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

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

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.

That's unfortunate. You have sound ideas from which the discussion could benefit. Plus one must recognize that playing to win is just as good as playing to learn/discover/rumble with tanks on the countryside/whatever else, and as such, are worth discussing in a design perspective.

And from the numerous tournaments there is, my guess is that there is a number of people who are interested in winning the game.

FWIW, cheers

[Tarkus]

[...]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.[...]

I absolutely agree, but for the basis of a discussion, since we do not have access to combat vet, I would suppose peacetime military experience is as close as we can get. I readily concede that I have no combat experience and limited military experience, so I am a lot better in asking question than answering them...

You are drawing attention on some realism issues that I recognize to be true, but I do not find DG comments far off in adressing them, neither do yours.

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.

Right again, but don't you think CM must depict a generic reality instead of specifics ? Given, the later would be more realistic, but perhaps less well balanced. In current CM, for example, unless I am wrong the "advance" command is the same for every single unit that has access to it.

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.

Why ? I really do think both are important, and my understanding of our recent discussion on this topic is that there was a general agreement on this, no ? I mean, a plan can be perfect, its execution a total failure, and vice-versa.

Cheers

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

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.

Okay. Now I see better what you mean. The problem is most accute when on the advance, when designating in advance specific field of fire isn't always possible. But can we do anything about that beside letting the AI control all fire ?

SOPs seems to be a proper answer to that one again, leaving a certain control as to how the player wants his troops to react on contact. Then on next turn he resume control of fire conduct.

EDIT: maybe with restriction on target designation ? Just as panicked troops are out of control, maybe some "force targeting" related to moral and context could do... But I wonder if it is not already in somehow... :confused:

[ October 24, 2004, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[Mr. Tittles]

I think the curved lines for movement orders are a good idea. There should be no penalty for multi legged movement orders of the same type. So if I oreder a unit to run into the woods and then run to a house to the left, there should be no extra penalty incurred as far as delay. But if I ordered them to run into the woods and then advance into the house, they would need more time to get the jump off times/places down and coordinate with the other units in the platoon.

[Mr. Tittles]

In many discussions like these, people pull a reactionary attitude such as 'Either the player gets to control ALL units or none or just One!'.

I do not buy that and believe that there is some middle ground where the player can influence the battle but not have to be the borgy-hyper-controller. SOPs would be great and the game does have some retargeting already built in. Order menu limitations are another great way to do this.

Another thing when discussions like this come up is that people should remember that these could be options. Its not that anyone is trying to dictate how the game needs to be played. How many people plat extreme FOW? If its a majority, then it appears that there is room for super extreme FOW in the mix. Clearly, the game needs to change somehow.

[Mr. Tittles]

SOPs should be at the platoon level for infantry platoons and tank platoons without individual radios in each vehicle. They might be at the company level for those units with very poor communication equipment or skills. SOP could be set for crew served weapons individually and also individual tanks.

SOPs should be initially set but also variable for setting during the plan stage. An example would be, SOP for a platoon is assault during first phase of attack but switches to defend once the first flag objective is taken.

Changing SOPs dynamically during the game would be dependant on C&C limitations. Tanks with two way radios being more dynamic than a lone HMG on the flank with no LOS to anyone.

SOP types might be:

1. Assault

2. Defend

3. AT

4. Contact

5. Observe

6. (suggestions?)

Each would have another bearing on the unit taking orders and type of orders even. Asking a infantry platoon to assault when it is in a defend mode might incur much more delay. Asking it to do this outside of an attack plan might make it nearly 3-5 minutes delay even. SOPs could be expanded to reflect more experience and training. A simple Attack or Defend menu might be available to a green soviet infantry company for example.

The ranking HQ on the field would be able to over ride all SOP to any unit within his C&C 'red' line control. In other words, he would be able to have the hyper control already modeled in the game. He would be able to switch a platoons SOP and they would be able to react faster.

[ October 24, 2004, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

people should remember that these could be options.

