How about this idea for CMx2

[David Chapuis]

What do you guys think about this idea for CMx2. We already hope they will have a solution for borg spotting. How about an option for Extreme Friendly Unit Fog of War.

This would affect any units (maybe a few exceptions like sharpshooters) that are both out of command and control and out of line of sight of friendly HQ’s. The idea is that a commander doesn’t always know where his men actually are. So if you send a squad through some heavy woods, the icon might show them making it to their intended location, but in reality the unit could have gotten into a firefight in the middle of the woods. Not only do you not see what is shooting at the squad, but you don’t even know that your men have stopped and are fighting. So the unit that you think is at the far end of the woods providing flank cover might suddenly appear someplace else routed and running away.

Of course there would be a little button that let you know which friendly units were at ‘estimated’ positions, and which ones were in confirmed positions.

[ August 27, 2003, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: Cpl Dodge ]

[Ryan Crierie]

Originally posted by Cpl Dodge:

This would affect any units (maybe a few exceptions like sharpshooters) that are both out of command and control and out of line of sight of friendly HQ’s. The idea is that a commander doesn’t always know where his men actually are.

Makes sense to me...

[Brightblade]

Only if the TacAI would be improved. The way it is now, you have to babysit your units as they start doing very weird (and unrealistic!) things when they are left on their own.

[IntelWeenie]

This is more "God-like Command and Control" than Borg Spotting. Sorry, I don't see where this would prevent the case where one uint (in C&C) spotting an enemy makes it visible to all friendly forces (in C&C).

I think the TacAI does enough to modify unit's actions to react to enemy actions even when you don't want them to (like Greens and Conscripts not staying hidden too take a potshot at some guy 200m away).

[Sergei]

The TacAI as such doesn't really make very far-reaching decisions. It only looks for cover if a unit gets demoralized. It doesn't know anything about unit cooperation needed to prevent a flanking move. Basically it only involves the individual unit: what should it target, where to retreat, etc. There'd have to be a more general AI level, like those which the computer player uses, but the operational AI knows the goals set by StratAI, while it cannot know what's moving inside human player's head unless those objectives were somehow designated.

But I hope that there's gonna be multi-multiplayer in CMX2, in which friendly commanders could only share information through messages.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by IntelWeenie:

This is more "God-like Command and Control" than Borg Spotting. Sorry, I don't see where this would prevent the case where one uint (in C&C) spotting an enemy makes it visible to all friendly forces (in C&C).

My suggestion was just for the problem of "God-like Command and Control", and has nothing to do with borg spotting (I just said that since BFC has a solution for borg spotting, how about addressing this). In my opinion, "God-like Command and Control" is much worse than borg spotting. And this would limit "God-like Command and Control" in a realistic way.

I think the TacAI does enough to modify unit's actions to react to enemy actions even when you don't want them to (like Greens and Conscripts not staying hidden too take a potshot at some guy 200m away).

I guess I wasnt clear because I wouldnt want the AI to modify unit's actions any more than it does now. My suggestion is just that the human player doesn't know with certainty what is happening to his units if they are out of LOS and out of C&C.

Currently in CM, if you tell a squad to go through some woods - out of LOS and C&C of the plat HQ - the squad could become engaged with the enemy inside the woods. It will stop and start firing. that is good. I am not suggesting to change that at all, merely to not let the human player know this. Therefore, the unit looks like it keeps walking/sneaking to the end of the order. But that is just where the human thinks the unit is - the comp is keeping track of the squad just like it does now, but just doesnt display what is happening. This shouldn't be a huge change since what the human player sees is just an animation anyway. Just add another button to the unit screen that makes the human player know this is an "estimated" friendly position. Or it could function kind of like the "sound contact" display works now. The display shows and estimated position - but this would be for friendly units.

The TacAI as such doesn't really make very far-reaching decisions. It only looks for cover if a unit gets demoralized. It doesn't know anything about unit cooperation needed to prevent a flanking move. Basically it only involves the individual unit: what should it target, where to retreat, etc.

