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

[Mr. Tittles]

I think that DGs simulator experience is not either very realistic nor applicable to a wargame like CM. This is not meant as an attack on his military experience but I am wary of people using that example to base modifying CM (or any wargame) on.

The reasons it is not realistic has been discussed and he admits he has uber info and no real consequence for his actions.

But the reason it is not applicable to CM is that CM models one player doing all these actions that the simulator could with individual players. Each is making these small decisions and initiatives without the borg-view that the CM player has. Unless CMXX is designed for multi-player same side options, then we are still back to Borg-Central UNLESS we accept abstractions that limit this 'accepted' battle view.

People should read battle accounts from WWII and know why DGs M1/Bradley simulator is not relevant.

In the desert the Germans would move so slowly with thier tanks as to be imperceptible. Why? They did not have the M1s speed, stabilized gun, info systems and a host of other major weapon systems differences. I cite Seek, Strike and Destroy for this.

Lets not base a discussion on improving a WWII game by applying hyperwar principles.

[Dennis Grant]

While I agree that there are _portions_ of this experience that don't apply very well, there are a few lessons to be learned from that little story.

1) Soldiers will seek maximum advantage from whatever situation they are placed in. They are out to win, and will act according to the possibility to exploit opportunity, balanced against risk.

2) Subordinates can and will take actions based upon their own initiative, occasionally without the explicit knowledge of higher commands, but usually in accordance with the outline of a higher command's plan. "Actions" taken by units do not necessarily flow from explict commands made by higher commanders.

3) Subordinates can make decisions on the tactical situation without needing much in the way of information. In this case, I had a paper map, a radio (an actual honest-to-god radio, that worked about as well as the real thing; which is to say, poorly) and what I could see out of my cupola vision blocks and the gunner's sight. NO GPS. NO uber top-down maps. No way, for that matter, from determining my OWN position aside from referencing terrain features via the vision blocks and the paper map.

And yet, despite the lack of tactical information, was still able to formulate a plan and carry it out to a successful conclusion.

I had access to nothing that would have not been availible to my counterpart in WW2, save maybe a radio in every callsign under my command.

And lest anyone think I'm trying to make myself out as some sort of uber commander, these are skills common to ALL troop leaders. My behaviour wasn't in any way exceptional; it was what was expected of me.

And as a further BTW, I found the simulator extremely limiting. I couldn't do turret downs and peer out over terrain with my binos. I couldn't use hand signals. I couldn't back into woods and uses them as a covered OP. I couldn't dismount JAFFO and have him do his dismounted drills. Half of my usual bag of tricks was denied me (although on the plus side, I gained a secured map edge, easily traversible woods, and the knowledge that boldness wouldn't physically kill me)

4) #1, #2, and #3 add up to situations that get labelled as "borgish" or "gamey" in CM that wind up being very close to what could actually happen in real life.

5) We had an associate member of my mess who had been a Sherman troop leader in WW2. The man had 6 tanks shot out from under him, and he was full of stories - and advice. Aside from the ranges at which engagements can happen in modern battlefields (he had a hard time believing that you could hit anything beyond 1000m) not ONCE did I ever here him say anything that I thought didn't apply to me. Further reading of other material has confirmed that impression.

DG

[Mr. Tittles]

Perhaps I can propose a modification to the platoon orders scheme.

Just to review:

Clicking on a 'platoon' (actually any HQ on the battlefield that can control surrounding units) brings up its assigned SOP type. Lets says its DEFEND. The platoon level SOP type brings up an options list:

1. FIRE

2. HOLD FIRE

3. CEASEFIRE

4. COVER

5. HOLD POSITION

These Options have a menu effect on the individual units under his command. Fire commands allows the sub-units to designate targets. Hold fire allows the sub-units to designate arcs (no enemy inside them at the time). Ceasefire attempts to get all firers to stop. Cover allows all sub-units to attempt to move to better positions or hide if needed.

