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

[Captain Wacky]

I realized when I first posted this that the C&C system from AA, no matter how good, would still have to be heavily modified in order to fit into CM. AA's combat, terrain, etc are all abstracted to a much greater value than CM's, so it has much less work to do when contemplating things. Still, I'm not fully convinced that a similar system couldn't be implemented for use in a future CM incarnation.

Originally posted by McAuliffe:

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?

I really don't think you can compare the two. If CM were a similation in which I was in direct, first person control of a single soldier one at a time then maybe...

As for your point about micromanaging being the finesse of the skilled gameplayer, I've talked to some of top guys and TH forums, and they tend to agree that a sound plan and strategy beat a small-minded micromanager any day of the week. If you really wanted a test of what you call finesse, we should just eliminate the TacAI altogether and let the player do everything. That way there's no AI muddling up the "pure" contest of players at all. I don't think anyone wants that.

Is it so much to ask that when I give a squad a move order to a house it moves to the front so it can have LOS to the other side when it gets there? If my squad is sitting 1m away from some woods and turns to open fire at an enemy in a house 100m away, is it so much to ask that my squad wisely take cover itself before doing so?

Originally posted by 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.

I think you're missing my point. I don't want to play a game where the AI thinks of the plan for me and goes about carrying it out by itself either. I just want the AI to take a more active role in improving the tactical situation of small units. The AI already handles the functions absolutely basic in their complexity, ie "shoot at the enemy when you see him." Adding something that allows a squad to take better cover is no more complex and would detract nothing from the game--nothing more of course, than the AI's current ability to target enemies independently of my commands.

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."

Uh oh, looks like I've begun to stir up the Ra-Ra CM feelings. I'll ignore this bait and answer this way: I'm just trying to give a suggestion that I think will make the game more enjoyable, make playing larger scenarios more manageable and less time consuming. I will say that I don't think large scenarios with large numbers of units should necessarily be much more tedious than smaller ones, in terms of the amount of micromanagement. What should be more "tedious" in my mind is the consideration of strategy by the player. More units & bigger map=more strategic options. I'd rather think my way to victory if at all possible, and not click my way to it.

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by Maj. Battaglia:

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 promised myself I'd go to bed after the last post...

I'm not advocating the player relinquish his role as squad/platoon leader. I still want to tell a squad which house to occupy, I just want it to do a little "fine tuning" once it gets there to better its own tactical situation. Hope thats clearer.

I still want to be able to tell a tank exactly which hull down spot to move to. But when it gets there I want it to be able to make fine adjustments to increase its own cover if I've told it to move farther up slope than necessary or haven't moved it far enough up to see.

Clearer now I hope

[ April 22, 2002, 03:47 AM: Message edited by: Captain Wacky ]

[Maj. Battaglia]

Captain Wacky, that is much clearer, although somewhat different than what you were alluding to in your other posts. Please forgive those of us who disagreed with you.

I agree wholeheartedly that sometimes it can be difficult to find the best spot for hull down or building occupation. You want to be able to go just far enough to see, especially when you don't want to shoot (when you can use hunt/sneak to help) right away. You would have to be able to have two options, though, since sometimes you don't want folks to move into view. This type of thing falls into the SOP/command options category rather than c&c functions.

[McAuliffe]

Originally posted by Maj. Battaglia:

...

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.

Everyone has his own favorites and preferences, but one reason, why I prefer the larger scenarios is that, to put it frankly, luck is less an issue.

Those 1.000-pointers come down to a shoot-out between the two tanks on the board and then, the surviving tank can support the infantry-attack that wins the battle.

[KNac]

I agree 100% with Cpatain Wacky, and understand his point.

I also prefer large battles because of strategy (there is where a player demostrate his skill), but micromanagement consumes too much time to play it.

Those who have tried to push CMBO to its limits will understand me, with a full German regiment and lots of supports assets under my command in the larger map you can do in CM (in a operation) it can be a pain in the ass to move exactly each squad to its PERFECT position.

So it would be cool if the squad can get the 2 extra meters to get a better position. in adittion you would be able to micromange the unit your-self.

Finally I would like the platoon level "finest" micromanagement (for those kinds of large battles I said) giving more generic orders to platoon comanders with 18 or + squads in your command the skill would be demostrate in the use of your platoons and not in the squad level, so that is not a excuse. And however someone that micromanage its units will probably be better than letting the computer micromanage them, but that is not viable in a 3 Bn battle, it consume too much time...

[Dirtweasle]

Mark me down as one of your converts Captain!

[Mattias]

I distinctly remember BTS expressing surprise at the demand for bigger forces, the game was meant to be played with 3000'ish forces tops. But since there was a will and it, apparently, wasn't very complicated the maximum QB forces were bumped to 5000 in the 1.02 patch.

I for one like the 3000 level the best and love the micro management but given a reliable AI I wouldn't mind loosing some of the mouse and key work...

M.

[James]

To all those who say a "no" to the concept because they like to micromanage: You still could move every single unit by direct order, so the choice of higher command or mircromanagment to up to the individual player.

What also has been forgotton but doubley important is the improvements in the enemy AI. C&C AI simulates how military formations think and fight a battle instead of just abstracting it.

Ok an Example - : CM - An AI enemy company in attack Vs your battalleon. First of all the squads are mixed up - they run up against your battaleon and depite the superior firepower & numbers launch uncordinated single squads against companies which are wiped out. They will carry on regardless until they've all routed. All for the sake of VL flag.

Example 2: AA ai in a simler situation with orders to attack against superior forces: First of all a coordinated battle plan is generated, each unit playing its part. The attack starts, after an initital probes and firefight the suborinate units sensibly realise the odds against them and stay in cover - the battle plan is then altered to a coordinated reargaurd withdraw to a secure position.

Which of the two seem the most realistic outcomes?

Those who say C&C command is really an operational thing only are wrong because C&C command in real life goes right down to the squads. It exists even in the smallest skirmish.

[Maj. Battaglia]

James-

Your AI comparison is really apple and oranges, and it is because of the different scale. In CM, where a battle might be 30 minutes or an hour, the initial probes and recon have already happened. They are either 1) in the scenario briefing, or 2) assumed in QBs since the ratio of forces is pretty much known but force mix is not. So in your example, some commander has ordered the attack even though it is known that the company is facing a bigger opponent.

This would be a very difficult scenario as a human, and is outside of the capabilities of the AI. The AI in CM does not have the authority to ignore the orders of the offboard commander in an attack by deciding to not try and capture the VLs, opting instead to fade back into the trees. The AI in AA does, and for good reason.

You are right, in your example the latter is a more realistic outcome, just that in CM it is necessarily outside the scope.

All of us would love to see a better AI (not that the one now is not tops in the market). The AI does not do a great job of keeping units together in an attack, one example that you mention. But if the AI we've all been bleating for were developed by BTS, they'd be whisked away by the DoD and wake up in Arlington, VA working at DARPA.

So I am not saying "no," just that this should not be a priority. Folks looking to make division or regimental-level decisions are asking to play a different game. Can that game be in the CM toolbox? Perhaps. But not for now.