Relative Spotting revisited

[James Crowley]

I have recently been giving the matter of relative spotting, a concept apparently consigned to the “re-write”, some thought and believe that the current engine already contains the necessary elements, by and large, to produce the desired results.

Before I expand on the above it might be a good idea to reiterate what “relative spotting” is and, more importantly, what impact that it’s implementation could have in more realistically portraying the realities of command and control.

This is perhaps better done by example.

Picture an infantry platoon, consisting of three squads and an HQ, moving in formation, all in command control range. As it approaches a belt of trees the lead squad comes under fire from an unidentified enemy unit, takes two casualties and is pinned. The platoon HQ immediately orders the second squad to open fire on the enemy position and the third squad to move off to the right and using a gulley for cover, to advance and attack the enemy position from the flank when in a position to do so.

The third squad moves off as ordered and, as it has no radio (in common with the vast majority of units at that level in WW2) is soon too far away from its HQ to be in command control. It proceeds along the gulley until it reaches the belt of trees, moves toward the enemy position but then runs into another, as yet unseen, enemy squad, comes under fire, takes casualties and is also pinned.

The reality of that situation is that the HQ is unaware of the third squad’s current status, is unaware of the existence of the second enemy unit and cannot issue any further orders to that third squad. Why? Because the third squad and the HQ have no means of communicating with each other; they are out of the C&C radius.

The same situation in CMBO is very different. As soon as the third squad spots the second enemy unit and gets fired upon the player knows it’s status, can still give it orders (although they will be delayed) and, more importantly, is instantly aware of the existence and position of an enemy which, in reality, would be unknown and can react to that unrealistic situation accordingly

IMO that is essence of relative spotting.



There are probably very many ways of over-coming this problem but I am looking at the simplest way, which introduces the least number of changes, at least IMO (without, it must be admitted, any programming knowledge)

Using the above example, let us first look at the second, previously unspotted enemy squad. It has always been there but with FoW on, does not show up on the map because it has not been spotted by a friendly unit. It is now spotted by a squad which has no means of conveying this information elsewhere but, in CMBO, its’ presence is still revealed.

Suppose that the spotting unit is flagged as “out of CC” and therefore, as a result, the enemy unit is not revealed. This seems reasonable in that you, the player, are not given the “all-seeing eye” over the battlefield. However, what about the spotting squad, which obviously can see the enemy unit? This squad is still providing visual info. But not if you are no longer given access to that squad. Instead, that spotting squad becomes flagged as “out of CC” and is treated like an enemy unit as far as visual displays are concerned i.e. you can only see it as a “last seen at” marker and when that marker is clicked on the display only shows the name and type and its last known status (or maybe just “unknown” status.)
Nothing new here in the visuals department, except you now have generic country markers for friendly “out of CC” units as well as for previously spotted enemy units.

The primary and probably the most controversial departure from the norm is that there will possibly be more units over which you, as player, do not have control. But this seems entirely realistic to me. After all we accept that squads which are in certain states cannot be controlled; pinned, panicked, broken…. why not out of command?

In previous threads on this forum, this type of suggestion has led to protests from those who say they do not want a command level game; they want to control all of their units all of the time.

Well, as I have said you cannot control all of your units at all times anyway. Also who gains from the current “all knowing, all seeing” status of CMBO.
Those who set-up their forces in non-historical, un-military fashion, scattered as they please, without due regard to staying in command control. Those who set up a few half-squads or MG teams or jeeps to act as unofficial “scouts,” relaying back intelligence of spotted enemy positions whilst they are way out of realistic command range. And so on.

The only other change would be that the order delay function, still present for in command units, would be relegated for out of command units altogether as it would no longer be needed.

Surely the trade-off in having, perhaps only temporarily, a few more units not in the players direct control is amply repaid by the great reduction of the “god” factor and by the fact that it would encourage players to adopt a more historical and realistic approach to keeping their platoons (and this could be extended to companies and battalions) in command and control range. It would also tend to amplify the role of HQ’s to something like that of their real life counterparts.

Just a few thoughts.

[aka_tom_w]

OK

I like it

I like it in concept...

BUT...

If I may (As a Gamey Loophole looking for kind of guy :D ) I would like to suggest if that system was implimented some form of extra FOW must be used to prevent easy indentification of enemy HQ's. (all kinds of HQ)

Playing under those suggestions I would expend EVERY available resource to try to take out all the enemy HQ units thus leaving their remaining squads out of command and under control of the AI. This would be akin to isolating them and letting them starve to death out of control of the enemy player.

I like the idea in theory......

but if destroying all the enemy HQ units leaves the enemy player with all his remaining infantry comletely out of his control there may be a problem there.

and what about vehicles?
they all have radio's so there is no problem really? (I suspect)

-tom w

[ April 18, 2002, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Juardis]

Very similar to what I suggested about a year, yet more simple and therefore, more appealing.

I like it.

[Redwolf]

Cool idea! (I mean in general)

What I was thinking about is a game which doesn't show whom and where it is fighting the enemy, but just a "in trouble" marker. The position of the friendly units then becomes "fuzzy", as in a stripe of land it was supposed to go and you don't know whether they made it.

But I am missing on thing from you suggestion: higher-level FOW. I don't think you idea works well above the level of inner-platoon or for single vehicles.

What I want a solution for is this: you are attacking with a wide screen all over the map. Lead elements to the left spot tanks. In CMBO you can immideately rush all your units, including all Bazookas from all over the map, to that spot. For me, that is one of the major reasons why tanks-heavy CMBO forces have few chances of winning against infantry on any map with decent cover. In reality, the tanks would first have more time to munch at the infantry in front of them, then they could prepare for the enemy armored reserves to arrive and other infantry would follow much later, piecemeal. In CMBO, you get a concentrated overrun from enemy infantry in a very short time.

Any idea how to solve the latter?

[Cameroon]

I'll prefix this with: I, too, do not want borg spotting and I am not a grog nor do I have aspirations of becoming one ;)

That said, I don't particularly like this idea. To put it another way, it would not make me want to play CM (I don't know if it would make me avoid playing, though).

The crux of the matter is that I want to play a game that is as real as possible while still being fun. It would be no fun to watch -- wait no I couldn't even do that -- my units sit there for 20 turns because my HQ was killed or broke and ran away. Or hell, the HQ wouldn't even have to run just break for awhile. I think a lot of people would feel the same way. I mean, war is hell but I don't think BTS needs to make CM hell to play. Of course, I could be wrong.

For instance, what if you wanted to tell third squad (or that sniper) to sneak up that ridge (out of C&C), see what they could see and come back? Or what if unit X saw a stationary object, like a pillbox, out of C&C. Then, lets say they broke and ran back into C&C, recover and... now what? Do I know the pillbox is there or not? I should, they saw it and can say its there. But how would the system allow it? These seem to be valid possibilities and certainly realistic. Right now they are approximated because of borg spotting.

Basically, there are lots of problems for BTS to tackle with relative spotting. We all know that of course, but it seems that borg spotting is currently the lesser of the evils.

I do like the idea of not knowing exactly what is troubling those troops out of C&C. Perhaps a compromise is to have a really large delay on when you (the player) learn of details for troops out of C&C but to learn immediately if they are in C&C or move back into C&C.

And I am a programmer so I know the difficulties involved in even the seemingly simplest of things. I'm sure BTS will do right by us as always though smile.gif

[rune]

Going to go to a silly extreme to make a point.

Squad #3 is out of C&C of the Platoon Lt. Ahead, a defensable position about 100 meters.

Pvt Pyle: But Sarge, look at that nice defensice terrain, why don't we just move there and dig in?

Sgt Flake: Nope, can't do it, wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.

Pvt Pyle: Sarge, it woul dtake us 20 seconds to get there and we would have a nice defenive spot behind a wall.

Sgt Flake: Nope, I mean it, we stay here in the open until we hear from the Lt.

Pvt Pyle: Sgt, I can see Germans comming, lets get in cover.

Sgt Flake: Nope, no way, no how are we moving til we hear from that new brown bar.

Pvt. Pyle: [pulls pin from grenade] Sgt, can you hold this for a sec? me and the guys will be waiting by the wall.

You model, while not bad, assumes every sgt. at the squad level could not think for himself. I know a few Sgts. here on the board who thought the Lts. were useless, and thank god they were around.

remember, in CMBO, you are the squad leader on up. your model is taking away one whole level of play. Not possible with the current engine, but i am thinking maybe possible when the engine is rewritten and maybe an enhancement to the ai to cover the squad leader out of c&c. something more then just a reaction mode,

Rune

[KNac]

Cameroon in that case there is a button called "C&C on/off" or "C&C level 1/2/3" if you have played SPWaW you will know what I mean. smile.gif

However, I think is a good thing, but we should distinguish between diffrent types of units/forces, as you said the recon units/etc, or units assigned from different support units ie if you are commanding a battalion and you have received a inf gun section of the inf gun coy, whahow is the C&C reprensented in that section? maybe that should mean that you must "link" all forces (in the buy screen) to have all the C&C references.

anyway i think that BTS will try their best, in CMBB the C&C aspect have been already reworked and they have paid a lot of attetion to C&C. ie we will have tanks in platoons and will be a distintion between the comunication method (radio or just by signal or direct LOS, or in the case of spotters I think that it have been already worked, wire or radio, etc).

but we must wait to the engine re-work to see what will be changed, but i´m sure this is a top prioritie. h0owever i think is a good option to have diffrent levels of C&C (because what said Cameroon).

an other thing why i´m waiting relative spotting is because the effectiviness of defense weaponry (AT guns or AT man-portable assets like bazookas or panzerscherecks) will be increased, just because one oftheir abilities was its size and their ability to hide smile.gif

[aka_tom_w]

I would say it boils down to who (which units) has a radio and who doesn't?

Does that radio ALWAYS work?

I would seem that we are assumeing that ALL Platoon Leaders at the Lt. level of HQ had radios and they always worked, at all times for all nations (in this new proposal, above). I say this because if the player is the overall commander then you are suggesting we model FOW through the kind of communication that was technologically feasible on the WW II battlefield at that time. Either that or we don't worry about modeling C&C (borg Spotting rears it ugly head again) and you the player (as it is now) are the Squad Leader, Tank Commander, Sniper, Company Leader and Battlion leader all at the same time.

All vehicles seem to be presummed to always have working radios as well.

I am ALL for increased FOW and some form of relative spotting to free ourselves from the absolute (borg) spotting we have now.
But I suspect the actual implimentation of that concept in the game will be VERY tricky indeed.

The proposal above is sort of an invitation to just try to KILL all the guys with radio's so the rest of the infantry will instantly be out of control and command and will then be easily nuetralized.

I am sorry I do not have somthing more positive or contructive to add to this thread smile.gif

more comments?

-tom w

[ April 18, 2002, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[KNac]

Rune, then we have the micro-management thing again smile.gif which level want us/BTS to be modelled of micromanagement and what aspects of it (movement/shooting, etc.).

[Larsen]

I think that if one wants to go to the detailed HQ effect simulation then he/she would need to decompose each squad into LMG team(s), SMG/Rifle team(s) and squad HQ unit. After all sergants are there to command squads and to make desicions as well. What is so special about platoon HQ compared to squad HQ? Why not then stop at company HQ level?
For me the problem with absolute spotting is not that I know immidiately where the bad guys are but that the units that didnot spot the bad guys can immidiately see them and fire at them. I would assume that once the shots are fired one can say that "the bad guys are somewhere there". It would be nice to make each unit to spot the enemy individually rather than collectively.

[kipanderson]

James Crowley, hi,

I understand your frustration, and your ideas is a very good ones, but I would still be against it for the reason you are familiar with. I have no objection to a command game in principal, but it would no longer be CM. If BTS developed a command game it would be a very fine game and I am sure I would buy it, but in “addition” to future versions of CM, hopefully not as a replacement for future versions of CM.

In CM you play the role of the battalion commander, the company commander, the platoon commander, and importantly also the squad and AFV commander. Hence there is no avoiding being able to see what all your units can see. At present, and I am told to an even greater extent in CMBB, you do not have perfect control over your units, but this is very different from what you wish for.

There are two main reasons why you sometimes do not have control over your units, both of which I agree with. They are moral and training limitations. When it comes to moral considerations it is clear that in the real world a squad would sometimes ignore its commander due to the extreme stress of the situation. I am 100% in favour of this being modelled as it is in CM. Units should panic and become pinned and so on…. This is realistic. The second reason for lack of control, training limitations, is also realistic. The limited battle-drills of less well trained units would not allow orders to carried out at the speed of the more experienced and highly trained units. Again, this is all as it should be, in my view. This is not a limitation on “me” as the player, but a realistic limitation on the skills of my men. From what I have read about the way these matters are handled in CMBB the guys at BTS have hit the “nail on the head” with their modelling of training/experience limitations.

My own view is that there is only one satisfactory way to deal with relative spotting. But of course, new ideas may come along. That is through multi-pay; live team play. You only see what your own units see, both in terms of enemy and friendly units. I am sure this will come in the re-write. Plus BTS may have some other ideas in addition.

I will end with two disclaimers. I do not normally micro-manage, I like to play as the platoon commander and due to the stunningly high quality of the TacAI I can normally get away with this. Secondly, I do not play in a gamey style. CM is the only computer game I play. I play it because, in my view, it is a true simulation of WW2 combat. It is the military history aspect of it that draws me in, in common with many of its fans.

I repeat that I understand your frustration because what you wish for is what I would call a “platoon commander” game.

I will finish by saying that for me the “scale and style” of CM is perfect. I really do mean what I say, perfect. Of course, later versions will make big improvements, from what I hear about CMBB it will be much better in a straight comparison to CMBO. However, the “scale and style” of CM, which is identical to Squad Leader, is in my view, by far the best there is for tactical wargames/ simulations. It is both immersive, and allows you to model real tactical problems. Go down in scale to individual soldiers and it becomes hopelessly unrealistic, go up in scale to platoons as the manoeuvre units and some of the tactical detail is missing. A big part of this is the fact that you play the role of the squad and AFV commander.

Before BTS remove the player from the role of squad and AFV commander they must think things out very carefully or they could lose the “magic formula” that is CM, and was Squad Leader in its day.

All the best,
Kip.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by rune:
Going to go to a silly extreme to make a point.
(etc.)
Pvt Pyle: Sarge, it woul dtake us 20 seconds to get there and we would have a nice defenive spot behind a wall.

Sgt Flake: Nope, I mean it, we stay here in the open until we hear from the Lt.

Rune, your example shows exactly what the problem is. If we move to a command-like game, then all the units we do not command must be under a kind of TacAI. That is a nightmare to get right. TacAI is hard enough as it is, but fully autonumous multi-turn movement would be harder.

A real command game would hide all the details, in all cases and could in hindsight assume the squad did an apropriate thing. But in CMBO you have lots of detail with explictit representation, so you need explitit movement.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Larsen:
I think that if one wants to go to the detailed HQ effect simulation then he/she would need to decompose each squad into LMG team(s), SMG/Rifle team(s) and squad HQ unit. After all sergants are there to command squads and to make desicions as well. What is so special about platoon HQ compared to squad HQ? Why not then stop at company HQ level?
For me the problem with absolute spotting is not that I know immidiately where the bad guys are but that the units that didnot spot the bad guys can immidiately see them and fire at them. I would assume that once the shots are fired one can say that "the bad guys are somewhere there". It would be nice to make each unit to spot the enemy individually rather than collectively."What is so special about platoon HQ compared to squad HQ?"

I think the answer to that is some folks here are trying to model radio communications with respect to knew what and when did they know it about what was actually happening on the battlefield.

The presumption here is that Platoon HQ's (Lt. Guys) in there 4 man HQ outfit had Radios and squad leaders did not have radios, thus those who had maps and radios (Lts. HQ and above) made decisions based on info from radios and maps.

It is a NOBLE concept and the idea here of find a solution to the largely unpopular concept of Borg Spotting. This means asking question like:

1) Who knew what and when did they know it
2) who could communicate with who and what orders could they give
3) who could tell who what about what was seen on the battlfield
4) how quickly could this info be reasonably expected to be acted upon?

Just questions in an attempt to understand and define the issue or problem we are trying to find a solution to.

-tom w

[Andreas]

Originally posted by James Crowley:
Well, as I have said you cannot control all of your units at all times anyway. Also who gains from the current “all knowing, all seeing” status of CMBO.
Those who set-up their forces in non-historical, un-military fashion, scattered as they please, without due regard to staying in command control. Sorry mate, but I think this part of the statement is absolutely wrong. I am 100% certain that all other things being equal, a player who keeps his squads in C&C will always wipe the floor with an opponent who employs his squads (and in CMBB vehicles) helter-skelter, without due regard for the thin red line. Command delays and morale penalties will see to that.

I am with Kip on this one - if I wanted to play the game you describe, I would get Airborne Assault, or play CMMC.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by redwolf:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rune:
Going to go to a silly extreme to make a point.
(etc.)
Pvt Pyle: Sarge, it woul dtake us 20 seconds to get there and we would have a nice defenive spot behind a wall.

Sgt Flake: Nope, I mean it, we stay here in the open until we hear from the Lt.

Rune, your example shows exactly what the problem is. If we move to a command-like game, then all the units we do not command must be under a kind of TacAI. That is a nightmare to get right. TacAI is hard enough as it is, but fully autonumous multi-turn movement would be harder.

A real command game would hide all the details, in all cases and could in hindsight assume the squad did an apropriate thing. But in CMBO you have lots of detail with explictit representation, so you need explitit movement.</font>[/QUOTE]But....

BIG BUT,

how do we Adopt or impliment Relative Spotting if we do NOT move to a real command-like game?

this thread opened with a suggestion to focus on a solution to the "problem" of absolute spotting.
An interesting solution was proposed by James Crowley. If we are serious about getting rid of Borg Spotting how are we going to do it?
James proposed one solution.

Will the CMII game engine model relative spotting? If so how will it determine who can communicate with who, what orders can be given, and who knows what and when did it happen on the battlfield? How can we avoid a "command-like" game if we really want Relative Spotting?

One sure thing that has come out of this thread is that we will have to trust the tac AI to take GOOD care of our units if they are out of C&C and we can't give them orders.

SO...

Instead can we program them with SOP's (Standard Operating Procedures) so that the TAC AI will have a clue what mission they were on before they left C&C?

This is a VERY tricky issue to be sure. tongue.gif

(but fun to discuss, Hint hint, I would REALLY enjoy working on the Developement team when BTS gets down to business work out the details of Relative Spotting for CM II smile.gif )

-tom w

[ June 17, 2002, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[James Crowley]

Excellent discussion guys. Lots of very valid points for and against.

Tom W.
Spot on with the HQ issue. And that is one of my main points; the player who loses his HQ's is, and should be, kaput!

I can only speak with any depth of knowledge on the British Army in WW2, but many, many CM sized battles were lost not because of overall casualties but because of officer attrition. There just wasn't enough left to co-ordinate the attack/defence.

Rune.
Yes you are right; often the good old sarge was better than the lieutenant but I don,t see any evidence of this being universal. And it is doubtful if non-comms would be able to control a company or battalion level attack on their own.
You say that a whole level of play would be lost.
How so? Every unit in Command would still be controllable. You would just have to juggle the existing HQ's to pull the out of command units back into line. If most of your HQ's are gone, then the reality is that you have already lost.
As I said above I believe many battles were lost because of loss of leaders, not necessarilly large quantities of men. In CMBO it is nearly always the other way around; the loss of HQ's rarely has as much impact as it should; it is only when the vast majority of your men/machines are casualties that you have lost. I doubt if any of the historical armies in NW Europe could have consistantly sustained that level of attrition.

I agree my proposal is far from perfect, but I don't see how it turns CM into a command level game. It seeks to impose a greater sense of reality to the battlefield; gives HQ's the importance they are denied (if they were not that vital why on earth did all armies of that period have huge officer cadres) and, most importantly it is the only way that you eliminate the "Borg" problem because if you control all units you can always see and react to what they see. This just puts a limiter on it.

