Thoughts about relative spotting

[illo]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Maybe there needs to be a command delay system for targeting as well?

If the player wants all his tanks to target that patch of woods where there is an ATG, those tanks which have spotted the gun can target it right away. But those who haven't, need to get instructions from their commander, to area fire. This would then take some time, depending on all the normal modifiers.

It's never been really obvious to me that why I can tell a machinegun team with no HQ contact to fire at any particular spot of terrain with no delay at all, while if I order them to move 2 metres to a foxhole, they have to wait for the orders? You'd think that having them fire at some spot, where they don't know the enemy is, would be beyond the team's own reasoning, while moving to the best cover available would be something they'd do automatically.

I agree 110%!

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

Reading Steve's very good thoughts and explanations about c&c and spotting, i have an estimation what CMX2's relative spotting will bring...

a unit sees only what's in it's LOS

plus

it gets all the information about enemy units

from friendly units, that are in it's own radius of listening (command).

Examples:

in a radio-equipped platoon (within range) of tanks, every tank-commander knows about the enemies in LOS of each tank. If one tank discovers a gun, all others know about it, too.

If all groups of a platoon are under c&c of the HQ, each unit has full knowledge about the enemy units seen by each unit.

Maybe the system will be made independent from/additionally to HQs: each unit has a listening/screaming radius and shares it's own information with any other unit within that range.

Maybe we will also get a very limited angle of view of buttonedp tanks. And their view can be supported by other units?

Mh, I read from Steve's post that their won't be a relativ spotting.

BTW, your description of radio communication is far away from realism. Radio equipted units doesn't communicate with each other unit. This would be nothing but a giant mess. Communication is organized in 'radio circles', meaning different frequencies. For example, an FO uses one frequence to speak to the artillery leader, and the artillery leader uses another to speak to the gun position. And each artillery unit uses another. We once had the case that we falsely received the artillery order from another unit in my military service, we nearly bombarded the next village...

In other words, tanks don't speak to infantry over radio or vice versa. Infantry speaks to the infantry HQ, the infantry HQ speaks to the tank HQ, the TankHQ speaks to the group commander, and the group commander to the tanks...

So what about the communication delay?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Scipio:

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

Reading Steve's very good thoughts and explanations about c&c and spotting, i have an estimation what CMX2's relative spotting will bring...

Mh, I read from Steve's post that their won't be a relativ spotting.</font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Sergei:

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

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

Reading Steve's very good thoughts and explanations about c&c and spotting, i have an estimation what CMX2's relative spotting will bring...

Mh, I read from Steve's post that their won't be a relativ spotting.</font>

[Sergei]

Yes Tom, I did read those posts. But what I meant, is that I haven't seen anything by Steve, while talking about the NEW engine, where he says that relative spotting wouldn't be implemented. To the contrary.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Yes Tom, I did read those posts. But what I meant, is that I haven't seen anything by Steve, while talking about the NEW engine, where he says that relative spotting wouldn't be implemented. To the contrary.

I meant wat was quoted here earlier.

[aka_tom_w]

I think these were Steve's most relevant posts on this issue

And YES some form of Relative Spotting is (as far as I understand) going to be implimented in CMX2 in some form

these post may help us understand Steve's vision for CMX2

"Big Time Software

unregistered

posted April 26, 2002 08:27 PM                

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

U8lead asked:

quote:

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

Do units in C&C spot and ID better then the same units out of C&C in the current game?

And if so, do any of the HQ bonuses (possibly combat bonus) apply to spotting and ID?

If units out of C&C had a substantialy reduced positive ID range would that help Borg ID?

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

No, no, and no

Why should a unit out of C&C be able to see less far? How is that more realistic? And if it can't see out as far, but in real life should, how does that affect the realistic ability of that individual unit to respond to the oncoming threat? Should a Tiger Tank with a Crack crew sit around NOT spotting an ISU-152 which it should plainly see, just because it doesn't have radio contact with BN HQ? I think not I also think we would have people screaming at us until we "fixed it or did somefink" This is one of the fundamental problems I have seen in discussions like this. And that is thinking that unrealistically penalizing an individual unit somehow makes the game more realistic. At best it is a wash.

At worst, it makes the game on the whole less realistic.

