How about this idea for CMx2

[Cabron66]

I don't like to say this sort of thing, but here goes. Were the three posts immediately following my own a result of what I stated? If they were, then I was not clear enough.

Also, I too am a little bewildered by the use of a term like "command level game", but I think, in this case, it refers to strategic level games.

Of course, CM is not one of these and will probably not evolve into one. However, the relation between this point and the original suggestion for the game eludes me. Command is everything. There is no aspect of war which is not directly effected by it. A breakdown in the chain of command might be the worst thing that could happen in a battle. I can appreciate how certain players would not like this when their men were running all over the map and their commanders unable to round them up, but these are players not interested in realism. In reality, good planning averts disasters and wins battles. The commander does most of his work before the battle even starts. Once the first shots are fired his influence is more easily argued.

Also, I do not see how a few good suggestions aimed at limiting the effects of inherent weaknesses in the CM game engine are equivalent to making the game a "command level game". More specific criticism would be appreciated.

[ September 04, 2003, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ]

[Becket]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

The commander does most of his work before the battle even starts.

Is not the saying "No plan survives first contact with the enemy"?

On an operational level, I think you are right. On a tactical level, I think you could not be more wrong.

[Cabron66]

Thank you Becket for pointing that out to me. I will have to edit that sentence to make it more clear. OTOH, if you read my original suggestions on the preceeding page I think you will see where my more recent comments come from.

Are you suggesting that wars are won at a tactical level? I'm not really sure what you mean here. Planning and maintaining control over soldiers (i.e. command) are extremely important at all levels. Although that saying is clever I do not see how it could possibly be posted under the guise of refuting my point.

Planning (carried out by hundreds of staff members or one man on the battlefield), preparation and command are all critical to winning a battle, performing a raid, assaulting an enemy position, taking a bridge or whatever. Random events can play their part in any endeavour, but superior commanders made their mark by being able to allow for unforseen occurrences and/or being able to adapt as the battle evolved. Either way, good plans and good men to see them through are the backbone of any military operation. Actually, I probably could have included that saying in my original post as part of the argument.

In short, how does a commander adapt to changing conditions in a battle if he does not have the means to control his men, resources with which to fight or supplies to keep fighting with. At a tactical level and relating all of this to CM, how does a commander change the orders of his units when they cannot hear him, cannot see him, do not have a radio, is himself without radio or under heavy fire? Smoke signals? Carrier pigeons?

My original post included a few suggestions which I felt could easily be included in CM to limit the effects of the magic performed in the game.

[ September 04, 2003, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ]

[Becket]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

At a tactical level and relating all of this to CM, how does a commander change the orders of his units when they cannot hear him, cannot see him, do not have a radio, is himself without radio or under heavy fire? Smoke signals? Carrier pigeons?

Is not this already simulated to a degree by CM's C&C structure? I've never thought that you were only the battalion or company commander in CM; to me it seems like you're the platoon leader, and the squad leader too. I have little desire to give up my command of squads and watch the TacAI play a wargame; I would find much more enjoyment in simply reading a book about the war.

[Becket]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

Although that saying is clever I do not see how it could possibly be posted under the guise of refuting my point.

Really depends which point you're talking about. If the point in question is "all the important decisions happen before the battle" then, I think, the old saying is illustrative of the fact that point is wrong. If the point is something else, well, I wasn't responding to that, was I?

[Cabron66]

Becket

Fair enough. We agree to disagree then.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Becket:

I have little desire to give up my command of squads and watch the TacAI play a wargame;

I dont think anybody is suggesting what you are implying here. What I, and others, want is a way to simulate the communications/inforamtion breakdowns that are so common in battle. Communication breakdown is modeled some (with command delays and hopefully in future with borg spotting fixes), but information breakdown is not modeled at all.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

A command game is one where you play the role, not of the manoeuvre units, but only of the commanders one, or more levels, up from the manoeuvre units. To give an example.

