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

[Mr. Tittles]

What you are describing is a planned move to contact. Once the shooting starts and the enemy reacts, most of what you are saying goes out the window.

I see your point and you are describing the first turn of a game (which could be exempt from much of what I am proposing). Just as there is no artillery delay on first turns, there should be no orders delay IMO.

But you are describing a drill not initiative. Anyone in the service knows the cover by bounding moves. Two men can do it, two squads can do it. Even companies.

But the main thing that you are describing and where the game diverges is the one minute game turn parameter. IRL there is no such thing. The drill of allowing one squad to move forward and wave the next forward does not exist within the game unless you wait for one turn increment. You have to 'see' what the first bounder 'sees' before you can 'wave' the next bounder forward.

The 'command-resolution' of one minute turns is a major game design decision. Its impact on the game is not discussed as much as spotting but it is a major part of the game abstraction.

A player can command orders past the one minute time limit. He can also edit those orders in the next turn.

The game is full of abstractions. It is also limited by what can be modeled or abstracted due to computer limitations. The problem with using IRL as an example is that it is nice to model/abstract things as close to IRL but not always doable.

My idea is an abstraction that limits the omnicontrol an attacking player has which is very unrealistic.

[ October 22, 2004, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Dennis Grant:

QUOTE] ...except that isn't how it works in RL. [...]

Dennis, can you tell us a little more about the company HQ role and responsabilities, and specifically how command is assumed under fire once contact is made and how cohesion toward objective maintained ? That would be interesting to judge the command zone idea.

I agree with mr. Tittles here, what you describe is Battle Drill and SOPs, but what happens when contact is made and decisions are needed to cope, react, overcome the ennemy ?

[...] 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.[...]

What would be great is if you could carry on your situation from there. I find it extremely interesting to get insight from RL military, which apparently you are. Also, what do you think this would look/sound like without radios ?

In any case, cheers

[Grimly Fiendish]

Tarkus: I was actually referring to your first sense of "steep entry," which is just getting past the first turn of the first game. Of course you are right about not winning at first, but you're not going to get past that if you don't get past turn 1. I like the density of CM too, but sometimes it's hard to get your friends to play.

As for King Crimson, do you mean Part 1 or Part 2? Or perhaps (shudder) Part 3 or 4?

[Halberdiers]

Hoolaman and people,

Here a very interesting Link about Command and Control:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-0/index.html

"The essential task of commanders is applying the art and science of war to the command and control of Army forces. The commander’s command and control system enables him to use his authority to accomplish the mission and see to the health and welfare of subordinates. Using his command and control system, the commander directs the actions of his forces and imposes his will on the enemy. Through command and control, the commander initiates the actions of, influences, and synchronizes the elements of combat power to impose his will on the situation and defeat the enemy."

Platoon Command and Control

[ October 22, 2004, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Mr. Tittles]

I am not a veteran of WWII combat nor any other conflict but I am a former soldier. People should know that C&C is just that. And it rolls downhill. The placing of orders at the squad level in CM should not be taken as the individual squad units decisions (usually). Especially when talking about movement. A squad would not displace without orders to do so in most situations. Platoons in WWII may be the smallest unit in the infantry side of the game that could be in radio contact with higher ups. That is why I am abstracting about the 'platoon' HQ sphere of influence.

[Tarkus]

Ok. First things first:

Originally posted by Dave Stockhoff:

As for King Crimson, do you mean Part 1 or Part 2? Or perhaps (shudder) Part 3 or 4?

Since I never heard Part 3 and 4 , let's settle down for something related, but not quite. Fetch my Starless and Bible Black album... open it, AAARGG ! no CD !. Oh well. I was to suggest a specific stretch of Fracture, but since I can't locate it, a 11:17 track hardly qualify as an intro song. How about Sailor's tale then ? say, from 9:20 to a 10:35 fade out. Not Bruford, but Wallace is fine . Or Jaco Pastorius entire Okonkole Y Trompa (Jaco Pastorius, 1976) Epic EK 33949.

Ugh. Let's not dive into that, the risk if far too great to destroy the thread .

* * *

Originally posted by Dave Stockhoff:

Tarkus: I was actually referring to your first sense of "steep entry," which is just getting past the first turn of the first game. Of course you are right about not winning at first, but you're not going to get past that if you don't get past turn 1. I like the density of CM too, but sometimes it's hard to get your friends to play.

Mmmm. I don't know, I think your right, and I know of many people who found it a little hard at first. I can't really comment on this, since I was a total, absolute, hopeless addict from the moment I first fired up Chance Encounter. I'll stick to my pint *ooops, typo* my point though. Depth over ease of use.

