Squad Footprint - How does it look/work

[David Chapuis]

With 1v1 modeling, I have been wondering how the squad footprint will look/act. Will you be able to set the squad in different formations that will affect its footprint? I would like to see a different footprints of space and concentration ranging from a squad defending in two man foxholes to assaulting in an urban environment.


And how will you handle routed me in regards to the squad footprint. If 1 man routes, runs away, and then recovers, how do you control him?

If you have already answered this, sorry I missed it. But I have been paying fairly close attention for the last 8 months, and dont remember you speaking to this in detail.

[JonS]

*bump*

[aka_tom_w]

that one seems to be still up in the air because no one really wants to know or agree to the fact that it may still be "Just one point"

BUT

that's all it might be until we hear otherwise or

"there is some form of abstraction involved"

but I don't know what they have in mind for this one????
:confused: :confused:

-tom w

[David Chapuis]

the recent 'no squad splitting thread' really has me wondering even more about this.

Any comment yet?

[Kurtz]

I'm a bit curious about this as well.

What was the squad footprint during WW2? 50x50 meters?

[dalem]

I'm wondering, and this is merely an eye candy question, if guys/units will move to get out of the way of vehicles now, or will a tank driving through a squad just eclipse them like it does now.

-dale

[Brent Pollock]

Maybe one point per team...so a late-WWII Marine squad with three BAR-centred sections would be three points, even if it is all together as a single squad?

[pad152]

I also wonder about squad formations, can you form a line or other formations.

Does the squad change it's formation if it starts comming under fire from mulitple directions or the rear?

Let's hope it's better than Assault Squad.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Kurtz:
I'm a bit curious about this as well.

What was the squad footprint during WW2? 50x50 meters? Probably depended on the terrain and the tactical situation. Also the degree of experience. Green troops tended to bunch up more, but nearly all troops will bunch up some when under stress.

Most of the photos I've seen, including those apparently taken in real combat would lead one to believe that a squad would occupy about 10X20 meters or less in most situations. The pictures taken during training or that looked suspiciously like they were staged showed more open formations. Your guess of 50X50 meters sounds to me more like what a platoon would occupy.

Michael

[Tankgunner]

I recall old times of Close Combat series. Each soldier is modelled, commands gives to a squad.
When deployed, squad tends to scatter within a fixed area, trying to find the best cover and firing position: in line when in a ditch, in pairs if there is a line of foxholes, in bunch when in the small wooden hut....
Movement was the same - line/horde rushing forward in assault, sneaking and leapfrog running in advance under fire, column movement whein in quiet.

Panicked soldiers fleeing far back with lose of control

I hope here we'll see the same. TacAI will decide how to scatter individual soldiers, and, huh, it will be a hard task to BFC to force TacAI to do everything well. AI in CC often failed to deploy 1-2 soldiers, so they kept knocking at the closed window all the game.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kurtz:
I'm a bit curious about this as well.

What was the squad footprint during WW2? 50x50 meters? Probably depended on the terrain and the tactical situation. Also the degree of experience. Green troops tended to bunch up more, but nearly all troops will bunch up some when under stress.

Most of the photos I've seen, including those apparently taken in real combat would lead one to believe that a squad would occupy about 10X20 meters or less in most situations. The pictures taken during training or that looked suspiciously like they were staged showed more open formations. Your guess of 50X50 meters sounds to me more like what a platoon would occupy.

Michael </font>[/QUOTE]10 guys at 5 metre spacing is 50 metres across; a US squad of 12 men "properly" spaced would occupy more than that, obviously. But if in a line, the depth of their formation might be 1 metre.

As indicated, lots of variables at play though.

[Battlefront.com]

Squad formation will be done automatically depending on the Command, terrain, unit factors (especially Experienec), and ultimately how much we can cram into the TacAI itself. There will be limitations on what we can acheive, though the basics will certainly be there.

Remember my correction about splitting Squads. You can split Squads, you can't split Teams. Well, not in the tactical sense anyway. There are certain specific exceptions but I don't want to get into that yet :D

Steve

[MikeyD]

From the way its been described, it seems a CMx2 company-size scenario with its 1:1 representation may well look similar to a CM1 Battallion-size scenario! I can't quite imagine squeezing two 12 man squads into one light building anymore, but then again the buildings will be changing substantially too.

