Help with an amazing! new C&C idea for CMX2

[hoolaman]

Hello all,

I am sure many of you have been following the "what do we want in the new CM" thread, and I have posted the same idea there, but I wanted to get some feedback in a dedicated thread.

I was thinking there must be a way to simulate the C&C limitations and situational awareness (or lack of) of each level of command while still maintaining the ability to micromanage the smallest elements under your command.

My idea is for each HQ to have its own level of command waypoints. To illustrate with an example, imagine this situation in CM; a company advances on a farmhouse, the company HQ gives orders to one platoon to move forward. It wants PL1 to go sneak around the farmhouse and setup in the woods on the other side. PL2 and PL3 and support weapons stay behind with the HQ.

The player plots the rough path that PL1 should take, using company HQ orders. These HQ orders plot a wide corridor of advance for the platoon, say 100-200m. Next the player plots the waypoints for each squad, exactly like what happens now, except these squad waypoints must be plotted within the HQ's assigned corridor of advance.

The platoon moves out, but the Lt. can get to those woods any way he sees fit, the player can micromanage, as long as he stays on the path given to him by the company CO. This way, even when the platoon goes out of company C&C, they are still limited to the orders given to them, but are capable of autonomous action, which I think would be something like "Real Life".

This exact concept can be extended to batallion level as well, only with companies as the subordinate units, and maybe a 400-500m wide corridor.

Now imagine the situation changes, and company CO wants PL1 to return. To do so, the player must replot the company waypoints, which would require a large level of command delay appropriate to the situation, as runners go out to get the squad back, or maybe both HQs are in radio contact, and a nearly intant reverse could happen.

This concept could improve the borg spotting issue as well. Say Platoons 1,2 and 3 have been given orders by company CO, and move out. PL1 spots some enemy activity. This spotted enemy would be instantly revealed to the player like happens now, but to respond to the situation by sending platoons 2&3 into the fray, the CO would have to change their orders, which would take time.

Originally posted by Philippe:

One concept that I always found intriguing from some of the old Napoleonic boardgames was that of limiting the number of orders you could give. In an earlier period the order limit would have a lot to do with how many ADC's were milling about with fresh horses.

One way of applying this to CM might be to allow an unlimited number of orders to a single unit, and with no penalty for waypoints, but a limit per hq or per hq in command (however that would get redefined). The idea would be to make it difficult to intervene on the ground once the shooting starts.

This is a good concept, and if you combine the different command levels with this concept of limiting the orders a HQ could give, or the areas of the map you could give them, may improve the concept. At setup, the HQ gives orders to all units. This is "THE PLAN". No further orders could be given by the HQ until the situation changes in some way. After all, why would he deviate from his plan unless something happens to change it.

In the example above, PL1 spots enemy units while out of command. The units are reported to the player instantly on the map, and the platoon can deal with the threat as it sees fit with no command delay. To simulate the delay before the CO hears about the enemy contact, the player may be unable to give any further HQ orders until it is simulated that he gets a report. So 20 seconds may elapse before the company CO can even begin to respond to the situation.

So he cannot give orders to his support elements to move forward or platoons 2&3 to change course until he gets a report about enemy activity. This could be apllied using some points system where a detailed report allows more orders or something.

This concept would make higher level HQ much more important. To do this, there must also be 2ICs which take command if HQs are killed. Of course the delays would be much higher for both reporting enemy activity and giving orders if a 2IC was in command, but the system would not break down entirely.

Most of the game would be played exactly as it is now at the squad level, but recon, probing attacks and a good adaptable battle plan would also become vital under this system.

Anyway, that is my idea. I am not sure how it would apply to vehicles, although the concept is the same. I hope everyone here will have comments and criticism. If I have explained anything badly as I often do, please let me know.

These posts by Dennis Grant and Phillipe gave me the ideas, so thanks guys, and I hope you see where I am coming from.

Originally posted by Dennis Grant:

Something that has to be kept in mind with some of these suggestions is that the CM games are "God Games" in so far that your job is the control of all the units on your side.

You aren't playing the role of a Field Marshal or some other very high ranking officer - such a role would involve only selecting objectives and letting the local commanders figure out how to accomplish them. Even the role of a batallion commander still winds up delegating a good deal of the battle plan to subordinate commanders.

For example, as the troop leader for Regimental Recce, I'd get boundries, phase lines, an idea of what the objective was likely to be, and a description of the commander's concept for the operation, plus the usual command/control/service/support information. How I arranged for my troop to carry out the recce mission was completely up to me.

In a game context, this would require handing over a lot of control to the AI. The higher your "rank" in the game, the more control over the action the AI gets.

This might be interesting from a historical modelling standpoint, but I doubt it would be much fun.......

Originally posted by Dennis Grant:

[QB]

I didn't need to specify the driver's exact path, because she knew what she was doing, knew where we expected the enemy to be, and could be trusted to find a path that would keep us concealed and (as much as possible) keep the thick armour towards the bad guys. My full awareness wouldn't really come back to the movement of the callsign until it was time to adopt the turret-down - because it was my eyeballs that needed to project above terrain, so the driver physically couldn't tell where to stop.

CMxx isn't like that. When you, as a player, click on a unit and start issuing movement orders, for that period of time you're actually the DRIVER more so than the commander. You "become" that unit, and as such, the level of control you get is entirely appropriate.

With that in mind, I don't think ANY movement delay is appropriate. It doesn't accurately represent command and control issues, because when an order is issued to a unit, the play "is" that unit at the time.

DG

[ October 17, 2004, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

[hoolaman]

Any comments, either positive or harshly negative would be welcome!

[Sergei]

You stupid wanker.

Harshly negative enough?

No, the idea is not bad and I have thought about it before. SPWAW (and SP3) has similar system and I think it works nicely in it, adding to the fun.

I don't know if that is in Steve and Charles' interests, though. They have stated before their opposition to making CM a "command game". A design choice. But who knows what they are now planning.

[Captain Pies]

I think this would be way too much waypoint plotting to do. Its the one bit of CM I find tedious and although its a necessity I would prefer to keep it to a minimum.

[HawkerT]

Hoolman

I cannot offer a lot of constructive feedback but would very much like to extend my appreciation for your thoughts on how to improve CM C&C. The efforts from anybody on this board who tries seriously to help improve on C&C, Borg Spotting and Cover (running the wrong way) issues are very much appreciated.

I beleive your ideas have some real merrit and I for one do not think it would add greatly to the amount of waypoints having to be laid by the player. May I suggest that you also add your concept visualization to your top post in this thread (the picture with the purple 'Coy order/plan corridors' shown in the CMX2 whishlist thread). This will show how few extra waypoints are actually in play in your (Philippe's and Dennis's) concept.

Now what could also be really nice to have implemented is Coy level SOP's to facilitate the plan, i.e. the player could actually just lay out the plan corridors for each coy and then choose between a small or big number of simplified or complicated SOP's for the advance to target. I am loosely thinking of something like "straight up the center leap frogging" or "right hook - hold'em by the nose and hit'em in the side" etc. The Coy would then try it's best (maybe also affected by experience and leaders) to follow the plan corridor and chosen SOP to reach and secure the objective. Now the player can of course step in and adjust the plan or micromanage each squad using e.g. squad level SOP's, but allways bounded by your C&C concept to facilitate realistic delays.

Now, I am fully aware that the volume and maybe also the complexity of coding needed to implement this is non trivial. However BFC has proven capable of the 'impossible' before :cool:

I will never forget the statement by BFC about CMX2 - "don't think evolutional ... think revolutional" (the exact phrasing eludes me but the meaning was just that and the two pivotal words were used). Those words have eaten themselves into my spine and hold, in my view, the biggest promise of what CMX2 can be. May BFC have the good fortune and skill to fullfill their own vildest hopes and dreams!

Sorry Hoolaman, that was a long way for me to say ... keep up the good work and try hard to operationalize your concept so that is moves from feeble thoughts to realistic feature that can be visualized and measured/evaluated by thoose that can eventually implement it.

All the best

[Askovdk]

The player plots the rough path that PL1 should take, using company HQ orders. These HQ orders plot a wide corridor of advance for the platoon, say 100-200m. Next the player plots the waypoints for each squad, exactly like what happens now, except these squad waypoints must be plotted within the HQ's assigned corridor of advance.

The platoon moves out, but the Lt. can get to those woods any way he sees fit, the player can micromanage, as long as he stays on the path given to him by the company CO.

I like your idea. Especially if it means, that you don't have to micromanage the squards.

I have had the same kind of thoughts about letting the player gain acces to the 'OpsAI'.

(From the manual)

The OpsAI, on the other hand, makes sure that the

orders developed by the StratAI are executed properly. It

adjusts waypoints and reacts to enemy threats, reports

to the StratAI if an order is impossible to execute due to

(for example) strong enemy resistance and so on. The

interaction of these two levels of AI, mixed with a heavy

dose of fuzzy logic decision making, ensures variety of

play and even to some extent a human component

even in single-player mode.

In the first turns of a battle I often end giving many units 'move to contact' to somewhere deep into enemy lines, because it's such a slow start to give all units clever orders the first turn. Using your HQ-command I could order a company to 'move to this general area, the way you find best', and let the OpsAI calculate (and perhaps show me (and perhaps letting me modify)) the paths it suggest.

What I'm saying is, that as I read the manual, then the HQ-command is what the computer uses, so it might be very easy to add (perhaps as an option).

However, the AI is not perfect, and I would hate to have my men slaughtered because it stacks them in the same square of wood, so with the current AI most humans would become frustrated.

Another way of using HQ-command and a good AI would be to let the player just have command of one company. I.e. the StratAI give you some general orders and timelines, and you should then have to carry out the orders as well as possible. This would properly be a great way to learn the game and use of combined arms, but requires an almost perfect AI.

The current CMs are great games, but as a human vs. computer player I would like to have the option to play the battles in different ways, - at least if these options don't interfere with the well developed core.

[Captain Pies]

Aside from my hatred of waypoint plotting the ideas above seem to be coming from players who prefer the "Gods Eye" view of the battlefield. Playing at the battalion command level is not what I play CM for. I think of myself of the Platoon or Squad commander for the unit I happen to be plotting. Imposing limits on the flexibility of those units would seriously hamper my enjoyment of the game. Although these ideas would provide an enhanced C&C model over what we have now I'm just not sure they would be valid in the WWII environment. I'm not widely read but what I have read leads me to believe platoon comanders were literally told "capture that hill or town" by the company commanders and came up with the details themselves. They wouldn't have really been restricted to executing a plan the company CO came up with other than coordinating with neighbouring platoons and the support weapons. I just feel the ideas above would apply a level of C&C that didn't really exist at that time.

[Dennis Grant]

I agree with Capt Pies here.

Anything that stops me from clicking on an individual unit and making it do something - no matter how smart or stupid - is counter to the purpose of the game as far as I am concerned.

I think there are improvements that could be made to reduce the amount of micro-management required (things like formations, group waypoints, and so on) but these don't change the underlying nature of the game; they just change the amount and pattern of mouseclicks to get the same thing to happen.

It might be interesting, for example, to have an "overlay view" that turned on/off markings from the trace (unit bounderies, phase lines, objectives, MIPS and GIPS, etc) but I'd hate to see those overlay objects actually affect gameplay ie a squad from 1 Platoon refuse to cross the 2 Platoon boundary.

DG

[Mr. Tittles]

For company sized engagements, the present system is a good combo of realism and fun (but more fun than real).

I was thinking of the following for Tank/Infantry combined arms engagements:

For large scenarios with both large amounts of infantry and armor (on one side), the player elects to be either the Tank commander or the Infantry commander. If he/she is a tank commander, then playing the tank/afv units is the same as it is now but the playing of the infantry elements is at a platoon orders level.

Platoon orders (for the infantry 'non-command')would be slightly macro managing in that tedious commands would not be given to each element of the platoon. The TACAI would handle how the platoon would use its resources (READ: Improve TACAI first!). Information such as delays and individual strength of each friendly infantry element is not known to the armor commander (who is actually the overall force commander of course). He is slightly fogged out of what is actually going on on the infantry side. Artillery elements near the TC could be directy commanded but those near infantry elements would be TACAI.

[ October 18, 2004, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by Captain Pies:

... platoon comanders were literally told "capture that hill or town" by the company commanders and came up with the details themselves. They wouldn't have really been restricted to executing a plan the company CO came up with other than coordinating with neighbouring platoons and the support weapons

More or less, but with a couple of important caveats:

1) Time Limits: no-move-before-____ and objective-secure-by-____.

2) Geographic limits: No further left/right than ____, and do not exploit past _____.

3) Co-ordination (which you kind of touched on): Arty/mortars/tanks/etc available from ____hrs to ____ hrs.

[hoolaman]

Thanks for your replies everyone.

I am certainly not an expert on ww2 era c&c, and I hope people can provide ideas to improve this concept. As I said at the start, I don't really know if my idea would be so amazing! if it was put into the game as I describe it, but I think it is an exciting idea (if I say so myself)

Originally posted by Dennis Grant:

........... but I'd hate to see those overlay objects actually affect gameplay ie a squad from 1 Platoon refuse to cross the 2 Platoon boundary.

DG

This is a problem I thought of too. Making an arbitrary black and white boundary that cannot be crossed may not be ideal, but if the boundaries between units were done correctly, ie, wide enough or variable enough that it would not effect things too much, it would be ok.

The very concept is intended to prevent the player from being severely limited in control of the men on the ground. I am proposing no command delay at the squad level. If squads decide to move here or there, the sarge on the spot decides to do it, even if they are out of command of an officer. However if the squad decides to walk over to the other flank to kill a sniper it should know nothing about, it should be prevented from doing so.

For those in the know; what would be typical of orders from a company commander? Were they mostly administrative, simply assigning objectives and letting platoons work it out? Even if the plan was worked out by the platoon officers themselves, they would still be locked into zones and plans that they have decided for themselves, unless they can get a message out that they are changing course.

Originally posted by JonS:

More or less, but with a couple of important caveats:

1) Time Limits: no-move-before-____ and objective-secure-by-____.

2) Geographic limits: No further left/right than ____, and do not exploit past _____.

3) Co-ordination (which you kind of touched on): Arty/mortars/tanks/etc available from ____hrs to ____ hrs.

All these factors would hopefully be addressed by this system.

1) Well in CM the player knows when his forces must arrive, so this is probably not applicable.

2) This is exactly what I am getting at. The company CO assigns boundaries where his platoons are expected to advance. Starting at the setup point, you could assign a suitable corridor of advance, between this landmark and that, and not beyond that road. Within this area, a plan of attack would be decided, whether by the platoon officers, or the company, it doesn't matter, that group 1 goes this way, group 2 goes that way etc. If the plan suddenly needs to change, that can be done easily, but only if communication can be made with all the elements to let them know what to do.

3) Still a little half baked in my plan, but similar concepts for moving up support weapons after contact is made would be applied.

Here is another little picture to illustrate a bit of what I mean:

[Tarkus]

Good idea Hoolaman.

I think the idea is definitely worth exploring. It would slightly shift the gameplay toward planning, which is not a bad thing at all. But then I would hope for some real nice planning tool (overlay drawing tool, printer friendly maps, etc) so you actually know where you are going...

Also, this may be an optional parameter. Just next to the FOW factor (that we will now set to "Hopelessly Realistic" ), a command factor going from "No boundaries" to "Battalion down" and "company down" or something may be all right.

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

[...] Making an arbitrary black and white boundary that cannot be crossed may not be ideal, but if the boundaries between units were done correctly, ie, wide enough or variable enough that it would not effect things too much, it would be ok. [...]

The option could simply be to make it possible, but not practical. Soon enough, people would realize that planning is actually a big part in winning a battle, and to correctly adress a change of plan could easily become an art in itself.

In addition, your idea does allows for change of plan in a realistic way. A breakthrough would be a nasty thing to manage without proper communication... A point to consider is that a game pace might slow down quite a bit when changes are needed (plain gameplay issue here).

Also, to reflect the variable degree of initiative shown by Junior officers and NCOs, a leader bonus like "initiative" could induces some boundaries flexibility and variations. Some leaders would react/adapt better to change.

Cheers

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

Also, to reflect the variable degree of initiative shown by Junior officers and NCOs, a leader bonus like "initiative" could induces some boundaries flexibility and variations. Some leaders would react/adapt better to change.

Cheers

that is a HUGE issue

now lets start by agreeing to the fact that we don't know which time frame or theatre of operations they plan to simulate in the game....

Lets talk about the Eastern Front in Russia for a Moment consider what they did in CMBB to deal with this issue:

"Also, to reflect the variable degree of initiative shown by Junior officers and NCOs, a leader bonus like "initiative" could induces some boundaries flexibility and variations. Some leaders would react/adapt better to change."

in that case they did in fact deal with the issue as well as possible (given the current limitations of the CMXX game engine)...

this is a HUGE issue in a game seeking to be a truly historical simulation of a specific time and place...

this issue alone

"the variable degree of initiative shown by Junior officers and NCOs"

as well as the organizations differences both philosophically (German Army vs Russian Army) and technologically make this issue VERY very difficult to code into a game that is fun to play while still rendering is "somewhat" historically accurate and realistic.

Lets wait and see how they do it in CMX2

BUT lets not forget they are designing the NEW game engine from the GROUND up with things like this in mind given ALL the things they have learned from trying to patch and re-release CMBO for the Russian Front (where this sort of issue WAS clearly a priority if you want to have a historical representation of squad level combat on the Eastern Front!)

I am SURE they are losing sleep RIGHT NOW trying to figure out how to code this into CMX2 so that it is BOTH fun to play AND a GREAT combat simulator that is ALSO historically accurate, with this in mind....

"the variable degree of initiative shown by Junior officers and NCOs"

Good point!

-tom w

[ October 19, 2004, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[hoolaman]

Having a bonus for the initiative or experience of nco's would be great.

If the boundary lines were sort of fluid, a contact with the enemy might make a difference to the boundary.

Say an experienced German NCO, on contact, has a radius balloon out from his relatively thin ordered path. A green Russian NCO might have no extension of the radius, or even a shrinking of the radius, when under fire or supressed.

Some guys would know better that the plan can be "bent" as circumstances dictate. Some guys, when under fire, would cling even tighter to the plan even as it was pulled from under them.

I don't know how easy it would be to accurately simulate this stuff. Simulating numbers of radios and communictaion methods may be all you need, with a certain level of abstraction.

I think we should remember that CMX2 will not just be ASL on steroids 1999 CMBO style. Whatever era BFC chooses (and I think it will still be ww2) they will no doubt seek to put in all they have learned and personally wished for in the past 5 years, but have been limited by their CMBO foundations. I don't want a "command game", but to simulate these issues in some small way is vital.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

[...]"the variable degree of initiative shown by Junior officers and NCOs"

...as well as the organizations differences both philosophically (German Army vs Russian Army) and technologically make this issue VERY very difficult to code into a game that is fun to play while still rendering is "somewhat" historically accurate and realistic.[...]

You are right to point out that "initiative" in the field is something that might depend heavily on nationalistic differences (training, society charateristics, traditions, etc.), on which I definitely agree. Moreover, these are very hard to model, as you state, and do affect gameplay.

That being said, I was more referring to a bonus that would reflect a leader inner capacity, not depending on nationality. I would not consider it unrealistic to simply put a generic bonus as the four that are in the game right now. Not because I dont see nationalistic differences, but because they would be so hard to define and justify.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Speaking generally, I think that "planning," not better command-control or worse realism, is a good way to look at this idea. We all know that plans get rejiggered on contact with the enemy. This doesn't mean, though, that plans aren't important. Rather, both the plan and the rejiggering are important.

It's both educational and fun to be able to mutter to yourself, as you do your 1st turn orders, realistically clear but fuzzy orders such as the following (for this moment, I admit, I like to pretend I'm the company commander): "ok, platoon A, go right, through those woods, hold the church; platoon B, advance to contact in that jumble of houses we assume are occupied by the enemy; platoon C, hold back" compared with the other alternatives, which are, at the extreme:

(1) "Who knows where the hell the enemy is. Everybody forward! We'll react when we get shot at." (grab entire force, hit M)

(2) "Smith, take 4 men and go from these woods to that house to that patch of brush to that ravine . . . ." (repeat 18 times, once for each team)

These last 2 approaches suck. Am I right? You need a balance, or you get a mess. Option 1 results from boredom and helplessness, and engenders further frustration, because you have no idea what you are doing or how you screwed up; you never had a plan to do a postmortem on. Option 2 is a tedious, unrealistic waste of time, because on turn 3 you either delete everybody's orders because they turn out to go in the wrong direction and can't be adjusted, or your teams are pinned and have lost all your orders. You didn't have a plan, you had a fantasy.

Every battle (especially QBs) involves this shift from concept to reality, from top-down to bottom-up, from general to specific. Seems to me that both aspects should be made easy to carry out because neither is "bad." I have often wished I could just grab a platoon leader and say "Go there," knowing full well that "there" would change, and I can't imagine regretting this power later. It all depends on whether the balance is done right.

[Tarkus]

This is food for thoughts. An interesting insight on the joy and pain of commanding at CM. And certainly many points to ponder...

Originally posted by Dave Stockhoff:

"ok, platoon A, go right, through those woods, hold the church; platoon B, advance to contact in that jumble of houses we assume are occupied by the enemy; platoon C, hold back"

I agree. The fact is that the command structure need not necessarily to be completely reinvented, as long as the player can express and cary his ideas (objectives --> means --> contingencies --> actions) through the field with a good measure of clarity. This is something that is not as easy as it sounds at CM, and one just have to read a few good AARs to get the point. Plus you further demonstrate it:

[...](1) (grab entire force, hit M)

[...](2)"Smith, take 4 men and go from these woods to that house to that patch of brush to that ravine . . . ." (repeat 18 times, once for each team) [...]

I may be wrong, but case (1) is newbieness on steroids and will either lead to a) sell that odd game ASAP to get back to real tactics and orbital ion cannons or get down to learning the game proper.

Case (2) is more difficult to deal with. Your example is somewhat extreme, but I must admit I often micromanage (not in the way you mention, but still, I really feel a good battle means thoroughly thinking my moves.) Then even though I admitt this is not the real deal, as I get an hour to think a minute, I wonder how different this could be to reconcile fun factor and realism without getting into RTS. In RL, a leader must clearly express his intention, his expectations, and his plan, then it's a matter of watch, hope and manage while other people act. Not so in CM. The orders are somewhat inverted, since there are no junior officers to grab your orders and carry them on. You, as a commander, carry your own plan in all its details.

Every battle (especially QBs) involves this shift from concept to reality, from top-down to bottom-up, from general to specific. Seems to me that both aspects should be made easy to carry out because neither is "bad."[...] It all depends on whether the balance is done right.

You put it a lot better than I could. This is the exact point I wanted to make in the first place, with the focus on the first part. When I request good planning tools, it is not for the beauty of cool looking maps and such, but precisely to help me with the definition of the battle concept, to facilitate its translation onto reality in the beginning of the game, and ensure some constistency during action. Sure, I use pen and paper all right, but this does not replace a staff.

Best

[ October 20, 2004, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

In RL, a leader must clearly express his intention, his expectations, and his plan, then it's a matter of watch, hope and manage while other people act. Not so in CM. The orders are somewhat inverted, since there are no junior officers to grab your orders and carry them on. You, as a commander, carry your own plan in all its details.

that line and thought ALL By its self almost deserves as WHOLE NEW thread!

"Not so in CM. The orders are somewhat inverted, since there are no junior officers to grab your orders and carry them on. You, as a commander, carry your own plan in all its details. "

I think that is BRILLIANT insight into what happens in CMxx and we could chat about how it could be changed or improved OR even if it should or could be changed or improved

this is not so much a Borg Spotting issue (although that contributes a little) BUT a huge philosophical discussion as to how to make the game BOTH fun to play and perhaps more realistic,,,

"You, as a commander, carry your own plan AND all its details"down to every unit and every squad so the player is really playing ALL the roles and all the positions on the battle field.

interesting

comments?

-tom w

[Tarkus]

Philippe started a thread quite along these lines the other day. Some interesting points went out, and it forms the basis of this idea on command and control in CM.

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

"You, as a commander, carry your own plan in all its details."

[...] we could chat about how it could be changed or improved OR even if it should or could be changed or improved [...] how to make the game BOTH fun to play and perhaps more realistic...[/QB]

As you rightly stated in a previous post and as Moon repeatedly reminded us, we have to think first of the fact that BFC is working from the ground up (well, from the stars down ) and that many things we think are sounds principles will be changed somehow. So for the sake of the present discussion, I suggest two points that should be assumed on the basis of the business culture we are used to with BFC:

1.- BFC strive for historicaly realistic yet enjoyable wargames;

2.- CMxx has demonstrated beyond any possible doubt that the formula, the scope and the "we go" principle is fundamentaly sound and although I have no numbers to support that, I think (and certainly wish, they deserve it) the company is earning a good living out of it.

It follows that although there are things that WILL change, I deem it safe to assume none of the above two points will, so we can probably discuss along these lines with a certain feeling of not goint completely astray. (And even if we do, so what ? )

Now, to get back to you inquirery about how to improve the game C & C wise, Well, IMO, and this is why I posted the above comment in the first place, I think Hoolaman idea deserve at least a case study on that count. I.e. technical requirements/potential/developpements issues vs. gameplay/realism benefits. Some people, including RL soldiers, seem to think there is something there. Other who definitely know their stuff on both Wargaming and computers, also seems to think there might be something to do there. I personnaly endorse the idea because I think the arborescence it suggests in the command structure is realistic and somehow depict a reality that I acknowledge as reasonably true from my [limited] military experience and my [limited-but-quite-more-sizable ] knowledge of the military experience -ground level- in Europe during WWII. I also think that this idea could be made to be understood and enjoyed by a majority, would not necessarily affects the whole gameplay experience, and would be a logic response to part of the issues we are discussing at lenght these days, including borg spotting. Yet the "command zones" idea (it is about time we dub it somehow) does not fundamentally change the command process, nor does it change the basic principle of managing your plan in all its details. On that specific issue, I haven't read any convicing demonstration about a way to implement a tactical thinking on which I would safely rely to actually carry on an order. This is why I am personnaly for the inclusion of Standard Operations Procedures (SOPs). Simple, easy to use and to understand, optional, flexible. Boom. I am sold.

Of course, appart from a select few who can actually support an idea with technical knowledge, all we say here is bound to the realm of far-fetched suggestions. Which is also why I am so fond of talking about that !

Here's a start. Hope people grab the ball.

Best

[Tarkus]

Still some more.

Hoolaman idea also add a weight to the value of company and battalion HQs that simply isn't there in the current engine. Sure, they are useful and all, but apart from a few "purchase a company and get an extra HQ", or "useful to rally your troops", these HQs do not serve their RL purpose.

HQs action/effect/influence may not be limited to movement planning. Fire plan, alternate fall back positions and track discipline, patrols and security tasks could also be implemented. Example of the later would be a scenario depicting a raid, a coup de main, a spoiling attack, whatever small size operation. The defending commander could set up patrols and special defense features using this planning/command interface.

Pushing the idea a little further, while not knowing what will happens of operations, this command zone idea could be imbeded in inter battle timeouts where recons, listening posts and so on could operates, allowing the player to actually conduct realistic and worthy recons.

Whoah. :eek:

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

I may be wrong, but case (1) is newbieness on steroids and will either lead to a) sell that odd game ASAP to get back to real tactics and orbital ion cannons or get down to learning the game proper.

exactly! We all started out this way, probably. Sometimes I still do it when I want to check out a scenario but realize it's too big and I just don't have the time to go through that first order phase. The "entry" into the game just doesn't need to be that steep. And think of the number of potential players turned off on turn 1 of the demo . . .

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Dave Stockhoff:

exactly! We all started out this way, probably. Sometimes I still do it when I want to check out a scenario but realize it's too big and I just don't have the time to go through that first order phase.

Agreed. I did that too and I was in for a severe case of humble and quiet lurking on these forums and reading AAR. Thank god for that. I vastly improved my knowledge on various ways of setting a bren gun above the ground and firing, not to mention that Vanilla Sherman firing from flanks at Panthers @ 800 yards still mostly suck.

The "entry" into the game just doesn't need to be that steep. And think of the number of potential players turned off on turn 1 of the demo . . .

Good point, but open to question. When you say it is steep, do you refer to playing the game or winning battles ? Because in my case, I got the game basics -well, most of 'em, that is- handled in no time (and I would suppose anyone with computer wargaming experience also did), but not looking plain ridiculous on the battlefield was quite another matter.

Assuming you refer to the later, and here I open the question to anyone interested in the debate, the fact that the game is hard to master certainly is a big incentive for me. This is why I will buy anything from BFC that I am even remotely interested in and I have time to devote to, with the exception of books that I'll buy anyway. I want to support these guys for making the choice of depth instead of shallow eye-candy, even if I sometimes encourage BFC to dig this way as well. (Dynamic trackworks would be soooo cool ! )

-I am not saying that this what you imply, but you see my point.

On the other hand, as you suggest the fact is that playing and winning at CM isn't exaclty easy (vs a human player anyway, but even vs AI for new players, the common error being thinking you got it all figured out after your first total victory agains AI ) and it may refrain people to play the game. This is certainly a top priority question to those who design it and wish to live from it. Now that I am actively talking to people around me of this game, what you mention quickly become evident:

Out of say, 6 friends I talked to:

- 3 are hopless case of dependance beyond repair, forcing me to regularly suggest them to offer flowers to their girlfriends for diplomacy purpose; They where ready for it, they needed it, they bought it. Plain and simple.

- 3 said "this looks awfully realistic ! I'll get nailed in no time by a grog like you. But it seems quite realistic." After refraining from explaining what a real grog is, I have them try the game, and it ends there. Just not for them. I respect that, it's all well and good, but at the end of the day, I am the one with MikeD latest StuG and Fernando Panthers :cool: and that's all there is to it.

All this to say that you are right, people will try the game, and people will say it sucks because it is so hard to achieve anything, especially with the extreme FoW. Geez, even old timers question the fun factor with FoW set that high! Since I am not the one living with the choice of making it a difficult game to master, I have, of course, no right to comment on it, but what I can say is that I bought many things from BFC, and will continue to do so in the future, because they made the choice that suited me best. I can only recommend anyone who feels the same to do the same. This is why I wish all the best success to all their project if it enables them to keep going deeper on realism on the CM serie.

In a sense, BFC makes me think me of the music scene. Say a band like King Crimson. Althought, of course, no one @ BFC will ever play the drum like Bill Bruford, at the end of the day, no one but the band itself decide what to do musically, and as long as it is what it is, I'm in !

Now imagine openning CMBB on Lark's Tongue in Aspic. Whooooaaahhh

Cheers

[hoolaman]

I am still not sure about the nuts and bolts of making it work, but better brains than me can figure that out.

The fact is that this is all not as revolutionary as it may sound.

You can still include things like formations, SOP's follow the leader orders, and a whole lot of new orders to allow more variable game control as many have asked for in the new game.

If you look at the "command-zone" concept from the ground up, it makes things a lot easier. Each squad is free to move exactly as it pleases when it pleases. No more command delay on that common-sense dash to better cover.

Originally posted by Tarkus:

Still some more.

Hoolaman idea also add a weight to the value of company and battalion HQs that simply isn't there in the current engine. Sure, they are useful and all, but apart from a few "purchase a company and get an extra HQ", or "useful to rally your troops", these HQs do not serve their RL purpose.

HQs action/effect/influence may not be limited to movement planning. Fire plan, alternate fall back positions and track discipline, patrols and security tasks could also be implemented. Example of the later would be a scenario depicting a raid, a coup de main, a spoiling attack, whatever small size operation. The defending commander could set up patrols and special defense features using this planning/command interface.

Pushing the idea a little further, while not knowing what will happens of operations, this command zone idea could be imbeded in inter battle timeouts where recons, listening posts and so on could operates, allowing the player to actually conduct realistic and worthy recons.

Whoah. :eek:

Yes! I like it that someone is excited about this idea. If a plan can only be adapted by "realistic" means, then adaptability must be instinctively included in plans. HQ's will need to place themselves at vital communication points, and may have to put themselves in danger to do so. Recon will be essential. Triangle (eg. two up one back) formations will be essential. Things like rallying areas for elements to regroup would be easy to include.

The idea of patrol zones is a good extension of this. A squad may be told to patrol a 200m wide zone between point A and B. A squad could act as an autonomous entity within the confines of these orders, which was often the case IRL and missing from CM. In CM now, a squad would sit in the middle of a field until word comes from HQ to walk 30m and get into cover. Sergeant Bloggs didn't need to be told how to command his men on the ground, only where he was supposed to go to do his mission.

Here is a website that has great original info on these sort of command and tactical issues at platoon level and squad level. If BFC could simulate half of this stuff I would be very happy!

Squad and Platoon combat

[Mr. Tittles]

I always thought that the amount of commands issued should have an effect on the delay element. The thought being, delays are not given till the total commands are issued. This is now done at the individual unit level but might model the situation better at the HQ level.

So a commander who issues many commands is simulating an extreme amount of planning/coordination. This comes at a price in the amount of time it takes to get everyone on the same page.

As a simple example;

Platoon is selected (double-click on HQ unit to highlight all his sub0ords) and only one squad under his command is given these orders..

