21 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

Note: this is an offshoot of a discussion started in the "Balancing ECM with Modules" thread (of which the opening post is a good and interesting read ), and was split off in order to heep that thread more on-topic.

First, a bit of background:
The Command Console (also called the Cockpit Command Console, and not to be confused with the Dual Cockpit Combat System or MWO's BattleMap/BattleGrid) is an electronic system described in Tactical Operations (one of the current BattleTech rulebooks) and associated with "command 'Mechs" like the AS7-D-DC Atlas, ON1-V-DC Orion, AWS-9Ma Awesome, and others.
It was lost to the IS around 2850, and recovered around 3030.

The device is generally found on Heavy and Assault 'Mechs (as there are mechanical benefits for doing so in BattleTech, and "to receive this benefit, however, the Command Console unit must be of the heavy or assault weight classes and feature Advanced Fire Control (which is an optional system on non-military units such as IndustrialMechs and Support Vehicles, but is incorporated automatically on all BattleMechs, Combat Vehicles, and Fighters)").

The system itself weighs three (3) tons and consumes one (1) critical space (normally, the one in the head of a 'Mech; "Cockpit Command Consoles must always be placed in the same location as the primary cockpit (usually the head of a ’Mech or the body of a vehicle)").

Due to its nature ("Actually little more than a second cockpit mounted behind the main console, the Cockpit Command Console allows a high-level commander to focus on “real time” strategy in the field, while largely leaving a unit’s operation to its pilot"), their focus on personal achievements and personal glory, and their nototious use of cramped and spartan cockpit setups, the Clans generally do not make use of Command Consoles.

So, what does the Command Console actually do in BattleTech?
-- It adds an initiative modifier for the player (likely having little/no bearing on MWO).
-- In certain situations (e.g. a critical hit against the primary cockpit), it can function as a sort of "extra life" for the 'Mech in question (again, likely having little/no bearing on MWO).
-- It can generate Ghost Targets (that is, sensor ghosts and false radar returns) within a 180 meter radius of the Console.
-- It can locate and establish an uplink with friendly or neutral satellites in orbit around the planet in question (assuming said satellites are above the area inhabited by the Console). There are a number of satellite types available, including:

• Communications: allows for "a comprehensive coordination of overlapping lines of fire"; increases [accuracy at] effective range (by expanding the "long" range bracket) by ~30 meters (1 hex)
  
• Resource: allows for "long-term ground-penetrating imagery comparisons" of terrain; improves knowledge of terrain features (geysers, sinkholes, hot spots, and so on)
  
• Navigation: allows for the "ability to find the optimal path through the terrain based on detailed images"; slight speed boost (+1 MP for some units) across certain paths
  
• Military: allows for the ability to detect minefields, as well as to detonate enemy-controlled, command/remote-detonated minefields
  
• Scientific: allows for map-wide ECCM (ECM Counter Mode) effects or map-wide Ghost Target generation effects, but not both
  
• Weather: allows for partial negation of weather effects against the unit's sensors and those of its allies

-- It can link to and monitor up to four (4) remote sensors deployed by a friendly unit from a distance of up to 2010 meters (67 hexes).
-- Unless using the SciSat ECCM ability against a single ECM Suite, an ECM suite can cut off a Command Console from satellites, remote sensors, and allied units (in much the same way as ECM would disrupt a C3 network).

---------------

So, the discussion: what are people's opinions as to what the Command Console could/should be able to do in MWO?

Personally, I feel that one thing it can/should do is be the means to expand the functionality of the BattleMap/BattleGrid by allowing one to become the Company Commander (as the eventual 12 'Mechs for 12v12 represents an IS Company), and allow for additional features (like calling in scouting/surveillance UAVs, air strikes, and "off-board" artillery strikes).

I am also of the opinion that the Command Console should have both its Ghost Target generation capability, as well as its Remote Sensor capability (as the PC Gamer article did mention "dropped-off detectors").

