Units and how they are controlled

[Battlefront.com]

Just wanted to clarify a few things for people just catching up on what CMx2 is all about.

First, the feel of CMx2 is similar to CMx1 despite the 1:1 control (and the fact that just about everything is different smile.gif ). The smallest unit is a Team, the largest is a Squad. Vehicles, heaby weapons, and other such things are represented indvidually. Generically we refer to these as "units".

As the commander of a force your focus is at the unit level. You command a Team, Vehicle, Gun, etc... not the individual Soldiers that make up that Team, Vehicle, Gun, etc. That means you can not micromanage the LMG gunner of a Rifle Squad in CMx2 any more than you could in CMx1. Yes units will look, and act, far more realistic than they were in CMx1... but the focus is firmly on the unit.

Squads in CMx2 are unique "containers" for Teams. This means a Rifle Squad is made up of between 2 and 3 Teams, depending on nation, timeframe, and type of unit (of course). You order the Squad and the Teams behave according to the Squad Commands. For example, one Move Command instructs the Teams to leap frog each other, with the stationary one offering overwatch protection. Another Move Command might just get the guys all running at the same time. The choice of Commands is yours to make, the behavior is carried out by the TacAI accordingly.

Crews of heavy weapons, vehicles, etc. are nothing more than Teams, just the same as a Sniper or Rifle Team. They can abandon their weapon or vehicle under some circumstances, and possibly reman it under others. Bailing out crews might spike the thing being abandoned too. Depends. Enemy units will also attempt to spike things just in case a crew should want to reman.

For heavy weapons such as mortars and MMGs... crews are assigned specific positions. If incoming fire kills the Assistant Gunner for a MMG, one of the Ammo Bearers will take his place. If the unit then gets up and moves, well... the new Assistant Gunner is now responsible for the tripod and therefore won't be taking a whole bunch of ammo with him!

Uhmmmm... what else... I guess that's about it for the basics.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Can we customize the teams? I think you said no already....but is a CW squad always 6 riflemen and a 4 man LMG team, or can we change it as desired?

[aka_tom_w]

"Squads in CMx2 are unique "containers" for Teams. This means a Rifle Squad is made up of between 2 and 3 Teams, depending on nation, timeframe, and type of unit (of course). You order the Squad and the Teams behave according to the Squad Commands. For example, one Move Command instructs the Teams to leap frog each other, with the stationary one offering overwatch protection. Another Move Command might just get the guys all running at the same time. The choice of Commands is yours to make, the behavior is carried out by the TacAI accordingly."
-Steve

OK!

Thanks

That sounds great.

-tom w

[dalem]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
" "Squads in CMx2 are unique "containers" for Teams. This means a Rifle Squad is made up of between 2 and 3 Teams, depending on nation, timeframe, and type of unit (of course). You order the Squad and the Teams behave according to the Squad Commands. For example, one Move Command instructs the Teams to leap frog each other, with the stationary one offering overwatch protection. Another Move Command might just get the guys all running at the same time. The choice of Commands is yours to make, the behavior is carried out by the TacAI accordingly."
-Steve

OK!

Thanks

That sounds great.

-tom w "

That sounds awesome.

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dalem:
Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
" "Squads in CMx2 are unique "containers" for Teams. This means a Rifle Squad is made up of between 2 and 3 Teams, depending on nation, timeframe, and type of unit (of course). You order the Squad and the Teams behave according to the Squad Commands. For example, one Move Command instructs the Teams to leap frog each other, with the stationary one offering overwatch protection. Another Move Command might just get the guys all running at the same time. The choice of Commands is yours to make, the behavior is carried out by the TacAI accordingly."
-Steve

OK!

Thanks

That sounds great.

-tom w "

That sounds awesome.

-dale

Thanks, dalem, your response to aka_tom_w was great.

-mike

[JonS]

"Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
"Originally posted by dalem:
Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
" "Squads in CMx2 are unique "containers" for Teams. This means a Rifle Squad is made up of between 2 and 3 Teams, depending on nation, timeframe, and type of unit (of course). You order the Squad and the Teams behave according to the Squad Commands. For example, one Move Command instructs the Teams to leap frog each other, with the stationary one offering overwatch protection. Another Move Command might just get the guys all running at the same time. The choice of Commands is yours to make, the behavior is carried out by the TacAI accordingly."
-Steve

OK!

Thanks

That sounds great.

-tom w "

That sounds awesome.

-dale

Thanks, dalem, your response to aka_tom_w was great.

-mike"

Thanks guys. You guys rock.

Jon

"Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
"Originally posted by dalem:
Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
" "Squads in CMx2 are unique "containers" for Teams. This means a Rifle Squad is made up of between 2 and 3 Teams, depending on nation, timeframe, and type of unit (of course). You order the Squad and the Teams behave according to the Squad Commands. For example, one Move Command instructs the Teams to leap frog each other, with the stationary one offering overwatch protection. Another Move Command might just get the guys all running at the same time. The choice of Commands is yours to make, the behavior is carried out by the TacAI accordingly."
-Steve

OK!

Thanks

That sounds great.

-tom w "

That sounds awesome.

-dale

Thanks, dalem, your response to aka_tom_w was great.

-mike"

[dalem]

Oh, I was a bad boy. I think we've had our fun.

Sorry, tom, you just have a unique posting style that is hard to not notice sometimes.

-dale

[Pzman]

Oh by, its a quotefest.

[Folbec]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

...
Crews of heavy weapons, vehicles, etc. are nothing more than Teams, just the same as a Sniper or Rifle Team. They can abandon their weapon or vehicle under some circumstances, and possibly reman it under others. Bailing out crews might spike the thing being abandoned too. Depends. Enemy units will also attempt to spike things just in case a crew should want to reman.
...
Steve Will "captured" (unspiked) weapons count toward the final score ? This may prove to be an incentive to area shell an abandonned gun or MG.

[Ace Pilot]

Steve,

Can you say anything about how LOS will be handled for squads? Will each squad trace LOS from a single point like CMx1, or has this been changed?

Thanks.

[roqf77]

just one more pestery question to battlefront!
i see an implication from your spiking comment,that abandoned guns and such can be re manned so to speak?

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by roqf77:
just one more pestery question to battlefront!
i see an implication from your spiking comment,that abandoned guns and such can be re manned so to speak? Steve, regarding crews:
They can abandon their weapon or vehicle under some circumstances, and possibly reman it under others.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:
Steve,

Can you say anything about how LOS will be handled for squads? Will each squad trace LOS from a single point like CMx1, or has this been changed?

Thanks. Steve, on a similar LOS note, will vehicles, such as tanks or APCs block the LOS to a unit hiding behind them?

[Battlefront.com]

Man, as I was reading this thread I was thinking "cripes, it's going from bad to worse!". Thanks for having your fun and then stopping ;)

No, the player will not be able to modify Squad size. However, we have a lot more flexibility in offering alternative Squad compositions than we did in CMx1. This means we could have the standard organization as default and offer a special "Assault Configuration" (or what not) for the player to use. We aren't going to go hog wild with minor variations, but if there was a common alternative organization we will allow this. We also are allowing a LOT more flexibility to Order of Battle, which IMHO is the bigger issue.

