An end to the micromanagement! Why can't CM use the C&C from Airborne Assualt?

[Captain Wacky]

Before you read this post I would strongly recommend that if you haven't already downloaded the demo for Airborne Assualt you do so. Not only is it one hell of a game, it will give you a much better idea of what I'm suggesting and how it would work if implemented.

What's the biggest, most time consuming hassle that we have to deal with when playing CM? I'll venture a guess and say plotting movement, especially when there's a lot of troops on the board. For the most part this is because CM doesn't do anything to simplify the task for us as players. The AI only functions when one of your units is under fire or has spotted an enemy. But, there is a solution, and its a damn, damn fine one as anyone who has played the AA demo knows. And it doesn't turn CM into a "command" game, either. Let's look at an example:

So I'm busy playing CM against some poor sod like, er Soddball, and I give my infantry platoon the command to move as a whole to a section of woods 200m away. What happens? My men move out without any appreciable formation in a straight line path to the objective, and damned if they're going to deviate from it come hell of high water (It's even worse with tanks. How many times have you watched a tank stupidly plow into a hedgerow or some other impassable object). It doesn't matter if that 200m is flat open ground and there's a nice forest that covers the whole way to the objective just 10m to their flank, they're still going to go on their merry way walking like that little "move" line is a damned balance beam.

As a result, I have to go in and plot every single movement no matter how obvious in its tactical value, every little turn, every pause to wait for the support weapons to catch up. Now multiply that by at least three to move a company. And at least three again to move a battalion. It quickly becomes a real chore when you've got more than a few platoons on the map.

So right about now you're saying, "Yeah, I know all that Captain Wacky, but how are you gonna solve it?" Well, I think I've found the solution courtesy of the people at Panther Games.

When I select a unit in AA, I have many options to choose from in terms of what I want it to do and how I want it to do it. For instance, if I want a motorized company to move to a section of woods 800m away via a road, I'd give him the "quickest route" option. If I want him to move via a covered route, I select that option. He decides (usually very wisely) what is the best way to fulfill my orders. I can give him a host of other orders to determine how he will react to casualties, enemies, waypoints to use, what formation to move in, etc., but he'll do all of this himself anyway, keeping in mind the present situation, if I leave him alone.

However, if I do that for every unit I'm still left with a lot of micromanagement. This is where commanders come into play, and where AA really shines. I can select the CO of a group of units, give him an attack order, and he will coordinate his units as best he can (some commanders are better, more experienced, etc. than others) to accomplish his mission. By doing this I've effectively reduced the number of mouse clicks I have to make per turn by tenfold. Compare that number to the number I would've had to have made in order to do the same thing in CM.

If I want to micromanage though, the game still lets me do that. By giving an individual unit orders outside of its CO I effectively place it under my control (say they are inexperienced and need some babying & extra attention, or I just don't trust them to work on their own). When I feel that I no longer need to give him specific orders I can reattach him to his original HQ, or the commander of another group of units if nearby.

Playing the second tutorial mission in AA, all I did the first time was select my HQ of the entire kampgruppe on the map, and tell him where I wanted him to attack from. he did all the rest with suprisingly good results. Mind you, they weren't as good as when I took direct command of some units in the second run through of that mission, but it just showed that the AI was more than capable of holding its own when left to its own devices which leaves me more time for more important matters, which is really what this is all about.

So I wake up tomorrow mornign and my dream has come true, CM now has the C&C from AA. What's changed? Well, I still gave that platoon the same order to move to those woods 200m away, except this time I just gave the order to the platoon commmander. This time, instead of traipsing happily through the open meadow like the men move through the covered route on their flank. I've given them move at normal speed order so that they keep pace with the slowest support units attached to them. Maybe I just want to probe that woods area, so I set aggressiveness and casualty tolerance to low. They come under fire of some enemy units, and after taking a few casualties fall back as per my orders.

The point is by using the C&C structure I've eliminated all the menial clicking that I would have otherwise done. My men are no longer dumb as bricks and won't advance across open ground, they think for themselves. If a unit is doing something that I don't like though, I am still free to jump in and take direct command of it. Consequently, I'll have to spend more time cajoling and helping my more inexperienced troops than I will with my vets.

I want you to think about the last time you played a battalion-sized engagement in CM over TCP/IP. It's in that point range (2000-3000pts) that CM's scale really shines, but hardly anyone plays battles that big. Who has time to sit down for at 4-5 hours and play something that size? It takes me nearly and hour and a half to two to finish a 1250-1500pt engagement. That's because the vast majority of the time is spent telling my men to do things that they already should know how to do.