For example, not allowing a unit out of C&C to do anything until it is in C&C is totally unrealistic. Such a system simply swaps in one Borg behavior for another. It doesn't make the game any more realistic, but instead hobbles real life flexibility to the point of making the game unplayable and a joke of a simulation.

Don't believe me? Try this one out...

Let us assume that units have to be in C&C with their higher HQs to pass on information and receive orders. OK, can anybody tell me what would happen, under this system, if the BN HQ unit got whacked on the first turn by a lucky artillery bombardment? Would the player just sit there staring at a screen totally lacking friendly and enemy units? Or would all the friendly units show up but the player couldn't

do anything or yield any information about themselves or what they see?

The above situation illustrates why removing realistic tactical control is not the right direction to go towards. Because if you follow it to its logical conclusion (i.e. the ultimate realistic state), this is what you wind up with.

Honestly folks, your feedback is appreciated. But I for one am very glad some of you are gamers and not game designers

Steve

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted April 26, 2002 08:51 PM                

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

Tom,

quote:

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

I think it has been a positive and constructive discusion with several different points of view represented.

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

I agree, but I must also point out that this discussion is not that different than a 1/2 dozen other ones held in the past. That is not to take away anything from anyone who participated here and not in the others, but rather to point out that the CM's borg problems are pretty well established by now. They are also not inherently different than those of other games, although we would argue CM deals with them better.

The ideas people are kicking around in this thread are also ones that have been kicked around in other threads. Specifics might not be exactly the same, but the core motivation behind certain lines of thinking are surprisingly similar. Some people think the key to better realism is to have a sort of "you got it or you don" system of C&C where units not in C&C sit around dumbly until they are contacted again. A variation on that is that the AI somehow handles these units while you are not in command of them. The former is utterly unrealistic, the latter so difficult to program effectively that it is not the best design to pursue (i.e. spending a year making the AI for this means a year of doing nothing else ).

Others think that the way to go is to simulate "orders" down through the chain of command. This is something that most people would find about as exciting as watching paint dry Watering this idea down to make there be more game also means watering down the potential realism and reintroducing the Borg problem.

Believe me, I am not trying to ridicule people for their theories on how the Borg issue should be dealt with. I'm just trying to point out that some "cures" will actually kill the pateient before the operation is even over Others suggest things which will leave nasty scars and open up the doctors for lawsuits (or rather unpleasant commentary on BBSes ). But in general, I think most people understand the basic issues and some even see very simple solutions to some of the problems. Or at least can see how a huge problem can be tackled by several smaller, comprehensive changes.

I think that once people see CMBB they will understand how the Big Problems can be tackled by smaller, perhaps even subtle, changes. Not completely, of course, because to do that the human player would have to be removed almost completely from the game. Later, I think people will see that Relative Spotting (as we have discussed it in the past) they will understand that it reduces or eliminates most of the Big Problems in CM that remain after CMBB's changes. Will the future CM be perfect? From a realism standpoint, of course not. But I can assure you that we will get damned close.

Close enough that people will probably ask for Relative Spotting related features to be optional

Steve

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted April 26, 2002 09:53 PM                

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

Tom,

quote:

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

...even if the BTS idea of Relative Spotting were implimented, in that each and every unit makes it own spotting check and cannot target (but MAY be ordered to use "area Fire" at) enemy units it has not spotted, (BUT the player KNOWS where those enemy units are he can order or direct EVERY unit, irrespective of whether it has spotted the enemy unit or not, or whether it is in C&C or NOT, to fire or move in that general direction (NOW thats a "BORG Like Swarm" ™ to use Redwolf's term ), what would that solve?

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

Uhm... A HECK OF A LOT Area fire is useless (bold mine)against a moving target and has reduced accuracy and effects against a stationary one. If you think that Area Fire is a fine and dandy substitute for direct targeting, might I suggest booting up CMBO and playing a game on the defensive only using Area Fire commands. I think that ought to get you to see that you are taking a rather extreme and unfair look at what ONE ASPECT of Realitive Spotting will do.

quote:

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

I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat.

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

In a black and white world, where there is only Borg and Not Borg, you would be correct. But that is a world I don't live in As I described above, there is absolutely NO solution to the Borg problem except to remove the human player from the game.

Do you really want that?