However, I think that one of the more interesting issues that the Console could face is how (and if) the satellite link and the various related abilities (especially the ECCM - how powerful it should be and whether or not it should remain map-wide) could/would be implemented.

Your thoughts?

[Khobai]

I'd like to see the command console have a variety of abilities which all cost some type of resource. That resource would regenerate slowly over time for each player and players could either choose "donate" their resources to a designated Commander or keep them for their own personal use. Additionally, capturing certain objectives on the map, like a hyperpulse generator, could contribute towards your team gaining resources at a faster rate.

Right now I feel one of the biggest weaknesses with the game is the lack of immersion. I dont feel like im fighting in the Battletech universe. The objectives we fight over quite frankly make no sense. Theres no allied vehicles or infantry. Theres no battletech-themed objectives like starports, mech repair bays, hyperpulse generators, lostech caches, etc... And I really think we need a game mode which not only immerses players more but also makes commanding your team and controlling objectives more important as well.

Edited by Khobai, 06 February 2013 - 04:42 PM.

[SouthernRex]

I thought this thread was about the game engine console brought about by "~" in most late 90's and early 00 shooter games. I was disappointed and then hit by a wall of text.

[Solis Obscuri]

Installs "PUG Boss" backseat driver who will offer valuable strategic advice such as "stick together", attempt to direct friendly units according to some convoluted master plan which has no bearing on anything currently happening on the battlefield and mostly involves marching along enemy enfilade positions, and offers vitriolic criticism of your loadout, tactics, and general competence as a mechwarrior.

[Blue Shadow]

Not sure if I understand you right Strum but, are you saying in TT the command console is operated remotely?

If so I think it would be a great opportunity to add a mini RST game to MWO, my idea would work like this: When a mech is equipped with a command console it would enable a 9th or 13th team member to participate in the match as a commander. This commander would have access to a more detailed Battlegrid and extensive commands, and would play out like a RTS game giving individual commands to players - setting waypoints for them and so on. Controlling scouting drones, ghost signature and calling in airstrikes/artillery too perhaps? The commander could also "spectate" through the eyes of any mech with a command console at anytime. If all mechs with a command console are destroyed, then the commander is considered a casualty and will spectate like any other player. - I think this would be great fun for players that like strategy and would free up the mechworriors from commanding so they can focus on piloting their mech :-)

[Khobai]

Quote

If so I think it would be a great opportunity to add a mini RST game to MWO, my idea would work like this: When a mech is equipped with a command console it would enable a 9th or 13th team member to participate in the match as a commander. This commander would have access to a more detailed Battlegrid and extensive commands, and would play out like a RTS game giving individual commands to players - setting waypoints for them and so on. Controlling scouting drones, ghost signature and calling in airstrikes/artillery too perhaps? The commander could also "spectate" through the eyes of any mech with a command console at anytime. If all mechs with a command console are destroyed, then the commander is considered a casualty and will spectate like any other player. - I think this would be great fun for players that like strategy and would free up the mechworriors from commanding so they can focus on piloting their mech :-)

Honestly I dont think its a problem to have the Commander also pilot his own mech. Its just the abilities of the Commander have to be strong enough to justify effectively taking one of your mechs out of commision to command the rest of the team. And then in an emergency or if his team is losing the Commander might make the decision to directly engage in the battle.

[Team Leader]

Automatic headshots and an extra 20 tons of weapons.

[Team Leader]

Strum Wealh, on 06 February 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:

• Scientific: allows for map-wide ECCM (ECM Counter Mode) effects or map-wide Ghost Target generation effects, but not both

... heh heh heh. YES.

Blue Shadow, on 06 February 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

Not sure if I understand you right Strum but, are you saying in TT the command console is operated remotely?