We're still waiting on the game's first screenshots to answer all questions.

[dalem]

Originally posted by MikeyD:
From the way its been described, it seems a CMx2 company-size scenario with its 1:1 representation may well look similar to a CM1 Battallion-size scenario! I think that this is one of the points that Steve has been trying to bash into our thick skulls over the past couple of months.

-dale

[Brent Pollock]

[GRUNT]

NEED

[GRUNT]

BIGGER

[GRUNT]

HAMMER!

[Gordon]

Steve,
What about in the larger formation direction, since CMx2 is the engine that can handle Space Lobsters, etc. If you're going to produce a game from earlier historical periods, the basic unit of deployment wasn't the squad or platoon, but rather the Company (e.g., American Civil War) or regiment (Napoleonic)?

Just curious.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Gordon!

Well, if we were to do a Napoleonic game right now we would likely have to dumb down the game quite a bit. Graphics would have to be at much lower resolutions, guys would have very limited autonomous behavior, and so forth. We'd probably have to reduce the terrain resolution too, but that wouldn't be a big deal. On the plus side, there are a lot of calcuations that wouldn't be needed due to the ridged formations and lack of variety in weapons. We might also have to do some sort of "figure = x men" where x is greater than 1.

These are all just thoughts about how hardware limitations of today would cause us to change what we are building. Instead, we are looking forward to the day when the game system we're building now can support larger environments without dumbing down the system.

And that's the beauty of the CMx2 system... its scalable :D

Steve

[melb_will]

So the first module won't be Napoleonic =)

cheers

Will

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
10 guys at 5 metre spacing is 50 metres across...Forty-five, actually.

a US squad of 12 men "properly" spaced would occupy more than that, obviously. But if in a line, the depth of their formation might be 1 metre.

As indicated, lots of variables at play though. The numbers you quote assume they are in perfect parade ground line abreast. I assume something more like pairs and threes closer together than five meters with three or four such groups in some kind of loose formation maybe 20 meters across (which would give roughly 7-10 meters between groups) and a couple more such groups ten meters to the rear.

But that's only one formation. As you say, there are lots of variables at play.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Guys tend to bunch up badly in combat. And the denser the terrain, the more they bunch.

I can tell you right now that it isn't possible for us to have a Squad spread out, evenly, over 50m. It is just too damned difficult to do. Hardware still hates diversity and it also hates things being spread out so much that they require treatment as if they are their own units. It is simply not possible for us to have a 12 man squad suddenly require 4-6 times the amount of hardware resources. I say 4-6 times because the Squad is already broken up into two or three Teams (internally), and Teams are the basis for everything.

Steve

[tar]

And the question about number of points per squad? Will it at least be one per team?

I do hope that there is at least some, even abstract, notion of a more spread-out formation. (I'm tired of losing entire squads in CMBB to a single round of cannister).

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Guys tend to bunch up badly in combat. And the denser the terrain, the more they bunch.In urban terrain, for instance, I've seen one guy firing his rifle around the corner of a building while two of his buddies crouch behind him. You could have covered all three with an average sized tablecloth. Across the street there were two more guys, presumably from the same platoon, doing the same thing.

I've seen photo after photo of every army engaged in Europe doing the same thing. Look through any sizable collection of photos from the war and you are bound to come across some.

Michael

[Gordon]

Steve,
Interesting, and thanks for the reply. Guess we'll have a bit of a wait until we can play CMx-Roman Legionaires. smile.gif

[Brent Pollock]

No, it's hard to get more bunched up than a testudo, so this should be easy for the game engine ;)

[hoolaman]

I'm still interested in this issue as far as routed men go.

It was one of my biggest complaints about CM1 that a squad basically reacted as one man, or even better; one vehicle with redundant parts. They all rout, they all run away.

Some friends of mine found this so abstracted that they just never enjoyed CM (their loss) but I can see what they mean.

I hope there will be stragglers and individuals running away (out of player control of course). This could even leave the door open for treating non-fatally wounded men in a similar way.

Any hints?

[aka_tom_w]

I hope there will be stragglers and individuals running away (out of player control of course). This could even leave the door open for treating non-fatally wounded men in a similar way. Good idea

Maybe you should suggest that in the 1:1 casualty thread?