LOS is unit based. CPUs and RAM are still not good enough to handle hundreds of LOS checks every second or two without choaking the system dead in its tracks. Then we'd also have to have individual Soldier TacAI to get in/out of LOS, which woud also be a huge impact on CPU and RAM capabilities. So there's nothing we can do about this. However, we don't think anybody will really notice.

I am pretty sure vehicles can block LOS now, but it's been so long since I talked about this with Charles I honestly can't say for sure one way or the other. Obviously we WANT this to be the case, as we did for CMx1. But the ramifications of adding this feature are quite serious from the computational side of things.

Remember, the more things are chaotic, the more CPU and RAM needed to make sense of it. If things are all nice and known before the game even starts, the CPU and RAM requirements are as small as they can be. So it is always a balance between the values of various features because the hardware can only handle so much chaos before it is overwhelmed. Therefore, we have to pick and choose our "battles" very carefully.

Steve

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
LOS is unit based.This means we will see soldiers blasting away happily through building corners, for example?!

Best regards,
Thomm

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Hate to sound like a cheerleader but all sounds great.

My major concern was always that the changes to CM would some how kill the “magic” of CMX1.

Battlefront are clearly very aware of this danger and have the matter covered.

All good fun smile.gif ,
All the best,
Kip.
PS. CMX1 already does so much that in my mind “how we can use CMX2” is almost as important as the what features are included in CMX2. If you follow me. Thus my interest in features that will allow CMX2 to be used more easily as a means to resolve CMMC type operational games.

[yuvuphys]

How will orders be handled? Will we order a squad to "Advance to (x,y)", or will we order a squad to "Assault and Clear these buildings, and then take defensive positions"?

[Cpl Steiner]

Another Move Command might just get the guys all running at the same time. The choice of Commands is yours to make, the behavior is carried out by the TacAI accordingly."I wonder how intelligent the TacAI will be in this regard. I mean, will we see MG teams setting up in the middle of an open road to cover the manoeuvre element, or will they try to use the street corner as cover?

I am pretty sure vehicles can block LOS now, but it's been so long since I talked about this with Charles I honestly can't say for sure one way or the other. Obviously we WANT this to be the case, as we did for CMx1. But the ramifications of adding this feature are quite serious from the computational side of things.
I really hope this feature can be fitted into the game. It will change the armour battle aspects of the game immensely. I want to be able to order my tanks to go hull-down behind wrecks.

[Battlefront.com]

This means we will see soldiers blasting away happily through building corners, for example?!Unlikely. The system is a little more intelligent than that. Specifically, the system knows what objects are and where the soldiers are in relation to them. It's just that they aren't tracing LOS to random spots on the map from any and all possible locations.

The TacAI in CMx1 was pretty damned good. The shortcomings most people can think of are mostly due to Morale and Suppression being tied together. This made it fairly difficult to get the TacAI to behave the way it should under certain conditions. We will have no such problem with that in CMx2 because Morale and Suppression are two different factors.

Steve

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
The system is a little more intelligent than that. Specifically, the system knows what objects are and where the soldiers are in relation to them. It's just that they aren't tracing LOS to random spots on the map from any and all possible locations.So, lets suppose the point man of a unit walks around the corner of a building. Thereby, he enters a street where a MG has set up. Will this MG take the only visible soldier under fire, or will it hold back until the "center of gravity" of the unit enters the street?!

Best regards,
Thomm

[Gordon]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Crews of heavy weapons, vehicles, etc. are nothing more than Teams, just the same as a Sniper or Rifle Team. They can abandon their weapon or vehicle under some circumstances, and possibly reman it under others. Bailing out crews might spike the thing being abandoned too. Depends. Enemy units will also attempt to spike things just in case a crew should want to reman.How much ability will there be to man abandonded equipement (either your own or the enemy's)? I.e., can my Audie Murphy jump up on an abandoned Sherman and crew the AA gun? Can my Sgt. Rock jump into an abandonded Tiger and use the main gun to shell the Huns?

[Stryker]

Let's make sure not to over complicate things. Personally, I'm ok with abstractions if they make sense. Look at Steel Panthers (and ASL to a lesser degree) - still going strong. So far though, I like what I'm hearing. I trust you guys.

[Boris Balaban]

What is the chance as the game is going on and your platoon is shot up, can you reform them into 1 or 2 units and the original leader is still active?

Another request if another platoon has lost its leader and is reduced in size (or not) can they be reassigned to another platoon by a superior commander?

If both could be implemented then near the end of the game where you have small units sitting around they could be rallied into working units (at the cost of reaction time) and move on.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Gordon:
I.e., can my Audie Murphy jump up on an abandoned Sherman and crew the AA gun? Or M10 tank destroyer, as the case may be.... ;)

An even better question would be whether Audie could jump up at game start to do so.

I suppose the overall question is - now that 1:1 soldier modelling is here, how many "special cases" will there be to recreate award winning exploits. The late Smokey Smith used both a PIAT and a tommy gun to singlehandedly stop a German armour platoon and infantry escort.

Do we really want to see that recreated in game on a regular basis?

No, of course not. The reason VCs and MOHs are awarded is because the deeds are so atypical.

Although, it would be nice to see the occasional heroic figure - trying to recreate Audie on that M10 or Stanley Hollis on D-Day would be silly, but for occasional circumstances like this to arise - one man takes over a vehicle mounted weapon, or after firing his anti-tank weapon uses his personal weapon to great effect - would be nice.

I had something similar happen in a recent ROW scenario. An entire platoon was lost to enemy fire, with only the platoon headquarters unit remaining on map, with a man strength of 1. He knocked out a machinegun in a church tower single handedly, kept a German halftrack away from a vital bridge for five minutes, and helped exert control over the bridge at game end, even when the now-shocked HT rolled directly on top of it. The flag stayed Allied.

So I'd like to see similar single-handed heroics possible, but not manufactured. The trouble is, with 1:1 being a representation rather than a model, I would suspect special cases like one man taking over an M10 AAMG etc. would be more trouble than it is worth, coding wise?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

With 1:1, how will the squad LMGs be handled since we have no direct control over them. In Close Combat when dealing with infantry I spent half the time manipulating the squad in order for the MG gunner to get to the place where he had a good arc of fire, the other half I spent cursing as it steadfastly refused to deploy to a position where it had a useful LOF. How will CMx2 deal with this?

On a somewhat related note, how would a team/squads formations work? Are there any? When advancing down a road a column/line astern formation would pretty much be SOP while line(abreast) would be the way for advancing through woods. Is there anything to fascilitate this?

