Balancing out commanders and the commanded

[kipanderson]

Hoolaman, hi,

I tend to agree with much that you have posted…. However you have now crossed the line…

You posted,

“Also, if you wanted a unit to target a specific enemy unit there would be a command delay.”

This would be a killer… game over for most, and I would be willing to bet it is “most” CM players. It’s been tried in Point of Attack 2 and it bombed. Horrible experience.

I can only say again that in CM your primary role is as squad and AFV commander. Company and battalion commander are secondary roles. At this scale. What you are describing is not a squad game, but a platoon or company game, but you wish to watch the platoon or company game play itself out in Band of Brothers movie detail. But it is still a platoon or company game, no longer a squad game that you are describing.

No one is more after realism than I am, and have been for twenty years of wargaming. I would love to see CM, the squad game, integrated with higher scales, battalion is my favoured option.. but platoon and company.. why not. It would be fun.

However, the different scales of game would be played out at different “levels”. On different maps, with different time scales.

Command delays due to lower quality of troops, they do not know their battle drills well and such, works very well. CMBB did introduce a number of elements that added somewhat to this and it worked very well. But fire orders are near instant in CMBB. For very good reasons.

Of course, with options, the world is your oyster But a few months after release my guess is “very” few would use such options.

I could argue all day about what “realism” is, in fact we would probably all agree.

I will end with usual refrain… different scales, squad, platoon, battalion, require different features to maximize the realism. They are not interchangeable. In my experience.

All the best ,

Kip.

[aka_tom_w]

I agree with Kip here.

Mostly Hoolaman has some very interesting ideas.

BUT not the one about the delay to open fire order.

“Also, if you wanted a unit to target a specific enemy unit there would be a command delay.”

No no no no Nyet Nine Nada never

the "open fire" order should be immediate as that is something the platoon, squad, sniper or AFV will do of its OWN volition. In fact I would say that is sort of why they are there, (in the place you put them (it might take time and a command delay to get them there!) to open fire at the BEST time and that is usually right away with some urgency.

The whole concept of the cover arc and the likely hood that units will open fire at the first and best opportunity could be compromised by the chance of a command delay on the target order.

no thanks

-tom w

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Hoolaman, hi,

I tend to agree with much that you have posted…. However you have now crossed the line…

You posted,

“Also, if you wanted a unit to target a specific enemy unit there would be a command delay.”

This would be a killer… game over for most, and I would be willing to bet it is “most” CM players. It’s been tried in Point of Attack 2 and it bombed. Horrible experience.

I can only say again that in CM your primary role is as squad and AFV commander. Company and battalion commander are secondary roles. At this scale. What you are describing is not a squad game, but a platoon or company game, but you wish to watch the platoon or company game play itself out in Band of Brothers movie detail. But it is still a platoon or company game, no longer a squad game that you are describing.

No one is more after realism than I am, and have been for twenty years of wargaming. I would love to see CM, the squad game, integrated with higher scales, battalion is my favoured option.. but platoon and company.. why not. It would be fun.

However, the different scales of game would be played out at different “levels”. On different maps, with different time scales.

Command delays due to lower quality of troops, they do not know their battle drills well and such, works very well. CMBB did introduce a number of elements that added somewhat to this and it worked very well. But fire orders are near instant in CMBB. For very good reasons.

Of course, with options, the world is your oyster But a few months after release my guess is “very” few would use such options.

I could argue all day about what “realism” is, in fact we would probably all agree.

I will end with usual refrain… different scales, squad, platoon, battalion, require different features to maximize the realism. They are not interchangeable. In my experience.

All the best ,

Kip.

[kipanderson]

Tom,

You agreed with me

I had you down as one of the leaders of the unhinged Command Game fans I feel quite shame faced in having assumed you were working your way up to a full Command Game, just subtly.. by stages.

All the best,

Kip.

[aka_tom_w]

Nah...

Don't be silly,

I want a fun game to play too!

the concept of a command delay for the target and open fire order does not fit in with my idea of ways to improve the game or improve realism.