For all that I agree with Kip; it's still the best game on the subject bar none. If it never changes I won't lose too much sleep.

Thanks for all the responses

[rune]

you lose a level of play because unrealistically, unless the ai is re-coded, the platoon out of c&c assumes it cannot do anything but break or defensive fire. The quality of german ncos would rule that out alone. smile.gif

So, c&c will be addressed better in the engine re-write.

Rune

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by rune:
you lose a level of play because unrealistically, unless the ai is re-coded, the platoon out of c&c assumes it cannot do anything but break or defensive fire. The quality of german ncos would rule that out alone. smile.gif

So, c&c will be addressed better in the engine re-write.

Runethe only work around that I can think of on that issue is the posibility of pre-programing squads with some SOP's you can select from a menu in the event they find themselves out of C&C because you sent them on a recon mission (in which case you should send a RADIO with them) or their HQ got killed :(

maybe some things like

i) hold position assume defensive posture, and ambush
ii) sneak forward and advance until contact
iii) advance agressively fire on the nearest enemy unit and take out there position (??)
iv) hide, and fire only when fired upon
v) seek C&C find the nearest friendly HQ
vi) seek the nearest cover and hide
vii) recon forward and avoid detection (this is USELESS if they can't tell you what they find :confused: anyway)

IMHO I think we need SOPs if units out of C&C are completely out of control of the player smile.gif

-tom w

[ April 23, 2002, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Doug Beman]

Firstly, CM is designed as a representation of command at platoon to company level. Because of that, players must be able to command troops from platoon to company level; removing that will leave us with perhaps a purely company-level game (in which the AI decides how each and every sub-command acts) OR a purely squad-level game, in which players command only a few of the troops on the board.

I posit that you're confusing "relative vs absolute spotting" with "virtually unlimited C&C" issues. The first has to do with "what can each unit see on its own" and the second has to do with "can the player, in his command role, give orders to such-and-such a unit?" They should be treated separately, and I believe fixing the first will be simpler than fixing the second, and will yield a much better game to PLAY, even if it's not 100% accurate in terms of C&C.

Here's an example we've probably all encountered: some of your infantry and tanks are firing at some enemy infantry. 40 seconds into a turn, some of your infantry spot, and react to (by firing panzerfaust, or scurrying for cover, etc) an enemy tank moving up. You, as the player, know for sure that one of your tanks should be able to see it. However, that tank DOES NOT see it on its own; it is concentrating on merrily machine-gunning some enemy infantry off thataway {points}. Then, at the next orders phase, you order your tank to ignore the infantry and get that @$#$# tank. Even though, in the previous movie, the tank could not/did not see the enemy, you've specifically given it a target order. This is equivalent to a "little inner voice" that whispers to the tank commander "pssst....over there." This is the absolute spotting issue: even units that cannot/do not see enemy units on their own can be given orders to specifically target them.

Under a relative spotting system, you would be UNABLE to give that tank a target order for an enemy it did not already see on its own; in effect, each unit would be reduced to shooting at things that it became aware of through its own devices. If you tried to tell your tank to target that enemy tank, you would have only "area fire" and would have to hope that, in the action of preparing to fire an HE shell, your tank would see the enemy.

Making an adjustment to the spotting issue would involve telling the game engine "keep track of what every unit can see using its own TacAI devices, and allow THE PLAYER to direct that unit's fire only at targets which the unit has already spotted."

Adjusting the issue of "giving orders to out-of-C&C units" will be much harder, primarily because, if you cannot give a unit orders, then SOMETHING must give it orders. That would entail the player, before each battle, creating a "behavior pattern" for each unit, eg telling a big, powerful tank "if you're out of C&C simply stay in place and shoot anything you see" but a bazooka team "if you're out of C&C immediately move back to where the HQ was when you last left it. Then the TacAI would have to supply all that functionality, based upon rules the players set up. Add in the complexities of artillery FOs (yes, they're supposed to be near an HQ, and should have radios tied into the company-level net, but I'm sure that FOs were often completely on their own) or long-range guns and you start seeing the hurdles in AI programming that have to be overcome.

Even with a "behavior patter" based on 100 (or 1000, or 100000000) player-set variables, a coded TacAI, regardless of how good it is (and it's very good, so please tell Charles to put away the cleaver!) will never be more than lines of computer code. It must follow, underneath those "behavior patterns," functionality that will be IDENTICAL REGARDLESS of who the player is. This will have the effect of greatly REDUCING the impact of each player's skill on the game. If, in a game, most of your and my troops fall out of C&C (and it will happen, regardless of how hard each player tries), the TacAI will take over and the battle will literally be the computer vs the computer. Certainly your and my skill at positioning troops at the very start of the battle, and at mastering the "behavior patterns" will have some impact. However, what we will largely wind up with is Combat Mission, "Vibro-Football" style. Each player spends an inordinate amount of time positioning troops, only to see, 5 turns later, that he's not controlling anything.

Lastly, consider all the battles in CMBO that are fought in horrible weather or night; the reduction of C&C radius (sometimes to a few dozen meters) will almost guarantee that, 5 or 10 turns into combat, neither player will exercise ANY command beyond "give orders to this squad for a turn, then to that MG for 2 turns, then the arty FO for awhile." That's even less control than I have over my own life! :(

I like, in the current system, that if my troops are out of C&C (or even IN C&C), they will sometimes fire on their compatriots. I would NOT like, and would NOT play (and believe I'm definitely not alone) a game in which, because the QuickBattle generator created a battle on a dark and stormy night (RIP Charles Schulz), I am nothing more than an observer of Charles' coding skill.

DjB

[ April 18, 2002, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Doug Beman ]

[Priest]

Doug I would have to agree.

As I have always said, I do not like the "BORG" spotting, but unless a relative spotting method is found that does not sacrifice playability, then why change what works so well overall.

One other thing, the tank example that you use is slightly off though Doug. Let's say for example we have a LOS to the enemy tank but the tank is firing at the infantry as in your example. As a player we do not know when a tank "chooses" to fire at the infantry and when it does not "see" the tank. Only the TACAI knows this, although I am sure that "not seeing" the tank occurs more often than "choosing" the infantry as the preferred target.

[Sir Uber General]

oooh oooh let me have a go!

You are Bn commander, you can only see enemy that have been reported to you. Reporting is instant, and comes from HQ units and other radio equipped vehicles / units.

Eg, Shermans have radios and MG Jeeps dont. Spotters do and snipers dont.

Enemy spotted by your troops in C&C insantly become active in your view.

Enemy spotted by troops out of C&C are not revealed on the map until they get back in C&C, and then you only see the last known position and estimated force composition based on the spotting ability of your unit.

Units out of C&C that see the enemy get an icon in there status bar that tells you "hey Ive bumped some enemy, I have intel your map doesnt display" This way you can decide to have them pull back to give you intel, or to stick it out. The choice is still yours, you just wont know what they are up against, until a HQ turns up on the scene or your recon guys fall back into C&C and report.

That system is simple and would prevent gamey play on both sides. Recon and anti-recon play becomes critical as it should be.

Borg spotting is out, unless you have all your troops in C&C, so it is really just a compromise. To get around the tank spotting issues mentioned above, give targeting orders a command delay just like move orders. This simulates someone radioing the tank / yelling to the commander "shoot that way!" The commander then finds the target THEN fires at it.

That system can really work for all units. ie, unit in C&C has not yet spotted a unit it should be able to see and should be shooting at it first. You command the unit to fire on said bad guy... 15-20 seconds later they finally spot the unit you are pointing to and they open fire.

And finally,
you cannot get units out of C&C to target specific threats they have eyeball on because you dont know about them and if you did, you couldnt tell them what to do anyway.
Later

[ April 18, 2002, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: Sir Uber General ]

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by Sir Uber General:
Enemy spotted by your troops in C&C insantly become active in your view.

Enemy spotted by troops out of C&C are not revealed on the map until they get back in C&C, and then you only see the last known position and estimated force composition based on the spotting ability of your unit.

Units out of C&C that see the enemy get an icon in there status bar that tells you "hey Ive bumped some enemy, I have intel your map doesnt display" This way you can decide to have them pull back to give you intel, or to stick it out. The choice is still yours, you just wont know what they are up against, until a HQ turns up on the scene or your recon guys fall back into C&C and report.
I suggested this further up the thread, but with the addition of a long delay until even things seen by units out of C&C is revealed to you.

The reason is that if you don't, then the loss of the HQs on the map means you'll be out of the game pretty effectively. Take a platoon level scenario/game, HQ gone game over. While possibly realistic, not very fun for the player(s).

However, if there is a long delay then you can still play the game even if it is very difficult. Some rationale can be created for that if you really need it, but otherwise it's playability.

[Caesar]

I quite like the ideas that Sir Uber general and others have proposed. Their weakness seems to be that losing a Platoon HQ in effect loses you the entire platoon and so would have too much bearing on a game - especially smaller games.

To stop the loss of a Platoon HQ having too much effect, you could have after a suitable delay have one of the squads designated as the new HQ i.e. a sgt taking over after his commander was killed. Obviously this squads command ability would have to be made significantly lower - increase delays, short command radius, maybe a slight loss in firepower to simulate a couple of men too busy commanding to be able to shoot effectively etc.

[Redwolf]

The major problem with the solutions proposed:

1) the troops out of C&C must fight on their own, they need much more TacAI -> nightmare, nightmare, nightmare, and effectivly the game become a partly command game.

2) if you show troops that are out of C&C, and they start fighting an enemy only they have seen and they do not report back to you, they you need to invent a graphical representation of "fighting" that doesn't expose the kind of position of the enemy they fight. For example, a tank running into a gun is just shown "fighting" and you see it shoot, but not where it shoots and on what. But this is a very dractics break from the CMBO model which shows you all the detail.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by redwolf:
The major problem with the solutions proposed:

1) the troops out of C&C must fight on their own, they need much more TacAI -> nightmare, nightmare, nightmare, and effectivly the game become a partly command game.

2) if you show troops that are out of C&C, and they start fighting an enemy only they have seen and they do not report back to you, they you need to invent a graphical representation of "fighting" that doesn't expose the kind of position of the enemy they fight. For example, a tank running into a gun is just shown "fighting" and you see it shoot, but not where it shoots and on what. But this is a very dractics break from the CMBO model which shows you all the detail.But still there should be more fog of War and so far most folks in this thread have been saying we DON'T want to see Relative spotting adopted if it means we will loose control of units out of C&C?

What is Relative Spotting?
How is Is it Different from Absolute Spotting?
Do we REALLY want Relative Spotting.

I think I should revist some old threads from Steve on this issue.

"should we be able to see so much is one sucg thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=003938

"As for the suggestion, it is one we thought about in the original design for CM. We dropped it
because it was too complicated and was one of those features that likely had a higher degree of
problems to benefits. In theory we both like it. In spite of what Moon says (and I TOTALLY agree with
that BTW), there is one element that the current system does not simulate at all. That is getting lost.

Here is an example. Charles, Scott Udell, and myself hopped in my Weasel right after I got it running.
We drove into my "back yard" down a trail and I MISSED the turn off I was looking for. We went
down the main path and I got totally confused as to where I had planned on turning. I hopped out,
motor running, and jogged back up the trail to see if I had gone too far or not far enough. Turns out
I had gone too far. When I got back in all three of us mentioned that this is something lacking in
wargames and would be cool if it could in fact be simulated. The result would be that recon would not
just be for finding out where enemy units are, but also where the objectives are, the best routes,
and so on. We think it is a desirable feature IN THEORY...

Reality though, we aren't so sure. It is something we might do for CM II but not for CM 2 (meaning a
whole new series whenever we get to it, not a direct sequel). This feature does have the risk of
hitting the point of dimenishing returns quite quickly.

We also don't think there is any point in doing this until we can have relative spotting (i.e. one unit
sees the enemy, the others don't), and that too is a BIG deal to put into the game. So we are talking
two huge, fundamental, tough features at the very least. We will most likely tackle neither for quite
some time, but will go with relative spotting at some point in all likelyhood. Maybe after that we can
have an unknown map feature.

Steve
"

"And practically speaking since the human knows all of what
his units know, it won't take long in any open terrain scenario to pretty much know what the map
looks like. Just put one guy on the nearest hill and bingo

BUT...

It still would be cool to introduce the uncertainty (and error!!) of local navigation at the lowest tactical
level. It would certainly change the nature of CM, just as CM has already changed the nature of
wargaming in general (3D terrain, variable spotting, etc.). So if we ever do something like this it will
be a fundamental shift into something new. And because of that trying to slap something in would
most likely be a disaster. So until the time comes when we can and want to do it right, not going to
happen

As I said a few posts earlier, Charles and I see relative spotting to be more important and probably
required for map "uncertainty" in any case. But this too is a HUGE undertaking on many levels, so
don't expect that any time soon either

Steve "

" Steve
Whats relative spotting? Is this when you choose one unit on your side and the battlefield "changes"
to correspond to his perspective? ie he only sees what is in his line of sight and other enemy (or
friendly) units are sensed as noise contacts/stars/crosses?

I was thinking about that myself and have it in my platoon game "notes" ( I am developing a game
proposal..if any game companies are listening..). Basically I would handle it by forcing the player to
order his units in the following order. Those units with the LEAST battlefield info are first with
succeeding units given to the player. I am sure this will go over bigtime with all the control freaks here
but its just an idea.

Lewis"

there must be MORE good Relative Spotting vs. absolute Spotting threads out there we can refer to here.

I would like to know "What exactly is the problem?"

(I think this is a good place to start:

Larsen says:

"For me the problem with absolute spotting is not that I know immidiately where the bad guys are but
that the units that didnot spot the bad guys can immidiately see them and fire at them. I would
assume that once the shots are fired one can say that "the bad guys are somewhere there". It would
be nice to make each unit to spot the enemy individually rather than collectively. "

AND this:

Redwolf says:
"What I want a solution for is this: you are attacking with a wide screen all over the map. Lead elements to the left spot tanks. In CMBO you can immideately rush all your units, including all Bazookas from all over the map, to that spot. For me, that is one of the major reasons why tanks-heavy CMBO forces have few chances of winning against infantry on any map with decent cover. In reality, the tanks would first have more time to munch at the infantry in front of them, then they could prepare for the enemy armored reserves to arrive and other infantry would follow much later, piecemeal. In CMBO, you get a concentrated overrun from enemy infantry in a very short time."

And what are the proposed solutions to deal with these issues?

Great thread....

it takes up ALL of my time at work (except for when I skip offf for Lunch smile.gif )

-tom w

[ April 19, 2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

I think this one boils down to what you as the Player can know about the enemy as opposed to what your units (in contact) with the enemy can know about the enemy.

to deal with these two issues:

Larsen says:

"For me the problem with absolute spotting is not that I know immidiately where the bad guys are but
that the units that didnot spot the bad guys can immidiately see them and fire at them. I would
assume that once the shots are fired one can say that "the bad guys are somewhere there". It would
be nice to make each unit to spot the enemy individually rather than collectively. "

AND this:

Redwolf says:
"What I want a solution for is this: you are attacking with a wide screen all over the map. Lead
elements to the left spot tanks. In CMBO you can immideately rush all your units, including all Bazookas
from all over the map, to that spot. For me, that is one of the major reasons why tanks-heavy CMBO
forces have few chances of winning against infantry on any map with decent cover. In reality, the tanks
would first have more time to munch at the infantry in front of them, then they could prepare for the
enemy armored reserves to arrive and other infantry would follow much later, piecemeal. In CMBO, you
get a concentrated overrun from enemy infantry in a very short time."

The Fog of War MUST be enhanced, to such a large extent, that in order for you as the Player to NOT lose control of your units which are OUT of C&C, (implying that control would be lost if CM II turns into a Command game), then those units that ARE out of C&C (and this comes down to how to we want to model radio communications) MUST not be able to report (to you The Player) any good information about who or what they are fighting or shooting at, BUT still we would need to trust the AI to make sure they, (our inf units out of C&C) employ a suitable tactic (hide, fire back, run away) when they make contact with an enemy unit that they CANNOT tell us (The Player) ANYTHING about because they are out of C&C. Either that or you LOSE complete control of all units out of C&C and most folks here find that excessively punitive and undesirable if I understand the gist of this thread correctly.

This is a REAL tricky problem, but thinking about it sure is FUN!

smile.gif

-tom w

[ April 19, 2002, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Redwolf]

I think the following more genral issue is missing from this thread:

From my understandng, for CMII, the relative spotting planned is "only" for the vision with regards to unit acting on their own.

Example: one tank and one squad go into a place and a gun shoots at them, having LOS to both. Even if only one of the unit spot the gun, both will immideately shoot at it, even though only one actually saw the gun. This is supposed to be broken up, but it only applies to automtaic bahaviour (TacAI). It will not prevent the player from ordering area fire when the next plot phase begins.

It will help somewhat, especially for AT teams and guns. Doing more is very difficult. As you said, the "tank gets rushed from all over the map" is probably as hard as it gets short of multiplayer with FOW between the players, or gentleman's agreements not to use area fire to overcome spotting problems.

As a datapoint, TacOps has it somewhat easier since it doesn't have area fire besides indirect fire. But I doubt this is a better solution, since a) indirect area fire is still fire b) even TacOps will probably get area fire soon, it is needed for realism.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by redwolf:
I think the following more genral issue is missing from this thread:

From my understandng, for CMII, the relative spotting planned is "only" for the vision with regards to unit acting on their own.

Example: one tank and one squad go into a place and a gun shoots at them, having LOS to both. Even if only one of the unit spot the gun, both will immideately shoot at it, even though only one actually saw the gun. This is supposed to be broken up, but it only applies to automtaic bahaviour (TacAI). It will not prevent the player from ordering area fire when the next plot phase begins.

It will help somewhat, especially for AT teams and guns. Doing more is very difficult. As you said, the "tank gets rushed from all over the map" is probably as hard as it gets short of multiplayer with FOW between the players, or gentleman's agreements not to use area fire to overcome spotting problems.This is right, I think; I believe Doug made about the same point. IMO, though, the "automatic spotting of any unit in LOS when one unit in LOS has spotted that unit" is a much, much bigger realism problem than the other C & C issue, particularly wrt tanks and guns.

There is a certain lack of realism in how borg spotting allows a player to bring up other troops to reinforce a particular area of the battlefield when the reinforcing troops can't see the units that they are reinforcing, or the enemy units.

On the other hand, if the squad or platoon leader hears a lot of firing in the direction where they know one of their platoons is, and they have been given appropriately broad directives, it's not unrealistic to assume that they would "march to the sound of the guns."

Of course there is a difference between sidling a platoon diagonally 200 meters so that it can help out a friendly platoon...and executing a complicated maneuver that calls on the platoon to drop back 300 meters, execute a "J" shaped march over 1200 meters, using a hill for cover, and then running 500 meters until you're almost on where you need to be, followed by 50 meters of "sneaking" to approach the enemy.

Not that this would always be unrealistic, even the parts about using the hill for cover and the last bit of sneaking - but it would require a much higher level of initiative than the first example would.

[Ace Pilot]

It seems to me that the problem of borg spotting is that units act on information that they would not have in real life. Now, I see only two ways of addressing this problem. One is to deny the player the information that only a handful of units have. The other is to prevent the player from performing actions that would only be performed if the particular unit had the information. Of course, each solution means players lose some control over their units.

For example, suppose there is a squad and a Sherman in a town, hiding behind some buildings. The player sends the squad out beyond the town, through some heavy woods to where they spot a halftrack in the open. With borg spotting, the player can immediately send the Sherman after the halftrack. The first way to fix this is to prevent the player from seeing the halftrack because only one of his units knows about it. This, of course, means that the player can’t command his squad to do anything about the halftrack, even though the squad itself is aware of the halftrack. A possible solution is to let the TacAI control the squad’s actions in situations like this, but this means giving up some of the control that it seems a lot of CM players like, as well as improving the AI, as others have pointed out. Another question this solution raises is at what point does a spotted unit become revealed to the player? Unless all of his units are aware of the enemy unit, borg spotting will still be an issue.