And none of that would need be changed. The only thing that would be different is that you could give a squad an order and it starting location would be different. The AI could handle that just like it handles adjusting other movement orders.

But I hope that there's gonna be multi-multiplayer in CMX2, in which friendly commanders could only share information through messages.

My idea would basically provide the same effect that multiplayer would - but in a single player game. That is why I would call it "Extreme Friendly Unit FOW".

Anyway, I think it is a great idea.

[Sergei]

But an isolated AI platoon couldn't make any of the decisions that a real platoon leader should, like retreat in front of overwhelming numbers. Instead they all would just rout and get wiped out. The player, if he doesn't know what's going on (except maybe a sound contact from the fighting) couldn't help the situation in any kind of way. Wouldn't work.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I could do without such an option. I like CM simulating commanding a company not simulating a company comander.

What's the point of a game of maneuvring troops about, where half the time you can't maneuvre troops ?

I hate to see resources spent on taking away commands instead of adding them.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Sergei:

But an isolated AI platoon couldn't make any of the decisions that a real platoon leader should, like retreat in front of overwhelming numbers.

This would never apply to a group as large as a platoon, since a platoon hq is in C&C all the time. This would only be for individual units. As long as the squads were in C&C or line of sight, then it wouldn't be a problem. And units off on their own should not have the benefit of the decisions of a platoon leader. That is the entire point.

Instead they all would just rout and get wiped out. The player, if he doesn't know what's going on (except maybe a sound contact from the fighting) couldn't help the situation in any kind of way.

First of all, the AI already does this on a limited scale (I imagine for CMx2 it will be greatly enhanced). It will cause squads to retreat without getting wiped out (they will have a moral hit - but they should).

Besides this option should only come into effect on limited occasions. If a platoon commander sends a squad off on its own, he doest really know what is going to happen to it. Squads are just not very effective off by themselves, and they shouldnt be.

But take you example above. The human player would see a "sound contact" marker of some sort and could decide to go find out what is happening, which would bring them under c&C, or could order a withdrawel. The player can still control the unit, he just doesnt have perfect knowledge of what is happening to the unit.

And that is exactly what makes this idea so interesting - and that fact that it will limit the "all-seeing commander" problem.

Wouldn't work.

It could work very well, and would be a step in the right direction making the similation more real - since you will never have a all-knowing commander overseeing the actions each of his troops.

I like CM simulating commanding a company not simulating a company comander.

And I prefer to think of it as simulation from the commanders' points-of-view (not just one commander, but platoon-level up). That is why it could be another FOW option.

What's the point of a game of maneuvring troops about, where half the time you can't maneuvre troops ?

well it would be much more realistic is the main thing! And if half the time your troops are out of C&C you probably need to adjust the way you play. Besides, you could still maneuver them. The point is that you dont have perfect information about what is happening to them.

I hate to see resources spent on taking away commands instead of adding them.

I dont know how this would take away commands :confused: If some of the SOP options that I have seen mentioned were added, this would work even better

[ August 29, 2003, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Cpl Dodge ]

[kipanderson]

Hi,

On this one, I think the only solution is units spotting individually, i.e. no Borg spotting, and multi play. Both of which are going to happen in CMX2. In multi play you only spot what your own units, under your command, can spot. Not what friendly units under the command of some other guy can spot.

Do remember one very important point. In CM games you play the part of the battalion commander, the company commander, the platoon commander… and the squad commander. This last point matters, a lot. In CM games you are also the squad command and therefore you also see what all your squads can see. In CM games you are not playing only the role of the platoon and company commanders.

In my view, the two most successful wargames ever are the Squad Leader series and the CM series. This is no coincidence. They are both identical scale. A big part of the magic… and it works so well, calling it magical is not over spinning by much…is the scale( plus.. of course.. the quality of the production). The fact that you do also play the part of the squad/AFV/ATG commander. Change this and you will get a shock at to how dull the game seems.

Individual spotting by units, plus multi player games is the way to go. In my view. But not making CM into a “command game”.

