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

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Remanning vehicles and crew served weapons happens frequently enough that it should be simulated.

Read into this what you will

Steve

WELL!

I guess that is a pretty radical departure from the "official party line" from CMx1.

I for one am looking forward to the new and positive way that this will give the player more options in the game and introduce new uncertianty into how it the oppostion maybe be confused by abandoned weapons...... he he he (did someone say Gamey?)

this should be GOOD!

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by JonS:

will dismounting be under player control?

Also, note Gibbos point about veh crews dismounting for a nosy around - those guys needs to have at least as good spotting abilities as a regular unit, possibly an HQ element (ie, incl binos), not the degraded spotting abilities we see for crews in CMBB/AK.

Jon

This is the tricky part.

Bailed crews should be next to useless, BUT a voluntary dismount by the TC with the binocs to go have a peak forward over the hill and round the bend to study the battlefield situation, while the vehicle stays back out of sight, needs to be handled and coded in a completely new way, different and seperate from the bailed crew (with no radio and no binocs) situation.

I am pretty sure, from reading between the lines in Steve's posts, that they have this voluntary dismount aspect of the new game completedly figured out (at least in Steve's own mind I think), just not coded up yet.

(I hope)

-tom w

[ February 04, 2005, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[gibsonm]

Well I guess I‘d better offer my services to the Alpha/Beta test team to find out!

Sorry guys / gals but you realise whatever I may discover, I wont be able to pass it on

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Well I guess I‘d better offer my services to the Alpha/Beta test team to find out!

Sorry guys / gals but you realise whatever I may discover, I wont be able to pass it on

Yeah, get in line treadhead.

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Don't get me wrong... command and control delays, provided they are realistically modled, absolutely should be modeled. The point I was making is that these sorts of delays can't be blanket, abstract stuff or the game will lack realistic capabilities. For example, if a Platoon HQ sees an enemy tank coming up... and they have a radio, how long do you think it takes to get that intel to the Company HQ (prorviding, of course that the radio link works)? 1 minutes, 2 minutes, 10.34 seconds? Hard to say, but we need to keep this in mind when compared to a Squad seeing something and the Platoon HQ not having a good radio link to the Company HQ. In this case it could take 20 minutes for the information to arrive up the chain. Therefore, the system needs to model the reality of communications, not simply slapping arbitrary delays on stuff without the detailed command network and calling it good.

Steve

I would like to post my comments regarding command control delays .

These are not final thoughts ,it is just food for thought while we explore improvements for the new game.

First i would like to comment on delays regarding transmission of information.

In my opinion and since we have accepted that CMx2 will not be a command game ,i can not imagine how we can use these type of delays.

Since we agree that a player should have the ability to assume command of every element,this means that he needs to have real time information.

Otherwise he will not be able to have an effective command of squads or platoons.

Since the player will have this type of information when he assumes the role of a squad or platoon leader, he will posses the same type of information as a battallion commander also.

For me the issue of command delays should be more broad.

If we see the whole procedure of the process which includes gathering information-making a decision-execution, then i think it is more appropiate to focus delay on the last section of the procedure .

That means that the delay should be more focused on execution rather than gathering information.

After all the time needed to commit yourself to action reflects the sum of the time you need to perform all elements of the decision making procedure described above, including the time delay to gather information .

before i continue ,i would like to add something else about transfering information to higher echelons.

I do not beleive that simply because you have a radio link with higher HQ , you will transmit all information you gather from the battlefield in a matter of minutes or seconds.

The way i see it ,it is more complicated.

Neither a leader of a subordinate unit, nor the leader of a supervising unit have the time to transfer -monitor all pieces of information gathered during combat.

Although there are procedures where staff members for example of a battalion monitoring frequencies of subordinate units, it is simply unrealistic to expect that everything that subordinate units encounter on the battlefield,is transmitted to higher echelons.

This would be just an overflow of information which noone could handle ,especially during wwii but even today also.

I think that subordinate units transfer only important information which might affect the command decision of the higher echelon.

If for example a company with its organic weapons encounters relative weak resistense by some enemy squads during an attack , it is more probable that higher echelon will never get an exact piece of information regarding the position of those squads.

There might be a short report that the company is encountering weak resistance and keeps advancing towards the objective, with no specific details.

As long as the commander of the company feels confident about his mission and the resources he has, he will not spend time transmitting unnessesary information to the battallion commander.

So it seems that subordinate units will transmit information only under certain conditions.

One such condition is if the information is judged by the local subordinate commander that it is crucial for the battallion battle plan

A second condition ,is if the company commander feels that he can not accomplish his mission due to unexpected heavy resistance.

The second condition,will trigger a need to transmit a fairly detailed report to higher command with the intention,either to request additional fire support, either to request a change of mission for the company which will be close related to the maneuver of the company .

Now in combat mission we already have some cases with delay in fire support.

I will not deal with that although someone can propose certain improvements.

What we do lack is is a scale of various delays in changing of a mission -which again i link to movement.

For example, if a player as a company commander decides to change a certain path of movement there will be a certain delay.

The problem is that if a player as a battalion commander orders the same unit to change a path of momvement,we have the same delay as well.

In other words the engine can not understand when the player acts as a battallion commander and when the player acts as a company commander.

Notice that i prefer to focus more between battallion and company levels cause i think that the command delay is more significant between those levels than between company and platoon for example.

The more we go down in scale the more the command delay time compress .

So, now we have the issue ,how to make the engine understand which change of mission is coming from the battalion commander and which change of mission is comming from the company commander itself.

In other words, when the player assummes the position of the battalion commander and when the player is assumming the position of the company commander.

So, let see now what happens in real life.

Every mission assigned by a battallion to a subordinate company includes objectives and a certain area of operation.

A company advances or attacks against a certain objective which is the limit of its attack or advance ,with a frontage within certain boundaries left and right which seperate the company from adjustent units.

You defend an objective against enemy units approaching from a certain avenue of approach or direction of attack .Again the mission designates a certain area -defensive sector- with boundaries left and right. The lower bottom limit of the area is the key defensive position you were assigned to defend while the upper limit is related with the range of the weapons you have towards the enemy.

Similar things we have with the delay.

Left-right boundaries and initial position final position.

So, in all types of missions the battallion assigns a certain area of responsibility for the subordninate companies.

This also reflects the intention of the battalion plan.

For example ,there are narrow areas of resposibility along a main axis of attack and wider along a secondary one.

How the company will maneuver its sub-elements ,platoons inside this designated area, is mainly responsibility of the company commander.

However ,the company commander can not easily violate the boundaries that shape his area of responsibity,without risking putting the maneuver of the whole battallion in danger.

Farthermore, violations of this kind without approval from battallion command can lead to various bad incidents.

For example, friendly fire, since the company comander is not aware-or can not keep track of the battallion fire plan in adjastent sectors, or even the fire plan of the adjustent friendly companies.

So,he might find himself in the wrong place ,the wrong time.

Farthermore, adjastent companies and their sub-units which are not informed of this violation ,can easily assume that they have contact with enemy units and lead to friendly direct fire.

Not to mention that overconcentration of troops in a relative narrow zone can lead to unacceptable losses from enemy fire,or making slower the tempo of operations since there is doubt about the nature of the targets inside the zone.

On the other hand a company can certainly be more flexible in firing outside of its assigned sector.

Although targets outside of the assigned sector are considered secondary,there are noumerous instances where these targets can become primary.

For example two companies attack side by side .

It is possible that one company can acheive fire superiority in its sector,while the company beside it can not acheive it.

In this case, it is common to see enemy assets from the sector of the adjastent pinned friendly company shift their attention and fire towards the first company which is still advancing.

In this case, the company commander can certainly decide to engage targets outside of his original sector without any approval from battallion.

In fact there are cases where even before an attack there are certain units inside a company having the mission to provide coordination with the adjastent formations.

Many times this is coordination by fire, which means that units are focused on enemy targets outside of the boundaries of the company and in the near area of the adjastent formation.

However, as i said before , movement of a company or subunit outside of boundaries is a more complicated operation which needs more detailed coordination.

Now ,why i say all these?

First i try to explain that battallions assign missions and areas of operations to companies.

Second, movement inside these areas is responsibility and decision of the local comapny commander

Third, the company has flexibility in firing outside of its area of responsibility

Fourth, the company does not have the flexibility to maneuver outside of its area of responsibility without seeking a coordination and approval by higher and adjastent commands-which means DELAY IN EXECUTION OF SUCH MANEUVER.

With all these in mind ,i find that the proposition by some members regarding command zones are towards the right direction.

From what i understand ,the idea is that a player as a battalion commander during the pregame turn ,assigns areas of responsibility to subordinate commands -companies.

While the game is developing, any movement of a company or a platton of it, inside this zone should be treated as a"company commander decision".

Any movement which ends outside of that zone should be treated as a battalion decision and a certain delay should apply in order to "shape" a new zone which will include the end point of the new movement and will simulate the new mission-maneuver of the company received by the battallion command.

it might be also possible to have an option for a player to execute a new movement outside this zone without delay.In this case a certain type of risk must apply.

It would be nice if this risk included possible friendly fire-although i do not know if this is too advanced for the new engine to handle. It might include some other type of handicap,like instant reduction of certain command characteristics of the leader who violates the boundary (simulating less effective leadership due to the execution of a new mission without adequate preparation).