I am not sure there really all them many things we actually fully disagree about. :confused:

Just off the top of your head what do we fundmentally disagree about?

-tom w

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Tom,

You agreed with me

I had you down as one of the leaders of the unhinged Command Game fans I feel quite shame faced in having assumed you were working your way up to a full Command Game, just subtly.. by stages.

All the best,

Kip.

[Kilroy Lurking]

Hi guys!

I see we are getting down to the nitty-gritty. One of the things that makes the CM.. games so FUN to play is the abiliity to "be" the Boss man and send all units everywhere and to "be" the lowly shm*ck who is taking on a big cat at ten paces..and all aspects in between. In just about every encounter one (the player) can and does identify with the whole gamut of situations the game throws out.

Unfortunately this does not lie easily with combat realism as this thread in particular highlights.

All kudos to the folks at BF for so far in the CM series for managing to get the "mix" right. (Having read what the Oracle is predicting I, am sure they will continue to do so).

David

[pamak1970]

hello everybody.

I am not posting often in this forum but i follow the conversations often.

The reason of this post is Hoolaman and his idea of "command zones" expressed in another thread.

I find this concept very interesting but i still do not know from the discussion until now , if it "on the right track" according to the ideas of the designers or if it does not fit in their philosophy .

I have noticed that Steve did not post any comments regarding this concept

[kipanderson]

Tom,

It is just a general nervousness that some seem to feel that micromanagement is “bad” or “unrealistic”. To which I would answer.. “this is a micromanagement scale, the squad sale ”.

In CM what seems to happen is that we all, well most including me, play a game that is really optimised for company v company games with way more pieces than, in a sense we “should”. i.e. CM is optimised, and the fun comes from, the micromanagement of individual squads/AT guns/AFVs. Thus if one is to get the most out of all the features in CMX1 a dozen- 16 odd fighting units, with some support units, is probably all most can manage and click along at a reasonable pace in human v human play. Say over a 1,500m by 1,500m map.

In fact, I and many others, just cannot “resist” playing games of reinforced battalions, 4-6 companies v 4-6 companies over 3,000m by 3,000m maps. Now one hits problems.

The next instinct is to try and optimise CM for 4-6 companies v 4-6 companies. This means adding features which take control away from the squad/AFV commander. This is when the trouble starts, you stop playing the role of the squad/AFV commander, only platoon, company, battalion commanders and such. You are throwing away the baby with the bathwater

Hence my view that the best way to do this, in fact it may be the only real way; is to integrate two completely different games. My favoured one would be a genuine, fully playable battalion operational game from which if the players wished, they could agree to resolve a given contact battle at the CM level. The operational game is frozen, you fight the contact battle in a CM game, then the results of the CM contact battle are applied to the operational game.

The above methodology, or principles, could be used for any scale above a squad game/CM scale. It could be companies that you manoeuvre on a topographical map, and then freeze the company game and click down to the CM level when you wish.

Importantly, at any time one would be either playing a company game “or” a CM game. But not both at the same time. Each game being optimised for its scale, with features that are not interchangeable.

Some are trying to introduce features that are better suited to a company or battalion game, but not suitable for a squad game. You just end up with a poorer squad game, and poorer company game, than would be the case if you kept them separate.

But no one is keener than I on integrating, welding together CM the squad game, with higher scales. This would indeed by hugely more realistic. In my view. This is why I have posted that with CMX1 being so good already, thought should be given by BFC to “how we can use CM” as much as changes to CM itself. But do not get me wrong, I will enjoy the changes in CMX2 as much as any.

We know that the first release will be aimed at optimising CMX2 at the same scale, scope as CMX1. Great, I am all for it. But then lets all think about how CMX2 could be used to integrate it with higher scales.

Hope you follow my weird rantings

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. I have used CMBB to fight a more or less realistically scaled break-through operation. One German infantry battalion in defence, mines and wire but scaled to take account of fortifications uber nature in CMBB. Two Soviet infantry battalions, one full tank regiment, plus twenty-three Soviet artillery spotters. Total of 2,500 rounds of artillery in 60 turn game. I have witnessed 600 rockets fired in one go Makes a very big bag.