If so I think it would be a great opportunity to add a mini RST game to MWO, my idea would work like this: When a mech is equipped with a command console it would enable a 9th or 13th team member to participate in the match as a commander. This commander would have access to a more detailed Battlegrid and extensive commands, and would play out like a RTS game giving individual commands to players - setting waypoints for them and so on. Controlling scouting drones, ghost signature and calling in airstrikes/artillery too perhaps? The commander could also "spectate" through the eyes of any mech with a command console at anytime. If all mechs with a command console are destroyed, then the commander is considered a casualty and will spectate like any other player. - I think this would be great fun for players that like strategy and would free up the mechworriors from commanding so they can focus on piloting their mech :-)

This is how I see it

[Strig]

Just a few thoughts...

Strum Wealh, on 06 February 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:

-- It adds an initiative modifier for the player (likely having little/no bearing on MWO).

Initiative modifier could easily be target acquisition and/or target information gathering speed bonuses.

Strum Wealh, on 06 February 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:

-- In certain situations (e.g. a critical hit against the primary cockpit), it can function as a sort of "extra life" for the 'Mech in question (again, likely having little/no bearing on MWO).

Could double internal structure value of cockpit (emulating the need to "cockpit" both pilots).

[Strum Wealh]

Blue Shadow, on 06 February 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

Not sure if I understand you right Strum but, are you saying in TT the command console is operated remotely?

No.
Quite the opposite, actually - in TT, the Command Console turns a normal single-pilot BattleMech into a two-seater, with the primary cockpit and the Command Console having duplicated controls and the latter having some extra command-related functions.
In a sense, it would probably become a single player controlling two MechWarriors (Primary Pilot and Company Commander) who are both sitting in the head of a single BattleMech (for example, the Primary Pilot of a Console-equipped Atlas might be behind the left eye, and the Company Commander with the Console might be behind the right eye of the same Atlas).
Hence the "extra life" point - if the Primary Pilot is killed/incapacitated (by a critical hit to the critical slot containing the primary cockpit, for example), the Company Commander in the "extra" Command Console "cockpit" can take over and pilot the 'Mech.

-----

Khobai, on 06 February 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

I'd like to see the command console have a variety of abilities which all cost some type of resource. That resource would regenerate slowly over time for each player and players could either choose "donate" their resources to a designated Commander or keep them for their own personal use. Additionally, capturing certain objectives on the map, like a hyperpulse generator, could contribute towards your team gaining resources at a faster rate.

Right now I feel one of the biggest weaknesses with the game is the lack of immersion. I dont feel like im fighting in the Battletech universe. The objectives we fight over quite frankly make no sense. Theres no allied vehicles or infantry. Theres no battletech-themed objectives like starports, mech repair bays, hyperpulse generators, lostech caches, etc... And I really think we need a game mode which not only immerses players more but also makes commanding your team and controlling objectives more important as well.

I imagine that the resource costs would come in somewhat less direct forms.

For example, the previously-linked remote sensors (assuming PGI uses these as the model for their "detectors") would need to be deployed by a remote sensor dispenser (weighs 0.5 tons and carries 30 sensors each) carried forward by a scout 'Mech (or NPC support vehicle?) and deposited in the designated area(s).
Obviously, each sensor would have some cost associated with it (the dispenser and 30 sensors is 25000 C-bills, so each sensor perhaps costs between 700 and 800 C-bills).
Though, perhaps deploying the sensors and having them pick up enemy movement might add to the spotting bonus (with said bonus growing larger as the distance from one's own base increases), in a manner similar to Narc or TAG?
The question there is, "How does one make such work - and the associated risk - worth the scouts' while without being too abusable"?

By contrast, air strikes and off-board artillery could cost C-bills, as well (in addition to being limited in use, explainable as "we've only got so many shells!" or "the ASFs and VTOLS only have so much fuel!")... with that cost being levied as a flat per-attack fee against the whole team.
The fee (deducted from each member's earnings) would be small enough so as to not break the bank even on a loss, but wouldn't be so small as to be trivial.
The question then becomes, "Should the Company Commander call in the rain to soften the opponent up (and save on R&R costs, assuming R&R returns by that point), or should we rely on our own munitions (and save on support costs)?"

