Squad deployment

[CMplayer]

I wonder if this would be a workable idea for a game like CM, or for CM:

Basically, squads and halfsquads could assume a number of different formations.

As of now, they have facing, but that's it. It would be very interesting to see the 'unit base' be able to morph in size and shape to reflect different squad deployments. For instance they could be spread more thinly in a line, such as on defence when men are paired up in foxholes at quite a distance to each other. Units in this deployment would be very unlikely to take more than max 2 casualties from a single SP gun round, even a Hummel round, for example. But they would be even more susceptible to being flanked.

They could also be spread in more of a line in column or echelon formations both when moving and stationary. As you can imagine, the possible ways to deploy an entire platoon would increase drastically with this option.

This kind of formation might double, triple or quadruple the length of the thinner 'unit base' with resulting effects on the unit's firepower in favourable and unfavourable directions, and its vulnerabilty to various types of fire and close combat.

The main difficulty with this idea would have to do with the relationship of a squad to its terrain. A long, skinny squad, might stick half way out of a forest or building. And if foxholes were dug for a squad in a certain arrangement, would other units borrowing the holes later be forced to adopt the same formation?

A game using this idea would essentially be moving in the direction of modelling each man, though they would still be clearly grouped in squads/teams. Perhaps there is an interesting compromise halfway.

These difficulties aside I'm curious if this could be the germ of an interesting way to increase the articulation of the infantry platoon (and hence reveal more subtle differences in strength between players) in a tactical level game, whether CM or otherwise.

[Jarmo]

I'm not sure I'd like the idea. If there was the possibility, then you'd almost have to use it. This'd lead to more micromanagement. Large battles are too painful for a lazy slob like me as it is. For small games that'd be great.

I would like to see every man independently modeled, but I wouldn't like to give them orders. Actually I'd be happy to just give orders at platoon level and let the AI carry them out.

[Hensworth]

This may be superfluous, but I'll say it all the same. Don't forget that what you see is an abstraction.

So your entire platoon huddled in 3 foxholes represents in fact exactly what you describe : a line of foxholes with 2 or 3 men each. That's why you don't get 12 roasted corpses straight away when a shell lands smack into one of the foxholes.

[CMplayer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sgt_Kelly:

This may be superfluous, but I'll say it all the same. Don't forget that what you see is an abstraction.

So your entire platoon huddled in 3 foxholes represents in fact exactly what you describe : a line of foxholes with 2 or 3 men each. That's why you don't get 12 roasted corpses straight away when a shell lands smack into one of the foxholes.<hr></blockquote>

Yes. My point would basically be that these 'abstracted' squad markers could be ordered to be at various levels of 'density' or 'packed-in-ness'. Say, packed, normal, spread, for example. AND that you can set the 'echelon angle' which basically amounts to shifting the squads' firepower-facing away from the angle of movement. Extremes would be column, and line, and you could also perhaps have some angles between. The last would not be much different than the feature many are requesting where they would like to be able to tell a tank to turn its turret away from forward when moving forward without a target. (precisely to be able to better model the way a tank platoon operates).

This could also help the model, in that, if you put too many squads into a confined area, or a small building their setting would automatically go to 'packed' which would increase their vulnerability to artillery.

[Mikael]

An interesting proposal but unfortunately I think it would flood the game with too much complexity. Sure, this would bring more realism, and sure, it would promote more skill, and sure, it would be fun, but... eventually this would force too much micromanagement. Ideally you'd have an intelligent AI that changes the formation when appropriate, for example when entering houses, forests... But this is not possible right now I guess.

[CMplayer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by aka PanzerLeader:

Ideally you'd have an intelligent AI that changes the formation when appropriate, for example when entering houses, forests... <hr></blockquote>

Certain things could be forced, like when you go into a building and get 'packed', or if a unit gets panicky and loses its cohesion. Then squads could just revert to the 'default' layout we already have. But I don't think the AI should make choices about formation otherwise, since it probably wouldn't do a good job of it.

As for micromanagement, I've never understood why people worry about this so much. We already totally micromanage tank movement in the game, and nobody's asking for that to be taken away.

Anyway, my question is really more about whether it would genuinely add to the richness of a game's infantry simulation to be have more articulated commands like 'move column' 'move line' 'move echelon left' etc. Or would it just be glitz without any interesting impact on gameplay.

This is just speculative; I realize there won't be any changes of this sort in CM any time soon if ever. I just enjoy imagining possible games.