Chupacabra Posted October 20, 2000 Share Posted October 20, 2000 It's funny. My reading has consistently been that the sort of chivalry generally attributed to the air war (pilots rocking their wings at people they just shot down, and so forth) didn't apply to the ground war. I'll see if I can dig up some proof. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wwb_99 Posted October 20, 2000 Share Posted October 20, 2000 The way Keegan describes it is in terms of sociology; i.e. in group vs. out group, etc. But it does make sense on several levels. First, why waste time & ammo firing on tank crews that were not threats in any way? Second, tankers could never be sure that there were not more enemy tanks out there. Why risk sitting there and firing on non-threats, announcing your position in the process? Third is the psychological, many tankers might realize that were it not for the grace of god they would be the ones bailing from their armored chariot in front of the other guy's guns. WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted October 20, 2000 Author Share Posted October 20, 2000 All good points again.....WE RULE!!!! I think that Dan E. made some good points (even if they are contrary to mine). Also I think Grinell is correct in the idea of downgrading a tank crew's experience level after they bail. Juardis I think your idea also has merit but I think that while technically you are right on all counts it would be difficult to implement right. First off unluckly some people would be pissed because they could not see this or that. Also while less "gamey" threads would be present about a billion "the AI sucks" threads would appear. Also you rely on the radio a little too much. I read somewhere that a lot of the C&C implemented in CM is that of being in earshot. Also if a squad is recieving commands by radio why do they need the platon leaders.....theyt have there own. The idea about treating the out of C&C units spotting like sound contacts is fine but the location would be know to the unit seeing it. A PIAT team out of C&C would still be able to shoot a tank. Sharpshooters would now be completely useless. As far a split squads go well they already would have a radio in you idea because they would have to recieve messages. Anyways still a great working basis though. I have to say again that you a lot of folks say that jeep rushes, AT scouts, etc. are "gamey" tactics but are really bad or poor tactics that are only effective due to quipps in the game. When my friend pulled the jeep rush on me he had no idea about speed and spotting models and blah blah blah. He just wanted to see if it would work. It didn't and he hasn't tried it again. If you get burned by it once just don't let it happen again. THe player will stop because he/she is getting creamed or they are just that stupid. When and if BTS fixes this (I have confidence) this tactic will not be considered gamey. And you wanna talk about reality, how about changing you tactics to not allow mistakes to happen again. You would not hold your command long if you had to report to the general that some jeeps had beat you twice. Ah well lunch time check in later. ------------------ Sir are you sure you want to go to red alert...it would mean changing the bulb -Priest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted October 20, 2000 Share Posted October 20, 2000 Juardis I think your idea also has merit but I think that while technically you are right on all counts it would be difficult to implement right. First off unluckly some people would be pissed because they could not see this or that. That's the point. You are the supreme battlefield commander dependent on the eyes and ears of your little cybermen. You are directing ALL your troops after all, not just this unit or that. If you were God, you'd know everything on the battlefield. But you're not, you depend on a guy with a radio being in contact with you. Barring that, you are both deaf and blind to what's taking place on the field of battle. Also while less "gamey" threads would be present about a billion "the AI sucks" threads would appear. I don't think so. It's your job to keep your units in C&C. Do that and you won't have to hear about the AI. Also you rely on the radio a little too much. I read somewhere that a lot of the C&C implemented in CM is that of being in earshot. Also if a squad is recieving commands by radio why do they need the platon leaders.....theyt have there own. The way it works now is the platoon leader is in contact with you, the battlefield commander, via the radio and his little cyber dudes via earshot, hand signals, predetermined orders, etc.. If the HQ unit dies, the little cyber dudes are out of C&C with you, the battlefield commander, since they have no radio. They get back into C&C with you, the battlefield commander, when a higher HQ unit is nearby. Only a unit with a radio can communicate with you, the battlefield commander. That's the way it works now and I do not suggest we change that. However, if they do not have radio (because the HQ unit died for example), how do they get in contact with you, the battlefield commander? If they cannot get into contact with you, how can you know what they are seeing? If you do not know what