Matrix Games Forums

This discussion was brought up by a discussion of how ATGM is used, and I thought it was worth opening a thread to continue the discussion here

For brigade level commanders, I wouldn't want to go into the LOS of each vehicle individually, and I certainly wouldn't want to directly instruct my units on what weapons to use to fire on what enemy. Each unit will follow their training and know what they are supposed to do, which is certainly true.
So why would we players have the desire to give this unit the order to use certain weapons? I would not have an IFV fire on enemy infantry with an ATGM for no reason. But what if we fired with ATGM? The order to fire with ATGM was of course a decision I made as commander in the OODA cycle based on what I thought was reasonable. But, wait, that goes against our duty as brigade commanders. So we consciously think of ourselves as commanders in the IFV!

Is this a game design issue? I think yes, you designers want us as brigade commanders, and less micro, but in fact we have to "step into the vehicles" of a unit we command so that it can be used correctly "as we think". If I couldn't do that, I would be frustrated. Because I would find it "unreasonable" - when I consider that I am a member of the crew.
For example, we have to step into the tank platoon's M1A1, check its LOS, speculate on the direction of enemy attack, when in fact that is the brigade commander's concern? That's the company commander's business.
I think this post makes a good point in that it lays out how the brigade commander makes decisions.
https://www.reddit.com/r/computerwargam ... t/j6kf3do/

This is such a great post and my biggest gripe with most 'wargames'.
It's a problem for developers who have zero understanding of how real commanding is done / how the military decision making process is done. Most times developers rarely let the player just focus on their own echelon without bombarding them with things that are beyond their control in reality.
......
Commanding fireteams at the Battalion level in Combat Mission? No thanks - thats not what I want to EVER do as a Battalion commander. I want to focus on how my PLATOONS are setting conditions and achieving my intent.

Commanding scout sections as a Division Commander in Flashpoint Campaigns? GTFO. At the Brigade-level I'm not looking at anything beyond the COMPANY size. It's too much riff-raff to be focused on.

In real life, commanders maneuver forces 2-levels down. That means a Battalion commander focuses on maneuvering platoons while a brigade commander is focused on maneuvering companies. There's a reason why this idea exists.

My complaint about CM before reading this post was that there were too many micros, and now I think I've discovered what was really being missed, that FC has the same design problems.

I know it is unrealistic to expect FC to fix this problem in a short period of time, so my thought is that in the future FC will implement a practical enough "dynamic planning" function? For example, give a tank company in a certain location to defend against enemy attacks in a certain direction such orders, so that the FCSS AI will automatically perform? Then emphasize more off-field factors, such as logistics and other issues of real concern to brigade commanders.

Thanks to the developers for their efforts. I really want FC to be a truly unique game.

I think one of the attractive features of the game is that you can choose to take the 'big hand, small map' approach of Div/Bde Comd or get right into unit/sub-unit actions as long as you accept the limitations of both methodologies.

At higher command, setting objectives and lines of approach then letting the units get on with it works fine if you accept that you might end up watching AI fighting AI, and with some of the uncertainties of movement choice and behaviour under fire that may or may not be bugs you have a higher degree of friction. But map reading errors, vehicle breakdowns and unexpected behaviour is perfectly realistic if generalised like this. I would still like to see the Red Storm 'Inspect Group Waypoints' feature reinstated so that you can coord movement across multiple units at once which is what a Bde HQ would be doing. Having to view individual units to inspect waypoints and adjust delays for synchronisation drives you towards a lower level of command. We have not had GPS enabled situational awareness for that long so unit locations were only as good as the last LOCSTAT (I think 50% of BAOR radio traffic was 'where are you?' and 'I am at GRID...) so for late 80s combat the game gives you a god view that would have been hard to achieve in reality.

You can operate at a lower level if you wish if you accept that the long screwdriver approach creates more orders and therefore delay and EW visibility. But it is not unknown for a Bde Comd to position themselves at a Bn CP, or Bn CO at Coy/Sqn CP to better influence the battle - that's what Rover Gps and Tac HQ allow. If a player wants to be CO/OC of multiple units then the game allows it.

