Land units into bunker

[arrianos]

Is there any way to simulate land units to avoid air stirke in current version?To place units into woods,valleys?what if there's no such shelter in th surface?

The ideal way is to set a underground base to land units,this is vey similiar with airbase or naval base technically.

[Gunner98]

You can use a comms or similar bunker and add weapons and sensors to it (binos etc) - not ideal but it works

[tjhkkr]

Adding to Gunner's suggestion, there are plenty of pillboxes and facilities that are 5 damage points and so on. Not mobile, and not ideal, but look around and you find a large assortment of stuff.
Also, I generally give false targets for the enemy to bomb as well so that there is a certain amount of fog of war.

[arrianos]

Thanks for the replies!Hope this feature can be added to the futural version,technically it's similiar with air and naval bases.

[SeaQueen]

It depends. Many ground units are highly abstracted; infantry, for example. With them, I've always figured the database assumed a certain amount of concealment, entrenchment, bunkering and what not in the signatures, spacial dispersion and probability of hit figures.

Command isn't very good at

ORIGINAL: arrianos

Is there any way to simulate land units to avoid air stirke in current version?To place units into woods,valleys?what if there's no such shelter in th surface?

The ideal way is to set a underground base to land units,this is vey similiar with airbase or naval base technically.

[Rob322]

When this version was being readied for release, there was the acknowledgement by the developers that while they've added a lot to land units from CMANO, there's still a lot that is lacking from making CMO a true simulation of how ground forces would actually behave in a real situation. I also remember that they stated they planned to improve aspects of modern warfare further as time went on. Even with the improvements there's still a lot of things land units could/would do that aren't in the game at all or must be micromanaged excessively which would make bigger scenarios pretty challenging to play. Having different terrain types where it's more or less difficult to spot units though has been pretty cool. I spent some time trying to dig a mech unit out of a town with some attack helos and it was a lot more interesting than in CMANO but being able to have leg infantry occupy a structure or have improved positions that could be occupied by ground forces would only add to the experience. It has definitely come along though and I'm looking forward to seeing where they end up with it. I'd love to see things like roads and rail lines be something ground forces seek to move along but also things that can be targeted, bridges, tunnels, that are used as they are IRL but are also targets as they often are for airpower.

[SeaQueen]

The problem is that you're ignoring a fundamental question. When you say, "a true simulation of how ground forces would actually behave in a real situation," in order to be accurate, it needs to be caveated with something like, "at the company level," or "at the battalion level," etc. A battalion, for example, doesn't "occupy a structure," unless it is one hell of a big building!

Right now, a single ground unit typically represents a platoon or smaller formation (a section or team). From my perspective, that really means that you're looking to represent companies and battalions (which are formations of platoons). Regiments and brigades is probably a pretty big scenario.

I agree that Command currently leaves a lot to be desired in the ground domain. For example, mines, smoke, and obstacles are a huge deal in military operations. If you wanted to do an amphibious assault or breaching operation, you'd need to have all that. Roads, as you mentioned, are another biggie. I'm skeptical that C:MO will ever be the tool of choice for ground warfare, though. Things like suppression, for example, are major drivers on the ground. Attrition on the other hand, is actually not a driver the same way it is in war at sea or in the skies. It's fundamentally a completely different type of operation than what Command is currently designed around, which is basically precision strategic strikes and missile warfare.

-Sarah

ORIGINAL: Rob322

When this version was being readied for release, there was the acknowledgement by the developers that while they've added a lot to land units from CMANO, there's still a lot that is lacking from making CMO a true simulation of how ground forces would actually behave in a real situation. I also remember that they stated they planned to improve aspects of modern warfare further as time went on. Even with the improvements there's still a lot of things land units could/would do that aren't in the game at all or must be micromanaged excessively which would make bigger scenarios pretty challenging to play. Having different terrain types where it's more or less difficult to spot units though has been pretty cool. I spent some time trying to dig a mech unit out of a town with some attack helos and it was a lot more interesting than in CMANO but being able to have leg infantry occupy a structure or have improved positions that could be occupied by ground forces would only add to the experience. It has definitely come along though and I'm looking forward to seeing where they end up with it. I'd love to see things like roads and rail lines be something ground forces seek to move along but also things that can be targeted, bridges, tunnels, that are used as they are IRL but are also targets as they often are for airpower.

[Rob322]

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

The problem is that you're ignoring a fundamental question. When you say, "a true simulation of how ground forces would actually behave in a real situation," in order to be accurate, it needs to be caveated with something like, "at the company level," or "at the battalion level," etc. A battalion, for example, doesn't "occupy a structure," unless it is one hell of a big building!

Right now, a single ground unit typically represents a platoon or smaller formation (a section or team). From my perspective, that really means that you're looking to represent companies and battalions (which are formations of platoons). Regiments and brigades is probably a pretty big scenario.

I agree that Command currently leaves a lot to be desired in the ground domain. For example, mines, smoke, and obstacles are a huge deal in military operations. If you wanted to do an amphibious assault or breaching operation, you'd need to have all that. Roads, as you mentioned, are another biggie. I'm skeptical that C:MO will ever be the tool of choice for ground warfare, though. Things like suppression, for example, are major drivers on the ground. Attrition on the other hand, is actually not a driver the same way it is in war at sea or in the skies. It's fundamentally a completely different type of operation than what Command is currently designed around, which is basically precision strategic strikes and missile warfare.

-Sarah

ORIGINAL: Rob322

When this version was being readied for release, there was the acknowledgement by the developers that while they've added a lot to land units from CMANO, there's still a lot that is lacking from making CMO a true simulation of how ground forces would actually behave in a real situation. I also remember that they stated they planned to improve aspects of modern warfare further as time went on. Even with the improvements there's still a lot of things land units could/would do that aren't in the game at all or must be micromanaged excessively which would make bigger scenarios pretty challenging to play. Having different terrain types where it's more or less difficult to spot units though has been pretty cool. I spent some time trying to dig a mech unit out of a town with some attack helos and it was a lot more interesting than in CMANO but being able to have leg infantry occupy a structure or have improved positions that could be occupied by ground forces would only add to the experience. It has definitely come along though and I'm looking forward to seeing where they end up with it. I'd love to see things like roads and rail lines be something ground forces seek to move along but also things that can be targeted, bridges, tunnels, that are used as they are IRL but are also targets as they often are for airpower.

Well I just chose to ignore it because the game itself feels a little ambiguous on the topic of scale and so I don't necessarily think there's one answer on the question of scale. It's clearly a tactical level game on some levels. For instance maneuvering an individual plane and dropping individual pieces of ordinance is highly tactical. Ground forces also appear to be at a scale most would consider tactical (platoons or sections) but you can still group them together into a larger formation, just as you can groups of planes and ships.

Still, with all this tactical level design, you often see scenarios, both stock and community created, that are far larger than a tactical engagement, sometimes spanning 1000's of miles and including multiple types of assests, land, sea, under the sea, air and satellites. This gives the player a good deal of operational or even a strategic role of command, yet the game is still operating an essentially tactical level, recording each bomb drop, missile launch and the movement of every artillery shell, even though in a real strategic game such events would be deeply abstracted for two key reasons; A) processing power and B) information overload for the commander (player). Now the use of the mission editor can help a player manager their hordes more effectively but the game is still counting everything moving across the map.

Obviously you're not going to have a whole battalion in a building, in fact you probably wouldn't have a full platoon in a single family house as one well placed artillery shell could really foul up the platoon. My point wasn't to talk scale, it was about showing there's much about realistic land combat, which is true regardless of scale, that the game doesn't work with. To me, scale is a different topic and one that can and should be discussed irrespective of whether we're focused on land combat or not because it's applicable to the whole game.

I do agree that I don't expect Command to get into all the particulars related to land combat as deeply as a dedicated land combat simulator would (although what the heck, I can dream) buy I am looking forward to seeing where they go with it.