Absolutely right. Options are the key. I did adress that in a past post when I said it could be a bit like a flight sim and you adjust realism options to your taste.

This is also a solution to the steep entry Dave Stockhoff was refering to.

Cheers

[Mr. Tittles]

Just throwing another idea out..

An alternative to stop cherry picking targets is to make all enemy spotted units generic. That is, infantry units are not depicted as anything but generic infantry symbols. There is no HQ or crew type identified or any info given. Same for AFVs. The player might only get descriptions like Tank or light armor.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

people should remember that these could be options.

Absolutely right. Options are the key. I did adress that in a past post when I said it could be a bit like a flight sim and you adjust realism options to your taste.

This is also a solution to the steep entry Dave Stockhoff was refering to.

Cheers </font>

[Dennis Grant]

Anyone that feels the burning need to win at all costs is not going to be impartial about design decisions.

I hate to break this to you, but if you DON'T want to win at all costs, then I sure don't want you anywhere near any army I'm a part of. I'm not in it to lose.

I'll give you an example.

My unit was in Knox on the big armoured simulator rig. If you've never seen/heard about this, it's a huge game deal with individual vehicle simulators all wired into the big 3D battlefield. You see through the sights and vision blocks what you would see in the real vehicle. I've been told that the latest upgrade is displays that left crew commanders go open hatches, but when I was there it was all hatches down - sure 'nuff taught you how to navigate out the vision blocks!

Anyway, we've been there a week, and the culmunation of the deal is a big fight between our regiment and another regiment. It was set up as a "capture the flag" scenario, where the first side to capture the other side's flag (which followed similar rules to CM) won.

The biggest difference between my regiment and our erstwhile opponents is me - I've got command of 60, Regimental Recce, a 7 car Bradley troop, whereas everybody else on the battlefield is in M1A1s. My job is to go out, make contact with the enemy, force them to deploy on ground that may not be to their advantage, and then relay info back to the sabre squadrons so they can hit 'em from an unexpected direction.

Unfortunately the commander of D squadron has never worked with recce before, and is a little unclear on the concept of waiting on the start line while recce goes forward to find the bad guys. So at H-Hour, his squadron goes roaring forward, and the other squadrons follow suit. I try and race him for about a minute, but Bradleys are slower than M1s, and I can see I'm going to get left behind.

So I put my guys into a flank defense position and start thinking about what to do next. While I'm busy fuming, I hear our sabre squadrons smash into their sabre squadrons, and pretty soon there's a full-scale brawl going on to which everybody is committed.

....except me and my guys.

I get a sudden bit of inspiration. We've left a couple of taks back at our flag to act as last-ditch defense, and I'm willing to bet that the other side has done the same thing. If that's the case, I outnumber the flag defenders 2 to 1, and I'm actually free to roam the battlefield, so long as I avoid the area of the main fight.

So I get my guys to advance down the left side of the map - because I know my left flank is safe if I do that. Gamey? Goddamn right. But the gods of battle don't give you a 100% secure flank very often, so when I have one I USE it.

As we approach the far edge of the map, there's a section of woods butted up against that edge, with another pair of wooded areas along the left edge with a gap between them. In this game, woods were represented by dome structures with tree textures mapped onto them. Woods didn't affect movement, but LOS was blocked ito and out of them - like being inside a big green tent. I'm moving my troop from woods to woods to keep us from getting spotted.

As we cross the gap, one callsign at a time, a tank halfway inside the woods on the far edge starts taking potshots at us. I figure that 1) that's where the flag is and 2) the jig is up; Mr Tank is going to move to intercept us, probably calll for help, and we'll get decimated.

I'm last in line, and I get my callsign shot out from under me. I decide that I managed to bail out no worse for wear, and take over the junior callsign (I'm the commander, that's my perogative and my duty, and I'm not going to abandon my guys unless I am physically restrained)

But as it turns out, the guy in the tank is the most junior commander on the other side, he has been told to "stay here and protect the flag", and he never puts 2 and 2 together to figure out he's being outflanked.