However, I did this in full knowledge that CMBB is not optimised to this scale, nor should it be. You would break the CM squad game. Integrate CM the squad game with an operational game, as above, and we really have take off, but do not mix them up within each scale.

[kipanderson]

Tom, guys,

Take a look at Flashpoint Germany at Matrix games for an example of a company game.

http://www.matrixgames.com/

It may or may not be good game, I have no idea yet… but integrate such a game as a layer with CM and you may have something. But at any onetime, you would be in one game or the other, not both.

All the best,

Kip.

[HawkerT]

I could not agree more kipanderson!

I think your posts sums up nicely what have been going on with various campaigns in the CM community during the last 4 years or more.

I have been involved in two of those. In the first (CMTB) we used a specialised version of COCAT (the one used for CMMC 1) as strategical Bn/Coy level game and CMBB to resolve the contact battles. In the second ongoing campaign (CMOC) we are using HTTR as strategical Bn/Coy level game and CMAK to resolve the contact battles.

It really is an unbeatable experience seeing how strategical decisions affect the tactical battles and vise versa. It really has come to the point that whenever I boot up HTTR or CMAK to play as single games I feel that the other one is 'missing'.

Wonderfull stuff ... spitzen klasse!

All the best

Frans

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by 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.

I pretty much agree with this.

Another very important point to keep in mind is that orders in CM - particularly orders from battalion or company - are abstracted in CM. For example, in a battalion level game, I may move a company to a wooded area, and then into a village, where I may have a pitched firefight with enemy units already occupying the village. After I've secured the village, I might send the company through a wheatfield, and then into another village, and finally I may turn it south and advance it into an open area.

In CM, these could seem like six different orders that battalion sent to the company. However - and this is really the most realistic interpretation - the "orders" put together could also be seen as *one* order that the company received from battalion at the beginning of the battle - i.e., we assume that the company was given the mission at the beginning of the battle to advance through the woods, clear the village of enemy units, advance to the next village, and then move south and go into reserve. (I say it's more realistic to assume this because these are the kinds of orders that company commanders are typically given - they aren't always getting instructions every 10 minutes about what to do). And if CM were a command game, the point of the game would be to give the best orders at the beginning of the game and then see what happens - but CM isn't a command game.

So, basically, in many cases Midnight Warrior's suggestion concerning "order time" would not be realistic because the orders that the players are giving the troops aren't *really* new orders from battalion; they are just the mechanism for carrying out the order that the company is assumed to be following. Battalion isn't issuing new orders to the company to "cross the wheatfield"; battalion is at HQ eating bacon and eggs while the company crosses the wheatfield as originally ordered.

I think it would be a bad idea to change this abstraction too much, since I doubt that many players want to spend much time dealing with these kinds of command issues. Hoolaman's "phase line" idea is a fairly elegant way of keeping much of the abstraction, while penalizing troops that actually do get orders to change their mission (as shown by them crossing the phase line, for example). And of course actually giving troops new orders in the middle of battle is time consuming - if it were very simple, it might take 5-10 minutes; anything more complicated might take an hour or more, probably requiring the company COs, or someone from their staffs (i.e., from the staff of each company CO), to go back to battalion HQ and receive the new orders.

But overall, I'm kind of neutral on the phase line idea. It would be a little more onerous than the current system, although not terribly so. On the other hand, I think the current abstracted level of order giving works quite well, especially when compared to things like borg spotting, and think it would be fine not to change it.

[hoolaman]

Ok I see my last post has sparked some heated response.

I think you should compare just how different what I have proposed actually is from the current system.

In the current CM engine, you have almost no control at all over what a unit targets during the turn. You can set a covering arc, but thats about it. The only way you can effect changes are at the one minute turn order phase.

Now I have seen some horrible frustrating things done by the TacAI with targetting, and using some form of SOPs to control what a unit fires at during the turn would surely only improve control.