The other solution is to prevent the player from performing actions that are only performed because of information that the player has, but his particular units don’t. In this case, it would mean preventing the Sherman from being given orders to go after the halftrack that it doesn’t know is there, or perhaps implementing a big enough command delay that it would make it next to impossible to execute such an order in a timely fashion. How you distinguish between the player sending his Sherman after the halftrack and sending his Sherman to the same location because that’s where he wants it regardless of the halftrack is beyond me. However, the bottom line is that, again, the player loses an element of control over his forces.

Those are the only two solutions I see for implementing relative spotting. And given the limitations they put on the control aspects of the game, I don’t see how either one can be implemented without fundamentally changing the kind of game that CM is.

I do see a way of implementing a psudeo form of relative spotting. If the game were limited to showing enemy units only while the player was in camera view 1 and locked onto one of his units, this would (somewhat) limit the players ability to make maximum use of his “God’s eye” view. The player could still view the map and his units in any other camera view, or while unlocked from his unit, but he couldn’t see any enemy units.

Great discussion, guys!

Ace

[aka_tom_w]

"I do see a way of implementing a psudeo form of relative spotting. If the game were limited to showing
enemy units only while the player was in camera view 1 and locked onto one of his units, this would
(somewhat) limit the players ability to make maximum use of his “God’s eye” view. The player could still
view the map and his units in any other camera view, or while unlocked from his unit, but he couldn’t
see any enemy units."

I REALLY like that idea

that one makes sense (not entirely realistic) and maybe not GREAT for playability for some but it seems like a GREAT compromise for an EXTREME FOW setting.

Very inovative thinking there.

" If the game were limited to showing enemy units only while the player was in camera view 1 and locked onto one of his units, this would (somewhat) limit the players ability to make maximum use of his “God’s eye” view."

AND given the nature of the contact AND whether the friendly unit was in C&C this icon that you see from view one might be very indescript, MAYBE it stay just a sound contact for a LONG time, maybe it is JUST the sound of gun fire?
maybe its just sounds of equipment rattling on the infantry (Higher chance of rattling sound for Green and consript troops smile.gif ).

That one is a good suggestion to be SURE!

Like Iron Man rules but only for the implimentation of Relative Spotting for enemy units.

GREAT idea!

-tom w

[Redwolf]

That suggestion still doesn't solve the problem that the units which are not covered by the player need to act on their own -> messy heap of TacAI, AI, SOP etc.

One other aspect not menioned is that CMBO has traces of useful FOW. That is if a unit is being shot at and immedeately panics, we don't get to see the shooter. That is good, but as I said, if you want to expand that to units which are not in panic, then you face the problem that they will shoot back, and the graphical precision of CMBO doesn't allow you to hide the target from the player.

Play green troops...

[Redwolf]

I didn't mention the obvious solution: expand turn time from 1 minute to 30. Eliminates the player factor, which is where all the trouble comes from.

We'd better get SOP's, with decision trees on waypoints before that...

[Doug Beman]

For example, suppose there is a squad and a Sherman in a town, hiding behind some buildings. The player sends the squad out beyond the town, through some heavy woods to where they spot a halftrack in the open. With borg spotting, the player can immediately send the Sherman after the halftrack.But each player is given the role of commanding, in addition to individual units, whole companies. Therefor, the squad sees the halftrack, reports to platoon HQ, who reports to company CO, who orders the supporting Sherman to do something about it.

DjB

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Ace said:
For example, suppose there is a squad and a Sherman in a town, hiding behind some buildings. The player sends the squad out beyond the town, through some heavy woods to where they spot a halftrack in the open. With borg spotting, the player can immediately send the Sherman after the halftrack.And Doug said:
But each player is given the role of commanding, in addition to individual units, whole companies. Therefor, the squad sees the halftrack, reports to platoon HQ, who reports to company CO, who orders the supporting Sherman to do something about it.

DjB</font>[/QUOTE]Doug,

I agree, but I think what most people would find fault with is the fact that this communication occurs instantaneously because the player assumes so many roles.

I’m not positive, but it feels like we keep coming back to this communication issue. And I think that means the answer lies in the way C&C is modeled, as James Crowley originally suggested. In addition to modeling command and control, it feels like it needs to be expanded to include communications. It would seem logical that if it takes time for orders to travel down the chain of command (command delay), that it would take time for information to travel up the chain of command. Perhaps the problem with this approach is that, as others have pointed out, it puts too much emphasis on HQs and ignores the fact that information can travel between units without passing through the HQ. Could it be that the answer to this problem is modeling the communication that takes place between units? It’s a huge challenge, considering all the communications that occur (radio, shouting, hand signals, runners are just some examples) on the battlefield. My initial thought is that each unit would have its own communication level (tracked by the computer) that would be influenced by a variety of factors. The higher its communication level, the better its ability to spot enemy units and communicate that information to the player.

I think others have proposed a similar idea, tying it to whether the unit is in C&C. I would argue that it is more a function of how well that unit can communicate to other units. All of your HQs may be gone, but if all of your units are crammed into a single building, it’s not hard to let them all know quickly that an enemy tank has just been spotted rolling up the side street. As those units get dispersed, their ability to communicate diminishes. Having a functioning HQ should supplement that communication ability, but it shouldn’t be impossible to communicate without one.

Ace

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by redwolf:
That suggestion still doesn't solve the problem that the units which are not covered by the player need to act on their own -> messy heap of TacAI, AI, SOP etc.

One other aspect not menioned is that CMBO has traces of useful FOW. That is if a unit is being shot at and immedeately panics, we don't get to see the shooter. That is good, but as I said, if you want to expand that to units which are not in panic, then you face the problem that they will shoot back, and the graphical precision of CMBO doesn't allow you to hide the target from the player.

Play green troops..."That suggestion still doesn't solve the problem that the units which are not covered by the player need to act on their own -> messy heap of TacAI, AI, SOP etc."

with reference to this:

"If the game were limited to showing enemy units only while the player was in camera view 1 and
locked onto one of his units, this would (somewhat) limit the players ability to make maximum use of
his “God’s eye” view."

I like the above proposal IN addition to the SAME kind of control players now have in CMBO over all units and even those units out of C&C.

So the proposal is NOT to take away control of units out of C&C just to limit the visual representation of enemy icons to that of view 1 only from the unit that spots what they think is the enemy. Its not Iron Man rules is just that the Player ONLY gets to see what one of his friendly units (in C&C or NOT) gets to see from view 1.

If that friendly unit is in C&C radius then MAYBE the game would know that and show the player a little more detailed info. If the friendly unit is out of C&C then the ONLY thing the game would EVER display from view 1 while that friendly unit was selected would be a completely un-identifiable enemy nationality marker and NOTHING more.

Now for vehicles which ALL have radios that always work then they would always get the benefit of viewing from within C&C, so they would see and the game would reveal more detailed info to the player.

This might make it "feel" more like Relative Spotting without ever taking the control of any units away from the player. Meaning that JUST the level of FOW would be substantially increased.

How's that?

-tom w

[ April 19, 2002, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
...(and this comes down to how to we want to model radio communications)...Let's not get hung up on radio communication. Even in the US Army, which was relatively speaking lavishly supplied with radios, platoon leaders communicated with their squads primarily by hand signal, voice, runners, and good old "pass the word". There were in other armies also whistles, flares (Very lights), signal flags, even bugles. I've probably skipped something, but I hope you get the idea.

Michael

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
...(and this comes down to how to we want to model radio communications)...Let's not get hung up on radio communication. Even in the US Army, which was relatively speaking lavishly supplied with radios, platoon leaders communicated with their squads primarily by hand signal, voice, runners, and good old "pass the word". There were in other armies also whistles, flares (Very lights), signal flags, even bugles. I've probably skipped something, but I hope you get the idea.

Michael</font>[/QUOTE]I understand ALL of that when it comes to the "top down" issueing of the orders BUT, (Which is way I advocate leaving the command structure and C&C even with relative spotting as it is now so no units that are out of C&C fall completely out of the players control) but, all the " hand signals, voice commands, runners, and good old "pass the word" whistles, flares (Very lights), signal flags, and bugles" in the world cannot communicate enemy strength and position UP the chain of command which is at the heart of the Absolute vs Relative spotting issue.

Is is not?

-tom w

[ April 19, 2002, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:
How you distinguish between the player sending his Sherman after the halftrack and sending his Sherman to the same location because that’s where he wants it regardless of the halftrack is beyond me.It's beyond me too, Ace. smile.gif I think this approach is unworkable, unjustifiable from a historical perspective, and unacceptable for most players. I'm not sure there is any good way to prevent players from sending their troops where they want to (exception recognized: terrain limitations and the fact that they would possibly die if sent to certain locations where they would be exposed to enemy fire).

Limiting players to View 1 wouldn't sit well with a lot of players, I expect, this one included. ;)

However, there are ways that a player's omnipotence can be hindered without doing too much violence to either realism or gameplay. The first is that each unit has to go through a spotting procedure before it can fire at an enemy unit regardless of borg spotting. I don't recall if that is already implemented in the game. If not, it would not be too hard to add, I should think.

Another thing which would effect movement somewhat but without impinging unduly on a player's freedom would work this way: When the player clicks on a unit to give it a movement or fire command, the only enemy units shown on the map are those presently spotted by the friendly unit and by it alone. Obviously a player can still depend on his own recall of where enemy units are located, but unless he has eidetic memory, that recall is going to be less precise than having the enemy units actually depicted on the map.

Just thought I'd throw a couple of cents into the pot...

Michael

[ April 19, 2002, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[aka_tom_w]

"Another thing which would effect movement somewhat but without impinging
unduly on a player's freedom would work this way: When the player clicks on
a unit to give it a movement or fire command, the only enemy units shown on
the map are those presently spotted by the friendly unit and by it alone.
Obviously a player can still depend on his own recall of where enemy units
are located, but unless he has eidetic memory, that recall is going to be less
precise than having the enemy units actually depicted on the map."

I'm sorry to disagree but I don't believe this suggestion solves anything. Using the - and + keys most players routinely scroll through ALL their units on EVERY turn to find out there status and location, simply by clicking +++++++, + + + many times quickly from view 8 you will see where all the enemy units are that your units can see and it will be NO different than it is now.

Of course the Same can be true of Click +++++++ (next unit) while in view 1 to see the enemy units your forces can see as well so I'm not sure that is such a good solution either :confused:

-tom w

[ April 19, 2002, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
...but, all the " hand signals, voice commands, runners, and good old "pass the word" whistles, flares (Very lights), signal flags, and bugles" in the world cannot communicate enemy strength and position UP the chain of command which is at the heart of the Absolute vs Relative spotting issue.

Is is not?I don't think so, at least not to the same extent that you apparently do. If a squad sees a company of troops or tanks break out of a treeline half a mile away, don't you think Sarge is going to send someone back to let the Looey know about it, assuming Looey is not placed where he can see it with his own eyes?

Also, if Looey hears one of his squads open fire (or anybody else in the neighborhood for that matter) he's going to suspect that something is up and begin remedial action (if he's any good).

Michael

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
...but, all the " hand signals, voice commands, runners, and good old "pass the word" whistles, flares (Very lights), signal flags, and bugles" in the world cannot communicate enemy strength and position UP the chain of command which is at the heart of the Absolute vs Relative spotting issue.

Is is not?I don't think so, at least not to the same extent that you apparently do. If a squad sees a company of troops or tanks break out of a treeline half a mile away, don't you think Sarge is going to send someone back to let the Looey know about it, assuming Looey is not placed where he can see it with his own eyes?

Also, if Looey hears one of his squads open fire (or anybody else in the neighborhood for that matter) he's going to suspect that something is up and begin remedial action (if he's any good).

Michael</font>[/QUOTE]OK,
you are correct there for sure, runners will pass this info up the chain of command. Perhaps it should take ALOT more time than it does now in CMBO?

-tom w

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
I'm sorry to disagree but I don't believe this suggestion solves anything.Well, I never claimed it was perfect. :D

I think we need to acknowledge that this is a tricky problem. If it had an easy solution, I am confident that BTS would have stumbled upon it by now.

Using the - and + keys most players routinely scroll through ALL their units on EVERY turn...you will see where all the enemy units are that your units can see and it will be NO different than it is now.It will be a little different as I noted earlier. Remembering where an enemy unit was a moment ago, while not an insuperable problem for those not mentally handicapped, is not the same as having it before you all the time.

Again, we need to be sure that whatever measures we urge BTS to adopt do not introduce greater absurdities than the ones they are meant to cure. That is my whole point at this time.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
Perhaps it should take ALOT more time than it does now in CMBO?Yes, yes, yes!!! That's been one of my unspoken pet peeves for quite a while.

But again, the problem is how to model that without putting kinks into the game?

Thus far, I can't think of a satisfactory way to deprive the player of any knowledge possessed by any of his units. The best I can come up with is ways to hinder the sharing of that knowledge between subordinate units.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
...the Player ONLY gets to see what one of his friendly units (in C&C or NOT) gets to see from view 1.This sounds like my suggestion, except that I would not limit the player to being in View 1.

Yes?

Michael

[lcm1947]

I'm getting way over my head here and may have it handed to me by someone but I'll just mention something that I personally feel. I love the game and will play it forever the way it is but that said I also appreciate change and improvements. I do however have a problem when every vehicle, tank, troop or whatever comes to a enemy sighting. I mean that's not real. Only the forces that would be needed to handle the threat should haul over there. So I was thinking what if maybe only those units within a certain range would response and then only in sufficient force to deal with the threat. Now I don't know if something like this could be programmed or not but that's what I feel would improve the game.

[Caesar]

I don't like the idea of having to click + a million times to see where the enemy units are. It would admittedly reduce some of our omniscience, but it would be a real pain to play. I also don't like the idea of losing control of the movement of individual squads due to lack of CnC. IMO tacAI is simply not good enough to allow sensible and realistic movement of the squads.

I would rather that

1. Every unit had to individually spot a unit. Obviously if the enemy unit fires, it will be easier to spot as all units will turn to the sound of fire. Fuzzy logic should determine spotting i.e you get x% chance of spotting in the given conditions (depending on the unit quality as now), with this chance increasing with sound and other factors drawing units attention to that area.

2. All units within CnC can get borg sighting or greatly increased chance of spotting after a suitable delay calculated by the number of links in the command chain that the info has to travel. This delay can be modified based on communication equipment. Higher level HQs (Company and battalion) would have special extended Command ranges (not for normal morale and control) applying only to lower level HQs. This would encourage players to keep their Company HQs in realistic positions to control their subordinate HQs.

3. FOW applied to the map. The map should only initially give broad information (the sort you could get off a map and with general info from the local populace) The map should only get updated as units within CnC (up to at least the Co level if one is present). If a player gives an order, that as a result of ignorance of the map, cannot be obeyed then the unit will stop and behave with normal TacAI behaviour. This will cause the unexpected delays that would happen in real life. Spotting from a distance should have fuzzy logic applied that causes inaccuracies such as incorrect elevetions, missing small copses, ditches etc. The map updating should suffer the same CnC delays as above.

4. Allow normal squad level delays to be applied to small movements and 1 - 2 waypoints for those in local CnC, but much greater delays related to the above CnC delays for large movements or higher numbers of waypoints. This would force players to maintain realistic command structures and more importantly slow down the current almost immediate response to a significant threat.

5. As CnC would be much more important, units that lose their HQ should be able to attach to other HQs with reduced performance (and none of the modifiers)

[ April 20, 2002, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: Caesar ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Caesar:
I don't like the idea of having to click + a million times to see where the enemy units are. It would admittedly reduce some of our omniscience, but it would be a real pain to play. I also don't like the idea of losing control of the movement of individual squads due to lack of CnC. IMO tacAI is simply not good enough to allow sensible and realistic movement of the squads.

I would rather that

1. Every unit had to individually spot a unit. Obviously if the enemy unit fires, it will be easier to spot as all units will turn to the sound of fire. Fuzzy logic should determine spotting i.e you get x% chance of spotting in the given conditions (depending on the unit quality as now), with this chance increasing with sound and other factors drawing units attention to that area.

2. All units within CnC can get borg sighting or greatly increased chance of spotting after a suitable delay calculated by the number of links in the command chain that the info has to travel. This delay can be modified based on communication equipment. Higher level HQs (Company and battalion) would have special extended Command ranges (not for normal morale and control) applying only to lower level HQs. This would encourage players to keep their Company HQs in realistic positions to control their subordinate HQs.

3. FOW applied to the map. The map should only initially give broad information (the sort you could get off a map and with general info from the local populace) The map should only get updated as units within CnC (up to at least the Co level if one is present). If a player gives an order, that as a result of ignorance of the map, cannot be obeyed then the unit will stop and behave with normal TacAI behaviour. This will cause the unexpected delays that would happen in real life. Spotting from a distance should have fuzzy logic applied that causes inaccuracies such as incorrect elevetions, missing small copses, ditches etc. The map updating should suffer the same CnC delays as above.

4. Allow normal squad level delays to be applied to small movements and 1 - 2 waypoints for those in local CnC, but much greater delays related to the above CnC delays for large movements or higher numbers of waypoints. This would force players to maintain realistic command structures and more importantly slow down the current almost immediate response to a significant threat.

5. As CnC would be much more important, units that lose their HQ should be able to attach to other HQs with reduced performance (and none of the modifiers)have we really defined the problem we want to solve??

Again I will repost these suggestions:

Larsen says:

"For me the problem with absolute spotting is not that I know immidiately where the bad guys are but
that the units that didnot spot the bad guys can immidiately see them and fire at them. I would
assume that once the shots are fired one can say that "the bad guys are somewhere there". It would
be nice to make each unit to spot the enemy individually rather than collectively. "

AND this:

Redwolf says:
"What I want a solution for is this: you are attacking with a wide screen all over the map. Lead elements to the left spot tanks. In CMBO you can immideately rush all your units, including all Bazookas from all over the map, to that spot. For me, that is one of the major reasons why tanks-heavy CMBO forces have few chances of winning against infantry on any map with decent cover. In reality, the tanks would first have more time to munch at the infantry in front of them, then they could prepare for the enemy armored reserves to arrive and other infantry would follow much later, piecemeal. In CMBO, you get a concentrated overrun from enemy infantry in a very short time."

"In reality, the tanks would first have more time to munch at the infantry in front of them"

One solution here is to have longrt command delays for units out of C&C (like several minutes, anywhere from 2-5 minutes, now that is punitive) and longer periods of time for recon info ( like "Hey that is a tank firing at us and we are taking a pounding") to work its way back to the knowledge of the player (BUT its ok if the local TAC AI of the unit knows it should "run away quick" without waiting for the Player's command), this would mean that at some point some of your infantry units might get into deep trouble and take a pounding before you would even know about it, this happens already when tanks get KO'd by the shot that no one knows where it comes from).

Do the 5 suggestions posted by Caesar address these problems?

I fully support Terrain Fog of War this one has come up plenty of times and I think it would add fun to the Recon element of the game AND if used in combination with some other Extreme FOW suggestions in this thread it could reduce some of the undesirable side effects of absolute spotting.
"3. FOW applied to the map. The map should only initially give broad information (the sort you could get off a map and with general info from the local populace) The map should only get updated as units within CnC (up to at least the Co level if one is present). If a player gives an order, that as a result of ignorance of the map, cannot be obeyed then the unit will stop and behave with normal TacAI behaviour. This will cause the unexpected delays that would happen in real life. Spotting from a distance should have fuzzy logic applied that causes inaccuracies such as incorrect elevetions, missing small copses, ditches etc. The map updating should suffer the same CnC delays as above."

So we must ask ourselves (seriously)....
"What is the Role of the Player"??
Some agreement around the answer to that question should help establish to what degree we want to see Relative Spotting implemented.