All the best,

Kip.

[David Chapuis]

no Borg spotting, and multi play

But you really cant limit borg spotting without limiting what the "all-knowing commander" knows. You can make changes that have a minor effect on borg spotting, but as long as the commander knows all, then its impact will be minimal.

I agree that multiplayer will be great because the "all-knowing commander" now knows much less. But IMO, adding a method to limit information that the player receives (in certain logical circumstances), while leaving his units under his control, would make the game much better than it is - and much more realistic.

I could give numerous examples - I will give two:

1. Jeep rushes. The jeep and crew could get killed anywhere on the map and all friendly units would know where it got killed, and possibly what killed it. Very unrealistic. My suggestion would solve that.

2. Similar situation but scouting with a half squad. The half squad is out of LOS & CandC of all other units - gets ambushed and killed rather quickly. All units, very unrealistically, get the knowledge of what happened. Really, they should just know that their friends never came back.

You cant solve either of the two issues above with just a fix to borg spotting (at least not the fix that I have heard).

It makes sense, even if you consider the game a squad leader game, that all friendly units dont get the knowledge of lone-wolf units until the lone-wolf unit comes back into contact (in some form or another - visual, radio, C&C, runner, etc) with the rest of the group.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Do remember one very important point. In CM games you play the part of the battalion commander, the company commander, the platoon commander… and the squad commander. This last point matters, a lot.

One other thing. As you described CM above, you play the part of the battalion/company/platoon/squad commanders. It is very hard to realistically play the part of a battalion or company commander when you always have perfect information about every unit, because there are times when you should not have much information at all. That is one of the major appeals (at least to me) of multiplayer. Why not add that dimension - in logical situations - to single player too.

[ August 29, 2003, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Cpl Dodge ]

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Cpl Dodge:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> no Borg spotting, and multi play

But you really cant limit borg spotting without limiting what the "all-knowing commander" knows. You can make changes that have a minor effect on borg spotting, but as long as the commander knows all, then its impact will be minimal.</font>

[Sergei]

This would never apply to a group as large as a platoon, since a platoon hq is in C&C all the time.

And what is that based on? Why limit it to single units? Maybe all platoon leaders in the US Army had portable radios in 1944-45 - but for most of the armies in most of the war this doesn't hold true. Even whole companies being out of C&C wouldn't be out of the question. Why do you draw the line so artificially to squads?

First of all, the AI already does this on a limited scale (I imagine for CMx2 it will be greatly enhanced). It will cause squads to retreat without getting wiped out (they will have a moral hit - but they should).

No, it doesn't make them retreat - it's a different thing from the unit morale breaking and then hitting the road. A planned retreat would necessitate the AI to actually recognise that the squad is in deep **** and that there is a more favourable position for it, but the AI is obviously unable to do this kind of thing. Just when have you seen the AI do a tactical retreat? Never, it's too dumb to make common sense assessments of the situation. A real officer wouldn't be. Neither would be you. While I hope that in future incarnations the AI will be vastly improved, I doubt it's gonna rock the world. Programming a good AI for this kind of game is hard if not impossible.

Besides this option should only come into effect on limited occasions. If a platoon commander sends a squad off on its own, he doest really know what is going to happen to it. Squads are just not very effective off by themselves, and they shouldnt be.

Well, then what needs to be changed? I always operate my forces as platoons.

But take you example above. The human player would see a "sound contact" marker of some sort and could decide to go find out what is happening, which would bring them under c&C, or could order a withdrawel. The player can still control the unit, he just doesnt have perfect knowledge of what is happening to the unit.

How does that add together? If a unit is out of C&C, how can you order it to withdraw? On the other hand, if you are making the decision as the squad leader, then why don't you know what the situation is over there?

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I think one has to be up front about the fact that if you are a single player, then you will have God like knowledge of the battlefield, to some degree. If you wish to maintain the fact that you play the part of the squad/AFV commander, there is no full way round this, in a single player game. There never will be… “if” you accept the above condition.