The CM series of games would become “command games” if you played the role of platoon and company commander, but no longer squad or AFV commander. That is if you saw the battlefield as if through the eyes of the platoon commanders, not the squad and AFV commanders as you currently do in CM. Thus if a squad was out of command and control, you would no longer be able to see all that the squad in question could see. You would be playing the part/role of the platoon commander, not squad commander.

Clearly, this is what some would wish for, and why not as we all have different likes and dislikes. But as will be clear from my pervious posts, I am not one of them. I wish CM to remain a wargame in which you play the role of the manoeuvre units, i.e. in this case the squad and AFV commanders. If a squad of mine can see something, then I want to be able to see it because I am the squad commander, not just the platoon commander.

Currently there are some command and control restrictions. However, very roughly, the restrictions, delay times for orders and such, are for orders that would often/normally be issued by platoon commanders. But note, there are no delay times for fire orders. If a squad/AFV/ATG can see an enemy unit, the commander of the squad/AFV/ATG is free to issue an instant fire order. Added to this some of the delay times reflect the training and quality of the squad/crew itself, even if the order comes from the squad commander. This is, of course, realistic.

Now, if you think this means that I am not after realism you would be wrong. I take my military history hobby as seriously as any. I read Soviet General Staff studies on WWII battles for fun, if saw how dry they are you would realise this is not normal human behaviour. I have a massive collection of Eastern Front source material.

However, for me CM is about being the squad/AFV/ATG commander, not the platoon or company commander. Thus I would not wish to see the “style” of CM change.

BFC are such outstanding wargames designers that we all carry around a vision of a game we would like them to produce, because we know they would produce a stunning result above the quality of others. Happily for me, CM in its current style and scale is my idea of the perfect wargame.

One day they may try their hand at a command game, just for a change, but Steve is on the record as posting that CM will never become one.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Cpl Dodge:

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

I have little desire to give up my command of squads and watch the TacAI play a wargame;

I dont think anybody is suggesting what you are implying here. What I, and others, want is a way to simulate the communications/inforamtion breakdowns that are so common in battle. Communication breakdown is modeled some (with command delays and hopefully in future with borg spotting fixes), but information breakdown is not modeled at all. </font>

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I fully agree with Kip on this matter - if anyone wants to take my direct, fully involved, fully informed command of single vehicles, support troop units and squads in CM away, they have something coming that will make The Alamo look like a Disney family day out in comparison.

Well, thats exactly what I've proposed in other threads. Personally, I dislike being both an NCO and an Officer. I'd much rather be an officer, ordering my NCOs to carry out certain tasks and then leaving it to them, as it is in real life, to undertake them.

Utilising such a model, it would be really possible to simulate unit experience levels - a veteran NCO would be far better at commanding his section than a green one would be, therefore it would make better use of ground, move in better formations and carryout manoeauvres. All I'd have to do would be to designate the objective and a rough route towards it, the tacAI would handle the rest. As in other threads, the use of SOPs would ensure, to some degree, that you didn't completely lose control over your units and would enable you to make sure they acted in a manner that you wanted them to.

At the present moment, the game expects you to act both as officer (ie giving orders) and NCO (actually organising and instructing the men on how to carry out the objective sought in those orders. The result is that you have to pay attention to every section or vehicle's movement. You have to constantly set their waypoints, targets, positions, etc.

Remember, an officer doesn't tell an NCO how to erect a flagpole. He orders him to erect it and then leaves it to his discretion about how its done.

I accept that you may well not like that sort of model to be used but surely the game could be made flexible enough so both models could be utilised?

[Michael Dorosh]

Nobody commands squads in CM as it is - it is already a "command level game", though you get to be the platoon, company and battalion commanders all in one.

Commanding a squad means telling your MG team and rifle teams when to fire, where to move, when to go to that next bound of cover - you don't do any of that now. :confused: In fact, you don't even see most of that cause your squad is represented by three or four little animations.

I don't think any of the suggestions put forward thus far are any great leap - CM is already a "command level game" in which "the Tac AI plays a wargame."

