HQs in CM:Normandy

[Erwin]

"Now, it is true we don't have flashing lights and big "BZZZZZT" sounds when you click on Support and can't connect. There's no laughing face icon instead of a "?" when the unit you select would be able to target it if C2 were there. We don't have Squads yell out "Oh for the love of God! If only the LT was here we'd keep on fighting!"

Actually, I would find all of the above very helpful. Thanks...

[MikeyD]

By coincidence this morning I found myself with two Red squads fairly close together but one squad was in both sight and voice contact with their CO on the crest while the other had only sight contact. The unit outside of voice contact was definitely doing a less efficient job. Usually the subtle stuff is lost on me so I was surprised that I had so easily spotted the differences.

[Battlefront.com]

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

The benefit is that we have a system that isn't only capable of simulating perfect communications. Which if you played Red to any extent you'd already understand. Or if you lose your Blue HQs.

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

Whoever said that is absolutely, an easily demonstrably, wrong.

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.

The C2 system is the heart of the entire game experience. It is the entire basis of Relative Spotting, which is one of the most important aspects of CMx2 that sets itself apart from just about all wargames ever made. I can think of only one other game system that is more important as the C2 model, and that is LOS.

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.

This is the difference between game designers and game players. Players each have their own, often quirky, agendas that they think are far more important than everybody else's. Players also tend to have very little clue how games actually work, so they generally undervalue the very things that are required to have a game work. Which is why most game players would make horrible game designers.

The comparison of mast based sensors being more important to the overall game than C2... well, I did get a chuckle out of that

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.

Not at all. We are game designers, you are game players. The day you see things the way we see things is the day that you are also a game designer. Until that time it's unlikely you'll ever understand why some things need to be prioritized over others. Doesn't matter how many times we explain it either, because gamers tend to think playing games is all they need to do to understand making them. And there is no shame in that since most game designers failed to figure this out at some point in their career. Unfortunately for most, it usually ended their career.

Steve

[MikeyD]

Now it's starting to sound like people are just looking for stuff to complain about at random to hear themselves complain. Claiming CMSF is an 'unplayable game'? ...Because of some hardly-visible C2 structure under the hood? Give me a break. Next thing they'll complain about is the wind not being able to change direction during a battle. "How can you call it an accurate simulation if the wind never changes direction!"

[Battlefront.com]

One of the vexing problems of a simulation type wargame, vs a traditional CRT/dice wargame, is that it has more complex systems and more varied outcomes. On the one hand wargamers request this sort of complexity and fidelity. Demand it, in fact. And when they get it they tend to do two things:

1. Take for granted everything they naturally understand

2. Focus negative attention on things they do not naturally understand

This is a problem for us because it's impossible to have everybody naturally understanding, or not understanding, the same things. Some people naturally understand suppressing fire, for example, while others don't. Some understand the interplay of terrain on Fatigue better than others. Etc. If we had to make "in your face" UI for every single element of the game because someone might not understand all the aspects of it... my God... what a f'n mess that would be! Nobody would want to play it either.

So our fundamental design principle, since the early CMBO days, is to make a game which gives reasonably realistic behavior without burdening the game system with UI to show the details of each specific behavior. In CMx1, for example, we did give out armor values. But we didn't give out any of the equations, how Brinell Hardness factors in, at what point a particular AP round would slip off of a sloped surface, etc. Yet all that stuff was simulated. The important thing was to have these under-the-hood factors produce realistic results, instead of the ridiculous stuff we've all seen in other games because they weren't based on equations but rather abstract resolution tables.

Having said that, there are times when players do need a bit more information about what is going on. When such situations arise we attempt to show the information in the least obtrusive way possible. Because, on the whole, the player already has too much information to process. Therefore, each new piece of information we put in front of the player is scrutinized very thoroughly. And the more frequently it would pop up, the more scrutiny it receives.

The C2 system could use some more obvious indicators of how well units are connected to each other at any given time. The CMx1 Command Lines were pretty crude, but they matched the crudeness of the C2 system. Therefore, they worked out pretty well. For CMx2 Command Lines could prove useful too, and at some point we might try to figure out a way to work them into the game in a way that makes sense within CMx2's context. We're also trying to avoid using lines per se because they have a certain ugliness factor that we would like to avoid. Which is why we are trying to use the floating icons to convey similar information.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Now it's starting to sound like people are just looking for stuff to complain about at random to hear themselves complain. Claiming CMSF is an 'unplayable game'? ...Because of some hardly-visible C2 structure under the hood? Give me a break. Next thing they'll complain about is the wind not being able to change direction during a battle. "How can you call it an accurate simulation if the wind never changes direction!"

