Tidbit about Fog of War

[Battlefront.com]

The scenario designer can designate units, either attacker or defender, as being "spotted". This allows CM to simulate, for the first time, prebattle intelligence in a very direct way. Here's how it works...

Scenario designer selects unit and toggles it to Spotted (probably different degrees of certainty). That's all there is to it!

When playing a battle the Defender sets up first. If it is a Meeting Engagement, one of the sides will be chosen (randomly?) to set up as if the Defender. The Attacker gets into the Setup Phase and whadda know... some kind God has exposed some of the Defender's units! How nice! Now the Attacker can deploy his forces with sure knowledge that the things spotted exist and are right where he sees them.

On the Defender's first turn the tables are turned. Now all the Attacking untis that were flagged as Spotted are shown, as well as any his own units have spotted on their own. This means the Defender gets to formulate his battle plan before issuing a single order.

On the Attacker's first turn he gets to see all the unit Spotted during Setup and anything his deployed units can see. This allows him to start his attack knowing, to some degree, what he is about to get into.

That's it! This should be quite a fun thing to play around with!

Obviously the scenario designer does not HAVE to flag units for prebattle Spotting. This is just an option. However, the pre Turn 1 spotting is automatic and happens all the time every time.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

WOW

OK

I think that is Pretty impressive

I think that might change the opening move "dynamics" of most battles!

interesting!

Would this system or new feature some how help "hint" the AI?
a scenario designer could set this up and desigante the Defender as the most appropriate AI opponent and then basically leave the attacker in a compromised position on start up. (meaning many attacking units are pre flagged as SPOTTED!)

Sorry I am confused

BUT what if the attacking player puts a unit OUT of LOS of the defender?? LIKE on the other side of a hill or something?
Does the Defender still see that unit WHERE EVER the attacker places it (EVEN out of the LOS of the defender?)

AGAIN WOW!!...

That one could be a VERY powerful feature for the AI as an attacker or defender as the human player "might" think the AI is Cheating becaues the AI as the pre battle spotting info from the " already spotted flag" (designation) being set on the human players units???

hmmmm

Could lead to calls from the newbies that the AI is cheating!
(but I am sure they have figured all these questions into the "Master Plan" he he) :D

very interesting

I can't wait to see the first Demo Scenario that features this new pre battle spotting feature, the human player will GET SMOKED by the AI and not even know what hit them! (I don't know if that kind of demo sells more games, but it sure would be a shocker and a surprise to NEW players! AGAIN watch for claims of "THE AI CHEATS!!! :mad: )

-tom w

[ August 25, 2005, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
The scenario designer can designate units, either attacker or defender, as being "spotted". This allows CM to simulate, for the first time, prebattle intelligence in a very direct way.Cool! :cool:

I don't suppose there's any way to implement this in QBs though (assuming those are still in the game)?

Michael

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
On the Defender's first turn ... all the Attacking untis that were flagged as Spotted are shown, as well as any his own units have spotted on their own. ...

On the Attacker's first turn he gets to see all the unit Spotted during Setup and anything his deployed units can see. ...Nice. Elegant. smile.gif

When does each side stop seeing units that were flagged as Spotted, assuming they are otherwise out of LOS.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
The scenario designer can designate units, either attacker or defender, as being "spotted". This allows CM to simulate, for the first time, prebattle intelligence in a very direct way.Cool! :cool:

I don't suppose there's any way to implement this in QBs though (assuming those are still in the game)?

Michael </font>[/QUOTE]Randomly you mean? That would be cool - pick 0 10, 20, 30 percent etc. of enemy units spotted before game start.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:
When does each side stop seeing units that were flagged as Spotted, assuming they are otherwise out of LOS. How about if they move to a new position without entering the LOS of an unfriendly unit?

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Randomly you mean?Not necessarily. How about you get to designate a certain limited area of the map at set-up, which would represent some place your patrols had reconned, and any enemy units in that area would be revealed.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Does the Defender still see that unit WHERE EVER the attacker places it (EVEN out of the LOS of the defender?)Yes. This simulates prebattle intel that might have nothing to do with LOS. For example, aerial observation, spies, intercepted radio transmissions, etc.

After the initial spotting, then LOS kicks in. So the Attacker during Setup will see various things no matter what the LOS is, but as soon as he hits "Go!" all bets are off. He might not have LOS to that thing and by the time he spots it again it might be somewhere totally different. The only Intel you can rely upon are fixed fortifications and the fact that if you see it you know he has it. Other than that... you're on your own :D

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

We could do something for Quick Battles. It would just be a simple "this side gets to spot x% of the enemy's units, this side gets to spot y%". The choice of which units to spot or not spot would be randomly determined, perhaps with a tad bit of logic (i.e. fixed stuff has a higher chance).

We can't afford to make this anything more than a "simple" additional feature, so let's not get carried away with 1001 ways to make this more complicated :D

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Now thats FOG of WAR!!

Sounds Great

But are there "False Positives?"

"After the initial spotting, then LOS kicks in. So the Attacker during Setup will see various things no matter what the LOS is, but as soon as he hits "Go!" all bets are off. He might not have LOS to that thing and by the time he spots it again it might be somewhere totally different. The only Intel you can rely upon are fixed fortifications and the fact that if you see it you know he has it. Other than that... you're on your own"
-Steve

Like you have pre-battle intel of a spotted unit that is NOT present on the battle field anywhere. (counter intel intel he he) ?

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

"We can't afford to make this anything more than a "simple" additional feature, so let's not get carried away with 1001 ways to make this more complicated "

Oh Come ON!
:D

you just KNEW that was going to happen!

he he

smile.gif

-tom w

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
We could do something for Quick Battles. It would just be a simple "this side gets to spot x% of the enemy's units, this side gets to spot y%". The choice of which units to spot or not spot would be randomly determined, perhaps with a tad bit of logic (i.e. fixed stuff has a higher chance).I'd also suggest that you (well, the program) 'clumps' the spotted units together in some fashion, so you (the player receiving the intel) gets fairly good intel about one section of the line, rather than spotting x% of the enemies force across the eitire front.

