Is the "Target" Order "Gamey"?!

[Guest Rollstoy]

I know very well this is stupid, but ...

Yesterday night I played a scenario where two armored groups met head-on at the very beginning. Needless to say, I ordered each of my tanks to target a specific enemy vehicle such that no enemy tank was engaged by two of mine and another enemy tank remains untouched at the same time. Made sense in my eyes, but is it realistic?!

On the other hand, I had the typical situation that, once spotted, my teams were attacked by everything in sight (thanks to absolute spotting), including buttoned-up tanks.

The point is: isn't this, at least partially, the result of the existence of the "Target" order?

Maybe the "Target" order should be restricted to control indirect fire weapons? The only problem I see with this is that you loose the possibility to demolish buildings intentionally and to use "recon by fire". The former could be coupled to the LOS of the company command, while the latter I can live without (preparatory shelling is done by artillery, anyway).

Regards, Thomm

[Apa]

Well, the real problem is, that the player has more control over his troops that he realistically would have. But there is no way around this, except that you give orders to companies (you being the batallion commander), who then make what they wish to achieve the objective... Doesn't seem like much fun to me. This is a game, so there will always be something "gamey" in it...

Ok, that company thing wasn't maybe too smart, but something like it it is realistically, a commander of a batallion level cant give a 10m hunt order to 2 tanks at the other ends of the map, at least not simultaneously...

Also, there has been talk about non-absolute spotting, which would solve this problem pretty well, but it is something we wont see before CMII, or so I have heard.

Apa

[Mikeydz]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

I know very well this is stupid, but ...

Yesterday night I played a scenario where two armored groups met head-on at the very beginning. Needless to say, I ordered each of my tanks to target a specific enemy vehicle such that no enemy tank was engaged by two of mine and another enemy tank remains untouched at the same time. Made sense in my eyes, but is it realistic?!

On the other hand, I had the typical situation that, once spotted, my teams were attacked by everything in sight (thanks to absolute spotting), including buttoned-up tanks.

The point is: isn't this, at least partially, the result of the existence of the "Target" order?

Maybe the "Target" order should be restricted to control indirect fire weapons? The only problem I see with this is that you loose the possibility to demolish buildings intentionally and to use "recon by fire". The former could be coupled to the LOS of the company command, while the latter I can live without (preparatory shelling is done by artillery, anyway).

Regards, Thomm

I don't know how god the radios back then, but I would doubt that in the heat of battle, that they would be able to have as precise and coordinated attack as what you can do with CM, but you have to be able to give the player an effective interface to play the game with. You could make the same argument that we as players can give more detailed movement orders than what could normally have been done in real life. Eventually, if you try to make every minute detail as real as possible, you risk making the game interface cumbersome, and possible make the game less fun.

[Guest Rollstoy]

Originally posted by Mikeydz:

You could make the same argument that we as players can give more detailed movement orders than what could normally have been done in real life.

I completely agree, but movement orders do not kill, while target orders certainly do. Therefore, I think that target orders are much more critical with respect to causing unrealistic events on the battlefield.

Regards,

Thomm

[Mikeydz]

Ture, moving by itself doesn't kill. But because you can control movement to such a high degree, you can orchestrate some very effective attacks, esp with multiple units from multiple directions. And you can set up these attacks probably a lot easier that what could normally be accomplished.

[Guest Rollstoy]

Dear Mikeydz!

For me it easier to accept that some high officer lays out a master plan ("attack from multiple directions"), which is consequently executed, than units engaging targets because of relative spotting. The difference is twofold, in my opinion:

(1) Time scale. a tactical situation takes several turns to evolve, a unit on the other hand can engage another unit within seconds across the board. I can imagine, for example, that a simultaneous attack is triggered by "the first shot fired".

(2) Length scale: (like probably most of us) I move platoons in very tight formation (simply out of necessity). That means that situations which occur because of local micro-management could very likely occur in reality, given that I can at least influence the platoon commander directly. On the other hand, micro-management of targetting can occur across space and command hierarchy, which makes it more unrealistic.

As far as movement is concerned, the only thing that gives me a headache right away is the use of a "recon fan" ahead of the main body which transmits info instantaneously.

Regards,

Thomm

[Scipio]

IMO, the balance between players control and AI control in the action phase is as good as it can be (except some very small points).

Realistic it would be if I only give orders to Company-HQs, which usualy have the only connection to the High Command (me). But then I also must have only the viewpoint of the leading HQ on the map, and all other information can I only receive as messages from the lower HQs, maybe shown on a simple, hand drafted map how it's usualy used by the front commanders.

Do we want it so realistic? Bull****! This is a game, I want of course a challenge, but I also want to have FUN!!!

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

Keine Gefangenen!

Visit my Combat Mission Sound Mods site!

Use my uncensored Forum for all discussions that getting to hot for here.

Visit Scipiobase

[Homba]

Does anyone know if there was an engagement protocol established for the various tank armies of WWII? For example, I can imagine that if a line abreast of 4 panthers moving forward across a field suddenly encountered a line abreast of 4 T-34s emerging from an orchard to their direct front, that, assuming all German crews spotted all 4 enemy tanks simultaneously that German crews would have been trained to each engage its opposite target, rather than firing at a random target.

Granted, this is a very simple example, and contact and engagement rarely occurs on the battlefield in such a neat package. However, the point remains that some sort of engagement protocol was probably in place to discourage the wasteful redundant targeting of a single tank when possible (assuming redundant targeting was not DESIRABLE, as when a few tanks with superior armor relative to your guns were encountered).

This protocol would at least help to somewhat (though admittedly not fully) rationalize CM's TARGET command. At least, it is a good enough explanation for me.