1. split squad

2. half squad with MG gets a pause and advance order as well as a area fire at a close building

3. other half squad gets an assault to adjacent building (both halfs will end the 'attack' in same building).

4. 2 other squads in platoon get fire commands/arcs but no movement orders.

This simple manuver could get delays that are presently modeled in CM now.

This further example...

1. split squad and each half is given multiple movement commands (run, advance, sneak, etc)

2. Another squad is given a target and also several movement orders with pause, etc.

3. Remaining squad and HQ also get fire commands and pauses and movement orders and the HQ is also directing a 60mm mortar

Here we see quite a burden of command AND action on this overachieving HQ unit. The delays for this type of busybody and his poor platoon members should be substantially greatre than the example above. Even extending into the next turn.

The player would not know the delays till after he had completed the platoon (or actually the HQ controlled elements) commands. A super realistic element would be that there are no 'take-backs'. That is, just like chess, once you touch it, you cant reverse it. This stops those very long intricate turns.

[ October 22, 2004, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Dennis Grant]

Here we see quite a burden of command AND action on this overachieving HQ unit. The delays for this type of busybody and his poor platoon members should be substantially greatre than the example above.

...except that isn't how it works in RL. The sort of actions that you need to take to make CM units act like they would in RL represent the units acting (mostly) on their own initiative, not via direction for some overachieving commander.

Let's see if I can give you an example.

OK, so you've got an infantry company assigned to advance up a given corridor and take an objective - let's say a hill. Country is open ground, gently rolling.

The company commander is given a map overlay that has his objectives marked on it, his unit boundries (ie, his company left and right flanks) and the locations of any administrative info he might need - MIPS, GIPS, TRPs, phase lines, whatever. He gets a briefing as to what he is to accomplish, what resources are allotted to him, what the enemy is expected to be, his timings, and other command/control/admin info he needs.

In game terms, we can consider his left and right boundries to be the edges of the map.

OK, so then the company commander goes out and studies the map, does a recce of the ground as best he can, comes up with a plan, draws up his own map overlay, and then issues his own briefing - which is a variant on the briefing HE received earlier, but drilled down to his subunits. Assuming a 4-platoon company, he might have decided to advance 3 up, one back - so now his map overlay has platoon boundries on it. Maybe there's 3 roads that cross his corridor - maybe now they have phase lines on them. Etc.

Each platoon comander has a certain amount of leeway as to what he can do within his corridor, and he has certain contraints placed upon him (like maybe he can't cross a phase line until ordered to do so) He will then do his own map recce, his own ground recce, and issue his OWN orders to his platoon - which, in turn, are drilled-down versions of the orders he got from his company commander.

Normally, these orders are delivered to ther section commanders only, and then THEY go out and do their recce etc and give those orders to their sections - although with experience behind them, these section orders are likely to be very brief, and will probably concentrate on what is different about this advance versus the previous hundered.

A squad leaders' orders might wind up something like this:

"OK 1 section, we're advancing on Hill 123 tomorrow. The company is advancing 3 up, one back, and we're the left flank platoon. We're going 3 sections up with heavy weapons back, and we're the middle section. 2 section is on our left and 3 section is on our right. We're going to move in successive leapfrong bounds by section with 2 section moving first, then us, then 3. These three roads are phase lines, so don't cross them until the Lt tells us to. If we make it to phase line Apple here without contact, the arty is going to fire on the objective for a little bit and then switch to smoke, and then our platoon is going to move up on the left flank and assault the hill from the side with the other 2 platoons supressing. If we make contact before then, carry out the usual action on contact drill and supress, and the Lt and the Major will figure out if we'll take out the contact ourself or use one of the other platoons to do it. We cross the LOD at 06:00 tomorrow, inspection at 05:00. Any questions?"

OK, so at 05:59, everybody is lined up at the LOD, which in game terms is the setup phase.

At 06:00, the leftmost squad on each platoon (assuming the other 2 platoons had the same plan) steps off and moves to the next little batch of high ground, drops on their bellies, has a look, and then waves the next section forward. They move past the first section up to the next bit of high ground forward, drop on their bellies, look around, and wave the next section along. When they reach a phase line, everybody moves up to the line until everybody is caught up, the platoon commanders rep[ort to the company commander when their guys are all in place, then the CC orders them across the phase line, and it all repeats.

Etc. That's how it works in real life.

Now in game terms, in oder to make that happen you wind up having to click on each squad, drop down into ground view, slide forward to the next little rise, do a "move" command to just short of the crest, a "sneak" command to the crest, yadda yadda yadda. You are giving each squad a pretty detailed set of commands.

But those commands DON'T represent the company commander shadowing each squad and telling them what do do at each step. Instead, each section is carrying out a PROCESS "on their own initiative" and reacting to the ground ahead. The amount of GAME COMMANDS required to make the in-game units follow this process is not indicitive of how many commands the COMMANDER issued.

See what I'm getting at?

DG