CMx2 Gamey Jeep Recon vs. Real Life Actual Military style Recon and/or Scouting?

[hoolaman]

The way I see it, there are two ways to prevent an otherwise legitimate jeep recon from being gamey.

1. You obscure the vision/awareness of the player.

This is not my preferred option. Either you have your jeep go MIA and become controlled by the AI or the recon gained by the jeep is obscured from you until a simulated "report" to a HQ about that info and enemy contacts.

In either case you are prevented from playing with the jeep to its full capacity. You either don't control it at all, or you are playing "blind" because you can't see the enemy contacts in LOS to the jeep. How do you know what to run away from etc. And this system could not be restricted to just scouts. How would a platoon not in contact with higher HQ fight if the player was not allowed to see what it was spotting.

2. You restrict what the player can do about it.

This seems the more realistic approach to me. All enemy units are shown on the map in their "best-spotted" form. The gods-eye game view of the player is maintained, and you can continue to control your jeep with full situational awareness.

The trick in this scenario is to put command delays in the right places. Higher level HQs must be more integral to the game. I think being able to have a command delay on formations as a whole but not on the lowest level units would help solve much of this problem. That way there can be a overall plan that is difficult to change. Somehow a command delay could be used to simulate info going up AND down the chain of command, so that orders to respond to the "gamey" scout info are not unrealistic.

[Cpl Steiner]

Another possible solution, though very imperfect: -

Give units that could be used for gamey scouting a high point value.

The reasoning: -

recon vehicles are not supposed to be lost, otherwise what are you going to scout with next time. A good commander will try his best to conserve his scouting assets.

Basically, give snipers and some two-man teams, and most fast, soft-target vehicles, a high enough point value to discourage them from being thrown away.

[aka_tom_w]

Hi Hoolman

In the new game maybe it is possible to do a little bit of your #1 and #2 and to be honest I am counting on something no one has thought of yet.. #3 "The BFC Secret Weapon" that will fix this problem once and for all.

I am of course hoping they will keep more than and few secrets from us until they release the game to be honest I am counting on BFC Secret Weapon #3 to be a large ( and currently unknown to us mear mortals) part of the solution to this issue.

I hope

-tom w

[ February 01, 2005, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

In the new game maybe it is possible to do a little bit of your #1 and #2 and to be honest I am counting on something no one has thought of yet.. #3 "The BFC Secret Weapon" that will fix this problem once and for all.

Hi Tom,

To my way of thinking I want to see none of #1. No groping blindly in the dark for me! Relative spotting is a different matter entirely. RS is based on realism, while obscuring recon from the player is totally arbitrary. As Steve repeatedly says, CM will not be a command game, and obscuring recon below a certain HQ level makes it a command game.

However, as you probably notice, my idea for implementing #2 is pretty vague, although I have posted many ideas in the past. I expect that a realistic C&C system will be the BFC secret weapon. It will make it harder to put massive changes into place to deal with your jeep spotting armour on the left flank while all your AT is on the right flank.

Really that is the heart of the matter. If you spot tanks with your gamey jeep, the information will be useless if your AT weapons are confined to the other side of the map where they realistically should be, unless word comes from an officer to reroute them.

How to do it?? group select orders, command-zones, frontage assignments. I dunno. All I am sure about is there should be a way to simulate a higher HQ's job of coordinating the operation as a whole.

[Philippe]

Because I am uncomfortable with the concept of command delays, I would prefer that what a unit out of command sees not get relayed back to the player until after it returns to command.

In the interim, I would like to see it controlled by the AI, with the proviso that the AI somehow try to follow the spirit of the original orders, unless it encounters overwhelming force, in which case it the orders get trashed. If the recon unit gets killed, the information that it gained will never be revealed to the player. Scouting out of command in effect will generate a kind of spotting delay.

I also think that the absolute number of new commands (apart from minor comand changes) should be severely limited. In addition, the ability to give these limited number of commands should depend, to some extent, on whether an HQ is in command from further up the chain. This is hardly original, but I think that the concept of a cumulative and increasing number of available commands flowing down the chain of command is a good one. Among other things it will make it very difficult to give new orders to a company in the middle of a maneuver if the company commander and his radio have been loaded into a jeep to do deep recon. Apart from points lost, losing a radio should be a very frustrating and immediately cumbersome proposition.

