CMX2 and Vehicle Passengers

[Cpl Steiner]

I really hope CMX2 addresses the problems of co-ordinating vehicles and passengers better. In a typical CM game, I'm always having to fiddle about adding delay using the Pause command to get half-tracks to wait long enough for passengers to mount up before moving off. Or else, I'll give a squad orders to disembark at a particular spot, only to have them bail out of the vehicle and run 100s of metres to the designated spot over open ground under fire.

CMX2 should have order preconditions, which prevent a unit moving to its next waypoint if not met. Half-tracks could then only commence a move to the next waypoint once passengers have got in. Likewise, passengers should only move from a disembark waypoint to their next waypoint if successfully disembarked.

[PLM]

I agree, I'm sure it'll be fixed. Its obnoxious as hell.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by PLM:

I agree, I'm sure it'll be fixed. Its obnoxious as hell.

Maybe it will even be worse. I remember the same discussion came out when squads were not permitted to advance to/from passenger status in SL. The cry went up that a squad could move 40 metres out of a building, up a hill through trees while carrying a heavy machine gun, but could not jump down from a truck in the same alloted timeframe.

The reply from the developers was that co-ordinating movement "should have been easy" but frequently was not.

Ever ride in the back of a military truck? They're loud, noisy and bounce around, especially going off road. Communicating with the driver of a seperate cab is often impossible. You need to co-ordinate where you want to be dropped off ahead of time. Sometimes you do that from a map; sometimes the platoon commander rides up front and where three trucks worth of men disembark is up to his whim. Driving over terrain you've never been to is a challenge; so is recognizing landmarks. I've done it - but never under fire.

I hope that these problems are reflected in CMX2 in some way, shape or form and that the player can't just transport his troops anywhere on the map he likes - it would be unrealistic in the extreme. In a way, the inelegant way CM does these things now actually represents - not deliberately, I think - the burden of co-ordinating the movements of vehicles and men.

[PLM]

Blah. Bull****. Thats an excuse, if there's problems coordinating then the delay can be worse. Bottom line is there is no good commands for coordinating movement between a truck and an infantry squad, it takes time, a lot of time. There are no commands for vehicles such as "wait til infantry mounts then drive here." Its realistic, if there's other delays involved like the actual mounting up then fine, but that isnt modelled.

[JonS]

Meh. I agree it's frustrating, but on the whole I agree with Dorosh.

Worst case; your transport has to sit stationary with no orders for some part of a turn while the infantry load up or dismount. Sad biscuits. Getting in or out of a vehicle takes time, and we're only talking about a fraction of one minute. It's true that in combat a lot can happen in a minute, but it still ain't a heck of a lot of time.

Also, if you're loading and unloading your transport within sight of the enemy (and to be fair, I do it too), you're probably doing it wrong. Complaining about being punished for that is probably a bit rich though.

Regards

JonS

[Michael Emrys]

I think Jon has it right. Once I got used to the way the system worked, I seldom had any problems with it, mostly because I didn't have any unrealistic expectations of how it should work. Doing stuff takes time, and sometimes I simply can't believe what players expect to be able to do in one single minute.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

The way it is now in CMx1 is deliberate. The player has WAY too much control over the coordination of vehicles and infantry as it is. The main problem is that you, the player, always knows where to have the two meet up. In real life that was a huge logistical problem that was so bad that it was generally not done. An APC would drive along with a squad mounted, then stop to dismount the. The APC would then sit around and give supporting fire, or it would withdraw. If it stuck around then the squad could fairly easily mount if it wanted to, but if they withdrew it could be difficult to get things coordinated for a pickup. In WWII most vehicles did not have radios or at least not radio communication directly with their supporting infantry. So from a CM standpoint, if you dismount and move your vehicles away from them... realistically you probably shouldn't be able to mount again for the rest of the sceanrio.

Back in the dark days of CMBO programming we required the vehicles to stop to dismount and mount. This meant that if the vehicle reached its last waypoint 30 seconds into the turn, it would just sit there with the infantry loaded up waiting for the next turn to come around. At that point the player would issue dismount orders and the infantry would take x seconds in C&C delay to dismount. Now THAT was unrealistic. The reason is that the coordination between the vehicle and infantry should be fairly simple to acheive since the two are together.