Steve has already more or less confirmed that there will be a model for "relative spotting" in the next game. Think about the implications of this. Even if a tank pops up into the field of fire of your gun, you still may not be able to target it manually because the unit has not spotted the tank itself. So we are already halfway to what I proposed.

My idea is to balance out the uncertainty brought in by relative spotting. Giving a unit detailed fire discipline orders via an SOP would allow the unit to behave more reliably of its own accord. I'm sure you could imagine what commands could be included, but things like priority targets, what to do if fired upon, times to remain concealed, and the list goes on. Naturally, I also expect an improved targetting TacAI.

What is achieved by putting a command delay on (manual) targetting? Well, you then have an abstracted method of dealing with a "report" of enemy activity. Changing the SOP and covering arc would be the equivalent of warning a AT gun that a threat is coming over the hill from a certain direction. Manually targetting some concealed troops is the equivalent of someone coming over and pointing them out. All this instead of the little voice whispering in your unit's ear "psst look behind you!".

All this, as I said, is nothing to do with any model for movement. I am also very much in favour of more control at the lowest levels and I see this as more control not less, with a relative spotting model.

[aka_tom_w]

more here

flashpoint germany

sadly I guess it is "just" a command game.

and the fact that it uses SQUARES and not hexes just seems WRONG.

but it looks like what Steve talked about when he refered to Command level games..

From the screen shots I would say that looks like one.

-tom w

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Tom, guys,

Take a look at Flashpoint Germany at Matrix games for an example of a company game.

http://www.matrixgames.com/

It may or may not be good game, I have no idea yet… but integrate such a game as a layer with CM and you may have something. But at any onetime, you would be in one game or the other, not both.

All the best,

Kip.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Lord Peter:

So, basically, in many cases Midnight Warrior's suggestion concerning "order time" would not be realistic because the orders that the players are giving the troops aren't *really* new orders from battalion; they are just the mechanism for carrying out the order that the company is assumed to be following.

While I agree with your reasonning in general, I should point out that MW logic also apply to platoon HQs. I think his point refers mainly with the process of giving/transmitting orders during the game.

Cheers

[aka_tom_w]

I found a flow chart for this idea

see below....

-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.

ooda loop page

from that web page:

"The OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act) is an  information strategy concept for information warfare developed by Colonel John Boyd (1927-1997). Although the OODA model was clearly created for military purposes, elements of the same theory can also be applied to business strategy. Boyd developed the theory based on his earlier experience as a fighter pilot and work on energy maneuverability. He initially used it to explain victory in air-to-air combat, but in the last years of his career he expanded his OODA loop theory into a grand strategy that would defeat an enemy strategically by “psychological” paralysis.

 

Boyd emphasized that strategy should always revolve around changing the enemy’s behavior, not annihilating his forces. The parallel between Boyd’s ideas and Sun Tzu’s masterpiece, “The Art of War,” are obvious. Both Boyd and Sun Tzu advocate the ideas of harmony, deception, swiftness and fluidity of action, surprise, shock, and attacking the enemy’s strategy.

 

Colonel Boyd viewed the enemy (and ourselves) as a system that is acting through a decision making process based on observations of the world around it. The enemy will observe unfolding circumstances and gather outside information in order to orient the system to perceived threats. Boyd states that the orientation phase of the loop is the most important step, because if the enemy perceives the wrong threats, or misunderstands what is happening in the environment around him, then he will orient his thinking (and forces) in wrong directions and ultimately make incorrect decisions. Boyd said that this cycle of decision-making could operate at different speeds for the enemy and your own organization. The goal should be to to complete your OODA loop process at a faster tempo than the enemy’s, and to take action to lengthen the enemy’s loop. One tries to conduct many more loops “inside” the enemies OODA loop, causing the enemy to be unable to react to anything that is happening to him.