they are seeing, then how can you target what you cannot see? That's my point and that is why the only information you, as the battlefield commander, should have is that "something" is out there. You may even know what that something is if there was an exchange of fire before the unfortunate loss of C&C or radio contact. But you will not know after awhile where it is. That is why you must have the ability (under my proposal anyway) to recover that radio if it is still in working order. Whoever has the radio is in contact with you, the battlefield commander. Whoever is in the radius of the guy with the radio is in C&C via the normal means of being in C&C (ears, hand signals, etc). The idea about treating the out of C&C units spotting like sound contacts is fine but the location would be know to the unit seeing it. A PIAT team out of C&C would still be able to shoot a tank. Sharpshooters would now be completely useless. How would you, the battlefield commander, know what a sniper is seeing? You wouldn't unless he was in contact with a guy that has a radio that can talk to you, the battlefield commander. The TAC AI would know though, that is why you give the order to go to a position and let the AI decide who and what to fire at and when. If you want that control, then you must maintain that unit in C&C. Otherwise, as in real life, you issue the order and let them carry it out as best they can (i.e., the TAC AI does it). As far a split squads go well they already would have a radio in you idea because they would have to recieve messages. That's why we should abolish split squads and create a new squad type - the scout squad. It is functionally equivalent to a split squad except they maintain contact at all times with you, the battlefield commander. That way you can send them out on a recon mission and they can report back to you, the battlefield commander, what they find and you can change their orders. They can also act as a psuedo HQ unit since they'll have a direct line to you, the battlefield commander. Just make the radius for other squads to be in C&C with the scout squad fairly small (20m say?). Anyways still a great working basis though. Thanks, I think alot of the discussion in this thread has been good. I too like Dan's idea and tom's thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted October 20, 2000 Author Share Posted October 20, 2000 Okay thanks for the clarifications. I have a question. Would you still be able to see your own troops? I mean if they go into the woods or something you should not be able to see them. This would cause havoc in trying to get back to C&C. We can't issue orders to these troops either can we if they are out of C&C? I am just trying to throw ideas out there. Another question, what about the independent teams such as AT teams and MG teams? I leave them by themselves all the time. BTS seems to believe that they can operate out of C&C fine. Oh S**T what about arti FO's I do not always have them in C&C. NO control over Artillery? Damn. Oh well responses? ------------------ Sir are you sure you want to go to red alert...it would mean changing the bulb -Priest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted October 21, 2000 Share Posted October 21, 2000 Okay thanks for the clarifications. I have a question. Would you still be able to see your own troops? I mean if they go into the woods or something you should not be able to see them. This would cause havoc in trying to get back to C&C. We can't issue orders to these troops either can we if they are out of C&C? I am just trying to throw ideas out there. You're absolutely right. If you want extreme realism, once they're out of sight of any units in direct contact with you, the battlefield commander, then they should be out of sight from you, the battlefield commander, as well. Once out of your control, they will carry out whatever orders you have given them and the TAC AI (or whichever AI is more appropriate) will take it from there. If it's a tank crew, they have no orders and hence the AI should tell them to hide and/or sneak their way back to the friendly side. I don't propose we go that far though, but we could. I would say leave it the way it is, but I'm easy... Another question, what about the independent teams such as AT teams and MG teams? I leave them by themselves all the time. BTS seems to believe that they can operate out of C&C fine. Again, if you want to see what they see and control what they fire at, then they have to be in C&C with you, the battlefield commander. As far as not being able to see them, see above. Oh S**T what about arti FO's I do not always have them in C&C. NO control over Artillery? Damn. Oh well responses? They have radios. So if they can call the gun batteries, they can call me, the supreme battlefield commander. Just so they don't calls me Johnson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted October 21, 2000 Share Posted October 21, 2000 One other benefit if this idea is implemented is that it would allow a search and rescue scenario to be designed with true fog of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted October 21, 2000 Author Share Posted October 21, 2000 Okay cool. I like when I look at these threads and see great