Uhm... read again? NOT what Erwin was saying at all.

I thought this was all rather reasonable until you showed up to have a rant.

[Battlefront.com]

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

This, BTW, is our primary goal as game designers. We want a game where people say "I use realistic tactics and get good results". We do not want a game where people are forced to become accountants in order to figure out how to get good results by trying to "optimize the numbers".

Or as was put a few pages ago, there are some wargamers who want to have an experience which approximates a real world battlefield commander. There are other wargamers who want a puzzle game which they can master by understanding the rules better than the next guy. We obviously cater to one of these types and not the other.

I know people have said it would be better if we could explain things in more detail in the manual. The problem is... I don't think we can. Not in some meaningful way like "keep your HQs within 20m of its subordinates" because nothing in the C2 system is that simplistic. It's all conditions based, which is too varied to possibly list in detailed specifics.

All we can do is say that here are the C2 elements and here is what each one represents. We can explain which ones are inherent and which ones are condition based. We can explain, in rough terms, what each one can do in relation to the other and what the succession (importance) of each is. And we have done that already. So I'm not sure what else it is people feel we need to do which we haven't done already.

Another difference in player types are the ones who want to figure out for themselves how best to play the game, then there are others that want to be told how best to play the game. We tend to cater to the first group more than the second group. To the second group we say read up on some military tactics publications and/or discuss things with people here (many of which have actually fought in battle). Learn what you can about how things work in real combat and try it out in Combat Mission. If it seems to work, keep doing it. If it doesn't seem to work, try figuring out why and modify things to hopefully obtain a better outcome.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

The C2 system could use some more obvious indicators of how well units are connected to each other at any given time. The CMx1 Command Lines were pretty crude, but they matched the crudeness of the C2 system. Therefore, they worked out pretty well. For CMx2 Command Lines could prove useful too, and at some point we might try to figure out a way to work them into the game in a way that makes sense within CMx2's context. We're also trying to avoid using lines per se because they have a certain ugliness factor that we would like to avoid. Which is why we are trying to use the floating icons to convey similar information.

Please do look at Command Lines. Not only did they display important information right where I am looking the most, it was a good visual indicator of units belonging together.

Yes, yes, you can double click to get the game to select the same units in a platoon too, but it's not the same. Somehow the clicking on the HQ and seeing lines go to its squads tied them together. Dunno why that is more pleasing then mere highlighting, Jedi mindtrick possibly, but I do like them lines for their direct intuitive visual cues.

[Erwin]

Have played Red side extensively in Campaigns. Maybe I naturally keep my HQ's close or something, but haven't noticed any particular difference.

It's not that there are no C2 effects, of course I understand there are. It's that the C2 effects are probably too subtle for a GAME, (rather than a HIFI simulation - which I think we all agree that CM2 is not).

Having said that it is a terrific game, and I am certainly not implying it's unplayable, or that this is a big deal. It's just a shame that so much programming work has gone into features that are hardly noticeable, whereas other more impactful features may have been eliminated due to (an understandable) lack of time resources etc.

[Erik Springelkamp]

> It's that the C2 effects are probably too subtle for a GAME

Spotting is not exactly a subtle effect.

Pay attention for a few turns to how the knowledge of a newly spotted enemy unit is distributed through your formation - or not.

[Martin Krejcirik]

Having said that it is a terrific game, and I am certainly not implying it's unplayable, or that this is a big deal. It's just a shame that so much programming work has gone into features that are hardly noticeable, whereas other more impactful features may have been eliminated due to (an understandable) lack of time resources etc.

I couldn't agree more. I'm sure the engine is all great and fantastic under the hood, there is C2, relative spotting, panel and systems damage, morale and more, but it's all barely noticeable to the player. Look at the examples:

Morale - it's there, but it lasts only few seconds it seems. Last man standing from a devastated 8 man squad regularly manage first round RPG hits.

C2 - ok nice, but I can still call artillery even with no radio.

Damage - great, but it seems every time I get hit by an RPG it's a total kill. No duds, no light damage (unless the target is a tank)

relative spotting - it's there, but I can still target any unit, no matter if my unit can see it or know about it.