 

Colonel Boyd stated that the the enemy’s OODA loop can be lengthened through a variety of means. Boyd’s aim is to generate “non-cooperate” centers of gravity for the enemy through ambiguity, deception, novel circumstances, fast transient maneuvers, and the use of Sun-Tzu’s idea of Cheng and Ch’i. By isolating the enemy’s centers of gravity and developing mistrust and cohesion within the system (making them “non-cooperative”), friction will be greatly increased, paralysis in the system will set in, and the enemy will ultimately collapse. By attacking the thought process of the enemy / competitor, his morale and decision process can be shattered."

Does that have any relevance to CMx2 game design?

I wonder?

-tom w

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

"The OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act) [...] an  information strategy concept for information warfare [...]"

Does that have any relevance to CMx2 game design?

I wonder?

Don't know, but it sure is interesting reading.

[Battlefront.com]

Indeed, CMx1 is inherently all about micromanagement because the element that makes or breaks a battle is the optimal and/or imaginative use of the lowest level units (i.e. Squads, Teams, and individual vehicles). Good Company or Battalion level planning doesn't mean a hill of beans if the lowest level units do the wrong thing or fail to do something ingenous. Therefore, the player's best interests lie in getting those little bits to do the right thing AS WELL as planning on when and where those bits engage in relation to all the other little bits.

Think of Soviet doctrine, especially in WWII. The lowest level elements were commanded by the least imaginative, flexible, and (very often) trained leaders in the Soviet Army. They were, depending on the period of the war and location, little more than cannon fodder. The real thinking took place at higher levels. Sometimes very brilliant plans were disasters because when it came time to execute everything went wrong. This is the single biggest reason the Soviets ALMOST lost the war in the beginning stages of Barbarossa. Brilliant strategic and operational planning were ALMOST not enough to compensate for the horrible state of the lowest levels of command.

In CMx1, the less control the player has over the lower bits... the more each game would look like a Soviet Summer of 1941 tactical disaster. The only time this is realistic is if you are playing the Soviets in the Summer of 1941 So if we are going to hinder low level control in CMx2, we had better offset it with something rather brilliant in order to compensate and keep the general level of realism high.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

So if we are going to hinder low level control in CMx2, we had better offset it with something rather brilliant in order to compensate and keep the general level of realism high.

Steve

Um OK....

But we sure would like to hear more about this part....

"we had better offset it with something rather brilliant in order to compensate and keep the general level of realism high."

You KNOW we will all be looking forward to news about the "brilliant" part of the new ways to compensate.

thanks

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Rats... just lost a 90% complete post. Guess you guys are going to get the shorter version now

There are several problems that compound AI targeting in CMx1:

1. No unit memory. Units lose LOS for good reasons all the time, but if that happens for more than a few seconds the TacAI (which is programmed to wait a little bit) will switch. This can lead to back and forth, ineffective targeting. CMx2 will fix this with unit memories.

2. Absolute Spotting and # of targets. The more choices you give an AI, the more chances it has to make the wrong decision. Relative Spotting inherently limits the number of enemy a unit can target, therefore it reduces the chance that the AI will select the wrong one.

3. Absolute Spotting and target type. The TacAI is programmed to go after high value targets. This is EXACTLY what a player expects. Unfortunately, if a large number of friendly units see a single high vlaue target, there can be issues with too many friendlies going after the same target instead of all the others. We spent months improving this behavior, but without memory and Relative Spotting there was only so much we can do. Back before you guys ever saw the game we called the probelm something like "The Yellow Death", named after the visuals of a single unit with dozens of yellow LOS lines on it at one time

So, think of the possibilites here. A CMx2 unit will (to some extent) remember what it should be targeting, will not be confused by large numbers of possible targets, and will not be as distracted by high value targets. The converse to the latter is that when a high value target does come into a unit's targeting capability, it is more likely to focus on it and put it out of action without sacrificing general attention to the rest of the enemy's forces.

SOPs would only enhance the above, not replace it.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Rats... just lost a 90% complete post. Guess you guys are going to get the shorter version now

Steve

BUMMER!

I sure would like to catch a glimpse of the LONG version!

RATS is right !

:mad:

bah!

maybe there will be MORE tomorrow

its always good to have hope!

-tom w

[ January 24, 2005, 03:45 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Midnight Warrior]

A few more thoughts on this subject.

Perhaps this notion of C2 time can be used to bring into effect certain behaviors that would be difficult to bring about without it. For example lets take assigning fire. This could be done either using a degree of altruism or being strictly short sighted. Short sighted would be to shoot at who is the biggest threat to you (e.g. who is shooting at you or who is closest). If done in a more altruistic sense one could shoot at the target that would best help your side to win (even if you might not live to enjoy the victory). For example a bazooka might be less of a threat to an infantry squad that a MG so it might opt to shoot at the MG even though the bazooka might be a much bigger threat to the tank supporting the infantry squad (and even the lethality might even be lower against the MG than the bazooka but the selfish units is not trying to optimize their fire but save their hides). From an altrusitic basis it might be much more important to take out that bazooka so that the tank lives which in turn could take out the MG (plus do other wondeful things). However, that is pretty savee behavior and requires both smart troops and troops that are willing to take short term risks for longer term gains (and the human race doesn't always have a great track record for that type of long term thinking). Let's say that the game designer elected to give the TAC AI the more self centered view and it targets the MG (maybe elite troops would use better judgement and use a smarter TAC AI). This shortsightedness could then be corrected by the units pltn commander (given he uis in command range) via the human players command intervention on the pltn commander behalf thus commnading the infantry unit to shoot at the bazooka. However, with the C2 time system he would have to do this at the cost of some of the pltn commanders c2 time. This would be the time he needed to observe what was happening (i.e. my squad is shooting at the MG and not the bazooka [say this takes 10 sec]), the time to orient himself (they really need to be firing at the bazooka because we need that tank to stay alive and take out the MG [lets say that takes 5 sec]) and then decide to order his men to do so (should I interfere with them or not? [5 secs] ) then act by giving the order (1st squad! shoot at the bazooka over there you idiots!). [10 sec]. Thus when the player clicks on the infantry unit and targets the bazooka unit 30 secs of his command time is used up and the infantry unit doesn't shift fire for 30 secs. If the above infantry was not in command range the delay time could be even larger (modeling the fact that the unit now has to figure it out for iteslf that it is not acting smartly). However, the pltn commander would not have his c2 time added on since he would be out of the loop. All this would be transparent to the player, all he did would be to click on the infantry unit and tell it to shoot the bazooka! However, just as the real commander had to decide what to spend his own cognitive time Observing, Orienting, and Deciding, and then Acting on the human player (if he wanted to not rack up alot of command delays) had to do likewise but not in real time but rather in command time expendature.

Like Steve was saying how adding more uncertainty slows down the human player this would add even more uncertainty in that the human player is not going to know just how many orders he can give before he racks up a lot of delays in execution due to expended the commanders c2 time thus he will be more stingy with his commands so that he doesn't fritter them away on the less important because now everything he does cost him something. Another way of saying this is that right clicks on his mouse are or no longer free but cost him in command time.

