A bit of a weird idea.

[Bradley Dick]

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 .

Yes, well, if we start having Lieutenants take off in the wrong direction from map reading errors, Privates misplacing equipment, tankers taking naps in the turret, and losing a percentage of each squad due to booze or local fraternization I will both applaud the realism and turn the difficulty down.

[womble]

That game would probably be Hearts of Iron III.

Spot on. That's precisely the game I had in mind

[Bradley Dick]

Hearts of Iron III and, well, the entire series are just a little bit more than my average amount of leisure time will allow. My hat is off to anyone who can wade into that game with any regularity.

[Magpie_Oz]

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.

That was what I was meaning and had suspected

[Vanir Ausf B]

These ideas have been suggested many times through the years. The only part of it that BFC wants to do is the multiplayer where every unit is controlled by a different player, but I wouldn't be surprised if they never get to it. They've been fairly adamant that they are not going to make CM into a command level game, nor even put units out of C2 under AI control.

[womble]

Hearts of Iron III and, well, the entire series are just a little bit more than my average amount of leisure time will allow. My hat is off to anyone who can wade into that game with any regularity.

I played 4 'grand campaigns' once I'd gotten to grips with it. Twice as the Italians, once as the French and once as the Japanese. Took me about 6 months, IIRC If it weren't for CMBN, I'd probably have downloaded the new expansion...

[Magpie_Oz]

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.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the player is not solely the Senior Commanding Officer , e also represents every leader at all levels to varying degrees.

So when a unit is out of C2 the player still has interaction with them in the form of being the squad leader or whatever. What BFC are trying to do is to limit the players role to that of the squad leader rather than the omniscient God that we are.

[Fetchez la Vache]

I played 4 'grand campaigns' once I'd gotten to grips with it. Twice as the Italians, once as the French and once as the Japanese.

Oddly enough, exactly the same countries and frequency as me. :-)

I enjoyed the French the most, spending 3 years (iirc) holding of the grey horde before finally grinding them down in a series of limited range offsensives. The Lowlands exchanged hands probably a dozen times. Frankly it was WW1 writ with bigger toys.

Anyway, going back to the OP. What people like Bradley D and I do is essentially "role playing". Without silly elf ears. Or bloody hobbits. :-)

[Magpie_Oz]

Anyway, going back to the OP. What people like Bradley D and I do is essentially "role playing". Without silly elf ears. Or bloody hobbits. :-)

You don't wear Elf Ears? Man you are missing out!

[Sergei]

I liked the system used in Steel Panthers III. Each platoon had a formation goal, set at the start by the player, and advancing troops nearer to their goals was always allowed. But changing this goal or moving troops to other directions took command points away from their platoon leader, or a connected higher HQ. More experienced units with good leaders could still respond to changes in plans with ease, but especially something like Soviet conscripts would be pretty much tied to their original plan through the game, especially if they had no radios so that they could use the Battalion commander's command points.

The system also had its problems, and it's not applicable to CM, but it was an interesting system nevertheless.

[womble]

I liked the system used in Steel Panthers III. Each platoon had a formation goal, set at the start by the player, and advancing troops nearer to their goals was always allowed. But changing this goal or moving troops to other directions took command points away from their platoon leader, or a connected higher HQ. More experienced units with good leaders could still respond to changes in plans with ease, but especially something like Soviet conscripts would be pretty much tied to their original plan through the game, especially if they had no radios so that they could use the Battalion commander's command points.

The system also had its problems, and it's not applicable to CM, but it was an interesting system nevertheless.

I've always liked 'Command Point' style systems to keep a bit of a realistic rein on the wargamer All the way back to my figure-gaming days.

[Bradley Dick]

I liked the system used in Steel Panthers III. Each platoon had a formation goal, set at the start by the player, and advancing troops nearer to their goals was always allowed. But changing this goal or moving troops to other directions took command points away from their platoon leader, or a connected higher HQ. More experienced units with good leaders could still respond to changes in plans with ease, but especially something like Soviet conscripts would be pretty much tied to their original plan through the game, especially if they had no radios so that they could use the Battalion commander's command points.

The system also had its problems, and it's not applicable to CM, but it was an interesting system nevertheless.

That sounds very interesting. Obviously, given the varying degrees to which junior leaders are given operational freedom in armies across the world, you would have to have different systems in place to simulate that. That sounds cool.

I'm going to check that out.

[womble]

That sounds very interesting. Obviously, given the varying degrees to which junior leaders are given operational freedom in armies across the world, you would have to have different systems in place to simulate that. That sounds cool.

I'm going to check that out.

Last system I can remember anything about (it was over 2 decades ago... :-/ ) each squad leader had an allocation of command points, and each higher echelon's leader had more which could be allocated to elements within command range. Formations where lower tiers had more scope for initiative would have more CPs at the lower level, and organisations that depended on high level command had more CPs at the higher level. So, to take 'stereotypical' values:

American late war would have 2 per squad and 3 at the Lt (total 9, max of 5 per squad per turn)

British early war might have 1 per squad and 5 at the Lt (total 8, max of 6 per squad per turn)

A CP could execute a move or a fire or a special action. Some actions took more CPs.

Higher quality formations had more CP at various levels.

[Renaud]

Someone once said Iron mode is like Elite + hitting your thumb with a hammer. I've always found that Iron mode simply amounts to a lot more clicking. If you can't see or select unit 2 from unit 1's perspective, just unselect unit 1 and voila you can see and select unit 2 and all your other units. So in the end it amounts to a bunch of extra clicking for no reason.

Iron mode feels like underlying C2 functionality hanging around waiting for a future multi/co-play feature.