The length of battles, were they really this short?

[Guest Michael emrys]

I think you are right, Bruce, on all points. I am undecided whether I would prefer to play the game with five minute turns, which is why I refused to object to the present set-up. But I recall that when I began to think about a WW II game of this sort, after having played TacOps with its one minute turns for a year, my first thought was that for WW II with its much slower tempo a five minute turn would be the most natural. Everything that's been said in this thread tends to confirm my belief.

Michael

[Bobbaro]

NOT A SUGGESTION!!! But, just thinking about game design possibilities: In CM, the highest HQ on map has recieved its orders with the pregame setup representing the deployment carried out necessary to start the action which begins with turn 1 and all detailed orders planned and on the way. As the turn begins each acting unit experences its delay to simulate the time to get its orders and act on them.

All the time the player spends off the game clock simulates the thinking, deciding and communicating that takes place on the clock. While a lot of these delays would take place concurrently, some of them in reality would be serial timewise and accumulative as required to filter down to the units concerned.

A game design that would take this time factor, (not the only one left out of CM, [not a complaint just an observation])--- take this time factor into consideration by building in specific command and control sequences necessary to command each unit in the game and include an appropriate delay at each point in the chain and make it accumulative from top to bottom. That way a player could designate a squad leader to give an order and have it carried out with only a delay for that one stage, If he wanted the platoon leader to give an order, the time to carry it out would be accumulative over two stages. An order from the top commander would take all the delays in the chain between.

Here is the rub. In CM this is all done in the head of the player and left out until it reaches the actual unit in the game acting on the order. So how one would design a game mechanism to force the chain of command in that one head into producing separate delays for each level of exhange? About impossible I'd say.

The command and control feature in CM does not simulate anywhere near adequately the result of being out of command and control. The only penality involved is to increase the reaction time. All the units are in total command and control of the player just as if he had little radios in their helmets that never fail. The only interruption, are the reaction delays and delay levels, unit states of emotion, and Tac AI interventions.

This appears to me pretty close to being as good as it can get with one player. As he knows what he wants each individual unit to do in his overall concept of the ongoing battle, he can and indeed must reach out and click up its orders with no interviening chain of command. In his imagination the vision of the reality is there, but when he watches it played out, there is the nagging fact that the battle coordination is far more effective and units act with far more alacrity than one would find in reality.

So the game development challange is to determine if there is some mechanism available to simulate this one factor, the inclusion of the accumulative delays that orders passing down the chain involve. What mechanism would take into account the proper sphere of immediate action available to each level and range of their command reach?

Steve and Charles have already noted a difficulty with the inclusion of specific radio equipment into the structure. Adding to this specific programming to account for the runner would be additional stress on the resources available. Hand and voice signals are abstracted along with all other communications and none of them are affected by interruptive factors beyond simple distance between a commander and his proximity on the CM terrain and the emotional state of the unit and AI intervention. {repeating here} The problem not only one of limited current computing capacity, but of programming conceptualization for a game with a single player in the role of acting for multiple levels of command. (Damn, here I am restating the problem; where is the solution? Is there one? Are we dealing in a fundimental logical imposibility? That seems possible.)

Further analysis of battlefield conditions seem necessary to obtaining enough building blocks of concept for investigating the possibility of solution. The simplest command situation is direct contact with an officer. At its best it is close enough for a monologue from the officer (a dialogue if he wants it), mouth at ear and possible whispering or normal conversational volume. Next is the shouted command. Following that is the visual signal.

(Small interruption for rant. I personally feel that the present CM should allow squad teams to be in C&C when suficiently close together, one of them will contain the squad leader and he should have much control over his other team as the platoon leader has over his squad. I just think it is a bit contridictary as other teams have the C&C advantage when in range. A platoon leader has visual and voice and range, but a squad leader does not. Other teams are not so handicapped. This is contridictary.)

Anyway, after direct contact there is runner contact. Simulating or abstracting this capability is a can of worms, perhaps not beyond untangling but a heavy duty thing to conceptualize for representating and programming.

Then there is the radio. And that is an interesting can itself. How about analysing the 3d positions of the communicating units and the capability of the two instruments with respect to reliability, dead space, power, battery useage and availablity? Understandable why it is not even abstracted in CM. But one day possible? Hummm.

So what would restrict a player from interacting immediately with all his units immediately with nearly insignificant delays as is current?

