Balancing out commanders and the commanded

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

What if I want to send out a one squad patrol, or even sneak up a jeep for some recon? Why should I have to turn such a risky mission over to a dumbass AI just when a deft human touch is most needed?

How about this: You send that solo unit out, and it remains on the map and you can give orders to it as normally. But until it returns to C&C, you don't get any spotting reports from it. If it gets fired on, it goes to ground (assuming it survives the fire) and is replaced by an MIA marker. The player doesn't get to see where the fire came from unless he has other units within C&C who can spot that (enemy) location.

While it is in the MIA state, the player has no control over it, AI takes over and its priority is self-preservation. The unit will seek cover and usually try to head back to friendly lines. [NB: Exceptions to this rule can be made for special do-or-die Commando type units.]

If the unit survives the fire intact, and if the fire ceases so that it is no longer pinned, the unit reappears on the map and the owning player may once again give movement orders to it. He still doesn't receive any spotting reports from it until it has returned to C&C. Once it returns to C&C, the player receives a spotting report on any enemy units observed or encountered. These can be limited intel depending on what level of FOW has been set by the player. In any event, the spotting reports should represent only what the unit has seen. That is, it gives the location of enemy units where last seen or heard. They may have moved between the time they are observed and the time the report is given.

Now in proposing this, I am trying to think of a system that will yield interestingly sophisticated behavior by the game without being impractically hard to program. The only possible kink I can think of that might scuttle it is that it requires the program to remember data from one turn to another (i.e., remember what a unit has spotted until it can report it). AIR, that kind of turn-to-turn memory was a problem in CMx1. Whether it will continue to be problematical in CMx2 remains to be seen.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Philippe:

A jeep sent on a long recon mission will stop giving information as soon as it leaves command. If it ever re-enters command (assuming that it was given orders to drive into and out of the recon area, and that it survives) the section of the map that was scouted will suddenly have a lot of hidden unit markers on it -- the report of the jeep once it has returned. And if the jeep doesn't make it back, then you learn nothing. Add some kind of time delay on receiving that information, and you have something pretty realistic. Another nice feature would be a set of contingent orders (e.g. get the hell out of there) that only get triggered if certain events take place (e.g. coming within 200 meters of more than 100 points of enemy units).

I see that great minds still run in the same channel.

The gamey way around this is to send an officer on recon with a radio. That isn't really gamey, and risks the loss of a link in the chain of command.

Right. The player can still get information, but he must be willing to pay a price for it. BTW, in this situation, all those armored cars now start to have some of their historic value.

Personally I find scouting and screening to be one of the more interesting activities that goes on on a battlefield. Scouting and the need to prevent enemy scouting is what gives rise to a lot of very small unit actions, and the big picture is really hobbled if this kind of engagement (or the circumstances that lead up to it) is missing.

Agreed also. Y'know, implementing something like this could make that Probe Battle type take on new life.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

What if I want to send out a one squad patrol, or even sneak up a jeep for some recon? Why should I have to turn such a risky mission over to a dumbass AI just when a deft human touch is most needed?

How about this: You send that solo unit out, and it remains on the map and you can give orders to it as normally. But until it returns to C&C, you don't get any spotting reports from it. If it gets fired on, it goes to ground (assuming it survives the fire) and is replaced by an MIA marker. The player doesn't get to see where the fire came from unless he has other units within C&C who can spot that (enemy) location.

While it is in the MIA state, the player has no control over it, AI takes over and its priority is self-preservation. The unit will seek cover and usually try to head back to friendly lines. [NB: Exceptions to this rule can be made for special do-or-die Commando type units.]

If the unit survives the fire intact, and if the fire ceases so that it is no longer pinned, the unit reappears on the map and the owning player may once again give movement orders to it. He still doesn't receive any spotting reports from it until it has returned to C&C. Once it returns to C&C, the player receives a spotting report on any enemy units observed or encountered. These can be limited intel depending on what level of FOW has been set by the player. In any event, the spotting reports should represent only what the unit has seen. That is, it gives the location of enemy units where last seen or heard. They may have moved between the time they are observed and the time the report is given.

Now in proposing this, I am trying to think of a system that will yield interestingly sophisticated behavior by the game without being impractically hard to program. The only possible kink I can think of that might scuttle it is that it requires the program to remember data from one turn to another (i.e., remember what a unit has spotted until it can report it). AIR, that kind of turn-to-turn memory was a problem in CMx1. Whether it will continue to be problematical in CMx2 remains to be seen.

