Jump to content

Question re C&C


Loaf

Recommended Posts

Not sure if this has been addressed elsewhere... I couldn't find a mention of it:

I notice that if a unit is out of command, ie it has no visual, voice or radio links available to its next higher echelon, it will still respond to orders. For instance, a squad can be on the opposite side of the map from the platoon leader with no communication links showing, and still respond to an order (as long as its morale state allows it to, anyhow).

I was wondering what the rationale for this is... Is the idea that the squad leader has taken the initiative? Obviously this allows for unrealistic outcomes (the squad leader moves to a location to support a unit he ought to be unaware of, for instance) but that would seem to be an unavoidable side-effect of the fact that the player will always have the "God's-eye" view and know the state of all units he commands. Or alternatively, is there an abstraction that a runner has been sent to the squad? I would tend to think not, given 1:1 representation and the elimination of command delays.

I was musing about this issue... I was imagining a scenario where an out-of-command unit does nothing but follow TacAI behaviour until C&C is re-established by the player. Or maybe at the start of a battle a player could have the option to give general battle orders to units (to take a certain route, or head for a certain objective) as an alternative to having them do nothing when out of command. In that case a unit out of command would behave like an AI controlled unit on the offensive (or do nothing if the player chose to give no general orders at the start of the battle).

A scenario like this would force players to pay a lot more attention to C&C. Would this notion be of any value? I must say the current game makes out-of-command units so brittle in combat that you are already penalized pretty heavily for losing C&C. Would taking it to the next step as I have proposed be feasible? Would it be fun, or annoying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with a system like this is that the TacAI is nowhere near sophisticated enough to react as a real squad leader might do, and also is incapable of acting on conditional orders.

For example, IRL, a Plt. leader might tell a squad leader, "move your squad across this field, and take up positions on that hedgeline, looking into the next field. If you don't come under fire or see any sign of enemy, keep going into the next field and take up positions on the far side. But if you do come under fire or spot enemy, pull back to this position."

An very simple and realistic order like this might well take the squad "out of contact" in CM terms. But the TacAI has no way of acting even a relatively simple conditional like this, and programming a TacAI that could act on orders like this would be an extremely difficult job; it's not something we're going to see in the game anytime soon, if ever.

So players being able to control "out of contact" units, at least to some degree, is something we're going to have to live with for the foreseeable future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a question at the heart of the CM model and as such it has spawned many threads.

My interpretation comes down to this: as a player, what command level are you supposed to be? The opinions on the answer to this are important to how you view the game.

For what it's worth, when playing this game, I consider myself every commander in my unit. I'm the Battalion CO. Yeah, it's my vision which shapes the battle.

I'm the commander of each company. I understand the role my company should have and I get to move platoons as needed.

In the same manner, I'm the platoon commander. I move my squads to achieve my platoon goal.

I'm the squad leader.

Finally, I'm the team leader, the tank commander, the forward observer, the sniper, the mortarman.

Which of those roles would you take away from me? Each one has a part to play in the game.

Having said that, command and control issues have been accounted for in various ways. The CMx1 implementation was to have delays imposed for orders. That was not a perfect solution.

Flesh out your idea a bit more. It's fun to kick this stuff around.

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think it's interesting to consider other potential ways to further restrict the player's control over lower level units, especially when these units are out of command.

For example, while it may not be practical to totally remove player control of command units, what if things were changed so that you could no longer issue Area Fire orders to out of command units? This would certainly create another incentive for maintaining good command links.

This is just an idea off the top of my head; I haven't thought through all of the potential ramifications and it may not be practical. But I do think it's worth having these discussion and considering what might be done. In fact, I'm sure BFC has internal discussions like this all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect many of us still miss the command delays of CM1. They did tend to get out of hand for large numbers of waypoints. But, they were an xnt way of simulating the difference in reactions/planning capability of highly experienced units vs Green/Conscript.