Meanwhile, we circle around behind his wooded tent, out of sight, and come up right behind him at point blank range. 6 Bradleys open up on him, and knock him out after a few seconds of firing. As soon as he is knocked out, Bingo! Game ends. Recce wins.

Gamey? Sure it was. But a subcommander took an opportunity, used his initiative, and carried out the intent of his commander's plan (capture the flag)

And as far as all the sexy modern technology... man, you'd be amazed at how often in breaks down or doesn't work. My troop operated 100% on hand signals in the advance, specifically to break reliance on radios - and because it was assumed that enemy RDF equipment would be in operation and overuse of the radio would get you killed. We could operate incredibly efficiantly using nothing more than hand signals and gestures - when you all have binos, hand signals can be VERY specific.

DG

[Mr. Tittles]

Gamey deals with people that abuse Games limitations to get a highly unrealistic advantage against an opponent. What you did on that exercise was take a calculated chance. And it paid off. Not sure what point you want to make. This isnt about anything you are describing. So you want to win and don't care if its realistic or gamey. Thats OK. personally, I think you cheated by jumping to another track. If a Tank KOd your command track, you more than likely would have beed killed/wounded. Would your next in command have followed through like you did?

I would not want you as a playtester because you probably feel that 'you are good at CM' and anything that makes that less true is bad. I think that ego does not make for very good design or testing.

[ October 24, 2004, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[HawkerT]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

... SOPs could be expanded to reflect more experience and training. A simple Attack or Defend menu might be available to a green soviet infantry company for example.

The ranking HQ on the field would be able to over ride all SOP to any unit within his C&C 'red' line control. In other words, he would be able to have the hyper control already modeled in the game. He would be able to switch a platoons SOP and they would be able to react faster.

Excellent thinking Mr. Tittles! Very intuitive ... I like it very much!

That is what training is all about right? Developing SOP's or rather printing them into the spine of those that must follow and issue them! This is on of the main reasons e.g. a Commando unit is crack. They have trained and rehersed their SOP's to an extend so that even when crap hits the fan big time everyone knows what to do and how to react, and this is true from commander to trooper.

The natural extension is, as you say, that Commandos would probably also have more (one for almost all situations) and more detailed SOP's then the Russian penal Bn that would likely only have one SOP or order - "Move to death"!

It also seems quite right that diverging from a SOP will be time consuming and most likely to happen around good and raking officers. Units completely out of command would survive on their basic SOP's learned during training, and will take a long time diverging from these if at all.

Good thinking Mr. Tittles!

[hoolaman]

Hello again.

If I had it my way C&C in CM would include SOP's and new order systems for basic commanding of units in addition to some kind of command zone concept.

I like the idea of only being able to give certain units certain orders. It would be interesting to have to make use of a commander who is reluctant to give certain orders, or cannot give detailed SOP's because he is incompetent of panicked. Using this for targeting relies to a certain extent on the ai making a decision the player is happy with.

@ Dennis Grant: I take your point about your simulator experience. If corridors of advance were too limiting, a clever unit would not be able to exploit an obvious opportunity to outflank or to make a larger tactical move on its own initiative.

As for the "gameyness" of the simulator, it sounds like you probably knew unrealistic details of the enemy forces and objectives, you had a 100% secure map edge flank, and once the flag was taken, the game was over. Would you attempt a move like this in real combat? If things went badly, more enemy forces turned up, I am guessing there is a chance you are stuck in a very bad position.

Also, if you had been ordered to advance, in a combat situation, would you be disobeying orders by lagging behind and going on an adventure behind enemy lines. I only ask this to judge whether such a situation is comparable to a real life situation in WW2.

[Mr. Tittles]

DG does have a point. Take the meeting engagement type scenario. Lets say a German recon company from a armored division is contacting a russian motorized battalion and both are on the move.

There would be no pregame planning phase because the scenario designer would have done that and its not editable (cause I say so).

