How do you play C2?

[THH149]

It seems there are two types of players when it comes to C2 and targetting enemy....Let me know if I'm right...

1. Say my sniper on a hill spots or has a tentative spot on an enemy tank so I send my tank platoon over the hill to shoot at it (even if its an empty space to he shooter) even though the tank platoon never registered the spot until it actually saw it. This is what I do.

2. The sniper on a hill spots or has a tentative spot on an enemy tank then radios it to his boss, then his boss to his boss (ie respectiving C2 flows) until the tank commander becomes aware, then he send the tank platoon over the hill when the tank platoon also registers the spot which then maneuvres to get the confirmed spot and shoots it. Do some players do this, or a truncated version of it? 

I'm trying to figure out why there's so much discussion in the forum about C2 limits.

Am i missing something, or is option 2 the 'gentleman realist' approach to CM?

Thanks

THH

 

[chuckdyke]

Option 2 is the way the game is supposed to be played. If you use option one find out you will get off second best most times.

[domfluff]

Option 1 is certainly viable and acceptable in-game. It's often not realistic, but it's a consequence of the gods-eye view of the player. It's a gamism, but it's only about as gamey as something like a map edge existing - it's the kind of limitation that wargames (or indeed, all simulations) have always had to deal with.

Option 2 is the more realistic version, but it's not just an affectation - engaging a target for which you already have spotting contacts gives you a significant advantage in the resulting fight (partial contacts upgrade to full spots faster, blind area fire is less accurate). It's not just roleplaying, it's something which the game mechanically supports and incentivises.


So, yes, I suspect you're missing something fairly critical here. Paying attention to the C2 network is a crucial part of how Combat Mission works, since it's one of the key pillars of the model.


In addition to the above, you *can* roleplay this. One thing I've done before is to only allow area fire against known targets or spotting contacts. That house-rule has some heavy limitations (recon by fire becomes tough, or needs exceptions to work), but I think it's a good-enough houserule for most purposes. I wouldn't try to enforce that on a human opponent, but it's been interesting solo.

[Erwin]

7 hours ago, THH149 said:

2. The sniper on a hill spots or has a tentative spot on an enemy tank then radios it to his boss, then his boss to his boss (ie respectiving C2 flows) until the tank commander becomes aware, then he send the tank platoon over the hill

Option 3)  My understanding is that if the spotter gets close to the tank CO they will communicate directly via voice.  eg: The spotter can be moved back to the tanks or the tank CO can dismount and move to the spotter. 

The problem with spotting in CM2 is that am not convinced that it works properly in "RL" CM combat vs "testing ground" CM.  eg:  I experienced a scenario situation where a platoon somehow communicated to a completely different formation company HQ instead of the Co HQ of its own formation.

I had a savedgame file but no one in the BF chain of command asked to look at it.  My interpretation is that BF knows that such features don't reliably work properly.

[chuckdyke]

2 hours ago, domfluff said:

area fire against known targets or spotting contacts.

Which is not realistic. Area fire should be permitted where no unit has spotting contact at all like artillery in the beginning of the game. Area fire can also happen when it spots a friendly unit firing at something. All of this is the reason I am reluctant to play PBEM. Hotseat is my preferred mode and I have only 2 human players I can play with. HMG   can always give area fire as supporting fire. Their section HQ is in contact with the Company HQ who orders a platoon for a mission. The same goes for on field mortars. Hard to write 'rules' around it. Letting armor attack a tentative contact which was generated outside its C2 as a rule doesn't end well most of the time. You need rules for SOP which include supporting fires. Example MG's & Mortars firing through a forest before I send infantry in. 

  

 

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by chuckdyke

[zmoney]

On 3/17/2022 at 10:34 PM, THH149 said:

It seems there are two types of players when it comes to C2 and targetting enemy....Let me know if I'm right...

1. Say my sniper on a hill spots or has a tentative spot on an enemy tank so I send my tank platoon over the hill to shoot at it (even if its an empty space to he shooter) even though the tank platoon never registered the spot until it actually saw it. This is what I do.

