Balancing out commanders and the commanded

[Battlefront.com]

I'm just tossing out bones, not fishing (I hate fish anyhoo ). Having said that, it is always interesting to discussion this stuff with people that are interested in it. You should see my cat's eyes glaze over when I talk to them about poly counts and more detail in the spotting system

Game length... good question. No idea! However, I would guess that it will remain roughly equal to CMx1 even though the game play will likely slow down quite a bit. How is this possible? Me thinks you guys have forgotten the other unrealistic aspect of a typical CMx1 battle... fighting to the last man or round!

This will be much harder to do in CMx2 for a bunch of reasons, but one of them is uncertainty. Say you have had quite a firefight. Ammo is running a bit low, guys are pretty well bushed, you have your objectives in decent control, and although you are still in contact with the enemy it would appear he is too weak to cause further problems for you if you stay put. In CMx1, especially in a Quick Battle, you can say to yourself "I'm beat up, but he is beat up even worse. I think I'll wipe him out". Well, is that really such a wise thing to do if you don't REALLY know what the enemy has left, your beat up forces are harder to coordinate, and perhaps face some sort of "punishment" for pushing your guys too hard? (don't ask for specifics on the latter )

Nope. Like a real world commander you'd most likely give your congrats to the lads and wait until you have further orders, some R&R, more ammo, relief from follow up forces, etc. At least on the average.

When you read about epic battles you can get the feeling that it was all just one long string of combat engagements. But look at the times mentioned in these descriptions and more often than not you will see that there are often hours inbetween relatively small engagements. Not always, of course, but in general. This is something that CMx1 was never quite able to simulate to our liking, so we are focusing some of our efforts on improving this for CMx2.

Oh... and don't worry about battles being slower. They'll be plenty of things to keep you entertained even when the lead isn't flying! The uncertaintly alone will ratchet up the tension level, and if there's one thing that gamers love... it's being on the edge of their seats.

Steve

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[...] and perhaps face some sort of "punishment" for pushing your guys too hard? (don't ask for specifics on the latter )

Eheh. I won't ask. But I'll quote.

A REAL, FAT, BIG BONE !

Cheers

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[...]

Oh... and don't worry about battles being slower. They'll be plenty of things to keep you entertained even when the lead isn't flying! The uncertaintly alone will ratchet up the tension level, and if there's one thing that gamers love... it's being on the edge of their seats.

Sorry. Gotta quote that too. It just sounds too good.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[...] and perhaps face some sort of "punishment" for pushing your guys too hard? (don't ask for specifics on the latter )

Eheh. I won't ask. But I'll quote.

A REAL, FAT, BIG BONE !

Cheers </font>

[Mord]

The more I read the more excited I am getting about the new engine. I don't think I've been this amped since that horrible, nerve wracking week I spent waiting for CMBO to arrive.

Mord.

[kipanderson]

Steve posted,

“When you read about epic battles you can get the feeling that it was all just one long string of combat engagements. But look at the times mentioned in these descriptions and more often than not you will see that there are often hours inbetween relatively small engagements. Not always, of course, but in general. This is something that CMx1 was never quite able to simulate to our liking, so we are focusing some of our efforts on improving this for CMx2.”

Steve, I think you underestimate your own game Static Operations as they are now do this very well. You clearly have better plans for CMX2, but it is my view that Static Operations make a fine job of modeling real world battles. In the real world, as you point out, “battles” were often made up of a number of assaults/ pushes, over many hours, for say a given village. That is why Static Operations are my favourite way to play CMX1.

This is not a “do not change things” post. It would not be possible to have my prejudices regarding CM and not be wildly happy with your plans for CMX2. You clearly wish to model what I like about Static Operations even more realistically, but differently.

Sounds great.

All the best,

Kip.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

When you read about epic battles you can get the feeling that it was all just one long string of combat engagements. But look at the times mentioned in these descriptions and more often than not you will see that there are often hours inbetween relatively small engagements. Not always, of course, but in general. This is something that CMx1 was never quite able to simulate to our liking, so we are focusing some of our efforts on improving this for CMx2.

Ok. Now that I've slept a little and had a coffee, I can actually *think* about what this thing implies instead of just being happy.

Modelling this varying tempo of a battlefield could yield some interesting results and is something I was wishing for ever since playing my first big CMBO operation. Now that I am playing this QB serie I was talking about the other day, I really feel going just a little broader on the scope could be both realistic and fun.

Why ? because I play this serie with the intention of gaining ground, keeping it, investing a place, improving my positions and getting ready for what's in store. It's the closest we could get to this peculiar tempo Steve's refers to. It is not a QB, it is not a scenario (althought you could use one as the basis of a QB serie I think), and it is not an operation. I still strongly invite anyone to try a QB serie like the one I decribe in the thread I refer to above. You will see what I mean.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

But look at the times mentioned in these descriptions and more often than not you will see that there are often hours inbetween relatively small engagements..

I recall playing many operations in the Ardennes. These were quite fun to play, and I got many times on the edge of my seat. But if, for example, I was given the chance to improve my position (in any sort of turn phase or abstraced way) it would add a lot to the already fun challenge of being on the receiving end of Panthers and KT's main guns for a longer period of time. The sense of climax, lull, and fragmented tension would get even better IMO.

There are many example of this:

I'm having an ATG in a nice secondary line position that is unlikely to see any real action soon. I'd like to get the servants to start dig in right now. Perhaps they wont accomplish nothing useful for this battle but when the next start, if (hey, here's an idea) the map can remember human action on it, the foxhole could be halfway through already.

Hacking its way through a densely wooded area. If I could task someone to prepare a track so to allow faster infantry movement (especially those slow Maxim HMG), I'd do so. Having a neat little path deep in a wood would be quite useful sometimes. Not to mention thier usefullness in the editor.

Expanding on engineers role. Preparing a field telephone net and its hub (spotting/C & C issue), fortifying a house, preparing foxholes, slit trenches and so on.

Getting ammo to isolated parts of your command could be a nerve wracking (and therefore fun ) process, where the success of this would mean the survival or the annihilation of your troops.

Now of course, this is far from the usual fast-paced, jump-right-in action that makes a QB what it is, but just as those players who never play an operation because it's too long, adding the possibility to fully invest the map, so to speak, is full of possibilities and, again, optionnal I suppose.

No one knows what's on your mind Steve, and most probably it is not quite what I suggest here, but you sure are openning the door to some nice ideas.

Cheers

[ January 22, 2005, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[aka_tom_w]

Hi Caesar.

I agree

if there could be a FOW option (say "MIA-EFOW" ) I would fully support this definition:

" an MIA style of system where units are taken out of your control, then IMO it should apply only to units isolated that have been broken or routed or bailed crews. "

Meaning that if any NON HQ unit (usually a bailed crew) is OUT of LOS of all other friendly units, and way out of any realistic (hard to code into the game, granted ) C&C range AND they don't have a radio, then the player IMHO deserves to loose that unit to MIA status, and the Tac AI and last known SOP takes over and the unit will rely on self preservation code/instincts only and be completely out of the player's control.

But I would be more than happy to learn how bailed crews will be otherwise handled in the new CMx2 to prevent the "gamey jeep recon" ??

-tom w

Originally posted by Caesar:

If BFC do decide to implement an MIA style of system where units are taken out of your control, then IMO it should apply only to units isolated that have been broken or routed or bailed crews.

All other units need to be controlled by the player simply because AI just cannot do a good enough job of controlling them, SOPs or no SOPs. After all, these are fighting units who, despite a lack of immediate command, should still be capable of influencing a battle. They should have to continue to obey whatever the SOP was that applied to them and maybe they should not be able to change this without being within command radius but beyond that I would want to be able to control them myself.

As for crew, personally I wouldn't care if they were just immediately removed from the battle and the points sorted out at the end in an abstracted manner. From a realism POV, they should have little of no influence on the remainder of the battle and their continued presence is only an invitation to gamey behaviour.

Once a unit has been broken or routed, realistically they would be in no fit state to do anything useful for the remainder of the game anyway, given the short time span our games are played in. Consider what is supposed to be happening here - you have a unit so panicked that it flees and yet with in a 20 - 30 minute period they are able to be sufficiently recovered to attack again. This is already an unrealistic amount of control. So if they are out of command radius, not being able to control them, see what they see, etc seems completely reasonable to me.

[BDW]

re: the AI, it pains me to think of Charles spending time trying to improve the AI player, when he could be doing other things for CMx2

When CM was first released, and nobody knew how to play the game, playing agianst the AI was good for learning. Now that there is an established community of CM players, it is so easy to find a PBEM opponent, I never play vs the AI anymore. I see the AI player as a tutorial player, or useful only when you want to mess around and experiment with stuff.

So my point is: I hope Charles et al do not spend too much time trying to improve the AI player at the expense of adding features to CMx2!

[ January 22, 2005, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: BDW ]

[Mace]

Originally posted by BDW:

So my point is: I hope Charles et al do not spend too much time trying to improve the AI player at the expense of adding features to CMx2!

Somehow I don't think the lads are the type to concentrate on one thing solely at the expense of other areas.

However, you do need to remember that not everyone wants to play against a Human opponent, and are quite content just to play against the AI.

So if the CMx2 AI is more of a challenge, especially on the offensive, kudos for BTS.

Mace

[Midnight Warrior]

I haven't read through all these so my apologies if this has been covered elswhere. I have been playing the new ASW game 1st Bull Run lately and thinking about real time play vs WEGO. I think they did a good job of simulating C2 in 1st Bull run and insteaf of a click fest you have to rely on the AI. It naturally models command decision limits by having the clock always running but it also limits the players ability to understand and know what is happening in the battle, not as his role of battle commander (for the battle commander is in reality also limited) but rather as his role as game player trying to have fun and take in what is going on for his own enjoyment. Thus I have been thinking a bit about how one might put this time criticalality factor into the WEGO system. My thought is that commander decision times could be modeled not just as a delay in the execution of the command but also as a task that consumes the commanders available command time. Thus in a one minute turn as the commander issue an order it might take say 30 secs of his command time that turn. This would limit what other orders he could give in that he can't exceed one minute of giving out commands. Thus once he uses all his time for a turn he can't issue any more orders. This accounting could be done for each commander at whatever level (pltn, co, bn) but his order would be limited to those under his command. This feature would allow the human player to spend as much time as he wants viewing the battlefiled and thinking about what to order his men to do but it would limit how many commands he could give per turn. Perhaps situation awareness functions could also consume command time. And command time may also restrict his other actions like moving and shooting, etc (giving he can't chew gum and walk at the same time). This idea also implied that every command that is given can be associated with a specific commander. For example a fire command given to a squad would be issued by the platoon commander (given he is in command range). In some ways this is somewhat reminicient to the card system like the the old AH game Up Front where the lack of cards kept one from doing things that were physically doable. The cards apporach is a bit more of an abstraction and probably wouldn't fit in with the CM personna. However, the command modeling is more concrete and perhaps might.

edit. fixed a few typos.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Midnight Warrior:

This feature would allow the human player to spend as much time as he wants viewing the battlefiled and thinking about what to order his men to do but it would limit how many commands he could give per turn. Perhaps situation awareness functions could also consume command time. And command time may also restrict his other actions like moving and shooting, etc (giving he can't chew gum and walk at the same time). This idea also implied that every command that is given can be associated with a specific commander. For example a fire command given to a squad would be issued by the platoon commander (given he is in command range).

OK

Lots of folks here talk about "realism" and a realistic simulation.

So the idea above is to look at how much time and how many orders can the player give inbetween turns. The idea that a commander can only do so much or issue a limited number of orders per turn may have some promise. I am not real sure how to make it work. But l like the idea as a concept that could limit the player in how many orders could be issued in any one turn.

"This feature would allow the human player to spend as much time as he wants viewing the battlefiled and thinking about what to order his men to do but it would limit how many commands he could give per turn."

Does anyone else see anything positive or good about this concept?

(the specific Details as to EXACTLY how this limitation might be implemented in the game would be the key to the whole idea, if it has chance of being something that might make it into the game).

-tom w

[Tarkus]

The logic of Midnight Warrior is sound IMO. Giving orders takes time. Somebody suggested something along these lines on the what we want II thread. Or was it Hoolaman's thread ?

Anyway, I would bring three things to your attention about this idea.

1.- We still have no idea how the next C & C structure will be implemented. So it's hard to figure out how it could be made to work. (Could it be abstracted somehow ?)

2.- It's something that affect gameplay directly. Do I want to be limited in my options ? I don't know. Do I want to spent more time *thinking* about my moves instead of actually implementing them and watching what is going on ? In a tiny scenario, I really don't mind. It could actually be pretty cool. But I currently play a 5000 point ME. Let me tell ya, it ain't easy ordering people. If the command process gets too tricky, I'll have to split one order phase over two days !

3.- We were talking about the pace of an average battle slowing down a bit due to uncertainty. Now this additionnal feature would slow down the whole process even more if you need two turn just to get a company on the move.

So I guess it would make the game more realistic but maybe at the expense of playing time.

Maybe as an option ? Someone mentionned that putting too many options like this was not a good idea. This subject alone would easily justify a whole new thread IMO. Maybe 4 or 5 "realism presets" would be called for ? Steve, would you care give us your view on this question ?

Cheers

[hoolaman]

I agree Midnight Warrior's idea could form part of a C&C model. And the logic behind it is certainly sound and based in realism.

However....

What happens to the squad left high and dry at the end of the commander's turn limit? Are they again stuck in the middle of the road awaiting orders to move to that patch of cover? Are they left in the not too capable hands of the TacAI?

My take on any C&C system is that it must simulate where the order came from. It is quite sound to say that an officer can only order so many orders in a turn, but it must be remembered that not every action and fire order comes from the HQ.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

What happens to the squad left high and dry at the end of the commander's turn limit? Are they again stuck in the middle of the road awaiting orders to move to that patch of cover? Are they left in the not too capable hands of the TacAI?

Good question. I guess a dynamic order menu could work. Up there somewhere I was suggesting that a unit could receive so much orders and waypoints depending on the distance it is from its HQ, suggesting a "partial contact" status to simulate hand signals (with nifty little leds on the UI ). One move- one waypoint order for very distant unit (hand signal) and current unlimited waypoint for unit within command radius. I suppose MW's idea could be implemented along the same principle.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

I agree Midnight Warrior's idea could form part of a C&C model. And the logic behind it is certainly sound and based in realism.

However....

What happens to the squad left high and dry at the end of the commander's turn limit? Are they again stuck in the middle of the road awaiting orders to move to that patch of cover? Are they left in the not too capable hands of the TacAI?

My take on any C&C system is that it must simulate where the order came from. It is quite sound to say that an officer can only order so many orders in a turn, but it must be remembered that not every action and fire order comes from the HQ.

I agree completely....

this is the tricky part:

"My take on any C&C system is that it must simulate where the order came from. It is quite sound to say that an officer can only order so many orders in a turn, but it must be remembered that not every action and fire order comes from the HQ."

AND that issue my be so overwhelminglly difficult to model in the new C&C structure as to be impossible to shoe horn into the game.

I suspect we are completely barking up the wrong tree with this concept and that Steve and Charles have something equally brilliant and more satisfactory that will have a similiar effect on the game, already in mind :confused: (maybe?)

Who knows? Maybe this concept has never crossed their minds?

I don't know.

-tom w

[Midnight Warrior]

I've thought some more about the idea I proposed above and it seems for something like this would best work given that there are orders that follow some sort of SOP's. SOP's could be standard road march, standard advance, move into a line, etc. Thus a commander could order a SOP with little penalty in command time in that it takes little thought and explanation on his part to issue the standard commands since they are well rehearesed and well understood proceedures. On the other hand if we wants to do something fancy then it would take more of his time and attention to think it through and to communicate his wishes to his troops. This is sort of simulated in the game today by issuing group commands over individual. However, the group commands don't really exercise an SOP's other than move in parallel. Also, as it is today the only benefit for using a group order is laziness (or convenience on the positive side) in that there is no benefit in the game for doing a group command (or is there?). However with command time penalties modeled in the game if a platoon commander issues a group order per some SOP it would take x time. If instead he moves each man individually it might take 3-5X time. He would get a more control at a heavier price in decision and execution time. Thus with this feature there would be an actual benefit to the game to issue a group order using an SOP as opposed to individual orders while should he desire he can still give detailed orders. And if he gets too fancy with his orders, yes his men might be left standing around in the middle of a road waiting for the commander to finish telling them what he wants them to do. In addition, the squads themselves might be able to alter the commands by moving their waypoints within some bounds at no additional penalty to the commander much like you can alter waypoints in the game today without adding additional command delays.

Perhaps this could be used to model different nationalities and experience levels of troops in that say the Germans might have more SOPs while the early war Russian fewer and the time cost of issuing orders may be different (as well as the delays in following them) so that the Germans could do more and do it faster than the Russians.

I am thinking that situational awareness time could also be modeled such as penalizing the commander if he changes map scales (simulating him having to stop and look at his map). It could work something like this. A commander is selected. each time he chooses an elevated map scale, zooms around the local area where he is at, clicks on one of his troops, etc he does cost him in command time. Perhaps the level of commander he is effects this time simulated that a bn commander may have more resources for looking around the battlefield than a pltn commander. All this would be an abstraction of the commander studying what is around him, lsitening on the radio, looking at his map, listening to sounds and all the other things that casue him to build his level of situational awareness of ewhat is going on about him.

The thought behind all of this is that everything the player does in the command phase cost him in command time (unlike the free lunches he currently gets in CM1 during the command phase). The idea here is not to slow the game down (for if he has the SOPs the game can still move along in a quick tempo). The idea is to make the game more interesting by adding yet another dimension of decision making to the player that also somewhat models the reality of having to plan and fight in real time without having to impose real time into the game (with all its bad side effects). John Boyd called this C2 process the OODA loop, Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act. Currently (other than command delays) there is no penalty for anything in the OODA loop other than the acting phase (i.e it takes time to move, shoot, load, unload, etc). What this type of modeling would do is add a cost for the Observe, Orient, and Decide part of the OODA loop. I think it would add some of the urgency into the WEGO system even though the clock is stopped in that if you start exploring too many options, give orders and the keep altering them or adding too much detail, spend too much time slewing around the map then presto, you can't give any orders more that turn because your minute is up and you have to put another quarter into the machine.

BTW, To handle the case where you have only issued half of your orders you don't want half you forces moving and the other half not you might have a execute trigger where you issue orders but the units don't start carrying them out until you issue the execute command. That way if you blow a turn issuing commands you can delay iisuing the execute command until you finsish issuing the remaining orders the next turn. This would also allow you to issue detailed orders in advance and wait several turns to initiate their execution.

One other thought here in regards to orders. Some of the orders in the current game are more in regard to cause rather than effect. It might be better to also have effect based orders as well as cause. For example the dealy command is a cause type order in that it causes a unit to arrive at its destination at a different time. A time on target (TOT) command would be an effects based order in that it doesn't specify the cause (i.e. delay) but rather the intended effect (TOT). Thus you could click an object and command hit this at 10:30. The units would then adjust their departure time and rate of advance to hit their objective at the TOT as opposed to the player having to figure out all the delays to make the units hit their objectives at the right time. This would allow the commander to issue the desired effects and the units could then use the TAC AI to figure out the causes to make it so.

The whole idea here is to allow the player to micromanage to his hearts content (if that is what he finds fun to do) but at the same time to give him an incentive not to do so (without having to impose actual time limits on him). This whole thing couild be handle as an option like extreme FOW (it might be extreme C2 option). When playing CM often I use rules such as this as a house rule in that if I spend too much time trying to figure out what to do I then just do nothing thinking that in real life I would have used my minute+ up deliberating. I think it would be cool to have this built in into the game itself. My reason is that added realism (if done right) usually means added fun! I don't know how this feature would stack up against others but in some ways it is fundamental which means that it could affect many other features and thus perhaps is worthy of some consideration in regard to CM2.

[aka_tom_w]

I like the quote about the "Free lunch" !

" (unlike the free lunches he currently gets in CM1 during the command phase)."

Slowing down the game is FOR SURE a consideration.

AND don't make the game or the interface more tedious. (please)

This sounds like this concept has be well researched by someone who knows about these kinds of things!

"The idea is to make the game more interesting by adding yet another dimension of decision making to the player that also somewhat models the reality of having to plan and fight in real time without having to impose real time into the game (with all its bad side effects). John Boyd called this C2 process the OODA loop, Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act. Currently (other than command delays) there is no penalty for anything in the OODA loop other than the acting phase (i.e it takes time to move, shoot, load, unload, etc). "

That there is currently NO penalty in the OODA loop in CMx1 is an interesting observation. I have always felt there was something missing there but I didn't know you could label it and call it "no cost or penalty in the OODA loop"

THANKS!

Lets see what Steve has to say about this one.....

-tom w

Originally posted by Midnight Warrior:

"The thought behind all of this is that everything the player does in the command phase cost him in command time (unlike the free lunches he currently gets in CM1 during the command phase). The idea here is not to slow the game down (for if he has the SOPs the game can still move along in a quick tempo). The idea is to make the game more interesting by adding yet another dimension of decision making to the player that also somewhat models the reality of having to plan and fight in real time without having to impose real time into the game (with all its bad side effects). John Boyd called this C2 process the OODA loop, Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act. Currently (other than command delays) there is no penalty for anything in the OODA loop other than the acting phase (i.e it takes time to move, shoot, load, unload, etc). What this type of modeling would do is add a cost for the Observe, Orient, and Decide part of the OODA loop. I think it would add some of the urgency into the WEGO system even though the clock is stopped in that if you start exploring too many options, give orders and the keep altering them or adding too much detail, spend too much time slewing around the map then presto, you can't give any orders more that turn because your minute is up and you have to put another quarter into the machine."

[Midnight Warrior]

One more thought on this. C2 time penalties might help even out the play of the human against the AI. Instead of making the AI smarter (which takes LOTS of programmer time!!!) it would make the player dumber in that he wouldn't have the luxury of micromanging in detail how to cream the poor AI. On the other hand the AI would not have to bother with any of these C2 retrictions in that its limited intelligence is restriction enough.

[hoolaman]

I think the key is to remember the real life roles of each HQ level.

As I said earlier, the problem limiting orders according to a time is that the order you as a player are giving MAY have come from a platoon HQ, it may have come from company HQ, or it may have been the NCO saying "come on lads, follow me".

If you are to simulate how long giving orders is going to take down to seconds, you must be extremely careful about who is ordering what.

[aka_tom_w]

"A time on target (TOT) command would be an effects based order in that it doesn't specify the cause (i.e. delay) but rather the intended effect (TOT). Thus you could click an object and command hit this at 10:30. The units would then adjust their departure time and rate of advance to hit their objective at the TOT as opposed to the player having to figure out all the delays to make the units hit their objectives at the right time. This would allow the commander to issue the desired effects and the units could then use the TAC AI to figure out the causes to make it so.

Midnight Warrior"

Given Steve's design philosophy as seen in CMx1 game design I am guessing this is NOT something they are likely to introduce into CMx2.

This part specifically:

" The units would then adjust their departure time and rate of advance to hit their objective at the TOT as opposed to the player having to figure out all the delays to make the units hit their objectives at the right time. This would allow the commander to issue the desired effects and the units could then use the TAC AI to figure out the causes to make it so."

In WWII if that is the period (?) this concept and suggestion would make co-ordinating a precision timed assualt down to the minute WAY too easy and I would suggest slightly unrealistic in some cases in the WWII time frame. IMHO

BUT

I agree perhaps they should look at the "Free lunch" in the OODA loop in CMx1 and see what can be done about that. (?)

-tom w

[ January 22, 2005, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Battlefront.com]

New contributions! Yea

The best way to limit the player's benefit from unrealistic micromanagement (short of removing the capability) is to figure out what, specifically, are the issues that allow this sort of thing in the first place. I'll kick out what I think are the most important:

1. Having all the real world time in the world (in theory) to examine, plot, re-examine, re-plot, etc. Current work around for CMx1 is to go with timed turns. Not a totally realistic solution, but it does greatly limit the player's ability to noodle over every last detail.

2. Having way too much intel available. This is both a Borg and a God problem. We've talked a lot about how we can knock this stuff back in many different ways in CMx2, but fundamentally these issues can't be totally eliminated.

3. Having too much flexibility for planning. Absolute Spotting means a plan is generally easier to formulate and execute because concentration of force is easier to do than in real life. Especially true for big, devistating units like FOs, big caliber guns, high rate of fire small arms, etc. Relative Spotting will knock this down quite a bit. So too will more stringent rules regarding C&C, since right now since there is no penalty for tanks supporting one platoon suddenly switching to support another platoon, when in reality there very well might be. To sum this one up... the greater the ability to plan unrealistically, the less realism there is in the orders process before ordes even begin.

4. Too much certainty. This is tied into most of the stuff I mentioned above, but is a separate problem in its own right. The more certain the player is about his capabilities and positions vs. his enemy's, the artifical constructs of the game (i.e. no reinforcements for QBs, no change in weather, etc.), the abilities of the other player (especially if it is the AI), and the lack of greater context translates to a decision making process that is unrealistically lacking in uncertainty. The more we can make the player less sure about what might happen, the more conservative the player will be. And in this case, conservative directly translates to less plans and more attention to how they are carried out.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

OK then!

Sounds like we are about to see the introduction of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle into CMx2

Somehow a paradigm shift of uncertain proportions which may OR MAY NOT, include the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle could be something we should (or should not) look for in next game engine CMx2!

(just having fun )

-tom w

[Tarkus]

I'm not sure I'd be for the inclusion of everything in Midnight Warrior's proposal, but I'm impressed with the elaborate proposal. Seem's were not alone toying with ideas to increase realism.

Originally posted by Midnight Warrior:

[...] a commander could order a SOP with little penalty in command time [...]. On the other hand if we wants to do something fancy then it would take more of his time and attention to think it through and to communicate his wishes to his troops.

Sounds good. Were back with the SOPs. This part I think could be abstracted somehow by a dynamic order menu.

[...]situational awareness time could also be modeled such as penalizing the commander if he changes map scales[...].

[E]verything the player does in the command phase cost him in command time [...] I think it would add some of the urgency into the WEGO system even though the clock is stopped [...].

I cannot argue the logic. But I really think it might not be everybody's cup of tea. I know quite a few players who really dig spending all day thinking about what to do and tentatively experiment, or look at every noch and crannies on the ground to carefully plan an approach.

Two additionnal thoughts about this. First, a system like this might make the game harder to learn and perhaps a bit depressing. One would need to learn an additionnal rope of the art of war by focusing more not only on contingency thinking, but on priority assignation. Not a bad thing as far as I am concerned, but again, not to everyone's taste. Second is that it might make the setup/planning phase all the more important, maybe even require some sort of imbeded planning tool to communicate infos in advance to your command (phase line, objectives, RV points, etc).

[...]allow the player to micromanage to his hearts content (if that is what he finds fun to do) but at the same time to give him an incentive not to do so (without having to impose actual time limits on him). This whole thing couild be handle as an option like extreme FOW (it might be extreme C2 option).

Agreed. As an option, this idea is full of potential IMO. What remains to be seen is how BFC plan to deal with all these options, and whether they're ready to implements many realism levels that might fragment the players community into subgroups of hardcore realism fans and quick players, so to speak.

I think it becomes almost a commercial decision.

Cheers

[hoolaman]

I kind of have a grand plan for a C&C system, which I have tried to explain in other threads before now, but I will try to explain my philosophy on the C&C issue.

In an abstracted way, I think it is neccesary for realism's sake to simulate where an order comes from. Does it come from "on high" and have a command delay, or does it reflect the initiative of the unit and so have no command delay?

I think that C&C and command delays should be considered in two parts: fire and movement.

An important addition to the fire part of the equation would be "fire discipline" SOPs. Fire discipline and concealment preferences could be included in SOPs to encourage the TacAI to behave in the way you want it to. I think it would be realistic to put a command delay on changing these SOPs as normally such an order would come from above. Also, if you wanted a unit to target a specific enemy unit there would be a command delay. All other targetting, maybe even including covered arcs could then be left to the AI with an expectation that it will behave in a reasonable manner. If it doesn't, well war is hell, and that is not unrealistic to my way of thinking.

Using relative spotting, a unit must then spot and attack units of their own accord. To direct a unit to attack something it hasn't spotted could be done, but it would have a delay to reflect a report about the enemy position.

A perfect example is a concealed stationary AT/AP gun far from an officer. This gun would know in advance what are priority targets, what direction to expect contacts and when to remain concealed within the constraints of the mission. To change any of these perameters, an officer would have to send out a runner or whatever to "change the SOP". What an officer could not do is say target this or that. That is the job of the men on the gun, and depends completely on their skill and awareness, not on a voice from the heavens whispering "pssst, over there". This is not a lot different to the current AI led system in CM, except producing command delays where they really should be. It could also be applied to every unit in the game.

As far as I'm concerned, this fairly simple solution would produce realistic results almost every time. It would also be a fix to "borg-spotting" problem but not, of course to the "god-like awareness" problem.

Keep in mind that none of this applies to movement, only targetting. The movement part of the equation is a much more complex issue. This is where the "god-like" issues or the "borg-swarm" comes in, and I will add my thoughts on this later.

[ January 22, 2005, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]