Surely someone here can tell us about engagement protocols in the allied and german tank armies in WWII.

Homba

[This message has been edited by Homba (edited 02-07-2001).]

[Mikeydz]

Scipio pretty much hit it on the head. Too much forced realisim, via constaints in the interface, takes away from the fun in the game.

The question becomes this. Without a targeting command, how do you give orders to your units in a "realistic" manner. If you are only allowed to give orders to command units, with the AI controlling the individual squads and vehicles, then the game might not be as much fun, since you not involved in the middle of the action. Couple with the fact that you would spend the rest of your time cursing the screen because the AI didn't do what you hoped it would do.

So to answer your original question literally, yes, the Target order can be gamey, but what other good choice do you have?

[DekeFentle]

Originally posted by Homba:

Does anyone know if there was an engagement protocol established for the various tank armies of WWII?

Surely someone here can tell us about engagement protocols in the allied and german tank armies in WWII.

Homba

I can not comment on on WWII SOP's but I can tell you in the Modern Cav the old saying "Left takes left, right takes right, outside in." was part of our SOP. IIRC that's a section (2 vehicle) SOP. Woe be the gunner that forgets to check for "sleepers"! (targets that come up on the range after the initial presentation) I did participate in one CAVX (2x each platoons of Bradleys and M1A1's with the troop mortars and regimental 109's thrown in to keep us busy) All of us more or less online firing at multiple presentations and the SOP was still divided into sectional gunnery in assigned lanes. KISS in action I guess. I find it hard to believe that this SOP has changed much since WWII but then again my only claim to Grogdom is my ability to beat you in any game any time

Side bar: Any 1000 point table eight club members out there?

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

Winning is why we play!

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Homba:

Does anyone know if there was an engagement protocol established for the various tank armies of WWII? For example, I can imagine that if a line abreast of 4 panthers moving forward across a field suddenly encountered a line abreast of 4 T-34s emerging from an orchard to their direct front, that, assuming all German crews spotted all 4 enemy tanks simultaneously that German crews would have been trained to each engage its opposite target, rather than firing at a random target.

Granted, this is a very simple example, and contact and engagement rarely occurs on the battlefield in such a neat package. However, the point remains that some sort of engagement protocol was probably in place to discourage the wasteful redundant targeting of a single tank when possible (assuming redundant targeting was not DESIRABLE, as when a few tanks with superior armor relative to your guns were encountered).

I believe you are right. Interestingly enough though, I once read of a kind of counter-example. According to this source, German tank destroyers (which incidentally belonged to the artillery and not the tank corps) would target the entire battery (usually of 6 vehicles if up to strength) on one enemy tank and fire at it until it was destroyed, then shift fire to the next, etc. I don't know if this was due at one time to TDs having relatively weak guns against heavily armored tanks (say PzJg Is against T34s), and I don't know how long they persisted in the practice after getting more heavily armed vehicles (like the Hornisse).

Michael

[Leonidas]

I find these realism discussions to be a bit odd. The familiar refrain is that "You shouldn't be able to do thus-and-such because a real commander wouldn't be able to." The more important point has already been made that this is just a game and designed to be fun. Being an actual WWII commander wouldn't be much fun, because you wouldn't have much control over things.

But I've got another argument against the realism push. It may be true that you have some control over men in CM that a real commander wouldn't have. But it is also true that actual WWII soldiers and platoon leaders were a lot smarter than the men in CM. No offense to BTS here - it's just the state of AI technology. I think gamers forget that real soldiers, being keenly interested in their own survival, think long and hard about how to best engage in combat. A real company commander doesn't have to tell the units exactly where to move, because he has intelligent people under him to make decisions for their own platoons or tanks.

The post by DekeFentle makes this point perfectly. Tankers spend a lot of time thinking about things like how to distribute fire when a line of tanks meets another line of tanks. They've already got it figured out. So when tank lines meet in CM, the unrealistic part is not that you have the power to set individual targeting lines. The unrealistic part is that the AI doesn't distribute fire as a real tank platoon would. So CM gives you the targeting ability to overcome the AI's inherent limitations.

Put another way, in CM you are doing the job of the leader of every unit under your control - every squad leader and every tank commander, in addition to the job of company commander. So it's natural that you would have more information and more control than the company commander alone would have.

[Guest Rollstoy]

Mikeydz wrote:

If you are only allowed to give orders to command units, with the AI controlling the individual squads and vehicles, then the game might not be as much fun

Unfortunately you completely ignore what I tried to describe, namely the situation where JUST the TARGET order was removed from the players (and strategic AIs) modes of interference, because this Target order causes (in conjunction with absolute spotting) the situation where units engage other units across the board without possibly having been able to indentify them beforehand.

Leonidas wrote:

The unrealistic part is that the AI doesn't distribute fire as a real tank platoon would. So CM gives you the targeting ability to overcome the AI's inherent limitations.

This is certainly true, but then how does the Strategic AI set its target priorities? I bet by issuing Target orders to the Tactical AI just like the player.

Homba and DekeFentle, thanks for your input! Now I am strongly convinced that there is something like "engagement protocols" already implemented in the TacAI, because the moment of contact is seldom at the very end of a turn such that you can direct the fire of your tanks before the firefight starts.

Please realize that I do not want a "blind company commander" game, I never wrote this. But I feel that removing the ability to target for your units would not affect the fun factor of the game while removing "gamey" options like picking out single units to be fired upon by multiple own teams.

Thinking deeper about it I realized, however, how tightly connected this is to relative spotting, so one way or another the discussion will surface with the advent of the new CM engine.

Regards, Thomm