-tom w

[ April 20, 2002, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
...the Player ONLY gets to see what one of his friendly units (in C&C or NOT) gets to see from view 1.This sounds like my suggestion, except that I would not limit the player to being in View 1.

Yes?

Michael</font>[/QUOTE]Ace proposed it first smile.gif

I was just agreeing with him, but I do think the idea of ONLY seeing enemy units from view 1 ( ONLY) while your friendly unit is selected) is a novel approach to the problem. This suggestion (if I understand it correctly) does not limit ANYTHING else to view one it only limits the ability of the player to see opposing units that his friendly units are in contact with or have LOS to from their unique perspective in view 1. All other views work fine (but you can't see any opposing units unless you are in view 1 and have the unit selected that has LOS to the opposing unit). Combine this suggestion with a few of Ceasar's proposals:

"1. Every unit had to individually spot a unit. Obviously if the enemy unit fires, it will be easier to spot as
all units will turn to the sound of fire. Fuzzy logic should determine spotting i.e you get x% chance of
spotting in the given conditions (depending on the unit quality as now), with this chance increasing
with sound and other factors drawing units attention to that area.

2. All units within CnC can get borg sighting or greatly increased chance of spotting after a suitable
delay calculated by the number of links in the command chain that the info has to travel. This delay can
be modified based on communication equipment. Higher level HQs (Company and battalion) would have
special extended Command ranges (not for normal morale and control) applying only to lower level
HQs. This would encourage players to keep their Company HQs in realistic positions to control their
subordinate HQs.

3. FOW applied to the map. The map should only initially give broad information (the sort you could get
off a map and with general info from the local populace) The map should only get updated as units
within CnC (up to at least the Co level if one is present). If a player gives an order, that as a result of
ignorance of the map, cannot be obeyed then the unit will stop and behave with normal TacAI
behaviour. This will cause the unexpected delays that would happen in real life. Spotting from a
distance should have fuzzy logic applied that causes inaccuracies such as incorrect elevetions, missing
small copses, ditches etc. The map updating should suffer the same CnC delays as above.

4. Allow normal squad level delays to be applied to small movements and 1 - 2 waypoints for those in
local CnC, but much greater delays related to the above CnC delays for large movements or higher
numbers of waypoints. This would force players to maintain realistic command structures and more
importantly slow down the current almost immediate response to a significant threat.

5. As CnC would be much more important, units that lose their HQ should be able to attach to other
HQs with reduced performance (and none of the modifiers)"



And you probably would solve most absolute spotting issues BUT I'll bet NO one would want to play the game anymore because it would prove that "War IS Hell" and trying to model Relative Spotting AND make the game playable and enjoyable may prove equally difficult if not virtually impossible! smile.gif

AND...

AND don't forget this SHOULD only be an OPTIONAL EXTREME IRON MAN FOW option to the game.
It could be called the Simulated Relative Spotting Approximation Option for FOW. (SRSAO, Pronounced: SAR-SOW sounds like a fitting militarily inspired acronym to me :D )

-tom w

[ April 20, 2002, 07:14 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Ace Pilot]

Tom,

I think Caesar’s point #4 (bigger command delays for longer, more complex movement) comes the closest to addressing the problem of units moving en masse to a problem spot that, in real life, they wouldn’t be aware of. But, once again, this solution reduces (to a small extent) the amount of control players have over their units. And it still can’t distinguish between (1) a unit being ordered to set up a position in that farm house half a mile away and, (2) a unit being ordered to set up a position in that farm house half a mile away BECAUSE there’s an enemy unit that’s just been spotted in the woods across from the farm house. In my mind, the extended command delay is there to prevent a near instantaneous response from units that are far away from the action. But it also means that any long distance movement will be generously delayed, whether or not it is being made in response to the spotting of enemy units.

But I will say this is a better and more eloquent solution than most.

Lastly, I’ll have to consult my “Guidelines and Rules of Acronym Development” (GAROAD) field manual, but I believe that the complete acronym would be SRSAOFFOW. I’m sure you’re aware that you’ll get 67% of the royalties from this development – nice job!

Ace

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:
Tom,

I think Caesar’s point #4 (bigger command delays for longer, more complex movement) comes the closest to addressing the problem of units moving en masse to a problem spot that, in real life, they wouldn’t be aware of. But, once again, this solution reduces (to a small extent) the amount of control players have over their units. And it still can’t distinguish between (1) a unit being ordered to set up a position in that farm house half a mile away and, (2) a unit being ordered to set up a position in that farm house half a mile away BECAUSE there’s an enemy unit that’s just been spotted in the woods across from the farm house. In my mind, the extended command delay is there to prevent a near instantaneous response from units that are far away from the action. But it also means that any long distance movement will be generously delayed, whether or not it is being made in response to the spotting of enemy units.

But I will say this is a better and more eloquent solution than most.

Lastly, I’ll have to consult my “Guidelines and Rules of Acronym Development” (GAROAD) field manual, but I believe that the complete acronym would be SRSAOFFOW. I’m sure you’re aware that you’ll get 67% of the royalties from this development – nice job!

AceThanks smile.gif

OK

I see two places where there could be MORE delay.

I would prefer to focus on the way the game (and your friendly units) transmits info and recon intel BACK to the player. If the Delays were long and the ability to get reliable intel from your units on the map (especially those out of C&C) was substantially degraded by increased FOW (and maybe the player has to see opposing units only from view one, but I doubt that will be a very popular proposal) THEN there would not have be the additional command delay to order units to move across the map.

Two things should be considered here

recon intel Moves UP the chain of command to the player

and

unit and movement, attack/defend orders move DOWN the chain of command from the Player

I do not believe we should compromise the ability of the player (by added command delays for units IN C&C to encourage wise use of HQ units) to issue orders to units in a severely punitive way, by excessive command delays. (its good enough now, PLAY Green troops and try to make them do ANYHTHING when they are out of C&C and see how far you get?)

NO

I would rather focus the effort on how the info goes more slowly up the chain of command to the Player. This means increasing FOW and decreasing what the player can know with any certianty about the opposing units strength or composition. It also seems to mean trusting the Tac AI a little more I think.

-tom w

[ April 20, 2002, 08:16 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Lets not forget where this all started:

this is probably worth re-reading, so for your viewing pleasure smile.gif I have re-posted it:

I have recently been giving the matter of relative spotting, a concept apparently consigned to the
“re-write”, some thought and believe that the current engine already contains the necessary elements,
by and large, to produce the desired results.

Before I expand on the above it might be a good idea to reiterate what “relative spotting” is and, more
importantly, what impact that it’s implementation could have in more realistically portraying the realities
of command and control.

This is perhaps better done by example.

Picture an infantry platoon, consisting of three squads and an HQ, moving in formation, all in command
control range. As it approaches a belt of trees the lead squad comes under fire from an unidentified
enemy unit, takes two casualties and is pinned. The platoon HQ immediately orders the second squad
to open fire on the enemy position and the third squad to move off to the right and using a gulley for
cover, to advance and attack the enemy position from the flank when in a position to do so.

The third squad moves off as ordered and, as it has no radio (in common with the vast majority of
units at that level in WW2) is soon too far away from its HQ to be in command control. It proceeds
along the gulley until it reaches the belt of trees, moves toward the enemy position but then runs into
another, as yet unseen, enemy squad, comes under fire, takes casualties and is also pinned.

The reality of that situation is that the HQ is unaware of the third squad’s current status, is unaware of
the existence of the second enemy unit and cannot issue any further orders to that third squad. Why?
Because the third squad and the HQ have no means of communicating with each other; they are out of
the C&C radius.

The same situation in CMBO is very different. As soon as the third squad spots the second enemy unit
and gets fired upon the player knows it’s status, can still give it orders (although they will be delayed)
and, more importantly, is instantly aware of the existence and position of an enemy which, in reality,
would be unknown and can react to that unrealistic situation accordingly

IMO that is essence of relative spotting.

There are probably very many ways of over-coming this problem but I am looking at the simplest way,
which introduces the least number of changes, at least IMO (without, it must be admitted, any
programming knowledge)

Using the above example, let us first look at the second, previously unspotted enemy squad. It has
always been there but with FoW on, does not show up on the map because it has not been spotted by
a friendly unit. It is now spotted by a squad which has no means of conveying this information
elsewhere but, in CMBO, its’ presence is still revealed.

Suppose that the spotting unit is flagged as “out of CC” and therefore, as a result, the enemy unit is
not revealed. This seems reasonable in that you, the player, are not given the “all-seeing eye” over the
battlefield. However, what about the spotting squad, which obviously can see the enemy unit? This
squad is still providing visual info. But not if you are no longer given access to that squad. Instead,
that spotting squad becomes flagged as “out of CC” and is treated like an enemy unit as far as visual
displays are concerned i.e. you can only see it as a “last seen at” marker and when that marker is
clicked on the display only shows the name and type and its last known status (or maybe just
“unknown” status.)
Nothing new here in the visuals department, except you now have generic country markers for friendly
“out of CC” units as well as for previously spotted enemy units.

The primary and probably the most controversial departure from the norm is that there will possibly be
more units over which you, as player, do not have control. But this seems entirely realistic to me. After
all we accept that squads which are in certain states cannot be controlled; pinned, panicked, broken….
why not out of command?

In previous threads on this forum, this type of suggestion has led to protests from those who say
they do not want a command level game; they want to control all of their units all of the time.

Well, as I have said you cannot control all of your units at all times anyway. Also who gains from the
current “all knowing, all seeing” status of CMBO.
Those who set-up their forces in non-historical, un-military fashion, scattered as they please, without
due regard to staying in command control. Those who set up a few half-squads or MG teams or jeeps
to act as unofficial “scouts,” relaying back intelligence of spotted enemy positions whilst they are way
out of realistic command range. And so on.

The only other change would be that the order delay function, still present for in command units, would
be relegated for out of command units altogether as it would no longer be needed.

Surely the trade-off in having, perhaps only temporarily, a few more units not in the players direct
control is amply repaid by the great reduction of the “god” factor and by the fact that it would
encourage players to adopt a more historical and realistic approach to keeping their platoons (and this
could be extended to companies and battalions) in command and control range. It would also tend to
amplify the role of HQ’s to something like that of their real life counterparts.

Just a few thoughts.

--------------------
Cheers, Jim.

[James Crowley]

When I re-opened this particular can of worms I suspected my suggestions might get a rough ride. The loss of some control would not be popular, even if meant putting a dent in the "borg" factor.

It has,however, been a very interesting discussion, swaying between the for and againsts'and adding-in all sorts of new or re-worked ideas.

I think a couple of conclusions have been reached.

The most important is that there is an absolute connection between spotting and C&C. If you are going to be able to give a unit orders, you must be able locate that unit; have access to its status and be able to see what it sees. This, rather like the "speed of light" limiter on space travel, cannot be overcome by any number of re-writes, but must be faced up to.

If you want relative spotting there has to be limiters put on C&C, which will, in turn, effect a players abilty to give full orders to all units at all times.

The second conclusion is that there are number of
folk who seem unwilling to want to make that sacrifice.

As someone else said, I also tend to play historically and in most of my battles (except sometimes the ones I am losing badly,) the majority of my forces are in C&C most of the time. Which means I have control over most of my forces most of the time. The units out of C&C I accept the penalty of the time delay. I would willingly accept the penalty (for that is what it really is)of not being able to order those units at all (unless I could get my act together and get them back under control)in exchange for not being able to get wholly unrealistic spotting info from them.

I suppose the question is; who is prepared to accept that sacrifice (and perhaps it could be an option - rather likr FoW)

As for units not in C&C doing anything, doesn't the AI already handle all of the enemy units actions? Why can't it take over those out of C&C units as well?

Once again, just afew thoughts, and absolutely non of this detracts from the beauty of the existng game one bit.

[KNac]

Good work guys, keep it coming.

IMHO I think it´s all about giving the player different options. I mentioned Steel Panther World at War because of that. You don´t need to change absoluty the game but making two games (or 3) into one. Give different optional C&C levels for the player, and each one will come with its own spotting system.

From a production view, it will take much more time and effective manpower, but if we consider that we have partialy one of the possible systems (in the current game engine) it can be reduced.

From a marketing point of view, it will offer a wider market range into the wargaming market, to the less grog types to more hard-core players.

It all depends if BTS has enought manpower to program at the same type two diffrent game systems and add them into the same game, giving the player the option to use them by clicking one button or an other, that simple (but that hard at the same time).

[aka_tom_w]

"I suppose the question is; who is prepared to accept that sacrifice (and perhaps it could be an option - rather like FoW)"

I think it would be a given that any attempt to model some simulation of relative spotting would have to be just another Fog Of War Option. The goal should still be to try to make it as realistic and historically accurate as possible.

I think further discussion should focus on the intended and desired ROLE of the Player i.e. Battelion commander vs Squad Leader, and everything inbetween.

Great discussion none-the-less smile.gif

Thanks for Starting it James.'

-tom w

[ April 20, 2002, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by James Crowley:
When I re-opened this particular can of worms I suspected my suggestions might get a rough ride. The loss of some control would not be popular, even if meant putting a dent in the "borg" factor.
(...)
The second conclusion is that there are number of
folk who seem unwilling to want to make that sacrifice.
I would be happy to make that sacrifice, but only if I get the stuff required to make my intentions work:
- better TacAI
- SOPs
- several command paths with bollean triggers on waypoints

In other words: I'm willing to give up "direct control" for "planning control", kinda "what-if" commands that can last longer.

Think of it this way: for current CMBO, would you accept a push from 1 minute combat phase to 5? The thing that keeps me from wanting this is that my "planning control" is too limited, my troops would strand in the open.

If you give me the tools to be happy with a 5 minutes combat phase, that are the same tools I would want for a 1 minute combat phase with much more FOW and therefor loss of direct control.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by redwolf:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by James Crowley:
When I re-opened this particular can of worms I suspected my suggestions might get a rough ride. The loss of some control would not be popular, even if meant putting a dent in the "borg" factor.
(...)
The second conclusion is that there are number of
folk who seem unwilling to want to make that sacrifice.
I would be happy to make that sacrifice, but only if I get the stuff required to make my intentions work:
- better TacAI
- SOPs
- several command paths with bollean triggers on waypoints

In other words: I'm willing to give up "direct control" for "planning control", kinda "what-if" commands that can last longer.

Think of it this way: for current CMBO, would you accept a push from 1 minute combat phase to 5? The thing that keeps me from wanting this is that my "planning control" is too limited, my troops would strand in the open.

If you give me the tools to be happy with a 5 minutes combat phase, that are the same tools I would want for a 1 minute combat phase with much more FOW and therefor loss of direct control.</font>[/QUOTE]YES!

well put,
I agree with that completely.

The 5 minute combat phase is interesting propostion smile.gif

"If you give me the tools to be happy with a 5 minutes combat phase, that are the same tools I would want for a 1 minute combat phase with much more FOW and therefor loss of direct control."

That makes the most sense.

One or the other.

A 1 minute combat phase (as it is now) and more FOW with additional SOP tools OR go to a 5 minute combat phase as a means of command delay penalty with the same FOW as we have now but more SOPs.

Great Point!

-tom w

[Doug Beman]

I do however have a problem when every vehicle, tank, troop or whatever comes to a enemy sighting. I mean that's not real. Only the forces that would be needed to handle the threat should haul over there. So I was thinking what if maybe only those units within a certain range would response and then only in sufficient force to deal with the threat. Now I don't know if something like this could be programmed or not but that's what I feel would improve the game.Deciding what forces respond to threats and how they get there is the player's main responsibility. Any automation of this, or limitations eg "the threat is 250m away from this tank, and the tank's TacAI thinks the infantry that spotted the threat can deal with it alone" would would have a large, adverse impact on game play.

Any changes to both spotting and C&C issues must be completely transparent and have equal effect on all players. As it is, who wins a CMBO battle is decided almost entirely by who commands their troops better, because C&C and spotting are dealt with rather simply, without a lot of rules errata. If limiting factors are added in such a way that battles depend more on "how well do you know the rules" vs "how well do you command," even if those factors are enacted in an attempt to reduce unrealism, will ruin this game.

If anybody ever played the card game "Magic" (or others similar) you'll probably know what I'm talking about (I worked for over a year in a store that sold the cards and ran tournaments, so I can safely say that, in this instance, I DO know what I'm talking :D ). At first, the rules were fairly straightforward, and what each card said it did was quite logical to work into the whole. Then, over time, more and more errata was added; in most cases, one fluke incident would yield one all-powerful, binding rule that would force every player to re-learn the game. Contests were not decided by who had the best tactics (or whatever term you want to use for card games) but for who had the best memory of the book of rules.

DjB

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
...the Player ONLY gets to see what one of his friendly units (in C&C or NOT) gets to see from view 1.This sounds like my suggestion, except that I would not limit the player to being in View 1.

Yes?

Michael</font>[/QUOTE]Ace proposed it first smile.gif </font>[/QUOTE]Then he must have done so before I did over a year ago.

:D

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
...go to a 5 minute combat phase as a means of command delay penalty with the same FOW as we have now but more SOPs.I am tending to favor this approach, but I'm not at all sure that BTS would. I have the impression that the one minute turn is integral to their whole conception of the game...but I would be happy to be proven wrong.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by KNac:
It all depends if BTS has enought manpower to program at the same type two diffrent game systems and add them into the same game...Well, that's the catch. BTS has exactly one person who does all the programming. And this person is already pretty well tapped out just doing all that is already on the schedule. Trying to do two additional games (if I understand you correctly) simultaneously is just not on for the foreseeable future.

Michael

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
...go to a 5 minute combat phase as a means of command delay penalty with the same FOW as we have now but more SOPs.I am tending to favor this approach, but I'm not at all sure that BTS would. I have the impression that the one minute turn is integral to their whole conception of the game...but I would be happy to be proven wrong.

Michael</font>[/QUOTE]Michael,
that is my understanding as well - you are also looking at a serious taxing of the TacAI, which currently is saved from itself either by player interference, or (if playing the AI) byt the higher level AIs in the game. To produce a TacAI that can handle 5 mins of gameplay in one go would be a serious task, since the complexity of what is going on on the battlefield is probably increasing at an exponential rate. you would expect it to make judgements about what might happen in 4mins 30secs time at the beginning of the turn - since CM is not chess, I seriously doubt that we will see that anytime soon. It is also not just a matter of SOPs. A game can be lost in 5 mins, as we all know. This means you have to make it possible for the AI to make decisions that are very clearly outside the realm of SOP, but are very much one-off command decisions (Do I reinforce my weakening left flank and abandon the assault in the centre? Do I commit my reserves to achieve the breakthrough?). I think that going for longer turns would rip apart the AI structure of CMBX - it would probably become a totally different game.

[Michael Emrys]

Ah, I think you're right, Andreas. I confess my thinking hadn't gotten as far as yours. Yes, I think I can see how at the end of a five minute turn with the present AI things could get very weird indeed. What would have to happen is that the AI (on all levels) would have to become more dynamically interactive, that is, more intelligent at responding to unexpected events. An interesting problem.

BTW, what's CMBX? [insert look of angelic innocence here]

Michael

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by redwolf:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by James Crowley:
When I re-opened this particular can of worms I suspected my suggestions might get a rough ride. The loss of some control would not be popular, even if meant putting a dent in the "borg" factor.
(...)
The second conclusion is that there are number of
folk who seem unwilling to want to make that sacrifice.
I would be happy to make that sacrifice, but only if I get the stuff required to make my intentions work:
- better TacAI
- SOPs
- several command paths with bollean triggers on waypoints

In other words: I'm willing to give up "direct control" for "planning control", kinda "what-if" commands that can last longer.

Think of it this way: for current CMBO, would you accept a push from 1 minute combat phase to 5? The thing that keeps me from wanting this is that my "planning control" is too limited, my troops would strand in the open.

If you give me the tools to be happy with a 5 minutes combat phase, that are the same tools I would want for a 1 minute combat phase with much more FOW and therefor loss of direct control.</font>[/QUOTE]The concept of the 5 minute turn only came up when Redwolf suggested he would like the kinds of tools and SOPs that would let a player feel comfortable that the AI could handle the action for the whole 5 minutes...