[Taizan]

I'd say it will give the "Take Command" commander more map tools at his disposal. Sth. like drones, artillery strike placement, unit health on the map etc.

[StalaggtIKE]

Strum Wealh, on 06 February 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:

• Scientific: allows for map-wide ECCM (ECM Counter Mode) effects or map-wide Ghost Target generation effects, but not both

..., this.


Mwahahahaahhahaaaaa!!!

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 06 February 2013 - 07:47 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

Strum Wealh, on 06 February 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

By contrast, air strikes and off-board artillery could cost C-bills, as well (in addition to being limited in use, explainable as "we've only got so many shells!" or "the ASFs and VTOLS only have so much fuel!")... with that cost being levied as a flat per-attack fee against the whole team.
The fee (deducted from each member's earnings) would be small enough so as to not break the bank even on a loss, but wouldn't be so small as to be trivial.
The question then becomes, "Should the Company Commander call in the rain to soften the opponent up (and save on R&R costs, assuming R&R returns by that point), or should we rely on our own munitions (and save on support costs)?"

Pug Boss will just burn all his team's airstrikes trying to hit the opposing team's spawn location as soon as the match begins.
While yelling at his own team to "stay put" and "stick together" while they stand under an artillery barrage in their own base.

[Strum Wealh]

Quote

• Scientific: allows for map-wide ECCM (ECM Counter Mode) effects...

Team Leader, on 06 February 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

... heh heh heh. YES.

StalaggtIKE, on 06 February 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

..., this.


Mwahahahaahhahaaaaa!!!

As it happens, a possible discussion as to whether the SciSats' ECCM capability should be map-wide (as in TT) or not was part of why this thread was created in the first place.

Strum Wealh, on 06 February 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

Well, what the book (Tactical Operations, page 195) actually says with specific regard to Scientific Satellites (one of six different types described) is:
"The sensors that monitor the various types of energies produced by a planet can be turned into a large scale ECCM suite (see ECCM, p. 100) or Ghost Target generating suite (see Ghost Targets, p. 101), for the controlling player’s side; the controlling player must nominate which effect will be used and it occurs for the duration of the use of that satellite (i.e. you cannot switch between abilities). For an ECCM, a scientific Satellite equals a single ECCM suite, but it covers the entire playing area. For Ghost Target generation, the controlling player must make the standard Piloting Skill Roll at the start of each turn, but at a +4 modifier in place of the standard +2; like the ECCM field, it covers the entire playing area."

As to implementation, my opinion would be that the Console's SciSat-derived ECCM should be able to nullify any ECM field that is not supported by another ECM field within 180 meters of the first. However, it two or more enemy ECMs form overlapping bubbles (such that each enemy ECM generator would actually be within the others' bubbles), then the ECM effect should prevail.

As such, the Console (together with the SciSat) would be able to defeat any ECM suite one-on-one, but the opponents would be able to utilize their ECM suites in spite of the Console and its SciSat by remaining clustered together (which limits their mobility and tactical options).

Also, it should be noted that the Command Console is fully described in TacOps; its basic rules are the advanced rules, so it doesn't separate so cleanly as certain other items (like Beagle and Guardian).


"BattleMechs are also not islands unto themselves. They can share sensor data to some extent, allowing greater sensory performance than a single ’Mech can achieve. The specialized equipment of a C3 system takes this to new heights with direct battlefield applications, but all BattleMechs can at least receive basic sensory data from a unit mate."
(TechManual, pg. 39)

As it happens, all 'Mechs are canonically able to share at least some data with each other by default, while C3 should provide them with the ability to share more data as well as actually assist each other with targeting (implementable as bonuses to convergence speed and/or decreased missile spread, perhaps... ):
"As long as effective weapon ranges and lines of fire permit, a member of a C3 network can essentially strike at a target with the same accuracy as the nearest friendly network member. Moreover, units that mount a C3 master computer—with the other network members using slave nodes—can use the computer’s coordination as an improvised TAG system."
(TechManual, pg. 209)

Gaan Cathal, on 06 February 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

I thank you for the C3 explanation, makes sense.

