iggi Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 As it stands now, an HQ has a command radius. If a unit is within that radius, it is in command. I suggest that every unit have a radius too. If that radius intersects the command radius of the HQ then the unit is in command. In this way a unit that is under fire will have a smaller radius and the HQ will have to get closer to get a grip on the unit. I am saying that a unit's radius is variable depending on what it is doing. So a running unit will have it's radius shrink so that an HQ will have to get closer to coordinate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxx Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 *cough* -bump- *cough* Iggi this is a great idea - maybe we'll see it in CM2? ------------------ The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know - HS Truman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCHRD Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 Yes, I like this idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted October 19, 2000 Author Share Posted October 19, 2000 Glad you liked it. Imagine a unit coming under fire. It's radius shrinks and ceases to intersect the HQ command radius. The HQ loses command even though neither the HQ or the unit has moved. This idea of variable radius goes along with the CM style of play. A player can never be sure that his HQ is *perfectly* placed to keep command. The idea also discourages gamey moves. Fast moving units will have to have an HQ follow close behind to stay in command. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by iggi: Glad you liked it. The idea also discourages gamey moves. Fast moving units will have to have an HQ follow close behind to stay in command.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi OK, I think this suggestion has a great deal of merit and may be more useful in how things are modeled in CM2. Shrinking and expanding radii could lead to bugs here and there and I'm not sure we should advocate its use in CM, BUT if they work out the bugs that radius PER unit that you speak off may be quite useful in modeling Command and Control problems with the Russians in CM2. I hope BTS feels the idea bears future consideration. (I think it may be hard to code right and it will likely take some time to work out all the bugs it might introduce to the HQ command radius feature as we know it now) -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AR Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 I also like this idea. It sounds very realistic to me. Anyone that has ever tried to give an order to a squad that is firing away knows how hard it is. ------------------ It gets better each time as long as it's never with the same woman. Al Bundy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AR: I also like this idea. It sounds very realistic to me. Anyone that has ever tried to give an order to a squad that is firing away knows how hard it is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bloody good idea AR. 3 gold stars for that piece of original thought which may go a long way to overcome modelling of command & control problems with the Soviet forces. Regards Jim R. ------------------ Steve to Combat Mission community: "If it's not in Combat Mission it never happened in reality"... nah that's not quite right "If it's not in Combat Mission then the chances of it happening were miniscule"... hmmm, not quite "If it's not in Combat Mission then we didn't have the resources to code it"... rats, we've employed more people now "If it's not in Combat Mission, STIFF SH*T!"... yeh, that's what I meant to say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engy Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 *nudge* Too good of an idea to let slide off the first page before it gets more feedback... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 I think this a good idea myself,I would like to add this:the rate of change should depend on the rating of the unit in question i.e. an elite unit would stay or come into command at a longer distance than a regular unit etc. Also a higher level of command (CO as opposed to PL for example)should factor into this somehow. ------------------ Nicht Schiessen!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 Yes, interesting idea One thing I'd like to see is the ability to split of squads and use them in a true recon roll, not just 'you boys, get forward'. I'm not sure if it's appropriate in CM's period of a battle.. but it seems recon was frequently done by small, well equiped squads led by a competent NCO or CO. To me it makes no sense to penalize such a squad by making it 'out of command' of an HQ when it was designed to operate freely. Also, it shouldn't be -that- bad in combat, just small. Perhaps make the single recon squad a purchaseable unit.. Thoughts? PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by iggi: As it stands now, an HQ has a command radius. If a unit is within that radius, it is in command. I suggest that every unit have a radius too. If that radius intersects the command radius of the HQ then the unit is in command. In this way a unit that is under fire will have a smaller radius and the HQ will have to get closer to get a grip on the unit. I am saying that a unit's radius is variable depending on what it is doing. So a running unit will have it's radius shrink so that an HQ will have to get closer to coordinate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think this is a GREAT contribution.... I would say Intersecting Radii of all non-vehicle (?) units for command and control purposese should be seriously considered for CM2. See.... A little LATERAL thinking GOES along way AND look NO Flames here.... Perfect! hope we can get some positive BTS feedback on this one... -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 This is a great idea. It would work well with vehicles for platoon coordination, both signal and radio. Also, the concept of 'dead zones', in which radio communications fail, is possible. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 Wow. Excellent. I like it. What's even better is the recommendation to have better quality units to have larger radii... so that it reflects their ability to stay w/i command range longer. Let me ask, how does BTS respond to comments like these? Is this one "do-able?" ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted October 19, 2000 Author Share Posted October 19, 2000 I pretty happy with the response so far These are just thoughts to throw on the table for CM2. As Dr Brian mentioned, better quality units react different to stress than newbies so they don't have to be held by the hand. If I can add to the theme of intersecting zones, even two units that have thier zones intersect apart from the HQ intersection could benifit from the proximity of friendly units. So in effect if one of these two units gets shot at and has it's zone shrink, the result could be a loss of command with the HQ *and* a loss of moral support to the adjacent squad. As aka_tom_w mentioned, this could play well in the Russian front where German C&C is better than the Russian. Players would have to follow realistic tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 Interesting point...but... out of command in CM means out of command range of an officer(superior HQ). The squad still has its Sergeant and Corp. So it is able to react on its own , even if running, firing etc. The adjustment in decreasing the command range should be appropriate (i.e. minor). But a good idea to make C&C even more important. Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schugger Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 *Chuckle* <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by iggi: ... better quality units react different to stress than newbies ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excellent idea, iggi As much as I like your suggestions, one should also consider that being in or out of command does not only effect the delay times for orders but also FP and morale. Reward high quality troops with a higher command radius would make them still more effective, which should also effect their purchase price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by iggi: As aka_tom_w mentioned, this could play well in the Russian front where German C&C is better than the Russian. Players would have to follow realistic tactics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Iggi, I don't think this is a true statement, if it's a blanket statement. The Soviet's early war units suffered from C&C, mainly due to doctrine and troop ability, and a commander's ability. Is anyone suggesting Soviet units have a different C&C radius just because they are Soviet? If so, we need to clear up any misconceptions about the Soviet front. As the war progressed, their units became better. By late 1942, their mechanized infantry were smashing across the steppes outside Stalingrad, moving rapidly and keeping the Germans off balance (i.e., Uranus). As each year passed, quality became better.... But, by late in the war, the Soviets came to master C&C, able to react quickly to any new development the Germans would throw… on strategic, operational, and tactical levels. Concurrently, the Germans started with great ability, but, as happens in war for the losing side so often, it gets diluted and the goes from good to poor to bad. This can be reflected in the troop quality. Good troops, like Soviet Guards and mechanized infantry have higher quality and therefore larger radii. Poor troops like the early 1941 post-purge units, have smaller radii. Likewise, the battle tested 1941 Germans have higher radii due to their experience. As the war progresses and scenarios reflect the poorer German units from late 1942 (some will argue 43 on) on, German units will have smaller radii (on average). So, in conclusion, there is no need to represent Soviet troops with their own C&C radii (it this is being suggested). It should be based on quality…. thoughts? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 I think we are all thrilled with the idea of command radii for all units being based on quality level and experience and action state, (rested, pinned under fire shocked, running, hidding or whatever) This might actually be a REALLY big job to code it all up, but the effect it would have in the realism of the game could be very interesting and dramatic, and historically accurate if done well. I hope they will give it some thought. -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the cube Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 Your idea is to introduce a new dependence of the C&C radius on the details of a unit's immediate situation. This is equivalent to weakening the control that HQ has over the unit when the unit is under attack. However, in CM a unit's responsiveness to orders depends on it's current status (alerted, panic, etc) which is itself already a function of the way that the unit is currently engaged with the enemy. As the unit's status deteriorates the control that HQ has over the unit, even if the unit is inside the C&C radius, becomes progressively weaker.and there would be no way for a player to distinguish between CM as it is and CM as it would be if one introduced such additional dependencies. Though we may think in terms of the same concepts that we would in the real thing, and that CM allows us to do this profitably is a measure of just how good a simulation it is, it is still just a simulation. If you prefer "interpreting" the behaviour of the game using one set of concepts over another fine but in the end with respect to the CM game engine the battlefield is a just concept independent abstraction. [This message has been edited by the cube (edited 10-19-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted October 20, 2000 Author Share Posted October 20, 2000 Dr. Brian: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Iggi, I don't think this is a true statement, if it's a blanket statement. The Soviet's early war units suffered from C&C, mainly due to doctrine and troop ability, and a commander's ability.