HQs in CM:Normandy

[Erwin]

Ah... sounds like a lot of non-fun work to me. But, thanks for your advice.

[c3k]

My original UI design (c.2005) had far more obvious feedback about C2 connections. The system relied heavily on customizing the floating icons based on context sensitive conditions and what the player wanted to know. A similar, though cruder, version of this was in CMx1. There was also a much grander overall plan for this that didn't happen. Both due to time. The designs have been kept alive and even improved quite a bit over the years.

Unfortunately, it's not going to happen for Normandy. We've slated these improvements, and a host of others, for the next major release. We had too many big things to add to the game this time around. The next one, however, has a fairly extensive UI overhaul as its primary new feature set. The key advantage of working with a flexible game engine is we can get more and more stuff into the game faster and faster with each new release.

Steve

Did I just sniff a bone???

Thanks for the info.

Ken

[Pandur]

Ah... sounds like a lot of non-fun work to me. But, thanks for your advice.

i would not consider it work at all. i mean what are you planing to do? and what you think you gain after you found out whatever it is you want to find out?

from my point of view there is nothing to gain becouse you cant help C2 anyways. blue side will have its C2 means no matter what, and red side will lack them no matter what, although you can manage C2 links a lot better with red side as the ranges are a lot shorter. but thats it, there is nothing more to optimize or to gain in the information transfer process.

[stikkypixie]

i would not consider it work at all. i mean what are you planing to do? and what you think you gain after you found out whatever it is you want to find out?

from my point of view there is nothing to gain becouse you cant help C2 anyways. blue side will have its C2 means no matter what, and red side will lack them no matter what, although you can manage C2 links a lot better with red side as the ranges are a lot shorter. but thats it, there is nothing more to optimize or to gain in the information transfer process.

If you keep the HQs near red squads (shouting distance) they will be in command. So are there is something you can do. Or try not to get the HQs killed. I believe in CM:Afghanistan the icons grey out when a unit is not in command, so that is a visual help. No doubt this will be carried over in the next iterations of CM.

[Pandur]

i do not consider this something to do, this is mandatory for red if you want your guys to stay at least a few turns in the fight.

thats what i meant when i said;

...although you can manage C2 links a lot better with red side as the ranges are a lot shorter.

Or try not to get the HQs killed

since you usually have no C2 link to the Co commander and so also not to the Bn commander when you dont have the plt HQ sitting in a vehicle, my HQ squads are usually the last to go down. only when several platoons are cramped into tiny space i have the HQ squads out fighting as the distance to Co HQ is not that big in such conditions. but if you have a company or more, in normal open terrain, the HQ squad is required to sit in the vehicle wich is a bad design decision in my eyes, noone else seems to care though.

[c3k]

Pandur,

You bring up some points which, frankly, are beyond my understanding partly due to how your post is phrased, but partly due to my lack of knowledge of red command relationships.

Due to the UI, I rarely have any idea whether my actions have any effect on the command status of subordinate units. Sure, every now and then I notice a mouth or an eyeball, but I really don't know if one is better than the other. Neither have I EVER noticed red command being improved if a red HQ is in a vehicle. I commend you for noticing that.

Frankly, I assume the game rewards HQ being near to units. I try to keep platoon HQ's near squads, but I have never taken the time to investigate what it means to have platoon HQ's in command with higher HQ. Nor have I taken time to find out what mechanism is needed to make that occur.

I would like a better in command status display and a command system where the mechanism is more visible to the player. Say, totally off the cuff, if I click on a red HQ, their command radius is displayed much like an artillery strike zone: a transparent overlay. Additionally, if a command vehicle (or any vehicle) would extend that zone, that the vehicle flash. Or something.

Right now I check on the unit's red dot/green dot status and sometimes peruse the weird icons under the suppression meter, but I don't know what the icons MEAN regarding unit abilities (is a PDA better than a little eyeball? Is a big eyeball better than a mouth?), nor do I know how to change the red dots to green (higher HQ comms) or vice versa.

Ken

[Michael Emrys]

...I don't know what the icons MEAN regarding unit abilities (is a PDA better than a little eyeball? Is a big eyeball better than a mouth?), nor do I know how to change the red dots to green (higher HQ comms) or vice versa.

Since I don't own this game, I'm having trouble following this part of the discussion. Ken, are you saying that the manual does not explain all of this, or that you have not taken the trouble to see what it says about all of this?

Michael

[Pandur]

You bring up some points which, frankly, are beyond my understanding partly due to how your post is phrased, but partly due to my lack of knowledge of red command relationships.

Due to the UI, I rarely have any idea whether my actions have any effect on the command status of subordinate units. Sure, every now and then I notice a mouth or an eyeball, but I really don't know if one is better than the other.

first, i am sorry for my wacky english, i try to phrase it as clear as it possible for me

also i dont think the UI is at fault becouse you have all the time you need to look up the red/green lamps and symbols in WEGO. also most of the ranges for "eye" and "mouth" symbol can be seen or better said, tried out, in setup phase where you can actually measure distance for them.

i dont know myself if eye symbol is better then mouth, but funny enough i can not remember now that i ever saw "both" which is weird becouse at some point this must be possible. but it doesnt matter actually becouse you want "any" symbol with red, even if it is distant symbol. mouth and eye are both better then distant symbol so i will be glad haveing any one of both.

Neither have I EVER noticed red command being improved if a red HQ is in a vehicle. I commend you for noticing that.

well this is verry simple once you got it. you need to see that there is nothing to "improve". its either in or out of C2, there is no degree of better or worse.

now look at this;

.                       Bn

                       /             

                    Co     

                     |

                    P(S1)          

                   /   \           

                 /       \     

               S(S2)   S(S3)     

Bn and Co should be clear, the P is platoon HQ(at the same time squad1) and the S are squad 2 and 3, so we see a battalion with only one Co and this Co got one full platoon(2 non HQ squads).

ok now lets work for the bottom upwards;

to get the S2 and S3 in C2 range of the P(S1) its simple, place em close enough so you get a "eye, mouth or distant symbol" becouse they dont have radio!!!

now the tricky part is between P and Co. becouse not even the P(S1) does have a radio in the dismounted (HQ)squad. this means if your company with more then one platoon is too strung out, the platoon Hq´s will loose or never get C2 link to Co as it can not get either mouth,eye or distant symbol to it, becouse of distance.

and at that point the vehicle comes into play. if the Co HQ is too far away, you seat the P(S1)in a vehicle that will have radio(BTR/BMP doesnt matter) and this way the command link to Co is working again.

then the information goes up to Co HQ which will sit in a vehicles all the time, as the Bn HQ does, wich lets them link by radio. that way you have a full unbroken C2 chain from squad to battalion.

but the critical link is from platoon HQ to Co HQ. when the Co HQ is that far away so you can not get the eye, mouth or distant linkt, you need to have the plaoon HQ in the vehicle to establish the link via radio.

and at that point the platoon HQ sits at the radio and the other 8 guys with him in the vehicle twisting thumbs. this drains a lot of firepower

it is explained more complicated now but it should be clear, i tried to be extra clear in fact. if you still have any questions just ask.

PS.: make sure to unbutton the Bn, Co and the Plt HQ when they are in a vehicle, that helps C2 a lot too(dont if they can be shot at!!!). that way single MG teams or whatever, around the HQ´s get C2 to it(if they belong to its formation) if they dont have radio or visual/acustical conntact to their leader. that way you can have C2 link with platoon HQ and Bn HQ but not with Co HQ for example.

[Gpig]

Thanks Pandur, that is so cool! Great explanation. I am going to play with that in the future and see how that changes my red v red games etc.

Cheers,

Gpig

[c3k]

Indeed, it IS in the manual. I've posted some relevant parts at the end of my post. My point, which I failed to make clearly, is that the game shows chain of command as either red or green (missing or established, respectively).

The FORM of the communication with the higher echelon is shown in the User Interface. The UI will show up to 3 of the most effective forms of communication. It shows it by using pictures. The pictures are a big eye, a distant torso, a shouting mouth, a radio, a computer screen, and a pda.

Now, I assume a pda will inform a blue unit of distant enemy contacts better than not having a pda. However, I do NOT know if just a pda is BETTER or WORSE than an eyeball. Since I can have 3, maybe an eyeball, a mouth and a torso beats a pda? I don't know. Does a mouth beat a torso?

That's where I am confused.

I am also confused about what I can do to change my communication status. How close does it take to get an eyeball? How much better, if any, is an eyeball than a mouth? What difference can I see in the game if I try for a mouth instead of a torso?

I am not clear how the various icons affect gameplay. I am not clear how I, the player, can CHANGE the various icons. (Pandur just let me know that a red HQ has the ability to gain radio comms if they're in a vehicle. I've played since the game was released and I never noticed that. Nor, frankly, do I know how much that benefits the red player.)

None of the objective differences are in the manual.

Edited to add: Don't let this sound like I think the game is broken. I only mean to highlight that the manual does not explain a lot of the detailed workings (perhaps on purpose), nor are they immediately apparent to the player. This is part of the steep learning curve. Having the manual explain the workings a bit better would help. I can understand an eyeball beats a radio. But, I could ALSO understand that a radio could beat an eyeball. I could understand that an eyeball has different effective ranges (crop fields, different rooms, etc.). This is a complex game. This particular part of the game is also complex.

*****************************************************

7. Chain of Command - displays the parent formations of the unit.

A green icon indicates that the unit is currently in contact,

while a red icon indicates that the unit is out of contact.

9. C2 Link - the Command and Control (C2) link shows the available

means of communication for the selected unit. Up to three

of the most effective methods are shown.

There are two primary components of C2: communication methods

and control procedures. Each is enhanced by the other,

and each is degraded by the other. In practical terms, this

means a break in communications reduces the ability for the

force to function properly, but good communications don’t

matter if the commanders can’t leverage the information to

achieve an advantage.

As a general rule, US forces have excellent communications equipment

and procedures. There is a lot of redundancy, which

makes it harder for US units to lose C2. The Syrians, on the

other hand, generally have poor-quality equipment, rigid procedures,

and very little of both. Their C2 is considered “brittle”

even when it is functioning, since it starts out on shaky ground

and can only possibly get worse as the battle progresses. This

gives the US an inherent advantage, or “force multiplier” in US

military speak, since it allows fewer troops to do more things

over a wider area, faster, and with greater unity of purpose

compared to the Syrians. This should not be surprising since

the US military has spent many billions of dollars over many

decades to achieve this advantage.

C2 methods are divided up into three different groups and displayed

in the Unit Info Panel:

82 Combat Mission

The methods, from left to right, are:

Visual - Eye Contact (LOS, short- and long-distance)

Audio - Voice Contact, Radio Contact (differentiated by type)

Satellite - FBCB2 (US vehicle only), RPDA (US infantry only)

Like any sort of chain, the Chain of Command is only as strong as

its weakest C2 link. Having all three methods available to a

unit at the same time allows for the best possible results, while

having none at all means a break in the Chain of Command. A

break means the higher and lower parts of the chain are no

longer connected and therefore unable to communicate with

each other. This can have disastrous game results.

Maintaining C2 Links

The more types of C2 links units have, the better chance they

have of maintaining connections. Just remember that not all

C2 methods are of equal quality. Range is quite important

because the farther away units are from each other the greater

the chance they will experience breaks in communications. The

inherent fragility of the method is also important since some

are inherently more robust.

All units have the opportunity to establish Eye and Voice Contact,

but to do so means keeping units fairly close and in plain sight

(LOS) of each other. These are the most reliable, robust forms

of C2 possible. Unfortunately, from a tactical standpoint, having

units bunched up is generally not a good idea, nor is it

even necessarily physically possible. Radio Contact is the most

basic technological means of overcoming these problems, however,

radios are tricky things to operate effectively as distances

increase, and good radios are quite expensive. As a result, the

Syrians have few radios at their disposal, while the US have

one for every unit. If these methods fail, either due to distance

or interference, the Syrians are out of luck, since they

don’t have a backup system. The US forces, on the other

hand, have two very powerful tools at their disposal: the FBCB2

and the RPDA.

The vehicle mounted FBCB2 system is connected, via satellite, to

a central computer system that takes input from all the othervehicles with FBCB2. Think of it as a specialized computer

connected to the Internet with built in GPS (Blue Force Tracker,

aka BFT). Each vehicle with the system is automatically tracked

and updated on a digital map shown on all the FBCB2’s screens

of all the other vehicles. Therefore, not only does the crew of

the vehicle know where it is, but also where all of the other

vehicles are. Better still, commanders can enter information

about enemy units (type, position, heading, current activity,

etc.) so everybody using the system can see the same thing.

The other significant feature it has is the ability to “text message”

anybody with a FBCB2 system, regardless of where they

are in the Chain of Command. This offers a means of communication

that is, in some ways, superior to radio contact. Since

FBCB2 is satellite-based it is largely immune to the interference

factors of Visual and Audio methods.

Dismounted units have an RPDA (Ruggedized Personal Digital

Assistant) at their disposal. This is basically the same sort of

PDA that people carry around with them all over the world, but

with the advantage of being extremely tough. The new models

of RPDA are, for game purposes, portable versions of FBCB2,

with nearly the same capabilities.

[sawomi]

Indeed, it IS in the manual. I've posted some relevant parts at the end of my post. My point, which I failed to make clearly, is that the game shows chain of command as either red or green (missing or established, respectively).

The FORM of the communication with the higher echelon is shown in the User Interface. The UI will show up to 3 of the most effective forms of communication. It shows it by using pictures. The pictures are a big eye, a distant torso, a shouting mouth, a radio, a computer screen, and a pda.

Now, I assume a pda will inform a blue unit of distant enemy contacts better than not having a pda. However, I do NOT know if just a pda is BETTER or WORSE than an eyeball. Since I can have 3, maybe an eyeball, a mouth and a torso beats a pda? I don't know. Does a mouth beat a torso?

That's where I am confused.

Ok, I will try. First from your manual quote:

- All units have the opportunity to establish Eye and Voice Contact,

... These are the most reliable, robust forms of C2 possible.

... Unfortunately, from a tactical standpoint, having units bunched up is generally not a good idea, nor is it even necessarily physically possible.

- Radio Contact is the most basic technological means of overcoming these problems,

...however, radios are tricky things to operate effectively as distances increase, and good radios are quite expensive.

- backup system ... two very powerful tools: the FBCB2 and the RPDA.

... connected, via satellite

... everybody using the system can see the same thing

... ability to “text message” ... in some ways, superior to radio contact.

Since FBCB2 is satellite-based it is largely immune to the interference factors of Visual and Audio methods.

Seen from point of 'keeping moral up':

- hearing personal voice and seeing of commander next to his troops 'in flesh' is best.

-> a voice you can hear also in the dark and in dust/smoke - but also the enemy can hear it

-> if you see somebody, you can communicate without voice

-> only seeing is a little bit worser for moral -> more distance - more worse

Seen from point of 'making good tactics':

- the closer the commander is to the flying lead, the greater the chance of "commander kaputt".

Radio helps to make a compromise. Less personal voice but over greater distance. Works in dark and dust. Radio can go kaputt easily.

----> Satellite is the Joker!

Not so much worth for moral, but better, faster, more widespread and precise info communication + text mode (form of communication through seeing).

-> Very hard to make 'kaputt'. ... No chance for this in CMSF.

That's the way I see it.

[Pandur]

Now, I assume a pda will inform a blue unit of distant enemy contacts better than not having a pda. However, I do NOT know if just a pda is BETTER or WORSE than an eyeball. Since I can have 3, maybe an eyeball, a mouth and a torso beats a pda? I don't know. Does a mouth beat a torso?

ok here it gets verry deep and would require a lot of testing, and while testing you actually dont know what to look for. in the case of mouth, eye, torso vs. pda as example, i see it this way -> dont try to compare red vs blue communication means!

this is so much under the hood, we would need steve to pop in and give some answers which he doesnt want to give. its the same as with the terrain values, hes verry vague and after his posts we usually know as much as befor about this things, means nothing

the "distant(torso)" symbol is for sure the worst you can get, and as soon as you have eye or mouth, you will never have a distant symbol. in fact as i said in a post above, i cant even remember haveing had the eye and mouth at the same time! so maybe red is artificially caped at one(1)mean to transfer information even if they are in visual and shouting range.

I am also confused about what I can do to change my communication status. How close does it take to get an eyeball? How much better, if any, is an eyeball than a mouth? What difference can I see in the game if I try for a mouth instead of a torso?

here i work by unit footprint not by communication mean. so if my perfect positioning of a platoon leaves one squad with a distant symbol, and i see there is room to get closer, i get them closer to have a eye or mouth. BUT i dont force this. if it would mean that the unit is too bunched up, like two platoons in houses right next to each other or even closer in the same small patch of woods, i will keep them at their original spot where they had a distant symbol.

my guesstimation for non electronic symbol order is this,

shout is best; becouse it allows for direct communication

eye is second; it allows for communication by hand siganls or flags

distant(torso); is the worst, it means hand signals are not 100% clearly visible but the unit is still visible and can get some sort of information to its HQ

about the electronic means, i dont know, they all work good, however i did not see any non electronic mean of communication with blue so far. but maybe i dont play blue often enough to see it.

[stoex]

Pandur (and all who are interested),

One thing I know for sure, and which is noticeably missing from your explanation regarding Syrian C2, is this:

Putting Red (or Blue for that matter) HQ units inside vehicles has another disadvantage besides the loss of firepower: Unless the HQ unit inside the vehicle is unbuttoned, it is unable to establish eye or voice or hand signal contact with any units outside! You can see this easily as there are no eyeball, mouth or distant figure symbols in the UI for such a buttoned HQ unit, and no coms symbols in the UI at all for the subordinates of that HQ unless they have radios or RPDAs/FBCB2.

This is the reason why I tend not to put HQs in vehicles at all when playing Red. I feel I'm better off losing C2 to higher echelons when playing the Syrians than if I keep their HQs unbuttoned in vehicles within shouting distance to their squads. In my opinion this amounts to begging for those HQs to get shot, which in turn is far worse for the squads' morale than a broken C2 link to Bn HQ.

And another thing which is important in this respect: Syrian Mech Infantry squads have radios, as do Airborne, Rep. Guards and Special Forces squads (not sure about the rest but I just checked the Mech infantry). Pandur made it sound like Syrian infantry squads don't have radios by definition. I think it's just the regular and reserve infantry who don't have radios available to the squads.

[c3k]

A lot of good info here. Thanks.

[stoex]

Okay....just did some testing on this and I have discovered that some things I said in my last post are true, some are false. And some things in the game are just weird. Also the C2 engine is a really complex thing full of nuances. Here's what I found (all in a test scenario without any BluFor):

1.) What I said about HQs in vehicles is true. They cannot achieve "personal" comms (meaning all those UI symbols that show body parts) with any unit outside the vehicle unless they are unbuttoned (or the vehicle is an open one, like a UAZ or a WMIK). This makes sense, since it's kinda hard to see someone or shout at them through vehicle armor. From my experience, but not from testing, this true for Red as well as Blue HQs.

2.) This one I got wrong, in a way...ALL Syrian formations have radios down to the company level, not below. Basically if there is a designated "radio operator" in the unit, they have radio. If not, they don't. HOWEVER: Syrian units on the ground have access to vehicle radios if they are in the same action spot as the vehicle. Sometimes at least...this is a little hard to explain, but I'll try.

Imagine a Syrian platoon in buttoned BMPs. The three squads are in C2 with the Platoon HQ via radio. If you unbutton them all, they will be in C2 via mouth or eyeball or distant figure or radio, depending on how far away they are from each other. If they are close enough for "personal comms", the radios vanish from the UI. (I guess this means personal is better than radio, which makes sense as well). If you rebutton them all (which puts them back in purely radio-comms) and order one of the squads to dismount, the following happens: The squad begins exiting and loses all C2. When they have all left the vehicle and are lying on the ground around it, after some seconds, they are in C2 again via radio. I imagine this means they are somehow using an outside radio on the vehicle, or the inside one through a hatch or something. Fine. If you order the squad to move away from the vehicle, they lose C2 for good (the P HQ is buttoned, remember?). If you move them back to the action spot the vehicle is in, they no longer manage to use the radio and stay out of C2. HOWEVER, if you now unbutton the P HQ, the squad is imediately within personal comms again (if close enough). BUTTON UP the HQ again, and the squad is out of personal comms, but instead starts using the radio again, the symbol is shown in their UI! I think this behaviour might be some kind of bug...

This lead me to test for

3.) Syrian soldiers (Bn and Co HQs) can only use their radios when they are not moving. After they stop moving, it takes them several seconds (probably depending on suppression as well, but I didn't test this) to regain radio contact and show the appropriate symbol in their UI. This is a fine and realistic feature, I find. It also takes units not equipped with radios several seconds to establish radio comms after entering a vehicle.

This quick test into C2 behaviour shows me that the whole C2 thing is even more complex than it looks, and I for one applaud BFC for putting this much thought into it (aside from what I mentioned might be a bug ). Opinions?

[c3k]

Oh, indeed, it must be very complex the way it's modelled. (I think I said that upstream.) I just wish the GAMEPLAY part didn't need to be learned by spilling the virtual-blood of my poor pixel-truppen. (Oh, I can hear their anguished cries from Valhalla!)

I've noticed that reinforcements appear out of command, regardless of HQ. (Not exhaustively tested. This may only be true sometimes.) Why, if they marched up together?

Keep testing, stoex. Thanks for sharing your discoveries.

Ken

[LongLeftFlank]

Since I can have 3, maybe an eyeball, a mouth and a torso beats a pda? I don't know. Does a mouth beat a torso?....How close does it take to get an eyeball? How much better, if any, is an eyeball than a mouth? What difference can I see in the game if I try for a mouth instead of a torso?

Wow, Rochambeau meets Jeffrey Dahmer! In the NATO module will we also see an icon for fava beans and a niiice Chianti? Or does this all have to wait for the Zombie Mission family of games?

[Dietrich]

*shudders*

*draws MEU(SOC) .45 and blasts sizeable hole in Lecter's anterior cranium*

*clears throat* Moving on...

Is it just me, or could the approaches to this "question" of C2 modelling in CMx2 be grouped into the "real"-wargamer "everything must be in accord with discrete rules that can be memorized" school vis-à-vis the "actual combat is much more 'fuzzy' than hard-and-fast rules allow for" school?

[Michael Emrys]

Is it just me, or could the approaches to this "question" of C2 modelling in CMx2 be grouped into the "real"-wargamer "everything must be in accord with discrete rules that can be memorized" school vis-à-vis the "actual combat is much more 'fuzzy' than hard-and-fast rules allow for" school?

Somewhat. But I think the "discrete group" have a point and the point is that the player should be as well informed as to what is going on as his real life counterpart. This is further complicated by the fact that the gamer is actually playing several roles simultaneously. So he needs to know more or less what each of those counterparts knows.

Michael

[stoex]

About reinforcements showing up out of command...I think I may have part of an answer for that.

In setup (and I'm guessing this counts also for reinforcements showing up, since they do so during the orders phase in WeGo when the game is paused), there is a delay of several seconds before C2 UI info is updated when positions of units are changed. Example: during setup, if you have a platoon lying in adjacent action spots, they are in full C2 (eyeball, mouth etc.). If you order one squad far away in the setup zone, they "teleport" there, but it takes a while for the C2 icon to switch to distant figure (or none if they are Syrians and you moved them too far away).

My guess is this delay is also there when units move and the game is not paused, but obviously it is hard to test for under those circumstances, since how would one know exactly at what distance the comms method would change? I figure this may have to do with the frequency of LOS checks or something.

[Erwin]

I am in the same boat with c3k on this. The CM2 C2 system seems needlessly complex for very little gameplay benefit.

As you say, "if you're Blue, you have C2 no matter what you do."

How many man-hours of programming went into the depiction of C2 when it doesn't even matter? Think of the many other neat features that would have enhanced gameplay/fun that had to be cut because of this.

There are several other examples where BFC committed resources to making some aspect more "realistic" or detailed when most players may not care about that particular feature, but may have wanted something else - eg: telescoping observation poles for ATGM vehicles. Of course there are not resources to put everything in, and even if one could, it would result in a more accurate simulation, but an unplayable game.

However, as much as I admire BFC for sticking to their guns... er... principles, there is a sort of schizoid (probably wrong term) BFC decision-making re what features are in and what features get left out.

[stikkypixie]

I am in the same boat with c3k on this. The CM2 C2 system seems needlessly complex for very little gameplay benefit.

As you say, "if you're Blue, you have C2 no matter what you do."

How many man-hours of programming went into the depiction of C2 when it doesn't even matter? Think of the many other neat features that would have enhanced gameplay/fun that had to be cut because of this.

There are several other examples where BFC committed resources to making some aspect more "realistic" or detailed when most players may not care about that particular feature, but may have wanted something else - eg: telescoping observation poles for ATGM vehicles. Of course there are not resources to put everything in, and even if one could, it would result in a more accurate simulation, but an unplayable game.

However, as much as I admire BFC for sticking to their guns... er... principles, there is a sort of schizoid (probably wrong term) BFC decision-making re what features are in and what features get left out.

They put effort in it because it's the only way to have units share information realistically. You could of course artificially increase the spotting ability of all Blue units, but then that would not work if different formations take part in a battle.

This WILL matter a lot when we get to Normandy or now already when playing Red vs Red where the player that keeps his C2 links best, has a spotting advantage + all the other bonuses. It's a must with the relative spotting system.

Not to mention the forest of false contacts you get when your C2 links are not well maintained.

Having telescopic masts without the ability to share information (in other a way than borg spotting) is kinda useless. As for gameplay, all it boils down to is keeping your HQ units close to your guys. Having all this stuff explained in detail in the manual would be great though.

[c3k]

As for gameplay, all it boils down to is keeping your HQ units close to your guys. Having all this stuff explained in detail in the manual would be great though.

That has been my approach since day 1. I just try to keep units where I'd put them if it were real life. 2 up, 1 back, an Hq near the decisive point and hope it all works the way it's supposed to.

Regards,

Ken

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I don't have any great problem with how C and C is working. Less satisfied by how it's displayed. I think that is where so much confusion sets in.

I liked the command lines of old. It was a nice visual cue that quickly showed who was in and who was out of command. Not too intrusive but still right there in the action part of the screen, not some icon in the UI there where I rarely look at.

Yet one more thing where I ask myself why it didn't that make it in when it was working well before. I didn't mind stuff like that too much in CMSF initially because it was a new engine that needed to get out the door. But we are more then three years on, and so many great features haven't made it back. I hope they do so soon.

[stikkypixie]

In CMA the floating icons are greyed out when not in command, if I'm not mistaken. It brings across the same kind of information.