I'll also add that right now, IMO, the CM we know IS easy to use and quite entertaining for the average player compared to some other wargames. I mean, the balance is great between tactical realism and plain good fun. I am not sure exactly where does the fun factor lay, there are so many cool features in the game, but I hope next generation CM at least keep this balance that make it so good.

The question is worth asking, as Tom said. What makes the game so cool ? Many people discovered wargame via CM, and even though the game is quite realistic (I think we all agree on that), it is fun, period. And correct me if I am wrong, but IIRC most critics and reviews of the game put forth that it reinvented the genre. I'd be tempted to add, it makes the genre more accessible because the 3D environment and the we go principle are both realistic and entertaining. When someone tells me he does not like it, I generally assume it is because the person is simply not into wargames, or way to much into them. What would be interesting is to find a ASL addict who dislike CM, and ask him what detracts him from playing. I heard someone (A panzerblitz fan) tell me he liked the little unit chips on the table and the fun of all the players looking simultaneously at the tactical problem at hand... I suspect he simply likes to add/subtract/multiply and divide numbers while drinking beer.

I throw back the question to you then: How do you think this steep entry could be adressed without tuning down the realism factor ? We've been talking for weeks now about ideas to make the game more realistic, but SOPs, Comm net, command zone and the like aren't exaclty simplifications...

Best

[ October 23, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[Mr. Tittles]

I like the pre-game general planning element that people are proposing here. That is, the waypoints and attack plans, etc. Combined with platoon oriented delay based on amount of orders given, the game takes on a very nicely abstracted flavor.

For very poor infantry like soviets, perhaps the delay-orders scheme could be at the compan level.

[Mr. Tittles]

The game would be very cool if..

Pregame:

1. Attacking player could double click a 'platoon' (actually any on board HQ unit) and give that platoon a attack objective by either marqueeing (make a box) around an area (probably that has a flag) or a specific object like a house or a line elementand then designate a general attack direction through waypoints. The waypoints might be a multiline segment to the described objective.

2. The platoons delays would be reduced IF the orders generally followed the waypoints. That is, he is down with the plan. I am, of course, proposing using my platoon level delay scheme previously mentioned.

3. Once a flag is taken, an attacking player (depending on his overall command rating) may alter waypoints if need be. Sucky overall commanders may not get this option.

4. defending players may designate platoons as 'reaction' forces in reserve (criteria being no LOS to enemy and 'behind' the MLR, etc.). These reserves have smaller delays than his front line grunts.

These abstractions can be altered to model things like shocked commands (defender has no reaction forces allowed for example) and other battlefield realities.

[Mr. Tittles]

I think the platoon level delays and platoon-centric command could improve the AI play. That is, platoons should be using simple drills (as they do IRL) and the platoon as a whole is following a plan. It seems the AI is making decisions on a squad basis with individual elements acting like they are independant entities. Bazookas are in foot races with FOs and 50 cals are marching steadily towards the enemy.

[Dennis Grant]

OK, I agree that once the shooting starts, plans get modified - in fact, the chaos that contact turns loose is actually part of the plan.

But subunits have a certain amount of leeway, and they have an understanding of the operational concept of the plan. The plan, for example, can survive the death of the company commander, or platoon commanders, or section commanders. 2IC, take over!

A good deal of what happens once the shooting starts is based on drills and practice and SOPs. Sections know what to do when they come under fire. Platoons know what to do when they come under fire. Companies know what to do etc etc etc and a lot of it is the same thing, scaled up.

And a lot relies as well on the judgement and initiative of subcommanders. A section commander may try and take out a trench on his own, or he may feel it's too tough and the platoon commander may do a platoon attack instead. Or maybe it's too tough for a platoon, and it winds up being a company attack instead.

Weither or not a given objective is "too tough" or not is a combination of experience, assesement, and orders given previously - plus the operational state at any given point in time. A LOT depends on the individual leadership skills of subcommanders.

In game terms though, the player "inhabits" the minds of each and every subcommander - and this is always going to be so in a game of this type. As such, the unit (taken as a whole, ie, all the player's forces on the battlefield) is supremely well intergrated; perhaps better than is strictly speaking historically the case. But speaking from experience, a well-drilled, well-led, experienced unit, when everything goes right, can seem to act as if it were controlled by one mind.

This rarely happens in RL, but it can happen on occasion, and everybody involved is trying very hard to make it happen that way.

Last night I played the "Tiger, Tiger" scenario in CMBB as Axis. I set it up and played it as an infantry company attack with tanks in support, right flanking. I did platoon-level overwatch, meaning that no platoon moved until the movement platoon was fixed and arranged in formation - so there was usualy a turn or two or three between platoon moves, as the pongoes move slowly when they are walking.

Result? Total victory, 87%. It would have been higher, but I lost three of my Panzer 3s in my reserve troop to a T34 who snuck down the left side of the map, and I didn't see him because I never needed the reserve and didn't notice that they got picked off until the end of the scenario.

That attack played out as THE perfect company attack. It was absolutly textbook. Is that realistic?

I think it is. Rare, yes. But nothing happened that was outside the realm of impossibility. And part of wargaming in general is to see how well you can do if things go perfectly (from a command and control perspective at least)

I think that taking away that control would reduce a great deal of the fun factor of the game. Where it falls down a little bit is lacking some houskeeping shortcuts (like formations, road following, etc) but on the realism front, I think it does exceptionally well. In particular, I think y'all make way too big a deal over "borg spotting".

I like the idea of a toggle-able map overlay view - I really like it, in fact. A well-practiced unit can derive 90% of the plan just from looking at the trace map. The trace is a VERY efficiant way of transmitting information. But the trace isn't the battle, if you follow my meaning.

DG

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Dennis Grant:

Weither or not a given objective is "too tough" or not is a combination of experience, assesement, and orders given previously - plus the operational state at any given point in time. A LOT depends on the individual leadership skills of subcommanders.

Loud and clear on this. Very interesting insight. I think it was Redwolf who mentionned that BFC said they didn't want to make CM a "command game". I suppose this is kind of thing they had in mind. The more we talk about it, the more I see that keeping a good measure of control at the lowest level is indeed a big part of the fun.

I think y'all make way too big a deal over "borg spotting".

Perhaps. In fact, I am sure we do. Many ideas that are expressed here are specifically aimed at that particular aspect. Since the whole thing is very probably of remote usage for those who actually create the game, it may also be totally irrelevant. Nonetheless, Borg spotting ought to be a concern IMO, especially in a context (up to, say, WWII) where radios were not so largely used.

This is why the communication model in the game could be a partial, practical and realistic answer. I'd be more than happy with a unit that carry a radio to be assumed to report everything it sees on contact without me interefering in the process, as you said it happens today IRL. But a panzerschreck team used as a drone at the other end of the map, or a M8 crew lost on a mine beyond enemy line is something to think about and not realistic.

If you add to that a way or another in modelling field telephone, runners and other communication means, (see Hoolaman post here for ideas) that would induce a little more planning during the setup phase, to me Borg spotting is no longer a problem.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

[...]give that platoon a attack objective by either marqueeing (make a box) around an area (probably that has a flag) or a specific object like a house or a line element and then designate a general attack direction through waypoints.

Sounds good to me. I think this is kind of included in Hoolaman idea of command zone, except that instead of objectives, as you suggest, he simply goes for waypoint/axis of advance. I suppose we should be careful not to make it essentially planning though...

[...]using my platoon level delay scheme previously mentioned.

Just to make sure I get it, what you suggest is that a HQ that gives one order to one unit would take less time doing so than the same HQ having to give the same order along with 3 more orders ? This sounds logic. The delay would then be even more flexible depending on experience and leadership caps. Plus it enhance still some more the usefulness of SOPs by making contact a bit more of an organized chaos, giving auto-orders out (the clarity/delay/appropriatness of which would still be dependant of unit status/XP/surroundings/etc) on contact.

A super realistic element would be that there are no 'take-backs'.

I disagree on that point though. Leave me with the choice of doing otherwise and experiment. Or don't tell me how long it will take to carry the order out altogether.

3. Once a flag is taken, an attacking player (depending on his overall command rating) may alter waypoints if need be. Sucky overall commanders may not get this option.

Yes. It would then be possible to make realistic "take that point and consolidate" scenarios as opposed to now, where the "consolidate" is almost always a tool to give briefings some style with no actual meaning in the battle. With a script capability in the editor or whatever, it would then be possible to make the counter attack link to these initial objectives. Just like an operation but within a shorter time frame and more flexibility in deployment.(The map could be empty of enemy troops but the battle would carry on until counter-attack begins and opponent start with his own setup phase). Um, this gets tricky now.

...and here we go again

[Mr. Tittles]

Games are sort of like physics in that at different scales, different forces come into play. At a very small scale, CM is fun and somewhat realistic. In fact, in a isolated tank vs tank (single units), its very good. But as the size of the game (especially in open terrain) and the amount of units increase, the game gets very, well, gamey.

I agree that giving the orders to individual units is part of the fun. How those orders are carried out could be modified. An example is a turn I just sent Peng. I targeted a sherman with multiple panthers. Not too gamey but I also coordinated a half squad to fire past other targets to button his tank. Thats gamey. And he will die. A lot.

[Dennis Grant]

That's not gamey at all. That's properly co-ordinating your forces for best effect.

And I assure you that infantry are not above taking potshots at crew commanders with their heads poking up. A section popping away at a tank like that is entirely appropriate RL behavior.

DG

[Mr. Tittles]

Not when there are closer targets that are greater threats to the overly coordinated firer.

I think the TACAI should over ride fire orders. The firer should fire at targets but will fire realistically.

So you like borg spotting and cherry picking targets?

[Mr. Tittles]

Just to make sure I get it, what you suggest is that a HQ that gives one order to one unit would take less time doing so than the same HQ having to give the same order along with 3 more orders ? This sounds logic. The delay would then be even more flexible depending on experience and leadership caps. Plus it enhance still some more the usefulness of SOPs by making contact a bit more of an organized chaos, giving auto-orders out (the clarity/delay/appropriatness of which would still be dependant of unit status/XP/surroundings/etc) on contact.

Basically thats it. There must be some 'penalty' to overly micromanaging many units. Not that it shouldnt happen but it should have an effect on the game command delay.

[Mr. Tittles]

Certain units, like tanks, do have the ability to coordinate firepower amonst each other. This comes from the radios in each unit. Most infantry units in the game do not have this communication.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

[...] Thats gamey.

Originally posted by Dennis Grant:

That's not gamey at all.[...]

We are already trespassing every bits of common sense by speculating on something we have absolutely no control on.

So I respectfully suggest we refrain from speculating on what is gamey or not, at least in this thread. The gamey concept is rather tricky because it implies various contextual elements that are very difficult to judge from plain description.

I am not saying it is irrelevant, but maybe we should start another thread on this topic

Cheers

[Mr. Tittles]

Its unrealistic if nothing else.

[Dennis Grant]

But I don't think it's necessarily unrealistic.

You don't need radios to co-ordinate this sort of thing in RL. You'd be amazed what you can accomplish by shouting, hand signals, exaggerated gestures, and so on.

And as we have been discussing, a leader with a good concept of how he fits into the overall mission plan and with good situational awareness may, on his own initiative (and especially if he has guidence in orders) choose to do the "right" thing instead of the "obvious" thing.

A simple order of "unbuttoned tank crews are priority tagets - shoot at them before all else" and suddenly it's no longer gamey.

Yes, because the player is the single mind inhabiting the minds of all the units on the map, the in-game commanders all have the same level of situational awareness, and if the controlling player is any good, that level of situational awareness can be very high.

But while having everybody in an operation that switched on was undoubtedly very rare from a historical perspective, it IS possible for units with good leaders and a lot of experience to act as is they had one single controlling mind. That whole initial planning stage goes a long way to making that happen.

That mean, in game terms, that it needs to be _possible_ for everything to go right - and as soon as you have the AI intude itself into the operation of the plan, you loose that ability.

As it stands now, we already have some of that with the morale model. It sure 'nuff doesn't need to get MORE intrusive.

The only way to get fully realistic behviour the way you seem to want it would be to either give the player control over one and only one unit, and let the AI drive everybody else, or to make the game multiplayer with one actual human for every in-game unit. Where's the fun in that?

I don't know about you, but I play to win; I don't play to watch my plan go all FUBAR and watch my guys run in ever-diminishing circles. I get enough of that when the plan is flawed - don't force it on me when the plan is good.

DG

[Halberdiers]

The only way to get fully realistic behviour the way you seem to want it would be to either give the player control over one and only one unit, and let the AI drive everybody else, or to make the game multiplayer with one actual human for every in-game unit. Where's the fun in that?

Another easy way to give individuality to each unit could be to give different orders in different conditions for each HQ-commanders. In form to avoid the unrealistic coordination by the BORG effect.

For example , each tank commander of each platoon could change the nature or the number of orders in every turn in relation with their specific conditions (Fatigue,Moral,etc) or to a random condition. Not all menu orders could give shoot "next target", or can go at "full speed" or can "Ambush" all the turns.

In other words, not to give the same "Menu" for all units under different conditions or in turns different. Because not all the squad commanders see with the same eyes , and not think with the same mind.

[ October 24, 2004, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Dennis Grant:

[...] it IS possible for units with good leaders and a lot of experience to act as is they had one single controlling mind. That whole initial planning stage goes a long way to making that happen.

What you describe here his a professionnal army with experience, tradition, elaborate doctrine, procedures and above all... TRAINING.

I agree with your general analysis on the impact of AI on the game. It does act as the #1 realism factor. Moral and experience. It could probably be fine tuned a little though... (like panicking troops that don't run for cover toward the enemy. )

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

[...] when there are closer targets that are greater threats to the overly coordinated firer. I think the TACAI should over ride fire orders. The firer should fire at targets but will fire realistically.

It already does, no ? I had a StuG with a armor arc on the other day, I saw it break from the arc, engage a Humber IV IIRC (and shred it to piece at 800m first shot ) without having me even contemplate such a contingency. Certainly the StuGFührer didn't think a 37mm pea shooter could do any harm, and my arc was there because I expected a shoot n'scootin' Sherman.

But perhaps I miss the point ?

Originally posted by Halberdiers:

In other words, not to give the same "Menu" for all units under different conditions or in turns different. Because not all the squad commanders see with the same eyes , and not think with the same mind.

Yep. The idea came up in the what do we want Part Deux thread. As it is, CM is already including it with the "advance" and "assault" command i.e. not all unit have access to them. A good idea I think.

I refered to it in a post when talking about partial command contact. Say when a platoon HQ is 250 m away but you can have visual contact, unit could be ordered 1 or 2 waypoint (tactical signs, whistle, whatever) and still keep a bigger margin of cohesion than absolute no contact. I might be wrong on this, but visual contact with friendly troops in a big difference with none, moral wise.

Cheers

[Mr. Tittles]

In other words, not to give the same "Menu" for all units under different conditions or in turns different. Because not all the squad commanders see with the same eyes , and not think with the same mind.

Good idea.

Having a menu that just allows you to order a unit to fire, without designating what to fire at, could also aleviate the super-coordinated cherry picking of targets (you would not get to see what the TACAI selected to fire at either). If there was an SOP to back this TACAI targetting then that would help also.

I dont want to get into a design discussion with anyone that cant see the forrest for the trees. Anyone that feels the burning need to win at all costs is not going to be impartial about design decisions.

[Halberdiers]

About the corridor

I think the problem of the LINE of MOVEMENT can be reduced to:

1-Follow the line of the unit SELECTED (as it is now in CM)

2-Follow a LINE of another unit

3-Follow another UNIT

4-Follow LINE of the HQPlatoon.

5-Follow the HQplatoon UNIT.

6-Follow a PLAN LINE on the map. That could be defined by the scenario creator ("The commander in chief") and can change in different turns. It could be as a FLAG , but you can not to take it as a FLAG ,instead occupied must be walked.

For example you must to take FLAGS and walk the green PLAN LINES to win the scenario.

All possibilities with their own bonus or penalties. Another improve could be made a "FREE LINEs" (curves). Not only "straight LINES".

[ October 24, 2004, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Mr. Tittles]

quote:

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

Originally posted by Dennis Grant:

[...] it IS possible for units with good leaders and a lot of experience to act as is they had one single controlling mind. That whole initial planning stage goes a long way to making that happen.

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

What you describe here his a professionnal army with experience, tradition, elaborate doctrine, procedures and above all... TRAINING.

I agree with your general analysis on the impact of AI on the game. It does act as the #1 realism factor. Moral and experience. It could probably be fine tuned a little though... (like panicking troops that don't run for cover toward the enemy. )

I do not mean to be insulting but peacetime military experience does not reflect the high turnover rate of men and leaders that combat does. Peacetime manuvers and drills, even with MILES, does not reflect the deadly realities of the battlefield. Modern armies have much superior communication than many WWII units would and the control that is available now should not be extended back to WWII. Hand signals, flares, whistles, etc are great IF everyone is on the same page but still requires an LOS or other factors to be effective. An example from Hell on the Eastern Front is the infantry commander sees a soviet attack on his position starting, he turns around and uses hand signals to order a HMG positioned further back to open fire. They have LOS to each other but he does not relay the exact squads to attack. He may only get them to fire at a direction and and units in that area. If he had been given a SOP of shooting any heavy weapons first, or to attack exposed armor crews first, then perhaps he would shoot at them initially.

You can't argue that individual initiative is so important on one page and then state that the initial plan is so important on the next.

[ October 24, 2004, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]