 

What kind of Barbarism is this!!!! You outta be ashamed of yourself!!!! 
 

Joking of course. I prefer using option two. Definitely against the AI to me it makes the game a little more enjoyable. For instance just the other day I had a recon unit crest a hill. They spotted several AT guns. I had them run back to the tank platoon on the backside of the hill and relay the info. The tank platoon acquired the spotted icon and crest the hill. They then blasted the locations using area fire and KO’ed the guns.

[MOS:96B2P]

 

 

On 3/18/2022 at 12:34 AM, THH149 said:

I'm trying to figure out why there's so much discussion in the forum about C2 limits.

Am i missing something, or is option 2 the 'gentleman realist' approach to CM?  

IMO the below house rules (hard cat rules) developed by Bil & IanL are very useful.  This is what I use.  I sometimes add my own modifications to the rules when I want to test a new idea.   Hard Cat Rules v2 is a good place to start.  

 

 

I also made a CMRT scenario (mini-campaign) Alarmeinheiten that features runners assigned to each infantry platoon to facilitate C2 when using Hard Cat Rules v2.

https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-red-thunder/cm-red-thunder-campaigns/cmrt-mini-campaign-alarmeinheiten/ 

[Vergeltungswaffe]

11 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

 

 

IMO the below house rules (hard cat rules) developed by Bil & IanL are very useful.  This is what I use.  I sometimes add my own modifications to the rules when I want to test a new idea.   Hard Cat Rules v2 is a good place to start.  

 

 

I also made a CMRT scenario (mini-campaign) Alarmeinheiten that features runners assigned to each infantry platoon to facilitate C2 when using Hard Cat Rules v2.

https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-red-thunder/cm-red-thunder-campaigns/cmrt-mini-campaign-alarmeinheiten/ 

[Bulletpoint]

On 3/18/2022 at 6:34 AM, THH149 said:

I'm trying to figure out why there's so much discussion in the forum about C2 limits.

In my opinion, it's a pity that the game doesn't use the full gameplay possibilities of having a system for spotting and sharing contact info. Especially since there are also different optional difficulty/realism levels, where this kind of stuff could be added to the iron difficulty.

[THH149]

Well, all this explains a lot of the discussions I'm seeing about C2, and thanks for sharing the Hard Cat Rules (though I don't agree with 1a artillery and maybe others if i thought about it, but there's room for differences I'm sure).

I'm figuring that there could also be differences depending on unit quality too, rather than nationality per se, eg using green or conscript troops might need positive C2 irrespective of nationality. 

The other aspect I've noticed is that ppl are attempting to complete scenarios with lowest possible or even zero casualties. That's an extra degree of difficulty.

Maybe those aspects - C2 limits and lowest possible casualties (say 1% of the points) could be included as an option when entering a scenario (say after either single player option is selected) and the end screen generates the battle report accordingly. Maybe a version of the C2 rules could be included in the manual, but otherwise its up to the player to adopt (minor breaches forgiven). the game could easily calculated the player had less than 1% casualties.

Thanks to all for sharing your comments above.

 

[chuckdyke]

51 minutes ago, THH149 said:

the game could easily calculated the player had less than 1% casualties.

More than 10% and regard your game as lost. The same goes for victory, a surrender is a victory because the enemy agrees you have won. It is for scenarios against AI.

[domfluff]

4 hours ago, THH149 said:

The other aspect I've noticed is that ppl are attempting to complete scenarios with lowest possible or even zero casualties. That's an extra degree of difficulty.

Sometimes the scenario will enforce this, but often in CM they are fairly lax, and will allow you to get away with doing things badly. Quick Battles naturally only penalise you in relative terms - if you and you opponent both throw away all of your forces, then you're not necessarily any worse off.

As a ballpark figure, 20-30% casualties in the real world are typical for assuming that something is combat ineffective. That means that if the scenario assumes that the formation given is supposed to have subsequent objectives after the scenario is complete, then the scenario should also penalise numbers higher than this. It also means that the 20-30% should be an absolute maximum, with the intent being significantly lower than this.