I think some would like the units in this simulation to behave exactly as ordered, but that would perhaps take the variety from uncertainty away. It might be a bug or you might just be in a German forest, at night, on a fold in the map.

PeterStep wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:41 pm

Allowing the player to intervene in the AI's command sounds more reasonable. I'm not sure what that Group Waypoints in FCRS is for, if it's a feature that allows the AI to set its own route, which is then checked and modified by the player, that's a very good thing.
I agree that it doesn't make sense for the player to have complete control over a unit, so to allow the player to feel comfortable leaving matters to the AI I think puts a high demand on the programmers, so I don't expect this feature to be implemented immediately.

Actually
In real life, commanders maneuver forces 2-levels down. That means a Battalion commander focuses on maneuvering platoons while a brigade commander is focused on maneuvering companies.
could be misinterpreted. Its 'think 2 down and 1 up' in my recollection. So a Bde Comd will do their combat estimate with Coy capabilities in mind but issue orders to Bn level for implementation of intent.

The design philosophy of the Flashpoint Campaigns system is to place the player in the position of Bn/Bde (and in some cases even Div) commander. That is why limited control is given to the lowest maneuver units such as plts for NATO and companies for WP. The problem that we have with this is that the current development of the AI can't do everything that you would expect the lower commanders to do (such as the placement of units and choosing the exact route). My biggest complaint in Red Storm was that the AI didn't know how to defend. The AI in Southern Storm is still weak in that area. There are times that the routes chosen by the AI or the final position of the maneuver units don't make sense. That is why we allow the player to adjust those specific items if they feel the need to. And in some ways that is still in keeping with the concept of letting the player wear the Bn/Bde commander's hat.

Our goal is to perfect this as we continue to develop the game. We have made some great strides in this direction with SS (IMHO). We have some ideas of things we can add into the game that would give the AI more "logical control" over these lower-level decisions. We have quite a few ideas on our wishlist and it will take time to develop them. However, we will that SS has placed us in a position to go in that direction.

cbelva wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 7:22 pm The design philosophy of the Flashpoint Campaigns system is to place the player in the position of Bn/Bde (and in some cases even Div) commander. That is why limited control is given to the lowest maneuver units such as plts for NATO and companies for WP. The problem that we have with this is that the current development of the AI can't do everything that you would expect the lower commanders to do (such as the placement of units and choosing the exact route). My biggest complaint in Red Storm was that the AI didn't know how to defend. The AI in Southern Storm is still weak in that area. There are times that the routes chosen by the AI or the final position of the maneuver units don't make sense. That is why we allow the player to adjust those specific items if they feel the need to. And in some ways that is still in keeping with the concept of letting the player wear the Bn/Bde commander's hat.

Our goal is to perfect this as we continue to develop the game. We have made some great strides in this direction with SS (IMHO). We have some ideas of things we can add into the game that would give the AI more "logical control" over these lower-level decisions. We have quite a few ideas on our wishlist and it will take time to develop them. However, we will that SS has placed us in a position to go in that direction.

I'm definitely a fan of the micromanagement balance. I feel like the brigade commander but have enough micromanagement that I don't tear my hair out.

Being able to modify multiple routes at the same time would be pretty great though. Select a group and be able to change different waypoints to Hasty/Deliberate at the same time and change delays etc. I'm sure you guys are working on that already though.

To clarify:
In FCRS you could select multiple units and inspect their waypoints simultaneously But in FCSS, while the same menu option is available it only returns the unit dashboard for one unit.
IMHO I think losing this capability is a retrograde step.

@Peterstep, Rob didn't include editing multiple waypoint's delay times because he didn't think anyone used it in Red Storm. You prior comments on this has enlightened him. We have it JIRA'ed in our to do list. When it will get done is anyone's guess at the moment. However, we have taken note of this.

Appreciated thank you