In the end this new C&C is all designed to make sure the player has more fun, and has more time to consider the things that he should be considering, not making sure that his squad did go that extra meter to get into cover.

[Louie the Toad]

Captn Wacky,

To micromanage or not to micromanage, that is the option.

I would like to see this too, as an option. Actually when I first started looking at CM about 2 years ago, I thought the AI was going to handle things more skillfully. Obviously not so. BUT this still is the BEST game there is.

There will still be scenarios where you will want to have individual control of even teams and single vehicles.

It is probably my erroneous observation but it appears that when the AI controls the enemy forces it is "smarter" than when it controls my forces.

It probably just seems that way. Toad

[The_Capt]

I knew it was just a matter of time.

And of course let's open the flamebait door wide open...real time anyone?

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

I knew it was just a matter of time.

And of course let's open the flamebait door wide open...real time anyone?

No flamebait here at all :confused: And I pause in AA to give my orders, so I'm not in favor of making CM real time anyway. It already does this for me.

[flamingknives]

Real time ?!?!?!?

Heretic !!!!!

Where's my flamethower?

On a more conversational note:

I have to agree that a mix of micromanagement and AI control is a good idea. Give basic orders to the platoon commander and the AI generates movement paths. If you don't like them, you can change them.

The idea of setting the response of the unit is also good - it bugs me that my recon unit try to have a stand-up firefight with anyone they bump into.

I wouldn't want to be the one to program it though....

[Hunterhr]

I would love to have something like the AA system for CM. Especially in some of the larger scenarios with whole battalions slugging it out. The ability to give simple orders to platoon or company HQ's and have them follow them similar to AA would allow more time to be spent planning the over all strategy instead of micromanaging every squad.

Real time wouldn't have to be added for this system, the WEGO system would work fine for it, it might add more time to turn computing though.

[James]

I agree 100% with capt wacky. One thing he forgot to mention though: Remember the enemy AI would be using the same C&C system - the same realistic coordination flexibity and caution seen by the enemy in AA would apply in CM too. No more grabbing the VLs and having a turkey shoot, no more predictable uncoordinated attacks by the AI in which platoons are scattered and only withdraw in rout. The AI in airbourne assault models real Command & Control at all levels and the results are realistic. Whats more its a real challenge just to hold your own let alone beat it! CM AI is just an abstraction - a strat & a Tac AI. CM is a great game which realisticaly portrays everything except how real battaleons, companies & platoons fight.

I really belive the CM & AA teams should join up together. Not only would CMs AI problembs be sorted out - play the AA demo and imagine the possibilities of a full strategic-tactical operational game.

[PAEZ]

Myself, I prefer to micromanage ......Is the whole point for me if I want a larger scale then

AA is your game

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by PAEZ:

Myself, I prefer to micromanage ......Is the whole point for me if I want a larger scale then

AA is your game

Hey, if you want to tell your squad to do things that I think they should reasonably know how to do themselves, that's great. Me, I would rather be thinking about sending that platoon around the flank on a probe or whatnot. The great thing about the AA system is that guys like you can micromanage if they want, and the comp can do the menial work for guys like me who would rather command more & only fiddle with some details.

[James]

But you could control as little or as much you wanted - even every last move of each and every single section each and every minute.

Sorry for the overkill on this point, I posted simultaniously with wacky. My were both very keen on this one!

[ April 21, 2002, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: James ]

[KNac]

Give different options, for diffrent size forces (maybe based on points).

Or just give the option to C&C level 1/2/3 for more simple(actual) to a complex(like AA, very nice AI!) system!

When more options offer the game, wider market gained.

For onli games both players should agree for a C&C level, or just by force sizes.

my 0.2 euro

[Captain Wacky]

Actually, the words from the AA area here sum up what I was getting at pretty well:

"A realistic command and control system enables you to give orders to HQ's that in turn develop their own plans for their subordinate units. For the micro manager there is still the option to issue orders to every unit. Enjoy the best of both worlds with this innovative and powerful command system."

[aka_tom_w]

OK

NOW I'm Ticked! :mad:

I'm on a MAC and I can't check out how all this C&C and SOP's (?) work in AA.

BUT I'm Very interested in reading all of your posts and observations

-tom w

[KNac]

I just can say that CnC and AI is the best of AA! Very nice nd realistic it all.

As well somethings observed in AA could be introduced in the relative spotting issue etc. Ie the information displayed about enemy units, just an estimation (and in the retail game you will get less info! i read it on the AA forum) that has a lot to do within the relative spotting system (information about enemy units on the battlefield, etc.).

The demo is a worth, and I only played a pair of hours, must play more , but in those 2 hours I saw the cool CnC sytem, and a very "smart" AI.

As someone said, AA and CM teams should join, we would take an excelent game.

Finnally I would like to add that when more options are given to the player, better, the problem is the manpower to program that (diffrent CnC systems, and relative spotting or absolute spotting optional, and about micromanagement, etc. if diffrent levels of those thing would be available in CMII it would be the perfect wargame). With that superb AI and CnC you could play in RT only giving orders to direct subordinate HQ (I know, I know, heretic! but in fact, is more realistic).

Just remember: more options = wider market = more money. Remember that BTS

[Le Tondu]

It seems to me that IF CM was like AA, then it wouldn't be CM, would it??

I like things the way that BTS wants them in regards to this issue. Right now, I'm real happy with CMBO and I'm certain to be real happy with CMBB when it comes out. I like things the way that they are.

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

It seems to me that IF CM was like AA, then it wouldn't be CM, would it??

I like things the way that BTS wants them in regards to this issue. Right now, I'm real happy with CMBO and I'm certain to be real happy with CMBB when it comes out. I like things the way that they are.

CM is nothing like AA in terms of scale. Even if CM used the C&C from AA, that still doesn't make it AA. It would only make CM a better game. Remember, under AA's C&C you can still micromanage if you want. I am merely using it as a suggestion to alleviate some of the menial & obvious tasks that the computer doesn't do now but could reasonably handle (like actual use of cover when moving instead of making a beeline to the move marker)

[Thermopylae]

This would complement very nicely what the CMBB bones have hinted at. I.e, the different levels of complexity various troop types can handle. The AI could then program a route suited to the experience level of the troops (poitn A-B for conscripts, multi-axis dashes through cover for elite). Obviously you could change this at your will, but the bones seem to indicate that creating a complex route for the "battle-challeneged" could lead to distasters... I think, however, it would have to be limited to platoon command. Once you start pointing companies towards targets, it, well, becomes fairly non-cm.

[Redwolf]

CM has too much detail, and too different units. What you see in AA is very much dependent on the AI being able to figure out a proper way of deploying and moving the units.

But that is much easier for a game like AA, which has fewer differences in terrain (no houses, no cover-giving small ridges), and where the units are much more coherent. You have armor, infantry, artillery, but you don't have "pure" armor, not a single tank as a unit. Only a unit is "pure" one arm, and one one unit can die with a single shot (like a lone tank), it abruptly becomes much more difficult to do a proper deployment from a program.

In a word, I expect that the AA "Middle-level" AI looks very good in AA, but the same effort put into a similar AI for CM would suck.

having said all this, I think CM's micromanagement can be much lightend by SOPs, that would include things like

- before leaving woods, insert 10 meters of sneak (so that you don't leave the woods when enemies are near), run between wood patches, but use move in woods

- switch from run to move before you exhaust

- replot my orders slightly to move through cover (aligns way so that it is in trees), or else replot my orders to get there fastest

- etc.

I also think that the only thing that CMBO's TacAI really leaves to be desired is behaviour on traffic jam. You get into major trouble when one vehicle crosses a street where is convoy is moving. Since the time of meeting is inpredictable, the player cannot plot it so that it hits a gap in the column. A "get there along the road/this open terrain strip fastest" would also be in order.

[Cull]

Count me on the "pro" side. It's not only horribly tedious in larger scenarios, but often costs one silly losses, both of which detract from the game.

I totally respect the designers' dedication to "realism" with CM. If it's an issue of what will fit into the game engine, I say leave out a few armor penetration caluclations (gasp!) and give my units a little more grey matter. That's realism as well, and would add a lot, I think, to everyone's enjoyment.

We're all well aware of the numerous C&C/AI issues that have been argued ad nauseum, many of which we'd all like to see (relative spotting, less-omnipotent cpu units, etc). I think those improvements are what will take CM to the next level, and I'm sure BTS is working hard on some of that. Here's hoping, though I'll be playing CMBB til my eyes bleed regardless.....

Oh, and if CM is ever goes "real-time", I'll kill myself.

[McAuliffe]

I think, I made already clear in another recent tread how CMBO (or CMBB for that matter) should handle micro-management of units.

I just want to point out that I don't need the AI to execute my tactical plan, I like to do that myself.

Stronger, If I want to play an opponent in a PBEM or a TCP/IP game, I want to play against him and his tactical capabilities, not against the computer thinking for my opponent.

