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

[hoolaman]

I have very very briefly played close combat 4. After playing CM I didn't like its scale or controls or 2Dness.

CM as it is now is a good simulation. I do not "hate the game". I did not say I wanted squads to have no FOW and for CM to be a RTS. I am simply discussing some ideas to improve the concept.

The player currently controls all squads. The player sees almost all a squad sees within FOW constraints. There is no possibility of restricting the player to the situational awareness of an infantryman in a foxhole, that it quite silly. Laying a fairly unobtrusive C&C element across what is already there can only add to the realism.

In their most simple form command zones would work anywhere I think. They only represent previous orders, not C&C ability. If a unit was ordered to take path X down the map, that is what they would do. Not having LOS or a radio is not an insurmountable problem.

[Mr. Tittles]

Well you are ignoring the fact that the 'squad' can see much more than he could in even the most modern technological battlefield possible. You say that the player 'sees' almost what a squad sees. Thats where you are fundamentally incorrect. The squad is seeing what he sees as well as everyone else.

If you read aka_t sig line, you will see that the designers are going to move in a realistic direction for the game. They have already stated that borg spotting will be addressed somehow.

Out of curiousity, were you in the Australian Army? I had a friend who was over there as a 'soldier trade' and he says that they stress very small unit actions. maybe you are trying to confuse these small squad (individual) tactics with WWII operations?

[hoolaman]

No, I was never an army man, but I would like to see possibilities for smaller scale action in CM. This allows things like commando raids and small patrols. I can see your points, but I am most definitely not arguing for any increased awareness for the player. I realise that the current CM system shows the player far more than the individuals in a real squad would see.

But it is a game after all, and limiting the player to seeing a few muzzle flashes and a face full of mud is not very helpful. In ww2 enemy units and the size of the elements facing off were often known to higher commands. I know an individual soldier would only have seen the odd enemy infantryman, or a muzzle flash, or hear a MG, but when you are abstracting individuals up to a squad acting as a single entity, and then giving the game player control of whole companies, the awareness level and FOW of the current CM is ok. Perhaps not perfect, but OK.

As I said, my ideas are aimed at allowing the player to "be" the squad (or AT team, or sniper), and allow the range of independant movements available to a real squad of 10 or so men with an experienced NCO. But at the same time to not allow these small elements to rush off on rambo missions unrealistically.

[hoolaman]

Another possible "command-zone" type idea is to assign units to a frontage.

Imagine a line is calculated on the map to represent the front line, and every unit is either assigned a relative zone of the front, or committed to reserve.

Then the order of units cannot be changed except by HQs. Reserves cannot be committed to an area on the front except by HQs.

This would also prevent reshuffling or unrealistic commitment of forces.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

Another possible "command-zone" type idea is to assign units to a frontage.

Imagine a line is calculated on the map to represent the front line, and every unit is either assigned a relative zone of the front, or committed to reserve.

Then the order of units cannot be changed except by HQs. Reserves cannot be committed to an area on the front except by HQs.

This would also prevent reshuffling or unrealistic commitment of forces.

These are all interesting idea's and deserve a bump to keep them in the forefront of our collective (game design) consciousness....

-tom w

[hoolaman]

Hey thanks! I don't know if any of this was explained very well, but there is still some good stuff from others in this old thread.

[Tarkus]

Reread it last night. That was an interesting thread, and still is, now that Steve is tuning us in a little more about the way the team sees the whole equation...

[Ace Pilot]

I think your idea of command zones is an outstanding one, Hoolaman. In fact, I think they should be called HCZs (Hoolaman command zones). I especially like the idea that the HCZ concept imposes limits that are difficult to change when company HQ or higher command levels are lost in battle. In the current CM system, there is very little penalty for losing a company HQ.

I have a question about this example that you gave.

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

Why should the units not continue marching forward as they were orderd to do if they do not hear or see the MG open up behind them. To get the units back, the ranking HQ must know about the MG and send an order to get the units back. Nor are the units robotic, they have a 200m wide corridor they are bound to, but they can stop and dance a jig every turn if they like. If we are talking about a company in this situation, the player will have plotted paths for each platoon in accordance with whatever grand plan he came up with. Lets say each platoon is 500m apart marching in a column formation down the road. Fist platoon passes the house and gets down the road a ways. Second platoon also marches down the road a way. Third platoon is then fired on by the MG from the house that no one bothered to clear yet. Third platoon now can move a squad around the back of the house, and execute platoon level manouvres within their 200m wide zone. A little icon appears above second platoon to indicate that they got a sound contact. If you click on the HQ for second platoon, you can plot a company level waypoint back to the house. Second platoon HQ hears gunfire, he would probably go back to check it out. First platoon way up the front and out of contact with everybody, blissfully marches on.

My impression was that platoons were free to move within the company command zone (representing the idea that, as long as they stuck to the company commander’s orders, they could exercise initiative). If that is true, what prevents first platoon from turning around to attack the MG? Since they have already passed the house, it must be within the 200m wide company command zone, correct? Or were you envisioning a “rolling” command zone that moved with the platoons and tended to push them forward?

From reading the thread, it seems the biggest concern with the HCZ concept is the inability to model initiative that would result in movement outside the command zone. I actually think this is a good thing since the act of taking initiative is highly dependent upon leadership qualities. Some leaders exercise initiative, some don’t. I would suggest that such initiative could be modeled with a leadership parameter for each HQ (and perhaps even individual squads). HQs with a high “initiative” parameter would be allowed to operate outside the company command zone with little or no penalty. Those without much initiative will stick to the plan and not operate outside of designated boundaries, or will do so under sever penalties. Military units known for independent operations (paratroopers, recon, etc.) would tend to have HQs with high initiative values. Other units would have a mix of high initiative and low initiative leaders. And, early Soviet forces would have virtually no leaders with any initiative, reflecting their tendency to stick to a plan and react very slowly, if at all, to changing circumstances.

[hoolaman]

Those are some good questions.

Firstly I should point out that I intended this thread to be somewhat of a brainstorm, and so a lot of my posts are new and maybe impractical ideas in response to other peoples criticisms. The initial idea was meant to be quite simple.

There are indeed two options, one where the command zone is some sort of corridor as pictured in this thread, and the other is, as you suggest, a rolling radius.

I am currently leaning toward the rolling radius, but both have their advantages.

I agree that the biggest problem with this concept is how to tie in the initiative of a formation to respond to a threat. Part of the solution would be in relative spotting, whereby if a certain formation had absolutely no idea of the presence of any new enemy unit, they would blissfully go on their way. This is easy to demonstrate with one or two units, but would be immensly complicated in a large battle, with new contacts and re-contacts happening all the time. It also takes a certain amount of control away from the player.

The basic idea is that the zone of control would be large enough and unrestrictive enough to allow the player to respond to most of what a formation hears and spots for itself. For more experienced commanders, the circle around a formation might be larger. The circle might also be completely fluid. A contact on the edge may cause it to bulge out to allow a slight change of direction on initiative.

At the core of the concept is that the player always has intimate control over the squads and teams, but not over whole platoons or companies.

[Ace Pilot]

Hoolaman,

Here’s another idea that your concept has spurred. Couldn’t scenario designers use the HCZs to:

1. supplement scenario briefings and control how the scenario develops. For example, a scenario depicting a platoon advance on an objective could have the HCZ laid out by the designer, representing the path of advance the human player should follow as given by the company commander.

2. better control how the AI behaves. Scenario designers could lay out HCZs for each platoon, resulting in better coordinated attacks. HCZs for support weapons would prevent the AI from using mortar teams to spearhead attacks.

In both cases, the HQ that has outlined the plan doesn’t even need to be on the map. The HCZ is now a scenario design tool, effectively a set up zone that continues to operate through the rest of the scenario. I think you’ve come up with a great idea, Hoolaman.