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was under the impression that the Germans lost becuase they were overwhelmed by inferior thinking Soviet numbers. If you say that the Soviets also improved thier C&C with time, it certainly seems logical. the cube: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As the unit's status deteriorates the control that HQ has over the unit, even if the unit is inside the C&C radius, becomes progressively weaker.and there would be no way for a player to distinguish between CM as it is and CM as it would be if one introduced such additional dependencies<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you prefer "interpreting" the behaviour of the game using one set of concepts over another fine <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If individual unit command radius' is simply another set of concepts, that wouldn't be a good enough reason to introduce them in CM2. A new concept would have to increase the players enjoyment to be worthwhile. Suppose the command line from an HQ to a unit whose radius is starting to shrink starts flashing to indicate to the player a change in control between HQ and unit. The unit could still be in command but communication to it's HQ is deteriorating. Think of the HQ having trouble reaching the unit under fire. The flashing C&C line would mean just that. The question that only BTS can answer is... are we *already* at such an abstarct level for squad representation that tools which try to detail unit behavior are too precise for the significant error that the scope of the game has? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andrew Hedges Posted October 20, 2000 Share Posted October 20, 2000 This is an interesting idea, which may or may not be more realistic than what we have now...but it could also have a negative effect on gameplay. That is, you might end up spending a lot of time every turn moving your headquarters units a fraction of an inch to improve C&C. That could get old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the cube Posted October 20, 2000 Share Posted October 20, 2000 What would the difference be between a change in a unit's status from 'rested' or 'ready' to 'alerted' and the C&C line beginning to flash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted October 20, 2000 Share Posted October 20, 2000 Hi, There seems to be a feeling that there should be somewhat tighter modelling of command and control in CM. I am against this. For me, others will differ, it all comes down to what you want CM to be and when engaged in a game what “role” you feel you are playing, i.e. platoon commander? company commander? Whatever. For me CM is about tactics, tactics and more tactics. It is really a simulation of the tactical problems faced in WW2 and given the decisions you make it accurately models the outcome as it is likely to have been in reality. Tactical realism is what I am after and this is what CM delivers in lorry loads. However given the capabilities of today’s computers and the fact that on each side there is just one player, commander, it is not a “perfect” simulation of all aspects of WW2 warfare. There are two particular areas in which it falls short, through no fault of BTS. The two areas are “spotting”, or line of site, and command and control. When it comes to spotting the problem is that as just one person you can see the entire battlefield more clearly than any one person could in reality. This is unavoidable because you have to be able to “see” everything any one of your units can see and you can not then “block out” what one squad can see while taking the decisions a company commander makes. When it comes to command and control the problem is that it is not possible to accurately model the command and control problems of say, a platoon commander and a squad leader at the same time. In the perfect world the squad leader or individual tank commander should be free to command his unit in the light of what that unit can see, within realistic morale rules, panicked troops do not do what they are told. However you also want the command and control problems of the platoon commander to be accurately modelled. This would mean that in certain situations it would take quite a large delay for an individual manoeuvre unit to respond to a command from a platoon HQ. Sadly it is not possible to have both at the same time, realistic modelling of a squad leaders control and freedom of movement and realistic modelling of a platoon commander’s command and control difficulties. If you want to more accurately model command and control it means that there will frequently be situations in which you find you are unable to order a given squad to take some urgent action that is required as a result of something the “squad itself can see” because it is outside the control of the platoon commander. Orders that in real life a squad