"If you give me the tools to be happy with a 5 minutes combat phase, that are the same tools I would want for a 1 minute combat phase with much more FOW and therefor loss of direct control."

We were talking about ways to live with the loss of control if or when units out of C&C were assumed to be totally under AI control because the player lost control of them as they were out of C&C.

The whole idea about the 5 minute turn was the result of ideas that were percolating around the concept of increased FOW leading to some form of Simulated Relative spotting.

I have no expectation that the game will ever incorpprate a 5 Minute combat phase BUT what we are saying is it would be nice if CM II was coded with the tools and SOP's to give the player confidence that he could let his units go for the WHOLE 5 minutes, THEN increased FOW could be coded into the 1 minute combat phase to Simulate Relative Spotting.

Redwolf?? is that what we mean?

I'm just trying to clarify a few points here before we all get all bent out of shape over the 5 minute combat phase discussion. OK?

smile.gif

-tom w

[ April 22, 2002, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by redwolf:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by James Crowley:
When I re-opened this particular can of worms I suspected my suggestions might get a rough ride. The loss of some control would not be popular, even if meant putting a dent in the "borg" factor.
(...)
The second conclusion is that there are number of
folk who seem unwilling to want to make that sacrifice.
I would be happy to make that sacrifice, but only if I get the stuff required to make my intentions work:
- better TacAI
- SOPs
- several command paths with bollean triggers on waypoints

In other words: I'm willing to give up "direct control" for "planning control", kinda "what-if" commands that can last longer.

Think of it this way: for current CMBO, would you accept a push from 1 minute combat phase to 5? The thing that keeps me from wanting this is that my "planning control" is too limited, my troops would strand in the open.

If you give me the tools to be happy with a 5 minutes combat phase, that are the same tools I would want for a 1 minute combat phase with much more FOW and therefor loss of direct control.</font>[/QUOTE]This is where the discussion of the 5 minute combat phase began as a suggestion for the kind of the TAC AI and SOPs coded into CM II that would let you have the confidence to let the game "take care" or your units for a whole 5 minute "theoretical" combat phase.

Some here have said if it was indeed a five minute combat phase it would be a WHOLE new game, I would like to humbly suggest if we are serious about making Relative Spotting work the game will ALSO be a WHOLE new game as some form of control somewhere will have to given up by the player and there must be more command delays and WAY more FOW and way more delay in the way information about the enemy units makes its way BACK up the chain of command to the player.

smile.gif

-tom w

[ April 21, 2002, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[kipanderson]

Hi,

It’s been an interesting discussion.

However, it still seems to come down to the one crucial point, do people wish to continue playing the role of squad and AFV commander or not?

I am clear that I do wish to continue to play the role of the squad/AFV commander, as well as the platoon, company and battalion commander. Remove the player from the role of squad /AFV commander and a large part of the tactical detail, that makes CM such a superb simulation, would to gone. It is the detail of the “exact” positioning of squads and AFVs that is so gripping. Of course, always within the limits of the units moral and training. The TacAI is of such high quality that I do not normally intervene, especially in attack. However, when I do have a cunning plan of some kind, I certainly do wish to be able to intervene, within the limits mentioned above, moral and training.

I feel there is some consensus that either you do or do not play the role of squad/AFV commander. If not then the game would really become a “platoon commander” game. This would also be a very fine game, if done by BTS, but it would be very different from CM.

At the heart of the problem is the fact that we play these multiple roles in CM, not just one role, for example not just the platoon commander. Live team play, one day with very large numbers of players, will go a long way towards easing the problem.

All the best,
Kip.

[aka_tom_w]

James Crowley
"The most important is that there is an absolute connection between spotting and C&C. If you are going to be able to give a unit orders, you must be able locate that unit; have access to its status and be able to see what it sees. This, rather like the "speed of light" limiter on space travel, cannot be overcome by any number of re-writes, but must be faced up to.

If you want relative spotting there has to be limiters put on C&C, which will, in turn, effect a players abilty to give full orders to all units at all times."

Larsen says:
"For me the problem with absolute spotting is not that I know immidiately where the bad guys are but
that the units that didnot spot the bad guys can immidiately see them and fire at them. I would
assume that once the shots are fired one can say that "the bad guys are somewhere there". It would
be nice to make each unit to spot the enemy individually rather than collectively. "

AND this:

Redwolf says:
"What I want a solution for is this: you are attacking with a wide screen all over the map. Lead
elements to the left spot tanks. In CMBO you can immideately rush all your units, including all Bazookas
from all over the map, to that spot. For me, that is one of the major reasons why tanks-heavy CMBO
forces have few chances of winning against infantry on any map with decent cover. In reality, the tanks
would first have more time to munch at the infantry in front of them, then they could prepare for the
enemy armored reserves to arrive and other infantry would follow much later, piecemeal. In CMBO, you
get a concentrated overrun from enemy infantry in a very short time."

Why the repeat?

do we really understand what Relative spotting should look like? do we really understand all the issues and problems of Absolute spotting?

-tom w

[wadepm]

Exactly Kip! All of our current problems with spotting (well a good portion of them anyway) will be solved when CM becomes truly multiplayer. I have the faith and the patience that this will come to pass some day, do you?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

At the heart of the problem is the fact that we play these multiple roles in CM, not just one role, for example not just the platoon commander.

All the best,
Kip.Hi Kip

That is an interesting perspective, but if you are interested in playing all those roles, as you can in CMBO now, do you have any suggestions as to how you can impliment something like Relative spotting?
(yes... Multi player teams with all players playing different roles and connected by instant messenger and e-mail would go along way to simulate Relative spotting)

If you like to play all roles then basically because you as the Player can and will KNOW all things at all times then the problem of "BORG like" absolute spotting will live on IMHO.

In fact I would hazard to guess that borg like spotting routine is the direct result of the way CMBO was programed from the ground up to allow the Player to play all those multiple roles, thus ensuring that the only form of spotting that could be used would be absolute spotting.

If we want to play all roles at all times how can we possibly expect to see any form or simulated Relative Spotting in CM II?

any suggestions?

-tom w

[ April 21, 2002, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Andreas]

I am still with Kip on this one. I also think that there seems to have been very little of an argument here outlining where the command level should be situated, if you restrict it.

The thing that makes CMBx (current engine) so attractive and replayable is that you can be the commander on all levels. Clearly that is only possible if you can flexibly switch between being the Squad/Platoon/Company/Battalion (S/P/C/B) command levels. Removing the possibility to command the squad as fully as the company not only takes one level out of the potential range of play, but it could e.g. restrict the playability of very small scenarios. At least that is how I understand some of the suggestions that were made here.

In many ways, larger scenarios solve FOW a little bit by default, because it is no longer possible to collect and process the information as it is in a small scenario. So there is already an element of the command FOW in the game, without it being explicit. If you play a Der Kessel Byte Battle™, you will micro-manage, and care very much about the loss of a single vehicle, be it a Bren carrier, or the mauling of a squad. If you play Helge's 'Cintheaux Totalize', I somehow doubt that even a platoon of Panzers, or half a company is going to be much of an issue to you as the commander. So what people here clamour for is already there, at least in my way of playing - which is why I don't see absolute spotting as something that needs to be fixed.

How would you expect the game to deal with command delays between the higher levels? If you are serious about this, you would have the scenario designer establish which level of command the player is playing, and that would fix the command delay. What would be the point of removing just one layer of command (S), but allowing the player to still command P/C/B? There are delays in getting information in and processing it from P to C, as there are from C to B.

So, in a very large game, where the command level is B, you just sit around not doing a lot, once you have committed your forward assault companies. Don't like it? Well, it's realistic, isn't it? Maybe after 20 minutes the info is trickling in that makes you want to consider to commit your reserve company or break off the assault. Once you have done that, it is back to twiddling thumbs again for a while.

I really have not seen the coherent argument that addresses Kip's point. I.e. command delay and information bottlenecks do not solely exist between squads and platoon HQs. They exist on all levels - what is the reason to just simulate them on one level, and not on all? What is the consequence of that to game-play? A game that allows instant comms between any level of command is inherently unrealistic (i.e. a game). So is the argument to restrict one level of unrealism (is that a word?) that some people don't like or care for? If not that, then what is the argument?

Also, something else to think about is the immersiveness that would probably go. How many of us enjoy watching two tanks, or a tank and a squad fight it out? I doubt that would be possible to the degree it is now, since in some cases all you would ever see of the fight is the burning hulk or the casualty marker.

How would you handle simultaneous combat with different information flow speed?

I think that this is a problem that is far larger than just having squads not pass on spotting.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Andreas:
I am still with Kip on this one. I also think that there seems to have been very little of an argument here outlining where the command level should be situated, if you restrict it.

snip..

How would you handle simultaneous combat with different information flow speed?

I think that this is a problem that is far larger than just having squads not pass on spotting.Hi Andreas

This is an interesting conversation.
Maybe I need to be little more practical in my approach and a little less theoretical? smile.gif

I have been labouring under the thought that absolute spotting was THE biggest problem in CMBO. I have been thinking about this for such along time is hard for me to imagine that in fact Absolute spotting is nothing more than the solution to the problem of what Role is The Player playing? If the answer is ALL roles in the game, then Absolute Spotting is the solution not the problem I guess
:confused: ??

I'm still not entirely convinced that we must be "stuck" with Absolute spotting as it is now in CMBO. The whole "borg spotting" concept of EVERY friendly unit knowing the exact nature, composition, strength AND Experience level of an opposing unit ONCE one single friendly unit has positivilty identified it is really JUST too un-realistic. See the post from Mister "
Mushkin The Improbable" below (its posted under my name) and think about the level of ID'ing that takes place in CMBO I really think we need a solution to that problem.

More than anything, I guess, (and I say this with some resignation) if the solution to this issue is to define absolute spotting as the "solution" then thinking about the all the interesting and theoretical challenges to the problem of implimenting Simultated Relative Spotting would become nothing more than idle and irrelevant speculation :(

other thoughts?

or comments?

Anyone else here still want to try to find a way to overcome some of the problems of Absolute Spotting?
Is Absolute spotting still THE biggest problem in the game? or am I just delusional? smile.gif I'm starting to wonder about that? :confused:

-tom w

[ April 21, 2002, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[James Crowley]

As Tom W says; absolute spotting appears to be the compromise solution to battlefield control that BTS came up with for CMBO. Time delays are the penalties for out of C&C units but this solution has the drawback of the "borg" effect.

Relative spotting, which might reduce the "borg" effect, has the drawback of limiting, to one degree or another, a players control over his forces.

Neither solution is going to be perfect for everyone but there does appear to be a fairly widespread feeling, not just in this thread but in many previously, that absolute spotting is just not realistic and that some form of solution is desireable. The folk at BTS think this and have certainly suggested that finding some form of solution will be on the agenda for the CM11 re-write.

My suggestion, which I agree, was only detailed at a singe command level, was really around the idea of a fairly simple compromise between Absolute spotting/full control and relative spotting/less than full control.
I still do not see how it removes a whole command level, as some are suggesting. What it does do is to penalise players who fail to adhere to a realistic battlefield command structure or who, through combat casualties lose most of their HQ's and have their forces fragmented. In either case it is my contention that the reality of the situation is that player will have already lost, assuming we are comparing this to the historic events on which the game is based.

By striving to (realistically and historically)maintain adequate C&C, a player will automatically still enjoy full control over his units at all times. Only through poor judgement, bad luck and casualties will a player start to lose control of units but this situation also ought to be managed by bringing up company and Battalion level HQ's as required. If, as I say, you lose those too..... well think about it! That battle is, in a real world situation, lost.

Looking at the other levels (company and batt.)of control, why shouldn't they also be included. Lose the Co. HQ and you lose control of those platoons and their respective squads etc.
The solution here might be to let the AI "grow" new HQ's to replicate 2IC's taking over and/or, in the case of QB's, ensure they purchase additional or more higher level HQ's ( often you get 2/2.5 platoons plus teams plus AFV's but no higher level commander.

All in all, I do not believe you need to lose a level of control or have a command game.
You need to institute an historically realistic battlefield C&C routine which, once in place, will also introduce relative spotting.

[aka_tom_w]

I got this e-mail anonymously from: Mushkin The Improbable

and he wanted me to post this:

"I have always thought that it isnt spotting but the combination of spotting
AND intel. A quick example would be illustrative:

Your 57mm ATG spots AND Identifies 4 vehicles in its LOS. It sees 2 PIV, 1
TigerI and a halftrack 251/1. It can cherry-target now (pick its best
target) and selects a PIV.

If intel were limited, the alternative scenario might be:

Your 57mm ATG spots 4 vehicles, two ID'd as light armor and 2 ID'd as medium
armor. In this case (its the same 4 vehicles as example 1 but the tiger has
been intel ID'd as a medium armor target due to the ATGs experience rating,
target being hull down, smoke, etc), it chooses one of the medium armor
targets (giving a 50 percent chance of targeting the tiger).

So my point is that it isnt so much the SPOTTING but rather the IDing. This
is especially true for the attacker, the attacker gets WAY too much
information regarding targets. The ability of all units to ascertain exactly
WHAT it is they are spotting is as much a problem as sharing spotting because
that is the intel they are sharing that is SO valuable.

A game suggestion then is to bring down the IDing level but keep the spotting
the same. This could be an extreme FOW option (cause theres always some that
like it just the way it is)."

I think there are some good points in there about the level of ID'ing that is relevant to this discussion.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

In the past Steve and Charles and Matt and Martin have been interested in this topic and at least one of them has posted their thoughts and comments in other threads similiar to this topic.

Does anyone know anyway to get the attention of Steve or Charles to see if they would care to comment on any of the interesting and diverse posts in this thread?

Perhaps a Sparkling Gold Leaf Flaked Embossed Invitation is in order? smile.gif

-tom w

[ April 21, 2002, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Andreas]

I think that is good point about spotting and the value of the intel. Extreme FOW with none of the info we currently get would be helpful. CMBB may go further down that way - the problem is of course that at some point info has to become 'firm' for the spotter.

James, I think I don't agree with your statement that no level of command is removed with your proposals - it is. If I can not act as the squad commander of every individual squad on the battlefield when I want it, that command level has to all intents and purposes been removed from the game. You may think that is desirable, or that the benefits of doing that outweigh the loss of control, but that is a different question.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Andreas:
I think that is good point about spotting and the value of the intel. Extreme FOW with none of the info we currently get would be helpful. CMBB may go further down that way - the problem is of course that at some point info has to become 'firm' for the spotter.

James, I think I don't agree with your statement that no level of command is removed with your proposals - it is. If I can not act as the squad commander of every individual squad on the battlefield when I want it, that command level has to all intents and purposes been removed from the game. You may think that is desirable, or that the benefits of doing that outweigh the loss of control, but that is a different question.Yes there have been "hints" about the EXTREME FOW option in CMBB, I am KEENLY interested to see how they deal with C&C issues and vehicle Morale AND the new Extreme FOW in CMBB. I am sorry none of these WONDERFUL (sounding) features will never see the light of day in CMBO :(

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

sorry to repeat myself:

I'm still not entirely convinced that we must be "stuck" with Absolute spotting as it is now in CMBO. The whole "borg spotting" concept of EVERY friendly unit knowing the exact nature, composition, strength AND Experience level of an opposing unit ONCE one single friendly unit has positivily identified it, is really JUST too un-realistic for my taste. See the post from Mister "Mushkin The Improbable" above (its posted under my name) and think about the level of ID'ing that takes place in CMBO I really think we need a solution to that problem.

There is still the problem of "What Does the Player Know about the enemy unit vs. what does the friendly unit (out of C&C) (and therefore the TAC AI) know about the enemy unit, should the player get to know EVERYTHING every friendly unit knows about the enemy units they spot or are in contact with or have LOS to?

If you answer yes to that question because you want to reserve the right to play the role of the Squad Leader (and every other friendly unit as well) for the Squad that is out of C&C then Abosolute Spotting with be with us for the forseeable future IMHO. :(

-tom w

[ April 21, 2002, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
...the Player ONLY gets to see what one of his friendly units (in C&C or NOT) gets to see from view 1.This sounds like my suggestion, except that I would not limit the player to being in View 1.

Yes?

Michael</font>[/QUOTE]Ace proposed it first smile.gif </font>[/QUOTE]Then he must have done so before I did over a year ago.

:D

Michael</font>[/QUOTE]Nah, I just packaged it better. :D

Come on, Michael, this is America. You should know it's not about who has the best idea first - it's about who has the best marketing!

Microsoft - need I say more? tongue.gif

This sarcastic comment brought to you in the interest of bumping this topic and generating more discussion ;)

By the way, the thread Capt. Wacky started on how Airborne Assault reduces micromanagement may offer some insight on ways that the AI can be improved and how SOPs might be used.

Ace

[James Crowley]

Tom W
I think you hit the nail on the head in the last paragraph; total control = absolute spotting versus partial control = relative spotting.

It boils down to choice I guess

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by James Crowley:
Tom W
I think you hit the nail on the head in the last paragraph; total control = absolute spotting versus partial control = relative spotting.

It boils down to choice I guessI'm sort of hoping its not that simple or that Black and White (but from many posts here in this thread it does indeed seem that clear and diametric).

Of course I'm sure we would all like to find a solution where we could "Have our Cake and EAT it too!" smile.gif I'm always wondering if we have over looked something...

What about keeping all these ideas in mind:

"So my point is that it isn't so much the SPOTTING but rather the IDing. This
is especially true for the attacker, the attacker gets WAY too much
information regarding targets. The ability of all units to ascertain exactly
WHAT it is they are spotting is as much a problem as sharing spotting because
that is the intel they are sharing that is SO valuable.

A game suggestion then is to bring down the IDing level but keep the spotting
the same. This could be an extreme FOW option (cause theres always some that
like it just the way it is)."

And add some of these ideas:

The idea of ONLY seeing enemy units from view 1 (ONLY) while your friendly unit is selected) is a novel approach to the problem. This suggestion does not limit ANYTHING else to view 1 it only limits the ability of the player to see opposing units (which should be VERY poorly ID'd to prevent positive intel info) that his friendly units are in contact with or have LOS to from their unique perspective in view 1. All other views work fine (but you can't see any opposing units unless you are in view 1 and have the unit selected that has LOS to the opposing unit). Combine this suggestion with a few of Ceasar's proposals:

"1. Every unit had to individually spot a unit. Obviously if the enemy unit fires, it will be easier to spot as all units will turn to the sound of fire. Fuzzy logic should determine spotting i.e you get x% chance of spotting in the given conditions (depending on the unit quality as now), with this chance increasing with sound and other factors drawing units attention to that area.

3. FOW applied to the map. The map should only initially give broad information (the sort you could get off a map and with general info from the local populace) The map should only get updated as units within CnC (up to at least the Co level if one is present). If a player gives an order, that as a result of ignorance of the map, cannot be obeyed then the unit will stop and behave with normal TacAI behaviour. This will cause the unexpected delays that would happen in real life. Spotting from a distance should have fuzzy logic applied that causes inaccuracies such as incorrect elevetions, missing small copses, ditches etc. The map updating should suffer the same CnC delays as above.

4. Allow normal squad level delays to be applied to small movements and 5 - 7 waypoints for those in local CnC, but much greater delays related to the above CnC delays for large movements or higher numbers of waypoints. This would force players to maintain realistic command structures and more importantly slow down the current almost immediate response to a significant threat.

5. As CnC would be much more important, units that lose their HQ should be able to attach to other HQs with reduced performance (and none of the modifiers)"

Or the AI could Grow or spawn new leaders from the ranks of the non-coms. Sorry I don't have source on that it was someone elses idea to provide an option for short term leadership (depending on mitagating circumstances) as an emergency measure so that there would be a chance the Player would not instantly loose ALL control over all units not in C&C after the loss of their HQ unit.