But the crack German recon troops would be able to make waypoints on the fly and change SOPs better than most units. They have extensive radios, experience, mobility, training, etc.

So initiative and responsiveness of waypoints does have a place.

[Dennis Grant]

Oh I agree that I shamlessly manipulated my knowledge of the enemy (I knew size, TO&E, and enemy goals - and from that, a likely plan)I manipulated the limitations of the simulator (the secure flank on the edge of the map, the nature of "woods") and I manipulated the scenario victory conditions.

But the point, gentlemen, was to WIN. To accomplish the mission I was given to the best of my ability given the tools and conditions provided. Subordinates do that.

BTW, I don't agree that jumping out of a dead vehicle and taking control of new one was "cheating". There's plenty of historical precident for this - as there is for AFV crews carrying on as infantry.

As far as the adventure goes... yeah, it was a bold move; made bolder by the fact that I knew there could be very little in the way of negative fallout, given that ultimately, it WAS just a game. A very realistic game... but a game nonetheless. Incidently, I wasn't "disobeying orders" - I was completely within my authority to do what I did - and it worked.

Anyway, the point of all this is, ideally, every subordinate on the battlefield is doing everything he can to contribute to the success of the mission. The purpose of the game is to allow someone to play out combat scenarios and to essay to duplicate the best that a mission can go. That control is a FEATURE, not a bug. Without the control... why bother?

As far as the "you think you're good at CM crack" I really don't know what brought that on. I don't agree with you that the current command system in CM is in any way broken. I don't think that "borg spotting" is anywhere near the big deal that you make it out to be. And I have a certain amount of RL experience to back up those opinions. Does disagreeing with you constitute an ego?

DG

[Mr. Tittles]

I like the idea of only being able to give certain units certain orders. It would be interesting to have to make use of a commander who is reluctant to give certain orders, or cannot give detailed SOP's because he is incompetent of panicked. Using this for targeting relies to a certain extent on the ai making a decision the player is happy with.

I was thinking about this today also. My thought would be that there are leaders with negative ratings. This is the old ASL type of abstraction. But the new twist is that you don't know he sucks. You could have a leader with a single star command rating. But he also has a negative heart symbol (not known to the player). This is because lately he has been pushing the troops a little recklessly because his Lt. friend in the next platoon got whacked. They were very close these two, and he is on a blood lust lately. This negative leader still can command but the loss of his dear beloved OCS school chum has altered him. This Lt's name is, of course Lt. Dorosh. The dead school chums name? Lt. Manequin. Men of the platoon's had always wondered about them but dared not say anything.

[Mr. Tittles]

As far as the "you think you're good at CM crack" I really don't know what brought that on. I don't agree with you that the current command system in CM is in any way broken. I don't think that "borg spotting" is anywhere near the big deal that you make it out to be. And I have a certain amount of RL experience to back up those opinions. Does disagreeing with you constitute an ego?

Not that your not wanting me in your army matters but I served with people that had extensive infantry combat experience. Even if they were at the tail end of a career, they made sure that everyone of us snots could soldier.

[Dennis Grant]

And I would hope that in so doing, they installed the desire to accomplish the mission above all else.

The point is to WIN. You don't soldier to lose.

DG

[Mr. Tittles]

Actually they were Vietnam vets and would probably frag you. No offense.

One senior career NCO told us about the house to house fighting and how they would use every advantage to wipe out the enemy and keep almost all of thier guys safe or alive. They stressed fire superiority and teamwork and getting everyone on the same page. Loose cannons and crazy heroics were considered bad form.

The 'installed desire' was to make the enemy lose everything. The real desire was to stay alive. Thats soldiering. Not a game at all. Going home alive was the big Win.

[hoolaman]

I wholeheartedly agree that the CM units on the ground should have less limitations not more. In fact as I stated at the start of the thread, it was the opinions of Mr. Grant that kind of got me thinking that the command delay in the game now is rather unrealistic. A tank commander or squad NCO, if they decide to go "over-there", would take mere seconds to order the unit to do so.