It made the highly experienced squads very useful as they could be used/would function effectively independent of HQ's etc. As an abstracted method of simulating C2 the delays worked better imo than the current system of C2 which is also abstracted, but in a different and unnecessarily complex manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't miss CMx1-style command delays. As an abstraction, I think they created about as many problems as they solved and therefore in total the game is better off without them. One possible exception is that I do think it's worth examining whether Area Fire orders in CMx2 should be further restricted in some way, and one way to do this might be to subject them to some sort of time delay based on command (which is something that actually was never in CMx1).

But overall, I think the more sophisticated CMx2 engine offers better ways of modeling C2 and unit experience a command delay applied across the board to all movement orders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting... I like YankeeDog's ideas of somehow limiting the scope of actions an out-of-command unit can be ordered to do. It occurs to me that I never really thought about this issue in CMSF, because I usually played as Blue and thus units were virtually always in C&C.

I was thinking about the limitations of the TacAI, and the inability to simulate realistic orders that have conditions attached. This issue also arises when creating a scenario and making an AI plan... It seems that a conditional order such as YankeeDog described above would usually have to do with what happens when an enemy is sighted or a unit comes under fire.

The game already contains orders that allow the player to (in a limited way) determine what a unit does upon contact. Examples: "Advance to Contact," "Advance to Contact" followed by a "Hide" command, the old CM1 "Hunt" command for armoured vehicles. What if contact reaction could be linked to a waypoint? Let's call one such type of hypothetical waypoint a "Fallback" waypoint for argument's sake... Take YankeeDog's example of a real-life order in such a game environment: You would set a waypoint on the first hedgerow, followed by one on the second hedgerow. The second hedgerow waypoint has an associated "Action on Contact" waypoint located on the first hedgerow - the "fallback" waypoint. If the unit comes under fire or sights an enemy during the advance across the field, it will fall back to the first hedgerow. I am imagining a scenario where any waypoint could have an associated "Action on Contact" or "Fallback" waypoint with an associated movement type. The AoC waypoint would not have to be for retrograde movement - enemy contact could trigger a Banzai assault order if the player was feeling reckless...

Once you start musing about this you start imaging capabilities that would probably make Battlefront's hair stand up... What if the 1st squad coming under fire triggered a flanking assault by 2nd squad? Etc etc... Fun to think about though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...somehow limiting the scope of actions an out-of-command unit can be ordered to do."

That is a really interesting idea. It would make maintaining C2 more important. (I wrote elsewhere that I lost a lot of HQ's in the arduous "Courage and Fortitude" campaign that were never replaced in subsequent battles. So, I have become quite good at using "out of command" units, and they seem to function maybe too effectively without C2.)

It also sounds like it could be a relatively inexpensive and quick thing to program, since the 'condition" that would trigger the reduced orders menu would be lack of C2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once you start musing about this you start imaging capabilities that would probably make Battlefront's hair stand up... What if the 1st squad coming under fire triggered a flanking assault by 2nd squad? Etc etc... Fun to think about though.

Ya, it's interesting to muse about what could be done with conditional orders, and if properly done, it's easy to see the potential for a very fun and realistic command simulator.

Unfortunately, the programming time involved in making such a system really work well means we'll probably never see a full conditional orders system unless BFC gets a DoD contract and can put a lot more coders than just Charles and Phil on the job. But no harm dreaming. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why make the software do this? The game insists on role-playing by the user. It's built around that role-playing, to a far greater extent than most games.

You already have the means to limit an isolated squad's actions, and with greater fidelity than a software solution would offer. Just imagine yourself in the squad leader's position: what would he do? What could he know about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just imagine yourself in the squad leader's position: what would he do? What could he know about?

Good point... But it is hard to make yourself "un-know" stuff! I have tried... Often when I replay a scenario I deliberately set up for a generic assault at the outset, trying to ignore the things I learned about the enemy the first time I played. I often find myself cheating (on myself) however!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why make the software do this? The game insists on role-playing by the user. It's built around that role-playing, to a far greater extent than most games.

You already have the means to limit an isolated squad's actions, and with greater fidelity than a software solution would offer. Just imagine yourself in the squad leader's position: what would he do? What could he know about?

