Spotting

[Waaarg]

Is the mechanics the same as in CMSF? Or has it changed at all? Is c2 still as important as it was? More eyes down range = better spotting, etc etc etc?

[Other Means]

Nope. Yep. More. Yeah, plus binos etc.

[Waaarg]

Gotcha. I'll dig deeper on my search to see if it was explained in detail how the new system works.

Thanks

[gunnersman]

Gotcha. I'll dig deeper on my search to see if it was explained in detail how the new system works.

Thanks

What is there to dig? It seems you might have a basic understanding of C2 (C2 = Command and Control) in CMSF.

In CMSF everyone on the NATO side has radios, even down to the squad. Many have GPS and Blue Force tracker. The dissemination of information (where is the enemy? Good guys?) was very fast and accurate compared to WW2.

In CMBN pretty much only the HQ units have radios...big bulky ones...which are not the most reliable. If any HQ unit dies, the C2 is severely degraded (as can be morale). The C2 in WW2 is a lot of yelling and hand signals. Visual contact must be maintained to Platoon HQ's for squads to maintain cohesiveness.

[guachi]

Given how important C2 is and how much more difficult it is to maintain in WWII, I am hoping there is an easier way to keep track of it in future games. The lines in CMx1 were very useful.

However, I do like that I can click on unit names in the C2 chain window-thing and the game jumps to them.

[womble]

Given how important C2 is and how much more difficult it is to maintain in WWII, I am hoping there is an easier way to keep track of it in future games. The lines in CMx1 were very useful.

Unless the unit is an HQ, if it's not near its HQ it's likely out of C2, I reckon. Click on the HQ and look to see where the highlighted subunits are; you'll soon see who's worth clicking on for precise information.

[Paper Tiger]

guachi (and anybody else who's interested)

C2 information is communicated in the game differently from CMx1's command lines. It is also gives you more information than CMx1's system does (It's been a long time since I played CMx1 though so forgive me if I've forgotten something). If you take a peek at the unit box in the bottom left corner of your screen, you can assess the C2 status of your unit quite quickly.

The quality of connection a Squad or team enjoy with their Platoon leader is displayed there as an Eye, Mouth and Eye and a distant figure. Mouth and Eye together is best and provides the best results. The unit can both see and hear its Platoon Leader. Then there's Mouth (hearing range), Eye (see but can't hear) and then figure (see but he's s-o-o far away). If the box is empty, then your guys are on their own and they feel it! If your guys are equiped with a Radio, the radio icon might display instead.

Platoon Leaders and other leaders display their connections with higher echelon leaders with Green lights (connection exists) or Red light (No C2 link with the higher echelon commander). Your squad maxxes out C2 connections when it has both ear and eye contact with his Platoon leader who in turn is connected to his Company Commander/ to his Battalion commander (it stops there)

Of course, you need to have the unit active to get this information but once you become familiar with this system, you can keep track of C2 quite easily.

[Fetchez la Vache]

I agree with Guachi, C&C lines al la CMx1 would still be very useful though. There's loads of info for each unit but it would be cool to get a C&C overview with less clicking on individual units.

[Erik Springelkamp]

I agree with Guachi, C&C lines al la CMx1 would still be very useful though. There's loads of info for each unit but it would be cool to get a C&C overview with less clicking on individual units.

But it would look so ugly.

This is where Iron Mode shines by the way: when you click on a unit, you have a complete picture of its situational awareness. From the point of view of a leader you don't even see units that are out of command, and in general with a unit selected, you only see friendly units that the selected unit is aware of.

The effect is complete during replay, and less severe during the orders phase (in WEGO that is).

[dieseltaylor]

Ease of play is generally reckoned to be a selling point. Command lines would have been a whole lot simpler, this seems complication ["realism"] for complications sake. Different colours for different levels would have accomplished the same effect. I am quite surprised at this design decision.

[Doug Williams]

Paper Tiger, thank you for that very informative answer. I'm going to print it out and keep it by my keyboard. I'm sure it's all in the manual, but your answer summarizes it quite nicely.

I know CMx2 gives more C2 information, but I still really miss the command lines of CMx1.

I also miss the threat (what is targeting this unit) and target (what is the selected unit shooting at) lines of CMx1. Is there something I'm missing in CMBN that gives me that?

[Erik Springelkamp]

I also miss the threat (what is targeting this unit) and target (what is the selected unit shooting at) lines of CMx1. Is there something I'm missing in CMBN that gives me that?

You can watch your soldiers fire, and see their tracer bullets to see what they are firing at.

When the unit is aware of the enemy that shoots at them, you will see the tracer bullets of the enemy shooters, but when they haven't spotted them yet, you don't know where it is coming from, apart from the direction of the sound, sometimes, as it should be.

[Doug Williams]

You can watch your soldiers fire, and see their tracer bullets to see what they are firing at.

When the unit is aware of the enemy that shoots at them, you will see the tracer bullets of the enemy shooters, but when they haven't spotted them yet, you don't know where it is coming from, apart from the direction of the sound, sometimes, as it should be.

Ah. Well, the CMx2 engine sure simulates the "fog of war" more accurately than CMx1. It remains to be seen (by me) whether or not this makes the game more fun to play.

[Baneman]

What I found a bit frustrating was the fact that enemy troops directly in LoS could be firing at me, yet invisible to my troops to return fire.

Eg. 2 60mm mortar teams in the churchyard decide to drop some ordnance on my guys behind a hedge. We can see them, except, they keep vanishing and reappearing ( usually they vanish at the end of the replay, so direct targetting is impossible, which is just "aaargghhh !" ).

Now I can understand an infantry unit would be prone and so hard to spot, but mortar crews need to be at least partially upright, yet they were invisible often enough to decimate my guys without me being able to put down sufficient suppressive fire to prevent them.

Surely in a 1 v 1 firefight, the exposed mortar team should be the one taking most of the hurt ?

[Steiner14]

But it would look so ugly.

Ever heard of the DESIGN FOLLOWS FUNCTION principle?

And i don't know, if your tracer-spotting suggestion is meant seriously. If there is no shooting taking place, then there are no tracers. Now an awful clickfest has to begin, to find the borders of the C2-range. Command lines would make gameplay much better.

[Fetchez la Vache]

Don't have to be ugly - could be toggled on/off.

Anyway, personally I'm not too bothered. It's meaning that I'm keeping my platoons together a lot more than I would probably otherwise do. Which is probably more realistic irl I guess.

And that is something I'm getting a lot more with CMBN c.f. CMBO - playing this new game I feel I am doing things more realistically, which is a nice feeling.

[Waaarg]

What is there to dig? It seems you might have a basic understanding of C2 (C2 = Command and Control) in CMSF.

In CMSF everyone on the NATO side has radios, even down to the squad. Many have GPS and Blue Force tracker. The dissemination of information (where is the enemy? Good guys?) was very fast and accurate compared to WW2.

In CMBN pretty much only the HQ units have radios...big bulky ones...which are not the most reliable. If any HQ unit dies, the C2 is severely degraded (as can be morale). The C2 in WW2 is a lot of yelling and hand signals. Visual contact must be maintained to Platoon HQ's for squads to maintain cohesiveness.

In the first reply, first answer was no to my "is the mechanics the same as in CMSF". I was hoping to find an explanation on how it changed. Figuring out spotting has not been easy for me in CMx2. I relied too much on recon by fire, often ending up with flattened cities as a result. Search is sort of ham stringed by the search rules (3 letters min, so C2 is out).

Still looking tho, if anyone remembers past discussions, would appreciate a link

[Erik Springelkamp]

Ever heard of the DESIGN FOLLOWS FUNCTION principle?

If BF followed that principle in CM, there would be no natural colours, no realistic looking trees, etc, but soldiers would look like fluorescent brightly coloured plastic figures.

[Haggard Sketchy]

What I found a bit frustrating was the fact that enemy troops directly in LoS could be firing at me, yet invisible to my troops to return fire.

Eg. 2 60mm mortar teams in the churchyard decide to drop some ordnance on my guys behind a hedge. We can see them, except, they keep vanishing and reappearing ( usually they vanish at the end of the replay, so direct targetting is impossible, which is just "aaargghhh !" ).

Now I can understand an infantry unit would be prone and so hard to spot, but mortar crews need to be at least partially upright, yet they were invisible often enough to decimate my guys without me being able to put down sufficient suppressive fire to prevent them.

Surely in a 1 v 1 firefight, the exposed mortar team should be the one taking most of the hurt ?

Yeah. I haven't noticed this in other scenarios, but in "Busting the Bocage" from the German side this seems to happen all the time, to the extent I thought it was bugged or something. One striking example was when a few American riflemen assaulted my squad in a trench in the woods frontally. My squad just got wiped out without putting up a fight since they could hardly see the enemies running straight toward them. And the trenches seem to offer little protection.

Often my soldiers just started dieing en mass without ever being fired at before. I know getting shot by things you never see is common in war, but not nearly so much if you're on the defense and in cover...

edit: and now, trying the tutorial mission I just sent a rifle squad to the first hedgerow on the left. They instantly spotted several Axis teams behind the wall on the other side of the map. Is there some huge discrepancy between the two sides' spotting ability or am I missing something?

[MikeyD]

this seems complication ["realism"] for complications sake.

once you're comfortable with the UI it all becomes second nature. One glance and you see green lights and a radio icon, or you see a red light in the chain and nothing but a distant figure icon. Time to either shift your commander or find a nearby jeep with a radio to restablish comms.

[womble]

edit: and now, trying the tutorial mission I just sent a rifle squad to the first hedgerow on the left. They instantly spotted several Axis teams behind the wall on the other side of the map. Is there some huge discrepancy between the two sides' spotting ability or am I missing something?

Someone from BF was discussing the creation of that map, and they said something to the effect that low walls give good cover, but not as much concealment as hedgerows. That wall's intent is to be a place the Germans can fight from, while a rookie player actually gets to see the opponent, rather than get frustrated at being bled by rounds from unseen shooters.

So, in this case, it's not necessarily about differences in spotting ability.

[womble]

once you're comfortable with the UI it all becomes second nature. One glance and you see green lights and a radio icon, or you see a red light in the chain and nothing but a distant figure icon. Time to either shift your commander or find a nearby jeep with a radio to restablish comms.

Tis true though that you have to look at every unit, whereas with Command lines you just click the HQs and see what colour and how many lines.

[dieseltaylor]

If BF followed that principle in CM, there would be no natural colours, no realistic looking trees, etc, but soldiers would look like fluorescent brightly coloured plastic figures.

I take it you are conceding on the point then as you do not argue why the CC lines would not be better.

[Erik Springelkamp]

I take it you are conceding on the point then as you do not argue why the CC lines would not be better.

No, I don't, because the product has more aspects than just presenting the most efficient gaming interface.

It is also meant to be visually appealing.

In CMA and CMSF I use mods for the floating icons that are much more modest, and less intrusive when watching the action.

They are just clear enough for me to plot my actions during WEGO, but for RT they wouldn't be effective enough.

In a product optimised for efficient game play (ie. make form completely subordinate to function), there would be many changes in the visuals, like showing at a glance all possible LOS locations from a unit.

It would become a totally abstract representation.

As it is, the design is a compromise between good looking and efficient game play. Of course making each game aid a toggeble feature would give everybody its own choice, but that means a lot of work, so as long as the game is not perfect - ie never - the game interface will be a compromise close to BF's taste.