AND Mister Mushkin The Improbable (aka_Deep Throat smile.gif )

comments here in e-mail:

"Another possible improvement may come without design forethought. I was thinking about the covered arc feature and what effects it will have
on the spotting/IDing issues. It may be that russian bottoned up tanks can only have a very narrow covered arc. That is, it is limited in angle and therefore anything outside the covered arc gets very little chance of being spotted. This could also apply to pinned infantry units. The arc is limited as a function of pinning. They therefore cannot spot as well and the sharing of info FROM them is brought more into reality.

There will always be the sharing of info from good order units but thats the nature of the game."

I'm suggesting (again) all these previously posted suggestions so that we can perhaps Simulate Relative spotting and NOT completely lose all control of the units which fall out of C&C.

There have been MANY good idea's here and I do indeed hope some of the better posts in this thread might make make some valuable contribution to the development of Relative Spotting in CM II (still at least a YEAR to 18 months away, I mean begining developing it smile.gif ).

I'm just sewing seeds now smile.gif thats all

-tom w

[ April 21, 2002, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Redwolf]

If somebody wants to make a summary of good ideas without the (neccessary) noise I would be happy to post them on thforums to preserve it.

[Sir Uber General]

I'd like to address some of the negative views on relative spotting with my take.

Losing control of units: If done right, you dont lose total control of any units - you just dont get to see what they are fighting. You can still pull your scout / sniper back to have them report their findings and live to see another day... in line with what a real scout would do.

But the TACAI sucks! I'll lose my recon if I dont hold their hands 100% of the time: You bet! But remember, both sides with units out of C&C would suffer the same consequences so it evens out. Putting units out of C&C SHOULD BE A GAMBLE. Sending a split squad headlong without support into a firesack to be wiped out in seconds SHOULD NOT GIVE YOU INTEL! To do so is clearly unfair to the defender. As a concesssion, use (wildly inaacurate) sound? markers instead of true ID markers for out of C&C units that are spotting.

We need SOP's: Add a command to infantry: SCOUT. Unit advances to contact, takes cover and returns fire.

If the unit is out of C&C they get another command: SEND RUNNER. A runner is sent back to Pn HQ to report their find while the rest of the squad stays put (if they leave the runner will not return to the unit), reduced FP to the squad, chance runner doesnt make it back, chance they dont find HQ (they head to last known location). As I said above, a gamble! (Just like taking that big cat instead of a few small kittens.) These squads out of C&C are still loosly under your command!

The alternate to sending a runner is to send the HQ to the scout to propagate the intel. Which would look cool, your scout Pn has HQ mounted on a jeep / HT racing back and forth behind the scouts to collect intel updates... but I digress.

If my Pn HQ dies its squads are screwed (they wont get intel because they have no radio): this is where buying the full company should pay off as you will have a spare leader to fill those gaps.

Personally, I love the way I can handle every unit and get them to do big, fat, fast manouvers across the map - no other game comes even close to it. However to put it simply it is just not fair on the defender to have the attacker equipped with borg spotting. I prefer to have some compromise wrt intel travelling up the chain of command so defending is a winnable prospect. Attack QB's are simply unplayed because people are too concerned with their ladder rating to risk their hand at defending.... which is a bummer, because the most historical type of combat is being ignored.

Lastly: C&C / FOW should be an option, ie, CMBO style or full relative. That way the ppl who are control freaks dont miss out in the next version and those that want more can have it. I know which way I'd be playing though.

[ April 21, 2002, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Sir Uber General ]

[Caesar]

Sir Uber General, I don't think that I agree with your statement that the TacAI sucks. It certainly isn't perfect but all things considered it does a very good job. I have been looking at doing AI in a project I am working on and it is unbelievably hard to achieve even very basic control that is effective. It does however have too many limitations to be left to its own devices for any length of time. All the suggestions that have been made where people have wanted to have the AI control out of CnC squads are I believe, fundamentally flawed by the sheer complexity of the AIs task and the limitations of computers. Chess is a relatively simple game compared with CM and computers still struggle to match top players. The complexity faced by the computer for CM is massively greater.

It is for this reason that I think that we will have to retain individual unit control with more limited vision (and intelligent FOW) and CnC based delays to prevent instant reactions. The TacAI could be improved with players able to give troops agression levels or the like (is this what people mean by SOPs).

[Doug Beman]

Sending a split squad headlong without support into a firesack to be wiped out in seconds SHOULD NOT GIVE YOU INTEL! To do so is clearly unfair to the defender.Along with this (and perhaps more importantly), this behavior is strongly ahistorical and players who continually practice such tactics are violating good command doctrine. It also is a huge waste of valuable resource; if you're playing against somebody who does this sort of thing, you should be able to mop the floor with him. If you beat him consistently, he'll either change tactics or else quit playing; either way, problem solved.

DjB

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

If we want to play all roles at all times how can we possibly expect to see any form or simulated Relative Spotting in CM II?A fair question. The problem is that people have been lumping 2 or 3 related but seperate issues together. This stuff has been brought up before. It may be helpfull to see what was said on it previously.

Big Ass Thread (http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=010574;p=16)

BTS:

There are two "game" problems with Combat Mission (and all other wargames for that matter). They are related, but not the same. They are:

"Borg Spotting" - this is where all units on the map are aware of enemy units simply because one of their own (no matter where and under what circumstances) spotted one of the enemy. The fix for this is Relative Spotting in place of the current Absolute Spotting.

"Godlike Point of View" - this is the player knowing, second by second, where each of his units are, where each of the enemy's spotted units are, knowing what each is capable of doing in the given situation, making predictions about enemy forces based on game parameters/limitations, how to coordinate units in order to achieve a desired goal, and being able to direct the units to execute orders based on all of this knowledge. Unless we remove the human player from the game, there is no fix for this at all.

All we can do for both problems is to impose as many real life restrictions as possible. For example, morale based on unit experience. Sure, the player might be able to formulate the most perfect plan based on the two above shortcomings, but that doesn't mean it will work (could actually cost the player the game). Different levels of spotting also aid in trying to reduce Godlike powers of observation. But in the end, we can not address the fundamental problem of Godlike control and have not yet proven we can implement Relative Spotting in a way that will increase realism (though it is highly like that this will in fact happen).

SteveObviously BTS believes there is simply no solution to the "Godlike" POV issue and will therefore make no attempt beyond making it possible for there to be more than 2 players in a game (which has been confirmed as a planned feature of the rewrite). So, how will relative spotting be done? A few hints can be found here (http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=014083).

BTS:

Our rough concept is to utilize 3D video card graphics features. Say... you click on a unit and all non-spotted units get darker or transparent. Something like that...

...I don't think there is anything we can do about it. This is what we call the Borg problem - the human gets to watch and coordinate all units in the game using one train of thought and logic.

To have foolproof realism we would need to restrict the user to a passive part of the game. In other words, restrict the Borg. This would mean that the Human can do nothing at all but watching the action controlled by the AI. Since this kills off any notion of game, we have to accept that the human is going to be able to do things that aren't necessarily realistic.

Relative Spotting is far more realistic than Absolute Spotting. But it isn't perfect since the Human is allowed to interact with all units using one shared "conciousness"...

The issue is, of course, C3.

No, it is not. This is an entirely different issue. The issue really is, quite simply, spotting.

Now... this MIGHT appear to be C3 issues. It is not. Repeat, it is not. The problem is that in real life a unit must spot its own targets. Even if it is tipped off by another unit, it still must establish its own visual contact. In Combat Mission, once ONE unit establishes visual contact, every unit in the game INSTANTLY establishes visual contact. Even if the enemy unit is not in LOS, was spotted by a 1 man sharpshooter only, or is over 2000m away. C3 aspects doesn't even factor in because the spotting already established complete, instant information before any treatment of C3 can be simulated.Hopefully this has been of some help.

[ April 22, 2002, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Juardis]

At the risk of repeating something already said (yes, I admit, I do not have the patience to read every word of every post), what exactly is the role of the human player?

If you assume he is the supreme commander in charge of the entire battlefield (i.e., a Regimental CO), then your view of the battlefield is dictated entirely by reports from the front lines and the only way you get those reports is by 1)radios or 2) runners. Relative spotting makes sense in this situation. IMHO, this is the role of the human player.

If you assume the human player has as much control as necessary to blend realism and fun, then the current system is workable.

Suggestion:
When you click on a unit, have that unit see only what it can see. If it can't see it, it's either not there or a generic icon. This of course would change the outlook of the battlefield for each unit you click on and could be potentially a huge amount of info that must be stored. So limit it to platoons. Whatever one member of a plt can see, all members of that plt can see.

[aka_tom_w]

GREAT post Vanir

Thanks

Interesting imput from Steve and I remember those old threads:

"

Big Time Software
Administrator
Member # 42

posted December 27, 2000 02:34 PM

Trooper:

quote:

Command Decision has a 'handoff period' whereby stands in the same unit can fire at a
recently spotted target in the next phase, but stands in a different unit must wait for the
handoff in the next turn.

We have a bit of this in CM. Buttoned up tanks have built in target aquisition delays. They aren't huge
because if they were the vehicle would be unfairly penalized for things it really did spot right away.

quote:

Then again, CD is modelled with one turn = 15 minutes...

Yeah, much easier to abstract this sort of stuff with longer turn times. Since a "turn" in CM is actually a
partial second (i.e. every partial second some action happens) it is really tough to hack in realistic
behavior into an Absolute system.

Jeff wrote:

quote:

What is the best way to let the player know what a given unit has spotted or not?

This is the single biggest problem. And unless we come up with a workable solution, Relative spotting
will kill the fun of playing. So needless to say we will pay a great amount of attention to this aspect of
the system

Our rough concept is to utilize 3D video card graphics features. Say... you click on a unit and all
non-spotted units get darker or transparent. Something like that.

Steve "

There more here:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=014083

"What is Relative Spotting"

page 2:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=014083;p=2

"

Big Time Software
Administrator
Member # 42

posted December 27, 2000 05:20 PM

Doug wrote:

quote:

Whatever the case, allowing infantry to ALWAYS talk to tanks (or whatever) really quickly
because SOMETIMES they could is as bad as NEVER allowing quick communications because
SOMETIMES they couldn't

I think I know what you meant to say here, but I thought I would clarify our take on it.

In WWII near-instantenous transfer of information from unit to unit was almost unheard of. The
transfer of totally correct and accurate information from unit to unit, even with significant time delays
(say a turn or two at CM's scale), was almost never seen on a WWII battlefield.

However, CM's current model (like all other wargames before it) allows BOTH of these things to happen.
Instantenous communication of exact and accurate information. So any reasonable system that hinders
both of these things is a step in the right direction towards better realism.

On balance, if we have a Relative system with absolutely NO sharing of information between units, it
would be overwhelmingly more realistic than the Absolute system we have now. We will try to have
some unit to unit communications, in realistic ways, if possible. But even if we don't, the new system
will be far better than any that has come before it.

Steve "

Great Find Vanir!!

Many Thanks smile.gif

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

This Thread is Most certianly worth revisting:

"What is Relative Spotting"

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=014083

page 2:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=014083;p=2

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Juardis:
At the risk of repeating something already said (yes, I admit, I do not have the patience to read every word of every post), what exactly is the role of the human player?
There has been no good consensus or any form of agreement (at least in this thread), as to "what exactly is the role of the human Player?"

The answer to this question is CENTRAL to the way any form of Simulated Relative Spotting might implimented. (IMHO)

In this case I think Steve and Charles will TELL us what the role of the Player will be in CM II and program that game, and any form of Simulated Relative Spotting it incorporates, accordingly. Maybe there will be options, like the option of Multiplayer with teams against other teams, where players PLAY different roles on the team, this though as also been suggested in this thread as partial solution.

-tom w

[ April 22, 2002, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

The human player does not have a defined role in CM per se. He is simply the guy playing the game who tells all his units what to do. Judging from BTS comments this is not likely to change in the rewrite to any large degree. I certainly hope it doesn't.

It will be interesting to see how the multi-multiplayer works out, however.

[ April 22, 2002, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[aka_tom_w]

More from that What is Relative Spotting Thread:

Big Time Software
Administrator
Member # 42

posted December 27, 2000 12:21 PM

Uhm... Jasper... what planet are you on right now? CM never will be a FPS, RTS, or RPG. Never,
ever, ever. It is a wargame and will always be such. The more we can do to make CM realistic, the
better the game will be.

Having each UNIT only capable of "knowing" where things are based on its own experience is not only a
good thing for a wargame, but a vastly more realistic approach. Just think of CM like it is right now,
except that some units won't be able to automatically target any unit in LOS, but instead only target
those things that it actually spotted on its own (as opposed to another unit spotting and magically
passing on the info to every unit in the game). It has nothing to do with the PLAYER only seeing what
the individual UNIT sees.

Relative spotting has been discussed before, in depth, in several different threads. Those that are
really interested should do a Search.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 12-27-2000).]

IP: Logged

Big Time Software
Administrator
Member # 42

posted December 27, 2000 12:25 PM

quote:

It "sounds" good. I had no idea that when a unit is spotted by one unit, it is "spotted" by
all units.

Yup, and every other wargame that has ever been made so far as I know.

quote:

This in fact explains a lot about how the computer opponent acts too.

Both the computer AI and the Human benefit from Absolute Spotting. The Human much more so
because the extra knowledge is likely to be put to better use.

quote:

I would expect that unit quality comes into play (both for spotter and spotted), intervening
terrain, weather, distance to HQ units that have spotted enemy, etc.

Yes. Spotting right now is like this, but once a unit is "flagged" as "spotted" based on this stuff, all
units are able to shoot at it provided they have LOS. The difference is that Relative spotting would
force each unit to go through this process for each enemy unit before being able to shoot at it.

Steve

IP: Logged

Jasper
Member
Member # 4314

posted December 27, 2000 02:00 PM

"The more we can do to make CM realistic, the better the game will be."

I think it's great the BTS is still actively supporting it's product. With many traditional software
companies by the time a product reaches market the developers are busy on the next title. It's a
welcome change.

"The difference is that Relative spotting would force each unit to go through this process for each
enemy unit before being able to shoot at it."

I acknowledge to all that I'm only a causal student of military history, but surly it's not going to be
that simple minded is it? I mean the beef now is the middle management tier is 100% effective in zero
time. Sounds like you're going to strip away the middle management tier entirely?

I know you guys know this stuff, but just in case other readers are confused. Given an infantry squad
is pinned down by an MG on a hill. They could communicate via radio or runner to their platoon
commander "Pinned down by MG on hill.", if he didn't see this fact himself. It would then passed up the
infantry command chain until it crosses over somewhere (I'm only a causal student remember?) to
armor support. Which then communicates back down "Anyone able to take out that MG on the hill?"

Currently that scheme takes zero time and is 100% effective. It sounds like you're going to remove
that layer entirely so it's zero percent effective and takes 100% time. That's troubling.

IP: Logged

[aka_tom_w]

from:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=013482

Big Time Software
Administrator
Member # 42

posted December 08, 2000 02:22 PM

Jeff, this is something that will be addressed in CMII (the engine rewrite). As you guessed, making a
Relative spotting model is not easy. To the best of our knowledge, no wargame has never used such a
system even though, as you stated, it is much more realistic.

For the rest of you... CMII will certainly come after CM2 (the Eastern Front). It will be a rather large
rewrite of the existing codebase to incorporate many fundamental changes. Relative Spotting is one of
them. Another one would be to have a lighting model so we can simulate better low light/night stuff
(see Terence's post above). Other changes are more mundane coding things that never-the-less have
a great impact on what we can do as game designers.

We do not expect CMII to see the light of day for at least 2 years. CM2 will keep us busy for most of
the next year.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

from:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=019408

Relative Spotting, what is it?

Username
Member
Member # 1064

posted June 06, 2001 09:25 PM

Well since there wont be this relative spotting then BTS should consider toning down each individual
squads/units spotting to reduce the Hive-spotting. This would be non-linear with range. It should fall
off like an inverse cube.

Its an abstraction that takes into account this fundamental game flaw. Spotting (and IDing) should be
toned down also for units that are in cover/ small in size/etc so they arent spotted by everyone at
once.

Perhaps this can be an option with settings. I find the way it is now that it gives the attacker (since he
usually out numbers the defender) a great advantage.

Lewis

IP: Logged

Big Time Software
Administrator
Member # 42

posted June 06, 2001 11:52 PM

Lewis,

quote:

Well since there wont be this relative spotting then BTS should consider toning down each
individual squads/units spotting to reduce the Hive-spotting.

It won't work. Toning it down more risks unrealistic behavior on a 1:1 relationship level, which is even
worse than unrealistic strategic level info. There is simply no way to get Relative type behavior out of
an Absolute system. We have done the best we can do with it. Putting in things like delays for armored
vehicles and such.

quote:

This would be non-linear with range. It should fall off like an inverse cube.

Spotting in CMBO has always been non-linear since the first day the code was added. A unit has a
MUCH greater chance of spotting something up close than it does far away. Spotting is also dependent
on unit type, unit state (i.e. pinned), weather, and terrain as well as distance.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think I started something... :eek:

Tom, you don't need to post EVERY BTS comment on relative spotting ever made. People can click on the links and get the full story if they want. I only posted a distilled version of the most important points.

Just thought I'd save you some work :D

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
I think I started something... :eek:

Tom, you don't need to post EVERY BTS comment on relative spotting ever made. People can click on the links and get the full story if they want. I only posted a distilled version of the most important points.

Just thought I'd save you some work :D oh ok :rolleyes:

I was so interested in revisiting Steve's comments on this issue in the past, I thought I would re-read and re-post some of them here.

I think we have now covered most the the relevant history on this issue smile.gif

Thanks for inspiring to me to re-read old posts and threads on this issue.

-tom w

[ April 22, 2002, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Cameroon]

Thought I'd pop in and give another 2 cents after reading the re-posts of Steve's earlier comments.

My take on the problem(s) that we've been discussing are the same as Steve's comments point out. That is, the "borg" problem is that every unit knows what every other unit sees. Like he said, this isn't a C&C issue. Solving this leaves the Player with all the information anyway but means that the troops do not. So at the end of the turn you could probably give orders that contradict what the unit knows about, but during the turn the TacAI can only act on what the unit already knows.

You could take that a step further. Even if the Player says "target that Panther" to some unit, the unit can't act on that until it spots it (maybe give it a bonus to its spotting chance because you've said "hey, that's over there. get it"). So then units still have to spot on their own, even if you give them an order. This would mean you as the Player still direct everything, but the troops are required to see what's what.

Regarding who the Player is: I've always assumed, and am very glad it's the case, that the Player is literally the one in command of each and every unit.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Cameroon:


Regarding who the Player is: I've always assumed, and am very glad it's the case, that the Player is literally the one in command of each and every unit.I'm having some trouble with this one...

Steve Says:

"The issue is, of course, C3.

No, it is not. This is an entirely different issue. The issue really is, quite simply, spotting.

Now... this MIGHT appear to be C3 issues. It is not. Repeat, it is not. The problem is that
in real life a unit must spot its own targets. Even if it is tipped off by another unit, it still
must establish its own visual contact. In Combat Mission, once ONE unit establishes visual
contact, every unit in the game INSTANTLY establishes visual contact. Even if the enemy
unit is not in LOS, was spotted by a 1 man sharpshooter only, or is over 2000m away. C3
aspects doesn't even factor in because the spotting already established complete, instant
information before any treatment of C3 can be simulated.

"I've always assumed, and am very glad it's the case, that the Player is literally the one in command of each and every unit"

If thats the case WHY are there Command Delays?

Seriously, IF the Player plays the role of the leader of every unit WHY bother with Command delays and why bother With Command Radius and keeping your squads inside the red line command radius?.

When I first started playing the game I was VERY intrigued by the little RADIO icon the some units sported. I figured these radio were important for the player to send orders to those units and get intel back from those units. BUT with Borg Spotting even if a friendly unit is WAY WAY out of C&C like a sniper or a 2 man AT team sneaking up the flank, (supposedly WITHOUT a radio) the Player and All the friendly units STILL instantly get all the recon intel via the "Borg Like Spotting" and the Magic Radio.