Lets say we have a platoon. Its in DEFEND mode (He just entered the area through a movement based SOP). Has just entered a farm position and is not under fire nor firing at this time. The platoon HQ is selected and SOP DEFEND option COVER. Clicking on his sub-units pops up the individual elements sub-menu. It reads:

1. Sneak

2. Withdraw

3. Hide

4. Covered arc

5. Pause

6. Rotate

Each of these commands would have an extremely short delay as long as the movement types are very short. There is no delay-penalty for combining them. Since the platoon direction is COVER, stealth bonuses are slightlty greater. Since the platoon is presently not firing and there is no incoming fire, this also allows C&C bonuses to apply (hearts and stars, etc). The initial planning waypoints do not effect these short initiative based moves. Sneaking in any direction is about the same.

Lets say its the next turn and a sound contact is noticed on the right flank and a HMG in front of the platoons position opens up on a neigboring left hand platoon.

The platoon HQ is selected and HOLD FIRE is given. Each of the subords have the following menus:

1. Covered arc

2. Hide

3. Rotate

4. Split Squad

Again there is no delay except possibly rotate or split squad to units outside the red control line (black liners). Even then its very short. The right flank squad is rotated towards the sound contact, given a covered arc that will open up on favorable terrain but he does not hide (need to know whats over there). Covered arcs are issued to cover all open terrain in front of them but not the HMG position.

The next turn shows that the HMG continues to fire and the sound contact on the right is some half squad that appears to be withdrawing out of LOS. Also, behind you the company HQ shows up.

He immediately chews you out for not firing at the HMG and changes your platoon SOP to ATTACK! The HMG is right along the attack waypoint.

Next turn the platoon ATTACK! menu shows..

1. ASSAULT

2. FIRE

The left hand platoon is firing at the HMG. They will give you cover but wont move theselves. You use ASSAULT SOP menu option.

Individual elements menus show:

1. Assault

2. Advance

3. Fire

4. Sneak (sneaking towards enemy)

5. Rotate

6. Split squad

7. Pause

Now here we see the platoon HQ's issuing of MANY individual orders possibly racking up substantial delays. If he gives just one squad a assault order and the other two Fire orders, he will have minimal delay on the assaulter.

[ October 25, 2004, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Mr. Tittles]

I had access to nothing that would have not been availible to my counterpart in WW2, save maybe a radio in every callsign under my command.

Would your WWII counterpart have a M8 armored car? Perhaps a Stuart?

The Bradley can not be compared to these AFV. especially if they ran into a German tank at most ranges.

[Mr. Tittles]

I think that C&C on AFV and C&C of infantry forces is so different (in WWII) that I do not think that AFV experience should cloud up a discussion of infantry experience.

Even in WWII, controlling a AFV platoon approach a very deadly ideal. A 5 tank platoon could operate in near-borg-time. Given the proper training and communications and an experienced leader, a 5 tank platoon could operate at near CM control.

But controlling a infantry platoon is a much different matter. They are very naked and have no body armor. They rely on drills out of neccesity. when under fire, they can nearly disappear from a commanders view as they flatten out.

A single tank is really one weapon (main gun plus coax) and a bow MG. Both of which are linked to the TC through intercom (typically). There is such inter tank control and limited things to control (basically need to issue orders to either driver or the gun crew~gunner/loader) that they can be CM modeled.

A squad in an infantry platoon is not that inclined to get away from the platoon. The individual squad NCO is more busy with his 8-10 fire systems and where they are. He needs to stay ib close touch with the platoon HQ and knowing whats going on in the squad. Loose cannons and muskateering is frowned upon.

[Mr. Tittles]

Initiative might be modeled as follows:

During the platoon activation method, the platoon (being under a SOP) gives a option which is really a 'general' order.

{Review: Lets says its DEFEND. The platoon level SOP type brings up an options list:

1. FIRE

2. HOLD FIRE

3. CEASEFIRE

4. COVER

5. HOLD POSITION}

Each of these options allows only certain squad and individual elements of the platoon to see a command list with limited commands depending on above.

{Review: The platoon HQ is selected and SOP DEFEND option COVER. Clicking on his sub-units pops up the individual elements sub-menu. It reads:

1. Sneak

2. Withdraw

3. Hide

4. Covered arc

5. Pause

6. Rotate}

But to model initiative, there could be random advances, etc thrown in the order menus that simulate initiative beyond what the platoon is doing. The player may opt to use it or not. If the unit incurs casualties, then there may be ramifications for this action.

[Mr. Tittles]

The Initiative Switch could also happen at the platoon level. A Platoon under a MOVEMENT SOP that suddenly comes under fire or sights the enmy, may trigger either a Waypoint string (it makes a new attack line, on the fly, like our intrepid hero DG, or it may switch SOP to ATTACK also. So initiative is also at the platoon level.