Toying with a sphere of action concept, movement paths for individual units could be limited to a given short sphere of action for which a player would be able to implement orders immediatily for each turn with out involving a commander at a higher level with its accumulative delay added to those of the acting unit. Accessing the higher command level would extend the sphere of action and yield a longer movement allowance. And so on up to the top of the chain of command. Is this a possiblility? I don't know. I can see that it would make giving orders a greater ordeal. A player would really have to make his plan out in detail from the first in order to obtain the greatest effect from movement or suffer the increased penalities of delay for playing on the fly at first.

Such a design would make these officers on our CM terrain more than just helpful speed and morale boosters along with some times a little spotting help. Losing a Battalion command group would really be significant big time. And so would losing a company or platoon command group impose a only somewhat lower significant penalty.

Could this concept include the replacement of such a command group ad hoc from the companies, platoons or squads with increased delays and lessened action spheres but some modicum of continunity as really happens in combat? I can see it being done, with an appropriate time delay.

Now I never thought, when I began this, that it would go anywhere, just that it was a problem. But here we are with at least some kind of an idea as a result; but, is it a solution? I don't know; the exercise was interesting to me, though probably boring to anyone trying to follow along. To those who read it to the finish, I am greatful that I was able to provide that much of an incentive to that end, but fearful that most quit long ago or suffer from some kind of dreadful compulsion to forge ahead inspite of the nature of the task.

[This message has been edited by Bobbaro (edited 08-27-2000).]

[Guest Michael emrys]

You have definitely done some interesting thinking there, Bobbaro. I'll throw out one or two of my own thoughts in response.

Suppose we were to do this: At the start of a battle, each platoon, with attached teams, is assigned a sector to defend or attack. There would be graphic boundaries (toggleable, of course) defining sectors. As long as the units of a platoon remain within the sector boundaries, its commands originate with the platoon leader and accrue the usual time delay. This models an action that is going according to plan.

If an adjustment needs to be made to the plan so that a platoon, or units belonging to that platoon, need to cross the platoon boundary, but remain within the company boundary, the order must come from the company commander. For that to happen, he must either be on the spot (in close physical proximity to both platoons effected) or some additional time delay accrues. When the captain gives the order, the platoon boundary is redrawn by the player.

I think you can see that a similar process involving the colonel commanding the battalion would be involved in redrawing the boundary between companies.

Each time a need for orders is passed up the chain of command, a delay ensues. As stated, the delay is reduced if the officer in question is at hand, but then he can only effect questions relating to units he is physically close to, so placing your command groups is important. They need to be close to where the action is in order for your troops to operate at maximum efficiency and with maximum flexibility.

If, say, the battalion command group is occupying a designated command post, it can adjudicate unit boundaries for the entire battalion (representing being at the center of the communications net), but it takes longer to come into effect.

Something like this will be especially important when we get to CM2. I think this would be a realistic and elegant way to depict the command inflexibility of the Soviet army without introducing some kind of "idiot rule" that is completely arbitrary.

I do not claim that this represents everything that command groups do, but maybe it gets us a little closer to one function.

Well, that is my 2¢. Anybody want to take a shot at it?

Michael

[Hunter]

Bobbaro, Michael,

I think you are both on the right track. My ideas have been formed over many years of figure gaming and I particularly liked the ideas of Jeffreys in relation to command and control mechanisms. Some of the ideas below are properly credited to the ideas developed in the UK many years ago.

The general idea of a Jeffreys style command structure is that orders were given and then any change in orders had to pass through the various chain of command structures before it could be changed. This was originally a mechanism to get rid of 'turns'. Troops could simply be moved until a 'order change cue' was encountered (such as troops appearing on a battalions flank or whatever).

Additionally, in this set of rules, the orders could NOT be changed until this 'cue' occurred, and the delay would depend on really what level of 'cue' was encountered and whether the order had to be originated by one level of command or another. For example, Halt in place could be issued by a local commander, but reform and move to another position had to come from a higher level commander.

Hilarious and historical results were possible as once you had set the troops off they were damn hard to stop, coordinate and any surprises were REALLY hard to counter in a hurry. It was also possible that some officers were slower than others, more rash or cautious, stupid (and therefore likely to misinterpret orders) etc..

The basic thing, as Bobbaro mentioned, is the serial accumulation of delay. I don't think it is 'fundamentally impossible' to simulate this, nor for that matter the state of radios etc..

Bobbaro wrote "So the game development challange is to determine if there is some mechanism available to simulate this one factor, the inclusion of the accumulative delays that orders passing down the chain involve. What mechanism would take into account the proper sphere of immediate action available to each level and range of their command reach? "

Michael answered with a great suggestion that I will paraphrase as "The range of activity to be undertaken is limited by current orders and the reasonable allowable limits of action within those orders". I'm sure he said something like that anyway

Michael gave one example which was the setting of platoon or company boundaries (a historical fact) combined with the range of movement then permitted without access to a higher commander.