The best expample of this is the one man Sharpshooter, he is your BEST recon element, stealthy and CHEAP and expendable, he never needs to be in C&C and does a GREAT job at spotting for the WHOLE battelion! He has VERY little command delay and works well, all on his own. NEXT best for Recon purposes is the two man AT team (PIAT, 'shreck or 'zook) these guys have the added bonues of hideing and waiting to KILL tanks that come by.

I understand Steve's point about
"The issue is, of course, C3.

No, it is not. This is an entirely different issue. The issue really is, quite simply, spotting. Now... this MIGHT appear to be C3 issues. It is not. Repeat, it is not."

But why bother with Command Radii and leadership ratings?

-tom w

[ April 22, 2002, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

But why bother with Command Radii and leadership ratings?Because otherwise there is no penalty at all for being out of C&C and therefore no incentive for the player to concern himself with it. But this is inconsistent with the player being the leader of every unit, so...

Basically they fudged it as a compromise. Think about the alternatives: no command delays and no leadership bonuses are too unrealistic. On the other hand the inability to give orders to any unit out of C&C makes it too much of a "watch the AI play itself" game which hurts the fun factor. So they compromised between realism and playability even though the result is a little contradictory in concept. That is why I prefer to say the role of the player in the game is undefined rather than "the leader of every unit" although either is correct in a way.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

But why bother with Command Radii and leadership ratings?Because otherwise there is no penalty at all for being out of C&C and therefore no incentive for the player to concern himself with it. But this is inconsistent with the player being the leader of every unit, so...

Basically they fudged it as a compromise. .</font>[/QUOTE]I would like to humbly suggest that it is somewhat routine for some players to split squads and send them (While out of C&C) on a recon mission. They are BOTH command-able and expendable, and points wise I do think a half squad is a GOOD investment for recon and intel even if it gets killed or mauled. The command delay is not punitive enough because they SCOUT and spot well and provide instaneous recon intel for EVERY other friendly unit (and of course the Player).

Its seems to me we have in some cases identified problems with the Current Absolute spotting system (I refer here to the GREAT posts by Larsen and Redwolf, reposted by me a few times now smile.gif ) that Steve's idea of Relative Spotting WON'T fix. For instance it seems to be his position that the Player should instantly know EVERYTHING all his units know (God like View I think is the term used "Godlike Point of View" - this is the player knowing, second by second, where each of his units are, where each of the enemy's spotted units are, knowing what each is capable of doing in the given situation, making predictions about enemy forces based on game parameters/limitations, how to coordinate units in order to achieve a desired goal, and being able to direct the units to execute orders based on all of this knowledge. Unless we remove the human player from the game, there is no fix for this at all." (even those units OUT of C&C)
so long as we have that a basis of understanding for what WON'T be part of the BTS Relative Spotting solution it is my suggestion any attempt at Simulated Relative Spotting will be a poor compromise toward "Borg Like" recon at best. smile.gif

-tom w

[ April 22, 2002, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Tom, you are basically correct. Steve said it himself: "Relative Spotting is far more realistic than Absolute Spotting. But it isn't perfect since the Human is allowed to interact with all units using one shared "conciousness".

Relative spotting is a significant improvement but it is not the Ultimate In Realism that some here seem to be expecting. As long as each side is controlled by a single player there is no way around the "shared conciousness/God's eye view" issue unless you are willing go give over significantly more control of your forces to the AI. BTS does not seem willing to do this and I for one am quite happy about that. It could be argued that doing so would be more realistic but who cares about realism if the game is a bore to play?

[ April 22, 2002, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
It could be argued that doing so would be more realistic but who cares about realism if the game is a bore to play?Grogs. They'll suffer through a crappy but realistic game sheerly out of some mysteriously deep sense of "duty" towards realism, but not necessarily the game itself smile.gif

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
Tom, you are basically correct. Steve said it himself: "Relative Spotting is far more realistic than Absolute Spotting. But it isn't perfect since the Human is allowed to interact with all units using one shared "conciousness".

Relative spotting is a significant improvement but it is not the Ultimate In Realism that some here seem to be expecting. As long as each side is controlled by a single player there is no way around the "shared conciousness/God's eye view" issue unless you are willing go give over significantly more control of your forces to the AI. BTS does not seem willing to do this and I for one am quite happy about that. It could be argued that doing so would be more realistic but who cares about realism if the game is a bore to play?Thanks for your comments and reply

" there is no way around the "shared conciousness/God's eye view" issue unless you are willing go give over significantly more control of your forces to the AI. BTS does not seem willing to do this and I for one am quite happy about that. It could be argued that doing so would be more realistic but who cares about realism if the game is a bore to play?"

I do not believe the game would ever degenerate into a bore to play if there were additional features like SOP's and a more extreme FOW setting and TAC AI that you could trust when your units were out of C&C were added to CM II.
I am sure that game would NOT be a bore to play.
I know BTS will never let it be a bore to play smile.gif

-tom w

[ April 22, 2002, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Captain Wacky:

Grogs. They'll suffer through a crappy but realistic game sheerly out of some mysteriously deep sense of "duty" towards realism, but not necessarily the game itself smile.gif Heh, I know what you mean, but ironically Kip and Andreas are 2 of the groggiest grogs around here but they seem to get it. smile.gif

[ April 22, 2002, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I do not believe the game would ever degenerate into a bore to play if there were additional features like SOP's and a more extreme FOW setting and TAC AI that you could trust when your units were out of C&C I am sure the game would NOT be a bore to play. smile.gif I'm all for SOPs and extereme FOW and better TacAI(as is BTS, btw), but none of that is a substitute for the player feeling a connection between his decisions and the results in the game. Realism is not an end itself but a means to an end: enjoyment of the game (often refered to as "fun" smile.gif ). I will probably get branded a heratic for saying that, but oh well.

For me, and I suspect most CM players though I can't prove it, the more decision making you take out of the player's hands and give to the AI, the more distant and less involved the player feels with the game and hence less fun. The question is where do you strike the balance? I like the balance pretty much the way it is now.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I do not believe the game would ever degenerate into a bore to play if there were additional features like SOP's and a more extreme FOW setting and TAC AI that you could trust when your units were out of C&C I am sure the game would NOT be a bore to play. smile.gif I'm all for SOPs and extereme FOW and better TacAI(as is BTS, btw), but none of that is a substitute for the player feeling a connection between his decisions and the results in the game. Realism is not an end itself but a means to an end: enjoyment of the game (often refered to as "fun" smile.gif ). I will probably get branded a heratic for saying that, but oh well.

For me, and I suspect most CM players though I can't prove it, the more decision making you take out of the player's hands and give to the AI, the more distant and less involved the player feels with the game and hence less fun. The question is where do you strike the balance? I like the balance pretty much the way it is now.</font>[/QUOTE]I won't disagree with any of that except to repeat my earlier conclusion that Absolute Spotting is not really the Problem, it is in fact the solution to the problem of how do you let the Player control ALL units all at once. The balance at this point swings toward "Borg spotting" and away from Relative Spotting realism to such an extent that it is could be called one of the biggest issue's hindering Realism in the game. As Per:

these two issues:
Larsen says:
"For me the problem with absolute spotting is not that I know immidiately where the bad guys are but
that the units that didnot spot the bad guys can immidiately see them and fire at them. I would
assume that once the shots are fired one can say that "the bad guys are somewhere there". It would
be nice to make each unit to spot the enemy individually rather than collectively. "
AND this:
Redwolf says:
"What I want a solution for is this: you are attacking with a wide screen all over the map. Lead
elements to the left spot tanks. In CMBO you can immideately rush all your units, including all Bazookas from all over the map, to that spot. For me, that is one of the major reasons why tanks-heavy CMBO forces have few chances of winning against infantry on any map with decent cover. In reality, the tanks
would first have more time to munch at the infantry in front of them, then they could prepare for the
enemy armored reserves to arrive and other infantry would follow much later, piecemeal. In CMBO, you
get a concentrated overrun from enemy infantry in a very short time."

-tom w

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
[QUOTE]Heh, I know what you mean, but ironically Kip and Andreas are 2 of the groggiest grogs around here but they seem to get it. smile.gif You know, there is no need to fling insults about just like that. ;)

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I won't disagree with any of that except to repeat my earlier conclusion that Absolute Spotting is not really the Problem, it is in fact the solution to the problem of how do you let the Player control ALL units all at once.I disagree. It is entirely possible to have relative spotting and still allow the player to control all the units at once. In fact, that is what BTS plans to do, according to those old posts.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I won't disagree with any of that except to repeat my earlier conclusion that Absolute Spotting is not really the Problem, it is in fact the solution to the problem of how do you let the Player control ALL units all at once.I disagree. It is entirely possible to have relative spotting and still allow the player to control all the units at once. In fact, that is what BTS plans to do, according to those old posts.</font>[/QUOTE]I may be disagreeing with you and with BTS BUT it is still my opinion that if the Player controls all units at all times and KNOWS all things that ALL his friendly units know about the battlefield conditions and about the enemy at all times, then if BTS calls that new system Relative Spotting I would ALSO call that Simulated Absolute Spotting from the Prospective of the Player. One theory of the new Relative Spotting paradigm (if I understand it correctly), has each individual unit making its OWN independant LOS spotting check for EVERY single opposing enemy unit, OK, So what?

The Player still sees all, and knows all, and can direct his friendly units (which have not spotted the enemy) to fire or move in the direction of a unit that was previously spotted by a friendly unit, because the Player STILL has Absolute Spotting because he can still control every friendly unit (in C&C or NOT) and he still sees all, and KNOWS all that every friendly unit sees and knows (in C&C or NOT).

So what have we solved?

-tom w

[ April 23, 2002, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Captain Wacky:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
It could be argued that doing so would be more realistic but who cares about realism if the game is a bore to play?Grogs. They'll suffer through a crappy but realistic game sheerly out of some mysteriously deep sense of "duty" towards realism, but not necessarily the game itself smile.gif </font>[/QUOTE]Good Point and I agree with it. Since this "Grog Factor" is a very narrowly defined (and SMALL ok, tiny) market segement would it be possible to call this Fog of War setting "Extreme Groginess" FOW.? And make it the most DEMANDING on the player FOW setting?

How will it work:

(I'm glad you Asked smile.gif )

The player must lose some control of units out of C&C. More than in CMBO but NOT complete loss of control.

Units out of C&C cannot give the player any spotting info that would positively ID any enemy units they have spotted or are in contact with. (only nationality markers are revealed to the player by units out of C&C) (the newer enhanced TAC AI and SOP's will allow that friendly unit out of C&C to engage in fire fights with that unidentified nationality marker, or hide or run away) and you the Player "may" (or May not) see the casualities and unit strength go down and you would NOT know what that unit ( that was not in C&C ) was fighting with.)

(Hence, KILL all the opponent's HQ units and you have effectively blinded your opponent smile.gif )

Units out of C&C are controled by the player somewhat but are extremely compromised by command delays. (Tac AI can perhaps Spawn some NCO HQ units after the loss of the HQ ??)

All units, and Units out of C&C, could benefit from NEW enhanced command tools like Standing Orders or SOPs, and the addtion of enhanced TAC AI.

The enemy units can ONLY be viewed by the player while the player has the friendly unit selected (only in view level 1, (?) that one may be a sticky point, maybe from any view level to make the game actually FUN and playable) that originally spotted the unit.

Of course every friendly unit must make its own spotting check to ID enemy units. (Given that you can only see the enemy unit FROM the perspective of the unit that spotted it, it is possible for two friendly units to positively ID an enemy unit and both be WRONG).
One friendly unit may see an opposing tank and positively ID's it as a StuG (from their perspective when you the Player Selects that unit and therefore see only their perspective) and another different friendly unit, across the map, sees the same (or another near-by tank maybe there are two tanks and you the Player at this point cannot know the whole story) tank and Positively ID's it as a Hetzer (the tank in question may in fact be a well hidden StuH they think they see or a Mark IV LANG?) From the Allied perspective friendly Inf can ALWAYS ID Pz Mark IV's as Tigers, but CMBO already does that smile.gif NOW thats Fog Of WAR!

The player should ONLY see the enemy unit from the perspective of the friendly unit that ID'd the enemy in the first place. This will allow for completely realistic conflicting reports in the early stages of a battle.

Hows that so far?

-tom w

[ April 23, 2002, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Das Boot]

I prettey much like your idea - except for the level 1 view but to me the whole thing hinges on one thing.

Orginally posted by aka_tom_w
...the newer enhanced TAC AI and SOP's will allow that friendly unit out of C&C to engage in fire fights with that unidentified nationality marker, or hide or run away If it could be done properly I'm all for it but I have serious doubts abouth the TAC AI. CM:BO's AI is good but no match for any decent human and by increasing the dependence on the AI I fear it will decrease the realism rather than the opposite.

Tue

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Das Boot:
I prettey much like your idea - except for the level 1 view but to me the whole thing hinges on one thing.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Orginally posted by aka_tom_w
...the newer enhanced TAC AI and SOP's will allow that friendly unit out of C&C to engage in fire fights with that unidentified nationality marker, or hide or run away If it could be done properly I'm all for it but I have serious doubts abouth the TAC AI. CM:BO's AI is good but no match for any decent human and by increasing the dependence on the AI I fear it will decrease the realism rather than the opposite.

Tue</font>[/QUOTE]I'm not sure how many other readers here agree with this BUT every time I play CMBO I am almost always impressed with the ability of the TAC AI to keep my AFV's out of REAL trouble. Tac AI for vehicles in CMBO seems to work very well when it comes to self perservation and defensive action. It will Pop smoke and retreat when faced with a cleary superior threat. IF you ask a vehicle to do something "dumb" it will duck behind cover when that makes more sense then trying to go head to head with a superior weapon. So for inf units out of C&C it seems that a self preservation SOP could work as well as the ONLY SOP avialable for vehicles in the current CMBO (i.e. STAY ALIVE!).

I trust that for the CM II re-write SOP's, standing orders, and enhanced TAC AI will be issues that Steve and Charles will be keen to look into.

(I hope)

smile.gif

-tom w

[ April 23, 2002, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Das Boot]

Good point. I'm also impressed with the tactical AI's handling of vehicles but I still have some concerns. Adding a bunch of SOPs seems the only way to go if you want to make a decent AI, but how many do you need? It's not feasible to make one for every possible situation and if you don't, then what? Standard Operation Porcedures are just that - the operative word being standard. What happens when you experience the non-standard situation?

I'm not a programmer so I have no idea if I'm totally off base here, but I doubt it's possible to enhance the AI that much without having a Cray Supercomuter.

Tue

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

The Player still sees all, and knows all, and can direct his friendly units (which have not spotted the enemy) to fire or move in the direction of a unit that was previously spotted by a friendly unit, because the Player STILL has Absolute Spotting because he can still control every friendly unit (in C&C or NOT) and he still sees all, and KNOWS all that every friendly unit sees and knows (in C&C or NOT).

So what have we solved?It solves the problem of all units automatically spotting an enemy unit as soon as one friendly unit spots it. That is the definition of absolute spotting. Under relative spotting friendly units can be in LOS of enemy units and not see them even if other friendly units can. This introduces a significant uncertainty factor into planning as the player can no longer count on a unit to engage the enemy as soon as it moves into LOS. It may take a short while to spot, a long while, or not at all. I would also bet that units in C&C with each other will be able to help each other spot to a certain extent not allowed units not in C&C with each other, which would add yet another incentive for the player to keep his units in C&C. This is all more realistic than the current model even with the player still having control over all his units. This question of whether the player will be able to manually target unspotted units with area fire, and how to prevent that if it is disallowed, will be an issue that will have to be dealt with.

Good Point and I agree with it. Since this "Grog Factor" is a very narrowly defined (and SMALL ok, tiny) market segement would it be possible to call this Fog of War setting "Extreme Groginess" FOW.? And make it the most DEMANDING on the player FOW setting?I don't have a problem with any of these features except this:

The enemy units can ONLY be viewed by the player while the player has the friendly unit selected (only in view level 1, (?) that one may be a sticky point, maybe from any view level to make the game actually FUN and playable) that originally spotted the unit.This just makes the game more difficult to play without increasing realism. The player still has the same information available to him as he did before, he just has to click all over the place to find it. PITA.

Keep in mind that CMBB already has an extreme FOW setting that may very well do much of what you suggest and then some. We'll see. I expect to see SOPs expanded significantly in the rewrite.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
I disagree. It is entirely possible to have relative spotting and still allow the player to control all the units at once. In fact, that is what BTS plans to do, according to those old posts.With all respect, Vanir, what you say here, while true, is flawed in that you take only half of what has been said in this thread into account.

The things BTS said, and I am pretty sure I read all of them, will solve the small-scale problems within the turn, like the Bazooka that will only be shot at by the HQ that spotted it and not immediately by three tanks nearby who got the word fromt he HQ.

Your flattening of the term "relative spotting" seems to imply that there is a solution for the multi-turn event of rushing all your infantry right where enemy tanks have been spotted. So far I have seen no such solution(*), certainly not proposed by BTS. Solving this "upper end" of the problem without multiplayer with FOW between them would require very drastic measures, like zones of control for your companies and platoons, with heavy penalities for changing them. Very difficult to solve, very easy to piss people off.

(*) I didn't come around to read all of Tom ideas yet, sorry

[aka_tom_w]

tom says:

The enemy units can ONLY be viewed by the player while the player has the friendly unit
selected (only in view level 1, (?) that one may be a sticky point, maybe from any view level
to make the game actually FUN and playable) that originally spotted the unit.

Vanir says:

This just makes the game more difficult to play without increasing realism. The player still has the same information available to him as he did before, he just has to click all over the place to find it. PITA.

"The player still has the same information available to him"

Not at all..

The player could now be faced with condradictory or conflicting info and intel as each unit he selects spots something different EVEN it is is looking at the same thing. That is what I call a fog of war enhancement smile.gif

I highly doubt very many folks here are interested in what I will now call Iron Man Simulated Relative Spotting ( IMSRS-FOW the Player only sees the opposing unit while the friendly unit that spotted it is selected in view 1)

Someone else here is keen on same idea but you can see enemy units while the friendly unit that spotted it is selected from ANY view, I was originally critical of this idea but it does seem like it would make the game MORE fun and MORE playable and still allow multiple friendly units to ID the same opposing unit as two different things which is in my opinion one of the strongest "features" of this suggestion in that it increases the FOW fun factor substantially :D

-tom w

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Das Boot:
Good point. I'm also impressed with the tactical AI's handling of vehicles but I still have some concerns. Adding a bunch of SOPs seems the only way to go if you want to make a decent AI, but how many do you need? It's not feasible to make one for every possible situation and if you don't, then what? Standard Operation Porcedures are just that - the operative word being standard. What happens when you experience the non-standard situation?
The cool feature would be what I would call boolean decision trees.

You have TacOps-like SOP, but several. At any waypoint, you can say "if this and that condition is true, they switch to this SOP". If you want to go further, you can also plot several alternate ways, and at the crossing the unit deciced "if this and that is true and that is not, then go way 2".

Should certainly not overdone, but a healthy dose would be great. I finally ordered Steel Beasts, which is supposed to have some of this.


I'm not a programmer so I have no idea if I'm totally off base here, but I doubt it's possible to enhance the AI that much without having a Cray Supercomuter. A cray is a floating-point supercomputer, it is of no use for most "AI" related processing anyway.

Seriously, I don't think SOPs, even with boolean decision trees, would add that much CPU time, compared to all that shot resolution we already have.

And in any case, most problems we have with stupid behaving wargame units are not from limitations in CPU power, but either from underdevelopment of code, or from accidentially adding misfeatures. Usually the former is done right from start because of fear of the ladder...