But theres a flip side to this coin. If you want initiative, then you have to accept self preservation and cowardice. An example is a platoon that is attacking nicely is suddenly hit by arty. Its in ATTACK SOP but the platoon HQ has suffered 2 casualties. The platoon is thrown into COVER mode in the middle of an assault. Its screwed.

[Dennis Grant]

Would your WWII counterpart have a M8 armored car? Perhaps a Stuart?

Or a Staghound. Or a Humber. Or a Daimler. Or many times, just a Jeep.

Recce is flexible, and its primary offensive weapon is the artillery. You normally don't use intergral weaponry except for self-preservation, or if the opportunity is just SO good as to not pass up.

The Bradley can not be compared to these AFV. especially if they ran into a German tank at most ranges.

On the contrary, I think a Bradley can be expected to die every bit as gloriously if it bumps into a T80 as a Staghound would if it bumped into a PanzerIII.

The one exception is that Bradley carries TOW - but when I was using it the missiles didn't enter into the picture. We didn't use them.

We certainly normally didn't expect to engage tanks. With something armed with a 25mm chain gun, I MIGHT engage a tank or two with an entire troop (with half the troop flanking) but you sure don't go toe-to-toe with tanks. Recce lives on sneak 'n' peek.

But I have a WW2 story for you about this very thing:

The lead element of a recce troop, (I think it was a Staghound) was moving forward on his next bound when he encountered a PanzerIV coming his way. Faced with the choice between reversing back up the slope he had just come down (presenting a wonderful target all the while), or charging forward, he chose to charge, gunning past the tank (and gunning ON the tank as well) and cresting the next rise.

Over the rise was a column of marching infantry, along with another tank. Committed, he fired on both while roaring forward over the next rise.

Over THIS rise was an anti-tank gun crew hurryedly attempting to set up their gun. They too got a burst of fire and the car raced forward over the NEXT rise.

Thankfully, this one was clear, as was the next one - and then the car hid in a woods to catch their breath and call in the contacts and figure out how to get back through 10 km of enemy held territory.

While they were waiting, the rest of the unit showed up. It seems that they caught the first tank by suprise; the driver jerked hard to avoid getting hit and the tank rolled over into the ditch. The second tank had had a fuel drum strapped to it, and it had been burst open and set afire - the tank was toast. The infantry who had been with it had been so shocked that they thought they were being hit by an entire regiment, and surrendered to the next vehicle to arrive on the scene. And the anti-tank gun had been damaged by a lucky shot and the crew were nowhere to be found.

Typical? Hell no. But _possible_ Dash, verve, and initiative can act as a force multiplier.

DG

[hoolaman]

Mr. Tittles:

I quite like some of your ideas about SOP and limiting the types of orders available to the player. I am not sure I fully understand what you mean though.

If a platoon commander assigned "hold fire" or "cover" SOP orders, why would the company CO come along and change them? After all, the player inhabits the minds of both, the player would have a consistent plan in mind. If it is easy to change from attack to defend, and therefore have access to all the orders, what is the point?

Ok, having modified slightly my ideas to take into account the valid points made in this thread, my command idea is as follows.

* At setup, a plan is formulated and communicted to everybody. This plan is in the form of command zones plotted for each unit as mentioned above.

* More detailed plans can be formulated and waypoint clicking reduced by assigning "SOP zones" for the waypoint corridor orders. Things such as rally points, danger zones, safe zones, patrol zones, recce zones etc. could affect the disposition of troops within them.

* There are two ways a player can change the command zone waypoints.

1- A change in circumstances such as change in enemy contacts, a unit falling behind in a formation (maybe), or a change in combat status, ie. pinned, cautious. This reflects initiative. In this case, the unit is on its own initiative, and can change its own waypoint, but not that of other units around it. This level of initiative would be based on experience: a green unit would go to ground and stick even more tightly to the plan, a veteran would know that it could back off or outflank.

2- An order has been recieved by the next highest commander.

In this case, a HQ can only change waypoints on a turn if he has one of the events in 1 reported to him by simulated battlefield C&C. He then takes a simulated delay to get his ordes out. This is the only way to change the whole focus of an attack.