While I agree in reality this could be difficult, it probably wasn't in a tactical firefight situation. In such situations the infantry would likely bail when being fired at and/or if the vehicle came to a stop. The vehicle would also be ready to get a signal from the infantry to stop and dismount, then drive way or stay close as orders ahead of time would have specified.

So after much consideration we decided to allow infantry to dismount pretty much whenever and wherever they want. Mounting, however, we purposefully left the way it was because overall it's pretty realistic. I'm sure we could have come up with something a bit more realistic, but with the Borg spotting issues and Human intervention, this would have been more effort than it was worth.

In CMx2 things will be different, but it isn't possible for me to say specifically how. However, the thinking behind CMx1's treatment is pretty much the same now as it was 8 years ago.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The vehicle would also be ready to get a signal from the infantry to stop and dismount, then drive way or stay close as orders ahead of time would have specified.

Provided of course that the drivers didn't just decide to bug out in the meantime, something that was not exactly unheard of in combat.

Michael

[PLM]

Well whats the plan for CM2? Its often claimed that there's very little control for a commander when the battle begins and much of it is down the squad leaders. Part of the fun has always been playing as God. As each squad commander and each vehicle etc. Miniscule decisions such as precise movements of a tank isnt going to be coming down from any Company commander, its down to the tank crew completely. Whats the plan then? Is it just gonna be choose your setup and sit and watch a battle? I dont think so. No AI could ever handle that. So you cant complain about having too much control if you cant make it so there isn't that special area of control. If I can move a goddang tank to exact coordinates and locations I want, without the slightest influence fromm the tank commander, then why cant I put squad a in a truck and have it start moving? Or have them dismount. It takes time to mount, yeah it also takes time to dismount but that doesnt mean the slightest risk of my squad voluntarily dismounting in the middle of nowhere and running towards the position I wanted them to dismount should ever happen without fire involved just because there's no friggin good commands for coordinating a vehicle and its passengers. That sure as heck is nowhere near the level of control you have in other areas.

I suppose vehicles moving down a road, one after the other is unrealistic too??? Because that isnt possible, not as a set command. CM drivers cant manage to do something that civilian drivers do every day on roads, follow the vehicle in front of them. A slow vehicle followed by a fast vehicle results in the fast vehicle running up to the rear of the slow one and breaking abruptly. Does that make sense? Peoople say "hey you're dumb put the fast one in front." What if I dont want to??? What if I need/want that fast vehicle to follow a slow one in an important role, cant happen not without major pains. Is that too hard realistically to coordinate????? And if the leading vehicle stops, the one behind it cant a) stop a reasonable distance away or swerve around and continue driving.

How would it be realistic to not be able to mount the rest of a scenerio? What about ferrying troops. You mean a truck driver cant realistically understand the concept of moving between 2 points, hauling infantry down a road, turning around and doing it again??? No fire involved whatsoever. I dont buy it. And I've made scenerios where I can safely ferry troops lengthy stretches. If thats not a realistic tactic, or its too 'dangerous' even when not under fire then why the heck are trucks even available in CM? And I know halftracks should be able to do that near the frontlines especially in a job of ferrying troops in a safe stretch of ground and back and forth

[ July 25, 2005, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: PLM ]

[Cpl Steiner]

The biggest problem is units being knocked off vehicles by fire and having to run to their disembarkation point. The alternative is to wait until the next turn and then disembark them if they get to their destination, but this isn't very realistic when they have arrived at the destination and just sit there under fire for 30 seconds or so waiting for the next turn. They should bail out and seek cover almost before the vehicle has stopped moving, to allow the vehicle to get out of there as fast as possible.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by PLM:

If thats not a realistic tactic, or its too 'dangerous' even when not under fire then why the heck are trucks even available in CM?

Exactly. Here's hoping there are no trucks in CMX2.

[Cpl Steiner]

Ever heard of an ambush.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Ever heard of an ambush.

I've heard of an opposed beach landing, mass prison break, and commando raid too, doesn't mean it would make for a good game at the tactical level.

[Cpl Steiner]

Each to his own. Personally, I have always enjoyed ambush scenarios.

In any case, you cannot ignore transport vehicles in a realistic wargame. Transportation implies Supply, and Supply Lines are a major feature of any war. I imagine countless trucks have been bombed, ambushed or otherwise shot to pieces in wars over the last 60 years.

It is also realistic that front lines are so well known that units can just motor up to a designated area, dismount, and hike the few hundred yards to the front. I can imagine the scene, "Okay boys, the front's that-a-way, everyone remember where we parked".