If so we could easily make CM play so that you deploy your troops (which CM buys for you) by simply clicking down the HQs at the next level lower than your own (i.e. if you are the Major, you can only click on the Company HQs). CM would then deploy all the rest of the units without you even seeing them. Yup, you wouldn't see anything except what was around your HQ unit, which would be set up and unmovable (for the most part) after the Setup Phase. Then the game would start. You would issue a couple of vauge orders to your next lower HQs and then sit back and wait. From Turn 1 on all friendly units would disappear from the map. Every so often a Spotted icon would appear where MAYBE one of your directly subordinated HQ was. At this point in time you might get back some meaningful information from the HQ, or perhpas not. Depending on if the HQ is in radio contact or not, you could issue orders to the HQ along the vauge lines of Turn 1. You will have no idea what that HQ does with them until the next time he resurfaces. If there is no radio contact, runners would be necessary and that means instant communication would be impossible, thus making that Spotted icon appear less frequently and even more prone to error. After the shooting would start you might have a rough idea about where and the nature of the shooting. But until one of those ghost icons popped up, you wouldn't know much more than that. And even when that does happen, you would only get back snipts of text about what was going on and you could still only issue a few vauge orders.

Gee... DAMN does that sound like fun! Whoopie Cripes, we wouldn't even need to program in anything except some sort of ZORK like text adventure script engine and a few generalized combat resolution equations.

You see.. THAT is the be all, end all Black and White counter balance to the RTS type Borg system. CM is already somewhere inbetween the two, and CMBB is a bit more towards the realism side. The engine rewrite will be even more towards the REALISM side of the equation by reducing the effectiveness of the Borg aspect.

But no way, no how can we eliminate it.

So why bother having such a black and white set of standards when one side is available and not liked (i.e. RTS with no C&C rules at all) and the other would be a yawner to even those who THINK they want it (i.e. human player almost totally removed from even watching the action)? Wouldn't it be more interesting and productive to focus on practical ways to make the game more realistic without all the hoo-ha about it not going far enough? Hmmm?

Tom, I know you have been a participant in many of the previous discusions. I would have hoped that you picked up on the fact that Relative Spotting is only the underlying mechanism, not the solution. In other words, there are all SORTS of things we can do once Relative Spotting is in place that will increase realism, decrease the Borg, and at the same time make CM more fun. Having restrictions on targeting is just ONE feature made possible by Relative Spotting. A better system of artillery requests is another.

More accountable and detailed C&C delays is yet another. There are LOTs of possibilities made possible because of Relative Spotting. So again, don't think of Relative Spotting as the solution, but a part of the underlying foundation for other features which in turn will do lots of things to improve the game on all levels.

When we get into this phase of design we should all have a nice group think about ways we can leverage Relative Spotting and other systems to make CM more realistic. But at this point, we don't have the time to do that. Already spent too much time on this issue as it is

Steve"

[ April 22, 2003, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Scipio:

[QB] BTW, your description of radio communication is far away from realism. Radio equipted units doesn't communicate with each other unit. This would be nothing but a giant mess. Communication is organized in 'radio circles', meaning different frequencies. For example, an FO uses one frequence to speak to the artillery leader, and the artillery leader uses another to speak to the gun position. And each artillery unit uses another. We once had the case that we falsely received the artillery order from another unit in my military service, we nearly bombarded the next village...

Hm???

I was talking about radio communication of tanks within the same platoon, anyway.

Infantry speaks to the infantry HQ, the infantry HQ speaks to the tank HQ, the TankHQ speaks to the group commander, and the group commander to the tanks...

This would be extremely unrealistically.

On the battlefield every unit can speak to every unit within it's communication radius; tanks: if they can communicate with a unit nearby depends, if they are buttoned/unbuttoned.

Why shouldn't a normal tank commander (not only the platoon leader) be able to inform any unit close enough, about the infos of unit positions he gets over radio?

That's quite normal.

...

Ofcourse information delay would be fine, but we shouldn't expect to much.

Normal relative spotting, would be a huge step forward and therefore enough, IMO.

And once this is implemented well, the engine could allow further refinements...