You might use HQs ... for example; Lt Snooks is randomly picked to be the spotted unit, and all units under his command (brown lines) are spotted too. Everyone else stays hidden.

Regards
JonS

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
We could do something for Quick Battles. It would just be a simple "this side gets to spot x% of the enemy's units, this side gets to spot y%". The choice of which units to spot or not spot would be randomly determined, perhaps with a tad bit of logic (i.e. fixed stuff has a higher chance).I'd also suggest that you (well, the program) 'clumps' the spotted units together in some fashion, so you (the player receiving the intel) gets fairly good intel about one section of the line, rather than spotting x% of the enemies force across the eitire front.

You might use HQs ... for example; Lt Snooks is randomly picked to be the spotted unit, and all units under his command (brown lines) are spotted too. Everyone else stays hidden.

Regards
JonS </font>[/QUOTE]From a gameplay standpoint, that kind of kills the suspense. Wouldn't it be more exciting if you didn't know whether those spotted units across your front were an entire platoon, or just one squad each from several platoons?

It seems unlikely that intelligence be able to ascertain that x group of trenches here and y group of trenches there are from 1 Platoon, A Company, 2nd Battalion of "X" Regiment....

For example, given this (X= spotted squad)


<---------------Width of Map---------------->
.
.
.
.
.....X......X........X
.
.
.
.

It could mean either (X=unspotted squad)

<---------------Width of Map---------------->
.
.
. <-------Company Position-------->
.
.....XX.X.X.X....X.X.X
.
.
.
.

or this


<---------------Width of Map---------------->
.
.
. <---------Platoon Position----->
.
.....X......X........X
.
.
.
.

[Tarkus]

Nice feature Steve.

But just to make sure I get it right, will it be dependant on player FoW setting ? or better yet, an option ?

I mean, wouldn't it be best to either allow for FoW to be active on these before-the-battle spotting occurences, or at least be set by the player when he starts a battle ? so as to keep a measure of uncertainty ? That way a spotted Tiger or bunker could or could not be exactly *there* or *that*. (Edit: ...so as to simulate varying quality in intellignence... that way the player/designer could simply set an "intelligence factor" from say, "poor" to "excellent")

I'm pretty sure this is what you have in mind, but just to clarify...

Cheers

[ August 25, 2005, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[Battlefront.com]

Jon,

I'd also suggest that you (well, the program) 'clumps' the spotted units together in some fashion, so you (the player receiving the intel) gets fairly good intel about one section of the line, rather than spotting x% of the enemies force across the eitire front. Besides this being the type of thing we aren't going to get ourselves roped into doing ;) , it isn't any more realistic than having randomly spotted units all over the place. In fact, it is more likely that you'd know about a unit here and there than a whole bunch in one spot.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

yes good question

I too find my self uncertain of how the FoW setting would impact or influence this feature.

The player could be confounded by mulitple levels of conflicting FoW intel AND pre -battle spotting if the concept of what is known, what can be known, what is unknown and what cannot be deduced from what is observed is NOT clearly understood by the player during the set up.

OTHERWISE some folks might suggest the AI is cheating or the game is broken or lieing to me (or some such crap because they did not read the manual RTFM :D )

-tom w

Originally posted by Tarkus:
Nice feature Steve.

But just to make sure I get it right, will it be dependant on player FoW setting ? or better yet, an option ?

I mean, wouldn't it be best to either allow for FoW to be active on these before-the-battle spotting occurences, or at least be set by the player when he starts a battle ? so as to keep a measure of uncertainty ? That way a spotted Tiger or bunker could or could not be exactly *there* or *that*.

I'm pretty sure this is what you have in mind, but just to clarify...

Cheers

[SgtMuhammed]

Something to consider along these lines for quick battles could be the ability to spend points for intel which would affect the number of spotted enemy units.

[Blah Blah Blah]

Will there be a error margin on pre battle intel regarding the exact location of that unit when not in line of site?

That is, I see the enemy tank as being over near that clump of trees, where as in reality it is a few hundred metres to the right of the trees?

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
From a gameplay standpoint, that kind of kills the suspense. Wouldn't it be more exciting if you didn't know whether those spotted units across your front were an entire platoon, or just one squad each from several platoons?
Well, I see what you mean, but disagree. Consider it this way: You know that there is a platoon-sized unit over *there*. Is that the cornerstone of a company posn, or a lone pn on outpost duty. You know a lot about one piece of the picture, and have to infer or fight for the the rest.

Your way, you potentially end up knowing a little about all the enemies positions: 'ok, we've got a unit there, there, two there, and another back there. Well, he's not likely to have scattered units on their own, so it looks like two pns fwd and one in depth.'

BTW ... I'm assuming that you'll know there is 'something' there, and some generic info (infantry, spt weapon, lt veh, hvy veh, etc), but not whether you're looking at an elite section of 12 fit men here, a pn HQ with 4 veterans there, etc.

It seems unlikely that intelligence be able to ascertain that x group of trenches here and y group of trenches there are from 1 Platoon, A Company, 2nd Battalion of "X" Regiment....I agree. That is very unlikely. See my comments preceeding your quoted words. The HQ example I gave previously was merely an expedient way of clumping the spotted units together in a geographical way. There are other ways to do geographical clumping though. Perhaps 'buy' spotting capability, which allows you to designate a cicle on the map to gain intel about, annd which then displays x% of the units therein.

I guess it depends on whethr you think intel assets (of whatever type) are distributed uniformly and evenly across the front (as Steve seems to think), or used as more of a focussed resource (which I do).

In practice, though, both approaches are used. It's a spectrum, and I believe the weight is at the 'focus' end. A patrol that goes out to observe the enemy is generally given a speific place to go observe (that hill, that wood, that bldg, that village, etc) would watch for all enemy acty in that area. An enemy unit that left itself open to aerial photography would tend to focus attention on itself and from that attention give all of itself away. Etc.

I don't think a patrol would cruise across the entire frontage of the enemy, spotting one unit, thinking that was enough, then moving on 100m to see what else it could see.

OTOH, since I hardly ever play QBs I don't really care all that much, either way :D Still, the placeable 'intel circles' idea could be used under player control in scenarios too.

*shrug*

Jon

[ August 25, 2005, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Battlefront.com]

I like how you guys skipped over my disclaimer about how far we are going to take this feature :D Seriously though... we could spend a week solid coding up all sorts of cool little options and special case conditions. But that is probably true of a few dozen ideas. We therefore have to limit what we do or the game will never be done. What we can do is add to features like this over time.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Jon, I tend to agree with you. Depending on what sort of intel gathering method was used you'd get a different type of picture back of the enemy. However, remember that we're talking about frontages of only a few hundred meters (usually). It is not unreasonable to assume that you'd get a little bit of info from a lot of different places. Company HQ over here spotted a bunker, patrol from 1st Platoon sees a tank over there, patrol from 2nd platoon sees bunch of infantry in front of it, etc. Without doing some major coding effort to simulate stuff like this we're stuck with something that is a bit abstracted. But then again, the whole game is abstracted to some extent ;)

Steve

[Pzman]

This sounds great, everything I'm hearing today about CMx2 is just making my mouth water. :D

[JonS]

* nods *

Yes, scale is important. I suppose, then, it depends on what you think the mostly likely size of maps and number of units will be. I'm thinking of frontages around the 1,000m mark.

Also, my gut reaction is that being able to see units across the entire front will kind of spoil suspense. It will depend on the x in x% of course, but even at fairly low %s I think that using 'even spread' you will get a fairly accurate picture of the enemies overall dispositions.

Would it be hard to set it up as able to do either 'even spread' or 'hq-based clumping', then have the engine randomly pick one each time it's used, so a player won't know which was used - though you'll proabbly be able to tell.

Don't worry, I know I'm descending into details, and don't really expect an answer ;) But this touches on one of the other things I'm hoping you'll beef up for CMx2, and that is more randomness and variation throughout the game, including things like visibility though woods or fog changing from turn to turn, some buildings been essentially indestructible for no apparent reason, times to move through obstacles varying from one unit to the next (for units of the same type), raes of fire varying, reload times varying, etc etc. And with the bell-curves for units becoming taller (more concentrated about the centre) with experience, but still allowing Elite to do something as dumb as a Conscript, and vice versa (even if very unlikely), and both having the same 'average' time to complete activities.

Crikey. That got long quick. I guess like this forum, and the 680 posts in it already, it's a good example of the pent-up interest in this game finally finding an outlet smile.gif

Regards
JonS

[dalem]

Originally posted by JonS:
Crikey. That got long quick. I guess like this forum, and the 680 posts in it already, it's a good example of the pent-up interest in this game finally finding an outlet smile.gif

Regards
JonS It's like lifting up Salma Hayek's dress and finding Penelope Cruz and a pizza under there too.

So much to think about!

-dale

[JonS]

Oh god Dale - I don't know whether to laugh, drool, or throw up!

[aka_tom_w]

OK

Thanks for the clarity

this sort of helps...

"After the initial spotting, then LOS kicks in. So the Attacker during Setup will see various things no matter what the LOS is, but as soon as he hits "Go!" all bets are off. He might not have LOS to that thing and by the time he spots it again it might be somewhere totally different. "

thanks

it will be interesting to see how it REALLY works in the game...
(or the Demo scenario of the game HINT HINT!)

smile.gif

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Does the Defender still see that unit WHERE EVER the attacker places it (EVEN out of the LOS of the defender?)Yes. This simulates prebattle intel that might have nothing to do with LOS. For example, aerial observation, spies, intercepted radio transmissions, etc.

After the initial spotting, then LOS kicks in. So the Attacker during Setup will see various things no matter what the LOS is, but as soon as he hits "Go!" all bets are off. He might not have LOS to that thing and by the time he spots it again it might be somewhere totally different. The only Intel you can rely upon are fixed fortifications and the fact that if you see it you know he has it. Other than that... you're on your own :D

Steve </font>[/QUOTE]

[SlowMotion]

In the first post
"Scenario designer selects unit and toggles it to Spotted (probably different degrees of certainty)"

I hope this means that it will be possible to set a unit spotting level as "sound contact". Then a player could know that tanks have been spotted in some area, but not necessarily their exact position or type. The intelligence might have been nothing more than that: a sound contact.

Then the suggestion about purchasable "intel circles":
another idea could be that you could buy "intel positions". Instead of knowing what is inside some area, you would get to know what can be seen from some point on the map. This would simulate an infantry recon unit having visited that place.

To make the idea work better, these "intel positions" could be bought from inside a spotting zone that would start from the front line of your setup zone. How many meters towards the enemy this zone would go, would be a parameter settable by the scenario designer (a bit like no-man's area in operations).

[Midnight Warrior]

Sounds like a neat feature!

One very simple idea. Perhaps you can allow a player to selct a unit or two that he wants to be spotted and this raises it's probablity of being so. This would allow the players to try to employ some sort of decption plan.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, the spotting level is what I meant. Hopefully that can be done.

Intel positions was thought of before, but tossed out. Definitely won't work for QBs because in order to place you need to see the map. In order to see the map you need to be in Setup, which is when you're supposed to already know where the other guy's stuff is. And no, we are not going to put in a special Phase just for intel gathering, so don't ask ;)

Steve

[Saukopf]

" However, the pre Turn 1 spotting is automatic and happens all the time every time."

Doesnt this mean that both players, especially
the defender, will attempt to mitigate the effects
of this concept by ordering all of their mobile units to move as far as they can from their original deploy spot in the first few turns? That sounds like a potential problem.


I can see it becoming a standard opening procedure.

Deploy your units NOT where you want them, and then a mad scramble to reach those positions "where you DO want them" in the opening moves.

That just doesnt make sense and if it holds true,
many players would strongly dislike the pre-intel stuff because of the situation it leads to in the first few turns.


Of course I may be misundestanding the whole idea.

[Caesar]

I can see it becoming a standard opening procedure.

Deploy your units NOT where you want them, and then a mad scramble to reach those positions "where you DO want them" in the opening moves.

That just doesnt make sense and if it holds true,
many players would strongly dislike the pre-intel stuff because of the situation it leads to in the first few turns.


Of course I may be misundestanding the whole idea. And the second you do that you lose the cover bonus you get for not having moved. You also run the risk of being spotted as you move. I suspect that some players will do this and find it is generally not such a good idea.

The idea sounds quite realistic to me, that some of your units would be already known about when you are defending.

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
We could do something for Quick Battles. It would just be a simple "this side gets to spot x% of the enemy's units, this side gets to spot y%". The choice of which units to spot or not spot would be randomly determined, perhaps with a tad bit of logic (i.e. fixed stuff has a higher chance).

We can't afford to make this anything more than a "simple" additional feature, so let's not get carried away with 1001 ways to make this more complicated :D

Steve Not wishing to add any complication :D but using the "tad bit of logic", perhaps the percentage chance of pre-spotting could be geared to the type of battle as well.

For instance, in an assault battle, the attacker would, mostly, have a reasonable amount of intel on the defenders positions, so might get 50 to 75%. The defender, on the other hand, may have much less an idea of the attackers disposition, so may only get 20 to 30%

In a meeting engagement, which is more of an "accidental" battle, neither side would probably get more than about 10 or 15%.

Features like this, allied to relative spotting and enhanced C&C, can only make QBs better and better and, who knows, may convert some of those who currently find them poor fare.

[Dirtweasle]

This is a unique feature. I'm not sure I can recall anything like that in a squad based game before, very fascinating. Can't wait to see how it works in game.

[Brent Pollock]

Will the "?" value of a HQ unit affect the ability to be spotted by recce?

This whole recce issue made my top five "please change" list.

[Jussi Köhler]

Good ideas Monsieur Jim Crowley. That would definitely make QBs better.

[Elvis]

Very clever and simple idea that I believe I hadn't heard before. Sounds like it will add a touch more realisim AND add to fun. That's why you guys are the pros.

[Battlefront.com]

Deploy your units NOT where you want them, and then a mad scramble to reach those positions "where you DO want them" in the opening moves.And that is realism at its finest smile.gif Currently you can put something in a spot that allows you to fire at the enemy on Turn 1 before the enemy has a chance to respond. And that is generally unrealistic because if the attacker had done some recon they would have had a chance to spot the thing ahead of time. So if you pearch an AT Gun on the top of a bare hill, yup... it will likely be spotted before the attacker plots his first move. If the AT Gun is instead hidden in a treeline on the top of a hill... probably not since it hasn't fired yet.

Perhaps we can tweak the % chance based on type of battle. But it remains to be seen :D

Steve

[SlowMotion]

"Intel positions was thought of before, but tossed out. Definitely won't work for QBs because in order to place you need to see the map. ...
And no, we are not going to put in a special Phase just for intel gathering,"

Too bad. I think that the initial intelligence phase would have been pretty interesting. First buying a number of IPs, positioning them and then after pressing a button, discovering if anything was found. A bit like pulling up a fish net. Maybe once all possible features have been added and you can't think of any new features, you'll remember this phase thing and decide to toss it in. Like in Game_#2?

Another idea I had was that you could buy aerial intelligence. It would work like a plane flying over the map at high altitude. Because of this it would have higher probability to locate big objects like bunkers, trenches or tanks. Infantry positions wouldn't be affected nearly as much.

And one more comment to what Jim Crowley wrote about: could spotting also work so that units closer to "front line" would have higher chance to be spotted?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:
I guess it depends on whethr you think intel assets (of whatever type) are distributed uniformly and evenly across the front (as Steve seems to think), or used as more of a focussed resource (which I do).

In practice, though, both approaches are used. It's a spectrum, and I believe the weight is at the 'focus' end. A patrol that goes out to observe the enemy is generally given a speific place to go observe (that hill, that wood, that bldg, that village, etc) would watch for all enemy acty in that area. An enemy unit that left itself open to aerial photography would tend to focus attention on itself and from that attention give all of itself away. Etc.

I don't think a patrol would cruise across the entire frontage of the enemy, spotting one unit, thinking that was enough, then moving on 100m to see what else it could see.Jon is absolutely correct. Even if for technical reasons, BFC doesn't want to get into programming it this way at this time, I would hope that they would be willing to revisit the issue in future releases.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by dalem:
It's like lifting up Salma Hayek's dress and finding Penelope Cruz and a pizza under there too.

So much to think about!Put down that pizza and step away! You pervert!

;)

Michael

[MikeyD]

Has anyone mentioned yet that this feature appears to be something NOT mentioned in ANY of the myriad "suggestions for CMx2" threads? As much help as we imagine we're giving BFC they seem to be coming up with perfectly nifty ideas all on their own!
:D ;)

This feature willl come in handy particularly in Overlord-type scenarios where you've got to assault well documented entrenchments.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by SlowMotion:
Another idea I had was that you could buy aerial intelligence. It would work like a plane flying over the map at high altitude.Minor nitpick: Most aerial recon at the tactical level was done at low altitude, like 1,000-2,000 feet, sometimes even lower. This was true even in Viet Nam, which is why it was so dangerous. The idea was to fly over once at high speed and snap your pics and get out before the light AAA got a bead on you. Trying to make a second pass over the same area was suicide.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by MikeyD:
As much help as we imagine we're giving BFC they seem to be coming up with perfectly nifty ideas all on their own!That's partly because we are flying in the dark and they aren't. Once we have the game in our hands, there will be a flood of "You should have done this other thing!" posts.

;) :D

Michael

[SlowMotion]

About tactical aerial intelligence height:
I suppose so. They had to fly lower (the example I found from 1944 was at 600m) in order to see more details. I guess higher level flights were used with targets heavily defended with AAA or fighter defenses, such as important harbours.

The previous post mentioning "well documented entrenchments" makes me think about how reliable those documentations really were - in WW2 and even today. Can we buy things like fake tanks to mislead enemy spotting?

[Dirtweasle]

Can minefields can be spotted?

[Hensworth]

I'm bemused.

Say I get pre battle intel that the enemy have a column of trucks over yon hill. I can't actually see it, but I know it's there and the game will show it as if I did have LOS to it on the first turn.

Suppose my opponent now decides to move this column.

Do I instantly lose all trace of it ? That would give me intel I'm actually not entitled to. I.e. as long as I can see the units in their 'revealed' position I know my opponent hasn't moved them. When they disappear or go to generic marker (assuming something of the kind will still exist) I know my opponent HAS moved them.

Something I could not possibly know while I'm still on the other side of the hill ???

[aka_tom_w]

I too am bemused

perhaps even More Befundled

I think it "sounds" great (on paper, in a post you know what I mean), but I would like to understand it better see just exactly HOW it works in the game.

BUT...

it does sound like it has GREAT potential!
smile.gif

-tom

[Delyn]

Sgt_Kelly
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

After the initial spotting, then LOS kicks in. So the Attacker during Setup will see various things no matter what the LOS is, but as soon as he hits "Go!" all bets are off. He might not have LOS to that thing and by the time he spots it again it might be somewhere totally different. The only Intel you can rely upon are fixed fortifications and the fact that if you see it you know he has it. Other than that... you're on your own :D

Steve does that help

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sgt_Kelly:
I'm bemused.

Say I get pre battle intel that the enemy have a column of trucks over yon hill. I can't actually see it, but I know it's there and the game will show it as if I did have LOS to it on the first turn.

Suppose my opponent now decides to move this column.

Do I instantly lose all trace of it ? That would give me intel I'm actually not entitled to. I.e. as long as I can see the units in their 'revealed' position I know my opponent hasn't moved them. When they disappear or go to generic marker (assuming something of the kind will still exist) I know my opponent HAS moved them.

Something I could not possibly know while I'm still on the other side of the hill ??? You're presuming that spotted units are represented by the actual unit, and not a "spotted" marker. I thought the plan would be for a "spotted marker". Even if fully known, the graphic symbol in-game would be the spotted marker until a unit actually gets LOS to it.

A neat alternate might be to have semi-translucent units instead of spotted markers.

Either way, works the same as it does now, just happens in the set up phase.

Typis' quote suggests that actual units would be on map during set up, then disappear altogether after set up - so any units after set up would be only those in LOS.

[Hensworth]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
You're presuming that spotted units are represented by the actual unit, and not a "spotted" marker. I thought the plan would be for a "spotted marker". Even if fully known, the graphic symbol in-game would be the spotted marker until a unit actually gets LOS to it.

A neat alternate might be to have semi-translucent units instead of spotted markers.
It makes no difference how they appear. The point I'm making is about the extra intel on the movement or the staying put of them.


Either way, works the same as it does now, just happens in the set up phase.

Typis' quote suggests that actual units would be on map during set up, then disappear altogether after set up - so any units after set up would be only those in LOS. How can that be when Steve said the unit's position will be revealed no matter where the opposing player puts it ? Surely he must place it before the game reveals where he placed it ?

[Michael Dorosh]

After the initial spotting, then LOS kicks in. So the Attacker during Setup will see various things no matter what the LOS is, but as soon as he hits "Go!" all bets are off. He might not have LOS to that thing and by the time he spots it again it might be somewhere totally different. The only Intel you can rely upon are fixed fortifications and the fact that if you see it you know he has it. Other than that... you're on your own

SteveThis suggests to me that once play starts, any "spotted units" from the set up phase that are not in friendly LOS disappear again immediately until spotted once more.

[Hensworth]

Roger, got it !

I forgot the part where he said the defender must now setup first.

[Gpig]

This is going to be jolly good fun. AND it's realistic even.

Gpig

[yuvuphys]

oooo, I like...it'd really be great to be able to control the recon some, despite the disclaimer :D :D I'd like to be able to recon several different paths to advance through, and see what's there before I do it.

My biggest complaint about the current CM series, is the inability for me to do proper recon and *then* plan my attack. If you're trying to make a good combat game, intelligence is a key factor, and is just as important to an attack as the actual attack itself.

I'd suggest a simple option at the start-up screen which gives you the option of doing minimal, moderate, or agressive recon, and then modifying the chance of seeing enemy units at the beginning by some factor based on this. The drawback being that squads might suffer casualities from the recon. That's fairly simple to code, and gives the player some semblance of control...maybe a good compromise?

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
"We can't afford to make this anything more than a "simple" additional feature, so let's not get carried away with 1001 ways to make this more complicated"

"And no, we are not going to put in a special Phase just for intel gathering," Originally posted by SlowMotion:
Too bad. I think that the initial intelligence phase would have been pretty interesting. First buying a number of IPs, positioning them and then after pressing a button, discovering if anything was found. A bit like pulling up a fish net. Maybe once all possible features have been added and you can't think of any new features, you'll remember this phase thing and decide to toss it in. Originally posted by yuvuphys:
If you're trying to make a good combat game, intelligence is a key factor, and is just as important to an attack as the actual attack itself.

I'd suggest a simple option at the start-up screen which gives you the option of doing minimal, moderate, or agressive recon, and then modifying the chance of seeing enemy units at the beginning by some factor based on this. The drawback being that squads might suffer casualities from the recon.I agree totally with the user comments in bold made above. It would be a shame if BF don't see the inclusion and development of a pre-battle "Intel Phase" (of some kind) to be a huge opportunity to take the game beyond the confines of what it has been for the last 6yrs and expand and explore a new dimension to the game that could open up a whole new dimension gameplay.

I had thought about this kind of "pre-battle recon" thing before as well. Just like to throw in a few alternate suggestions/concepts just to keep people thinking:

Instead of being able to spend pre-battle "purchase points" on units alone, you have the option to abstractly purchase "recon assets" if you like. The more you spend (could be limited) the more accurate and detailed the "pre-battle recon report" is likely to be. It could even be in the form of a simple text report statistically generated based on probability after both sides have picked their units giving an indication of types and number of enemy units abstractly spotted units before the battle.

The opposing player could also perhaps have an option to also spend "purchase points" on "recon assets" that would effectively "counter" any recon assets (secretly) purchased by the other player. Perhaps both players might also have a probability of being informed during this "pre-battle recon phase" if any enemy "recon assests" were (abstractly) detected and of their strength, which would perhaps give the players some indication of how many "purchase points" the enemy player may have spent on "recon assests".

I like the concept of a pre-battle recon system that could perhaps include a probability of detection based on the distance the enemy unit is positioned relative to the enemy map edge, the terrain that unit is in, the type and quality of that unit and perhaps even the weather conditions/visibility range.

---------------------SNIP--------------------

<<< rant about the burden of having to code a CPU opponent to understand and play by any cool game features/rules we can think about transplanted in this thread: Victory conditons: possibilities + the burden of coding a CPU opponent (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000054) >>>>

---------------------SNIP--------------------


Lt Bull

[ August 27, 2005, 07:11 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[kipanderson]

Steve,

This is not strictly on topic, however, is there any chance of the attacker being able to have foxholes and such? I ask here because this thread is in great part about starting setups.

In many/most real world battles on a 2km by 2km scale both sides will start the clash from foxholes or semi fortified positions. This is a feature I particularly missed in CMBB with the frequent and often generous use of direct fire artillery. The Soviets bringing guns such as the 76.2mm/45mm up to overlook enemy positions the night before an attack, then giving over-watch fire from dug-in positions.

Anyway… the ability to use foxholes and trenches on both sides would be more realistic in a large range of situations.

Thanks,
All the best,
Kip.

[sonar]

I think intelligence can be handled in the briefing.For instance,M.L.R. 200m to front running from church on left flank through to woods on right.Inf plt. thought to be dug in support of m.g.located in farm 250m S.E. of church.Tank sounds reported behind point 302
this kind of intel is assumed to have been gathered by recon.All too often in scenarios you don't know if the enemy is 50 or 500m in front of you and a lot of the problem is the fault of the desinger by not providing a realistic briefing.

[SlowMotion]

I'll just add one more thing to this Intelligence Position idea, which would mean that there wouldn't have to be an extra phase before the setup.

Could it be doable if those IPs worked the same way as pre-barrage arty: the IPs would be positioned during the normal setup, BUT intelligence results were shown to the player after some delay (maybe a settable parameter)? It could work like the reinforcements message "Intelligence report has arrived." Then the player would check the map and possibly see new units.

If different IPs had different delays (maybe some randomness like in reinforcements), they might have different prices. And if an IP position could be locked and hidden from the player by the scenario designer, it could be used as a way of giving the player some new info during the scenario, instead of all at once in the briefing.

If the briefing mentioned that there should be an intelligence report within the first 5 minutes, the player would have to decide how to act on this. Does he want to wait for the report before for example moving some tanks forward or not?

Sonar:
IMO briefing only intelligence works fine for units with fixed positions. But if the opponent can choose positions, briefing's intelligence may be totally misleading. At least the unit position part.

[ August 27, 2005, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: SlowMotion ]

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by kipanderson:
Steve,

This is not strictly on topic, however, is there any chance of the attacker being able to have foxholes and such? I ask here because this thread is in great part about starting setups.

In many/most real world battles on a 2km by 2km scale both sides will start the clash from foxholes or semi fortified positions. This is a feature I particularly missed in CMBB with the frequent and often generous use of direct fire artillery. The Soviets bringing guns such as the 76.2mm/45mm up to overlook enemy positions the night before an attack, then giving over-watch fire from dug-in positions.

Anyway… the ability to use foxholes and trenches on both sides would be more realistic in a large range of situations.

Thanks,
All the best,
Kip. Good idea Kip.

PS
Geared up for Roma?

[Tarkus]

Question : Do this intelligence feature and FoW interact in any way ? Will there be variable quality of intelligence available for the designer to set ? from, say, *poor* to *excellent* ?

Suggestion : I'm just thinking that if a scenario designer flag a unit as being located but then set intelligence to "poor", it could lead to very interesting results....

[aka_tom_w]

The elegance and sheer simplicity of this idea suggestes it is DO-ABLE and perhaps relatively easy to code.

Look at the idea and Steve's original proposition/bone again.

I think it will add a more fun to the game AND he has already said (basically) "Don't Mess with it!"

It sounds good to me JUST the way it is....

lets leave it be and SEE how it works in the game FIRST before we all try to "mod" it to what we think we want. smile.gif

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
The scenario designer can designate units, either attacker or defender, as being "spotted". This allows CM to simulate, for the first time, prebattle intelligence in a very direct way. Here's how it works...

Scenario designer selects unit and toggles it to Spotted (probably different degrees of certainty). That's all there is to it!

When playing a battle the Defender sets up first. If it is a Meeting Engagement, one of the sides will be chosen (randomly?) to set up as if the Defender. The Attacker gets into the Setup Phase and whadda know... some kind God has exposed some of the Defender's units! How nice! Now the Attacker can deploy his forces with sure knowledge that the things spotted exist and are right where he sees them.

On the Defender's first turn the tables are turned. Now all the Attacking untis that were flagged as Spotted are shown, as well as any his own units have spotted on their own. This means the Defender gets to formulate his battle plan before issuing a single order.

On the Attacker's first turn he gets to see all the unit Spotted during Setup and anything his deployed units can see. This allows him to start his attack knowing, to some degree, what he is about to get into.

That's it! This should be quite a fun thing to play around with!

Obviously the scenario designer does not HAVE to flag units for prebattle Spotting. This is just an option. However, the pre Turn 1 spotting is automatic and happens all the time every time.

Steve

[ August 27, 2005, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Tarkus]

Thanks for the reminder Tom,
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Scenario designer selects unit and toggles it to Spotted (probably different degrees of certainty). That's all there is to it!There it is. Boom. Right there. That's what I specifically wanted to know.

Cheers

[SlowMotion]

"lets leave it be and SEE how it works in the game FIRST before we all try to "mod" it to what we think we want."

Yes, there are so many new things coming that it's better to wait for the first game. The original desciption is a good addition to the scenario designer's toolkit and hopefully one of the new features that will see further development. Lots of possibilities in this area.

[Battlefront.com]

It would be a shame if BF don't see the inclusion and development of a pre-battle "Intel Phase" (of some kind) to be a huge opportunity to take the game beyond the confines of what it has been for the last 6yrs and expand and explore a new dimension to the game that could open up a whole new dimension gameplay.Sorry... but what a bunch of crap. I think we've already demonstrated that CMx2 will be a huge advance from CMx1. And we still haven't told you about a LOT of other huge differences (this stuff is tip of the iceberg so to speak). This thread alone shows that we are pushing the envelope significantly outward. But oh no... if we don't take everything to the nth degree that is somehow akin to not doing anything to improve the gameplay. Blah... it's comments like this that always remind me how absolutely unreasonable people can be.

Everybody has their pet peeve, and usually 100 ways to address it. If we followed everybody's wants and desires here, executed them faithfully, you'd have a game in about 40 years that would probably require 2 years just to learn. Egos forget that they aren't alone with their requests, so kindly remind oneself that an indvidual's wants/desires are not cast out in a vacuum.

Rant about ungreatful and unreasonable demands over. Surprised it took this long to get one out of me :D

So, I will go back to what I said before. We are offering a feature that apparently few thought of. It will increase gameplay possibilties greatly. But it will be simple. It must be. And that is all there is too it. Period.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Tom put it best:

lets leave it be and SEE how it works in the game FIRST before we all try to "mod" it to what we think we wantNitpicking one feature to death before you have the game in front of you is rather pointless. Just accept that there is a good, new feature going into the game. Will it be perfect? No. Few features will be. As with CMx1, CMx2 is all about "the whole" not any one individual feature. That sort of focus of ours is what made CMx1 great and it is what will make CMx2 even better.

Have faith grasshoppers!

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by sonar:
I think intelligence can be handled in the briefing.For instance,M.L.R. 200m to front running from church on left flank through to woods on right.Inf plt. thought to be dug in support of m.g.located in farm 250m S.E. of church.Tank sounds reported behind point 302
this kind of intel is assumed to have been gathered by recon.All too often in scenarios you don't know if the enemy is 50 or 500m in front of you and a lot of the problem is the fault of the desinger by not providing a realistic briefing. Personally, I think this is the best approach, particularly if it can be combined with maps, overlays, etc. Very much preferable to the system Steve has outlined.

Only problem is that I can't see a way in the world of making it work with QBs, which is how this whole discussion got started in the first place, wasn't it?

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Sorry... but what a bunch of crap. I think we've already demonstrated that CMx2 will be a huge advance from CMx1. And we still haven't told you about a LOT of other huge differences (this stuff is tip of the iceberg so to speak). This thread alone shows that we are pushing the envelope significantly outward. But oh no... if we don't take everything to the nth degree that is somehow akin to not doing anything to improve the gameplay. Blah... it's comments like this that always remind me how absolutely unreasonable people can be.

Everybody has their pet peeve, and usually 100 ways to address it. If we followed everybody's wants and desires here, executed them faithfully, you'd have a game in about 40 years that would probably require 2 years just to learn. Egos forget that they aren't alone with their requests, so kindly remind oneself that an indvidual's wants/desires are not cast out in a vacuum.You might try being a trifle less touchy, Steve. Right now, we are just brainstorming, tossing ideas into the ring to see which will survive. Mostly, we are doing this for our own interest and entertainment. We certainly do not see you in the role of a waiter with pad in hand, here to take our orders. At least the more serious of us do not. I do not speak for idiots, since I can't make out what they are going on for most of the time anyway.

;)

Michael

[SlowMotion]

... and I don't think much brainstorming will be done if people think the game will be bad.

[Michael Emrys]

...Although I can appreciate that the discussion has wandered far into the nitty-gritty aspects of the game when BFC specifically requested that we hold off on that for a while. But I think that is inevitable. Trying to keep a discussion on track on any web board is like trying to herd cats, to use the old simile.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

This pic (http://members.chello.nl/h.wesseling6/24aug2005/html/beng.html) is entitled "Steve Responding to Whiners".

:D :D :D

Michael

[stoat]

Criticism? I'll show you criticism...

:D

[Battlefront.com]

Michael, note I only jumpped on the comment that quite directly said that the CMx2 will be pretty much a bland rehash of CMx1 unless we devote weeks of programming to do this feature the way some of you want it. That is the sort of arrogant attitude that makes me think "why bother describing all this stuff if it is apparently all beneath you".

And you guys can brainstorm all you want... but I have already said, from the beginning, that this is a feature thta will NOT be significantly expanded. I have restated this several times. Therefore, brainstorm all you want. No problem. Just don't expect anything to come from it. And for the love of all that is sweet in this world... do not DEMAND that we do something.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
And for the love of all that is sweet in this world... do not DEMAND that we do something.Yep. I'm behind you 100% on that. Besides being boringly silly and childish, demanding is just rude.

Unless of course I have to resort to it.

;)

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Unless of course I have to resort to it.Of course ;)

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

:D

Michael

[SlowMotion]

BF:
"And you guys can brainstorm all you want... but I have already said, from the beginning, that this is a feature thta will NOT be significantly expanded."

Ok, I understood that original comment so that this feature wouldn't be modified much BEFORE we'll see how well it works in the first released games. But that there might be changes afterwards.
No demands of course, just that this tip of the iceBERG suddenly appearing after long sailing with only small pieces of ice sometimes floating in the sea, easily "overrevs" the brain smile.gif .

I agree 100% with the requirement that the system must be easy to use. Most people probably see the learning curve of existing CM games too much already. Still I hope there can be ways of doing some not-so-simple things in the scenario editor, if the results are easy to use and understand for people who play a scenario. After so many hints about new additions, it will be very interesting to see how the new scenario editor works.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
This pic (http://members.chello.nl/h.wesseling6/24aug2005/html/beng.html) is entitled "Steve Responding to Whiners".

:D :D :D

Michael it had to be done

"Steve Responding to Whiners":

http://members.chello.nl/h.wesseling6/24aug2005/image/beng.jpg

[SlowMotion]

LOL!

If that picture is a slight hint to end this thread, ok. But before doing that, here's one more post. Don't raise that sledgehammer yet before reading the whole thing smile.gif

If someone thinks that this thread has deteriorated into whining about minisculous details that nobody cares about and user posts like mine had a totally wrong attitude, compare this to another similar case: the IL2 series.

The developers of those games have also published several WW2 games based on an engine that was developed further game by game. Now there is a new game engine under development and this week they decided to release new info about what people are about to see in games using this new engine. And how did people react? Take a look, the last time I checked there were 24 pages of replies. Also note what kind of wishes people are listing, does this look familiar?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/8371080943/p/24

Ducking the hammer, there are more important features even on my CMx2 wish list...

[Battlefront.com]

[cartoon voice] Russians is the craziest peoples! [/cartoon voice]

I wonder if this is part of the Russian Army hazing rituals we hear so much about tongue.gif In any case, I KNOW that guy with the block on his head isn't getting paid enough to have that happen to him!

Steve

[Pvt. Ryan]

I thought it was a pizza and the other guy doesn't like anchovies.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Nice mentality too. "Oh, I'm going to hit someone on the head with a sledgehammer, better bandage my hand before I get hurt!"

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:
Nice mentality too. "Oh, I'm going to hit someone on the head with a sledgehammer, better bandage my hand before I get hurt!" Y'know, I wondered about that too. Suppose the guy tried to break it with a karate chop first and that's why he looks so mad?

Michael

[JonS]

Maybe they're taking turn about, and that's why he looks so angry ...

[aka_tom_w]

still an interesting thread....

[Bigduke6]

That picture is a classic example of a treasured tradition of the modern former Soviet military: "The Special Forces Dog and Pony Show."

It happens at pretty much every military event to which the general public is invited. The regular troopies do their thing, be it parade or maneuvers or receiving their AKs or whatever it is, and then as a piece d' resistance somewhere between 5 and 15 pairs of "special forces" troopers get out in front of the gathered civilians.

The troopers then go through their stuff, which typically is series of faked hand to hand punches, tumbles, and throws. Special forces units able to manage these tricks simultaneously - i.e., ten pairs performing the same judo flip at the exact same time - are accounted particularly combat-ready.

Then the really stupid, ah, serious soldiers complete the shock and awe assault on the general public with a session of smashing construction materials with, or upon their bodies. The soldiers', that is. This most common technique is karate chops on concrete blocks (note sledge-hammer wielder's right paw above). Perhaps the apex of the art is breaking bricks over one's head. Again, group achievments are preferred to individual accomplishment: it is better to have 20 men smash a small brick on their respective skulls, than to have one man break five unreinforced concrete slabs with a single kick.

Cue polite applause. Civilians disperse, impressed with the ferocious combat capacities purchased by their tax rubles (or hyrvnas, or lats, or dinars, or what have you.) Top officers retire to pound vodka at the club, breathing a sigh of relief nothing went awry. And the special forces troopers stomp back to their barracks, to contiue watching soap operas and cleaning floors for the indefinate future, as the entire proceedings absorbed the special force unit's training funds and energy for the last month, and probably the next one as well.

I am not making a word of this up. Everything described here I have seen with my own eyes.

[dalem]

Man, everyone makes fun of the Russian special forces, but think about it - who but them would have thought to bring a flamethrower to the Beslan school hostage crisis?

Udarniki rabotayut ochen xorosho!

-dale

[mrpwase]

Originally posted by JonS:
Oh god Dale - I don't know whether to laugh, drool, or throw up! Try all three. It'll be funny. >_>

This sounds interesting, although I agree with Jon when he says it might spoil suspense. Having not read the topic too thoroughly, I might be flamed for this, but...it is optional, right? :rolleyes:

EDIT: Crap, didn't notice the other three pages. redface.gif

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by SlowMotion:
About tactical aerial intelligence height:
I suppose so. They had to fly lower (the example I found from 1944 was at 600m) in order to see more details. I guess higher level flights were used with targets heavily defended with AAA or fighter defenses, such as important harbours.

The previous post mentioning "well documented entrenchments" makes me think about how reliable those documentations really were - in WW2 and even today. Can we buy things like fake tanks to mislead enemy spotting? Dummy tanks and decoy mok up guns etc; AFAIK from what I've read these kinds of things were employed in more of a well off the CM map range to really be viable for being included in CMx2 IMHO. (I'm not insanely gonna demand them while I froff at the mouth.) :eek:

That said, I'm largely referring to British deception plans in NA aranged under some circus or magician guy, who I think was also involved with creating a totally faked larger second invasion force for Overlord. Large amounts of radio traffic was simulated too, but again I can't imagine this being employed on the CM tactical scale, (in even the currently capable Rgmt v Rgmt sized games) all that frequently.

The other way false intelligence was created was by having real tanks and other vehicles drive about an area in a fronts rear excessively to create the impression (of non existant dummy forces) that will mislead enemy estimates etc. The Russians did this during mid 1944 in Nth Ukraine as part of Maskirovka (Maskirization) before the beginning of Operation Bagration on the 22nd of June 1944. The strategic deception led to the destruction of Armee Group Mitte because of the incorrect assumptions thus held by OKW. :rolleyes:

I've also read of dummy battery positions being constructed to retared enemy counter battery fire effects upon the real gun positions. One at lest had explosion produced gun flashes and sound effects! :cool:

AFAIK the only case of really reliable "well documentated entrenchments" actually being obtained by enemy intelligences was the accurate and for in some parts of it complete documentations of the German coatal fortifications. Plans and most importantly the construction details were photograhed by the French resistance, at least by one member of IIRC. Some specifics were later captured during fighting, definately at St Nazaire. ;)

Other than that, for fortifications on the large scale the rest were mostly in friendy home territories with the main exception being that for the Germans on the Italian mainland. Again, though in this theatre I don't think the Allies had all that good info judging by the troubles they experienced fighting there. :confused:

All the same, a lot of recce was of an operational nature and not of the tactical type relevent to CMx2, but plenty enough were of course devoted to these kinds of tasks for sure. I just hope the pecentages mix and the actual feel of it is reasonably right, hopefully enough in term of the realism for the WWII setting. smile.gif

On the small scale as in the CM scope of things (& esp in that of CMx2) the way some BFC is gonna make it sounds resonable enought to me. There are plenty of recorded instances of partisans or civilians providing intell and answers to such querries as 'where's that gun or tank at?' etc. Spies where used at times tactically, though I doubt terribly all that very often Steve, since this was performed by such means as enemy inpersonating and speaking troops such as say the Brandembergers and also by farm children who the Russians trained and used and even gave awards to! ;)

[ September 11, 2005, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]