(or not?) :confused:

interesting suggestion none the less!

-tom w

[hoolaman]

I did! smile.gif

I think it is deserving of its own dedicated discussion though, since the other thread is pretty much spent.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:
I hope there will be stragglers and individuals running away (out of player control of course). This could even leave the door open for treating non-fatally wounded men in a similar way.

Any hints? And what is even a bigger question is how will the guys that run recover? Me thinks it will not be good for everytime a man runs he is out of the game permenantly. But to keep from having 1:1 control, you need to wait for at least 3 or 4 to recover in order to establish an ad hoc unit.

[ September 14, 2005, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: David Chapuis ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:
And what is even a bigger question is how will the guys that run recover? Me thinks it will not be good for everytime a man runs he is out of the game permenantly. But to keep from having 1:1 control, you need to wait for at least 3 or 4 to recover in order to establish an ad hoc unit. My Spidey Sense is telling me that in the time scale of a CM battle, there wouldn't be enough time to round guys up and talk them into returning to the fight. From the accounts I have read, guys who broke individually as is being discussed here, were usually gone for the day.

Squads or larger units that had retained some cohesion but just balked could be located and maybe rallied, but scattered individuals were generally another story. They would probably go looking for their unit eventually and trickle in over the next 24 hours or more, but that definitely takes it outside the CM battle time limit. The way to integrate that into play is in campaign mode, but that doesn't demand anything special of the 1:1 depiction.

And in any event, we need to be leery of bogging the game down in too many fine details. You can't put everything from WW II into it and still have it playable, either by the player or his machine. So all these ideas have to be weighed on a cost/benefit scale. Stand back and ask yourself how much authenticity is a feature going to add to the game compared to how much effort it's going to require to make it work. Should a player have to provide a hot meal to his troops before he sends them into battle or take a morale hit? Should there be field kitchens then? And should part of the set-up phase be meal planning? What about hygiene?

:D :D :D

Michael

[Pvt. Ryan]

There could be a module called Combat Mission: From KP to Sock Mending

[Ardem]

Hmm field kitchens, will there be canteens on a 1 to 1 representation.

And I like to see a difference between quality of meals, officers generally ate better then the rank and file.

As for map build I would like to see soldier dig latrine pits.

I want to see Combat Mission: The Sims.

[Battlefront.com]

Emrys is correct:

From the accounts I have read, guys who broke individually as is being discussed here, were usually gone for the day.Yes. Individuals are generally writeoffs. If the bulk of a unit flakes out there might be some hope of being brought back into line. But individuals in that state have already moved well beyond simple cowardly behavior. They are likely psychologically toasted.

And in any event, we need to be leery of bogging the game down in too many fine details. You can't put everything from WW II into it and still have it playable, either by the player or his machine. This is a serious concern of ours. Not only the hardware hit to have potentially more guys as individual panicked "units" as regular combat units. Remember, whether talking about a tank, a Squad of 8 men, a Squad of 12 men, or a single guy in Panic mode... there is a certain amount of overhead that is identical. Same basic book keeping hit, same implication for spotting, identical needs in terms of LOF calculations, and probably even MORE need of TacAI and pathfinding. The latter all on their own could be devistating to hardware performance because the little panicked guys will be constantly hitting that stuff whereas the player controlled stuff only needs it periodically. On top of that, lots of CPU cycles and RAM will be needed to manage the behavior of all those fleeing guys.

So... we are still toying with some concepts, but there are some serious limitations as to what we can realistically do right now. As time goes on, and hardware gets better, the choices increase.

Steve

[RSColonel_131st]

Well, I'd say if you want an individual to rout - just let him run straight to the map edge.

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by Kurtz:
I'm a bit curious about this as well.

What was the squad footprint during WW2? 50x50 meters? A unit "footprint" would be determined not by an arbitrary value but the terrain and the cover available to that unit.

[Caesar]

Well, I'd say if you want an individual to rout - just let him run straight to the map edge
And if there is impassible territory in the way, or opposition, buildings, a steep hill (should it really take the hard path?) or a road right beside the deep snow that is directly in its path should it ignore the snow? Should it just run right over a nice safe trench instead of dropping into it and lying there cowering?