[Praetori]

Please do look at Command Lines. Not only did they display important information right where I am looking the most, it was a good visual indicator of units belonging together.

Yes, yes, you can double click to get the game to select the same units in a platoon too, but it's not the same. Somehow the clicking on the HQ and seeing lines go to its squads tied them together. Dunno why that is more pleasing then mere highlighting, Jedi mindtrick possibly, but I do like them lines for their direct intuitive visual cues.

This.

Colored lines to subordinates would also help clear up OOB hierarchy as well as simplify C2 understanding (possibly vertical lines to off map command and for FOB when calling in support?).

I find the C2 system to be quite intuitive but there are always room for improvement.

Another thing, something that actually bugs me a bit is radio C2. It has gotten more common with the NATO module. Sometimes the radio icon disappears and I can't tell if it's because the unit lost their radio, bad coverage, out of batteries, out of range, interference or whatever might be behind it. And as there is no clear explanation to the mechanics behind it/what affects it I can't intuitively grasp how to avoid it.

* Does high ground help radio in game as it does OOG?

* Do the radios even have a maximum range or is it outside of the scope of the game?

* Does absence of trees or closeness to water help?

* Is radio C2 less likely indoors?

* Can units close to, but not mounted on, vehicles use their C2 equipment via voice/signs to the crew?

* Are units able to use neighboring units C2 even if they're from a different platoon/company for target spotting?

* Are my M1A2 SEP able to share target data with the Bradleys currently on the field (are there differences between the models)?

And so forth...

Sometimes moving around the HQ will clear up C2 to higher command for the platoon HQ AND subordinates. Sometimes they lose it while inside a vehicle and unmounting clears it up but every time it's trial and error.

For now I've been forced to use the opfor tactics (when playing NATO) of keeping everyone inside visible and voice range to keep C2.

[stikkypixie]

I couldn't agree more. I'm sure the engine is all great and fantastic under the hood, there is C2, relative spotting, panel and systems damage, morale and more, but it's all barely noticeable to the player. Look at the examples:

Morale - it's there, but it lasts only few seconds it seems. Last man standing from a devastated 8 man squad regularly manage first round RPG hits.

C2 - ok nice, but I can still call artillery even with no radio.

Damage - great, but it seems every time I get hit by an RPG it's a total kill. No duds, no light damage (unless the target is a tank)

relative spotting - it's there, but I can still target any unit, no matter if my unit can see it or know about it.

C2 - influences spotting, morale, time it takes to call in artillery

Damage - I can show you plenty of vehicles of mine (not tanks) that can't target probably because the optics are damage, cannot move much slower because the wheels are damaged

Relative spotting - Do you know what happens when you don't have that? As soon as a unit is spotted, everyone and their mother starts shooting at it. Instant kill.

You don't absolutely need to take these things into account to play, but that doesn't mean it's not important or doesn't have an influence. I for example don't pay much attention to experience, and use every unit like their regular, instead of sending the crack troops for the harder missions, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be there.

[stikkypixie]

This.

Colored lines to subordinates would also help clear up OOB hierarchy as well as simplify C2 understanding (possibly vertical lines to off map command and for FOB when calling in support?).

I find the C2 system to be quite intuitive but there are always room for improvement.

Another thing, something that actually bugs me a bit is radio C2. It has gotten more common with the NATO module. Sometimes the radio icon disappears and I can't tell if it's because the unit lost their radio, bad coverage, out of batteries, out of range, interference or whatever might be behind it. And as there is no clear explanation to the mechanics behind it/what affects it I can't intuitively grasp how to avoid it.

* Does high ground help radio in game as it does OOG?

* Do the radios even have a maximum range or is it outside of the scope of the game?

* Does absence of trees or closeness to water help?

* Is radio C2 less likely indoors?

* Can units close to, but not mounted on, vehicles use their C2 equipment via voice/signs to the crew?

* Are units able to use neighboring units C2 even if they're from a different platoon/company for target spotting?

* Are my M1A2 SEP able to share target data with the Bradleys currently on the field (are there differences between the models)?

And so forth...

Sometimes moving around the HQ will clear up C2 to higher command for the platoon HQ AND subordinates. Sometimes they lose it while inside a vehicle and unmounting clears it up but every time it's trial and error.

For now I've been forced to use the opfor tactics (when playing NATO) of keeping everyone inside visible and voice range to keep C2.

I don't think the put the physics of the radios in. But some clarity about why a certain link is lost would be very welcome.

[ASL Veteran]

Have played Red side extensively in Campaigns. Maybe I naturally keep my HQ's close or something, but haven't noticed any particular difference.

It's not that there are no C2 effects, of course I understand there are. It's that the C2 effects are probably too subtle for a GAME, (rather than a HIFI simulation - which I think we all agree that CM2 is not).

Having said that it is a terrific game, and I am certainly not implying it's unplayable, or that this is a big deal. It's just a shame that so much programming work has gone into features that are hardly noticeable, whereas other more impactful features may have been eliminated due to (an understandable) lack of time resources etc.

I would suggest that the C2 and relative spotting 'features' are subtle for you because they are the fundamental basis of how the game operates. In other words, without C2 and relative spotting there would be no CMx2. It would still be CMx1. Relative spotting and C2 are like the flour used for baking a cake whereas what you feel would be the 'more impactful' items are more like the frosting. Sure, frosting might taste good by itself in moderation, but without the flour you can't bake a cake. Over time Battlefront will add more 'impactful features' / frosting to various games as more and more releases come out. The C2 and relative spotting 'framework' though are the base upon which all BFC's games are built upon and therefore shouldn't have undue attention drawn to it in the same way you wouldn't really care about the steel framework of a sky scraper.

[Ron]

The C2 system could use some more obvious indicators of how well units are connected to each other at any given time. The CMx1 Command Lines were pretty crude, but they matched the crudeness of the C2 system. Therefore, they worked out pretty well. For CMx2 Command Lines could prove useful too, and at some point we might try to figure out a way to work them into the game in a way that makes sense within CMx2's context. We're also trying to avoid using lines per se because they have a certain ugliness factor that we would like to avoid. Which is why we are trying to use the floating icons to convey similar information.

Steve

NO, no command lines ala CMx1! They are ugly and add unnecessary clutter to the UI. Using the floating Icons is a much better option imo.

[Praetori]

NO, no command lines ala CMx1! They are ugly and add unnecessary clutter to the UI. Using the floating Icons is a much better option imo.

It's like movement lines, floating icons, objective markers and cover arcs. It's not bad to have a function as long as people who doesn't like it can turn it off.

[Ron]

Agreed, options to turn them on/off are best.

[Battlefront.com]

I would suggest that the C2 and relative spotting 'features' are subtle for you because they are the fundamental basis of how the game operates. In other words, without C2 and relative spotting there would be no CMx2. It would still be CMx1. Relative spotting and C2 are like the flour used for baking a cake whereas what you feel would be the 'more impactful' items are more like the frosting. Sure, frosting might taste good by itself in moderation, but without the flour you can't bake a cake. Over time Battlefront will add more 'impactful features' / frosting to various games as more and more releases come out. The C2 and relative spotting 'framework' though are the base upon which all BFC's games are built upon and therefore shouldn't have undue attention drawn to it in the same way you wouldn't really care about the steel framework of a sky scraper.

All very well said. Another analogy (more relevant than flour ) is something like small arms effects. Do people REALLY need to see velocity readouts, accuracy deviations based on a half dozen factors, chance of penetrating body armor at a particular range, etc? Oh, and to have it shown for the 100,000 rounds of ammo fired? I really don't think more than a few nutters would want to see that. So in one sense the ballistics modeling in the game is "too subtle to notice". One could argue we should just be rolling virtual 6 sided dice. But I guarantee you the end results would not be even close to the same.

Taking a major, underlying feature for granted doesn't negate it's value, rather it emphasizes how well designed the system is.

C2 is also "subtle" because you don't know what you're missing when you have poor C2. "I play Red and I don't notice anything really bad" is not a statement that means much because you can't notice what effectively isn't there because of the poor C2. The only way to really know what you're missing is to have a feature where you can toggle on/off a Blue type C2 system. Flip C2 to Blue and see all kinds of things appear on the map and watch response times drop. Flip C2 back to Red and watch units disappear and response times rise. That sort of thing. By going back and forth over the course of a game you would probably notice a LOT of differences, depending on the scenario of course.

Steve

[akd]

Speaking of, is there any reason not to allow change of difficulty setting during a SP game? Might be a useful learning tool.

[Battlefront.com]

My guess is things are setup in such a way that this wouldn't be practical. Or at the very best, not important enough to try out. That being said, I do think it would be interesting to see.

Steve