I'm not sure I completely buy that CBMN is best considered, overall, to be an RPG. It certainly does have RP elements, but overall I'd say that most players view it more as a combat command simulator. But assuming, arguendo, that it is an RPG, and speaking as a guy who has been role-playing since the D&D Red Book days, part of any good RPG is a good ruleset. In a computer RPG, the ruleset is really what the program will and won't let you do. Which is what we're discussing here.

Of course, you can always self-impose restrictions over and above what the "rules" or "program" will let you do, but his can rapidly lead to some very confusing and amorphous situations -- it's very easy to go down the rabbit hole here. Some people get into this sort of thing, but in my experience, even with highly roleplay-focused games like traditional D&D, most players are only interested in going so far this direction.

While it's important to recognizing that it is ultimately a game, overall I think it's best in a more simulation-focused game to strive for a construction where the game's scope of "allowed actions" is relatively close to what is realistically possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Unfortunately, the programming time ...". i woud hazzard a guess and say it is more than that. the programming execution would still need to be able to handle 'real time'. otherwise, couldn't they put back in the structure orders that a few of us would like back out of CMx1?

Speaking as a WEGO player, I really doubt the need to make things capable of being able to run in RT much to do with it. AI routines (which are really the hardest part to program of any conditional orders system), while notoriously difficult to program, usually aren't as big a drain on computing resources as stuff like 3D rendering, LOS/LOF checks, and complex ballistics calculation.

There are reasons BFC chose not to go down this road, but I really doubt RT has anything to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a question at the heart of the CM model and as such it has spawned many threads.

My interpretation comes down to this: as a player, what command level are you supposed to be? The opinions on the answer to this are important to how you view the game.

For what it's worth, when playing this game, I consider myself every commander in my unit. I'm the Battalion CO. Yeah, it's my vision which shapes the battle.

I'm the commander of each company. I understand the role my company should have and I get to move platoons as needed.

[similarly,] I'm the platoon commander. ... the squad leader. ... the team leader, the tank commander, the forward observer, the sniper, the mortarman.

Which roles would you take away? Each has a part to play in the game.

Having said that, command and control issues have been accounted for in various ways. The CMx1 implementation was to have delays imposed for orders. That was not a perfect solution.

Flesh out your idea a bit more. It's fun to kick this stuff around.

Ken

As I said in the Title, I fully agree with c3k on this topic. I'm finding the discussion interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are so many different audiences/markets for this game system. Some are RT and others WEGO aficianados. Some want a simulator, others want a game. It's a real tribute to the developers that the CM system seems to be able to satisfy (to a great degree) all these differing tastes.

However, it gets confusing when there are users who want ultimate "realism" but who then are happy being able to have instant God-like command over every unit without any delays to account for communication (and miscommunication) from higher command. To be able to coordinate forces in such a way is still a dream even today.

I can enjoy CM without time delays, but it was a great way of abstracting communication/miscommunication issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, it gets confusing when there are users who want ultimate "realism" but who then are happy being able to have instant God-like command over every unit without any delays to account for communication (and miscommunication) from higher command. To be able to coordinate forces in such a way is still a dream even today.

How does the putative "command delay algorithm" determine the difference between a command from "on high" and a reactive command by local leaders? While I agree that a well-led Elite squad/team should be able to change what it's doing more readily than a Conscript team with a lousy NCO, that's reflected in their overall performance, whereas orders which 'magically' end up with unrelated element coordinating in perfect harmony and time are issued using the same interface as orders which result in unrelated action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I've learned is that you have to play with a feature at least 10 games or so before you have the first clue whether it will be good or not. That of course makes it hard for the guys who have to code it just to try it out and find out it's really not that great, if that happens.

So I don't know whether delays coming back or not would be good. I thought it was a bad idea taking them out, but OTOH, I'm not sure if delays *as such* is what we're missing.

What we're missing is a concrete and realistic feeling of units that are out of C&C.

Note that the real impact of being out of C&C is not being "slow to react". For example, if a unit out of C&C sees a tank emerge from around a building it is not slow to hide or shoot it's faust or whatever. These are tactics decisions taken by the leader in command.