And lastly a question not strictly related to control. How are 1:1 units going to be portrayed? They were supposed to be spread out, but if all the men really do keep 5m apart you do kinda lose track of the unit as a whole with parts of it over a sizeable area. Or are you going from the assumption that the "spread out!" order wasn't/isn't one of the most issued orders for nothing and portray a squad as a tight formation. It's kinda heard to decide which I prefer. Yes, historically men tended to clutter but not always and they certainly weren't supposed to. Certainly not when digging their foxholes! But IMHO there is a real danger of losing track of the unit if they aren't portrayed as being fairly close together.
But if you model them as close together, how to model the casualties of a shell falling nearby? Wipe out the squad? Or back to the "OMG, it exploded right at their feet and nothing happened!" fudge.
Third option is an order of Stay Close/Spread Out for squads, but I can hear Charles and the UI groaning even as I type this. smile.gif

Gosh, am I glad I'm not a game designer! And my current job and boss SUCK! :D

[Gpig]

Everyone here knows the Demo scenario from CMAK, Frughulswhind (or somefink).

The Axis forces attack the (mostly) green U.S. forces at the desert Mosque.

I was curious to what that same scenario might look like in the set-up phase for CMx2. As in CMAK there was a cemetary in front of the Mosque and in it were a few units from a U.S. Platoon.

The Plt. HQ (10 men), the 1st squad (12 men) and a bazooka team (2 men) all the way over to the left. Also, just over a wall in the next field was a 37mm ATgun and it's crew. (and beyond them were the other 2 squads of the platoon, OUT of C&C.)

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/1829/platoonsetup6na.jpg

I'm evnvisioning this through my CMx1 lenses but with 1:1 representation.

I'm VERY curious how defensive positions will be arranged. Fox holes manned. C&C shown, etc..

Can't wait, can't wait, can't wait . . .

[JonS]

O/T: I really enjoy your pics Gpig. Some Z pics for Urban Dead would be neat smile.gif

On topic: I'm confused. Steve keeps talking about 1:1 control (see 2nd line of 1st post in this thread), but saying that a team is the smallest thing we can give orders to. Huh? How can we have 1:1 control if we don't? What does 1:1 control - in the sense Steve is using it - actually mean :confused:

Regards
JonS

[juan_gigante]

We don't have 1:1 control, only representation. That just means that instead of having 3 little guys in CMx1 per squad, we now have a bunch, all of whom run around and do stuff. But even though you see every guy, you only give orders to the squad as a whole.

[aka_tom_w]

....or you can give orders to half squads, teams or sharp shooters.

Meaning the men in each squad will NOT be individuyally controled by the player.

BUT they will be represented in a 1:1 fashion Unlike CMx1

ok?

-tom w

[JonS]

not ok, since Steve keeps specifically tallking about "1:1 control", and not just in this thread either.

[Mord]

The smallest unit is a Team, the largest is a Squad. Vehicles, heavy weapons, and other such things are represented indvidually. Generically we refer to these as "units".

As the commander of a force your focus is at the unit level. You command a Team, Vehicle, Gun, etc... not the individual Soldiers that make up that Team, Vehicle, Gun, etc. That means you can not micromanage the LMG gunner of a Rifle Squad in CMx2 any more than you could in CMx1. Yes units will look, and act, far more realistic than they were in CMx1... but the focus is firmly on the unit.


SteveMord.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'm sorry I'm not reading that in this thread at all. His first post was quite clear we would not be controling the individuals. I haven't read anything that would indicate otherwise but maybe he was inexact in his wording describing how we would control 1:1 squads.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:
I'm sorry I'm not reading that in this thread at all. His first post was quite clear we would not be controling the individuals. I haven't read anything that would indicate otherwise but maybe he was inexact in his wording describing how we would control 1:1 squads. Right I get that ... so what does '1:1 control' mean then, since the we seem to be issuing commands to the same sized elements in both CMx2 and CMx1 (vehs, guns, teams, squads, 1/2 squads, etc)?

Jon

[Cpl Steiner]

Regarding the great diagram by GPig...

Am I just being thick or would you be able to see much if you were in a foxhole with a wall infront of you. I've thought this was a bit strange in other scenarios.

I suppose it would be okay if you just dug the whole deep enough so that from a standing position you can just see over the wall. However, that should make the foxhole less effective if you have to take cover from a mortar round dropping on your own side of the wall. Dig it any deeper though and you'll have to get out of the hole to see over the wall.

Thoughts please!

[Gpig]

Well THAT opens up a can of worms. smile.gif

Yes, LOS/LOF would be imparied by even a low wall while in trenches.

Maybe in CMx2, troops behind walls will not suffer from the problem where they were considered as being in "OPEN" terrain. Despite having cover behind the wall.

In CMx2, will we be able to leave men in the "OPEN," but behind a wall (which should give excellent cover)? And on top of it, we could did foxholes a little bit farther back as fall back positions.

Gpig

[Cpl Steiner]

I definitely remember Steve saying that defensive positions would now be modelled in 3D, so a soldier's LOS/LOF should in theory be slightly different if he's in a hole than if he's not. I also remember Steve saying that soldiers are unlikely to fire through an object that blocks their LOS/LOF due to the way the game engine works (i.e. less abstraction).

I have a board game called "Firepower" (Avalon Hill 70s or 80s classic). In that, each soldier was considered to be height 2 when standing, height 1 when kneeling/crouching and height 0 when prone. Foxholes could be dug 1 or 2 heights deep, representing shallow and deep foxholes. A crouching man in a shallow foxhole could just see over the top, but would be completely invisible in a deep foxhole. Likewise, a man standing in a 1 height deep foxhole could see over a 1 height high wall, but his whole upper body was exposed if a grenade came over the wall and exploded.

This level of detail would be great fun and would add whole new tactical considerations to the game (or at least the Tac AI).

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Gpig:
/snip http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/1829/platoonsetup6na.jpg

I'm evnvisioning this through my CMx1 lenses but with 1:1 representation.

I'm VERY curious how defensive positions will be arranged. Fox holes manned. C&C shown, etc..

Can't wait, can't wait, can't wait . . . What I like the most about this image is the lightning bolts to represent C&C.

I had the very same image (in my head) of a little "zap" line representing a radio order being given under an expanded C&C system. Maybe a "sound wave" zap for a sound based order/alert.

It would have excellent practical applications, rather than being eye candy: explaining which end command delays come from, tracking who knows what and when.

Nice one Gpig, and I hope Steve and co. are listening. ;)

[GillFish]

Two questions, same flavor: will some form of the infamous ‘split-squad’ command still exist? i.e. can I send two men forward to scout for my unit? Second question: can my tank commander exit his vehicle to scout ahead?

[Mord]

Originally posted by GillFish:
Two questions, same flavor: will some form of the infamous ‘split-squad’ command still exist? i.e. can I send two men forward to scout for my unit? Second question: can my tank commander exit his vehicle to scout ahead? First, the feel of CMx2 is similar to CMx1 despite the 1:1 control (and the fact that just about everything is different [Smile] ). The smallest unit is a Team, the largest is a Squad. Vehicles, heaby weapons, and other such things are represented indvidually. Generically we refer to these as "units".