If none of these things happen, there is no reason to change any plan.

* Within the command zone, a platoon has little to no command delay. Squads can zig-zag or run form house to house or swing from tree to tree with no delay within a 150-200m wide area. This is not intended to be very restrictive. Squads may get a delay in movement proportional to a NCO experience rating. If enemy contact is made, the command radius might get larger or smaller to reflect initiative and allow tactical manouvres.

* Each unit has its awareness individually calculated, and when clicked on its LOS and unit tracking is shown, including reports of enemy activity which would be marked on the map as "reported MG" or something.

* Moving out of a command zone would thus become a bizarre illogical occurence, based on no enemy contact, no intelligence, no higher orders. If the player does it, the troops take a big morale hit, get fired on by friendly forces, cannot recieve reports of new enemy contacts, get struck down with plague, etc. etc.

I think that is all. If better comms methods and training are available, an advance might take on near borg like quality, but with no radios and green troops, you have potential for chaos, and a good adaptable plan would be essential.

Originally posted by Dennis Grant:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />* 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.</font>

[Tarkus]

Holy smoke, you guys aren't wasting time ! I have to keep up now

I see no one reacted to my foggy morning point, and my guess is that no one got it since it is rather unclear So I give it another go, just to at least make the point a little bit more clear. It will also allow us to take a step back and see how can this thing come together visually, and to make sure we all talk about the same thing.

Hoolaman idea is just another way in presenting two battlefied realities: a commander (us, the players) and the command (the troops we give orders to). Sounds basic but let's push the point about the commander further.

By being allowed to draw command zones on the maps, the on-map commander (us, the players), is being given the means to -roughly- illustrate his intent both graphically and systematically (i.e. with consequences on the game). It's basically just like a commander pondering over his map, thinking about what his next move is going to be, illustrating it and showing it to his staff for his orders to go down the chain of command. Since we said the commander is at the same time the trooper, all this ends up being one conceptual operation that is good for every member of the command. Drawing a line is thus assumed to be passed on to its approriate destination. A company HQ, a tank platoon, whatever.

From there, many ideas were suggested. Let's review some of them.

Command zone. These can be many, with various effects. I think the best way to implement this would be to provide the commanders with drawing tool or basic waypoints as they are now implemented in the game with some more elaborate features (variable surface coverage, radius, etc). Arrows for movements, lines, brushes for areas, shapes for objectives. Whatever is useful to allow the commander to put on the maps what are his ideas. That way, planning and commanding would merge into a "command" 3D map without having to separate the planning phase from the setup phase. These ideas that the commander draw would later proove influencial on the game. How ? By providing, as Hoolaman, Mr. Tittles and others are suggesting, a frame representing the battle plan within which units would be subjected to certain "stance" bonus/penalties according to the commander intent, his plan, the ground upon which all this occur and all other applying factors. The point would be to allow the commander to prepare his staff and command to execute his orders and provide it with a certain framework of contingencies and perhaps orders available in certain zones. Here's an example:

Say Commander Grant is ordered to advance with his mech Battalion to take possession of a village, consolidate and await reinforcements.

Studying his map, he decide of a time frame, his path of advance (including phase lines, schedule and the like), the force he will use, and the various step in implementing the plan. He then passes on his orders to his staff who work out the details and prepare orders drafts. Say in the plan he decides that a platoon of M3 HTs will move on a road which follow a river bed, then crosses a bridge, move further down the road to a specific overwatch position and have a support platoon debus and setup in a wood, preparing for overwatch later on.

He could "draw" his plan like this:

- Draw an assembly area (present setup zone could act as default)

- Draw path of advance (with waypoints ? brushes ?) with a tool that could either represent a stance (contact likely, contact expected, no contact) representing an appropriate doctrinal wording based on various Field manuals of the era depicted.

- Draw a zone where his troop would debus and assume defensive positions, scout the patch of wood and prepare for the next part of the mission. Perhaps some more or less orders could be available to troops with more or less experience.

Repeat the process with other combat team within the frame of the plan.

Q. But, yo, I mean, what would this give to the player ?

Well, for a start, a carefully laid plan would allow the player to benefif from having his troops already acquainted with his intent, the time frame and the objectives of the plan. That would have various effect on delays and such. I refer here to all the previous ideas that where suggested in the present thread. That way, troops could "stick" or "tend" to be more responsive within the frame of the plan, but that would NOT prevent them from acting otherwise. It would simply imply more delay, variable lack of cohesion, raising the probability of friendly fire, etc, based on a multitude of factors, like morale and HQ bonus and penalties.

Note that I do not imput any value in this scheme. I just assess the principle.

Next, Troops would be able to distinguish from various "zones" that would influence their stance and modify the way they carry on certain orders. A "move" in an assembly area would be carried on much faster than in a "contact likely" area.

Third, all this could be made available to scenario designer that could either edit and lock some of theses zones to simulate suprise attack, raid, patrols, front line, rear area, whatever fits.

Fourth, I let you guys in.

Q. Would a player be required to use these planning gizmos ?

Absolutely not. The regular delay system (or any one BFC devise) would apply. The planning tool would be an add-on to help people think, create, and carry their plan throughout the battle. It could be turned on and off as an option.

Plus, with Standard Operations Procedures (SOPs), the game would still carry a good measure of control, without having to rely on this overhead planning phase.

It would be an optional rule, but interesting for those who like better immersive play, and the challenge of not only deploying and fighting a battle, but thinking it ahead. Think of it as a grog option.

Q. What if my plan goes wrong ?

You would have some choices. First, you can fight the battle as is, using all available units with their generic orders. Just like it is right now in CMxx.

Or, using the communication network you have at your disposal, you would then go about the process of changing your orders, "redrawing" (or not) your ideas, intent, zones and such, and reseting your plan to better adapt it to your reading of the present situation.

You could do it partially, within the communication at your disposal, or globaly. Of course, depending of the way the communications are implemented, the situation at hand, and the current state/experience/whatever state of your comm people and equipement, this change of plan will take more or less time to take effect.

* * *

That will be all for me gentlemen. Hope I got this right. Feel free to bash in and correct.

'night

[ October 25, 2004, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

Hoolaman idea is just another way in presenting two battlefied realities: a commander (us, the players) and the command (the troops we give orders to). Sounds basic but let's push the point about the commander further.

By being allowed to draw command zones on the maps, the on-map commander (us, the players), is being given the means to -roughly- illustrate his intent both graphically and systematically (i.e. with consequences on the game). It's basically just like a commander pondering over his map, thinking about what his next move is going to be, illustrating it and showing it to his staff for his orders to go down the chain of command. Since we said the commander is at the same time the trooper, all this ends up being one conceptual operation that is good for every member of the command. Drawing a line is thus assumed to be passed on to its approriate destination. A company HQ, a tank platoon, whatever.

Tarkus:

Your overall concept as you have stated it would work very well in a new game. But it seems like what you have described is more of an interface change than anything.

As you probably know I think I was proposing a stricter idea, where the player is not the overall commander, but can only command based on the abilities of the troops on the board. At one level of command, say company level, the CM player comes up with a tactical idea to change the course of a platoon. These change in plans are not instantly transmitted to every level.

If this were to happen IRL, either the platoon commander must have a bolt of inspiration, or the company commander must have a bolt of inspiration and then tell the platoon commander about it.

He can do this either on the initiative of the platoon leader or by the initiative of the company CO. To implement his new plan the CM player is limited by:

a) What the unit in question sees and knows ie. the platoon commander cannot respond to something he cannot see.

b)What orders can be gotten to the unit, and what the commander sees and knows ie. the company commander cannot respond to something he cannot see.

It may be better to think of it in a slightly different way. Imagine a command zone as a compnay level waypoint. As the platoon moves forward, a radius around it moves forward as well. This circle may be 200m in diameter. The circle must be on the company level waypoint.

If enemy contact is made, the radius of the circle may increase, but the platoon elements must stay within the circle. Under certain circumstances, a platoon commander may abandon the original planned company waypoint and plot his own company waypoint.

If the company commander wants to plot new waypoints, he must get out the orders to the platoons.

That is the bare bones of the idea, exactly the same as the command zone concept but maybe with a better explanation...... Or maybe not.

x =squad o= platoon HQ

[The Warrior]

Has it ever been any thought of having a modern version of CM? Maybe covering the cold war in Germany or Korea. I don't know about you all, but I would love to see M1s speeding across the map. Could also be interesting to do what if for the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Beline crises of 1947 and 1961 with M48s and T55s. I would also like to see an Arab/Isreali Wars version covering all the major conflicts from 1947 to about 1982's Peace for Galili Operation.

So how about that? :eek:

[HawkerT]

The Warrior

Valid suggestions! But please ... they belong in the thread here

This thread is striving hard to keep focus and should be allowed to do so

All the best

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

Tarkus:Your overall concept as you have stated it would work very well in a new game. But it seems like what you have described is more of an interface change than anything.

Well, kind of. But I simply try to see what the whole thing would look (and feel) like on the other end of the design spectrum. Yesterday, reading about the thread, from the part I understood , I began to wonder... "yeah but... how's this going to work ?" There are many ideas flying by, and I decided to try to actually translate it in game terms. I am happy to read your post, since it allow me to better understand your idea and raise some points about it.

Here's a VERY RUDE sketch of illustrating your idea further and merging it with the command phase. I still think both fit ogether quite well.

EDIT: This is CMBO and I am using Strontium Dog excellent grass before anyone ask

It should definitely look better than this in game, but hey, I haven't had my coffee yet . I would envision something much closer to standard tactical drawing with big arrows and symbols. And that would look goooood. Note that the round waypoints are just a suggestion as to how this could work in a simple visual way. It could also serve to encourage simplicity by tracking accurately a plan and making it so that changes and long, complex legs would be harder to achieve and/or maintain than simple ones.

The point is to provide the player an easy-to-use tool to set the stage for actual game phases, the structure of which would be based on the various propositions you are suggesting.

[...]I was proposing a stricter idea, where the player is not the overall commander, but can only command based on the abilities of the troops on the board.

I definitely see that, and I understand that you are specifically concerned with the borg spotting issue. I was too at first, but reading this thread, I wonder now if a proper communication model could not do the job ? Meaning, you would either loose contact with units without radios/out of sight/gone, but would still benefit in real time from unit able to communicate. On the other hand, I still dont understand how you can effectively "devide" an onboard command into subunits and restrain the player into not benefiting from at least some information, appart from imbeding the orders the player wants to give inherent to the communication net in the game. From what I understand, you suggest to limit the flexibility of any given subunit by the way it interact with the immediate higher echelon HQ with more than just delays, but with the command area this HQ (or one higher still) "represent".

If this were to happen IRL, either the platoon commander must have a bolt of inspiration, or the company commander must have a bolt of inspiration and then tell the platoon commander about it.

I see better where you are getting at now. We all basically roam around the same idea, but I think many point of view are offered as to how exactly this could be implemented in the game, plus some point of details. I think the better place to put this command idea is during setup, leaving the choice open to modify/cancel it -or not- along the communication channel during the game, where you suggest to imbed it in the game mechanic as an inherent command feature.

In addition, again correct me if I am wrong, but you are also suggesting to connect the command process (order available, communication available, else?) to what is being seen by any given unit. I am pretty sure I dont get the whole picture still, but this last point is perhaps the most brilliant idea of this whole thread. Good thinking Hoolaguy !

Eheheh, we still have to think about that. :cool:

[ October 26, 2004, 06:55 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[c3k]

Gents,

A few of my thoughts follow:

First, between Dennis Grant and Mr. Tittles, I don't care. You seem to enjoy debating each other. Whatever.

Second, I personally would hate for this GAME to turn into some sort of pre-planning mapfest instead of a fast-paced combat GAME. (I love the attention to detail, the attempt to approximate reality, but this is a GAME to be played.) If the margin of victory or defeat hinged on my ability to set up a myriad of SOP's, multi-level attack paths, and coordinating all the pre-attack administrivia for a REAL attack, I'll just click the ol' ceasefire button and go on to the next GAME.

In our enthusiasm to improve the GAME, let's not lose sight of the goal.

Finally, I really do like the idea of changing the C&C implementation. Using telescoping HQ zones (such that a platoon should operate within its allocated sector, as assigned by company HQ, etc. on up the chain), coupled with a delay penalty for straying, seems like a SIMPLE idea.

Thanks,

Ken

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by c3k:

If the margin of victory or defeat hinged on my ability to set up a myriad of SOP's, multi-level attack paths, and coordinating all the pre-attack administrivia for a REAL attack, I'll just click the ol' ceasefire button and go on to the next GAME.

I understand your concerns... I admitt we are making this sounds like an enormously complicated scheme, but I believe the actual implementation in the game of many points suggest here would not necessarily imply that you have to constantly set things. Units would simply act a little more realistically, and some units, like HQs, would be more important to keep in line than others. Perhaps some important changes in the command structure would be set, but that would not translate into you having to set many more values, but rather choose among variable orders.

As for SOPs, there would be generic values, and you just modify them to your liking should you feel the need for it. Plus many ideas can easily be made optionnal.

I definitely agree we must NOT make it an all-think no-action game. But a realistic one at that wont hurt.

Cheers

[Mr. Tittles]

I quite like some of your ideas about SOP and limiting the types of orders available to the player. I am not sure I fully understand what you mean though.

If a platoon commander assigned "hold fire" or "cover" SOP orders, why would the company CO come along and change them? After all, the player inhabits the minds of both, the player would have a consistent plan in mind. If it is easy to change from attack to defend, and therefore have access to all the orders, what is the point?

The company HQ, which is the ranking HQ in the scenario, is changing the SOP for that platoon 'on-the-fly'. The SOP given to a platoon HQ generates SOP options (a menu at the platoon level). Depending on the SOP option, the individual squads/weapons command menus are limited to certain actions. So individual order menus are driven by the SOP option taken.

I feel there is SO much coordination and freedom to order anyone to anything that a change must hem in the total freedom to more realistic actions.

[ October 26, 2004, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Mr. Tittles]

In our enthusiasm to improve the GAME, let's not lose sight of the goal.

And that is why there are levels of FOW and other optional degrees of playing most good games. Lets say you want a simple game and then you decide to use no FOW. Its important that the game is easy and you have to win. I would never say that everyone must use extreme FOW or any other option. So I would hope that any improvements in C&C and FOW levels would be options. Don't you?

As far as a preplanning mapfest, for certain scenarios, like meeting engagements, the scenario designer might preset all the waypoints initially relieving of doing that. This models the situation realistically forcing an initial meeting. For other scenarios, there may be pre existing waypoints/SOPs but you can edit them if you are inclined. See? Not so hard.

[c3k]

Mr. Tittles,

Taking up on your post, above: optional features are good. Everyone plays the game they like.

How does that apply with your variable SOP? It seems that the player who utilizes them, with understanding, would have an advantage. Or, if you and I were to play, we'd have to agree to levels of SOP tweaking? Please elaborate.

As an aside, I like the idea of SOP. In that they are STANDARD operating procedures. I certainly wouldn't want a forest of sub-menus involving ever greater complexity to dictate unit behaviors for the brief span of time before I could intervene. An SOP which guides the implementation of the TacAI is agreable to me. Nothing ironclad (suspense, and all that).

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading. It seems like layers of complexity are being added on for no real reason.

Regards,

Ken

[Mr. Tittles]

I see no reason why anything that anyone has proposed could not be optional. I think most people like the way the game is now, that is one minute we-go type of game. In fact, I think it should be possible to play the next CMXX in 'Classic' mode (basically CMAK). Having any of these options like waypoints, planning, SOPs, etc would just add levels of intensity to the game. Now some might find that as levels of complexity without any fun-time game enjoyment. Eh, thats OK. Its already been mentioned that CM has been sold to a military orginization as a training tool. Perhaps that alone justifies such 'complexity'. Personally its just more levels of enjoyment. If people feel they have to win and can agree on a tourney level of play, then the world wont collapse as we know it.

[ October 26, 2004, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Mr. Tittles]

A forest of sub-menus? Where? I am proposing adding one at the platoon. Thats a forest? Since the SOP types also has a menu (but it isnt used that much) I am adding two.

I would like to reiterate a point I made earlier (just for clarification and for thos ethat may not have read the whole thread).

DG brought up a good point in that his simulator had independant 'players' each making independant decisions that the other players did not have information about (or not complete info). This multiplayer realm is much different than CM.

In CM, the player is judge, jury, executioner, cook, you name it. He can jump from unit to unit and give orders, jump back and edit orders because he has seen the perspective of the other units, optimize, gamilize, etc. I do it too. But I realize that what I am doing is unrealistic and want it curtailed.

The point of waypoints, SOPs, etc is to limit the overly controlled and responsive way that units behave (especially in the attack).