The only problem with taking away command related limitations altogether is the risk of creating a true "borg" army. The current CM places time limits on squads out of C&C that prevent them from reacting to changing circumstances in a realistic way. It assumes that they have to get orders from an officer to know what to do. The current system does not prevent a whole platoon from having psychic awareness of a tank popping up on the other side of the hill. The current system allows scouts up ahead of an advance to instantly report info to everyone everywhere at once. Some may enjoy that aspect of executing the perfectly coordinated and psychically tuned attack, but I disagree that too much is made of borg spotting. The system works because most CM players prefer to play in a realistic way, but I think it would be good to have an option where both players are forced to play in a realistic way.

I do not claim to be an expert, but if you were in a real-life infantry advance, and could not maintain really effective communications with the platoon to the left and right of you, except to keep track of their relative positions, then you would have little choice but to stick to the plan that had been decided. If you did not, you may endanger everybody. So I don't think it is very unrealistic to prevent a unit totally abandoning a planned advance.

I think vital elements of a simulated command system are as follows.

* Individual per-unit calculation of spotting and awareness. Some units may be capable of tracking several targets, some units may not see things until they are pointed out by the CO. The player still sees all, but cannot make his units be aware of something unless the game engine deems they have seen it or been told about it.

* Some calculation of effectivness of communication methods between units for both relaying reports of enemy activity and giving and changing orders.

eg. Line of sight allows x% detailed reporting of enemy positions, and allows y% quality of orders. And take z seconds.

Runners allow x,y,z

Radio comms allow x,y,z

etc.

* Some system that distinguishes an order from company CO from an order from a platoon CO, and an platoon CO from an NCO, etc. To allow appropriate command delays where they are realistic, and no command delays where unrealistic.

* Allowing NCO experience levels and bonuses and 2IC's to substitute for dead commanders.

* Not limiting the players ability to see the battlefield from their movie director's chair if they so choose.

The best way I think to do all this is by command areas. This may change fluidly as enemy units are encountered, or orders are modified. Experience and initiative may give a wider radius in which a unit may operate. Obviously it would take some work to work out how to make a system unobtrusive and intuitive.

Perhaps units could leave a command zone if they feel they have to, but somehow penalties are applied for breaking from the plan and the cohesiveness of the advance, and not being in a location they are expected to be. Maybe a unit out of a command zone is less confident and likely to break, or may be much more likely to be fired on by friendly forces, or will be unable to be reached by runners to report enemy contacts.

[ October 24, 2004, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

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 [/QB]

Tarkus, I think you guys are handling this question quite well! I think that simplicity can be realistic just as much as complexity can. In the battles in the game Legion, you give your orders and watch your formations crash into one another. No platoon view there---command control nonexistent! Gorgeous, elegant, highly instructive and addictive. For a while. No human opponent . . .

Clutter can be hidden. i like the extension of the unavailable command feature to expanding SOPs. ESPECIALLY when you might be commanding untrained conscripts, not a professional fighting force. Crack troops should be able to "do a little more" than conscripts, not just "do it better." Not too much, or you have a "campaign" game. Some complexities get tedious in the heat of battle, some simplicities are frustrating in the heat of battle. I think fuzzy orders are an excellent idea to increase clarity at the beginning of a game, when your information is limited.

BTW, Lark's pt 3 and 4 date from the 80s and 90s, respectively. Seems you've abandoned your CD collection since becoming addicted to CM!

[hoolaman]

It would seem that to be considered realistic, a command system must be able to be applied to any real world combat.

Taking DG's tank simulator as an example, (although not exactly a real world example!), I don't think the command zone system prevents any of this from happening.

Initally, the orders of all the tank sections on his side were "all ahead full". So imagine all tank sections plotting wide waypoints dead ahead, taking in some good cover, and allowing mutual overwatch. It didn't sound like there was an overall commander of these forces, but either way, to change this plan, there must be a coordination of all elements, or a change in the situation of some sort.

I think the initial plan should stand as it was initially set up until something changes. For example :

* Enemy contact or report of contact by another unit.

* Unit dropping out of formation

* Unexpected obstacle or terrain feature (assuming maps and stuff are in the game)

* Change of disposition ie. change from offensive to defensive if outnumbered.

So, when DG's bradleys fell behind, they dropped out of formation and recieved the possibility of replotting an order. The M1s which were barrelling along as planned had no incentive or stimulus to change their plan and continued ahead.

The bradleys cancelled their order, deciding to keep themselves in reserve. If a higher HQ is present, they would need to actually recieve an order to halt, otherwise they would continue moving forward as ordered.

When the M1s make contact up ahead, the bradleys become aware of the situation either by sound contact or by radio reports. The bradleys can plot another order on the basis of the enemy contact, and knowing everything about the enemy, they plot a wide flanking move among the green tent trees, toward the enemy flag.

They advance down this flanking corridor, and cannot plot more orders until they are fired upon by the flag guard. They then plot another flanking order around behind the enemy units. Game over man.

At the front, when the M1's hit the enemy, they also would get to plot new orders. If a higher HQ was in command, they would report the enemy contact and the HQ would relay orders, resulting in a command delay. When they hit enemy units, the corridor could even balloon out to form a battle zone where all the units have free movement. Bear in mind that these individual tanks are not on rails. They move around and change formations with no command delay within their zones. The corridor of advance allows manouvering at will, but not changing the whole tactical focus at will.

As you can see this is a kind of vague application of the concept, but I think it give a good idea of what it involves and the potential it could have.

[HawkerT]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

... Perhaps units could leave a command zone if they feel they have to, but somehow penalties are applied for breaking from the plan and the cohesiveness of the advance, and not being in a location they are expected to be. Maybe a unit out of a command zone is less confident and likely to break, or may be much more likely to be fired on by friendly forces, or will be unable to be reached by runners to report enemy contacts.

Hot dang Hollaman! Your scheme is really coming together! An excellent application of blue on blue. If you are manning that lonely M1919 in the middle of the night and have been told that 2nd Coy is on your left and to watch your right, then if 2nd Coy suddenly pops up to your front right the likelyhood of them being plastered by you has increased dramatically!

Sorry to pop up in this thread from time to time wagging my tail as a stupid happy puppy, but the really good suggestions and thier application are far and few even in this here fine community. So I guess I am just excited by all the good stuff

Good thinking Hollaman!

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Dave Stockhoff:

Some complexities get tedious in the heat of battle, some simplicities are frustrating in the heat of battle. I think fuzzy orders are an excellent idea to increase clarity at the beginning of a game, when your information is limited.

This brings another idea related to command. I am not sure if it could be useful, but since I have to leave for a while, I throw it in anyway, in a rough, sketchy way ...

As far as the interface goes (I am especially interested in this ), would'nt it be useful to be able to select particular informations from units, or put it in a certain "mode" or "stance" where certain actions would be priorized, like "spot", or "infiltrate" or whatever, all this eventually related to command zones ? In the planning phase, you could set up an objective as being "flank guard" or "mop up" and that could influence on available orders and delay later on. Then when you click on that unit, knowing the stance, you roughly know what this unit is doing, and consquently, what it is NOT doing, i.e. a unit in the process of sneaking up on the enemy in a ditch is definitely NOT long range spotting, where a HMG or a mortar team scanning an area is under no condition to react swiftly and get on the move fast, but does see quite far.

I am afraid this is terribly unclear and halk-baked to say the least, but hey, that would be the first time

Lark's pt 3 and 4 date from the 80s and 90s, respectively. Seems you've abandoned your CD collection since becoming addicted to CM!

I know but which album ? Live ones ? Pleeease tell me Latest I have is Space Groove from Project Two.

Cheers

[ October 26, 2004, 05:44 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[Dennis Grant]

* Individual per-unit calculation of spotting and awareness. Some units may be capable of tracking several targets, some units may not see things until they are pointed out by the CO. The player still sees all, but cannot make his units be aware of something unless the game engine deems they have seen it or been told about it.