As the commander of a force your focus is at the unit level. You command a Team, Vehicle, Gun, etc... not the individual Soldiers that make up that Team, Vehicle, Gun, etc. That means you can not micromanage the LMG gunner of a Rifle Squad in CMx2 any more than you could in CMx1. Yes units will look, and act, far more realistic than they were in CMx1... but the focus is firmly on the unit.

Squads in CMx2 are unique "containers" for Teams. This means a Rifle Squad is made up of between 2 and 3 Teams, depending on nation, timeframe, and type of unit (of course). You order the Squad and the Teams behave according to the Squad Commands. For example, one Move Command instructs the Teams to leap frog each other, with the stationary one offering overwatch protection. Another Move Command might just get the guys all running at the same time. The choice of Commands is yours to make, the behavior is carried out by the TacAI accordingly.-Steve

You can split squads as far as I know. I think vehicle teams will be just that teams that can't be split.


Mord.

[Zalgiris 1410]

I'm liking this whole tread, thanks BFC I definately don't want to have to micro-manage each and every single trooper, since my focus is at the squad/team level of control especially considering the large sized games I perfer.

Cool diagram Gpig and I also like your lightening bolt 'zap' C&C lines, awesome and better then all those bold red lines that I'm a bit sick of now. :rolleyes:

I'm all tapped into your descussion with Cpl Steiner on LOS/LOF issues with troops behind walls and the reality of foxhole depth effects on their exposure. Very interesting, my only suggestion to the topic, since I agree with what's been said, is that there could also be sandbagged up foxholes (think of sangars)availlible to be included as an option for such cases as positions behind a wall. ;)

[JonS]

Why not consider that troops behind a wall in a foxhole use the cover that best suits their needs of the moment? So, they can be though of as out of the holes behind the wall to observe in that direction, and down in the holes for all other directions or arty/HE fire.

Abstraction - yes.
Easier to manage - yes.

[Battlefront.com]

Hmmm... if I said players will have "1:1 control" anywhere that was a big mistype. I've gone through great pains over the last few months to separate 1:1 Control from 1:1 Representation of Soldiers. They are two entirely different concepts. CMx2 has 1:1 Representation, not 1:1 Control. You do get to control individual weapons systems, like an ATG, but you do not have control over the individual Soldiers manning it. Except, of course, as the semi-indirect result of your commands to the unit as a whole. In other words, you tell a Squad to shoot at something, individual soldiers will aim and fire. But you don't onder the individuals to do that.

1:1 Control, at CMx2's scale, is not a viable system. It would appeal only to micromanagement freaks, and even then probably most of those types would tire of the game quickly. 1:1 Representation... totally different story!

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

The system we have is similar to Firepower, though by accident since none of us know of this game. The concept semi-existed in CMx1, but we need to do a lot more with it for CMx2. The main reason why is LOS/LOF and the 1:1 Representation of the graphics. We can't possibly have guys position their weapons, torso, head, arms, etc. dynamically based on chaotically sized terrain. It just isn't possible. So instead we need to have standardized sizes (like tables, chairs, doors, etc. do in real life) so the code and graphics can get things right. From a simulation standpoint this doesn't compromise anything, thankfully, though it makes CMx2 possible.

Steve

[Dogface]

Battlefront.com typed
First, the feel of CMx2 is similar to CMx1 despite the 1:1 controlwbs bolding mine. italics mine also.

I think that sentence is what is throwing jons off. Although in the next few sentences you type that the smallest unit the player can control will be a Team. So maybe he just stopped reading after the 1:1 control thing.

[JonS]

no, I read the whole thing. My confusion was in trying to reconcile the two.

Thanks for the clarification Steve.

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, and for the record there are actually three concepts I talk about when mentioning 1:1

1:1 Control The ability to control the actions of individual soldiers. CMx2 does not allow this.

1:1 Representation Soldiers simulated as individuals in a direct way. CMx1 had a little bit of this (individual small arms, crew positions, etc.), but overall the system was not what I would call 1:1 Representation. CMx2 has portions of its sim that are akin to the CMx1 things I just mentioned, but by and large the Soldiers are separate from the units they belong to.

1:1 Graphics Quite simply put, it is the modeling of everything Represented in a graphical format. In CMx2 all Soldiers, and I mean every single last one of them, is represented in 1:1 detail. However, you can have 1:1 Representation without 1:1 Graphics and vice versa. But it can be pretty messy if not done right.

CMx2 keeps 1:1 Representation and 1:1 Graphics in balance with each other. Because it is impossible to simulate a real world environment with everything 1:1 Graphical represented, we must take shortcuts when we can. But when we do so we check to make sure it works with the 1:1 Representation. Likewise, when we find we can't simulate things on a 1:1 basis in terms of Representation, we make sure the 1:1 Graphical representation is OK with that. It's tough sometimes, but so far we haven't hit anything that has caused much trouble.

Steve

[Mord]

I just peed in my pants.

Mord.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Just keep it in your pants Mord, that's no excuse, leave it alone. tongue.gif

Excellent explainitary post BFC, I am now more clear then I was before, I hadn't realise there were 3 concepts involved, thanks. smile.gif

[Mace]

Originally posted by Mord:
I just peed in my pants.*Hands Mord a monogrammed 'I like to rock' pair of depends <tm>*

Thanks, Steve, for taking the time to explain the concepts of the new engine.

Looks quite innovative so far. :cool:

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
The system we have is similar to Firepower, though by accident since none of us know of this game.
Steve so you are telling us the new game looks like this?
;)

http://pdpsantos.sourceforge.net/res/tank_demo.jpg

are you refering to manaSoft's FirePower?

I am just curious

-tom w

[dalem]

Avalon Hill's "Firepower". Hex-based modern skirmish game. Essentially a miniatures game on a hex board. I only played a few times but had a lot of fun.
Link to description. (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/3692)

-dale

[Cpl Steiner]

That's the fella. Cheers dalem. One thing this game had that would be lovely to see in CMx2 was the ability to create custom squads. I once made up a scenario recreating the exploits of a half squad of special forces guys based on the novel "The Five Fingers" (see link).

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0552109541/qid=1125550203/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_8_1/026-7541544-7465246

[Cpl Steiner]

Back on the subject of unit control..

In CMx1 you order a squad to go from A to B and they all move together. However, you can split the squad into 2 roughly equal teams and have one team go forward, then move up the next, etc.

In CMx2, Steve has already stated that it will now be possible to order a squad to "Advance by Leapfrog" (or some other such order). This tells the AI that one squad should cover another as they move from A to B.

Now, presumably we can still split squads in CMx2. This would allow us to split up the squad into its respective teams, so we could in effect micromanage the same sort of bounding or leapfrog behaviour for greater control in some situations.

In CMx1, teams are inherently more "brittle" when split from the squad. In CMx2 however, every squad seems to be effectively split, to allow the AI to do the leapfrog behaviour.

Will a team become "brittle" like in CMx1 if you split it from the squad, or will it have to be over a certain distance from the rest of the squad due to the fact that it is already shown as split by the AI and graphical respresentation?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dalem:
Avalon Hill's "Firepower". Hex-based modern skirmish game. Essentially a miniatures game on a hex board. I only played a few times but had a lot of fun.
Link to description. (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/3692)

-dale Sniper! and the add-ons by TSR were the same scale, poorer graphics, but much more fun IMO. Ever try it?

Ever wish there was a computer version? The closest we came was, God help us, "Avalon Hill's Squad Leader" for the PC. Which stank to high heaven.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem:
Avalon Hill's "Firepower". Hex-based modern skirmish game. Essentially a miniatures game on a hex board. I only played a few times but had a lot of fun.
Link to description. (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/3692)

-dale Sniper! and the add-ons by TSR were the same scale, poorer graphics, but much more fun IMO. Ever try it?

Ever wish there was a computer version? The closest we came was, God help us, "Avalon Hill's Squad Leader" for the PC. Which stank to high heaven. </font>[/QUOTE]I have that game as well. Can't remember how it compared to Firepower in terms of game mechanics but I remember I played Firepower a lot more, mainly as it listed typical squad compositions for every major country from 1965 onwards in a booklet included with the game. (Battlefront, there's an idea for research for CMx2 Modern if you're interested!).

I also have "Soldiers" (West End Games) which is another man-to-man combat WWII game. The subject has been covered many times over the years.

[Tero]

A couple of random guestions:

Will the player be to alter the squad/team make up during game play (say order all automatics to one squad or form an AT team) ?

Will the command etc bonuses (or penalties) be individual unit specific or will the command squad still determine them for the subunits ?

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Sniper! and the add-ons by TSR were the same scale, poorer graphics, but much more fun IMO. Ever try it?

Ever wish there was a computer version? The closest we came was, God help us, "Avalon Hill's Squad Leader" for the PC. Which stank to high heaven. Never tried the ones you mention, no. Always meant to get Sniper but never did.

-dale

[Shmavis]

I apologize if this has been mentioned or if you can actually do this with CMx1 and I just never figured it out, but I would like to be able to plot waypoints for groups of units that I have selected, not just one movement order.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Shmavis:
I apologize if this has been mentioned or if you can actually do this with CMx1 and I just never figured it out, but I would like to be able to plot waypoints for groups of units that I have selected, not just one movement order. You are correct, it is only possible to give one waypoint to a group, and I agree, it is a pain. Often you want an entire platoon to skirt around a hill, and after the first group waypoint you are forced to add individual extra waypoints. It would be better if each time you clicked on the map it added a waypoint to all units selected. You could always edit the waypoints after to maintain gaps between units etc. I do think this would speed up orders plotting, which has to be a good thing for CMx2.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, you can still split squads. Not encouraged any more in CMx2 than it was in CMx1. Splitting the Squad will not yield the kinds of gamey benefits as in CMx1 because of the way individiual Soldiers engage in combat. Brittle penalty will not happen inherently, but it could if the split off team has a weaker team leader than the squad leader. In other words, you lose the squad leader's bonuses. Also, now the split off team is likely to be easily left out of C&C. With Realtive Spotting this can be a pretty darned big deal.

No, you can not change the composition of your squads on the fly. I doubt this happened much in real life since you'd have to also spend time swapping around ammo and equipment. Not something you can do quickly and CMx2's scenario timeframe is still set for roughly the same as CMx1.

All units have Leaders. Bonuses are now Leader Based.

Group plotting isn't something we are likely to get into the game right away. We're going to try, but there are a ton of practical considerations we're going to have to sort through.

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

As CMx2 will allow a squad to advance by leapfrog, causing constituent teams to cover each other's movement, why not have a similar order for groups of units such as a platoon.

Here's how it could work. You select a group of units by clicking one, holding down the control key, and clicking on additional units. This assigns a movement sequence number to each unit, so if you want an HQ to move last, you have to make sure he is the last selected unit.

The game would then attach a waypoint placement "string" to the first unit selected. You click on the map to set the waypoint, then the game attaches a waypoint placement string to the second unit selected. This repeats until each unit has a waypoint, then starts at the beginning again. At any time you can finish the order by clicking the right mouse button.

In the action phase, the first selected unit advances to his first waypoint, covered all the time by the rest of the platoon. The second then moves to his waypoint, etc.

It does sound a bit complicated, but given a bit of thought I'm sure it would be possible. I can see it now, whole formations moving forward like clockwork!

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

In other words, you lose the squad leader's bonuses.

How do platoon leader bonuses work in the new game engine ?

Also, now the split off team is likely to be easily left out of C&C.

Will there be mission based orders (like recon that wood yonder, defend this bridge or take out that bunker) ? These would make out-of-CC split units act according to a plan.

No, you can not change the composition of your squads on the fly. I doubt this happened much in real life since you'd have to also spend time swapping around ammo and equipment.

I would imagine you would swap men more than equipment (specialists) and IMO ammo redistribution was done on a regular basis so that would not be a problem.

Not something you can do quickly and CMx2's scenario timeframe is still set for roughly the same as CMx1.

A conditional team split does not take more than a minute, tops. Given the fact the unit commander already knows who are his specialists and how he wants to split his units to perform the task at hand.

All units have Leaders. Bonuses are now Leader Based.

What is the propability the leader is lost and how will that affect the unit ?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Group plotting isn't something we are likely to get into the game right away. We're going to try, but there are a ton of practical considerations we're going to have to sort through.

SteveOK thanks


BUT can you still "band box" or group select a bunch of units and send them ALL in one direction to like CMx1?

That is a VERY handy feature for the lazier amongst us :D !

-tom w

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Group plotting isn't something we are likely to get into the game right away. We're going to try, but there are a ton of practical considerations we're going to have to sort through.What about formations (at least for the AI)?

Best regards,
Thomm

[Steiner14]

Steve,
thanks for all the information.
I'm totally overwhelmed.
And sceptical: what you describe sounds simply too good to be true!
What we heard so far, would be the best computer game ever. Do you know that?!

Are there BTS shares to buy?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
No, you can not change the composition of your squads on the fly. I doubt this happened much in real life since you'd have to also spend time swapping around ammo and equipment. Not something you can do quickly and CMx2's scenario timeframe is still set for roughly the same as CMx1. The ONLY time you would split a squad normally would be when coming under fire. So the design decision here is correct. You did drills, drills, drills - the CW called it "Battle Drill" - so that when coming under fire, you split into two (or whatever) teams automatically. It was not the time to redistribute weapons and ammo "on the fly" - it was done instinctually. Glad to see it will be that way in the game.

[Brent Pollock]

All together now:
Halllllllllllllll-e-lu-ja!

It always bugged me that SL/ASL actually functioned more as PL/APL. Only the single man games (e.g. Up Front, Firepower, Soldiers) had Squad Leaders.

