i's or cross the f and t's would make the game more realistic.

[Bulletpoint]

14 hours ago, Howler said:

WWII US tanks traveled maintaining 25yd distance between units in the formation. Dunno the doctrine of other nations. So, let's say that's 3 action spots (3 x 8m). In line formation the leftmost tank would be 100-125yds away from the rightmost vehicle. When stuff happens, what are you're expectations again? Let's say the formation as a whole is in LOS. Let's also assume - each vehicle is immediately aware of the situation. What conditions apply?

Repeat the exercise when flanks are out of LOS and situational awareness is not exact. What conditions apply?

How is bogging handled?

What happens when LOS is not uniform?

What happens when Hunt or Hulldown is used?

What happens when situational awareness within and without the formation is uncertain?

We seem to put a lot of effort into a "feature" that would rarely function as intended. Why clutter the panel with a command that could only ever be used and reasonably expected to WAD when traveling on a road? And, not even reliably at that.

Yes, it's tedious now. But it works by not promising anything and therefore - not breaking a player's heart when stuff happens!

You make it sound like some kind of project not even the smartest engineers at Google could pull off

Meanwhile, in other wargames I won't mention here, formations and convoy movement are pretty normal features that work mostly as expected.

[Vanir Ausf B]

On 8/10/2021 at 2:32 PM, mjkerner said:

BFC already tried a FOLLOW command several years ago and it just didn't work. I doubt they'll try again. Howler's points are the tip of the iceberg, I imagine.

This.

The Follow command worked great as long as the column drove in a straight line but it struggled with turns and obstacles. It was too niche in usefulness to justify the UI space.

What we need is a Convoy command or similar functionality that is applicable to road movement. I can tell you BFC have not given up on the idea but I don't know when they will try again.

[AlexUK]

Aside from throw grenades, I have been thinking about Target. 

It is annoying not to have a target light for a specified time. 

How about just target and target light, but if you click/press either button again, it starts to cycle through the target briefly times? 

[Centurian52]

6 hours ago, AlexUK said:

Aside from throw grenades...

A target command for infantry that specifies to use grenades (call it: TARGET GRENADES or THROW GRENADES) would be really useful. There have been plenty of times where I have gotten my infantry just to the cusp of a position I want them to storm and I wanted them to throw grenades before storming it, but they just fired their rifles instead. And this should be much easier to implement than a FOLLOW command.

Edited August 12, 2021 by Centurian52
spelling

[chuckdyke]

13 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

What we need is a Convoy command

The way to do it would be to regard a platoon of armour as one unit and split up like we do with infantry. I don't worry too much about it worked out a system which works in a reasonable time. 

[Glubokii Boy]

36 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

The way to do it would be to regard a platoon of armour as one unit and split up like we do with infantry. I don't worry too much about it worked out a system which works in a reasonable time. 

You can already do this by doubleclicking....

 

[landser]

QMB Command

/Set Combined Arms

[chuckdyke]

8 hours ago, Glubokii Boy said:

You can already do this by doubleclicking....

 

It is not what I mean. In case of a tank platoon, you end up with three or more paths. One path would be the outcome with a preset formation.

[Bozowans]

I think it would be nice if there was a button to toggle between the three different stances for infantry - prone, crouched, or standing. Sometimes I just want my guys to sit or stand up so they can see and shoot over LOS obstacles in their way, yet they stubbornly stay prone no matter what you do.

This is an especially big problem on maps with a lot of tall grass and crop fields that block LOS for prone soldiers. I just finished a scenario where I had to attack a strong line of dug-in troops across flat ground completely covered in tall grass and crops. There was simply no way for my infantry to shoot at the enemy. The ground was completely flat, so whenever my infantry stopped moving, they would automatically go prone down in the crops and lose LOS, yet whenever they start running again, they are completely exposed and get shot at by the enemy, who could see practically the whole battlefield while crouched upright in their foxholes.

There was no high ground for my infantry to see over the crops and establish a base of fire. It was just run forward, get shot at, drop down and then lose LOS, then run forward, get shot at, then drop down again. No one could fire without getting the "reverse slope - no aim point" thing. My infantry did very little shooting throughout the whole battle. The main purpose of my infantry in that scenario was apparently to do nothing more than run around and draw fire and reveal enemy positions for my tanks to shoot at. My tanks and other vehicles did about 95% of the killing, since they were the only ones who could see above the tall grass/crops. If that was reality, my infantry would have been firing toward the general direction of the enemy the whole time they were advancing, yet the game engine just doesn't allow for that.

This whole problem would be solved by just a simple button that told infantry squads to crouch. If they just poked their heads up over the crops, they could easily see the enemy and fire back at them. Problem solved.

I've also encountered plenty of scenarios where I wished my infantry could stand fully upright to fire over obstacles like I see all the time in combat footage.

[chuckdyke]

7 hours ago, Bozowans said:

prone, crouched, or standing.

That's why I play WEGO I rewind, and I observe what infantry is doing. They shoot from cover if it is available and go prone if they can do it. 

[Erwin]

7 hours ago, Bozowans said:

This is an especially big problem on maps with a lot of tall grass and crop fields that block LOS for prone soldiers.

Also walls and thick hedges...  

BTW: One LOS technique that usually works well when in fields etc is to set waypoints of your units onto enemy positions (or any desired locations) and see if one can spot one's own units from those waypoints that are set at the enemy locations. 

AFV's benefit from this technique as they often have no LOS to distant ground.  But if one sets its waypoint on that distant ground one finds out if one can see the vehicle.  ie: One can tell if an enemy vehicle in that far off location will be spotted by one's own AFV's (and vice versa).

[Centurian52]

I mean, feel free to keep coming up with useful commands, but I think the recent interview indicated that Engine 5 was going to focus on performance improvements rather than the addition of new features (about time actually)

[Erwin]

2 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

Engine 5 was going to focus on performance improvements

Very much hope that that includes a streamlining of the UI so that we players have less time-consuming "make work" efforts to get things done. 

eg:  A better ACQUIRE routine, that requires us to a) split squads into teams; 2) board a vehicle; 3) ACQUIRE ammo; 4) Disembark; 5) Run to the parent squad and wait for it to recombine in order to share the ammo.  

Another useful routine (esp for snipers and AT teams) would be "Wait in Ambush; Shoot at target; Immediately reposition to another waypoint (selected by the player)."