I'm on board with this idea in theory (although in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is

The trick to making this effective is going to be taking into account all the communication paths that exist on the battlefield. There's a lot more to it than just radios and runners.

Furthermore, sometimes you can communicate battlefield information without needing to actually intend to communicate it. Consider an infantry advance with tanks in support in reasonably open country. The tanks are ~200m or so back of the infantry. Crew commanders and drivers are unbuttoned. Crew commanders are scanning with binos, gunners are scanning with optics.

Suddenly, the tank crew hears MG fire, and the infantry ahead of them hit the dirt and start carrying out their reaction on contact drills - which involves them shooting back. The sound of the MG and the sight of the infantry chewing dirt draw the attention of the crew commander - he now knows there's a contact to his front, pretty much instantly. This intensifies the scan, and between the sound/sight of the actual contact itself, plus the reactions of the other units (ie, they're all shooting at a particular place) this helps him locate the contact on his own. Then, because his standing orders are to support the infantry, he opens up on the contact.

There's a delay there, ranging from "instant" (MG was directly in front of him in LOS and in the open) to some other value (a bush was blocking LOS and the tank had to manoever a little bit to get LOS) but the net result was a contact established without having to get information directly from anybody else.

* Some calculation of effectivness of communication methods between units for both relaying reports of enemy activity and giving and changing orders.

Agreed, but where _this_ gets slippery is trying to accomodate subordinates using their initiative. Every subordinate has some degree or another of freedom, and within the limits of that freedom they are free to act as they see fit.

In my simulator example, I had pretty much total freedom, with the only real limits being the physical ones imposed by the danger of approaching the sabre squadrons whilst they were embroiled in a firefight. In most other cases, my command freedom was much more restricted.

So in game terms, the act of clicking on a squad and giving it new instructions doesn't necessarily mean that it is getting new orders from some higher HQ - it could be acting on its own initiative, or (in the case of infantry sqauds particularly) it might be carrying out orders from the platoon commander based on HIS initiative (platoon commanders are usually in intimate contact with their sections)

Allowing NCO experience levels and bonuses and 2IC's to substitute for dead commanders.

Agreed. No platoon should ever lack an HQ. Neither should any company (a platoon HQ should be promoted to company HQ if the company HQ is eliminated)

There does have to be a delay here though. This is one decision that doesn't happen instantly.

Furthermore, if a HQ crew bails out, it should be able to commandeer a vehicle from its own unit and resume its duties.

Maybe a unit out of a command zone is less confident and likely to break, or may be much more likely to be fired on by friendly forces, or will be unable to be reached by runners to report enemy contacts.

One of the biggest real-world messages that my time in the simulator communicated was the VITAL importance of Recce always staying at LEAST one tactical bound ahead of the LOS of the sabre units. Recce is always under a lot of pressure to keep up the rate of advance with dire threats about what happens should the zipperheads start to catch you up.

This was always sort of a vague academic concern, until I started getting my ass smoked by zipperheads whose gunnery skills exceeded their AFV recognition skills. Get shot out of enough vehicles and the lesson starts to take hold....

It didn't sound like there was an overall commander of these forces, but either way, to change this plan, there must be a coordination of all elements, or a change in the situation of some sort.

Actually, there was. When D Squadron pulled out, and when I realized that they weren't just taking up defensive positions near the start line, I was on the radio to the overall force commander to. uh... express my displeasure. He then made the command decision that attempting to reign in the sabre squadronds and get them formed back up on the startline (and all the chaos that such an order would create) would be more effort than it was worth, and in the worst case, mught wind up the the enemy bumping them while still disorganized.

Sometimes even commanders have to ride the wave.

But in retrospect, this was the correct decision. Plans go wrong all the time; it is the nature of plans to do so. Effective commanders adjust their plans to fit the situation, adapt, and overcome.

The game must not prevent this.

DG

[ October 25, 2004, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: Dennis Grant ]