Now it looks like we'll have platoon, squad (and assistant squad?), team & crew leaders...oh baby, it's gonna be GREAT!

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
[snip]
All units have Leaders. Bonuses are now Leader Based.

[Battlefront.com]

As CMx2 will allow a squad to advance by leapfrog, causing constituent teams to cover each other's movement, why not have a similar order for groups of units such as a platoon.The difference has to do with distance. The distance between the two Teams won't ever be that much, therefore we don't have to extrapolate relative positions, intervening terrain, how to handle larger units made up of mixed types, etc. Big difference. Wish it were easy to do, because it would be a big bonus to have.

How do platoon leader bonuses work in the new game engine ?Trickle down effect when in C&C. However, the main bonus of being in C&C is the functionality that is gained. Specifically spotting info (and in some cases) the ability to call in support weapons like air and artillery.

Will there be mission based orders (like recon that wood yonder, defend this bridge or take out that bunker) ? These would make out-of-CC split units act according to a plan.No, that is a pretty huge thing and we can't touch that with a 10 foot pole right now. Too many other more basic things to do.

I would imagine you would swap men more than equipment (specialists) and IMO ammo redistribution was done on a regular basis so that would not be a problem.If you are rigged up to carry rifle ammo you have rifle pouches attached to your belt. To get some more rifle ammo someone just has to hand it to you. That works fine. But to switch weapons completely you need to switch your ammo pouches. I have enough combat gear, modern and WWII era, to know that this is not an easy process. Certainly not in a minute as you suggest. Whenever I read about switching around weapons it is CLEARLY done ahead of something deliberate, like a recon patrol or an assault on a known enemy position. It isn't done on a whim.

What is the propability the leader is lost and how will that affect the unit ?1:1 Representation... you figure out what his chances are :D Losing a Leader affects the performance of the unit he commanded. He will be replaced, but it can take time depending on circumstances.

BUT can you still "band box" or group select a bunch of units and send them ALL in one direction to like CMx1?I hope so. We put it into CMx1 for a reason :D

And sceptical: what you describe sounds simply too good to be true!We're used to it. We heard this for more than a year from people. When we put out the CMBO Beta Demo most people tossed their skepticism out the window, though some thought we wouldn't be able to finish it. The release of CMBO silenced them too tongue.gif

Steve

[Gpig]

One of the interesting things about how the new CMx2 might play for us all, is that we may feel more crowded. With just 2 companies on a map, it will look VERY different than CMx1. (I think.)

Look at this . . .


http://img314.imageshack.us/img314/8889/company2ks.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

This is just ONE American Infantry Company, 1:1 represented. (I think I made a mistake somewhere in the HvyWpns plt . . .)

But there is a HUGE ammount of dudes out there. Even though there are only 24 or so "teams" to give orders to, it will "seem" like a LOT more units on the map. And I LIKE! :D

I also feel it will lead to players spacing out their attacks and defensive positioning. Maybe even slowing down the Assault, so less men are in the open at any one time. Can you imagine this many men charging into a defense line? (Not that they'd all go at the same time.)

I suppose TACTICS will not change, but the "feeling" might be different. Maybe leading to more realistic use of units . . . ?

What do you think?

Gpig

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Really brings home the change 1:1 brings, thanks Gpig. Yeah I do believe we'll see tactics change to some extend as a result of it. A squad looks so much more powerful now. And seeing so many men close together will cause you to spread out more. An artillery strike close by won't just be a numbers game anymore.
It strengthens my worry that you might get 'squad clutter' as squads start overlapping and stuff. Would really like to hear about this.

[Pvt. Ryan]

That's freakin' awesome.

[Boris Balaban]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
[QUOTE]Sniper! and the add-ons by TSR were the same scale, poorer graphics, but much more fun IMO. Ever try it?

Ever wish there was a computer version? The closest we came was, God help us, "Avalon Hill's Squad Leader" for the PC. Which stank to high heaven. I have. smile.gif
It was fun for you only had about 12 men aside and you had several scenarios like clear the area; meeting engagement, get to the other side and may be more (CMx2 can add more scenarios). Some times you would have a tank or a HT.

Maybe CMx2 can adapt this size of game? ;)

[ September 01, 2005, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Boris Balaban ]

[Battlefront.com]

Another classic from Gpig. I see vacation time has left you rested enough to draw all those little dudes! :D

I think Gpig's drawing helps show why people might not mind having less troops under their command than the mega battles people managed to eek out of CMx1. A battalion might get people feeling a little clausterphobic!

Steve

[Boris Balaban]

Getting more ammo?
Can your squad walk up to a dead squad and pick up some ammo of the same type? Will there be a way for the computer to keep track of what was left of the dead squad and only give a % :confused: of it to the squad searching for more ammo?

I will guess the answer will be NO. tongue.gif

[Boris Balaban]

Will there be a way of moving a weapon left with 1 man? :(
Can a vehical pick them up and move them? :D
If so will the vehicle be able to drop them off? ;)

[Gpig]

Heh heh. Yeah, nothing like two weeks off to rest the wrists. (Except for the occasional beer tipping exercise.) smile.gif

Gpig

[Salkin]

Very nice drawing Gpig !
I can almost taste CMx2 on the tip of my tongue smile.gif .
Sweet, sweet addiction here I come :D .

//Salkin

[Barrold]

I am definitely getting that ol' familiar stoked feeling as I hear more and more information.

BDH

[Cpl Steiner]

I'm definitely starting to worry a bit that the game can't possibly live up to expectations. I know, "Heresy", "Trust Battlefront", "They've pulled it off before" etc., but this game just seems so much ahead of anything else available.

For me, the acid test will be street fighting. Can you imagine a platoon of infantry, like the ones shown in Gpig's drawing, firing weapons out of windows, blowing holes in walls, chucking grenades across narrow streets from upper floors, stacking up at doorways etc. If they can pull that off, the game will be a classic.

[Cpl Steiner]

Better just rephrase the above post in case people take offence. I sincerely hope and pray that the game lives up to expectations, and think Battlefront are the best people to pull it off if anyone can. All I'm saying is that I won't be that surprised if I get a slight let down feeling when I actually own the game. I think this is only natural as we are all hyping up our own expectations beyond all reason.

[Barrold]

On most things a motto of "Always anticipate disappointment" seems warranted, but I have noticed one thing about Steve's pronouncements. When he releases a detail, it genuinely appears to be well past the "gee that's a cool idea" phase.

Items that are undetermined have been clearly labeled as iffy. However, our imaginations can be our worst enemies as we can envision the vivid action played out over remembered scenarios from dozens of computer or board game battles.

The best we can hope for is to continually look for better immersion as experience and technology combine to push these games forward to the goals we have set in our minds.

I remember Dan commenting months ago about the graphics of some WWII game or another as being the easy part of the process. A pretty picture being just that unless the goods behind it make it move like the real deal.