leader or tank commander would give will be “artificially” delayed due to the fact that the platoon HQ is too far away. In my view this would far out weights the benefits of more realistic modelling of the problems of platoon HQs. In CM you play the role of battalion commander, company commander, platoon commander and, most importantly, squad or tank commander. If you want to model more accurately the command and control problems of HQs you have to sacrifice the “tactical” independence of squads and tanks to take the most realistic actions “within” their own environments. With the “one minute movie” this already happens and the TacAI handles things stunningly realistically, but I would not like to go further down the road of loss of control of the individual manoeuvre units. For me the most important role you play in CM is the squad or tank commander, not the platoon or company commander. At the moment CM makes an attempt to take some account of command and control but not too much. I feel they have got the balance just right. Of course there is an obvious answer to both the spotting problem and the command and control problem that I am sure will come in later games. That is in live internet play have more than one player on each side. If you had three or four players on each side and each could only see what the units they controlled could see plus the players had to communicate with one another using text messages, no doubt some would also use the phone, one would have a far more realistic game. This is my number one wish for CM2, that Charles introduces more than one player per side in live internet play. It would no doubt require big coding changes but my advice, however little that is worth, would be to go for it. All the best, Kip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted October 20, 2000 Author Share Posted October 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What would the difference be between a change in a unit's status from 'rested' or 'ready' to 'alerted' and the C&C line beginning to flash?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The flashing line would tell you that the HQ is having trouble coordinating because the units radius is shrinking. If you don't do some thing, the line will turn from red to black. There would be no change to a rested or ready status. The flashing is a sign of impending loss of control. What differentiates this from the system that is now in place is that an HQ unit would have to move closer to units if needed. One position for an HQ will not promise control in all situations. Would we want to get 'bogged down' in moving the HQ constantl? Would it make the game more fun or 'old'. Questions that I can't answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted October 20, 2000 Share Posted October 20, 2000 I posted this in the gamey tactics thread by Priest, but it's equally relevant here. Not to change the subject iggi, but the following proposal sort of refines your suggestion. --- So here is what I propose. If you're out of C&C (if ANYTHING is out of C&C, not JUST limited to crews), then you're fighting a generic icon. I foresee the generic icon being exactly like the sound contact we have now. It may be there, it may not. It might be a tank, it might not. That way, this gives your crews a target, albeit an unknown target. If you want to attack the generic icon, go ahead at your own risk. But the TACAI should know where it is and have that crew act accordingly. However, once your crews get back into C&C, then all info they have at that point should be communicated back to the army. The only way the opfor is known is if it's in the LOS of someone with a radio. That means if your piat team is 100m ahead of his platoon and out of C&C, and he's the only one that can see the tank up ahead, he cannot communicate that fact to the rest of the army. He can attack it as part of what the TACAI would do, but he cannot tell anyone what and where it is. If a platoon HQ (or some other unit with a radio) comes within LOS of that same tank or within C&C radius of a unit that does have LOS to that tank, THEN AND ONLY THEN does it become known what and where. Now, if you happen to lose a platoon HQ, there should be the ability to go retrieve his radio if you end your movement next to the HQ carcass. At the beginning of the next turn, whoever has that radio is now the defacto HQ (without the bonuses of course) such that he can now report the situation back to the rest of the army. His default C&C range should be much like a HQ unit now without the command radius bonus. That is physical, that happened in real life, and that should be an option. Now, splitting squads and moving them all over the map is a great recon tactic. However, since they don't have radios, this should be a useless tactic under my proposal. So we need a new unit. The scout (not an original idea on my part, I must confess ). All scout teams should have radios and all should be half the size of a full squad. Other than that, they should have the same fighting characteristics of the half squad. This has several advantages IMO. First, it makes keeping that radio alive very very important. Second, it allows you to give commands (note, this is non-physical but a reasonable compromise IMO) to units out of C&C at your own risk (which means a high risk of death). The best bet would be to let the TACAI take over and hopefully it can keep said unit alive until it comes within C&C again. Third, it would allow you to test theories within the limitations of the physical battlefield. And most importantly, it should eliminate anymore discussions of this kind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts