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.
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.
< Message edited by Rob322 -- 2/27/2020 3:33:34 AM >