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

[hoolaman]

Hello again everyone.

Firstly I should say that I look at threads like these as a big brainstorming session. I know some of my ideas are a bit out there, but BFC will of course do what they think is best, and if they get some ideas from the forums, all the better.

Originally posted by Tarkus:

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:

Yes! The only way to limit the actions of a unit to what it really would know is to tie the ability to change higher level planning waypoints to certain events.

The sequence runs as follows:

1. Player plots planning orders in the form of zones or company waypoints with a radius as I mentioned before. Then the paths of each squad and team are plotted, or a formation option allows the platoon to move forward as one.

2. Player presses GO and watches the video. On the map no enemy units have been spotted by anybody.

3. Next orders phase. Player can adjust waypoints of squads within the command radius, but cannot adjust the company plan waypoints.

Why? Because no spotted units means no stimulus has changed the plan.

4. Player presses GO and watches the video. On this turn, an advance platoon spots an enemy unit. It is out of immediate contact with HQ and the other squads.

5. On this orders phase, the company level waypoints can be adjusted only for the platoon that spots the enemy unit.

Why? To simulate the initiative of the platoon commander to change the plan.

Why can't the other units change plans?

Because they don't know about the enemy contact (yet). As far as they are aware, the plan is still as originally set.

6. Player presses GO and watches the video. If the player clicks on the company CO, the spotted unit ahead will not yet be seen. After maybe 30sec or 10sec if radio is involved, the spotted unit ahead becomes visible to the company HQ as it is simulated that a report has reached him. Now the overall plan can be changed on the next turn instead of just for the one platoon at the front .

Why? Because the HQ becoming aware of enemy contact allows the stimulus to alter the plan. If he was totally ignorant, the plan would have to stand.

7. The HQ Replots the orders of all platoons to deal with the new threat. However, if the comms options are poor, it may take up to 1-2 minutes to change the plan, and a command delay similar to that currently present would apply to the platoons for their company level waypoints.

Why? Beacuse just as it takes 30sec to report enemies to the HQ, so it takes 30sec to get orders back to all the squads.

Although the platoons have a command delay on changing course altogether, at the front, within their 200m radius, they are still able to run from cover to cover, in and out of houses, execute small scale flanking and other manouvres. They are where they were told to be by the company CO, and can manouvre on platoon level orders with no command delay at all.

So only on turns where something changes can the orders get changed. If it changes for only one unit, that unit can change the plan for itself and only itself. If reports reach the HQ then the plans for all units can be changed.

In this simplistic situation, it is assumed that the player inhabits the minds of the platoon HQs and the company HQ. However the player is only allowed to replot orders individually for each unit when something changes in game terms.

This idea means individual spotting and tracking of units is essential. It also takes into account a communications delay. This is abstracted based on distance, radios and LOS. Say the communications delay is 40 seconds. This means to get a report to HQ about a sighting takes 40sec. To adjust orders gives a 40 sec delay.

If both sections had radios, it might be 10 sec. If both units are in LOS maybe 15. and so on.

If all units are in close proximity, LOS or radio contact, you may be able to execute a flawless C&C borg-like battle.

I think all these options could be seamlessly put into CM. Imagine CM exactly as it is now, but with an added command delay at the company level, and none at the platoon level.

[Tarkus]

(EDIT: read Hoolaman post afterward. Same point/disclamer about the same time. Funny.)

A point concerning the present discussion. Speaking only for myself, I draw your attention on the fact that discussing design features imply by definition excellent from very bad ideas, and I offer that both are equally welcomed, since knowing how NOT pratical an idea is is very close IMO, to knowing why another is. Both help moving forward. I say that because my point of planning tool isn't necessary a good one, but I feel it carries at least part of what we are discussing now.

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

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.

That is an option I never thought about. My guess is not all people would like it, but it would add a definite tempo to the game and, combined to time limit in TCP/IP, would induce kind of an "adrenaline" play.. This one worth thinking about, and to be placed under the "advance option setting" tab in the QB engine. Default setting "off".

Originally posted by c3k:

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?

Ken, I think the way you put it is the way to go. Just like the FoW is optionnal, so many other new, exciting C&C features should be. I am not saying making it a twelve-in-one arcade game, but to go from one style of play that would focus on fast pace, jump-right-in tactics (as of now), and at the other hand of the realism spectrum, a realistic, albeit maybe slower paced game with more options for those who like them. Take Redwolf CMBB Quickbattle Armor Limit Ruleset for example. No one forces anybody to use them, but they are there for those who want to give it a try. On this I am pretty sure that the key is letting people choose what they like while enlarging the available options. Not to say that all our wonderful ideas should get in. But leaving the final choice up to the player is the best way to go. Plus it covers our a**.

Originally posted by Dennis Grant:

1) Formations [...] 2) Map overlays in scenarios. [...] 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.[...]

Agree on both counts. But I point out that these commands scheme, doodles and such are not intended at all to force anything or preclude any change to a plan. These are, as you rightly stated, the commander intent. As such, we assume they are conveyed one way or another down the chain of command, up to the moment where a force move out. Then, as it was pointed out numerous time, plan generally goes out the window (good ol' "no plan survive contact"). But the plan remain the basis of at least two things: 1) Commander intent and 2) basis of situationnal awareness. Correct me if I am wrong, but in your sim example, you knew what the objectives where, you also knew who where supposed to be where. When you were informed or concluded things were going otherwise, you began reassessing the situation from the basic infos you could still count on: a flag to be taken, and units being (or not) there and there (on time/late/early). This is what I mean by providing the planning tool. Not to prevent the player to change his idea, but to imbed on the map, to his command, a rought frame of deployment/movement/focus/intent. This can be changed any time, but I suppose it should be dependent of various communication structures, subject to some penalties related to the game specifics we know, the key word being still: is it, or is it not realistic.

My guess is that planning isn't always practical or realistic, or at least do not always assume the same shape/procedure. A platoon getting into position for a fast pace advance does not set things up as one consolidating its position, and the commander does not necessarily use the same tools. The planning tool could be locked for one player (who could be denied part of it, or have zones already drawn) or maybe differ when he is on defense of attacking, again refering to other scenarios that are not practical within CMxx actual engine, but could be very interesting in the next. I refer here on the first page of this thread where I suggested using this drawing tool within the editor to allow other small unit actions, like patrols, raids, recce, etc. 'Circular' movement waypoints, permanent ones, whatever that helps depict small unit action while enlarging the context (rear area units under attack after a breakthrough, surprise attack, etc.)

Cheers.

[ October 26, 2004, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[Mr. Tittles]

quote:

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

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

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.

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

That is an option I never thought about. My guess is not all people would like it, but it would add a definite tempo to the game and, combined to time limit in TCP/IP, would induce kind of an "adrenaline" play.. This one worth thinking about, and to be placed under the "advance option setting" tab in the QB engine. Default setting "off".

I guarantee that people who feel they have to win at all costs will not like it. Anything that limits the gamey over control and hyper war feel of the game is frowned upon by them. Unfortunately, they are much louder than most others.

It would quicken up slow players if nothing else.

This also brings up units completely out of any C&C. The lone truck crewmen and others. I say they should be given no orders but head away from the battle.

[hoolaman]

The only problem is that it is not a real fix of the borg spotting problem.

Only the first unit of the first turn would give true relative awareness to the player. The next unit would give the player the info about what the first unit sees and what the second unit sees. The last unit would allow the player to have seen the whole battlefield at one point or another.

Next turn, the player would again know where all enemy units are. It would not be any different to now, except it would make it tedious to keep track of enemies instead of easy.

If you only use this option for targetting, that is a different story. Individual per-unit LOS and spotting calculations for targeting by the TacAI and the player would be a great idea and I would be surprised if it was not included.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

The sequence runs as follows: [...] I think all these options could be seamlessly put into CM. Imagine CM exactly as it is now, but with an added command delay at the company level, and none at the platoon level.

If I try to compare your example with current CM, I see the following: In current CM, you are allowed to do whatever you want at any time, the only obstacle being that you must trade time for change of plan. In CM: Beyond Hoolaman , you now trade time, manoeuvering flexibility, and situational awareness.

Well. I'll think about it some more, but it really does sound like it could work. I can help but to wonder what is going through the mind of those who actually code the game and make it all happens. They must really think we're quite a nutty bunch.

Cheers

[hoolaman]

The idea of having HQ level commands only as an interface, as Tarkus suggested, would be quite a small adjustment which would add some great possibilities to the game. This allows easier control, and more realistic command delays, SOPs etc. But it is not really a fix to the problem I was trying to address.

Borg spotting comes in two parts.

1- One unit spots an enemy, and all units instantly can see and fire at it if in LOS.

This is easy fixed by individual calculations of spotting, and may not be unrealistic anyway as evidenced by DG's story of instantly knowing the location of the enemy based on what your fellow units do and where they fire.

2- The all knowing commander. The hard part, and what I am trying to solve, is to work out how to limit players to realistic changes in plan. I am hoping to prevent the player changing the whole plan of a battalion because his radioless sharpshooter 500m ahead up a tree sees the whole german army coming down the road.

Unless the HQ gets the report, his original plan may see all his forces blunder into the ambush.

This sort of thing cannot happen now, because when the sharpshooter ahead spots enemies, the HQ instantly knows it via psychic waves and instantly responds.

There must be a way that prevents a player from making unrealistic responses that still allows units to move with initiative, and still allows changing the initial plan within realistic limits.

My plan is explained above (badly as usual).

Help me out here.

[Tarkus]

I think the solution lay not only in one specific formula but instead, by cleverly reassessing the various aspects of the game, the level of abstraction they hold, and the way they combine.

Command zones are part of the solution. Communication network is another. SOPs are another. Hell, maybe even the planning phase is one ! The point is, thinking about all those realities that we all acknowledge to be part of the battlefield, if by successfully implementing them, BFC narrows the player's options into realistic playing (meaning: the smartest way to act/win is the most realistic), boom, the battle is mostly won.

Cheers

[hoolaman]

Platoons form the smallest element for the HQ rules. Teams and Guns may also be treated in a similar way.

There is a (platoon waypoint/corridor of advance/command-zone) which platoons as a whole are bound to in some way.

Squads and platoon HQs have little/no command delay within their (platoon waypoint/corridor of advance/command-zone).

Company HQs (or higher) are the only units that can change all the (platoon waypoints/corridors of advance/command-zones) for all the elements under their command. And hence, the only units that can change a cohesive plan into another cohesive plan.

Platoon HQ's can change the (platoon waypoints/corridors of advance/command-zones) for only their platoon based on their own initiative.

The ability for (platoon waypoints/corridors of advance/command-zones) to be changed, whether by the company HQ or platoon HQ depends on a change in the battle situation that they become aware of. If there is no change, or if they are unaware of a change, no change to the (platoon waypoints/corridors of advance/command-zones) can be made. In addition HQ units can get reports on enemy positions down the C&C chain and not have to spot them directly.

Therefore, units which are unaware of something over a hill or out of LOS cannot respond to it with a change of (platoon waypoints/corridors of advance/command-zones).

As for the mechanics of what constitutes a stimulus to allow a change in orders, I don't know. But I think the rest of the plan would work and work well. You can fairly easily change a plan, but when you have a plan, you should be expected to stick to it.

That is all, I think I am flogging a dead horse here.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

ddress.

Borg spotting comes in two parts.

1- One unit spots an enemy, and all units instantly can see and fire at it if in LOS.

This is easy fixed by individual calculations of spotting, and may not be unrealistic anyway as evidenced by DG's story of instantly knowing the location of the enemy based on what your fellow units do and where they fire.

2- The all knowing commander. The hard part, and what I am trying to solve, is to work out how to limit players to realistic changes in plan. I am hoping to prevent the player changing the whole plan of a battalion because his radioless sharpshooter 500m ahead up a tree sees the whole german army coming down the road.

Unless the HQ gets the report, his original plan may see all his forces blunder into the ambush.

This sort of thing cannot happen now, because when the sharpshooter ahead spots enemies, the HQ instantly knows it via psychic waves and instantly responds.

There must be a way that prevents a player from making unrealistic responses that still allows units to move with initiative, and still allows changing the initial plan within realistic limits.

My plan is explained above (badly as usual).

there is MORE here: (check out the date of the post)

for more on Borg spotting its origins and possible "fixes" you might be interested in this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024461;p=1

James Crowley

Member

Member # 5698

posted April 18, 2002 02:53 PM                       

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

I have recently been giving the matter of relative spotting, a concept apparently consigned to the “re-write”, some thought and believe that the current engine already contains the necessary elements, by and large, to produce the desired results.

Before I expand on the above it might be a good idea to reiterate what “relative spotting” is and, more importantly, what impact that it’s implementation could have in more realistically portraying the realities of command and control.

This is perhaps better done by example.

Picture an infantry platoon, consisting of three squads and an HQ, moving in formation, all in command control range. As it approaches a belt of trees the lead squad comes under fire from an unidentified enemy unit, takes two casualties and is pinned. The platoon HQ immediately orders the second squad to open fire on the enemy position and the third squad to move off to the right and using a gulley for cover, to advance and attack the enemy position from the flank when in a position to do so.

The third squad moves off as ordered and, as it has no radio (in common with the vast majority of units at that level in WW2) is soon too far away from its HQ to be in command control. It proceeds along the gulley until it reaches the belt of trees, moves toward the enemy position but then runs into another, as yet unseen, enemy squad, comes under fire, takes casualties and is also pinned.

The reality of that situation is that the HQ is unaware of the third squad’s current status, is unaware of the existence of the second enemy unit and cannot issue any further orders to that third squad. Why? Because the third squad and the HQ have no means of communicating with each other; they are out of the C&C radius.

The same situation in CMBO is very different. As soon as the third squad spots the second enemy unit and gets fired upon the player knows it’s status, can still give it orders (although they will be delayed) and, more importantly, is instantly aware of the existence and position of an enemy which, in reality, would be unknown and can react to that unrealistic situation accordingly

IMO that is essence of relative spotting.

There are probably very many ways of over-coming this problem but I am looking at the simplest way, which introduces the least number of changes, at least IMO (without, it must be admitted, any programming knowledge)

Using the above example, let us first look at the second, previously unspotted enemy squad. It has always been there but with FoW on, does not show up on the map because it has not been spotted by a friendly unit. It is now spotted by a squad which has no means of conveying this information elsewhere but, in CMBO, its’ presence is still revealed.

Suppose that the spotting unit is flagged as “out of CC” and therefore, as a result, the enemy unit is not revealed. This seems reasonable in that you, the player, are not given the “all-seeing eye” over the battlefield. However, what about the spotting squad, which obviously can see the enemy unit? This squad is still providing visual info. But not if you are no longer given access to that squad. Instead, that spotting squad becomes flagged as “out of CC” and is treated like an enemy unit as far as visual displays are concerned i.e. you can only see it as a “last seen at” marker and when that marker is clicked on the display only shows the name and type and its last known status (or maybe just “unknown” status.)

Nothing new here in the visuals department, except you now have generic country markers for friendly “out of CC” units as well as for previously spotted enemy units.

The primary and probably the most controversial departure from the norm is that there will possibly be more units over which you, as player, do not have control. But this seems entirely realistic to me. After all we accept that squads which are in certain states cannot be controlled; pinned, panicked, broken…. why not out of command?

In previous threads on this forum, this type of suggestion has led to protests from those who say they do not want a command level game; they want to control all of their units all of the time.

Well, as I have said you cannot control all of your units at all times anyway. Also who gains from the current “all knowing, all seeing” status of CMBO.