Bobbaro also gave a good example with his 'sphere of action' concept.

Another might be the range of attitudes taken by troops (Hide, Ambush, Run etc) given a particular order. A company given an attack order shouldn't be ambushing should it? A Platoon ordered to defend a hill shouldn't be running at troops well beyond the limits of that hill (but it may charge troops that have encroached on its position - Kapyong here we come ).

Bobbaro also noted that "I can see that it would make giving orders a greater ordeal. A player would really have to make his plan out in detail from the first in order to obtain the greatest effect from movement or suffer the increased penalities of delay for playing on the fly at first.".

This to me is THE WHOLE POINT and I assume it was not a criticism of the idea. Commanders took MUCH more time to detail a plan of attack and spent much less time 'fiddling with each unit'. Of course, because this is a game, we want to keep the freedom to fiddle with each unit every turn, but if we want realism, then we have to accept some limits to that freedom. The setting of inter-unit boundaries, limits of exploitation and other predetermined orders would be based on the info available to the field commander at the time of issue, and any changes that occur during the maneuvre would be sources of friction.

It is (as Michael also noted) precisely the ability of low level commanders within each army to deal with this friction and launch independent action which gave the 'character' to the armies and tactics employed. The german style of directive control (Aufgraftacktic - I can never spell that and can't speak german?! ) was THE reason as much as any other factor for their excellent success (and Casualty ratio) on many fronts throughout the war.

This still leaves two problems:

1. Convincing BTS that will improve not ruin their great game; and

2. Boiling down the ideas we are exploring into relatively simple to implement mechanisms that add complexity and character to the game without affecting the relative ease of getting into and playing the game for those who find it frustrating to plan, and the simple UI that has been put together.

-Insert brilliant insight and game design excellence here-

Nearly there now

Bruce

[This message has been edited by Hunter (edited 08-28-2000).]

[Jarmo]

One thing to consider.

In real life, you wouldn't go attacking without any preplanning.

You would have some kind of general idea of how the fight is going to go.

And you would brief your subcommanders about it.

Like:

"Harry's platoon will advance from here to there and there through those woods, to those buildings over there.

If you see AT defenses, fall back and call arty. If you meet tanks,

hit the deck and wait for Hank's M10 to clear the way. Don't let

german infantry slow you down. Just run 'em down."

Now, in a case like this, if there'd be no surprises, there'd be

no need to issue further commands while the fight is on.

And thereby no delay whatsoever.

Of course, surprises, like a couple of camouflaged pillboxes

would cause a great delay, probably even forcing to abandon the attack

for the moment.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[This message has been edited by Jarmo (edited 08-28-2000).]

[Guest Michael emrys]

I think there are some seriously cool ideas emerging here. I would particularly return to this statement by Bruce:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is...precisely the ability of low level commanders within each army to deal with this friction and launch independent action which gave the 'character' to the armies and tactics employed. The german style of directive control (Aufgraftacktic - I can never spell that and can't speak german?! ) was THE reason as much as any other factor for their excellent success (and Casualty ratio) on many fronts throughout the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is something we could really play with. The higher the experience level of your troops, and particularly the better your junior officers are, the more things they would be able to decide without having to pass the buck upstairs. This would make your force more flexible and responsive to a new and developing situation. As already exists in the game, you could have the option to purchase more experienced troops with your points. But also perhaps a new trait could be added to command groups: Initiative. It could also be arranged so that it was easier to obtain in some armies than in others.

I am thinking too that some provision could be made to enhance the response of troops that have been held in reserve. Since they have no existing orders, they would not suffer the delay penalty of having their orders changed.

Along with this, I would be interested in seeing a new rule causing troops under fire to be slower to obey certain kinds of orders. I don't think much needs to be done in that regard though, as I think something very much like that already occurs as a result of self-preservation instincts present in the troops.

Michael

[Hunter]

Michael wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think this is something we could really play with. The higher the experience level of your troops, and particularly the better your junior officers are, the more things they would be able to decide without having to pass the buck upstairs. This would make your force more flexible and responsive to a new and developing situation. As already exists in the game, you could have the option to purchase more experienced troops with your points. But also perhaps a new trait could be added to command groups: Initiative. It could also be arranged so that it was easier to obtain in some armies than in others.