Michael </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

In reality, unless the squad had a radio, the commander would gain absolutely no benefit from having him do a recce on his own.

If you mean gaining real-time intel, that is true. But squad and half-squad sized units routinely did patrols into no-man's-land and even behind enemy lines and then reported back what they had seen. Whether that would be happening in the context of a CM battle is an open question. Mostly that kind of scouting would be done prior to battle. But one can think of exceptions (as, when the lines are fluid), and I think we are talking about making provision for those exceptions.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

In reality, unless the squad had a radio, the commander would gain absolutely no benefit from having him do a recce on his own.

If you mean gaining real-time intel, that is true. But squad and half-squad sized units routinely did patrols into no-man's-land and even behind enemy lines and then reported back what they had seen. Whether that would be happening in the context of a CM battle is an open question. Mostly that kind of scouting would be done prior to battle. But one can think of exceptions (as, when the lines are fluid), and I think we are talking about making provision for those exceptions.

Michael </font>

[aka_tom_w]

EXCELLENT

A brilliant interpretation of the proposed implementation of the new MIA state!

Michael Emrys and I see this MIA state exactly the same way!

Thanks Michael

-tom w

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

What if I want to send out a one squad patrol, or even sneak up a jeep for some recon? Why should I have to turn such a risky mission over to a dumbass AI just when a deft human touch is most needed?

How about this: You send that solo unit out, and it remains on the map and you can give orders to it as normally. But until it returns to C&C, you don't get any spotting reports from it. If it gets fired on, it goes to ground (assuming it survives the fire) and is replaced by an MIA marker. The player doesn't get to see where the fire came from unless he has other units within C&C who can spot that (enemy) location.

While it is in the MIA state, the player has no control over it, AI takes over and its priority is self-preservation. The unit will seek cover and usually try to head back to friendly lines. [NB: Exceptions to this rule can be made for special do-or-die Commando type units.]

If the unit survives the fire intact, and if the fire ceases so that it is no longer pinned, the unit reappears on the map and the owning player may once again give movement orders to it. He still doesn't receive any spotting reports from it until it has returned to C&C. Once it returns to C&C, the player receives a spotting report on any enemy units observed or encountered. These can be limited intel depending on what level of FOW has been set by the player. In any event, the spotting reports should represent only what the unit has seen. That is, it gives the location of enemy units where last seen or heard. They may have moved between the time they are observed and the time the report is given.

Now in proposing this, I am trying to think of a system that will yield interestingly sophisticated behavior by the game without being impractically hard to program. The only possible kink I can think of that might scuttle it is that it requires the program to remember data from one turn to another (i.e., remember what a unit has spotted until it can report it). AIR, that kind of turn-to-turn memory was a problem in CMx1. Whether it will continue to be problematical in CMx2 remains to be seen.

Michael </font>

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Hoolaman makes such a good job of making the points I support that I have largely retired from the thread to watch.

Hoolaman posted,

“The way I see it, artificial uncertainty in spotting makes CM a command-style game, and as such is a bad idea.

Your squads are your "eyes" as the omniscient guiding hand player. It is fair enough if the squads themselves do not accurately spot something, but to limit what they have really spotted seems very artificial.

What rank does the player take on in a scenario where the map and positions are uncertain? Is he Major, or merely Captain? To limit spotting in such a way, a mid level leader would have much better and quicker response than a high level leader. Which shoes do you want to put yourself in?

I think you should always see what your "eyes" see depicted on the map as they see it. Any restriction of the information flow must be in the way the player can make orders come into effect. Squads must always be able to see and react immediately to split second changes, but the further you get up the chain of command, the less able the leader is to immediately react to changes.”

In fact your primary role in CM is as squad/individual AFV commander. Not company or battalion commander. The battalion and company commanders add to the squad game.

I am very keen, unhinged, in my enthusiasm to mix another scale of wargame with CM, namely an operational game in which the manoeuvre units are battalions, as opposed to squads in CM. There would be a fully playable operational game from which, if the players agreed, one could click down to the CM scale to resolve any particular contact battles. The results from the CM battle then being applied to the operational game.

However, as any time the players would either be in the operational game, or the CM game, but not a mix of the two. Also, when the operational game was played out at the operational level, contact battles being resolved at the operational level as opposed to the CM level, the method of resolution the operational game would use fully operational methods. i.e. computerised Combat Results Battles and such. It would not fight an AI control CM battle to resolve the operational combats.

All this matters. In cardboard I have years of experience in designing/modifying wargames of different scales, as quite a few here do. What works in one scale, does not work in another.

A platoon game, platoons manoeuvring on a 1: 10,000 topographical map from which one could click down a scale to resolve a given combat could better meet the needs some here wishing for “some” move towards a command game. In my view.

All the best,

Kip.

[Tarkus]

I think there are some good points here. (EDIT: and almost all written at the same time )

The MIA feature may be of use, that or some generic markers, in which case I suppose AI would take over and try to bring the lost unit back (RV points would then be of use, as would be a planning tool. More on that later). Once back, what the unit have seen might be made available, althought I don't know how exactly. I'm talking specifically about crews and "residual" troops on the map that aren't within the organic structure of the command the player is in charge of. Getting them out alive should be related to points, but they should not be seen as a asset as they are now.

Yet again this is still encouraging Hoolaman idea about command zones IMO, because with this feature, the player can see roughly where lay his control, and as someone say, already in CM, mostly from BB, getting out of control is not a good idea but quite realistic and avoidable. Making things less easy isn't bad at all. Making them too complicated is. The real problem is to find a way out of these simulation problems without forcing the player to read 450 pages of detailed battle drill and comm protocol.

I suppose some form of communication ressources could be represented/abstracted. Sending a Puma with long range transmission equipment behind ennemy lines is worth something because it is assumed to have the means to transmit what it sees. Not so from a bailed out crew with one main goal in mind: survive and get back home in one piece. Setting OP posts, listening posts, patrols and such could be very useful and fully compatible with CM realism intent, and even quite fun to play and manage IMO. And again, Hoolaman idea about command zone is one interesting answer worth exploring. I venture to suggest, at the risk of preaching for my own idea, that a planning tool (see Tarkus post in Hoolaman thread ) integrated in the setup/first turn phase could be very well integrated in these ideas since it would allow the player/overall commander to illustrate is intent and have its troops informed of them prior to moving out. See it as a form of abstracted staff work, and a healthy compromise between a command game, which is not wanted, and a simulation. Planning ahead isn't bad is it ? Having the tool to do it effectively would be great.

For the "sniper problem" (single operator with recce as a priority task) I offer the following: there are other means to communicate, and CM could model partial HQ contact. A trained soldier can transmit some important info by hand signals, so a visual contact can be ok. On the other hand, while an officer can give some rough orders from a good distance, like "advance", "fall back" and so on, detailed plans for attack must be dealt with and transmitted in a more substantial way. Having a variable order menu depending on the distance could help. For example, you could give a 14 waypoints, 3 movement type order to a unit standing next to you, yet only order a one waypoint "advance" order to a unit walking 45 meters away. And this could vary from experience of both the one giving the order and the one receiving it.

All this to say although I see that modelling exact radio comm isn't solving the problem, maybe some more abstraction of various communications on a battlefied may help reduces the problems we are refering to.

Cheers

[ January 19, 2005, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[Dirtweasle]

As an aside, I just wanted to mention that having lost some interest in CMAK in the past weeks these discussions have really been interesting to read and somewhat refreshed my flaggin interest while work continues on the next series of CMXX games that will no doubt keep my interest for the next 5+ years.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

But from a scenario design standpoint, I humbly suggest that the designer take into account that battalion recce assets have been employed already and use the briefings to indicate that.

Kettler's map overlays would be very dandy for this purpose, as the designer could give bad intel as well as good.

Agreed. In fact, I gave an elaborated suggestion a couple of years ago about the amount of pre-game intel players should have about the other side. This could be incomplete, vague, or even false in its details and would depend on such things as how much time and effort the player had been able to devote to intel gathering prior to battle.

I think this is an interesting avenue to pursue, adding an extra dimension of realism without necessarily sacrificing playability.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

In fact your primary role in CM is as squad/individual AFV commander.

There is something in what you say, but it ignores the importance of coördinating squads and platoons, and even companies, and that is the job of company and battalion commanders. You can't win at CM, at least not consistently, without mastering those skills.

So even if in the game the present company and battalion HQs don't do a lot, their roles as embodied in the player are indispensible.

I think what some of us are trying to do is to find a reasonable and playable way to represent those roles in a tangible way in the game. In other words, to give company and battalion HQs some function besides spare platoon HQs.

Michael

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I think what some of us are trying to do is to find a reasonable and playable way to represent those roles in a tangible way in the game. In other words, to give company and battalion HQs some function besides spare platoon HQs.

Michael

That is exactly what I was thinking....

"some of us are trying to do is to find a reasonable and playable way to represent those roles in a tangible way in the game. In other words, to give company and battalion HQs some function besides spare platoon HQs"

To be honest that is what I figured their role always was in CMxx...

Company and Battalion HQ's really ONLY serve as BACK-up HQ's to bolster morale (and little else) and step up when a platoon HQ gets wacked. What other meaningful role do they play?

-tom w

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

In fact your primary role in CM is as squad/individual AFV commander.

There is something in what you say, but it ignores the importance of coördinating squads and platoons, and even companies, and that is the job of company and battalion commanders. You can't win at CM, at least not consistently, without mastering those skills.

So even if in the game the present company and battalion HQs don't do a lot, their roles as embodied in the player are indispensible.

I think what some of us are trying to do is to find a reasonable and playable way to represent those roles in a tangible way in the game. In other words, to give company and battalion HQs some function besides spare platoon HQs.

Michael </font>

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

While it is in the MIA state, the player has no control over it, AI takes over and its priority is self-preservation. The unit will seek cover and usually try to head back to friendly lines. [NB: Exceptions to this rule can be made for special do-or-die Commando type units.]

That does not correspond to RL very well.

IRL the unit would have what you might call master plan orders to fulfill. Going out of CC and getting fired at is not grounds for abandoning these orders very lightly.

What would be needed in the game are two levels of orders. The master plan orders the unit follows by default and ad-hoc (or initial fragmentary orders and supplemental) orders to counter the developing situation. To be able to countermand or change the initial master plan orders the unit would have to be in CC. Should the unit fall out of CC it would continue to act according the last standing master plan orders it received until in CC again.

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by jim crowley:

In fact I do not believe that the primary role in CM is the squad/individual AFV. If that were the case you, as the player, would decide on which type of ammo the AFV would fire and when to pop smoke; and when the squad should use its' fausts or AT grenades. That is left to the squad leader, aka the TAC AI.

CM revolves almost exclusively around platoon level control and so, to an extent, CM could already be regarded as a "command" game.

That is about right. Except you are more playing as the platoon as a whole rather than platoon commander. Some of the actions the player orders would come from an officer, and some would come from the squad or vehicle itself. As such it is difficult to say what shoes you are filling when you plot an order.

A hull-down order may be likely to come from within a tank, while a move order may be sent over the radio from a HQ, or be a product of the TC finding a more favourable position. Even at a company level, some of what a company does would be coordinated by higher level officers, some would be coordinated directly between the company commanders, and some would be on the initiative of the single company commander. I would think it would be hard to model C&C and radio nets for this hybrid of command levels.

Originally posted by tero:

What would be needed in the game are two levels of orders. The master plan orders the unit follows by default and ad-hoc (or initial fragmentary orders and supplemental) orders to counter the developing situation. To be able to countermand or change the initial master plan orders the unit would have to be in CC. Should the unit fall out of CC it would continue to act according the last standing master plan orders it received until in CC again.

This is exactly my way of thinking re: command-zones, and seems to correspond most closely with reality. There has to be a way to distinguish between what a unit has been ordered to do in broad strokes by an officer, and what it needs to do as an individual unit running from house to house.

The best I can come up with is a command-zone of a reasonably broad area to reflect the orders a unit has recieved such as "go up the left flank to the town, stay between the road and the forest don't go past the church" etc. The unit then decides how it goes about executing this order as long as it stays within the designated area. (Of course there are issues with system as well, as discussed in the other thread). There must be a way to confine a unit to it's last set of orders and still allow autonomy when out of C&C.

[willbell]

Hey, I just realized that I drifted into the wrong thread. Sorry guys. Sure wish I had time to both play CM and read more of these threads.

[tar]

Well, let me revive one of my old suggestions that at least starts to get things moving in the right direction:

Observation: The current command delay system is really backwards.

The units with the smallest command delay should be the front-line elements -- namely squads and weapons teams. They are (or should be) the main maneuver elements. The HQ units, starting with the platoon HQ should all have longer command delays, at least for movement. The higher up the echelon, the longer the command delay.

In addition to increasing command delays for movement as the command level increases, there needs to be a hierarchical command structure. For example, to avoid an even bigger command delay, platoon HQ would need to be within command radius of their company HQ, which would in turn need to be within range of battalion HQ.

What increasing the command delay of the HQ (for movement, anyway) does is to make it harder to shift the focus of larger elements. The smaller the element, the more freedom it has to react to the circumstances. Squads remain able to move about just as now, but the platoon HQ is slower to move, which means that in order to stay in command range, the platoon must move move slowly than the squads. It has less flexibility, since it is a larger unit with more "inertia".

It would also be necessary to introduce command delays for rescinding orders as well. As now, of course, the TacAI can delay or perhaps even rescind movement orders on its own, but the player should have to suffer some delay in getting the orders out. I would also like to see command delay apply to targetting orders as well -- although perhaps not quite as severely hampered up the chain of command.

Now rather than command radius, it would really be better if larger units (battalion certainly, perhaps company) would have areas in which they are free to operate. One of the big parts of planning real operations is establishing unit boundaries. This is used partially for command and control, and also to reduce the chances of friendly fire. This would require a slightly different command model than what is currently present in the game, since one would need to be able to draw regions on the map to set up the appropriate zones.

Finally, it should be possible to cross-attach units. This would also help solve the problem of squads whose platoon leaders are wiped out. They could be re-assigned (with suitable command delay) to another platoon HQ for operations.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

While it is in the MIA state, the player has no control over it, AI takes over and its priority is self-preservation. The unit will seek cover and usually try to head back to friendly lines. [NB: Exceptions to this rule can be made for special do-or-die Commando type units.]

That does not correspond to RL very well.

IRL the unit would have what you might call master plan orders to fulfill. Going out of CC and getting fired at is not grounds for abandoning these orders very lightly.

Depends on the army and the unit. But I daresay if a squad on patrol in the average unit of most armies, and certainly the ones with less esprit, took serious casualties, their first priority would be to get their wounded safely back. As I stated, a unit of extraordinary morale and determination might well behave as you describe.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by tar:

What increasing the command delay of the HQ (for movement, anyway) does is to make it harder to shift the focus of larger elements.

It also neatly models the fact that the higher up the command echelon, usually the less "portable" an HQ was. Shifting location could mean re-laying comms (especially wire), informing the supply echelon that you are no longer where you were and maybe where you are headed, etc., etc. Naturally, HQs of mechanized units were often better at this than, say, leg infantry, since they were organized to fight a mobile battle anyway. But in that context, British and American infantry HQs should probably be regarded as mechanized, since they were plentifully supplied with transport. Still, the delay was there.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

So much to answer, so little time

Threaded AI... we thought about this, but it wasn't all that necessary. The AI processing time isn't the issue... it is the AI coding time. Threading it doesn't make it smarter unless the code is set up in such a way that repetition leads to better decision making. This is, of course, possible to do but it isn't all that easy. It's what is "learning" or "self teaching" AI construct and people spend all their adult lives trying to make programs like this to very simple tasks. Not saying it isn't possible for us to do something like this, just not practical considering how much time we have to spend on AI in the big picture.

Looks like there was some misunderstanding of the concept of introducing more uncertainty into the decision making process. Nowhere did I say that we'd acheive that through an artificial kind of system. In fact, I said the opposite. Our approach to these problems is to build something "organic" that follows, as closely as possible, the real rules of war, Human nature, weather, etc.

Specifically, when a unit is only allowed to see what it should see, instead of instantaly and automatically seeing everything that everybody else sees (regardless), this dramatically increases uncertainty. Even though you know an enemy unit is in particular spot, you now don't know which units will be able to shoot at it in the next turn. Why not? Because of some arbitrary and artificial system? No. Simply because at the time you are issuing orders those units don't see the enemy and therefore you don't know that they will. And if you don't know, then you can't count on when, if at all, they might shoot at the target. And if you can't count on them... bingo... uncertainty.

In the current system when a unit of yours has LOS to an enemy unit, or is likely to gain LOS during the turn, you have a chance of shooting at it. Perhaps not 100% certain all the time every time, but you start out with that known possibility which you can then (through experience) evlauate downwards.

For example, I know that my AT gun can see an enemy tank, but I don't know if the enemy tank will back up and out of LOS before I shoot. In CMx2 your AT gun, although it has LOS, might not know the tank is there when you are issuing your orders. And therefore you can not target the enemy tank. MAYBE your gun will see it and shoot at it, but you can not be sure of this. Therefore, it would be a bad idea to make some sort of plan which depended on this one AT gun doing something to that one tank on that one turn. Totally opposite from CMx1 and totally realistic.

Hope I cleared that up

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

There is a fundamental problem with the whole MIA and Commander concept... it isn't realistic unless the unit in question is able to function to a reasonable degree like a real life unit would in similar circumstances. As others have mentioned, there are a range of things the unit could do, ranging from sitting on their asses to taking their own initiative and doing something brilliant that they weren't remotely ordered to do.

In order to mimic this sort of behavior we need some heavy duty systems in place. Simply cutting the unit out of the Player's control will not work. Multiple players, each commanding a reasonable sized force (Platoon), would be the ideal solution. But we can't make games based on the assumption of multi-multi player. Not with our market As an option... YOU BET... but that means the system has to inherently play correctly with this option unused.

There is another big problem. What if the player's character, let's say the BN Commander, loses all communications for 15 minutes. Radioman is dead, runners are dead, vehicles destroyed, and the player's character is holed up in a building hoping the enemy doesn't think to do a house to house search. Meanwhile the player's combat units are doing what for 15 minutes? Sitting around? Finishing up partially complete orders and then sitting around? Sorta doing something smart but not being able to use even a hint of initiative?

Sounds like a brilliantly boring game to me

In any sim you need to look at the logical extremes of any proposed feature. Removing the player from the "God" position is a very, very risky thing to do. It is also a very, very complex thing to do. The sort of thing that, no offense, is not going to get hashed out in even a dozen 300 message threads here. I should know because I get paid (by you guys ) to sit around and think about these things pretty much all the time for years now.

The only thing I'll throw out to you guys now is that you might want to save your breath when you find yourselves starting to get into nitty gritty details. CMx2 is sooooooo different from CMx1 that even if I were to say "yes, CMx2 will have the player in a fixed command position and units out of C&C are out of control" there is no way you guys could envision how this would work without knowing dozens of other things. Doesn't mean you've got bad ideas, just that you are missing too much information to come up stuff.

Now, sometime this will change. I'll spill the beans and you'll then be able to add stuff in the propper context (i.e. with CMx2 in mind instead of CMx1). But that time isn't here quite yet. But you'll of course be the first to know!

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Ah well, it was fun while it lasted.

Michael

[Treeburst155]

Oh man, this CM2 is gonna be good.....BFC has declared war on The Borg. Hehe....and they don't even have a starship...or do they?

Treeburst155 out.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Depends on the army and the unit. But I daresay if a squad on patrol in the average unit of most armies, and certainly the ones with less esprit, took serious casualties, their first priority would be to get their wounded safely back.

In deed. But can we assume any and all units going MIA are out on patrol and not in the process of performing some pre-appointed task related to the battalion task at hand ?

As I stated, a unit of extraordinary morale and determination might well behave as you describe.

True. But they might also be under orders to outflank the enemy positions on that damned hill yonder and they have not gotten the word the general assault was cancelled.

[c3k]

Gents,

Ignoring Steve's post ( ), let me address what I see as a problem with the MIA solution. I'll use my patented "Ho Chi Minh trickle of death attack". I've got a company of 12 squads with 3 platoon HQ's. I'm behind a wooded ridge. The enemy is over there somewhere. I send one squad over the top. They go WAY out of command. Then they go ground. Their job is to hide and watch. Later, they'll give an intel report.

What happens to them? Are they MIA? If not, why not? If I bring them back, do I get a sudden snap-shot of enemies? Are they in command, but blind until then? Are they able to spot enemies (hence, _I_ know about the enemy), but out of my control? Why are they out of my control?

Then, I send one squad at a time to join the initial squad. Spaced 2 turns apart. A steady infiltration. At what point does the MIA status change? When do I, the player, gain information on enemy units they see? Or, their information (ammo, status, etc.).

I don't see how this issue was addressed. All the suppositions seem to focus on a single, out of command, isolated unit. What happens as that status dynamically changes?

Thanks,

Ken

P.S. Hey, Battlefront (Steve), THANK YOU for the bones.