What's the point of having a 3-dimensional environment and leave the fun to the AI. I am "proud" when I can spot that hull down position for my tanks in a landscape or make use of that gulley for the advance of my infantry, especially when that move can decide about winning or losing the battle. I feel like a commander that has read the terrain well. I wouldn't appreciate, that I lose against someone that doesn't understand the tactical advantages of certain spots, but just was lucky that the AI did find the right path.

So yes to improvement of micro-management by means of group commands, no to the AI takes over micro-management.

[ April 22, 2002, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: McAuliffe ]

[MrSpkr]

Posh. AA gets that kind of AI CnC because it is an OPERATIONAL level game - not a tactical one. I would despise having the AI figure out how to execute my plans, or making decisions for my opponents. Like McAuliffe, I prefer to fight against people, not the AI.

Besides, if this was implemented, then everyone would be bitching about how the AI did this/that/the other thing wrong and lost troops that YOU would not have lost had YOU been giving the orders to the squads.

If you think the large scenarios are too tedious, there is an easy solution -- don't play 'em. Play 2K to 3K QBs or medium sized scenarios. If those are too small for you, then quit complaining and just move your units. Large scenarios = lots of units to command, so I really have no sympathy for any one who plays one, then whines about it being "tedious".

This is not to fault AA - I love that game (except for an issue with the text in the sidebar). It's just that I would expect something like AA's CnC in an operational level game, and I would expect something like CMBO's unit controls in a tactical level game.

Steve

[Captain Wacky]

What about something then that just gets rid of the sometimes hairpulling "DUH!" factor of the TacAI. I mean come on, move that extra 1m to get into that house or behind that wall.

[Michael Emrys]

I hear you Captain Wacky et al. I too would love to have the luxury to give my captains orders and objectives and then sit back and watch them (with a little supervision and help from me) execute the plan. I would love that!

But redwolf has it right. A tactical game like CM is much more complex than an operational game like AA just by its very nature. Just transplanting the AI from AA to CM won't work. It would remain to be seen whether any element of the AI would be useful. The magnitude of the problem is at least an order of magnitude greater.

So, I fear that you and I will have to await that Great Revolution in AI up in the sky before we get all that we want.

Cést la guerre.

Michael

[ April 22, 2002, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[McAuliffe]

Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

What about something then that just gets rid of the sometimes hairpulling "DUH!" factor of the TacAI. I mean come on, move that extra 1m to get into that house or behind that wall.

Now, that are just the finesses of the skilled gameplayer. Let's suppose you're playing a combat flight simulator and you would start whining about the fact that your Focke-Wulf lobbed his rockets into the thin air instead of in that bunch of approaching B-17's. Would you start telling me that AI actually should aim them right while you are in fact are at the controls?

Originally posted by MrSpkr:

If you think the large scenarios are too tedious, there is an easy solution -- don't play 'em. Play 2K to 3K QBs or medium sized scenarios. If those are too small for you, then quit complaining and just move your units. Large scenarios = lots of units to command, so I really have no sympathy for any one who plays one, then whines about it being "tedious".

Steve

I hope you don't work at one or another customer-service desk, because that would be an answer I would not appreciate. I guess there are a lot of people that want to play larger scenarios, but find it indeed a bit tedious to plot every single move for each vehicle or unit. I think that BTS should come up with an intermediate solution, as the average confrontation in CMBB will involve a significant higher number of units then CMBO. It would be a shame that the game looses of it's attraction, just because people are scared away by the huge amount of micro-management.

[Maj. Battaglia]

While Captain Wacky's ideas are interesting and would no doubt save time, I think they should in no way be a priority for the BTS folks.

To further what Redwolf and MrSpkr said about not wanting to play against a TCP opponent who is really letting his AI do the work, etc., I think one should consider the role being played in CM. You are assuming the role of ALL of the following: battalion, company, platoon, squad/team/vehicle CO. To play CM well, one must have, among other skills, an appreciation for terrain details from a military standpoint, just as the people really in these roles needs it. Allowing an AI to take that over would take out a critical aspect of gameplay.

I have an appreciation for the AA type friendly AI--that is what a game where you play division/regimental/battalion commander is all about. I'm sure I'll enjoy AA when it's ported to the Mac.

So some SOP additions might be nice (and we'll see just what CM:BB has in store), but for now adding in a platoon leader AI should be way, way on the back burner, and then an option that both players (in TCP) should agree to.

I also take issue (respectfully) with Captain Wacky about the scale where CM shines. It is a matter of preference, of course, but I find circa 1000 point battles, with an inf company and a handful of vehicles, to be CM at its best. That's not to say I don't find larger battles enjoyable, just that's what I find myself playing the most.