BG/KG HQ and Communications Wish

[Lurkur]

Some version of this has been discussed already, but I'll start it up again.

Here's a wish for some future iteration of CM:

The player would be represented by a Battlegroup or Kampfgruppe HQ. It would have 6-8 men and minimal combat capabilities. Perhaps the computer could even give the commander your name. All orders that you issue would come from this unit. BG HQs stuck safely away from the subordinate units are less effective-that is there is a command penalty. A BG HQ with a decent view of the battle would be more effective (and exposed)

All HQs would then have a separate, new communications radius (I guess FO's, tanks and armored cars would always be in communication because of their superior radio equipment). Players would need to be mindful of keeping the communications chain intact from the squad to the platoon HQ to the Coy HQ to The BG HQ . If that chain is intact, then the player sees everything that those units see, and can issue orders to all his units. If a unit strays off on it's own, or an HQ unit is destroyed, then only visual contact will keep those stray units from dropping off the radar screen. Units that drop off cannot be given orders and become a "?" until contact can be regained. The AI then takes control of those units, who may proceed as planned, stop in place, or retreat depending on morale, exhaustion, and quality.

Company and Battalion HQs would have a wide communications radius and Platoons a very small one, and perhaps this would vary depending on year and army. I would imagine that the Soviet army of 1941 was constantly losing contact with it's troops.

The result of all this is to enforce a realistic command structure while playing the game. It would make splitting your forces very difficult unless you did so at the company level, and add the very real possibility of misidentifying friendly troops who aren't where they're supposed to be. Defending would become more of a challenge because without that communications link your forward posts could become invisible, and you would only know of an approaching attack by the sound of gunfire. Loss of the BG HQ would be devastating. At that point the issues would come from the next level down on the command structure. There would be a huge command penalty, perhaps a disruption of a turn or two where NO orders could be issued.

Perhaps a stupid or unrealistic idea, I just remember the added suspense of my early Squad Leader days when you put that 7-0 counter down in a campaign game and tried to not die a lot. For some reason I nearly always did, regardless of how well the game went.

I welcome anybody with or without some real knowledge of the capabilities of troops communications from WW II to tell me why this idea is good or bad. Feel free to revise as desired.

Lurk

[Michael Emrys]

I sort of like this and am giving it a bump so that the discussion will stay alive. Naming the BGHQ after oneself is strictly a non-starter as far as I'm concerned though, it's a bit of ego-boo that I can live without.

Michael

[WWB]

Realistic idea, but would it make for a fun game to play? People whine plenty as is about 'bad decisions made by the TacAI.' I would hate to see the backlash if we took most of the control away from the players.

WWB

[Gpig]

I think it sounds cool, but I'm with wwb_99.

When I started playing this game I arrived from a "wargamer-lite" background. CC2, etc.

Now, since starting CM, I feel like I've educated myself quite a bit on all the detials on WWII (and know that there is SOooo much to continue to learn), but when I first played CM I was a bit overwhelmed. The level of detail and control (and EVERYTHING) was so vast that it almost turned me off. (Almost.)

I think BTS has got a firm grasp on the "foremost fun" theory. And I think a (slight) majority of gamers that pick up CM (and the future CMBB) will be in the gamer-lite catagory. Fun should be what they experience first. Don't you think?

Gpig

[Schrullenhaft]

As others have mentioned the proposed C³I changes at the beginning of this thread can have major playability consequences. Admittedly a number of players are guilty (myself included) of unrealistically deploying and controlling their forces in CMBO. While I typically try to keep platoons together I often have them spread out all over the map out of range of higher HQs (who typically act as backups or support weapons HQs).

A LOS/Zone of Control requirement for HQs to control their subordinates can be artificially and unrealistically limiting, especially if an intact 'chain of command' has to be maintained throughout the battle. Though this is a current part of CMBO to some extent (at the platoon level), the player isn't excessively penalized by having units out of C&C. But by removing all information and control for a unit that is detached from the highest level of the on-board chain of command this can get quite problematic. This scheme removes some of the initiative that lower leaders can have and dictates that all actions be directed from the highest HQ on the board; something that is unrealistic itself. Plus not only can squads be affected, but whole companies. Would the battle end if the highest HQ were eliminated/captured or if a company was isolated on a portion of the map and out of battalion C&C ? While such options could lend a further sense of reality to the battlefield they also suffer from the computer's binary logic - the status of units out of C&C is black and white with none the 'levels of gray' that would be much more realistic of the battlefield.

While the TacAI can handle some of the basics of an out-of-command unit (primarily on a squad/team level basis), it would still lack on a realistic level (or especially a player-demanded level if the unit had remained in player control). As a choice between 'two unrealistic evils' most players would probably opt for the player-controlled version of command and control (with the time delays for unit responsiveness seen in CMBO already).

Other people have mentioned that it would be great for CM to utilize the SOP-type orders of TacOps (I haven't played that title myself yet, so I don't know how they exactly work). However this is MUCH MORE complex in a 3D environment and would require A LOT of recoding for the TacAI (and other AI levels for that matter).

Admittedly having units execute player commands when they are out of C&C (which CMBO allows, though with delays) would be equivalent to a level of initiative that is quite rare in the real world. The amount of initiative an unit or leader would have in such situations touches upon tactical doctrine, training quality and mission preparedness. Some of these things can be assumed in a very vague manner currently. Delineating these characteristics on a CM level:

Tactical doctrine can be something of a 'national characteristic' that BFC/BTS has been loathe to implement in most cases. Simulating it at excessive levels can be artificially constricting too (sometimes limiting the player's command options or methods of their execution). Though reaching these levels of 'doctrinal simulation' would be hard to accomplish anyway. It's also something that changed (generally improved) over the course of the war for almost every participant, thus it can be a highly speculative characteristic. Training quality could be the equivalent of the current 'experience' setting and may need little futher representation (currently CMBO has faster reaction rates for higher experience levels). Mission preparedness is something more complex to simulate, but it can vaguely be assumed that most platoon leaders may have been briefed on their objectives (and/or their general training in tactics would allow them to set local objectives for units under their command). Mission preparedness for isolated squads and teams (as a factor in their initiative) may be harder to justify, especially if they go out of their way to accomplish something without support from other units. This would be a case for simulating an unit characteristic of initiative level and/or aggressiveness (which could be tied to experience, fitness and current exhaustion level). Mission preparedness also ventures into the territory of pre-planning the rough course of your unit's actions and objectives. Leaving them to attempt to accomplish these 'rough orders' when out of C&C, but dependent on their current tactical condition.

Anyway... blah, blah, useless theorizing, blah, blah....

Command and Control issues will be revisited in CMII when BFC/BTS will attempt to also incorporate relative spotting. This will definitely be a very hard feature to design since it touches upon so many things and can have a major impact on playability. I don't know if they'll consider implementing anything like what was suggested at the beginning of the thread, but relative spotting will figure into these C&C changes VERY prominently.