[SeaQueen]

Well I just chose to ignore it because the game itself feels a little ambiguous on the topic of scale and so I don't necessarily think there's one answer on the question of scale. It's clearly a tactical level game on some levels. For instance maneuvering an individual plane and dropping individual pieces of ordinance is highly tactical. Ground forces also appear to be at a scale most would consider tactical (platoons or sections) but you can still group them together into a larger formation, just as you can groups of planes and ships.

Still, with all this tactical level design, you often see scenarios, both stock and community created, that are far larger than a tactical engagement, sometimes spanning 1000's of miles and including multiple types of assests, land, sea, under the sea, air and satellites. This gives the player a good deal of operational or even a strategic role of command, yet the game is still operating an essentially tactical level, recording each bomb drop, missile launch and the movement of every artillery shell, even though in a real strategic game such events would be deeply abstracted for two key reasons; A) processing power and B) information overload for the commander (player). Now the use of the mission editor can help a player manager their hordes more effectively but the game is still counting everything moving across the map.

You're right, the game is basically tactical, for land, sea and air. The very long ranges and speeds of modern aircraft and weapons imply that a wide geographic scope no longer characterizes the operational and strategic levels of warfare. You can easily build a scenario with global scope (e.g. B-52s flying in from Barksdale AFB to perform CAS for a platoon in Afghanistan) and it's still tactical. Command is probably best described as "tactical with operational elements."

Obviously you're not going to have a whole battalion in a building, in fact you probably wouldn't have a full platoon in a single family house as one well placed artillery shell could really foul up the platoon. My point wasn't to talk scale, it was about showing there's much about realistic land combat, which is true regardless of scale, that the game doesn't work with. To me, scale is a different topic and one that can and should be discussed irrespective of whether we're focused on land combat or not because it's applicable to the whole game.

You're right, and I think that's likely to always be the case. CMO is probably never going to be the game you play if you're interested in questions like, "How do I clear a building?" In my mind, it's really impossible to decouple the question of what portions of land combat are important from the scope question. It's probably possible to come up with multiple different answers to that question, all of which are perfectly reasonable. That's why there's lots of different games and simulations.

I do agree that I don't expect Command to get into all the particulars related to land combat as deeply as a dedicated land combat simulator would (although what the heck, I can dream) buy I am looking forward to seeing where they go with it.

If I was going to make my Command land-war Christmas list, the top 5 things would be: 1) Suppression of land units. 2) Smoke and 3) Land mines (and all their various means of being dispensed), 4) Chemical and biological weapons and 5) Better logistics.

I don't think modeling going in and out of buildings even makes the top 10.

[tjhkkr]

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen
The problem is that you're ignoring a fundamental question. When you say, "a true simulation of how ground forces would actually behave in a real situation," in order to be accurate, it needs to be caveated with something like, "at the company level," or "at the battalion level," etc. A battalion, for example, doesn't "occupy a structure," unless it is one hell of a big building!
Right now, a single ground unit typically represents a platoon or smaller formation (a section or team). From my perspective, that really means that you're looking to represent companies and battalions (which are formations of platoons). Regiments and brigades is probably a pretty big scenario.
I agree that Command currently leaves a lot to be desired in the ground domain. For example, mines, smoke, and obstacles are a huge deal in military operations. If you wanted to do an amphibious assault or breaching operation, you'd need to have all that. Roads, as you mentioned, are another biggie. I'm skeptical that C:MO will ever be the tool of choice for ground warfare, though. Things like suppression, for example, are major drivers on the ground. Attrition on the other hand, is actually not a driver the same way it is in war at sea or in the skies. It's fundamentally a completely different type of operation than what Command is currently designed around, which is basically precision strategic strikes and missile warfare.
-Sarah

I am not questioning your deductions here, but I will say with lua you can simulate rivers etc. But it would NEVER EVER be an easy piece of work.

Great discussion here.

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr
I am not questioning your deductions here, but I will say with lua you can simulate rivers etc. But it would NEVER EVER be an easy piece of work.

It's easier than that. Just use a "no nav" zone.