[ April 22, 2003, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

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

[QB] BTW, your description of radio communication is far away from realism. Radio equipted units doesn't communicate with each other unit. This would be nothing but a giant mess. Communication is organized in 'radio circles', meaning different frequencies. For example, an FO uses one frequence to speak to the artillery leader, and the artillery leader uses another to speak to the gun position. And each artillery unit uses another. We once had the case that we falsely received the artillery order from another unit in my military service, we nearly bombarded the next village...

Hm???

I was talking about radio communication of tanks within the same platoon, anyway.

Infantry speaks to the infantry HQ, the infantry HQ speaks to the tank HQ, the TankHQ speaks to the group commander, and the group commander to the tanks...

This would be extremely unrealistically.

On the battlefield every unit can speak to every unit within it's communication radius; tanks: if they can communicate with a unit nearby depends, if they are buttoned/unbuttoned.

Why shouldn't a normal tank commander (not only the platoon leader) be able to inform any unit close enough, about the infos of unit positions he gets over radio?

That's quite normal.

...

Ofcourse information delay would be fine, but we shouldn't expect to much.

Normal relative spotting, would be a huge step forward and therefore enough, IMO.

And once this is implemented well, the engine could allow further refinements... </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

there are many folks here who know WAY more about this stuff than me but the radio communications net in WWII most definately DID NOT allow any unit on the battlefield to talk to any other unit on the battle field.

-tom w

I s'pose the radio systems themselves would have allowed this unless they were fixed to a certain frequency, but... then the communications would have gotten clogged once the shooting began, everyone talking over eachother.

I'm of the view that CM makes C&C too nimble, which then causes the "compression" of battles. In reality, adjusting to new tactical situations (which you usually did encounter) does require more time. Take for instance the situation in which a company is under fire. The commander cannot shout orders effectively as everyone's shooting and so not hearing much, and you can't give much of hand signals either, because nobody wants to keep their heads or hands up to be able to do that, nor is that what they're concentrating on. You could only issue very simple commands, like "cease fire" or "withdraw". The only effective way would be to call for platoon leaders and, after they've crawled there, give instructions, after which they crawl back to their platoons and do the same with squad leaders. Takes time.

I guess I just should be playing with green troops, although I don't think a veteran company could pull that off in a record time either. But it's probably off the point to expect CM to evolve into some kind of West Point command simulation. At least I don't hope that to happen, I like the playability the way it is.

Anyway, with relative spotting some kind of system for sharing this acquired knowledge of the enemy with other units should be implemented. Other options are, don't give this info to anyone who hasn't personally spotted the unit, or give it to everyone after some time has passed from the spotting. But the latter options seem too unrealistic. And the first one has to be kept simple, stupid, yet realistic enough to be intuitive. Gee I'd hate to design games for my work!

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

Hm??? I was talking about radio communication of tanks within the same platoon, anyway.

Sorry, I mixed up your terms of platoons and groups.

This would be extremely unrealistically.

On the battlefield every unit can speak to every unit within it's communication radius; tanks: if they can communicate with a unit nearby depends, if they are buttoned/unbuttoned.

Are we talking about radio communication, or are they just shouting?

Why shouldn't a normal tank commander (not only the platoon leader) be able to inform any unit close enough, about the infos of unit positions he gets over radio? That's quite normal.

Because he is not able to.

- For example, the radios 'FuG 5', used in many tanks, had a frequence of 27.2-33.3 MHz, he 'Fu.Spr.f', used by PzGren, had a frequenz of 19.99-21.47.

- German infantry platoons in WWII were ussually not equipted with radios. Fieldtelephons were more common, but ussually on company level. Indeed had only few Russian tanks radios in the early war.

- As mentioned, it wouldn't be that usefull. You should know that those radios can send or receive, but not at the same time. So, everyone is screaming in his radio 'I see the enemy', while the commander ain't able to give orders. Radio discipline is a very serious issue.

Of course information delay would be fine, but we shouldn't expect to much.

Normal relative spotting, would be a huge step forward and therefore enough, IMO.

And once this is implemented well, the engine could allow further refinements...

Indeed would relative spotting need a communcation delay. Without delay, we would have borg spotting. Or did you mean there would be no communcation between units?

Generally, I think people should not expect to much from relative spotting. Maybe except larger PBEM files. BTW, what do you mean with 'normal relative spotting'?

[ April 23, 2003, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Scipio:

Sorry, I mixed up your terms of platoons and groups.

'My' terms?

They are everywhere the same.

Originally posted by Schoerner:

Why shouldn't a normal tank commander (not only the platoon leader) be able to inform any unit close enough, about the infos of unit positions he gets over radio? That's quite normal.

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

Because he is not able to.

- For example, the radios 'FuG 5', used in many tanks, had a frequence of 27.2-33.3 MHz, he 'Fu.Spr.f', used by PzGren, had a frequenz of 19.99-21.47.

</font>

[Scipio]

Schoerner You seem to miss my point. I wonder if you ever were in or close to a tank with runnning motors. The peoples in the tank need already special communication system to talk to each other, usually some kind of larynx microphones. You are not able to talk to somebody outside, maybe you can SHOUT direct into somebodies ear when he jumps on the tank. That's why I always speak of radios.

Try to rise the attention of the TC and give him signals with the hands is the best you can do. I wouldn't see this as a very reliable way of communication.

[ April 23, 2003, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Scipio:

[QB] Schoerner You seem to miss my point. I wonder if you ever were in or close to a tank with runnning motors.

It's possible when the tank-engine is low on revs and as i clearly stated it depends on how close the next unit is (unit's communication radius).

You are not able to talk to somebody outside, maybe you can SHOUT direct into somebodies ear when he jumps on the tank.

That's why I always speak of radios.

Seems you're confusing something: you replied to my post and i wasn't talking about radio-communication, only.

Try to rise the attention of the TC and give him signals with the hands is the best you can do.

No, at low revs, there's acoustic communication possible.

Additionally signs.

Communication has to be possible independent from HQs. Only radio-comm. needs HQs.

[ April 23, 2003, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Redwolf]

Well, folks, some WW2 tanks had telephones mounted on their back so that an infantryman could talk to the tankers.

I guess that is a pretty strong indication that plain shouting didn't do it

Hell, I've nearly been run over by a backing-up truck yesterday, and I was shouting from a bright red car full-size car.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

What these threads always seem to come down to is that some wish CM to become more of a command game. What I mean is that some wish CM players to give up the role of Squad/AFV commander.

No one could be after realism more than I am, and yes, I could define exactly what I mean by realism, but there is one very important qualification to my wish for realism. I want maximum realism within the limits that are possible when one still plays the roles of battalion commander, company commander, platoon commander, and Squad/AFV commander. If we are still to play the roles of Squad/AFV commander then this greatly limits the number of restrictions that can be placed on the commands one is free to give Squads/AFVs. All this will come out in play testing so I am sure BFC will get the balance right. However, from the comments I have read from Steve over the years; do not hold your breath in expecting CM to become more of a platoon commanders “command game”.

However, all is not lost. Yes, there certainly will be Relative Spotting. Which I understand to mean that units spot all enemy units for themselves. There will be a command and radio net modelled. On this I think all are agreed. On the specific issue of Area Fire orders to units that have not Spotted the enemy in question, one comment from Steve I read implied one will be able to give such orders without delay. But I am sure this will be massively tested by BFC. Do remember that the argument is not all one way. There are a mass of occasions when I use Area Fire, particularly in the CMBB “non hero” modelling we now have, and a delay to such orders has huge negatives for realism. There are many occasions when Area Fire is instantly needed for reasons other than spotted AT guns. Do remember that if one is playing the role of battalion commander, company commander, platoon commander and Squad/AFV commander one will always have far greater flexibility than any real world platoon or company commander. It is the micro management of squads and AFVs that adds a lot of the fun.

There is likely to be one addition to CMX2 that will greatly help the Area Fire issue. It is likely that there will be live team play in CMX2. This means that each individual player will only be able to Spot what the units he actually commands can Spot. So if you only command the 1st Platoon you will only be able to spot what the 1st Platoon units can spot, and so on….. Clearly, add Relative Spotting to live team play and things are getting very much more realistic.

Lastly, for me the two greatest wargames by far have been Squad Leader/Advanced Squad Leader and the CM series. In my view, others will differ; a lot of this is down to the scale. The individual manoeuvre units being infantry squads and individual AFVs plus the fact that one of the roles you play is squad/AFV commander. This in turn means that micromanagement of squads and AFVs is possible. The exact positioning of tanks and the timing of their fire. Plus the out standing Tactical AI in the CM series. Move much further than we already have towards CM becoming a Platoon Commanders game and I think many would be surprised by the way the magic drains away from CM. Anyway… we all carry around slightly different visions of the perfect wargame so all will have their own views.

Happily for me, from all the comments I have read from Steve when now and then he lets fly, BFC have a very similar vision of the “best compromise” to my vision of the perfect wargame. I am a very lucky chap. So I am as confident as can be that I will love the new engine when it is released.

All the best,

Kip.

[Scipio]

Schoerner How often are you moving your infantry within a 5 meters radius of your tank?

BTW, I wouldn't like to see my tanks stopping for a half minute - not even for a second - for a smalltalk if I suspect enemy guns or tanks near by, what is nearly always true in a CM battle :eek: .

Redwolf I know the US M48 for example had a telephone on his back, but I never heard the WWII tanks had one, too - but I really don't know this. Which tanks was it? I suspect only some late war models?

[tar]

Sergei writes:

I'm of the view that CM makes C&C too nimble, which then causes the "compression" of battles. In reality, adjusting to new tactical situations (which you usually did encounter) does require more time.

That is in part why I have in the past advocating making a fairly large change in the way command delays are allocated between units. As it stands now, command delays are the smallest for HQs and units under C&C.

What I have proposed as a way of making large-scale changes in plans and behaviors is to INCREASE the movement command delay for HQs. This will make moving the HQ element more difficult without advance planning. It still allows the squads to maneuver freely within the command radius of the HQ, but it means that moving the platoon as a whole takes longer unless you want to send the squads out of command -- which will then, of course, slow their reaction.

Instead of having HQs be the most nimbly moving units on the battlefield, increasing their movement delay gives the entire battle a bit more inertia, since it then takes longer to change where the higher level formations are going.

This change could presumably be done fairly easily within the current game engine. In a future version, the delays could be modified by having hierarchical command radii, but you could get a benefit immediately.

Of course, one could (through the use of agreed upon house rules) implement this idea right now. All that would be needed would be an agreement to give all HQs pause orders at the start of their movement. Perhaps 3 for a platoon, 4 for a company and 5 for a battalion. (The company and battalion should be higher, but CMBB seems to limit the pause command to 50 seconds...)

Of course, this is starting to get off topic a bit, since the thread should be about relative spotting...

[Tero]

Originally posted by Sergei:

It is of course necessary that the engine keeps track of which targets within LOS of a unit have been spotted by that particular unit, and which targets within LOS haven't been spotted by that unit. (Ie. which targets the unit CAN acquire for direct fire, and which it CAN't - except by area fire.)

Indeed. Things get tricky when the target is technically within the field of vision but IRL the firing unit should or would not be able to spot it instantly.

There is, however, the caveat that should a tank column get ambushed in open by a gun, they probably wouldn't just stand still and keep their cool until someone figured out where the gun actually was, but they would start firing at most probable locations to keep the enemy heads down while they move to a safer location. Having this hindered by too great a delay wouldn't make sense to me, while I guess it'd take some time for the surprised TC's to react and give any sensible orders orders to the gunner.

True.

But by the same token there is the automated response factor that would make them fire wildly at anything that looks like a target, including a grassy knoll 500m to the left (or even 180º) of the actual position the fire is coming from. I would not deem it unrealistic that a command delay to break off such an automated response to reacquire a new target would be even greater than it would be if they have not started firing automatically.

And of course there are also the numbnuts who misinterpret the delibetate commands and target the wrong spot by mistake making others follow their lead and making the fire direction even harder.

And inevitably there is the issue of using tracers and/or other fire diretion tools and how they draw enemy fire suppressing the unit commanders or command units and making the fire direction even harder.

[ April 24, 2003, 05:27 AM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Scipio:

[QB] Schoerner How often are you moving your infantry within a 5 meters radius of your tank?

BTW, I wouldn't like to see my tanks stopping for a half minute - not even for a second - for a smalltalk if I suspect enemy guns or tanks near by, what is nearly always true in a CM battle :eek: .

Why don't you stop to use imputations?

To help you:

imagine an infantry platoon in a safe place (maybe preparing for an attack). OK?

Imagine that it is supported by a tank and this tank is very close. OK?

This tank has radio. OK?

Will the tank-commander inform the infantry platoon by telling the next infantry unit, where enemy units are, that are reported to him by his HQ tank?

Don't you know that it was very common, that inf. platoon commanders ordered one man to the tank, for getting this precious information?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Scipio:

Redwolf I know the US M48 for example had a telephone on his back, but I never heard the WWII tanks had one, too - but I really don't know this. Which tanks was it? I suspect only some late war models?

The US Army started doing this in Normandy. It was a field modification, not factory standard, AFAIK. ISTR that Dobler in 'Closing with the enemy' blathers on about it.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Hi,

What these threads always seem to come down to is that some wish CM to become more of a command game. What I mean is that some wish CM players to give up the role of Squad/AFV commander.

No one could be after realism more than I am, and yes, I could define exactly what I mean by realism, but there is one very important qualification to my wish for realism. I want maximum realism within the limits that are possible when one still plays the roles of battalion commander, company commander, platoon commander, and Squad/AFV commander. If we are still to play the roles of Squad/AFV commander then this greatly limits the number of restrictions that can be placed on the commands one is free to give Squads/AFVs. All this will come out in play testing so I am sure BFC will get the balance right. However, from the comments I have read from Steve over the years; do not hold your breath in expecting CM to become more of a platoon commanders “command game”.

I agree. I want CM to be CM, just like I want chess to be chess. I do want to know where my units are and what they're engaging (to some extent, FOW being considered) instead of having some sort of Quantum Mission: Beyond Schrödinger's Cat (QM:BSC), where you can't even tell if there is any battle taking place, and in any case you can only tell where it is happening or who is winning, but not the both at the same time.

On the specific issue of Area Fire orders to units that have not Spotted the enemy in question, one comment from Steve I read implied one will be able to give such orders without delay. But I am sure this will be massively tested by BFC. Do remember that the argument is not all one way. There are a mass of occasions when I use Area Fire, particularly in the CMBB “non hero” modelling we now have, and a delay to such orders has huge negatives for realism. There are many occasions when Area Fire is instantly needed for reasons other than spotted AT guns. Do remember that if one is playing the role of battalion commander, company commander, platoon commander and Squad/AFV commander one will always have far greater flexibility than any real world platoon or company commander.

Do you remember when Steve has mentioned this? Anyway, yes, just posing arbitrary penalties for area fire doesn't fix anything. But also a relative spotting model with this loophole is a model that hasn't solved the issue it was meant for. Besides, there are command delay on movements even though it can be argued that in all cases this is not particularly realistic, especially when no delay is on area fire commands. The AF delay idea would certainly need more refinement should it be implemented, something comparable to how withdraw command was designed to overcome having too great c-delays.

It is the micro management of squads and AFVs that adds a lot of the fun.

Funnily enough, Steve et al have continuously said that people micro manage too much, while they could just do with group moves and trusting things on the TacAI.

[Thomm]

Removing the target order would suffice in most cases to reduce the benefits of borg spotting, because the amount of short-term damage that can be done with target orders is much higher then, for example, the one done by borg motivated movement orders ...

Also, I would assume that non-borg units would be much more reluctant to area fire in fear of causing friendly casualties ... that would fit with the suggestion above.

Regards,

Thomm

[Thomm]

I can also envisage something like "information pathfinding" for command and control networks.

Packets of information are sent via the shortest possible way through an information network, which is based, primarily, on the OOB (that is, the radio network), and to a lesser extent, line-of-sight and spatial proximity. Much like traffic on a road network, the information network follows the same basic rules of "highways" and "side-streets". If radio nodes are removed, then the information has to go down alternative, much slower routes. Shouting would offer "short-cuts".

Units also have to have some kind of memory of restricted size. A unified representation of movement orders and spotting reports would be beneficial. Thus, a unit under high stress could simply "forget" orders due to information overflow.

Some random thoughts ...

Thomm

[Juardis]

My only thing, and I argued vehemently for this a couple years ago, is to combine the command style with the multi-level. That is...you the human can only give orders to those in C&c and you the human can only see what those units in C&C can see. Only those units with radios or such can be in C&C with you the human. If I the human can "see" it, then I can pass the word on to everyone else that is in C&C of me so they can then "see" it to. If any unit is out of C&C of me the human, the only thing they know of the battlefield is what they can see themselves and they cannot communicate with me the human at all.