In these departments, BFC has seemed quite willing to hire additional expertise when needed to handle those departments that leave Charles best able to deal with the truly difficult coding. This would be things like effecting the realistic detail accurately depicting the disciplined rush of a squad assaulting a building and keeping it from looking like two-dimensional orcs yelling "Zug Zug" for example.

With their philosophy of not letting it out until it meets their vision and their goals to the best of their abilities, I have no doubt that by the time it is released, our expectations will be properly tempered to the fit the game's performance. If it disappoints, it will likely be from an unrealistic expectation. It won't be generated from the hyperbolic claims of BFC either, but rather the desire to see the vision of our imagination realized.

If you think about it, this is not such a bad thing, if only for the fact that it keeps the demand for better products going even when the latest game blows you away for awhile. Maybe when we're 70 years old having heart attacks while playing virtual Stalingrad we'll be 100% satisfied. I am willing to bet that some would still complain that the sewer smell just doesn't seem exactly right. smile.gif

BDH

[Pvt. Ryan]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:
I'm definitely starting to worry a bit that the game can't possibly live up to expectations. I've been thinking that the game is going to blow our minds once we see it. We've been told of new features in dribs and drabs, but when the whole picture is revealed I think we are going to be very pleasantly surprised.

[dalem]

Now I've gone and peed Gpig's pants.

Seriously though, I don't consider myself to be much of a graphical "eye candy" kind of guy - quite honestly CMx2 could have all the improvements under the hood and look exactly the same as CMx1 and I'd still be a happy camper - but I'm starting to get the idea how CMx2's graphical improvements and 1:1, etc. might not just pull me in, but actually help me enjoy the game more.

Remember the infantry attack on General Ripper's SAC base in "Dr. Strangelove"? Until SPR and BoB came out I sort of considered that the epitome of combat movie film (less grainy and jumpy than the real thing!). Some guys shooting at faraway things, some guys running crouched over, some other guys just crouched down and looking around cluelessly... Then that M1919 sets up and fires off a burst and puffs and chunks start whizzing off the HQ building in a large pattern downrange. Louder than hell and definitely makes you feel lucky to not be facing the angry end of an MG - any MG.

Anyway, I'm getting the feeling that placing the camera POV right in the midst of a CMx2 squad might give me a view kinda-sorta like that.

CMx1 took us close to that. CMx2, I think, is going to take us closer.

And if it takes us too close, beware guys, because then I'm gonna have to go and pee Steve's pants and Charles's jar.

Or hell, it could just blow chunks and make me wish for a professionally programmed bulldozer sim. One never knows.

-dale

[Barrold]

Blade goes up...blade goes down...blade goes up...


Seriously though. smile.gif

I like that scene too for the same reasons. Sometime back about a billion years ago, I mounted a fierce defense in Panzerblitz against a friends determined swarms of Russian armor. Crappy roll after crappy roll allowed a huge pile of destroyed counters to accumulate in front of my erstwhile defenders.

The imagination pictured all of this happening as a movie in my mind, but until CMx1, these types of scenarios really didn't have any sort of accurate realization outside of the mind's eye. I think as long as the fundamentals of accuracy accompany whatever the graphics in this type of game that the simulation will bring you along.

The truer the depiction on the screen of the environment can only help enhance the experience one wants to get as part of the reward for playing. It should also fulfill the other part by allowing the mental challenge of directing your forces to victory in any number of situations.

I think most would agree that having just the eyecandy without the second element does nothing to fire the imagination needed to put yourself in the scene. If they do this right as I expect, it is hard to see where that immersion is not increased greatly.

It's effect on your excretionary activities shall remain a difficulty though as your reaction can hardly be viewed as an incentive for excellence from Charles.

BFS5

[Battlefront.com]

Barrold has it right. Since I started managing a Forum for CM, waaaaaaay back in 1997, I've been very careful to state only that which we are sure we can do and to either not discuss or to clearly qualify that which we are not sure of. It is the main reason why our releases have always underpromised and overdelivered.

I don't intend on screwing up a good thing by blabbing away about pie in the sky stuff before we know if we can do it. Uhm... like... uhm... why do you think it took us nearly 2 years to start up an official CMx2 Forum? Why do you think I've been so vague and mum on CMx2 before now? Not by accident, I assure you :D

The list of things I talked about during CMBO's development was massive and harldy anybody believed we'd deliver 1/10th of what we promised. Heck, even when things were in the game and working people wouldn't believe it. I remember the first time someone besides Charles and myself played the game... the infamous Alpha AAR battle between Fionn and Martin (Moon). These guys were two of our most dedicated supporters. After they got the Alpha they were absolutely blown away. It was then that they confided in us that they actually were expecting to find out that we were full of crap and the game wasn't nearly what we said it was. Instead they found out it was more than we revealed on the Forum. Then the Beta Demo came out and thousands of doubters (including MadMatt and KwazyDog smile.gif ) ate their words quite gleefully. Rune and many of the strongest and most loyal supporters of Battlefront and CM were also likely in the "semi-doubter" category. Then the full game came out and the rest chowed down their words of doubt heartily.

Now, the above paragraph is not some sort of ego chest thumping exercise on my part. It is simply a statement of documented facts surrounding a similar situation with us and you all. It should count for something.

Is there a chance that people will be disapointed? Hell ya... especially since some of you guys have imaginations that defy... well... imgagination :D But will we deliver on the features we're talking about here? Yes. And a lot more that you know absolutely nothing about, but we fully expect to be able to deliver. Until we do, however, we're keeping our mouths shut so we do NOT build up expectations based on hype.

Steve

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

No, that is a pretty huge thing and we can't touch that with a 10 foot pole right now. Too many other more basic things to do.

I take it the SOP related orders are "sticky" so the out-of-CC units will not become total zombies.

But to switch weapons completely you need to switch your ammo pouches. I have enough combat gear, modern and WWII era, to know that this is not an easy process. Certainly not in a minute as you suggest. Whenever I read about switching around weapons it is CLEARLY done ahead of something deliberate, like a recon patrol or an assault on a known enemy position. It isn't done on a whim.

Why would there be a need to switch the weapons and gear around ? Why not move them men already donning the gear around ? You can simply call "(men with) automatics on me, all others on section leader" or "AT team up, everybody else cover".

1:1 Representation... you figure out what his chances are :D

Can you order sharpshooters/snipers or even entire squads to single out leaders ? And how do you protect your leaders in such a case ? ;)

[Battlefront.com]

Units outside of C&C are still within your control. They just won't benefit from being "in the loop", something which CMx1 couldn't simulate nearly as well.

Why would there be a need to switch the weapons and gear around ? Why not move them men already donning the gear around ? Because that violates ever sensible principle surrounding unit cohesion?

