Utility of Fire - Nominating Individual Weapons to Fire Only

[cassh]

In the CMx2 engine will it be possible to nominate one weapon or weapon type to fire only at a target/location from a squad/section/team; and instruct the rest of the squad to fire at another target?

e.g.

one or two soldiers directed to target smoke grenades twenty-five metres at the section's two-o'clock whilst the others concentrate their fire forward in an 'advance'.

Or

The soldier with the scoped-rifle/sharp-shooter status is directed to engage a heavy weapons crew at 500m range that is trying to suppress them whilst the rest of the squad concentrate on an advancing enemy unit 200m out.

Or

Forcing the soldier to fire the M-72 at the sanger/bunker or throwing the satchel charge where you want it...

[Moronic Max]

On the one hand, that'd be nice. On the other hand, I shudder to think how irritating doing that in real time online play would be.

Then again, since we'll be able to pause in singleplay and will (eventually) be able to distribute the workload in coplay, that shouldn't be too bad.

[Peter Cairns]

If we have control down to teams of two or three even a platoon could be quite hard work, so I have my doubts about giving orders below that.

If a squad has three or even four teams that should give you the flexibility you need, without it all becoming too micromanaged. As CM is about giving orders to units rather than controlling every individual I actually like the fact that a lot of the time your units will be controlled by the TI as much as you.

Peter.

[cassh]

My reason for bringing it up is twofold.

I don't want to micro manage but some basic infanteering needs to be addresses from the CMx1 engine.

I am sure most of this is already old hat to Charles, Steve and the CMx2 team, but just in case thought it needed mentioning:-

Fire Control

Can I stop assault team A posting S-charges into a room and just use grenades. This will prevent casualties to team A and also team B who are in close proximity. In CMx1 you often bring the house down on everyone in large buildings when thing get ugly! A kind of suicide assault engineering.

Multiple Targets/Threats

Likewise, I'd like to see something like primary and secondary targets and being able to select different types of fire or weapons for each target.

This will better reflect the power of infantry fire teams and sections; their flexibility and multi threat, multi orientation capabilities.

By forcing four-man or eight-man units to engage a single threat/target we substantially misrepresent what they often do.

The reason a four man patrol is referred to as a brick is its shape and posture with an all-round-defence. Often you can see the rear two men backing up the street in the direction of travel facing the rear arcs.

This multi threat posture cannot be represented in a model where engaging one target at a time is all that is possible.

I just hope CMx2 has some target flexibility, that's all.

[Cpl Steiner]

I think for real-time play we will need a lot of hot-key methods of controlling units. Take Command 2nd Manassas (just been playing the demo lately) has some handy short-cuts. For instance in that game the up and down arrows select units higher and lower in the chain of command, and the left and right arrows move sideways in the chain of command. So, for instance, in CM terms, if you had 1st squad 1st platoon selected, up arrow would take you to 1st platoon HQ, right arrow would select 2nd platoon HQ, down arrow would select 1st squad 2nd platoon, and right arrow would select 2nd squad 2nd platoon. Once you get used to it it becomes second nature and is very handy. Something like that is needed in CMx2 if you ask me. Perhaps it could even be extended for selection of personalities/teams within a squad/HQ (say shift-left or right arrow).

[Bruce70]

I do not think that this level of control is desirable. However, with a 1-to-1 representation, I hope that the AI will do most of this automatically. I would certainly hope that each individual soldier chooses his target more or less independantly from the rest of the squad.

[cassh]

Bruce70 - The problem with 1-to-1 scale is that abstraction often creates more problems than it solves.

For the AI to handle small unit behaviour it must have an accurate model of that behaviour in a multitude of situations. That means BTS must programmed into the AI each army’s/fighting force’s doctrine, methods and tactics to accurately model what the would do and have them do that in the game.

That is going to make modules a pain in the arse as even a change from Striker Brigade to MEU is going to mean a complete IA re-programme as Army and Marines do things differently at the sub squad/team level.

The one size fits all approach simply will not work, and more importantly will restrict the commander’s option and course of action to any given event.

Model in flexibility, and you model in reality.

[Bruce70]

I am not sure what you mean. A 1-to-1 scale is surely a lesser abstraction than that in CMx1. I think you mean that the 1-to-1 scale will introduce a lot of new problems. If so, I agree and that is why I personally would not have moved to a 1-to-1 scale. It is certainly a huge step up for the AI, and on top of that it must run in real time.

However, I trust that BFC have overcome these problems or they would not have moved to a 1-to-1 scale.

It remains to be seen just how abstract CMx2 will be, but I will be disappointed if the new scale is just eye candy, and I will be equally disappointed if they have moved the simulation ahead of what the AI can handle.

[Peter Cairns]

I don't think 1-to-1 will be a problem, in that in the same way as when you engage an enemy with a platoon, each of your "Three man" squads can do something different, so with CM:SF it will be a three man team.

I can understand that if a team is being engaged by three targets that in reality the team might have one man firing at one and two at another, where as in the game the team will probably all fire at one target, and then switch to another.

I think it should be left to the AI/TI and there would be three options.

If we have three targets and weighing up threat location exposure etc, they are rated at 50%, 30% and 20%, then,

1) The team engages the 50% until it drops in threat exposure etc to lower than one of the others and then switches its firing to that target.

2) The team fires at the 50% for half the time, then switches to the 30% for about a third, and finally gives the last target a fifth.

or,

3) Half the squads firpower is at the 50%, a third at the 30% and a fifth at the 20%, with different parts of the team looking at different targets.

The thirs will probably look, the most realistic, but it is the hardest to do, and i think the least likely.

i'd a thought that Steve should be abkle to give us an idea by now of which of the three we will get.

Peter.

[cassh]

Bruce70 – sorry I probably didn’t explain that to well.

What I meant as you inferred correctly is that at 1-to-1 level each time one abstracts/fudges an issue you create problems elsewhere or when circumstances change. It is better to try and model as much as possible in a real-world object orientated way of modular factors and issues.

Clearly as you point out and I alluded to this hugely increases the complexity of thing. My original point was and is that no AI will model everything perfectly, but if the player had a little more input then anomalies and such like can be worked around.

[vincere]

Peter Cairns

Your last post begins to show some of additional problems with 1:1. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it pans out but I think choosing indivisual weapons to fire is unlikely given what BF have said so far.

[MikeyD]

BFC says CMx2 will track individual weapons (as opposed to weapons groups in CMx1) and even individual bullet strikes! That implies giving the player more of a say over what weapon gets used could be possible. If we're lucky we could a least get a 'suggest you use grenade launcher here' team command that would at least boost the likelyhood the AI will decide to use the grenade launcher! I'm reminded of the frustration on CMx1 trying to get my Churchill Crocodile to stop using its HE rounds on the building and use the freakin' flame thrower for once!

[flamingknives]

Target, use main gun = no.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

BFC says CMx2 will track individual weapons (as opposed to weapons groups in CMx1) and even individual bullet strikes!

As far as I am aware, bullets and the like as ammo are tracked in a behind the scenes inventory per soldier, but the player only sees a status bar (somewhere between full and empty). However, I have not read anywhere on this forum that bullets will be actually tracked in flight and strikes on targets determined accordingly. As far as I am aware it will be pretty much as in CMx1, i.e percentage probabilities of a hit for a given volume of fire, and a random distribution of wound severity, abstracted to something like KIA or WIA.

[MikeyD]

"I have not read anywhere on this forum that bullets will be actually tracked in flight and strikes on targets determined accordingly."

Maybe I misinterpreted an early Moon comment about seeing bullet strikes on buildings and vehicles. Can't recall his exact wording but it didn't sound particularly abstracted from the description.

Sigh, another one of those things we'll have to wait & see in the final game... or in a 'clarification' bone

[cassh]

Talking of ammunition, does anyone know whether a platoon can undertake the battlefield procedure called the "re-org" or "re-organisation" whereby platoon Sgt. counts ammo and re-distributes it evenly across the platoon's section?

I takes about 5 minutes in real-time. If the platoon believed itself to be out of enemy observation (i.e. none of its units could spot and enemy unit) it could then 'safely' undertake a re-org. The platoon would have to be static for say five turns and each element be within 50m of the HQ unit...