The real impact of being out of C&C is not responding to wider considerations well. "Out of C&C units don't know what else is going on".

This is represented well in the current system in that when you click on a unit you get an idea across the board of what they are and are not aware of.

Having said all this: we can see why delays could well be the right answer, as would limiting orders that could only come from broader knowledge. Delay from the _players_ order to the unit could well be an adequate representation of the fact that this unit is not finding out what the player knows. Similarly, a covered arc might be set with the knowledge that a higher leader has: that the enemy is "just around the corner", so a local leader out of C&C can't give that kind of order: they just don't know.

Anyhow, this is thinking-out-loud typing. Suffice to say the player experience at the moment is one where the impact of poor C&C is slightly intangible, and I agree it might be good to boost it somehow. With care. The last thing we want is a swing of a pendulum to a "totally out of control" feeling. That would definitely be worse.

GaJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyhow, this is thinking-out-loud typing. Suffice to say the player experience at the moment is one where the impact of poor C&C is slightly intangible, and I agree it might be good to boost it somehow. With care. The last thing we want is a swing of a pendulum to a "totally out of control" feeling. That would definitely be worse.

GaJ

There are probably as many opinions on this as there are players. One of the factors that weighs into it for me is the scenario scale of CMBN is smaller than CMx1 games. There is so much more going on that I want to see that larger scenarios just take a lot more effort. I think order delays at the company level make much less sense than at the battalion or higher. However I do like the idea of order delays at that higher level. I don't see this as something that needs to be resolved in CM but rather for those of us interested in it, at a higher level. I am currently working on the Gamers TCS series Obj Schmidt and Screaming Eagles maps as to try and make use of the planning system to simulate the higher level order delay. Broadsword meanwhile is running a campaign using the St Lo rules for a similar purpose.

As it is in CMBN, my units don't necessarily do what I say anyway. I have seen them be both more aggressive and more passive than what I had thought they would be which for me makes the question of order delays a somewhat mute point.

It would also limit me from trying tactics that at the individual squad level should be an option as it is the squad making the decision. For example in a recent PBEM with Broadsword I was experimenting with German defensive tactics where if any of my units fired I would either immediately have them displace to another position or if I wanted them to fire at the start of a turn have them displace 20-30 seconds into the turn. The goal was to keep from being hammered by retaliatory artillery and mortar fire. It worked quite well for a while, but if we had order delays this kind of infantry team tactic would be pretty much not feasibile in which case i would likely feel obliged to throw a tantrum on the forum.

It's a joke!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem in my view with the delays in CMx1 was that they were almost exclusively linked to how many waypoints had been set for a unit, and that did not entirely make sense, since there are in reality a great many factors that can weigh in on how much time it takes for a unit to begin executing an order. So, command delays, while desirable in theory, are apt to prove extremely difficult to introduce into software due to the complexity of the behavior being modeled. BTW, this is just one more example of why it is a lot harder to produce a satisfying tactical wargame than one at a higher level. In an operational or strategic level game, much more can be left to abstraction and "evening out" without damaging credibility and this means easier programs to write.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that for a an operational game they are crucial.

I'd guess that it depends on the time scale of the game. If the time scale is twelve hours for a turn, then probably not because the underlying assumption is that the orders are transmitted and absorbed more or less automatically in that amount of time (unless you are the French in 1940). If the time scale were more like three or four hours in a turn, you might want to take a closer look at the issue.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is what the player is in control of, in CM you are the leader of every unit down the fire-teams. In a way that's not perfectly realistic, but you are the entire force. Command delays would be like having a delay on your fingers moving.

It makes sense if the game is simulating being a WW2 commander, but in that case it would be better for it to be a first person shooter, and to be done properly (done at all) it would require every unit down to the fire-teams (or at least squads) to be controlled by a real player. That would be an incredible game for sure, but it wouldn't be anything at all like CM.

To me command delays seem to be a messy "fix" and create as many problems as they solve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...