It is possible in this way that Germans who have better troops will be more eager to perform this type of operation which involves more inititative from small leaders and less directions from higher echelons.

In any case, companies should be able to initiate fire either in or outside their zones without any command delay.

I understand that this concept of zones might need some trimming or careful examination.

.

Some other consideration have to do with more details.

For example, it seems that these command zones can not overlap.

On the other hand there is the issue of reserves which must have the ability to pass through the front units.

So some tweaking and calibration of these rules regarding the overlaping of zones of command must be considered.

For example a unit which does not have an area of resposibility or command zone -(in other words reserves),should be able to move inside command zones of other formations.

On the other hand ,we can not allow the hole of having a player designate all formations as reserves with the intention to have the flexibility to mix them very easily

Anyway, i post my commments as food for thought and comments.

I would be interested to know if this concept of command zones is workable or if it can fit isnide the new game engine.

It is possible that the foundations of the new engine have already developed to such a level that it is not possible at this stage to alter the whole philosophy of the program in order to include command zones.

[ February 04, 2005, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

[dangerousdave]

Is it still "GAMEY JEEP SPOTTING" if one uses a kubelwagon?

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gibsonm:

Well I guess I‘d better offer my services to the Alpha/Beta test team to find out!

Sorry guys / gals but you realise whatever I may discover, I wont be able to pass it on

Yeah, get in line treadhead. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gibsonm:

Well I guess I‘d better offer my services to the Alpha/Beta test team to find out!

Sorry guys / gals but you realise whatever I may discover, I wont be able to pass it on

Yeah, get in line treadhead. </font>

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gibsonm:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gibsonm:

Well I guess I‘d better offer my services to the Alpha/Beta test team to find out!

Sorry guys / gals but you realise whatever I may discover, I wont be able to pass it on

Yeah, get in line treadhead. </font>

[Paul AU]

Back to ‘bailed crews’ for a sec… someone was saying that crews only get out once their equipment was damaged beyond repair. I’m not so sure.

I reckon that AFV crews, especially, shall we say, ‘motivationally-challenged’ crews, bailed under various circumstances, sometimes before even being shot at.

For example, I’ve read an eye-witness account of a StuG crew bailing because they were being swarmed by enemy infantry in close quarters, and there wasn’t time or space to get out on tracks. Crews bail because it’s ‘obvious’ certain death not to – even if not actually being shot at, yet. For example, being caught in the open against perceived ‘invulnerable’ tanks, or just being outnumbered enough that staying in the Can was just asking for it. A couple of ‘harmless’ ricochets can rattle a ‘green’ crew into a ditch.

But these crews can re-man their AFV. Eventually.

(Rather anti-Telly Savalas like, actually).

I’m glad that BFC seems to be thinking about this little niggle. Coolies.

(Only problem for Them is, when They say they’re Listening, it just encourages more comments/advice/ requests!)

(What a great game).

[aka_tom_w]

Administrator

Member # 42

posted February 04, 2005 01:53 PM                         

Remanning vehicles and crew served weapons happens frequently enough that it should be simulated. Crews of guns often had a hideout when the going got rough, then they would come back and reman their weapon (if it was still functional!) after the enemy's attention was diverted to other areas. It is also not unheard of for a tank crew to prematurely abandon their vehicle and then to reman it when they realize that "critical hit" tunred out to have simply knocked off a storage bin.

Read into this what you will

Steve

Well from the sound of the this the NEW and IMPROVED volutary dismount looks like it could be a feature in CMx2.

AND that would sure make things interesting...

-tom w

[Cpl Steiner]

I think it is excellent that Battlefront are thinking far enough ahead to allow crews to abandon their weapons and reman them later.

On the pre-WWII battlefield, when cavalry was a significant threat, standard operating procedure for gun crews faced with a cavalry charge was to run to nearby cover such as woods or buildings and then reman the guns once the cavalry had been driven off by supporting units.

A similar threat faced by WWII and modern crews was probably air attack. Basically, the guns may survive, but the crew probably won't if they stay put.

This should be modelled, if only to allow people to make pre-WWII games using the engine.

[DrD]

Hello all, it's been years since I've posted, but news of CMx2 has me all jazzed up.

Another potential solution to this problem is to use the existing system (underutilized, IMHO) of "false" spotting. In this sytem, a unit sees the enemy, which is then known to the player, but often is mis-reported, ie. a tank as a halftrack, etc. It seems that one could simply increase this effect under certain circumstances. For instance, units out of C+C should usually "misidentify" targets, as should non-recon units, as should bailed crews, etc. The actual unit will know what the target is (maybe), but the player won't. Combined with unit-specific spotting this might work. so my crew bails out behind enemy lines, and suddenly a generic tank unit appears on my map. Is it really a tank? Should I send armor over? Or is it a truck? Or infantry? As the player, I have information that not only is limited, but likely out-and-out wrong. In this case I'll be much less likely to act on the info, for fear of making a bad mistake. This I think is also realistic. Although I've nver served, I know enough military history to know how confused battles can be. Not only do units make mistakes in their reports, but transmissions are garbled, or lost completely, or simply misunderstood, or forgotten. I'm sure we can all come up with at least 10 examples of this. The charge of the light brigade, for example, is thought to have taken place due to a verbal order being misunderstood by the unit's commander. Conversely, units with dedicated recon abilities should have the accuracy of their spotting increased.

One issue that probably never can be fixed is the lack of attachment to computer troops. In real life, a commander would not send a unit on a suicide mission. But in a game who cares? It is difficult to overcome this problem.

Looking foward to see how this is solved in the next installment.

[aka_tom_w]

OK!

that sounds good

use MORE false spotting for bailed crews, while it is not entirely realistic if you ask me it "should" have a positive effect and impact to add more uncertianty to the game.

-tom w

Originally posted by DrD:

Another potential solution to this problem is to use the existing system (underutilized, IMHO) of "false" spotting. In this sytem, a unit sees the enemy, which is then known to the player, but often is mis-reported, ie. a tank as a halftrack, etc. It seems that one could simply increase this effect under certain circumstances. For instance, units out of C+C should usually "misidentify" targets, as should non-recon units, as should bailed crews, etc. The actual unit will know what the target is (maybe), but the player won't. Combined with unit-specific spotting this might work. so my crew bails out behind enemy lines, and suddenly a generic tank unit appears on my map. Is it really a tank? Should I send armor over? Or is it a truck? Or infantry? As the player, I have information that not only is limited, but likely out-and-out wrong. In this case I'll be much less likely to act on the info, for fear of making a bad mistake. This I think is also realistic. Although I've nver served, I know enough military history to know how confused battles can be.

[Battlefront.com]

It's always nice to see "low number" members coming back.

Yes, misidentification will be MUCH better in CMx2 because of Relative Spotting. Absolute Spotting, as in CMx1, makes it pertty tough to keep a unit underspotted or misidentified in all but the most closed in and under populated maps. The reason is that the more eyes that are allowed to spot something, the greater the chance of recogniation. Relative Spotting should greatly reduce this problem.

Steve

[kipanderson]

Steve,

When it comes to misidentification I have long thought it a shame that you use generic units, the grey boxes. Better just to use fully graphically represented units, say, a Mark IV for a Mark VI, but with a “?” mark over it to show the uncertainty.

The problem is that generic units spoil the immersive effect. When I play CM the first play through of each movie is always with all settings at their most realistic. If needed, on second play throughs, I click away the trees, turn bases on and such. But generic units break the “Band of Brothers” spell on the first play through. If you follow my rantings.

With the even better graphics of CMX2, it would be an even greater shame to use generic units.

All the best,

Kip.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Kip,

Unless I have forgotten something the gray, generic units are only used for the most uncertain level of knowledge. ie. before there is a guess of Mark IV. The generic marker's purpose is to basically say "you think it is a big tank, but not sure beyond that". Dunno how we will do it in CMx2, but I do understand your point about the generic ones reminding the player the sim is also a game.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Dunno how we will do it in CMx2, but I do understand your point about the generic ones reminding the player the sim is also a game.

...and by that

you mean (I hope)

I do understand your point about the generic ones reminding the player the sim is also a game, and we would like to avoid that so somehow it would be nice to see a real graphic of a real tank with some additional way of letting the player know it is not confirmed and only a spotting "guess" or even an error.

maybe just the label "unconfirmed" over it (or something) ?

I agree with Kip completely on this issue.

Good point...

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Hi Kip,

Unless I have forgotten something the gray, generic units are only used for the most uncertain level of knowledge. ie. before there is a guess of Mark IV. The generic marker's purpose is to basically say "you think it is a big tank, but not sure beyond that". Dunno how we will do it in CMx2, but I do understand your point about the generic ones reminding the player the sim is also a game.

Steve

[Ketil]

A comment on the multiplayer communication posts here about who can speak to who, you guys really think folks wont be using Teamspeak or the equivalent?

As for vehicle crews, I would be fine with the idea that if their vehicle is a smoking wreck they are removed from the battle. While there may be limited examples to the contrary, I think most crews that survived a brew up were more interested in getting the hell outta Dodge.

[BulletRat]

Just a thought here... back when I used to play Total Annihilation, cooperative teamplay had a feature where you could literally "draw" on the map to point out to your opponent where you knew enemy units/buildings were. It would be akin to receiving a map from your allies with known enemy movements/areas on it I guess - except this happens in realtime.