However on the SciSat ECCM front, all you would do is mandate a minimum of 2 ECM per team. Battlefield-wide anything is bad, especially a hard counter. All you're really telling me there is that whatever C3 stuff is implemented, SciSats as per TT need to not be on the list.

[Old Trees]

I think ghost signatures would be fantastic. Imagine this: In the middle of a firefight you see a damage arrow, so you turn to find...nothing. You see several enemy radar signatures, but you see no mechs. In reality your are just in the realm of influence of a command console.

Make ECM and BAP counter it, and it would be worth while, you render nearby brawler types less effective, and LRM boats without support have to blind fire. Since all mechs can have BAP it would force people to use more slots, discouraging min/max.

Ensure that it cannot be present with ECM or BAP though, keep the game of rock, paper scissors going.

[Strum Wealh]

Old Trees, on 07 February 2013 - 05:22 AM, said:

I think ghost signatures would be fantastic. Imagine this: In the middle of a firefight you see a damage arrow, so you turn to find...nothing. You see several enemy radar signatures, but you see no mechs. In reality your are just in the realm of influence of a command console.

Make ECM and BAP counter it, and it would be worth while, you render nearby brawler types less effective, and LRM boats without support have to blind fire. Since all mechs can have BAP it would force people to use more slots, discouraging min/max.

Ensure that it cannot be present with ECM or BAP though, keep the game of rock, paper scissors going.

TT-wise, the counter to Ghost Targets (which could also be generated by ECM Suites as a third mode of operation) was the Active Probes (that is, Beagle and its Clan equivalent, and Beagle's successor "Bloodhound").

From a MWO standpoint, my personal opinion would be to leave it that way - FWIW, I for one would be happy to let seeing through Ghost Targets be Beagle's "unique thing" that it and only it offers.

More pertinently: should Ghost Target generation be made likewise unique to Command Consoles, or should the ability be (per TT) shared with Guardian (which would constitute a third mode of operation, thus making the ECM suite incapable of Disrupt or Counter operations while generating Ghost Targets) and Communications Equipment (if implemented)?

Moreover: "Just as standard ECM functions cease when inside an enemy ECCM field, an ECM cannot generate ghost targets if the amount of friendly ECCM in a hex is less than the enemy ECCM in that hex." (Tactical Operations, pg. 102)
Given that statement (even though it does not explicitly include Consoles or CommEq): should Console-generated Ghost Targets be likewise dispelled by an enemy ECCM (enemy ECM operating in Counter mode, SciSat-linked enemy Consoles, or sufficient amounts of enemy CommEq)?

[MustrumRidcully]

Personally, I think it could give one simple advantage - grant one extra module slot. SOme future modules will also involve things like artillery strikes and so on - it makes perfect sense to me that these modules best represent the kind of advantages a Unit Commander with a Command Console could give.

[Khanahar]

MustrumRidcully, on 07 February 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

Personally, I think it could give one simple advantage - grant one extra module slot. SOme future modules will also involve things like artillery strikes and so on - it makes perfect sense to me that these modules best represent the kind of advantages a Unit Commander with a Command Console could give.

This was my first thought on reading the OP. I was thinking +2 module slots, but it kinda depends on exactly how powerful they are.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khanahar, on 07 February 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

This was my first thought on reading the OP. I was thinking +2 module slots, but it kinda depends on exactly how powerful they are.

If the ARtillery Strike variations will be consumable, I could see even +2 (if it was limited to consumable modules).

[Lindinho]

Why not merging two functions already implemented in the game? First there is already a tactical map you can place icons on and direct your team members. Second, riding with a Mech as a "Hitchhiker" is implemented as well (as soon as you are dead). Those two functions could be combined with a Command Console. But wait! There is one big problem. How can matchmaking find a D-DC Atlas Pilot and another Pilot (without own Mech) willing to drive with him? Maybe one day the Devs find a solution.

Regards,

Lindinho