I think you are trivialising the problems.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Caesar:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Well, I'd say if you want an individual to rout - just let him run straight to the map edge
And if there is impassible territory in the way, or opposition, buildings, a steep hill (should it really take the hard path?) or a road right beside the deep snow that is directly in its path should it ignore the snow? Should it just run right over a nice safe trench instead of dropping into it and lying there cowering?

I think you are trivialising the problems. </font>[/QUOTE]I think so too. In addition, there seem to be a lot of uninformed ideas floating around about just how men behave in combat. The kind of morale problems encountered that would effect the fighting strength of the armies depicted in CM would not usually lead to men flinging down their weapons and running headlong to the rear. That happened sometimes, but far more fighting strength and effectiveness was bled away by men just hunkering down in their foxholes or behind whatever cover they could find, and waiting until the shooting was over before they came up. And then there was the case of men who volunteered to go for ammo, carry a message back to HQ, help a wounded buddy to the rear or escort a prisoner, and who just never bothered to return to the shooting.

Guys got scared, but they hated to show they were afraid, so they tried to cover it up with some kind of honorable activity when they could. Most of those who went on some errand to the rear eventually had a breather and maybe a meal, pulled themselves together and went back in search of their unit. But they wouldn't be in a big hurry to find it. LIke I said, they were gone for the day...or at least that particular shootout.

Seems to me that the simplest and most effective way for CM to deal with it is to just count them as casualties for the remainder of the battle with a percentage of them returning for the next battle of a campaign.

Michael

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
Seems to me that the simplest and most effective way for CM to deal with it is to just count them as casualties for the remainder of the battle with a percentage of them returning for the next battle of a campaign.

Michael That's probably not a bad idea.

What I was worried about is the squad in CMx2 reacting as a single entity, this was a big problem for me in CMx1. While I'm sure at the extremes panic was infectious, a mix of individuals of different experience levels should have some guys running and some guys staying.

I realise having men running in all directions is a pretty complex thing to deal with, but some simulation of routing/rallying individual men and units would seem to be important for a CM battle involving a series of small firefights.

[imported_no_one]

Good Discussion.

I,too,disliked it when an entire squad would react like a single man,but what I hated even more was when that very squad that was routed just a few minutes ago is ready to fight again in about 3-5 turns(minutes).To me,routed should mean something much worse than what it did in CMx1.If someone is routed they,IMO,should be messed up for a good long while--regardless whether they are in C&C or not.Broken is the one that you might could recover from in 10-25 minutes.And panic one might could recover from in a few minutes or less.

In CMx2,hopefully when a single man is routed he will,for the most part,be out of most shorter battles.If it is a longer battle,or if he was only panicing/broken,then maybe he would get back into the fight.But,when you are so messed up that you run around all crazy like until you are exhausted qualifies as being really messed up.Then again,I am hoping that in CMx2 it will,on the whole,be far more easy to panic/break/rout troops;as well as,to wound/kill them.

[aka_tom_w]

worth repeating

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Emrys is correct:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />From the accounts I have read, guys who broke individually as is being discussed here, were usually gone for the day.Yes. Individuals are generally writeoffs. If the bulk of a unit flakes out there might be some hope of being brought back into line. But individuals in that state have already moved well beyond simple cowardly behavior. They are likely psychologically toasted.

And in any event, we need to be leery of bogging the game down in too many fine details. You can't put everything from WW II into it and still have it playable, either by the player or his machine. This is a serious concern of ours. Not only the hardware hit to have potentially more guys as individual panicked "units" as regular combat units. Remember, whether talking about a tank, a Squad of 8 men, a Squad of 12 men, or a single guy in Panic mode... there is a certain amount of overhead that is identical. Same basic book keeping hit, same implication for spotting, identical needs in terms of LOF calculations, and probably even MORE need of TacAI and pathfinding. The latter all on their own could be devistating to hardware performance because the little panicked guys will be constantly hitting that stuff whereas the player controlled stuff only needs it periodically. On top of that, lots of CPU cycles and RAM will be needed to manage the behavior of all those fleeing guys.

So... we are still toying with some concepts, but there are some serious limitations as to what we can realistically do right now. As time goes on, and hardware gets better, the choices increase.

Steve </font>[/QUOTE]