I do agree that individual spotting by units will have a big effect, and go a long way to get rid of Borg spotting.

However, for the full, zero Borg spotting effect, you will have to find a group of like minded people for Live Team play. Just as a real battlefield is made up of many individuals.

All the best,

Kip.

[David Chapuis]

Steiner14

Your example about the tanks and borg spotting shows the major limitation of the improvement - that once the timer stops and the game goes back to orders menu, the benefit of borg spotting is almost gone. The human player can just make the tanks move in such a way as if all the tanks had seen the gun.

Although your suggestion has some good pros

And I am not saying this is a perfect suggestion. I can think of some situations where this wouldnt be that good. But I think having FOW over friendly units sometimes would be a good thing. (btw, the game already does this now on captured units)

IMO taking away control from the player if a unit is out of C&C or LOS, is way too much.

Again, you would still have control over your units , you just would just have some degree of FOW about what is going on with them.

Sergei

Why do you draw the line so artificially to squads?

Well, why does BFC draw the line on squads when it comes to command bonuses? That is pretty artificial too, dont you thin? Surely, there were plenty of squad leaders that commanded their troops in such a way that the game would be accurate in giving them a bonus.

No, it doesn't make them retreat - it's a different thing from the unit morale breaking and then hitting the road. A planned retreat ...

Their moral breaking and them hitting the road is still retreating. However, I agree that it isnt the same as a "planned retreat", and that the AI would never do that. But that is fine. As mentioned before, the player could still cause his units to withdraw before they break if he thought things were bad.

How does that add together? If a unit is out of C&C, how can you order it to withdraw? On the other hand, if you are making the decision as the squad leader, then why don't you know what the situation is over there?

LOL. The same way lots of other game mechanics work together - because it is a game and you try to find a good balance between conflicting needs. The same logic you are using here could be used to ask how a bunch of squad commanders, all out of C&C, work together to coordinate an attack on a position.

kip

I think one has to be up front about the fact that if you are a single player, then you will have God like knowledge of the battlefield, to some degree. If you wish to maintain the fact that you play the part of the squad/AFV commander, there is no full way round this, in a single player game. There never will be… “if” you accept the above condition.

Well I dont accept that condition in a rigid way, like you apparently do. And I dont think I should just have to live with a huge problem that can be minimized? And right now you dont have god-like knowledge to some degree - you have it in totality.

I know I wont change your minds about this - that is fine. I still say that the "all-knowing commander" is bad at certain times and should be changed.

[Charlie Rock]

I'd recommend the friendly unit can fire at the enemy, but if far enough out of LOS and command, you don't see what it is shooting at. Or what damage it did. As far as I can tell that is how aircraft function. I see aircraft fly over head and drop bombs onpatches of woods but I have no idea what they're shooting at. If I saw a squad in the far corner of the map stop and start firing into a treeline I'd want to send the PL over to get in COMs to see what they're doing.

Not exactly the same thing but probably easier to engineer.

[LongLeftFlank]

I don't have much to add to what has already been expressed here, but it seems to me that the game will support a certain amount of friendly command FOW as it is now.

I recall playing the little CMBO D-Day scenario with the 82nd vs. the Falschirmjager in St. Mere Eglise (?) where the units were dropped all over the board. I obeyed the suggestion in the design notes to use only the "1" level view for my units to simulate their disorientation, darkness and lack of cohesion following the drop. It was way confusing but also a lot of fun to play as my guys blundered about at first, getting shot to bits, but then gradually rallied and overran the enemy strongpoints.

Similarly, in the absence of a new FOW option, you might consider some self-imposed house rules regarding views (e.g. use only level 1 or 2 views from the "fixed to unit" tab positions unless, say, you are an HQ/spotter/AFV, have special optics, and are on a hill and not under fire). Also shut off the various path/target lines. This might provide some of the information asymetry and fragmentation that you are seeking in terms of a combat command simulation, even if it doesn't address the borg spotting issues.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cpl Dodge:

What do you guys think about this idea for CMx2. We already hope they will have a solution for borg spotting. How about an option for Extreme Friendly Unit Fog of War.