Finally, I think that electrodes should be attached to a sensitive part of the player's anatomy, with a strong electric shock delivered every time a non-combat asset gets eliminated. While some may grow to enjoy this, the rest of us will tend to avoid taking these kind of losses after a few jolts.

[Andrew H.]

There are a lot of good points in this thread - particularly about men dismounting from recon vehicles and crawling over the hill to see what was on the other side. And I also particularly like the term scouting.

It seems to me that for scouting to work, units need to be able to be asymmetrical. Put another way, some units need to be better at scouting than other units, either by SOP, or by unit type, or both.

Put another way - in CMx1, units have basically the same purpose - they are looking for combat. While they of course follow different orders, they are basically looking for a fight, and when they encounter another unit, they will generally start fighting. This can be controlled, of course, through CAs and Hide orders and use of cover - but this is just keeping a lid on the unit's desire to fight. And I think that a units ability to hide as well as its ability to spot reflect an "average" unit that is, generally, looking to fight.

What we need in CMx2 for scouting is perhaps a "scout" SOP. A unit with a "scout" SOP would attempt to maximize its concealement (not necessarily its cover, however), but not so much that its spotting ability was impaired. This might mean, for example, that a unit with a "scout" SOP in the edge of the woods, say, might get less protection from the woods because it is assumed that the unit is not located in the part of the woods that offers the best cover in the event of a firefight, but that it is located where there is the best concealment and field of view. On the other hand, if there are two otherwise equal squads in the woods, the scouting squad should be more difficult to see and should spot better than the other squad. On the other hand, if it did come to a firefight, the non-scouting squad might have the initial advantage, as it might be assumed to be making better use of cover and to be in a more combat-ready formation. This is what I mean by assymetry.

There are lots of ways to refine this system, of course - maybe the stealth bonus would translate into a scouting bonus when the scouting SOP was active. Or maybe the scouting bonus only applies when the unit does not move for a turn.

I would like to see the scouting SOP combined with certain unit types, though - perhaps in a dedicated scout squad, more men would have binoculars, for example, which would enhance spotting.

And it would be nice to see some sort of dismounted spotting, since (1) this did happen all the time; and (2) the jeeps and ACs were very useful for their radios.

Oh, and I assume at some point you can turn off the "scout" SOP when you are ready to fight like normal infantry from your advanced position.

[GreenAsJade]

I like Phillipe's first suggestion. Elegant. Makes "in command" _really_ mean something to the player who is supposed to be in command.

Of course, it does asking for "the unit to be able to keep to the spirit of the original orders" might be tricky for the implementors, but not impossible I would have thought...

(J2Ds point about not confusing "player's God view' with "Borg Spotting" is important to keep in mind - don't confuse the two while discussing scounting! Also, I'll pass on the electrodes (maybe literally, if they are implemented ) )

GaJ.

[Tarkus]

Speaking of ways to simulate recon and scouting, asides from many ideas suggested here, in terms of gameplay and scope, another one might be to include downright recon type battle. The idea could be as simple as getting victory point for spotted ennemy assets.

Perhaps a two-phase battle could be in order here. A recon phase, then the battle proper. It raises many question about the proper way to implement this, but IMO it could work, particularly for solo playing. It could give more flexibility and depth to user created scenario.

Also, along the line of SOPs, recon units and such, don't you think a recce bonus of some sort might be interesting ? Back in my admittedly brief army days, IIRC this particular task was carried out with varrying degree of success depending on the person in charge. Things like correctly identifying small arms by the sound, afvs in the distance, spotting and assessing MLR... My guess is that not everybody carry these task with equal efficiency.

I'd suppose same goes for scouting.

Cheers

[Treeburst155]

What if the program checked firing units for "first time fired" status? If the answer is yes, and the target is a jeep, crew, AT team or some other innapropriate unit for scouting, the value of the target quintuples for several minutes.

Treeburst155 out.

[Battlefront.com]

Interesting discussion. The most interesting part about it (no offense) is that this is the same discussion we always have. Well, at least when you boil down the ideas. This is not a slam, rather a painful recognition about how few options there are open to us. To summarize these options, here are some definitions we can put to the different concepts for limiting the God problem (i.e. seeing everything there is to see and acting on that info):

Player as Commander - in this the player can only see and interact with the information his character (Commander) has become aware of through realistic C&C systems.

Positive - Seeks to stop the problems before they start in the most straight forward, realistic, and simplistic way possible. If you can't see it (or talk to someone who can), you can't act on it (or instruct someone else who can).

Negative - very restrictive in terms of traditional gameplay. The player's ability to play the game (traditionally speaking) is now at the mercy of circumstances that may not be within the player's ability to control.

Command Delays - player can see whatever he sees, but can't necessarily act on that information effectively.

Positive - Has the effect of slowing down the player's ability to act on "ill gotten gains" while not interfering with the player's control of units per se.

Negative - it is very difficult to make the desired outcome realistic because the problem (excessive intel) is already present. Since modern (i.e. WWII - present) communications are fairly quick when things go right, limiting reaction times runs the risk of making actions unrealistically slow and/or inflexible.

Fog of Game - game system purposefully hides information from the player that a unit under his control can actually "see" from a simulation standpoint.

Positive - player retains control of his units but does not get information he "shouldn't" have.

Negative - player's orders for the unit are lacking information that unit SHOULD have. Difficult for the player to understand what is known but hidden from the unknown and not yet discovered.

MIA Units - when a unit goes out of C&C it not only stops reporting what it sees, but it is now hidden from the player entirely. It's as if the unit went "poof" and disappeared.

Positive - units no longer can act as eyes and ears without a mouth and listening ears to hear reports. Also eliminates uncertainty because if you can't see your unit you can't see the enemy's units either.

Negative - oh boy... lots of them!! First of all there is the whole issue of units leaving player control at the last second of a turn, being unavailable during the Orders Phase, then 1 second into the next turn suddenly becoming aware. Now all the player can do is watch and hope the unit doesn't get eliminated or lose C&C by the next orders phase. And speaking of that... how is the unit going to behave without the player to guide it? SOPs might help, but that can't substitute for good AI (tactical and slightly higher) which is also hard to do.

Relative Spotting - units can only see what they themselves have spotted. A unit can't shoot or do anything else (directly) to unit/s it isn't directly aware of.

Positive - eliminates many fundamental problems with the current game system, including a host of ones not directly related to this topic. One of which is to make enemy units harder to spot in the first place since less eyeballs in one spot means less chance of spotting.

Negative - when done right the feature has no negatives, though it does have some shortcomings. Players can still get around some of the restrictions (area fire for example) some of the time and Relative Spotting does nothing in terms of limiting the God influence on the enemy intel that is gathered legitimately.

Dedicated Scouts - only certain units have scout like capabilities.

Positives - limits the range of units that can be used for "gamey recon" to those which the designers have chosen.

Negatives - the last bit says it all This does nothing to address the problem, but instead simply narrows down which units can be abused. Players will almost certainly figure out how to use other ones in some ways in some circumstances. On top of that, it most certainly involves unrealistically blinding the rank and file units, which is indefensible from a realism standpoint.

Those are the major groupings as I see them. There are variations on these, but I'd say this is the bulk of them.

So, which work to solve the problems of gamey recon? NONE. Each one of these does not fix the problem because the inherent problem is the Human player can see too much and act in too coordinated a fashion. The Player as Commander concept is the only one that even attempts to simulate the real world restrictions of commanders in the field, but even that doesn't go far enough. The others tend to penalize realistic behavior in the pursuit of curbing unrealistic results. Results that are inherent to the Human player, not the system. Tough challenge.

Ok, so how are we going to fix gamey recon (which is just a part of the God problem)? We aren't. There is no way we can. However, by using a combo of concepts, carefully measured, we do expect to come up with a system that greatly reduces the effectiveness of acting on information that shouldn't be there in the first place. Relative Spotting is the #1 part of that plan, but of course there is a lot more to it than that.

Just my thoughts

Steve

[ February 01, 2005, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Treeburst155]

Just keep on thinkin', Steve. It's gonna be good! Oh, I'll find stuff to whine about; but I'm not happy if I don't have gripes.

Treeburst155 out.

[GreenAsJade]

Can you give the halfsquad thing a rest, Tree?

Few if any people will have a 'strategy" of using *all* halfsquads. Plenty (and increasing) people are gonna split squads when there's an advantage to do so.

Live with it. It's going to be a real bore if every game/tournament result is peppered with "yeah, but he used halfsquads"

GaJ.

[aka_tom_w]

Thanks Steve

GREAT comments

"Fog of Game - game system purposefully hides information from the player that a unit under his control can actually "see" from a simulation standpoint.

Positive - player retains control of his units but does not get information he "shouldn't" have.

Negative - player's orders for the unit are lacking information that unit SHOULD have. Difficult for the player to understand what is known but hidden from the unknown and not yet discovered."

I would like to add one more possibility

in the Same way that we have command delays would it be possible in the new game to implement a "Spotting Delay"

In Fog OF Game

"Positive - player retains control of his units but does not get information he "shouldn't" have."

Let the player have the information he should have just make it maybe 1-3 minutes late

EVEN 1 minute of spotting delay would impact the game.

"Difficult for the player to understand what is known but hidden from the unknown and not yet discovered."

This sentence could inspire more thinking about a BETTER solution, what follows is not the best or perfect solution but like the Command Delay , to let a player know (what is known but hidden) when the unit out of C&C and OUT LOS of friendly units spots something... let the interface start a count down timer, (a variable random time between 50secs - 200 secs starts a count down) when the timer gets to 0 the OLD spotting information shows up on the map and is relayed to the player, in the mean time the player sees the count down and suspects some intel is on the way.

(Granted its NOT perfect, but lets think about this problem: "Negative - player's orders for the unit are lacking information that unit SHOULD have. Difficult for the player to understand what is known but hidden from the unknown and not yet discovered.")

Please consider Spotting delays as maybe one part of the solution for units OUT of LOS of friendly units and out of command, and without a radio. If units have memories AND if command delays can also be an important part of the game why not introduce a "Spotting Delay" which would let the player have the information that unit can see or spot BUT NOT instantaneously. ( a random 1-3 minute delay factor could keep things interesting)

-tom w

[ February 02, 2005, 05:37 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[hoolaman]

I would like to know, if it not too specific for Steve to answer, what role higher level HQs will have in the new game.

It seems in the current CM engine company and above HQs are not really essential, but I have a hope of seeing them become important beyond giving a bonus to mortars.

Is there any possibility of different levels of command? Could a company or higher HQ have the ability to influence planning and coordination of the "big-picture", but leaving the player in intimate control of small elements.

Some form of planning tools with maps and phase lines etc. could form the HQ level of the game, while the lowest level engagements are fought out in the current CM style. I don't know how the HQ level would influence the lowest level in a realistic way, but I think it would be good to see, and not feature restrictions that are not based on reality.

So each turn a player could have an option of skipping up to a "Command Screen " and making adjustments to the overall battle plan in meaningful ways.

Negative - it is very difficult to make the desired outcome realistic because the problem (excessive intel) is already present. Since modern (i.e. WWII - present) communications are fairly quick when things go right, limiting reaction times runs the risk of making actions unrealistically slow and/or inflexible.

I think allowing different levels of HQ and therefore command delay would (somehow, and the trick is in the detail) make restrictions much more realistic.

The current CM command delay model has a single unit stranded like an unprogrammed computer when command delay is in force. If only the unit could be free to move, but the formation as awhole be stuck in limbo instead.

[Dook]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

.... I would like to add one more possibility

in the Same way that we have command delays would it be possible in the new game to implement a "Spotting Delay"

....

Let the player have the information he should have just make it maybe 1-3 minutes late

EVEN 1 minute of spotting delay would impact the game.

....

Please consider Spotting delays as maybe one part of the solution for units OUT of LOS of friendly units and out of command, and without a radio....

-tom w

Tom, relative spotting will take care of many of the problems currently associated with the recce and scouting ability of units like the ones you describe (out of friendly LOS, out of command, no radio). If a two half-squads of a platoon, for example, are detached and sent so far ahead of the rest of the platoon that they are out of command, I doubt they will be particularly effective scouts.

1) The half-squads will not have binos and thus won't spot as well as the platoon commander.

2) More importantly, each half-squad will only be able to spot (i.e. detect, classify as hostile, and identify) what it can see. If they are very dispersed, one half-squad probably won't be able to see and therefore spot what the other sees. As Steve noted, you will effectively only have one group of eyeballs looking at each point instead of the approximately 4 or 5 groups in a platoon (one per squad in a 3 squad platoon with one squad split and the platoon commander).

3) The out-of-command half-squads are also more likely to be eliminated/break if they engage. Once they are broken or eliminated, they are not very useful scouts.

4) Finally, you as the God-like player will know about anything those half-squads spot but will not be able to fire on spotted targets with other units unless they too have spotted the target.

Thus, you won't be able to drop accurate artillery unless the FO can see the target, AFVs will not be able to provide accurate supporting fire (they can still area fire) unless they too can see the target, you get the idea.

I just don't think it's necessary to impose a number of artificial effects to simulate how events would play out in real life.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Dook:

Tom, relative spotting will take care of many of the problems currently associated with the recce and scouting ability of units like the ones you describe (out of friendly LOS, out of command, no radio). If a two half-squads of a platoon, for example, are detached and sent so far ahead of the rest of the platoon that they are out of command, I doubt they will be particularly effective scouts.

1) The half-squads will not have binos and thus won't spot as well as the platoon commander.

Hi Dook

I am not all that concerned about half squads, all of your suggestions and points sound valid.

My specific concern is gamey intel spotting info from bailed crews. Bailed crews that are so far away from all other friendly units that they could be considered "cut off" , surrounded or MIA. Hostile contact or not (they bailed and STILL don't know what hit them) WHY do they still represent a source of spotting information to the player when they have NO radio they are out of LOS of any frinedly unit and they are WAY outside ANY command radius, AND I am refering here to any balied crew but I thinking about truck or jeep drivers specifically.

-tom w

[ February 02, 2005, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Dook]

Tom,

I would simply reply that all of what I wrote earlier applies to bailed crews in spades. They shouldn't be able to spot much, should be easily killed, and any information they do provide probably will not be very actionable.

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

It seems in the current CM engine company and above HQs are not really essential, but I have a hope of seeing them become important beyond giving a bonus to mortars.

Is there any possibility of different levels of command? Could a company or higher HQ have the ability to influence planning and coordination of the "big-picture", but leaving the player in intimate control of small elements.

I think this is a huge hole in the current CM engine. I second Hoolaman’s idea that company and battalion HQs should have a planning role in CM. And I think his idea of designating areas of operation for subordinate units, found in this thread, is an excellent way to address the issue.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

Some form of planning tools with maps and phase lines etc. could form the HQ level of the game, while the lowest level engagements are fought out in the current CM style. I don't know how the HQ level would influence the lowest level in a realistic way, but I think it would be good to see, and not feature restrictions that are not based on reality.

Slightly OT, but I think this deserve a comment. A planning tool is something I really think could be helpful. I made the point in Hoolaman's command zone proposal thread back then, and still think it has some very nice advantages.

Even though Jump-right-in players that are mostly interested in instant action (and I have absolutely nothing against that, really) may not like that, especially if the planning phase yield advantages for he who likes to plan things ahead, it is worth looking at. Specificaly, Dalem, I understand (perhaps wrongfully, you tell me) you seem to prefer faster paced game and not like the idea of more tasks for the player. I would ask you what is your opinion about a planning tool. It implies more things to do upfront, but it would not, IMO, change the player's burden during the battle.

Yet I really think such a feature can be the best possible compromise between making the game a "command game" by keeping the planning phase to setup. This way, the game itself might be played pretty much as it does right now, yet problems with Borg swarming and instant change of battle plan in a second might be made a bit difficult. Not impossible but a bit more tricky.