You can simply call "(men with) automatics on me, all others on section leader" or "AT team up, everybody else cover"Er... I am unaware of that happening on any scale worth mentioning. It goes against all WWII military doctrine that I know of. No doubt some units did it, but I doubt it was on the fly. What I have read about are exceptional circumstances where the weapons would be switched around. That means 2nd Squad would still be 2nd Squad, but armed with lots more firepower than it ordinarily would. I know the Finns did this quite a bit with some small units (Sissi?). IIRC we modeled it this way because it was pretty much defacto the way those units fought.

Can you order sharpshooters/snipers or even entire squads to single out leaders ? And how do you protect your leaders in such a case ?You don't because you aren't allowed to micromanage your units. Yes, a sharpshooter/sniper should have a higher chance of hitting a leader. Many leaders made an effort to not be noticable, but to a trained shooter this made little difference most of the time. Leaders are usually the guy giving orders so you don't need to have red stripes down the legs and glittering metal bits all over the tunic to know who is the best guy to shoot at :D

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Units outside of C&C are still within your control. They just won't benefit from being "in the loop", something which CMx1 couldn't simulate nearly as well.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Why would there be a need to switch the weapons and gear around ? Why not move them men already donning the gear around ? Because that violates ever sensible principle surrounding unit cohesion?

You can simply call "(men with) automatics on me, all others on section leader" or "AT team up, everybody else cover"Er... I am unaware of that happening on any scale worth mentioning. It goes against all WWII military doctrine that I know of. No doubt some units did it, but I doubt it was on the fly. What I have read about are exceptional circumstances where the weapons would be switched around. That means 2nd Squad would still be 2nd Squad, but armed with lots more firepower than it ordinarily would. I know the Finns did this quite a bit with some small units (Sissi?). IIRC we modeled it this way because it was pretty much defacto the way those units fought.

Can you order sharpshooters/snipers or even entire squads to single out leaders ? And how do you protect your leaders in such a case ?You don't because you aren't allowed to micromanage your units. Yes, a sharpshooter/sniper should have a higher chance of hitting a leader. Many leaders made an effort to not be noticable, but to a trained shooter this made little difference most of the time. Leaders are usually the guy giving orders so you don't need to have red stripes down the legs and glittering metal bits all over the tunic to know who is the best guy to shoot at :D

Steve </font>[/QUOTE]I see my post has been ignored, but perhaps I wasn't clear.

Squad battle drills were practiced away from the battlefield. They split into recognizable teams, and practiced to do this. They practiced on the parade square, and then in the field, and when replacements came up, they even practiced it in the combat zone. It was their key to survival. In the CW example, it was a Bren team and a rifle team. And in action, when the squad split up, or more accurately broke down into its component teams, it was usually while under fire.

I think some people are envisioning a SPLIT SQUAD command which would be followed by a drop down menu asking how many men to split off, and which men. I don't think that is realistic. They practices squad battle drills and didn't make it up on the fly, as Steve points out. Each nationality had its own SOPs; check out a Marine rifle squad on Iwo Jima; hey had three self-contained teams in a squad IIRC, each with a BAR and a mix of other support weapons.

There was probably some flexibility at a local level; in fact I am positive of it. But it was all rehearsed before they got to the battlefield. With the exception of green troops, or newly reconstituted troops. I'd like to see them mill around in confusion when given the SPLIT SQUAD command - like the new privates saying "huh? who do I go with?"

[pad152]

No, the player will not be able to modify Squad size. However, we have a lot more flexibility in offering alternative Squad compositions than we did in CMx1. This means we could have the standard organization as default and offer a special "Assault Configuration" (or what not) for the player to use. We aren't going to go hog wild with minor variations, but if there was a common alternative organization we will allow this. We also are allowing a LOT more flexibility to Order of Battle, which IMHO is the bigger issue.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Units outside of C&C are still within your control. They just won't benefit from being "in the loop", something which CMx1 couldn't simulate nearly as well.

OK

Because that violates ever sensible principle surrounding unit cohesion?

What is unit cohesion ? As per basic training each man has a primary and a secondary function (even a tertiary one). The men are trained to follow procedure the guestion is how much of the training manual procedures survived in the combat zone.

Er... I am unaware of that happening on any scale worth mentioning. It goes against all WWII military doctrine that I know of. No doubt some units did it, but I doubt it was on the fly.

Regular units one particular army at least used this expedient when conducting ad hoc counter attacks (then again in other instances they would use a more general ON ME command to take control of any unit within their reach to keep the momentum of the attack when reorganization would have stalled the attack). Another example is rolling up trenches and other positions. Men bearing automatics pair up with guys whose task was to throw the grenade and when it goes off the automatics guy sweeps the section.

Another example (admittedly a hyperbole) would be when Pzfausts were first introduced a guy (any guy) who knew German would read instructions while the guy (any guy) using the weapon would conduct his first live fire shoot against a live target.

All this relates also to the entire tactical and doctrinal aspect of said army. The premise was that at the end of the battle the (defensive) positions must remain in friendly hands so if a unit was beaten back it was obliged to take the positions back by any means necessary. And that meant that the most effective weapons (automatics) would be gathered in the shock unit which would spearhead the counterattack.

What I have read about are exceptional circumstances where the weapons would be switched around.

That would defeat your premise of experts within the unit.

That means 2nd Squad would still be 2nd Squad, but armed with lots more firepower than it ordinarily would.

Yes. But would the 2nd squad comprise of the same men it would comprise in the parade ground ?

I know the Finns did this quite a bit with some small units (Sissi?). IIRC we modeled it this way because it was pretty much defacto the way those units fought.

The practise was not limited to sissi units.

Besides, sissi units were mostly automatics anyway. smile.gif

You don't because you aren't allowed to micromanage your units. Yes, a sharpshooter/sniper should have a higher chance of hitting a leader.

IMO it should be their SOP to try and single out leaders.

[pad152]

No, the player will not be able to modify Squad size. However, we have a lot more flexibility in offering alternative Squad compositions than we did in CMx1. This means we could have the standard organization as default and offer a special "Assault Configuration" (or what not) for the player to use. We aren't going to go hog wild with minor variations, but if there was a common alternative organization we will allow this. We also are allowing a LOT more flexibility to Order of Battle, which IMHO is the bigger issue.I hope we could modify/customize a squad/team. The limits would be max size of a team/squad and man requirement for the weapon (LMG 2 man, HMG 4 man, etc). Example; Ability to edit the crew weapons from a pistol to a SMG for tank crews.

1. There was very little that could be edited in CM1 (change the color)! What will be able to edit in CMx2?

2. Any thoughs on ammo/fuel supplies (re-supply) infantry from a stock pile or truck, ammo carrier?

3. Ability to man/unman vehicles/weapons? Example: Start a mission with the tank crews in a building down the street from their tanks.

4. Any new mission types? raids, blow up a ammo/fuel dump, bridge, etc. Rescue mission find a downed airman, POWs.

5. Any New building types or objects. Expample: Ports, Docks, Airfields, Guard Towers?

6. What about Trains, Gun Boats, Staff Cars, Grounded Aircraft, horses, motorcycles, fuel carriers, repair vehicles, command vehicles?