I would think that keeping units in command - something good CM player do anyway - should be rewarded, and steeper penalties for not doing so would be more realistic, and maybe even more fun, if implemented properly.

I'd maybe make units less resistent to panic, and more resistent to holding in place while out of command. So if you sent a single squad through the woods on a recce or flanking mission, they should be understandably confused should they encounter previously unspotted units while on their "mission".

For example, Platoon HQ A has an LOS to a squad in a house. After an appropriate time delay, this spotting information gets passed down to Squad A, under his command.

Squad A is deatched from the platoon to flank the enemy squad. He moves into the woods, and drops out of command of his platoon HQ.

Squad A runs into an enemy squad in the woods, previously unspotted. I think it realistic that Squad A become confused as to what to do, especially if out of contact with the platoon HQ.

If CMX2 ever includes representing all the men on the map, maybe at this point you would see a runner going back to the platoon HQ for orders...and the ability for the Tac AI to shoot these runners and increase command delays....

[kipanderson]

Hi,

“Nobody commands squads in CM as it is - it is already a "command level game", though you get to be the platoon, company and battalion commanders all in one.

Commanding a squad means telling your MG team and rifle teams when to fire, where to move, when to go to that next bound of cover - you don't do any of that now.”

I think we have been playing a different game. No matter, people do look at things very differently, and this is certainly proof of that, all adds to the fun.

I thought I had been doing all of the above for the last three years.

What is true is that one can only intervene at one minute intervals.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Becket:

I have little desire to give up my command of squads and watch the TacAI play a wargame;

Originally posted by Andreas:

Looking at your previous posts, what Becket fears appears to me to be exactly what you are suggesting. In your model of information breakdown, the human player effectively no longer commands the squad or can see what the squad sees.

CM would not become a "command game" with my suggestion any more than it is now, because I would recommend that you still have command over the squads the same as you do now (when re-reading, carbon66 did mention something about ai taking over in certain situations - I dont really like that if he means to a degree more than CM does now - unless BFC implements a system where the squad would remember orders - nevertheless, that is a much bigger change that I am suggesting). Giving up command of squads would mean that you can only give a platoon an order (eg assualt that location), and then the Tac AI decides how each squad moves, which squad provides supressing fire, etc. (Although that might make for an intesting game if the AI was really good, I am certainly not suggesting anything like that).

If you consider a "command game" something other than that (giving orders at the platoon level or above), than CM already is a "command game".

So what this really comes down to is not "should this be a command game", but "should the player know everything about each of his units". IMO, that would make for a very good FOW option.

[kipanderson]

Michael Dorosh, hi,

Just to show how confusing these things become, what you describe I would call a “section”, as opposed to “squad” game. The lowest manoeuvre unit in CM is the squad, in the game you describe it is the section. You are splitting the squad up into smaller units which manoeuvre independently. In wargames the lowest level/role you play is the commander of the lowest level manoeuvre unit. Thus in a battalion operational game the lowest level/role you play is the battalion commander.

Anyway… who cares… we are dancing on the point of a pin, we both know what we see when playing CM. I wish to continue to see all that my squads can see, at all times.Because I am in there with the squads as their commander. In my view.

However, I hugely look forward to individual spotting, and most importantly, live team play. If you command the infantry, and your armour refuses to do what you wish it to, because the armour player does not want all his tanks knocked out, it will be hugely frustrating… and hugely fun.

All the best,

Kip.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Michael Dorosh, hi,

Just to show how confusing these things become, what you describe I would call a “section”, as opposed to “squad” game.

Worry less about nomenclature if it really confuses you, and maybe look at the example I posted. I didn't suggest taking away control of squads/sections/10-man-groups-of-troopies, just greater need for leaders to stay in command of them.

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Nobody commands squads in CM as it is - it is already a "command level game", though you get to be the platoon, company and battalion commanders all in one.