Another example would be Borg spotting. I gather from the previous posts that the solution to Borg spotting is that the computer will keep tabs for each unit on and every potential target whether he has spotted that target or not (Yeah!!!). Then if the player attempts to target a unspotted unit there is an element of uncertainty if the unit will spot the target that turn and if it doesn't it does not fire (cool!!!). I would think that alternatively the player could target the unit with area fire and avoid this uncertainty but with the cost of having less fire power on the target (unless area fire is denied units shooting at real estate close to unspotted units). Now to some this tactic might appear gamey in that the human player is taking advantage of his own knowledge to have a unit fire at something (albeit as an area fire) it would not normally fire at at all since it doesn't see it. Now perhaps there are other ways to fix this (if indeed it needs fixing) but for arguments sake lets apply the OODA C2 paradigm to this situation and see if it offers some other means of making this potential gamey solution less attractive to the a player. One could invision that the C2 time to order area fire is greater than ordering fire at a seen target. The reason being is that to decide to shoot at an area where the target is unseen requires more careful observation since it takes longer to see what is not there than to see what is. (Alternatively it might require information passed from another party to cue one in on the area of interest.) Also, it would require more thinking to get oneself oriented on an area target in that more mental deductions are required (why do I think there may be a target there even though I can't see it), the decision time might be greater (do I want to use up ammo and increase my exposure shooting at something I can't see and might not actually be there?) and the action time in issueing the command might be longer in that it takes might take more time to say shoot at that clump of trees.. no that clump.. not the other clump than it says to say shoot at that tank over there). Thus the c2 time might be say 30 seconds for the commander to order his troops to shoot area fire vs 5-10 secs at a spotted target. Thus if a player uses area fire for whatever reason (but in this case to partially circumnavigate the Borg spotting restriction) then he still would have to pay both a 30 sec delay in executing the area fire and also use up half his command time (in addition to reducing his lethality). This further raises his uncertaunty in that if he didn't try to micromanage the situation the unit might have spotted the target anyway in the next 10 seconds and started shooting on his own without having to incure any of the above costs. (But instead of spotting it it was busy listening to his instructions) Thus this C2 rule just adds that much more uncertainty to the game and further biases the human player from micromanaging and using gamey tactics while still permitting him to do so if he so desires.

On the other hand skittish troops might start firing at an area on their on and the commander would have to use up some of his commad time to order them to stop firing. The commander would do this simply by selecting cancel fire on the unit conducting the area fire. The only new thing here is that the cancel fire comamnd would increment the commanders c2 time x seconds where previously this cost him nothing except some addition risk of making his carpal syndrome worse by making yet another round of mouse clicks.

As far as muddying the user interface and making it harder for the newbie to learn the system if implemented correctly all the mechanics of this c2 bookeeping should be handled almost totally transparent to the player such that all he sees is added delays happen when he gives too many orders (similar to what he sees when he adds too many waypoints). Once he uses up his minute his command options when he right clicks are now grayed out until the next turn so he just moves on to his next commander for that turn. Also, even if he cancels his commands he doesn't reset his c2 time because the OOD time in the OODA loops has been expended even if the action is canceled. Thus it might be annoying to the player (though he only has himself to blame) but not more workload or a less clean interface.

[KG_AGCent]

Please, BFC, make CMX2 capable of supporting 2,3,4 or more players in a single game. It can be as simple as assigning team point and splitting them among the players on a team. Attempting to simulate different levels of command and the compelled structure would, IMHO, take away from the game.

My 2 cents.

[ January 24, 2005, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: KG_AGCent ]

[hoolaman]

I said I would post my thoughts on the movement side of things, but as they are covered elsewhere (by me)I will keep it brief.

Whether you are for or against letting the AI take over more of the targetting side of things, I am sure we can all agree that at least the AI could do a reasonable job of it. What it can't do well is tactics and movement. My basic idea is as many of you would already have seen, is based on some sort of command zone system.

Think of those hex based games where the smallest unit is a company or a platoon represnted by a tile. What does this tile represent? It encompasses all the units of that formation, attached weapons and their zone of control. What if you could play CM as if your companies or platoons were "tiles". All the platoon "tiles" would be within a company "tile" and so on down the chain. You would have the best of all worlds I think.

So to achieve that, each formation must have a zone-of control that they are confined to. For example, a battalion with 3 companies and support weapons. Each company would have a radius calculated around it which would allow free movement within. If you wanted to move the company you would have to move it as a whole. This would involve clicking on a batallion orders button, and plotting waypoints or zones for the whole company. To adjust any of these would involve a substantial command delay at the batallion level. This system would be extended down the chain of command with successively smaller command delays until finaly, at the squad level, you have almost no command delay on manouvres, but the squads are confined to a general zone. This is a way to put the command delay at the formation level rather than the squad level. It would make changing grand plans harder, but make movement at the coalface much quicker and simpler.

Using phase lines and command zones would allow small units to become more autonomous and realistic. You could send out a single squad on patrol, and they would execute their last known orders without an officer nearby, and without going MIA or any such thing, and without a 40 second delay sitting in the middle of the road.

Everything your units spot could then be shown on the map in real time, but responding on a higher tactical level to these threats would become harder.

Of course this is also a little arbitrary, but I think it could be done well.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

What if you could play CM as if your companies or platoons were "tiles". All the platoon "tiles" would be within a company "tile" and so on down the chain.

Make sense to me. I'm happy to see your idea put in such a clear way. It got foggy at some point in the long thread dealing with this.

Anyway, although we haven't got a clue as to how BFC will tackle the thing, your idea's logic is pretty easy to comprehend, not *too* far from current implementation in CMx1, and putting some order in the higher echelon HQs. No more coy HQs commanding inf guns at the other end of the map because it's the only available HQ.

Any comment on this people ?

[Treeburst155]

Did I read something about time limits? I hope this feature is adjustable to suit the size of the battle being fought. If not, well, at least I already have my super-precision high dollar twitch-mouse complete with performance enhancing Mouseware.

Treeburst155 out.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Indeed, CMx1 is inherently all about micromanagement because the element that makes or breaks a battle is the optimal and/or imaginative use of the lowest level units (i.e. Squads, Teams, and individual vehicles). Good Company or Battalion level planning doesn't mean a hill of beans if the lowest level units do the wrong thing or fail to do something ingenous. Therefore, the player's best interests lie in getting those little bits to do the right thing AS WELL as planning on when and where those bits engage in relation to all the other little bits.

Think of Soviet doctrine, especially in WWII. The lowest level elements were commanded by the least imaginative, flexible, and (very often) trained leaders in the Soviet Army. They were, depending on the period of the war and location, little more than cannon fodder. The real thinking took place at higher levels. Sometimes very brilliant plans were disasters because when it came time to execute everything went wrong. This is the single biggest reason the Soviets ALMOST lost the war in the beginning stages of Barbarossa. Brilliant strategic and operational planning were ALMOST not enough to compensate for the horrible state of the lowest levels of command.

I have always thought the fault in the Red Army was with the highest level of command. It was after all the highest ranks of officer corps which was decimated during the purges, not the lowest ones.

Even the early performance of the Red Army was a mixed bag. In Nomonhan and Lake Hasan the "unrevised" machine worked brilliantly enough to convince the Japanese not to try anything fancy later on. Poland was a no-contest situation. The failure during Winter War was due to faulty overall planning more than execution of the plans at low levels.

The reforms instigated by the experiences during Winter War had not yet taken effect when Barbarossa started. However, at no point did these reforms entail freedom for the small unit commanders beyond a very narrow margin at the very lowest tactical level. They were free to sacrifice their men while executing the plan.

High casualties were not detrimental to a junior officers career, failure to fulfill the mission was.

IMO the point is the low levels of the Red Army was never really revised from 1938 to 1945 beyond adobting new and improved small unit drills and procedures. They were restricted to executing them in strict accordance of the plans drawn up by the higher echelons of command. At no point were the small unit commanders even ALLOWED any latitude for deviation from the local master plan unless it was within the confines of the global master plan. And even then if anything they were allowed to finish their bit of the plan ahead of schedule.

Compared to other armies noted for their level of individual initiave at the low levels of command the entire Red Army structure was planned according to different criteria and different scale. The small parts of the structure were not expected to perform above and beyond the call of duty unless it was in order to make the master plan work.

How many of the Red Army operations failed because the plan was sound but the small parts of the machine failed to perform ? Off hand I can not think of any. Even such spectacular failures like the attack of Kharkov it was the plan which was inherently flawed (in addition to the fact the small units had no lattitude to deviate from it once things started to go sour), not the performance of the small units as such.

Even at the lowest ebb of the tide in the summer of 1941 it was the small parts of the machine performing their tasks mechanically while the higher echelons of the structure crumbled which saved the country.