This would affect any units (maybe a few exceptions like sharpshooters) that are both out of command and control and out of line of sight of friendly HQ’s. The idea is that a commander doesn’t always know where his men actually are. So if you send a squad through some heavy woods, the icon might show them making it to their intended location, but in reality the unit could have gotten into a firefight in the middle of the woods. Not only do you not see what is shooting at the squad, but you don’t even know that your men have stopped and are fighting. So the unit that you think is at the far end of the woods providing flank cover might suddenly appear someplace else routed and running away.

Of course there would be a little button that let you know which friendly units were at ‘estimated’ positions, and which ones were in confirmed positions.

I like this.

I think those people who are hollering for unlimited game lengths fail to realize just how much confusion like this was really a part of it. As pointed out in the other thread, infantry battles did tend to take longer in real life than in CM, I think for reasons like this. One sniper could hold up an entire company if properly placed; you can't do that in CM. I think less control over troops would be a definite realism advantage.

[ September 02, 2003, 01:29 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Charlie Rock:

I'd recommend the friendly unit can fire at the enemy, but if far enough out of LOS and command, you don't see what it is shooting at.

I would consider this a close 2nd option to what I mentioned above. It would do a little to limit the "all-knowing commander" issue.

[Cabron66]

Originally posted by Micheal Dorosh:

I think those people who are hollering for unlimited game lengths fail to realize just how much confusion like this was really a part of it. As pointed out in the other thread, infantry battles did tend to take longer in real life than in CM, I think for reasons like this. One sniper could hold up an entire company if properly placed; you can't do that in CM. I think less control over troops would be a definite realism advantage.

Huge. The degree of control enjoyed by players of CM is one which no WWII commander ever experienced. At the very least, importance of radios should never be forgotten. I will go so far as to suggest that troops not carrying radios or not within a command radius should be taken over by the AI until contact with them is reestablished. Furthermore, a lack of radios makes a unit far more vulnerable to sound. Imagine the effects of artillery on a unit separated from its commanding officer by even a mere 20 yards. Explosions should effectively isolate units with no ability to ask for or receive orders. Borg spotting is a serious issue in the game, but equally important is the chain of command and the effects of a break in it.

Also, wouldn't certain kinds of units be rendered useless by the simple loss of their radio? How easily were those things damaged? I wonder how many of them ended up tossed on the ground after being jarred or hit by a stray round. How often, for example, would an HQ be apt to lose its radio and be forced to continue the battle shouting commands and using runners until a new one could be found? What about armour? A buttoned tank with no radio would be in serious trouble, wouldn't it?

Here I suggest giving the AI a bit more of a role in the game, but with a feature or two added to compensate. For example, the ability to assign objectives to units. I tell a platoon to take a position, the AI takes over and off they go. A unit separated from its CO will simply follow its last orders or keep going until it reaches the objective it was last given. Or, make it possible for players to issue more complex orders using the exisiting commands. This would simply involve being able to put a duration on certain orders. Run, crawl, cover arc for 5 turns, run, hide for 3 turns, etc. This would allow commanders to issue complex commands if there was a danger of suffering a break in the chain of command, for example. Or (this one is a bit farther out there), give the player the ability to give a unit a default order which the AI will follow if the unit is separated.

[ September 03, 2003, 03:29 AM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

BFC has stated previouly that they will not turn CM into a command level game. That's good, IMO, since I would stop playing it if they did.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

“BFC has stated previously that they will not turn CM into a command level game. That's good, IMO, since I would stop playing it if they did.”

I agree. The CM series, and Squad Leader before, are the greatest wargames of all time, in my view, in part because of their scale. Stop playing the part of the squad/AFV commander and most will be shocked how dull the game becomes.

However, all is not lost… in CMX2 you will just have to make the full jump to realism and get a group of people together to play one team against the other, live. Do that, together with what I call individual spotting by each unit, and Borg spotting problems are thing of the past.