Along with this, I would be interested in seeing a new rule causing troops under fire to be slower to obey certain kinds of orders. I don't think much needs to be done in that regard though, as I think something very much like that already occurs as a result of self-preservation instincts present in the troops.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To the first point I agree completely. The Initiative feature is important. This should not just be a reflection of the personal quality of the officer however, but more a doctrinal effect. An average German junior officer was able to take more initiative in the offence than the average British officer, owing to the way that there orders were organised and briefings structured. Briefly, the germans 'directive control' structure was more along the lines of "This is what Battallion is trying to do, This is what my Company is trying to do, therefore this is what your Platoon should try and do. However, given that '**** happens' when trying to do that, remember what we are overall trying to achieve here and figure out what to do when you get there.". Sort of anyway.

This compares to the more structured and detailed orders provided to Limeys, where every effort is to be made to succeed in achieving the orders, not necessarily to review them as things change.

To the second point I would add a personal view that troops in contact / under fire don't react well to too many orders. Withdraw is probably one they quite like. The idea of giving an order any more organise than 'charge' or 'fire' or 'withdraw' when under direct fire is hard to conceive. Troops need to be protected from DF in order to organise themselves properly to stage an assault.

I have to go Later....

Bruce

[IntelWeenie]

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

One thing to consider.

In real life, you wouldn't go attacking without any preplanning.

You would have some kind of general idea of how the fight is going to go.

And you would brief your subcommanders about it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto for the defence. Probably the only scenario type not covered would be a meeting engagement (OK, you can make contingency plans, but they're mostly SOP anyway).

In theory, I do sorta like the idea of extending the command lines above platoon level. Platoons suffer increased reaction times to orders when out of contact with their higher HQ, Coys to Bn, etc. How would radios affect this, though? (which is why tanks dont have C&C in CM)

All this talk makes my head hurt.

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

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

Michael wrote:

To the first point I agree completely. The Initiative feature is important. This should not just be a reflection of the personal quality of the officer however, but more a doctrinal effect.

Bruce<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it too, if I didn't make that clear.

Michael

[Guest rune]

All,

What you are asking would be a rewrite on the AI and game engine...all for what? To make the game longer between commands. While this might be more "realistic"...does it do anything for the game? I find the game as is exciting and nerve wracking...I don't want to wait 5 minutes to input a move. Remember....it is NOT a officer simulator...or a battalion commander simulator..it is a game...fun, fast, and what more can you want?

I understand your points...but realistically...a rewrite of the engine is just NOT going to happen.

Rune

[This message has been edited by rune (edited 08-29-2000).]

[Brian Rock]

Rune, note Bobbaro's first comment: "NOT A SUGGESTION!!!"

The lads aren't suggesting that CM do this, they are simply playing with other ways you could simulate combat in a hypothetical game. It woulnd't be CM, it would be more of a command & control game. Quite different, and not to everybody's taste.

It is, however a game I would buy in an instant.

[Count Sessine]

Hi guys,

Just my two cents.

Last saturday I spend the afternoon at an army firing range (a friend of mine is still in the army), firing among others a LMG (the descendant of the german LMG42). It was a simulated attack, with targets popping up all over... I used to be pretty good with a LMG, still is in fact Anyways, I burned well over 300 rounds in about four-five minutes time, and yes, I fire it the correct way, burst of 3-5 shots etc. My point being that 300 rounds weighs pretty damn much, and dragging more around would be hard (for me at least). So if the battles in CM last no more than 30-60 minutes on account of ammo supplies, I should think the scale to be fair enough.

/CS

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

All,

What you are asking would be a rewrite on the AI and game engine...all for what? To make the game longer between commands. While this might be more "realistic"...does it do anything for the game? I find the game as is exciting and nerve wracking...I don't want to wait 5 minutes to input a move. Remember....it is NOT a officer simulator...or a battalion commander simulator..it is a game...fun, fast, and what more can you want?

I understand your points...but realistically...a rewrite of the engine is just NOT going to happen.

Rune

[This message has been edited by rune (edited 08-29-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't panic, Rune. We're not about to spoil a good thing. It's not as if you are going to have to wait five minutes to input an order while nothing happens. Plenty would be going on in any case with the AI. And your platoon leaders would continue to function more or less as they already do. It's only that orders that have to come from a higher headquarters would be delayed, and then not always. So the impact on gameplay from turn to turn would be minimal. All we are trying to do is to eliminate grossly unrealistic things that were impossible in real life.

Also, it is predictable that a fair amount of rewriting of the game engine will have to be done for CM2 in any case, and since the suggestions we are making would be an elegant way of depicting the differences in command control between the two armies (a very vital factor I might add), there's no harm in getting a discussion of it in early.

Michael