C&C cmx2 Fireteam Control

[tar]

Well, of course not knowing the details of the C&C model, I would hope that it would be possible to assign higher level assets to particular platoons. This would avoid the current game's problem with passing commanders stealing your mortar or MG support unit....Of course this normally only hurts with the mortar, since now his spotting HQ can't control him anymore....

[Wartgamer]

The inclusion/exclusion of small weapons teams must have some impact on Spotting/Enemy-Recognition won't it?

This is, of course, dependant on how Relative Spotting is achieved in the new game.

Is there any way to do Relative Spotting without some form of Spotter based databasing? I can not see my way around this point actually.

My main concern is that the game will somehow reward someone with extra spotting abilities if they break up the squads into fireteams, seperate bazookas, etc, and this allows extra battlefield intel. The sum of the parts being greater than the whole.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

The inclusion/exclusion of small weapons teams must have some impact on Spotting/Enemy-Recognition won't it?

This is, of course, dependant on how Relative Spotting is achieved in the new game.

Is there any way to do Relative Spotting without some form of Spotter based databasing? I can not see my way around this point actually.

My main concern is that the game will somehow reward someone with extra spotting abilities if they break up the squads into fireteams, seperate bazookas, etc, and this allows extra battlefield intel. The sum of the parts being greater than the whole.

"My main concern is that the game will somehow reward someone with extra spotting abilities if they break up the squads into fireteams, seperate bazookas, etc, and this allows extra battlefield intel. "

I am not sure why this is a concern

it simply models the REALITY of the battlefield, more eyes in more different varied locations should indeed reward the player with better spotting intel...

How could it be otherwise?

Same deal with Split squads, basically they see twice as much?

(two spotting entities instead of one)

But that is still realistic is it not?

-tom w

[Wartgamer]

It depends on how they model the Relative Spotting.

Its such a fundamental game-wide consideration, that I am really surprised that it isn't the topic that the designers chose to discuss first.

[Wartgamer]

Here's an experiment that might demonstrate my points..

If the weather is nice by you, go to a park. Find a nice spot to sit down and have a view of about 6 trees about 50-100 yeards away. The trees should be seperated by distance both from each other and have a varied distance from you. They should not be 'touching' in your visual field.

What I want you to do is, starting on the left, look at each tree's crown and try to find all the birds. Start at the left, look at the tree for one second (count "one-thousand-one", etc) and look at the next tree. As you start to scan from tree to tree, you will start to pick out birds.

What you will notice is that any movement in your peripheral vision will strongly attract your attention. This is the natural human response to movement outside your focus. If you are really observant, you will notice certain colors/shapes attract your attention. Example, a yellow bird, catches your eye. If you are really observant, you will notice that details on the yellow bird are hard to pick out.

Try to locate the birds AND memorize the position. You will notice they change position. Try to memorize details like size/color/etc.

You will be rapidly overloaded with info. Luckily, the birds are not observing you and wanting to kill you (well maybe a little..). Notice, would binoculars help? Bring some. What you find is that they are very time consuming. They slow down the update rate but allow better detailing of birds. Pretend that you are shooting at a bird, try to line up your thumbs and 'shoot' one. Can you scan and fire at the same time?

You are doing a 1:1 Relative Spotting experiment. The one second scan is a update function.

[ February 25, 2005, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Wartgamer]

Here's an in game example. You are a lone tank that has just come out of a forrest road that had smoke in the very front of the exit point. You bust out into a field crammed with enemy. Trucks, infantry, vehicles, weapons, armor?

Could you 'count' them? Could you 'detail' them?

You are swamped temporarily with information at least. The psych effect is greater as you are 'outnumbered'.

In the present game, you would more than likely get a terrific amount of uber-info on the next 'update'. How will relative spotting address this?

In reality, the biggest 'bird' (enemy armor) might be the 'temp' exact position intel you might process (biggest fear=sticking out). The rest might all be 'sound' contacts that you are 'aware' of but not likely to take any action against. If you were to take action against the enemy armor (focus=no scanning), you would not 'update' against the other units (...you have all been in a fight in a bar and not noticed the bouncer getting behind you right?...), but might get better detail on the Tiger Tank pointing its gun at you.

[ February 25, 2005, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Battlefront.com]

My main concern is that the game will somehow reward someone with extra spotting abilities if they break up the squads into fireteams, seperate bazookas, etc, and this allows extra battlefield intel. The sum of the parts being greater than the whole.

This is entirely realistic and should not be messed with at all. Inherently, at least. Where it becomes unrealistic is if there is no realistic counterbalance to scattering your forces to the far winds in order to get better intel. There is the obvious military shortcomings of such a strategy, mostly in the form of lower force cohesion and lower concentration of force. We had some very interesting discussions about 1/2 squad use recently and I think it is fair to say that even CMx1 simulates these shortcomings OK (i.e. you can currently divided up your forces, but there is a price to be paid).

In CMx2, thanks to the greater emphasis on C&C, the more you fracture your force the more strain there will be on getting information passed around and actions carried out effectively (just like in real life). So on top of the kinds of things already in CMx1, the introduction of a much more detailed C&C system really takes the benefits out of a "force scattering" strategy.

Knowing what I know about the design, I'd say this is one of the areas I am most confident will work as designed, and designed as it should work.

Steve

[Wartgamer]

I am not talking about spreading out the forces. I am talking about having either a squad with a bazookas attached, or if they are not attached. Once 'unattached', they are now two units and what impact does that have on spotting?

[Battlefront.com]

It shouldn't have any if they are kept together.

Steve

[Wartgamer]

Thats good news.

A little off topic but will radios/walkie-talkies be modeled? transferable?

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I am pretty sure we will still allow people to split squads in certain circumstances for specific purposes. As with my statement above, a unit is a unit is a unit. If you split a Squad into two pieces you now have two units, and all that goes along with it.

Steve

When you split squads, will it split by fire team? So a squad with three fire teams would be split in thirds, rather than halves?

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, Squads will split by Fire Teams. If you have three teams a single split should shave off 1/3 and leave 2/3rds intact. Another split will take the 2/3rds and make two 1/3rd Teams. At least that is how I envision it working.

Steve