ideas developing or at least challenging the current way. All at the same time not having them degenerate into the chaos that some do. Juardis have you passed this up to BTS. (I'd copyright it first ) ------------------ Sir are you sure you want to go to red alert...it would mean changing the bulb -Priest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted October 21, 2000 Share Posted October 21, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest: Juardis have you passed this up to BTS. (I'd copyright it first ) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, I haven't passed it up to BTS. I don't intend to, but feel free to do so if you want. There are plenty of beta testers here who, if they think this is worth pursuing, will bring it to the attention of BTS. I doubt BTS wants me to tell them how to change their game. It's one thing to talk about it here on the boards, quite another to talk directly to them about a solution to a problem I'm not sure that they consider is a problem in need of a solution (if that makes sense ). But I appreciate you reading and responding. ------------------ Jeff Abbott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted October 21, 2000 Share Posted October 21, 2000 A couple of posts back Priest proposed the idea of someone else being able to pick up the radio if the HQ section was wiped out. I had a thought that might go along with that;how about adding a platoon sergeant position to the mix? Maybe instead of having one 4 man HQ section there could be two 2 man sections,i.e. PLT ldr and his radioman,and the PLT Sgt and his runner,if the LT is killed of the Plt Sgt could take over,perhaps with less command radius or something to simulate the reduced effectivness due to the loss of the officer in charge. I don't know how feasable this with the current game engine but I thought I'd throw it out for consideration. ------------------ Nicht Schiessen!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted October 22, 2000 Share Posted October 22, 2000 Bump! ------------------ Nicht Schiessen!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted October 22, 2000 Share Posted October 22, 2000 Juardis wrote: The way it works now is the platoon leader is in contact with you, the battlefield commander, via the radio and his little cyber dudes via earshot, hand signals, predetermined orders, etc.. Your propolsal would take out all fun from playing Germans, or pretty much from every army except the U.S. army. This is because German infantry had very few radios. I would wager that by 1944 only infantry batallion HQs (and most artillery FOs) had radios. Company and platoon leaders would have to manage without. So, for the German player would give his orders on turn one and then hit GO for 30 turns. The CMs radio symbol is a convenient abstraction and it doesn't imply that all platoons have radios. However, some sort of limited command could be interesting but it would be pretty difficult to implement properly. I don't know very much on practices of other armies so I'll use the Finnish army here as an example. The basic command unit in battle was a usually a platoon. Before an attack the regimental commander would give the objectives to batallion commanders. He would also allocate artillery and mortar FOs to different batallions. The batallion commander then decided the order of the battle for the companies. After that each company commander would make a pretty detailed plan, usually working with the platoon leaders. However, the actual execution of the plan would, in practice, be left to platoon leaders. They were expected to react to threats independently and using their own initiative. This organisation would lead to a CM behavior where a unit can be controlled when it is near its platoon leader. However, this is not satisfactory. Especially in forest battles it was very common to split a platoon in half (in some cases even the standard procedure): one half (usually with the platoon leader) would form a fire base that kept contact with the enemy while the other half (led by the assistant leader) flanked the defenders. I think that this tactic would be practically impossible to use if the player lost the control of the flanking unit. It would be very difficult to program the AI so that it would recognize the intent of the player and perform a ruthless attack against the flank. - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 Gents... What you guys are basically trying to acheive has been kicked around quite a bit between Charles and I and the testers. In fact, we started talking about C&C for CM2 in great detail early last week One thing you guys are talking about is "Relative Spotting". This has been discussed quite a bit on this BBS over the last month, but it will not be something that we will do until we redo the CM engine. We don't know when that will happen, but it will not be for CM2. As far as C&C might work in CM2... we will make some announcements about our intentions after we all come to agreement on how to treat the problem. Thanks, Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 OK, thanks Steve. Just a quick question. Is it a big change, or a little change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts