A bit of a weird idea.

[Bradley Dick]

I had this idea the other day while I was playing Iron mode.

See, I had forgotten to give orders to one of my squads during an assault. There were some difficulties in maneuvering my guys around accurately due to the varying spot reports for friendlies and enemies which was a result of the broken C2. It was nice, I'm sure you'll agree, to get them back into C2 and into the fight.

However, it completely broke the immersion for me. How did these men who were completely out of contact receive this order? Telepathy? It made me think of the old Take Command series where you had an actual courier that rode out to deliver orders.

My idea was this:

How about a new difficulty level that requires your units to be in contact with your HQ unit, whichever the highest ranking unit on the field is, before they can receive any new orders? Would anyone else appreciate the intricacies of this or is it a 'feature' everyone would hate?

[stikkypixie]

I had this idea the other day while I was playing Iron mode.

See, I had forgotten to give orders to one of my squads during an assault. There were some difficulties in maneuvering my guys around accurately due to the varying spot reports for friendlies and enemies which was a result of the broken C2. It was nice, I'm sure you'll agree, to get them back into C2 and into the fight.

However, it completely broke the immersion for me. How did these men who were completely out of contact receive this order? Telepathy? It made me think of the old Take Command series where you had an actual courier that rode out to deliver orders.

My idea was this:

How about a new difficulty level that requires your units to be in contact with your HQ unit, whichever the highest ranking unit on the field is, before they can receive any new orders? Would anyone else appreciate the intricacies of this or is it a 'feature' everyone would hate?

How would you take into account own initiative of the squads then?

[Michael Emrys]

How about a new difficulty level that requires your units to be in contact with your HQ unit, whichever the highest ranking unit on the field is, before they can receive any new orders? Would anyone else appreciate the intricacies of this or is it a 'feature' everyone would hate?

Why does it have to be the highest ranking leader? Are the lower echelons never allowed to exercise any initiative? I know that varied from army to army and situation to situation. If present, it should be a scenario designer's option. Otherwise, it just makes gameplay too cumbersome.

Michael

[Bradley Dick]

That's a good point. As it stands, they have very limited initiative. They'll return fire, retreat, refuse to follow orders when taking heavy losses, and otherwise act with self-preservation in mind. If you're suggesting that having telepathy to order my men around is just a way of simulating squad leader initiative, I can accept that. However, where is the border between simulation and suspension of disbelief?

I think it's not possible in CMx2 but I would love to see a more advanced AI system that actually interpreted orders instead of being micromanaged. Or, in my dream world, a cooperative mode where other players can command separate units on the same battlefield.

[Wego McPbem]

How would you take into account own initiative of the squads then?

I suppose they could be ai controlled until they were back in c2.

[Bradley Dick]

Why dose it have to be the highest ranking leader? Are the lower echelons never allowed to exercise any initiative? I know that varied from army to army and situation to situation. If present, it should be a scenario designer's option. Otherwise, it just makes gameplay too cumbersome.

Michael

I agree that many people would not want to play an already complicated game with increased command issues. That would probably be the killer right there. Why program for a tiny minority (me), when most people just want flamethrowers and Target Armor?

I like the idea of one of your men in the battle being you. You are Colonel James Somefink, ground commander of 2/8 Infantry for The Battle of Badly Named Towns, and you must give orders through that unit.

[Fetchez la Vache]

I self-impose a similar rule on myself already.

I assume that squads will at least go ahead and complete the 'task' last assigned to them by their HQ (me). So if the Plt HQ told a squad to take a stroll across that little bit of open grass and have a peak through the hedgerow at the other end... then they would do that. But then would effectively sit there waiting for their brave Plt HQ to show with the next mad scheme idea before they did anything significantly new, although I'd allow myself to give them a bit of wriggle room in case of tactical changes. Like hiding behind the aforementioned hedgerow if they took that peak and saw a Stug coming towards them, or high-tailing back to brave Plt HQ if it's a company of Tigers...

In any case, I'm not sure hard-coding would work for me. I might simply find it a source of annoyance since the TacAI might do something daft whilst squad is out of command. I have the self-discipline (mostly) to impose this on myself.

[stikkypixie]

I suppose they could be ai controlled until they were back in c2.

I don't believe the AI is up to the task for this. There are tons of situations and corresponding actions that it would be impossible to programme.

Think about it, your squad is out of C2 in the simplest case where they just remain where they are; this mean that you some how have to re-establish C2 with them, right?

So how will you do this? Send a scout team with which you will lose control once they go out of C2? Move the HQ unit and lose C2 to the remainder of the force? It's a big can of worms in my opinion. Maybe one day, but not in CMBN.

[stikkypixie]

That's a good point. As it stands, they have very limited initiative. They'll return fire, retreat, refuse to follow orders when taking heavy losses, and otherwise act with self-preservation in mind. If you're suggesting that having telepathy to order my men around is just a way of simulating squad leader initiative, I can accept that. However, where is the border between simulation and suspension of disbelief?

I think it's not possible in CMx2 but I would love to see a more advanced AI system that actually interpreted orders instead of being micromanaged. Or, in my dream world, a cooperative mode where other players can command separate units on the same battlefield.

Cooperative mode would be the way to go. Leaving it to the AI is just too complicated. Think about how you would regain C2 (sending a squad to to look for the lost squad, and risk losing that squad because of lack of communications as well?).

It's a problem with all games at this level. Otherwise try operational scale games.

[Wego McPbem]

One potential problem would be that it would make units that are often required to operate out of C2 (scout teams for example) impossible to use properly.

I don't believe the AI is up to the task for this. There are tons of situations and corresponding actions that it would be impossible to programme.

Think about it, your squad is out of C2 in the simplest case where they just remain where they are; this mean that you some how have to re-establish C2 with them, right?

So how will you do this? Send a scout team with which you will lose control once they go out of C2? Move the HQ unit and lose C2 to the remainder of the force? It's a big can of worms in my opinion. Maybe one day, but not in CMBN.

Absolutely, I agree. I don't think this could be done in cmbn. This thread seems more like a hypothetical suggestion though. Like you said before there would have to be some way for squads to have their own initiative and ai would be the only way to do that. Would be really difficult to get right.

[Bradley Dick]

I self-impose a similar rule on myself already.

In any case, I'm not sure hard-coding would work for me. I might simply find it a source of annoyance since the TacAI might do something daft whilst squad is out of command. I have the self-discipline (mostly) to impose this on myself.

That's probably the best idea for me too. What you describe is exactly what I'm imagining but in hard-coded form. Perhaps I will just have to be disciplined and trust that the temptation can be resisted.

[Michael Emrys]

I like the idea of one of your men in the battle being you. You are Colonel James Somefink, ground commander of 2/8 Infantry for The Battle of Badly Named Towns, and you must give orders through that unit.

Several months ago someone described what such a game would be like. You'd sit in front of a command line screen receiving reports that would be garbled, late, incomplete, and possibly misleading. You would have to issue orders based on those reports and your gut feeling for what was happening outside your command bunker. Finally, after the battle had settled down, you would get an account of what had happened. This too might be incomplete, confusing, and possibly misleading.

Wargames, going all the way back to chess and go, have put the player in the position of occupying more than one echelon of command. The vast majority of players evidently want it that way. The ability to micromanage complex events is a major attraction for the genre, I believe.

Michael

[Bradley Dick]

I definitely wouldn't want to simulate rear echelon command. Reading over reports would be quite uneventful. I'm just suggesting that our role as commander be tied to a unit instead of an all seeing eye like Sauron hovering over Mordor.

[womble]

That's a good point. As it stands, they have very limited initiative. They'll return fire, retreat, refuse to follow orders when taking heavy losses, and otherwise act with self-preservation in mind. If you're suggesting that having telepathy to order my men around is just a way of simulating squad leader initiative, I can accept that.

Good, cos that's exactly the intent, as I read it, of the game design. You are every single squad leader (or even team leader) on the map, if you want to be. To the degree you want to be.

However, where is the border between simulation and suspension of disbelief?

Wherever you wish to draw it, really.

I think it's not possible in CMx2 but I would love to see a more advanced AI system that actually interpreted orders instead of being micromanaged.

That's a pretty long way off. It would also make CM a very different game. If all I, as Bttn commander, could do was order my Companies to attack along a particular axis, and everything else was handled by the lower (command) levels' high-capability AI, I don't think I'd want to play so much. Or I'd want to command a Regiment at least, probably the whole front/war. Letting the game automatically handle the behaviour of whole echelons would somehow make it seem almost as abstracted as if it was a counter with just a die roll to determine the results of bumping into whatever other counters it, erm, encountered. They joy of CM lies in the (at least potential to intervene with) micromangement, for me.

[Animal_Mother]

Here's another idea (not saying it's necessarily a GOOD idea): what if you could only issue specific orders to units if they were in C2 and they would then do their best to complete those orders (you could stack more than one order in a row if you wanted) BUT after the orders are completed or failed if the unit was now out of C2 it would do its best (via AI) to move back into C2 for new orders?

[Magpie_Oz]

I think being "out of C2" doesn't mean they are completely isolated and no one has seen or heard from them. I think it is more that they are harder to contact.

This is where all of those unseen people on the battlefield come into play. A unit out of C2 can be retasked but the orders go by runner and so takes longer for them to respond, that sort of thing.

[Animal_Mother]

I think being "out of C2" doesn't mean they are completely isolated and no one has seen or heard from them. I think it is more that they are harder to contact.

This is where all of those unseen people on the battlefield come into play. A unit out of C2 can be retasked but the orders go by runner and so takes longer for them to respond, that sort of thing.

Yeah I would go with that--bring back command delays but only for units out of C2. You would have to figure out what the delay should be for each individual situation though. Probably factors like unit experience of both the unit receiving the order & it's immediate superior (assumed to be the source of the order) ,psychological state of both units and distance between the two would apply.

But if you send orders to a subordinate unit via a runner nothing says he will actually ever get there at all. He could be killed, be unable to find the unit in question, ect. So there should probably be a chance of the orders not going through with the chance being greater the longer the orders were going to take in the first place. In practice what you would do is resend the order when it became apparent that something had gone wrong.

Also units that haven't moved since setup should have less of a delay--their commander knows right where they are.

[Guest]

Lots of different forms of communications are abstractly represented in the engine - this includes runners, hand signals, relays and wire comms. A unit that is "out of C2" may not be easy to reach, but they can generally be reached somehow.

[dakuth]

That's a pretty long way off. It would also make CM a very different game. If all I, as Bttn commander, could do was order my Companies to attack along a particular axis, and everything else was handled by the lower (command) levels' high-capability AI, I don't think I'd want to play so much. Or I'd want to command a Regiment at least, probably the whole front/war. Letting the game automatically handle the behaviour of whole echelons would somehow make it seem almost as abstracted as if it was a counter with just a die roll to determine the results of bumping into whatever other counters it, erm, encountered. They joy of CM lies in the (at least potential to intervene with) micromangement, for me.

That game would probably be Hearts of Iron III. In that game you can organise the TOE, then give any of the HQs down to Brigade an objective with an axis. So if you want, you can direct every individual brigade, or division.

When I play Multiplayer with my friends we have a house rule you can only give orders to as low down as Corps so things run faster. No slowing the game down to micro. Give your guys an objective a few hundred klicks away and let the AI handle the individual divisions. The trick was setting up your TOE in such a way that the Corps could handle their objectives.

...and truth be told, once my TOE was set up, I usually just gave Army HQs or Army Group HQs the objectives, and let them handle the Corps as well. My job was to make sure they were properly equipped (re-enforced, new divisions designed and built, and supply lines not stretched,) given reasonable objectives and rested as needed. The AI would even request more units if it felt it needed them to achieve it's objective!

Now take out supply, re-enforcement, equipping..... such as on the CMBN scale. It's suddenly not so cool. (I believe paradox and BFC are not friends, but I do recommend HOI3 for larger scale WW2.)

Now... CO-OP could be fun, for a small subsection of the audience. With relative spotting you really would rely quite heavily on your higher command to give you orders, and on the c2 network to have proper awareness. If you lost contact, you'd only see what you could see ... and acting on that information could be very lethal. Self initiative would be very cool to see in action. But who would want to play CMBN when all you get to control is one squad? And if you expand it to platoon, then you're back to controlling multiple units and could communicate outside the c2 network.

[dakuth]

I did once dream of a game where one player played as the CM commander, and everyone else played a fps from the grunts perspective. With very careful design, and a slight relaxing of the realism (but not even by that much!) I think it could be achieved.

I'd just need a huge bundle of cash and some experienced coders and I could pull it off.

Steve, you're not busy, are you?

[IRUNSAMOK]

For added immersion you could also sit outside in the rain for a few days, not sleep not eat and not change your underwear.

[Michael Emrys]

For added immersion you could also sit outside in the rain for a few days, not sleep not eat and not change your underwear.

Plus, have someone take a shot at you now and then.

Michael

[Fetchez la Vache]

Isn't that a bit like going camping during hunting season?

[Bradley Dick]

Yeah, I guess what inspired this post was my experience in the military and from books I've read. Often, when a squad loses track of higher command or higher command loses track of subordinates, drastic action has to be taken to regain contact. This isn't in Combat Mission but it could be.

I totally understand the frustration it would bring for most people. I've always bent towards realism and simulations in my gaming experiences.

This is not the popular opinion.

[stikkypixie]

Yeah, I guess what inspired this post was my experience in the military and from books I've read. Often, when a squad loses track of higher command or higher command loses track of subordinates, drastic action has to be taken to regain contact. This isn't in Combat Mission but it could be.

I totally understand the frustration it would bring for most people. I've always bent towards realism and simulations in my gaming experiences.

This is not the popular opinion.

Isn't it a bit unrealistic that every subordinate does *exactly* what you want them to do in CM? There are a lot of things that are not taken into account in CM, but most of the time it is not noticed, which makes it a good game .