I would like the game to activate units within a platoon and give them orders and once the platoons orders are finished, thats it. On to the next platoon.

[ October 26, 2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Mr. Tittles]

I am starting to think that altering wayponts should be possible at the platoon level.

Lets say we have a platoon that is advancing as flank security for an attack. His waypoints, for whatever reason..bad terrain, enemy observation, etc. are not ideal. The waypoint is modeled as a multi segment 'string' in this case. He should be able to change the line segments (either stretching them, adding a segment, etc). This might have the following consequences, delay of the change taking place (models his coordinating this change with command), temporary change of SOP (Lets say his SOP was CONTACT and now is temporarily changed to OBSERVE (this reflects a standing down while the coordination takes place, etc.

Under certain circumstances (no radio/LOS to higher HQ) this may be ill advised as it could take awhile. Certain platoon HQs with poor command may not do it at all or the line segment may not exactly go where he wants.

So there is command and plan editing on the fly. Initiative and command responsiveness could be modeled.

[ October 26, 2004, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Mr. Tittles]

I would like to sum up some points:

Waypoints

Waypoints are initially laid out on the map before the start of play. They are strait lines that designate the approach a unit should take through that area. SOPs may be given at different points along the waypoints. The SOP at the start is followed till the unit gets to the end of the waypoint and a new SOP may take over. Tarkus' sketch is very close to what I would want.

SOPs

SOPs are platoon level standard operating procedures that function as standing orders. SOPs give a platoon level menu options (that are chosen whenever the platoon is activated) that will effect the command menus of the subordinate squads, etc of that platoon.

So basically game play starts by activationg a platoon (its current SOP menu opens), selecting a SOP option from the menu, and then clicking on different squads of that platoon and choosing commands from whatever commands are present. When all platoon members have been given commands, a new platoon is activated.

[ October 26, 2004, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Dennis Grant]

I'm actually with Ken c3k there. Don't make things so complicated.

If you want to add new stuff:

1) Formations. Double-click HQ unit, selects him and all subordinate units. Right-click to get flyout menu, select "Formation". Opens little window with a list of formations, probably "Extended Line, Arrowhead, Box, Ech Left, Ech Right" Units are now in "Formation Mode" and act as a single entity with regard to movement orders, fire orders etc. When in "Formation Mode", new right-click option "Break Formation" that ungroups units and returns them back to classic CM control.

Why bother? Housekeping and click reduction.

2) Map overlays in scenarios. Allow scenario designer to draw typical map trace objects (boundry lines, objectives, phase lines) that player can toggle on/off. When on, allow them to be used as movement targets (ie, drag-select all units, "Move", mouse over phase line, phase line highlights, click on phase line, all selected units now move to phase line and stop on it. Allow player to add/delete map trace objects during setup phase. Make AI "aware" of its own map overlay objects and attempt to respect rules implied by them.

Why bother? Map overlays are THE language of the battlefield, and are fantastic for conveying intent. They also help make for easier houskeeping. Would also be a great tool for programming AI to act in a realistic manner. Do NOT foist the controls that the overlays have on the AI on the player though - give him the opportunity to digress from the plan if he wishes.

3) Change the movement commands slightly to better represent an implied posture ie, for infantry:

- March: fast move, poor spotting, no fatigue, some penalty for coming under fire, follows roads.

- Advance: slow move, excellent spotting, no fatigue, no penalty for coming under fire

- Contact: as Advance, but stop on contact and return fire if fired upon

- Bound: fast move, good spotting, medium fatigue, no penalty for coming under fire

- Run: very fast move, poor spotting, penalty for coming under fire, no return fire, high fatigue

- Assault: a move plus a fire order (ie, needs a target) Medium speed, fires on target during move, uses grenades, etc when close enough, very high fatigue

The game could use a few houskeeping improvements, but I see little need to change its basic nature.

DG

[Mr. Tittles]

The game is going to be redesigned. Not cleaned up for housekeeping purposes.

And lets all join hands and repeat 'Options are Good'.

I suppose if someone were not concerned about Borg spotting and OMNI-control, then they should be pretty happy with CMAK or CMBB. But the designers have already stated that they are going to address those issues as well as others (ie limitations of using delays, etc).

[ October 26, 2004, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]