Playing as one player on each side, or against the AI, will never be as realistic as live team play. For many reasons, you will always have far too much knowlegde of the battlefield.

All the best,

Kip.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

in CMX2 you will just have to make the full jump to realism and get a group of people together to play one team against the other, live. Do that, together with what I call individual spotting by each unit, and Borg spotting problems are thing of the past.

I agree that multiplayer will help a lot, but it wont totally fix the problem. You will still have the "all-knowing commander" problem for all units under your control.

Playing as one player on each side, or against the AI, will never be as realistic as live team play. For many reasons, you will always have far too much knowlegde of the battlefield.

That is right. the player does have too much knowledge. And that will still be true - even in a multiplayer game. So why not limit the knowledge? And Im not saying turn it into a command game. Rather look for areas in which to limit what is shown to the player, while keeping his units under his control.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

Huge. The degree of control enjoyed by players of CM is one which no WWII commander ever experienced. At the very least, importance of radios should never be forgotten. I will go so far as to suggest that troops not carrying radios or not within a command radius should be taken over by the AI until contact with them is reestablished. Furthermore, a lack of radios makes a unit far more vulnerable to sound. Imagine the effects of artillery on a unit separated from its commanding officer by even a mere 20 yards. Explosions should effectively isolate units with no ability to ask for or receive orders. Borg spotting is a serious issue in the game, but equally important is the chain of command and the effects of a break in it.

Also, wouldn't certain kinds of units be rendered useless by the simple loss of their radio? How easily were those things damaged? I wonder how many of them ended up tossed on the ground after being jarred or hit by a stray round. How often, for example, would an HQ be apt to lose its radio and be forced to continue the battle shouting commands and using runners until a new one could be found? What about armour? A buttoned tank with no radio would be in serious trouble, wouldn't it?

Here I suggest giving the AI a bit more of a role in the game, but with a feature or two added to compensate. For example, the ability to assign objectives to units. I tell a platoon to take a position, the AI takes over and off they go. A unit separated from its CO will simply follow its last orders or keep going until it reaches the objective it was last given. Or, make it possible for players to issue more complex orders using the exisiting commands. This would simply involve being able to put a duration on certain orders. Run, crawl, cover arc for 5 turns, run, hide for 3 turns, etc. This would allow commanders to issue complex commands if there was a danger of suffering a break in the chain of command, for example. Or (this one is a bit farther out there), give the player the ability to give a unit a default order which the AI will follow if the unit is separated.

I agree with all of this. Since we have a 1 minute turn sequence in which orders are given for the AI to carry out anyway, the leap should not be too major to a system in which out of command units simply execute their last set of orders.

Radios were very rare on the WW II battlefield. The US had the most, and the British/Canadians by Normandy had 38 sets at the platoon level - but not the section level. By contrast, the Germans were somewhat behind IIRC and had radios at company HQs only in the majority of cases? I stand open to correction there.

Hmm, if BTS doesn't want to make a command level game (whatever that is) I am not sure what CM is now, with the use of leader units and an AI to run things.

Of course, if another game came along that simulated this stuff better, I would probably buy it instead of CMX2.

From Indian Armed Forces in World War Two: Campaign in Italy, p 112 - bold print is mine.

...1/2 Ghurka Rifles moved forward on the left with two companies up, to begin the attack on the Monastery. The approach march had started at 0045 hours from Majola area with C Company leading, followed by B Company, Battalion Headquarters, A Company and D Company. As the headquarters group was moving south-west, one mortar bomb landed on the path wounding the signal officer, the officer commanding porter company, the brigade signaller, four riflemen, (and) two NCOs including the Signal Havildar. The signal set was also knocked down. The headquarters was thus disorganized. However, by 0300 hours, B and C Companies, which were to lead the attack, and some of the headquarters group arrived just on the north slopes of Pt. 450, after being engaged by spandaus (sic) coming down the nulla.

[ September 03, 2003, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]