[Cpl Steiner]

It is also realistic that front lines are so well known that units can just motor up to a designated area, dismount, and hike the few hundred yards to the front.

Obviously I meant "unrealistic" in the above.

[Michael Dorosh]

I'm in favour of a realistic supply system. Bear in mind at the tactical level - company or battalion, which is CM's intended focus - this was not done with trucks. The company supply sergeant (CQMS or whatever you want to call him) may have established an ammo point, maybe moved forward with jeep, carrier, mule, or horsecart, and resupply to the forward companies was by runner, or by having the companies rotate out of the line.

As has been discussed before, this has nothing to do with the company commander - ostensibly the CM player - and so should be invisible "in game".

For a truly realistic approach, have the trucks be invisible and have men teleport onto the map as reinforcements do now. Would a company commander really have any control over the trucks other than to have the men dropped off in a specific place? Probably not. He'd make his needs known to the transport officer at the O Group preceding the action, and the trucks would go back to battalion control after their mission was accomplished.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It is also realistic that front lines are so well known that units can just motor up to a designated area, dismount, and hike the few hundred yards to the front.

Obviously I meant "unrealistic" in the above. </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

As has been discussed before, this has nothing to do with the company commander - ostensibly the CM player - and so should be invisible "in game".

But would it have to do with battalion commander, which the player is in many scenarios?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

As has been discussed before, this has nothing to do with the company commander - ostensibly the CM player - and so should be invisible "in game".

But would it have to do with battalion commander, which the player is in many scenarios? </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Trucks will be present in the first and second releases of CMx2 engine for sure. The reason is... ambush scenarios and missions where you are supposed to go from A to B with all of your units, such as convoy escort, escaping an encirclement, etc. However, I agree with Dorosh... in general trucks are not supposed to be a part of a companyish level engagement and therefore generally shouldn't be in scenarios depicting typical combat situations.

PLM,

Miniscule decisions such as precise movements of a tank isnt going to be coming down from any Company commander, its down to the tank crew completely.

Wrong. It is down to the tank crew within the realistic SOP of tank crews as far as we can simulate it. A simple example:

It is not realistic for a tank crew to try driving through a lake, so we prevent it. This is a fairly no-ifs-ands-or-buts kind of thing and therefore nobody raises a stink about it. In fact, I doubt you even thought of it when you posted. But the reasoning behind the decision to not allow a player to put the tank into a lake is the same reason why we do other types of restrictions (as best we can). Crews aren't treated like infantry, for example, and artillery can't be used in certain ways without penalties. There is no difference between this and someone trying to use APCs or trucks in unrealistic ways. So expect us to continue enforcing realism on the player wherever possible. For those who don't like it, there are plenty of RTS games out there that don't give a flying fig about realism

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Trucks will be present in the first and second releases of CMx2 engine for sure.

So no Napoleonics or ACW, huh?

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

Trucks will be present in the first and second releases of CMx2 engine for sure.

So no Napoleonics or ACW, huh?

Michael </font>

[Cpl Steiner]

Trucks will be present in the first and second releases of CMx2 engine for sure. The reason is... ambush scenarios and missions where you are supposed to go from A to B with all of your units, such as convoy escort, escaping an encirclement, etc.

Great news. Can't wait to ambush my first convoy in CMX2!

[juan_gigante]

I agree with everyone who says that disembarking / embarking is a pain in the butt. Far too often have I ordered "troops get off, vehicle pause 30 sec, then drive away", and my boys think "It's gonna move! Stay on!" and then they are way far away. Usually what ends up happening takes three turns. 1st turn: Vehicle drives to spot, waits for end of turn. 2nd turn: Troops get off. 3rd turn: Vehicle drives off.

It is mighty irritating.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

I agree with everyone who says that disembarking / embarking is a pain in the butt. Far too often have I ordered "troops get off, vehicle pause 30 sec, then drive away", and my boys think "It's gonna move! Stay on!" and then they are way far away. Usually what ends up happening takes three turns. 1st turn: Vehicle drives to spot, waits for end of turn. 2nd turn: Troops get off. 3rd turn: Vehicle drives off.

It is mighty irritating.

Try doing it for real in the field sometime. Ever hear a sergeant swear? Try it at night in blackout conditions with a new second lieutenant reading the map. Ever seen a sergeant major cry?