It also would help manage large scenario. I've been reading comments from Steve and others about company size battle being the real scope intended for CMx1. While I don't know if this is still the intended scope for CMx2, I can say I've been playing quite larger engagements recently (via the import troops features), and a planning tool (along with map overlays allowing markings and notes of some sort) would be very helpful.

What I would like to hear is comments from experienced and successful players about this idea. Could it help, would it be useful ? I think it would add to the fun, but the additional step of implementing a plan on the map prior to the battle may not be to the taste of everyone.

There's more to that, go to this thread for further reading.

Cheers

[ February 02, 2005, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Steve posted,

“Ok, so how are we going to fix gamey recon (which is just a part of the God problem)? We aren't. There is no way we can. However, by using a combo of concepts, carefully measured, we do expect to come up with a system that greatly reduces the effectiveness of acting on information that shouldn't be there in the first place. Relative Spotting is the #1 part of that plan, but of course there is a lot more to it than that.”

Wow… could not agree more. I feel very lucky in that it looks as though CMX2 will be exactly the type of game I had hoped for.

One thing Steve did not mention… is the importance of live team play, multi-multi play or whatever the jargon is. Units doing their own spotting plus live team play will go a huge distance, 90% of the way, in killing off most Borg effects… in my view.

Live team play, with each player only able to see what his own units can see, plus relative spotting ( units doing their own spotting) and the chaos of war and C&C in war, will hit all the players between the eyes… just what we all want.

Steve has made it clear live team play will not make it into the first game with CMX2, but will into the second.

Imagine a game with of around company v company scale with half a dozen players on each side. True chaos. With long pauses required to sort out the chaos… as in real life. The smaller the game, the more the number of players, the more realistic the C&C chaos will be.

However, some will always use gamey recon because the men are virtual, not real flesh and blood. However, no one I play against has ever used gamey tactics. For any game to truly work all have to enter into the spirit of the game. All my CM chums do just that

All the best,

Kip.

[Battlefront.com]

As for bailed out crews... they already are less likely to spot, more likely to route, and are easier to kill than any other unit. But that doesn't make much of a difference sometimes

One way to fix this is to apply a MIA UNITS feature to Panicked/Routed units. This is, IMHO, a legitimate possibility. Close Combat had something similar, though you never lost sight of the guys. It is something that is being considered, though there are large implications that need to be considered once some other elements of the game have been finalized.

Yes, CoPlay (co-op play) eliminates all sorts of Intel problems through very hard nosed restriction of intel sharing. Unfortunately, that creates another set of challenges for us since players will need some way of sharing intel. And that is why it isn't happening for CMx2's first release

Importance of HQs in CMx2 will be much more realistic because we will have a full bore simulation of Command and Control. That in turn is made possible by Relative Spotting, since without it there is little we can do to make HQs realistic. Can't say more than that at this point.

I will remind you all again... we are very much against implementing any system that can not be defended from a realism standpoint. Command delays that are not somehow related to realistic command delays are not up for consideation. Delaying spotting information even one second from the unit that spotted it is also completely out of the question. Both of these things have very large potential for gameplay problems that are worse than the problem they seek to fix (cure worse than disease sort of thing).

One has to remember that the overall realism of the game is important. Hobble one aspect of realism and you almost certainly cause something else to be unrealistic. Usually quite a lot of things, sometimes quite small and only noticable in certain circumstances. Then we spend tons of time trying to fix the side effects, which likely cause other side effects, and that requires more time for fixing, etc., etc. Therefore, any game design element which we know to be inherently unrealistic is not up for consideration.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

"One way to fix this is to apply a MIA UNITS feature to Panicked/Routed units. This is, IMHO, a legitimate possibility. Close Combat had something similar, though you never lost sight of the guys. It is something that is being considered, though there are large implications that need to be considered once some other elements of the game have been finalized."

Steve

That sounds GREAT!

Thanks Steve

As for Bailed Crews and the MIA idea I would be thrilled if the player could see them, (that would be great) JUST show their status to the player as MIA or simply "Bailed Out" in their status window, let the self preservation SOP or Tac AI control them and make good and SURE they don't communicate ANY spotting info or intel back to the player in anyway. If all the player gets to see is these guys trying to hide or scramble or sneak back to the nearest friendly unit or back toward the friendlly end of the map, while completely OUT of the player's control, I am sure that would solve the gamey bailed crew spotting problem.

-tom w

[ February 02, 2005, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Ales Dvorak]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

....Think of them as using snipers in CM for "gamey recon." This was actually their role in real life!

Snipers with radio?

:eek:

[Battlefront.com]

Remember, hiding what a unit sees is not good enough to prevent Gamey Recon. The entire friendly unit MUST disappear from view. I mean completely. Think about it guys...

A tank of yours, way out on its own, gets whacked. The crew bails out and remains on the map BUT loses the ability to "see" units for you. Because the unit is effectively blind orders can not be given to it by the player that have any meaning, therefore the AI needs to take over control. So now your unit runs off into a some bunch of trees you haven't laid eyes on before. As your unit starts to move through the woods you notice one guy gets picked off. Your crew now turns in a different direction and is running. Another guy gets taken out, which changes the direction of the crew yet again. The last guy now is hunkered down behind a wall somewhere trading shots with SOMETHING using his pesonal weapon. This goes on for some minutes until he is out of ammo. He tries crawling away but apparently surrenders. Now he disappears completely.

Do I need to describe why having your bailed out crews, which are out of LOS and C&C, remain visible to the player still contributes to gamey recon? I hope not

These are the kinds of ramifications you guys traditionally don't think about when you make suggestions (I am not pointing any fingers at specific people when I say this, believe me!) but we are forced to. Hence the cascading effect of one decision is often thought of as being "simple" when in fact it isn't after all things are considered.

On top of this... why single out crews? What about snipers? What about FOs with no ammo to shoot off? How about the infamous Jeeps? Which gets us back to the main point that ANYTHING can be used for "gamey recon". Either we fix the underlying issues that allow this to happen, or we simply have to live with it. Singeling out one or two units for special treatment is the bassackwards approach we are trying so hard to avoid this time around.

Steve

[tar]

I agree on most of the points, but I think that the negatives on the Command delays, particularly as they apply to the larger formations (companies, battalions) and HQs are not as severe as Steve argues.

Granted that under ideal circumstances, physical communications could be quite fast. But the information flow is restricted up the chain of command -- in part because platoon commanders have other tasks (like directing their squads) to deal with in addition to making detailed contact reports. It often takes a while (a couple of minutes) for the local commander to assess the situation and then communicate this up the chain.

At the higher HQ, the commander and staff have to make sense out of the incoming, incomplete messages and then formulate a response. Unlike the player, they have to do this in real time and on the basis of much less information.

Building delays into the order giving process which limit the flexibilty of the formations seem reasonable ways to simulate this sort of "friction" in the system. That is why trying to bolt HQs into place rather than squads is such an appealing, elegant solution. It makes it harder to make major shifts in the plans without restricting unduly the reactions of the front-line forces.

Now, it would be useful if anything like command delays were symmetric, at least at the HQ level. By that I mean that it takes time to rescind orders as well as to give them. That would be needed to prevent too much speculative order giving with the idea that if things bog down you can just cancel the orders immediately. Having order cancelation be difficult would force players to be a bit more cautious and lead to perhaps more reasonably paced battles.

Some other good things about having higher HQs not be very nimble is that it encourages players not to put the battalion HQ on the front lines where it doesn't belong.

Having variable command delays for larger formations can also be used to simulate doctrinal, training and other factors that affect command flexibility. For example, the Russians could end up with much more inflexible reactions which would encourage more of a centralized planning approach. This would then highlight some of the additional "soft factors" that differentiated various armies or units in them.

Finally, a slowing down of reactions would also lead to more of the lulls or pauses in the fighting that appear in the written accounts. Currently it seems a bit too easy to consolidate newly captured positions and reorganized for the next assault phase. In addition to command delays, I could imagine that making hiding more effective for units that are really trying to hide would also slow the consolidation phase -- but that's a whole other topic....