Those who set-up their forces in non-historical, un-military fashion, scattered as they please, without due regard to staying in command control. Those who set up a few half-squads or MG teams or jeeps to act as unofficial “scouts,” relaying back intelligence of spotted enemy positions whilst they are way out of realistic command range. And so on.

The only other change would be that the order delay function, still present for in command units, would be relegated for out of command units altogether as it would no longer be needed.

Surely the trade-off in having, perhaps only temporarily, a few more units not in the players direct control is amply repaid by the great reduction of the “god” factor and by the fact that it would encourage players to adopt a more historical and realistic approach to keeping their platoons (and this could be extended to companies and battalions) in command and control range. It would also tend to amplify the role of HQ’s to something like that of their real life counterparts.

Just a few thoughts.

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

Cheers, Jim.

[aka_tom_w]

AND this

Redwolf

Member

Member # 3665

posted April 18, 2002 03:21 PM                         

What I want a solution for is this: you are attacking with a wide screen all over the map. Lead elements to the left spot tanks. In CMBO you can immideately rush all your units, including all Bazookas from all over the map, to that spot. For me, that is one of the major reasons why tanks-heavy CMBO forces have few chances of winning against infantry on any map with decent cover. In reality, the tanks would first have more time to munch at the infantry in front of them, then they could prepare for the enemy armored reserves to arrive and other infantry would follow much later, piecemeal. In CMBO, you get a concentrated overrun from enemy infantry in a very short time.

Any idea how to solve the latter?

[c3k]

Gents,

Two more thoughts, somewhat unrelated to each other.

One: everything I've seen regarding the new C&C proposals focus solely on advancing/attacking. What of defense? How do you plot a reactive defense force? Reserve units shifting laterally? Just meant as a subject to be discussed.

Two: setting up a communications net would seem, to me, to solve many of the borg-spotting issues. Your command delay is commensurate with your ability to communicate. Units using runners need to figure the distance from HQ to subordinate, divided by the rate at which that distance could be covered by a runner. (Reasonable fitness, covered paths, etc. Please, let's not actually HAVE the poor bastards on screen!) If the units had radio comms, then the delay would be near zero. Likewise for a defender with field phones.

Hence, your out-of-comm HQ tries to send a unit over to deal with a new situation, and there's a mega-delay. Your well networked force responds more rapidly. Combine that with the Platoon/Company/Battalion zones of march as Hoolaman as expounded on.

I certainly don't want variable enemy views based on which unit I've selected. I.e., if I select the overhead view, I see many FOW "contacts". If I select the squad closest to the "contact", I see that it's a 5 man Soviet SMG squad with 4 PPsh's and 1 MN. C'mon, that implementation merely forces the player to select each and every one of his units and examine each and every one of the enemy units, EVERY friggin' planning phase. No thanks...

Regards,

Ken

(Edited so as not to further embarrass my high-school English teacher.)

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

I think the solution lay not only in one specific formula but instead, by cleverly reassessing the various aspects of the game, the level of abstraction they hold, and the way they combine.

Command zones are part of the solution. Communication network is another. SOPs are another. Hell, maybe even the planning phase is one ! The point is, thinking about all those realities that we all acknowledge to be part of the battlefield, if by successfully implementing them, BFC narrows the player's options into realistic playing (meaning: the smartest way to act/win is the most realistic), boom, the battle is mostly won.

Cheers

Yes my thoughts exactly. People are wracking thier brains and they have to realize that much of the game is abstracted. Trying to figure out what is realistic and then abstract it is difficult sometimes. Sometimes abstracting something and deciding if its realistic can be found through playtesting (given objective playtesters who are not focused on some other goal of course).

Heres an example:

A design team on a game is testing and wants to see if its infantry model is sound. They decide a good test is if a reinforced platoon can stop a infantry company from taking a frontal assault on its position 8 times out of 10. They figure that is about historically correct given the power of MGs.

They have 3 pairs of opponents and they find that they play the scenario out 20 times each. The pair play 10 times as attacker and then switch sides and play 10 times as defender.

What they find is for the 6 ten trials, 5 times the attacker is stopped only 7 times out of ten and the remaining trial shows the attacker is stopped 5 times out of ten. They then adjust the game slightly, making the pinning effect greater from MG fire.

They repeat and find that now 5 trials show that 8 times out of 10 (average), the attacker does indeed get stopped but that 1 trial shows still that 5 times the attacker gets through. They figure its just an anomaly and repeat the test. Again they get the same results. They inquire further and see that its the same player who is beating the odds. They ask how hes attacking and he explains that he plays to win. They say thats admirable and will he show them the wondrous technique. he further explains that he is a 'vet' and has fought in simulators and shot blanks and used grenade simulators (he likes to jab at his own chest with his thumb while he explains). They thank him for his military service and again inquire about his technique. He then explains that he Wins by initialling giving a squad an intricate movement order consisting of many small lengths of movement and assault orders. This extends all the way around the side of the position and into the enemys flank and rear. He whispers that he knows that he can constantly edit these pregiven orders by moving them in relation to events that are unfolding (out of his LOS). He cups his hands to his face and giggles maniacally.

They congradulate him on his ingenuity but point out that they are doing a firepower test and its supposed to be a frontal assault. He shakes his head and mutters something about civilians. They also try to discuss with him perhaps the intricate move would require more planning than this short hasty attack would allow. He then explains in detail how it could happen. They explain that it couldnt happen every time. He says that doesnt matter cause it could happen. They grin and slowly back away and say they have to go get some lunch.

[ October 27, 2004, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by c3k:

One: everything I've seen regarding the new C&C proposals focus solely on advancing/attacking. What of defense? How do you plot a reactive defense force? Reserve units shifting laterally? Just meant as a subject to be discussed.

While I think C&C problems are more accute on the attack, and loss of cohesion will more likely occur with units moving on hostile ground, your quite right in pointing it out. I not only agree with you on the fact that there are applications and questions to be ask on other tactical situations, but I encourage you to contribute as well.

From the top of my head, I'd say that one thing that would be very interesting would be to implement some sort of field telephone system. Not quite useful on the attack, but for defense, given what we all hope for as far as comm are concerned, that would be a basic defence choice in every buyer's guide.

You would buy a field telephone post (or pit, or trench, or bunker) and it would be assumed to get all surrounding units wired, based upon such thing as battle type (could be related to "unit can dig in" option). Same would go for a radio hub of some sort. Here I would call for the imput of someone who really knows how radio were used/deployed/maintained, including traffic, during WWII, but some sort of overall HQ tent/trench that would take care of this business of communication could be interesting to look at.

The key, as with all the rest, would be to very clearly state the pros and cons of such units within the game, so player knows what he's in for when picking them.

There were other propositions in the thread about using comm/planning/editor to adress some C&C features while enabling developments for others tactical situations like defense, raid, patrols, surprise attack, etc.

Cheers

[Mr. Tittles]

quote:

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

Originally posted by c3k:

One: everything I've seen regarding the new C&C proposals focus solely on advancing/attacking. What of defense? How do you plot a reactive defense force? Reserve units shifting laterally? Just meant as a subject to be discussed.

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

I believe I mentioned that on defense, a platoon can get a reserve SOP and perhaps a waypoint towards a trench line lets say. It could then act as a rapid counterattacking force if that position was threatened. If it had a radio, it might get several seperate lines so that it could back up other positions. Not just because of the radio but as an abstraction to show the overall command responsiveness and junior officer training, etc.

[hoolaman]

The principle is the same on defense. Cordinating sending reserbes to weak points on the line, or moving support and AT weapons, could be accomplished just the same with command zones and C&C delays.

Radios field telephones, runners etc. can all be simulated or abstracted into the system for order delays at certain HQ levels.

[Andrew H.]

I have a couple of thoughts on C&C in CMxx, and while they're not nearly as fleshed out as the suggestions from Hoolaman, I'll offer them up anyway.

If you think about it, some of the unrealistic micromanaging comes from the one-minute turns. What is realistic about the turns is that for one minute, you watch your troops carry out the orders you gave with no opportunity to intervene. This is the heart of the game, the heart of we-go, and, I think, provides the realistic framework that makes the game both realistic and fun. I could go on and on about how cool it is to watch your orders carried out - but all CM players know that already.

The unrealistic part, esp. wrt C&C, comes in the between-turns orders phase...you can give your units new orders every minute. And - primarily due to the godlike perspective of the players - these orders can lead to quite unrealistic behavior.

So one way of making C&C more realistic would be to extend the turn time (i.e., prohibit issuing orders) for units not in C&C. Due to AI limitations, you would probably have to permit some limited order-giving...maybe fire orders are okay, or very short movement orders...but telepath-level moves would not be permitted.

I think that a robust SOP system would help this system a lot - the units would still behave somewhat realistically when not under the direct control of the player if they were following their SOP.

You could also account for experience differences with this system - maybe the player can give orders to a crack unit every 3 turns even when not in C&C, and a crack unit can make an independent move of up to 50 meters in a turn - because of its lower level initiative. Conscript troops out of C&C can only be given orders every 10 turns, and the conscripts can only move independently 5 meters when not in C&C.

Anyway, this is only a rough sketch of an idea. But it is interesting how a lot of the effects would be similar to Hoolaman's: while there are no phase lines in this system, units without new orders would tend to stay within the parameters of their original orders, with more experienced units having, in essence, larger parameters.

And of course I've skipped the whole question of how we determine what "within C&C" means...

[hoolaman]

I agree that one part of a C&C model could be to only have the option to give units orders at the end of certain turns. My take on it is to bind units to "the plan" unless they spot an enemy unit in that turn. At the orders phase they can then change "the plan" with an appropriate command delay, but all the while squads can run around in circles all they like.

The 60 second turn (or at very least the "we-go" system) looks like staying, but hopefully options can be put in to give more fine control within the turn. The fact is that the current order delay system isn't neccesarily unrealistic, because although the player can give orders every 60 sec. the orders are only recieved and acted upon after an appropriate command delay.

I would like to see more control, not less, within the 60 sec turn for squads, because most of the short dashes into cover, or from one house to the next, haven't been ordered by battalion HQ, or even the platoon HQ, but decided by the NCO right there on the ground.

The only problem with having no control over a unit out of c&c is that they might be stuck sitting in a field waiting for orders from an officer, thus producing unrealistic behaviour. Then you get to the argument that most of the time you will not be playing the game, but only watching the AI play it for you.

[Mr. Tittles]

Good points. The one minute abstraction does not get that much mention (I think I brought it up earlier in this thread).

You can also edit orders already given. Thats another thing that many dont mention. Cancelling parts of an orders string and repositioning the endpoints. A bit hyper controlled. Also orders can be added onto a orders-string.

The turn time length may be a reflection of a infantry type game. For a tank type game, it could be shorter.

[Mr. Tittles]

I would like to see more control, not less, within the 60 sec turn for squads, because most of the short dashes into cover, or from one house to the next, haven't been ordered by battalion HQ, or even the platoon HQ, but decided by the NCO right there on the ground.

The only problem with having no control over a unit out of c&c is that they might be stuck sitting in a field waiting for orders from an officer, thus producing unrealistic behaviour. Then you get to the argument that most of the time you will not be playing the game, but only watching the AI play it for you.

You dont want more control then, you want better TACAI taking over and making the units decide realistically what they will do. The game already does this somewhat but not very well.

And having a unit out of C&C not do anything or doing something you dont want is realistic.

[aka_tom_w]

ONE more Gem from the past....

aka_tom_w

Member

Member # 1515

posted April 26, 2002 01:43 PM                      

quote:

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

quote:

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Mushkin:

The hypothetical example is only showing that the PLAYER cannot target specific enemy units (But he is giving a general direction). The TACAI could. Its a subtle point but has to be understood

Oh, I understand completely. What you must understand is that currently in CM the player assumes the role of the MG gunner when he gives the order to fire, so there is no logical reason why he should not be able to specify an exact target unless you are going to say that the player is the platoon LT, not the sergeant or corporal leading the squad, manning the MG. This is what people mean when they talk about making CM a "command level" game: the player gives general orders to his units and lets the TacAI carry them out. This is a different type of game than CM, and one I would not like as much for reasons I and others have explained.

If the player is the MG gunner, the Squad Leader, the Jeep driver, the Tank TC, the Arty Spotter, the Company CO AND the Platoon HQ, then the player is the CAUSE of the Borg Like Absolute spotting problem because the player knows ALL, sees ALL, and Commands All.

"This is what people mean when they talk about making CM a "command level" game: the player gives general orders to his units and lets the TacAI carry them out."

BUT then why are there command delays in CMBO?

WHY do we really want to try to keep our squads within command radius?

If the folks who play CMBO insist on Playing ALL the roles then most of the Problems of Absolute Spotting (if they are problems ?) that we have been attempting to identify in this thread, cannot be solved. (except by TCP-IP multi-player TEAM play)

EVEN if the BTS idea of Relative Spotting were implimented, in that each and every unit makes it own spotting check and cannot target (but MAY be ordered to use "area Fire" at) enemy units it has not spotted, (BUT the player KNOWS where those enemy units are he can order or direct EVERY unit, irrespective of whether it has spotted the enemy unit or not, or whether it is in C&C or NOT, to fire or move in that general direction (NOW thats a "BORG Like Swarm" ™ to use Redwolf's term ), what would that solve?

So then what has that implimentation of Simulated Relative Spotting achieved?

I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat.

-tom w

[Mr. Tittles]

aka_t_w

Is that a bunch of cut n paste from many different people? Its somewhat hard to follow as it seems out of context.

[Mr. Tittles]

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024461;p=1

This thread is worth reading through. I like some of the ideas in it. It is actually pre-CMBB? Some of the ideas seem advanced.

I don't buy that CM cant be a quasi-command/small-scale tactical fun game. Unfortunately, the player has been bred into the menu at the squad scale mentality and seeing all and all the other foibles.

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

I would like to see more control, not less, within the 60 sec turn for squads, because most of the short dashes into cover, or from one house to the next, haven't been ordered by battalion HQ, or even the platoon HQ, but decided by the NCO right there on the ground.

The only problem with having no control over a unit out of c&c is that they might be stuck sitting in a field waiting for orders from an officer, thus producing unrealistic behaviour. Then you get to the argument that most of the time you will not be playing the game, but only watching the AI play it for you.

You dont want more control then, you want better TACAI taking over and making the units decide realistically what they will do. The game already does this somewhat but not very well.

And having a unit out of C&C not do anything or doing something you dont want is realistic.

You are right, more control within the 60 sec turn can only come from expanded orders and SOPs. However I do want more human control of exactly where squads move.

Everything I have posted in this thread is aimed at having no command delay over squads. Every orders phase, the player should be able to send squads anywhere and respond as they should as if the player was the NCO. So as I said (and meant)I would like to see more control, not less, within the 60 sec turn for squads.

To prevent unrealistic instant Psychic changes of focus coming from freeing the squads from command delay, I feel that confining them to a zone of operations as set by the last recieved order from the company HQ would be realistic.

TacAI targeting is a completely separate issue. I am concerned with where the units are allowed to be, not what they shoot at.

[Mr. Tittles]

But orders can be given beyond the 60 secs. Just keep adding orders and the amount of time to complete them will extend the action beyond one minute. Even without delay.

I always thought this 'order-loading' should have some penalty BEYOND the delay. Something like having to cancel the whole thing if it needed canceling.

[Mr. Tittles]

My system deals with limiting the orders you COULD give depending on SOP (that is menu limitations). If they were following a waypoint, they also do not have delays (or small ones depending).

But not all SOPs allow all orders. Think about it. So you still can be responsive (as long as the orders are in the menu and you are following a waypoint, in C&C, etc) and the game is limiting you from gamey overcontrolled behaviour.

[ October 27, 2004, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]