I'm sorry, but effectively you are the section level commander in the game - you must managed the route taken, the method, virtually everything for each and every section in the game (or squad if you desire to use American terms).

If I was the platoon or company commander, I'd merely instruct my subordinates that X is the objective, our line of advance is Y, H-Hour is Z and the unit formation is whatever I desire. Off they'd go, knowing how to do what they needed to do within their roles in that structure. Yes, more detail would normally be supplied in an Ops order but thats it at its most basic level. I wouldn't have to tell each section to use that dip in the ground or that line of trees or whatever, to improve its chances of survival, they'd do it (or wouldn't, depending upon experience) themselves.

Commanding a squad means telling your MG team and rifle teams when to fire, where to move, when to go to that next bound of cover - you don't do any of that now. :confused: In fact, you don't even see most of that cause your squad is represented by three or four little animations.

I think we're quibbling about terminology. A "command level game" to me means that I'm the commander, I direct the operation, I don't micro-manage every subunit.

I don't think any of the suggestions put forward thus far are any great leap - CM is already a "command level game" in which "the Tac AI plays a wargame."

To a certain extent. Tell me, have you ever had your tanks end up, because the TacAI couldn't handle its movement around a piece of difficult terrain, advancing arse first towards the enemy? Have you had your infantry take the most direct route, in the face of enemy fire, rather than the more safe indirect one to an objective? Have you had tanks follow a road?

I would think that keeping units in command - something good CM player do anyway - should be rewarded, and steeper penalties for not doing so would be more realistic, and maybe even more fun, if implemented properly.

Perhaps. I'd love to see little red lines going from battalion commanders to company commanders and thence to platoon commanders, so that indeed, staying in command becomes of some value.

I'd maybe make units less resistent to panic, and more resistent to holding in place while out of command. So if you sent a single squad through the woods on a recce or flanking mission, they should be understandably confused should they encounter previously unspotted units while on their "mission".

Depends upon other factors, such as experience and personal initiative and training. A raw conscript unit is going to do a great deal worse than a crack veteran one. SOPs would also ensure that you can take into account training and "directives".

For example, Platoon HQ A has an LOS to a squad in a house. After an appropriate time delay, this spotting information gets passed down to Squad A, under his command.

Squad A is deatched from the platoon to flank the enemy squad. He moves into the woods, and drops out of command of his platoon HQ.

Squad A runs into an enemy squad in the woods, previously unspotted. I think it realistic that Squad A become confused as to what to do, especially if out of contact with the platoon HQ.

If CMX2 ever includes representing all the men on the map, maybe at this point you would see a runner going back to the platoon HQ for orders...and the ability for the Tac AI to shoot these runners and increase command delays....

Agreed.

[ September 05, 2003, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ]

[Cabron66]

My suggestion is not to take control away from the player but rather, to give him the option to give it up willingly or enable him to lose it if he does not play intelligently. Or, if his ability to command is taken away from him.

Take shelling, for example. What does it do besides kill and maim people? It keeps soldiers' heads down (effectively blinding them), disorients them and creates a lot of noise. Let's say your platoon comes under fire and you have taken the precaution of keeping a tight formation. Your men are close enough to still hear each other or make themselves understood (by sign language if all else fails) because they can see and/or hear each other. If you have spread your men out you are running the risk of having everyone take cover in positions from which they will not be able to see or hear each other. In addition, the shelling reduces the command radius of the HQ to almost nothing. Of course, radios can help considerably, but I don't think they were as common as they are today. What if the radio gets taken out by one of the shells? Your command radius goes down to about 5 feet and you can't even raise your head to see where everyone ran to. IMO, CM makes this sort of disaster a minor snafu. Because you control the individual squads you simply know too much and your army fights with the efficiency of army ants. My suggestions were aimed at counteracting this sort of thing and at giving the scenario designer the ability to influence units' actions after the battle has started (i.e. by being able to give them objectives and such). If anything, these ideas would make CM more of a "command game".

[ September 06, 2003, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ]