New Orders system for CMX2?

[SFJaykey]

I pulled this out of the "CM needs longer turns!" thread because I am kind of taking it off on a tangent, hope Hat Trick doesn't mind:

Originally posted by Hat Trick:

Another option would be to limit the number of orders a player could give each turn. A player could be limited to, say, ten orders/waypoints per headquarters unit, or a headquarters unit could give multiple/unlimited orders/waypoints but only to three units each, or some other combination of limits.

The advantage of doing this is that it would allow the length of a turn to be shortened dramatically, to say 10 or 15 seconds, without allowing an unrealistic or tedious amount of micromangement. As a player, I could give out orders for the most important/pressing actions, and be able to respond to action on the field in a more timely (and realistic?) way, without being able to coordinate the entire field of battle at too fine a level.

I think that this approach would more closely reflect reality, where commanders can focus on only a limited set of orders at a time, but do not have to wait 60 seconds between giving orders.

This is an interesting idea, which might better reflect real-world limitations on span of control. Though maybe it would have to be based on the number of HQs at game start....otherwise if a few were knocked out you might lose control of your troops. Of course that would be realistic too, be we have to keep some fun in the game, right!

Maybe the player should not be forbidden from giving orders to more troops than his HQs can cover, but any orders above that number should pay the out-of-command delay penalty (which should be longer IMO)? The number of orders an HQ could give would depend on HQ quality, right?

Here's a similar idea, which would seem to amount to a complete remodeling of the order system but might be interesting for CMX2: an "Order Points" system. Each HQ would get a certain number of order points per turn, depending on its quality, status, whether the HQ is hiding, perhaps the number of troops in the HQ (simulating runners), perhaps whether it had a radio, etc. It would then spend its points to issue orders each turn. Orders would cost more if they are issued to lower quality, hiding and or cautious/shaken units farther away from the HQ, and cost less when issued to closer, not hiding, OK/Alerted, higher quality units. As the HQ's orders points dropped, command delay would be added for each subsequent order, until the HQ was out of points and the (lengthened) "out of command" delay would apply.

And BTW when I refer to distances between HQ and units, I think terrain/LOS should figure too.

Sounds extremely complicated but would almost all take place "behind the scenes." Command delays are already visible in the interface. If a unit is within command range but not under orders, and its HQ had already expended all its order points, the command line joining them and the units' command-status indicator might turn yellow or something. (BTW, why is the line joining HQs to units under its command red, but the in-command indicator on a unit's status bar green? Why not make them both green?)

Just another crazy idea. It would seem to add realism...but is it enough of an improvement over the current system (plus Hat Trick's idea which I think I like) to warrant the coding time and extra complexity? Would such changes bring CM too close to becoming the dreaded "Command Game?"

[ June 26, 2003, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

[Hat Trick]

Don't mind at all, SFJaykey, except now I can't edit my typo.

I'm interested to hear what other think about this topic as well.

[SFJaykey]

Originally posted by Hat Trick:

Don't mind at all, SFJaykey, except now I can't edit my typo....

What typo?

[Louie the Toad]

I don't think this HQ points idea is a particularly good one for CM. You are confusing orders with actions.

In CM, Orders are the plans that occur in your head when you decide what to do. As soon as you grab the mouse, the orders become actions. When you are directing the action of a unit in CM you 'become' that unit. But during the plotting of a turn, real time must be suspended because these directions are occuring nearly simultaneously by units all over the map.

In a sense the Order has already been given when you thought about what you want everyone to do. When you use the mouse, you are directing the action of a unit. Then you must go to the next and the next. To do this, real time must be suspended. But actually this makes the game more realistic, since in the GO everything happens simultaneously.

The way CM is set up, the player is not just one over all commander giving orders that run down the chain of command. When you click on a unit, you are that unit. If the unit is a bazooka team you react to the situation that is arrayed before you on the battlefield and for those few seconds of plotting you, bazooka man, decide what you are going to try to do.

Many incredible dramas can be played out anywhere on the battlefield at the same time. Each has its own 'story'. Each can be savored by the player. This is (for me) part of the utter enjoyment of CM. It would be devastating if this feature of CM were removed or altered.

This makes the player a hybrid, playing both the over all commander and the grunt (each grunt). But I wouldn't have it any other way.

Maybe a turn timining mechanisim could be put into play vs the AI on a toggle. That could make sense for a game with a few units and one link in the chain of command. It is already there in networked games. But the ideas about HQ points makes no sense, and is a throwback to boardgaming.

Now if you want each unit to have its own mind, I think CM keeps moving in that direction. We all know that even though we direct a unit to go one way there are factors which may cause it to do something else. The mechanism we have right now to give orders to groups of units is fairly crude, and results in crude outcomes because the single computerized unit is not as smart as a person would be. It won't utilize cover terrain for example, to get from one place to another.

But BB is an improvement over BO in this regard. I expect CMx2 to be a quantum leap forward.

Remember that in CM simultaneity requires suspension of time to get things to happen simultaneously (sort of a paradox). Unless we are playing with literally only a handful of units.

Time out..... Toad

[SFJaykey]

Thanks for the reply, Louie. Tell you the truth, I had second thoughts about my "crazy idea" shortly after posting it. On the one hand it seemed like a good idea; OTOH added complexity is seldom a good thing. You really broke it down: CM is about both the art of tactics, and the men on the ground. Shouldn't let one get too far in front of the other.

[Michael Emrys]

Just to throw in my 2¢ worth, I think both Hat Trick and Jaykey are on to something here, but that doesn't mean I am unsympathetic to what Louie is trying to say. It's just that I am not convinced that the two points of view are necessarily incompatible. I have the intuitive feeling that if you will wrestle with this one a little longer, a workable compromise can be found that will enrich the whole CM experience.

Go to it, guys!

Michael

[Hat Trick]

Louie is right that this may come down to a design/philosophy decision: is the player "roleplaying" each and every unit, or is he playing the role of a higher level commander? The current system, where orders are unlimited, is pretty close to the former.

Yet it is not entirely so. The player's role as a higher level commander is simulated with the order delays, especially for multiple waypoints in CMBB, and by the out of command penalties, both of which imply that the orders being given by the player originate not from within each unit but from higher up.

My suggestion that there be some limit to the number of orders/waypoints given per turn does move the game more towards a command style game, but not dramatically so. When combined with shorter turns, it would not only encourage the player to focus on "hot spots" (because a player would want to use his limited number of orders per turn where most needed) but would also make the combat there more realistic (as the commander not does not have to wait sixty seconds between giving orders).

I think that this approach moves the game a little more towards realism, and without undue complexity. One could argue, in fact, that (depending on how it was implemented), limiting the number of orders per turn actually reduces the complexity of the game: there is less for the player to do each turn, but there are more turns.

It is this reduction in complexity, I think, that some will object to. Many players (myself often included) like to develop detailed and highly coordinated tactical moves, far beyond what a real commander could implement. Part of the joy of the game is being able to watch a beautifully conceived, intricately detailed plan unfold, for better or for worse. Limiting orders limits (to some degree) a player's control over this process, in exchange for some greater degree of realism. Implemented properly, I think that this is a worthwhile tradeoff, but ultimately it is a design decision.

[ June 27, 2003, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Hat Trick ]

[Louie the Toad]

Let's say it's a company sized game. The player is the Co commander. He decides that A platoon will take hill 111 and B platoon will take hill

222. C platoon will support B by flanking hill 222. So the order is given, lets say by radio. In CM this means that the player has decided what he wants to do with A, B and C. So, Platoon leaders A B and C have each gotten the order, lets say to launch an attack at 5 AM. All squads have had the order passed down to them as well. The player has not plotted anything at this point, not used the mouse, only decided what he wants each unit and sub unit under his command to do.

Now its 5 AM and in Real Life A, B and C would all start out simultaneously toward their objectives.

In CM Life, lets say, first A and its squads, then B and its squads then C and its squads would linearly be directed (plotted) to simultaneously take their objectives. When given the GO they would execute simultaneously just as above.

In HQ Penalty Life, this would happen: B and C are directed (plotted) to advance on hill 222. So the Player begins the plotting task. But then, Oh Oh, 'plotting time' has run out. Platoon A did not get to be directed by the player. This penalty happened because of the reality of Time and Space which exist outside of the game not because the Co Commander was inept or Platoon leader A was incompetent nor because the radio didn't work. What if the Player had decided to plot A first, then B and then 'time' ran out? Would that mean C suddenly had some kind of problem shifted from A to him?

There is game time and real time. Giving orders and Plotting happens in real time. Execution happens in game time.

Time to GO.... Toad

[Michael Emrys]

Louie, I think you are assuming that the order limit would be a bit more restrictive than it would actually have to be. My own preference is to place the limit on total waypoints rather than number of units. Thus, you could give fairly simple movement orders simultaneously to all the units in your company. When the situation began to develop, ie when contact began to be made with the enemy, you could give complex orders to some of your units and have the others wait until a later turn. This strikes me as perfectly realistic, as in this situation there often is a moment of confusion as leaders try to figure out wtf is going on and work out a coördinated response. This does not necessarily mean that the units awaiting orders are doing nothing, by the way; don't forget that the Tac AI will still be doing its thing, and if you have a good plan from the outset they may be providing covering fire.

Don't give up on this yet! It's got possibilities, but it needs to get the bugs worked out.

Michael

[SFJaykey]

Well after being one of the initial proponents of limited orders/waypoints, as I said I'm having second thoughts. Not giving up on the idea but there are certainly "issues."

The biggest of these that comes to mind is the question of what happens when HQs are knocked out or suffer casualties. The "realistic" thing would be for the player to lose their order/waypoint "credits," and thus lose considerable control over his troops. Since things are usually pretty hairy when HQs are getting killed, with many units pinned, broken, etc, the game might become completely unmanageable. Realistic, sure, but how much fun to play? [OTOH, if units are pinned or broken they can't receive orders anyway...maybe it would balance out?] Basing the number of orders allowed on the initial number of HQs solves this completely, but much of the added "realism" goes out the window.

Another issue with limited orders is that it would interfere with the implementation of plans early in the game. On maps with decent cover the first turns in my games are usually marked by long movement orders with multiple waypoints, to bring the troops forward using cover. This rule would seem to hamper that, and unrealistically so: IRL all (good) commanders will have some kind of plan they've communicated to their troops before engagement.

I suppose a fix for this would be to allow unlimited movement orders during the setup phase. Smarter route-finding by the TacAI would also make the scheme more playable: if units could be trusted to make proper use of cover and roads on their advance, it wouldn't be necessary to plot so many waypoints.

For either my scheme or Hat Trick's to be playable, I think orders cannot be strictly limited. Rather, there might be a penalty for giving many complex orders/waypoints. Either the growing delays I suggested originally, or perhaps orders given after the limit is exceeded should not receive their HQs' bonuses, and pay the "out of command" delay penalty?

A key difference between my "orders points" scheme and Hat Trick's original idea (if I understand it correctly) is that one limits the orders each HQ can give to units under its control, while the other limits the total number of orders a player can give. One is more realistic (IMO), the other more flexible. Which is preferable?

Should Fire orders be restricted along with movement orders?

I'm starting to think any limited-orders feature should be optional. I'd like to try playing with it, and it sounds like others are also interested, but many won't want to lose more control over their guys. Perhaps a limited-orders option could be part of a global "realism" scale that I'd like to see in CMX2: a single setting that would control many parameters and settings including troop quality, available view levels, force mix options, FOW, etc, enabling things like official "Tournament" parameters and Franko's Rules to be coded into the game.

[ June 28, 2003, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

[SFJaykey]

I'm just thinking: Redwolf has advocated introducing SOPs, and that would work nicely with a limited-orders scheme.

I don't know if there's been a specific proposal, but perhaps it could be as simple as indicating a "posture" for your units that would bias the TacAI. Some choices under "Postures" might be Defensive (hold ground), Stealthy (make maximum use of cover, fire only when fired on or at short ranges), Aggressive (engage enemy when sighted, advance toward objective while balancing use of cover with speed of advance),and Skirmishing (engage enemy but withdraw in the face of superior firepower, w/o morale loss).

Postures could be pre-set by the scenario designer (or via the QB paramter screen), and would be "sticky" until the player wanted to change them. Perhaps Panicked units would automatically switch to "stealthy" and would need to be re-postured upon rally. Under a limited orders scheme, changing a unit's posture might count as setting a waypoint.

With player-controlled postures or SOPs, a limited orders scheme becomes more viable IMO, because the player would maintain indirect control over his troops even if unable to issue fresh orders. Another big benefit of postures would be the ability for scenario designers to guide the AI and make it a better opponent in single player games.

[Louie the Toad]

I agree that when there are legitimate play options they should be toggled.

What if we could toggle from Battalion HQ play to Platoon level play - Franko's Rules.

Battalion HQ play would look something like this:

The player can refer only to a map. He doesnt get to see much or any of the battlefield. His units are placed on the map. When the player 'looks around the battlefield' he can only see from his current position.

The player gets info (accurate or not) from runners and the radio, which he uses to update the map. Occasionally he will contact a Company commander personally by radio. From his HQ position he can deploy assets under his command and he can ask for support from higher up. If the fighting is close he might be able to see it from the HQ position, but if that happens he would most likely move the HQ. He can also hear the sounds of battle.

If he wants to go to see things for himself, then

he can go to the front. At that point he looses contact in some manner with some of the Company Commanders.

Platoon HQ play would look like this:

The player usually does not have a map. He can only know what he can see and what his squads tell him and info from his radio man. He cannot see the overall situation, only the local situation. He pretty much has a single task to do and has to command his units by sight.... well, you know the rest.

But we must realize that the way CM is set up, the player fills a hybrid of roles AND ALSO has an eye in the sky.

No one (except Rommel in CMAK) can fly around the battlefield at high levels. -- tongue in cheek --

So, what then are the proposed HQ limitations really trying to do? and Why?

I would like to refocus on the Why. Please describe your rationale.

On the ground -- Toad

[SFJaykey]

Originally posted by Louie the Toad:

.....But we must realize that the way CM is set up, the player fills a hybrid of roles AND ALSO has an eye in the sky.....So, what then are the proposed HQ limitations really trying to do? and Why?

I would like to refocus on the Why. Please describe your rationale.

My main goal was to increase the realism of the simulation. Speeding up the orders phase by penalizing (and thus discouraging) micromanagement would be a side benefit. Hat Trick will speak for himself; from reading his post I think he had similar ideas but with priorities reversed.

I know BFC's vision of CM is that it is not intended to be a command game, and I don't want it to become one, myself. But when you have command delays, penalties for out-of-command status, making stressed units ignore orders, etc, you are already a little ways down the road to being a command game. The question is how far do you want to go. I think some limitation on number of orders per turn might increase overall realism without distancing the player excessively from the "men on the ground."

BTW just because I don't want CM to become a true command game doesn't mean it wouldn't be fun to play such a game now and then. Your battalion level game sounds fun! It would enable simulation of much larger actions than CM. And I like the idea of having the option to go down to the front lines to see what's happening, while paying a penalty in terms of overall control. But such a game wouldn't replace CM. It would be fun either as an option built in, or as a completely different game.

On a tangent, I agree about the unreality of the bird's-eye views of perfect maps that we enjoy currently, and don't think it's really appropriate at either the battalion or platoon level. I hope we see some "Fog of Terrain" in CMX2, maybe even CMAK? Coding something like Franko's rules into the game (as an option) would achieve that to a degree. Another option would be for the 3-d vieiwng levels to display only those parts of the map that are in LOS of friendly units. The full map might only be visible in 2-d at view level 9, with those parts of the map out of current LOS displayed at lower resolution, perhaps even with errors.

[ June 28, 2003, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

[Louie the Toad]

As a player, What do we really want? Tell me if you disagree.

We want to be involved in the entire battle.

We want each unit to make intelligent decisions.

We accomplish this by suspending time and space:

The player must use unrealistic view levels.

The player must use "time out" to direct each unit.

What would help?

The game AI was smarter at the individual unit level.

Is this a possibility?

I don't know. Maybe CMx2 will offer a solution.

Wouldn't it be great if you could order Lt. Adams to cover the far approaches to the bridge with his ATG battery. Then, depending on his abilities, the guns would unlimber over a certain period of time and the crews would set themselves in more or less concealed positions, with various qualities of lines of fire to the bridge? All dependent upon Lt. Adams' abilities as a commander and the gun crews abilities as well! Then, immediately after you gave Lt. Adams his orders, you gave Lt. Baker orders to prepare his tanks to move across the bridge. You then ordered Lt. Charlie to support Baker's tanks as they advanced.

And they all did it. Simultaneously!

Then the game system could go to Continuous Time, because the player would not have to take 'time out' to think and act for each unit.

This is what I want.

I think the solution becomes ways in which we can eradicate the limitations of the game.

Wishful Toad

[Louie the Toad]

My last post was written without viewing your last post.

Your idea of limiting the view of the field of battle to LOS from units has a great deal of merit. That way, camera levels 3 and 4 which are often necessary to have the type of CC that we want can still be used without providing information that the player actually has. This is part of Fog of War. Games could be set up where one side (defender? most likely) would know, have maps of, the area while the other side would have spotty information at best, until it was viewed by a unit.

I am a Big proponent of "What you see, is what you get" ... Toad