To put that in real terms - that's losing less than a platoon in a company sized scenario, or less than one squad per platoon. The logic behind that is obvious - a platoon has three squads because each performs a different role (e.g., Assault, Suppress and Reserve). Each of those squads has a job to do, and if you lose one of those squads, the platoon cannot operate at full effectiveness anymore. The same thing would apply to a Company or a Battalion for their equivalent scales.

The real aim (and indeed, the realistic aim) should be for "as few casualties as possible", whatever that actually means. It's correct to aim for zero - there should never be the thought process of "taking this hill is only going to cost me five men" -  but not to give up when that number is non-zero, because some casualties are inevitable.

This kind of thing is pretty common to wargaming - I've seen a few naval games where every battle plays out like Jutland in terms of mutual devastation. That kind of thing can be "fun", but it has little bearing on reality, at least in terms of typical experience.

[THH149]

13 hours ago, domfluff said:

The real aim (and indeed, the realistic aim) should be for "as few casualties as possible",

I reckon thats an important part of the battle experience vs AI, and sure its extra difficult, but it adds realism for those who want to go there but doesnt restrict the fun of the game for those players that don't. This depth is what makes CM great!

[Pelican Pal]

On 3/18/2022 at 12:34 AM, THH149 said:

1. Say my sniper on a hill spots or has a tentative spot on an enemy tank so I send my tank platoon over the hill to shoot at it (even if its an empty space to he shooter) even though the tank platoon never registered the spot until it actually saw it. This is what I do.

I generally play this way under the assumption that scenarios are being balanced with this in mind. And obviously in PVP I play this way since its competitive.

Within the game having good C2 is really advantageous for any rolling firefight/within turn dynamic combat. E.G. Pushing a platoon of tanks forward and they will be dynamically engaging the enemy on their own. In this sort of situation having good C2 feed will give them spotting bonuses which can be absolutely critical to success or failure. Or if you have a ATGM team that is supposed to actively interdict enemy moving during the turn. For all that stuff you want good C2 links.

However, if you have a supporting arm that is getting spotting information from a recon team against fairly static targets then its not really useful. As an example, I had a recon team spot an enemy TOW vehicle at about 1,500 meters and rather than bothering with C2 sharing I just popped my Shturm up and had it target the action square inline with the Stryker. Got a first shot kill. The problem with blind area fire is that you are tied pretty tightly to the vagaries of the action square system. So if the enemy is lined up in an AS you can easily get a first shot/first burst kill. But if they are off center of an AS then you are far less likely to get a good hit.

[THH149]

On 3/28/2022 at 4:58 AM, Pelican Pal said:

having good C2 feed will give them spotting bonuses which can be absolutely critical to success or failure.

Ah, thats interesting. The C2 sharing actually facilitates other units targetting, rather than an everyman for themselves kind of idea. Which would mean the unit overall has more combat power when they share their C2.

I must try this in a scenario I've played and try to get that to work for me.

[chuckdyke]

5 hours ago, THH149 said:

I must try this in a scenario I've played and try to get that to work for me.

Put an AFV on hunt with or without a tentative contact and the difference becomes obvious. Red Dawn in Fire and Rubble just to make sure the regimental HQ gets the Intel required. During a turn on Iron select the Regimental HQ and see how much info he has. He barely knows where his own units are. Play the game as realistically as possible and the rewards are great. Playing Soviet in WW 2 is a challenge with the C2. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by chuckdyke

[Pelican Pal]

13 hours ago, THH149 said:

Ah, thats interesting. The C2 sharing actually facilitates other units targetting, rather than an everyman for themselves kind of idea. Which would mean the unit overall has more combat power when they share their C2.

Yep.

Spotting icons that you see belong to one of your units and represents a spotting bonus against a specific enemy unit. That icon can be shared between your units via the C2 system. So an infantry squad who sees an enemy can give a friendly tank a spotting bonus against that enemy.