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Your flattening of the term "relative spotting" seems to imply that there is a solution for the multi-turn event of rushing all your infantry right where enemy tanks have been spotted.I have no idea why you think I am implying that since I have specifically stated otherwise in my third post on page 4:

Tom, you are basically correct. Steve said it himself: "Relative Spotting is far more realistic than Absolute Spotting. But it isn't perfect since the Human is allowed to interact with all units using one shared "conciousness".
Relative spotting is a significant improvement but it is not the Ultimate In Realism that some here seem to be expecting. As long as each side is controlled by a single player there is no way around the "shared conciousness/God's eye view" issue unless you are willing go give over significantly more control of your forces to the AI. BTS does not seem willing to do this and I for one am quite happy about that. Tom:

Not at all..

The player could now be faced with condradictory or conflicting info and intel as each unit he selects spots something different EVEN it is is looking at the same thing. That is what I call a fog of war enhancement

I highly doubt very many folks here are interested in what I will now call Iron Man Simulated Relative Spotting ( IMSRS-FOW the Player only sees the opposing unit while the friendly unit that spotted it is selected in view 1)Tom, I wouldn't have a problem with this as long as you could view all spotted enemy units simultaneously as you now can, rather than only in small groups at a time. That would be a real chore.

[aka_tom_w]

I firmly believe it is crucially important that we have a solid (and agreed upon) understanding of the exact nature of the fundamental problems of Absolute Spotting.

I thank Redwolf for detialing one such issue quite clearly:

Redwolf says:
"What I want a solution for is this: you are attacking with a wide screen all over the map. Lead elements to the left spot tanks. In CMBO you can immideately rush all your units, including all Bazookas from all over the map, to that spot. For me, that is one of the major reasons why tanks-heavy CMBO forces have few chances of winning against infantry on any map with decent cover. In reality, the tanks would first have more time to munch at the infantry in front of them, then they could prepare for the enemy armored reserves to arrive and other infantry would follow much later, piecemeal. In CMBO, you get a concentrated overrun from enemy infantry in a very short time."

I'm wondering how he would respond to these proposals:

How will it work:

The player must lose some control of units out of C&C. More than in CMBO but NOT complete loss of control.

Units out of C&C cannot give the player any spotting info that would positively ID any enemy units they
have spotted or are in contact with. (only nationality markers are revealed to the player by units out of
C&C) (the newer enhanced TAC AI and SOP's will allow that friendly unit out of C&C to engage in fire
fights with that unidentified nationality marker, or hide or run away) and you the Player "may" (or May
not) see the casualities and unit strength go down and you would NOT know what that unit ( that was
not in C&C ) was fighting with.)

(Hence, KILL all the opponent's HQ units and you have effectively blinded your opponent )

Units out of C&C are controled by the player somewhat but are extremely compromised by command
delays. (Tac AI can perhaps Spawn some NCO HQ units after the loss of the HQ ??)

All units, and Units out of C&C, could benefit from NEW enhanced command tools like Standing Orders
or SOPs, and the addtion of enhanced TAC AI.

The enemy units can ONLY be viewed by the player while the player has the friendly unit selected (only
in view level 1, (?) that one may be a sticky point, maybe from any view level to make the game actually
FUN and playable) that originally spotted the unit.

Of course every friendly unit must make its own spotting check to ID enemy units. (Given that you can
only see the enemy unit FROM the perspective of the unit that spotted it, it is possible for two friendly
units to positively ID an enemy unit and both be WRONG).
One friendly unit may see an opposing tank and positively ID's it as a StuG (from their perspective
when you the Player Selects that unit and therefore see only their perspective) and another different
friendly unit, across the map, sees the same (or another near-by tank maybe there are two tanks and
you the Player at this point cannot know the whole story) tank and Positively ID's it as a Hetzer (the
tank in question may in fact be a well hidden StuH they think they see or a Mark IV LANG?) From the
Allied perspective friendly Inf can ALWAYS ID Pz Mark IV's as Tigers, but CMBO already does that
NOW thats Fog Of WAR!

The player should ONLY see the enemy unit from the perspective of the friendly unit that ID'd the
enemy in the first place. This will allow for completely realistic conflicting reports in the early stages of a
battle.

Hows that so far?

Do they address that question?

I think the answer is it depends on whether the inf unit getting crunched by the tank is in C&C or not, then the player would know sooner and he would order his other units to that location to deal with the threat.

I'm still not entirely clear where Redwolf thinks the problems lies? What is so unrealistic about directing some AT units to the location where an armour threat has been identified? Is it just the SPEED with which the player now (in CMBO) mobilizes his units in response to the threat? It does not seem unreasonable (at least to me) the inf units now spot and ID tanks quite quickly, from the point of view of the inf my guess is they don't really need to know how to identify the exact model of the opposing tank just that there is one and it is firing on them. This info comes back to the Player in CMBO fairly quickly, then the player reacts by quickly mobilizing his units to respond to that threat.

Does the spotting need to be Delayed more? (I think not IMHO)

Does the Player need to be denied the info that the inf unit is under attack by a tank for a longer period of time (Greater delay due to out of C&C) (Perhaps?) IMHO

Does the Player need to have a longer Command Delay forced on his orders so his units have to react slower than they do now? (I hope not) IMHO

-tom w

[ April 23, 2002, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:
Your flattening of the term "relative spotting" seems to imply that there is a solution for the multi-turn event of rushing all your infantry right where enemy tanks have been spotted.[/b]I have no idea why you think I am implying that since I have specifically stated otherwise in my third post on page 4:
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes. I was posting before my first coffee and since I was out yesterday it Monday morning for me. My apologies.

This point of my posting was: what BTS was said is all for the small-scale stuff. This thread is kinda special in trying to address the larger scale problems of borgism.

[xerxes]

The real solution to the relative spotting problem would be to have a multiplayer TCP CM game. In multiplayer, each player would only be able to command his set of units, and would only have the information that his set of units had. All other info would come through command channel chat. Having this operate in TCP would mean you couldn't receive a great deal of detailed information over the command channel. Now if you made this a realtime game (heresy), you would really solve the problem.

It would be fun and very different than the way CM plays now.

Personally, I have difficulty getting blocks of time so I'd always be very interested in PBEM.

-marc s

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by xerxes:
The real solution to the relative spotting problem would be to have a multiplayer TCP CM game. In multiplayer, each player would only be able to command his set of units, and would only have the information that his set of units had. All other info would come through command channel chat. Having this operate in TCP would mean you couldn't receive a great deal of detailed information over the command channel. Now if you made this a realtime game (heresy), you would really solve the problem.

It would be fun and very different than the way CM plays now.

Personally, I have difficulty getting blocks of time so I'd always be very interested in PBEM.

-marc sOne important point here is:

"Personally, I have difficulty getting blocks of time so I'd always be very interested in PBEM"

If the average age on this board is 30-35 (I think that is the most recent statistc) then for most folks here (including myself) the multiplayer TCP/IP battle with MANY different players would all be a dream come true IF we were all KIDS or the "Idle Rich", or retired smile.gif but we are not, and finding the time all together to play multiplayer now with ONE person on TCP-IP is challenging enough.

I think the problem of Absolute Spotting can be resolved without saying the ONLY way to do it is Multiplayer TCP-IP.

I'm personally keen to play against the NEW (someday it will be new in CM II ) AI with FULL extreme FOW and Relative Spotting if the computer AI plays by the same rules it will be one helluva GREAT game! :D

-tom w

[ April 23, 2002, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Redwolf]

Tom, mixed comments on your suggestions:

What I think would be reasonable for a CM style game is that a unit which is fighting in a position where it is way out of C&C is fighting without graphical feedback. You only know it is fighting, but not what, how and where the opponent is. All you see is "trouble".

Note that this is currently done when a unit is in panic. It doesn't give any information about the agressor.

Right now in CMBO this happens only for unit that are in panic because a unit that is OK would fire back. And CMBO's engine insists on showing you where the unit shoots.

That is what I think would be reasonable to break up - make it fight, but don't show where it shoots. It is a break from the current precise graphical representation, but probably a reasonable one - lightweight and giving a huge benefit.

Other somments:
- SOP would be a great help for virtually everything
- your idea to make correct and complete ID more difficult (by counting only reports from some units) sounds good and doesn't seem to cause other kludges. However, it is not a big step, a veteran 17pdr is still a gun.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Yes. I was posting before my first coffee and since I was out yesterday it Monday morning for me. My apologies.I know the feeling all too well ;) No problem.

This point of my posting was: what BTS was said is all for the small-scale stuff. This thread is kinda special in trying to address the larger scale problems of borgism.I'm sorry, if I had realized this thread was "special" I would have avoided it :D Seriously, I understand what you are saying. If by "the larger scale stuff" you are refering to the god's eye view issue, I will simply restate that I do not believe there is any solution to it outside of multi-multiplayer that would not be draconian and piss people off, as you so well put it earlier. However, don't let my negativism discourage you from talking about it.

[ April 23, 2002, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by redwolf:
Tom, mixed comments on your suggestions:

What I think would be reasonable for a CM style game is that a unit which is fighting in a position where it is way out of C&C is fighting without graphical feedback. You only know it is fighting, but not what, how and where the opponent is. All you see is "trouble".

Note that this is currently done when a unit is in panic. It doesn't give any information about the agressor.

Right now in CMBO this happens only for unit that are in panic because a unit that is OK would fire back. And CMBO's engine insists on showing you where the unit shoots.

That is what I think would be reasonable to break up - make it fight, but don't show where it shoots. It is a break from the current precise graphical representation, but probably a reasonable one - lightweight and giving a huge benefit.

Other somments:
- SOP would be a great help for virtually everything
- your idea to make correct and complete ID more difficult (by counting only reports from some units) sounds good and doesn't seem to cause other kludges. However, it is not a big step, a veteran 17pdr is still a gun."What I think would be reasonable for a CM style game is that a unit which is fighting in a position where it is way out of C&C is fighting without graphical feedback. You only know it is fighting, but not what, how and where the opponent is. All you see is "trouble".

Yes that is my point exactly:

Units out of C&C cannot give the player any spotting info that would positively ID any enemy units they
have spotted or are in contact with. (only nationality markers are revealed to the player by units out of
C&C) (the newer enhanced TAC AI and SOP's will allow that friendly unit out of C&C to engage in fire
fights with that unidentified nationality marker, or hide or run away) and you the Player "may" (or May
not) see the casualities and unit strength go down and you would NOT know what that unit ( that was not in C&C ) was fighting with.)


"That is what I think would be reasonable to break up - make it fight, but don't show where it shoots. It is a break from the current precise graphical representation, but probably a reasonable one - lightweight and giving a huge benefit."

yes that is what I mean.

Redwolf:
I am still curious as to your reaction to this question?

"I'm still not entirely clear where Redwolf thinks the problems lies? What is so unrealistic about directing
some AT units to the location where an armour threat has been identified? Is it just the SPEED with
which the player now (in CMBO) mobilizes his units in response to the threat? It does not seem
unreasonable (at least to me) the inf units now spot and ID tanks quite quickly, from the point of view
of the inf my guess is they don't really need to know how to identify the exact model of the opposing
tank just that there is one and it is firing on them. This info comes back to the Player in CMBO fairly
quickly, then the player reacts by quickly mobilizing his units to respond to that threat.

Does the spotting need to be Delayed more? (I think not IMHO)

Does the Player need to be denied the info that the inf unit is under attack by a tank for a longer
period of time (Greater delay due to out of C&C) (Perhaps?) IMHO

Does the Player need to have a longer Command Delay forced on his orders so his units have to react
slower than they do now? (I hope not) IMHO

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
However, don't let my negativism discourage you from talking about it.Oh, if you know me you can Count on that :D !

-tom w

[ April 23, 2002, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Redwolf says:
"What I want a solution for is this: you are attacking with a wide screen all over the map. Lead elements to the left spot tanks. In CMBO you can immideately rush all your units, including all Bazookas from all over the map, to that spot. For me, that is one of the major reasons why tanks-heavy CMBO forces have few chances of winning against infantry on any map with decent cover. In reality, the tanks would first have more time to munch at the infantry in front of them, then they could prepare for the enemy armored reserves to arrive and other infantry would follow much later, piecemeal. In CMBO, you get a concentrated overrun from enemy infantry in a very short time."

I think the answer is it depends on whether the inf unit getting crunched by the tank is in C&C or not, then the player would know sooner and he would order his other units to that location to deal with the threat.

I'm still not entirely clear where Redwolf thinks the problems lies? What is so unrealistic about directing some AT units to the location where an armour threat has been identified? Is it just the SPEED with which the player now (in CMBO) mobilizes his units in response to the threat? It does not seem unreasonable (at least to me) the inf units now spot and ID tanks quite quickly, from the point of view of the inf my guess is they don't really need to know how to identify the exact model of the opposing tank just that there is one and it is firing on them. This info comes back to the Player in CMBO fairly quickly, then the player reacts by quickly mobilizing his units to respond to that threat.

Does the spotting need to be Delayed more? (I think not IMHO)

Does the Player need to be denied the info that the inf unit is under attack by a tank for a longer period of time (Greater delay due to out of C&C) (Perhaps?) IMHO

Does the Player need to have a longer Command Delay forced on his orders so his units have to react slower than they do now? (I hope not) IMHO

-tom w[/QB]I didn't want to imply I have a solution. My example is what I think is the upper end of the Borg problem.

Why do I have a problem with this example? Because I am a tank player and people knock out my tanks!

No, seriously. It breaks much realism in decision-making about the deployment of your forces.

Imagine you attack with an infantry battalion, a tank platoon and you have an option for a TD platoon from regiment.

You make decisions about how to deploy your forces. You send that Bazooka team "Sgt Dingo" with the third platoon from the right. You know that once you made that decision, you Bazooka is away for most practial purposes for the duration of this firefight of 45 or 60 minutes. But in CMBO, no matter where enemy tanks appear, you can run it across the whole battlefield. Instantly.

A more detailed view: you commit you battaltion one company left, one right, one reserve. The tanks stay with the reserve initially. Third platoon from the right opens a gap where an enemy MG jammed and got overrun and neightbourhood platoons were confused about the direct of you attack. It reports back. You press your reserve including the tanks into the weak spot.

Enemy commander Modelchen observes the scene, sees the attack commit his tanks and second echolon on the attackers right side and commit his Panther platoon against the now weak left side of the attacker.

In reality, the commander of the attacking force would get the word about the panthers quite quick. But there are few thing to do with certaincy. He can call his Shermans to turn, cross the battlefield and strike against the counterattcking Panther's flank. But while he can do so in CMBO immideately, he would have lots of stuff to check in reality:
- did anybody in center spot AT guns, or mines? Even if the unit there are forward enough to know, it would take time to ask them
- what does he tell the tanker, exactly?

The problem is even more apparent with Sgt. Dingo and his Bazooka, who would be out of question of redeployment within 30 minute in reality. In CMBO, he gets his ass off within 13 seconds.

I don't say I have a solution, except for very radical ones like committing the CM player to platoon and company zones of control and heavy penalities like delays for changing them.

P.S. TacOps 4.x will have TCP/IP with FOW between players. And yes, people have great difficulties getting together (TacOps games take even longer than CM ones).

[Juardis]

Originally posted by Juardis:
Suggestion:
When you click on a unit, have that unit see only what it can see. If it can't see it, it's either not there or a generic icon. This of course would change the outlook of the battlefield for each unit you click on and could be potentially a huge amount of info that must be stored. So limit it to platoons. Whatever one member of a plt can see, all members of that plt can see.It seems my suggestion would be a good compromise to all that's been discussed. Click on a squad and whatever one unit in that plt sees, all units in that plt see. And you as the human player sees what that squad would see.

So, for example, the current system allows the human to see ALL that ANY ONE of your pixellated units see. If none see it, the human sees a generic unit marker (or nothing at all). Keep that system but modify it as follows.

Click on a unit and the game would render only those units that a platoon member can see and would render generic unit markers (or nothing) for those units no one in the plt can see. You as the human player may KNOW what is where because of your God-like ability, but all the squad knows is that 1) something IS there 2) something MIGHT be there or 3) nothing is there. To make it easy for the human to know what has been spotted by that plt and what hasn't the God-like view changes to a Platoon level view.

I think taking this level of coding down to platoon level would entail a lot of work, but I also think it would be better than what we have now.

For support units, vehicles, and tanks, then you could assume that whatever one tank/vehicle sees, all tanks/vehicles see. And support units can only see what they have LOS to or what the HQ unit they're in C&C can see.

[aka_tom_w]

Hi Redwolf

I'm at work and it is getting busy now.
I have read your latest post and will think about it more and re-read it before I post again.

interesting rant smile.gif

re:
"Why do I have a problem with this example? Because I am a tank player and people knock out my tanks!"

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Juardis:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Juardis:
Suggestion:
When you click on a unit, have that unit see only what it can see. If it can't see it, it's either not there or a generic icon. This of course would change the outlook of the battlefield for each unit you click on and could be potentially a huge amount of info that must be stored. So limit it to platoons. Whatever one member of a plt can see, all members of that plt can see.It seems my suggestion would be a good compromise to all that's been discussed. Click on a squad and whatever one unit in that plt sees, all units in that plt see. And you as the human player sees what that squad would see.

So, for example, the current system allows the human to see ALL that ANY ONE of your pixellated units see. If none see it, the human sees a generic unit marker (or nothing at all). Keep that system but modify it as follows.

Click on a unit and the game would render only those units that a platoon member can see and would render generic unit markers (or nothing) for those units no one in the plt can see. You as the human player may KNOW what is where because of your God-like ability, but all the squad knows is that 1) something IS there 2) something MIGHT be there or 3) nothing is there. To make it easy for the human to know what has been spotted by that plt and what hasn't the God-like view changes to a Platoon level view.

I think taking this level of coding down to platoon level would entail a lot of work, but I also think it would be better than what we have now.

For support units, vehicles, and tanks, then you could assume that whatever one tank/vehicle sees, all tanks/vehicles see. And support units can only see what they have LOS to or what the HQ unit they're in C&C can see.</font>[/QUOTE]"Click on a squad and whatever one unit in that plt sees, all units in that plt see. And you as the human player sees what that squad would see."

But ONLY IF they're in C&C!

is that what you meant?

-tom w

[ April 23, 2002, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Redwolf posts

"I didn't want to imply I have a solution. My example is what I think is the upper end of the Borg
problem.

Why do I have a problem with this example? Because I am a tank player and people knock out my
tanks!

No, seriously. It breaks much realism in decision-making about the deployment of your forces.

Imagine you attack with an infantry battalion, a tank platoon and you have an option for a TD platoon
from regiment.

You make decisions about how to deploy your forces. You send that Bazooka team "Sgt Dingo" with
the third platoon from the right. You know that once you made that decision, you Bazooka is away
for most practial purposes for the duration of this firefight of 45 or 60 minutes. But in CMBO, no
matter where enemy tanks appear, you can run it across the whole battlefield. Instantly.

A more detailed view: you commit you battaltion one company left, one right, one reserve. The tanks
stay with the reserve initially. Third platoon from the right opens a gap where an enemy MG jammed
and got overrun and neightbourhood platoons were confused about the direct of you attack. It
reports back. You press your reserve including the tanks into the weak spot.

Enemy commander Modelchen observes the scene, sees the attack commit his tanks and second
echolon on the attackers right side and commit his Panther platoon against the now weak left side of
the attacker.

In reality, the commander of the attacking force would get the word about the panthers quite quick.
But there are few thing to do with certaincy. He can call his Shermans to turn, cross the battlefield
and strike against the counterattcking Panther's flank. But while he can do so in CMBO immideately,
he would have lots of stuff to check in reality:
- did anybody in center spot AT guns, or mines? Even if the unit there are forward enough to know,
it would take time to ask them
- what does he tell the tanker, exactly?

The problem is even more apparent with Sgt. Dingo and his Bazooka, who would be out of question
of redeployment within 30 minute in reality. In CMBO, he gets his ass off within 13 seconds.

I don't say I have a solution, except for very radical ones like committing the CM player to platoon
and company zones of control and heavy penalities like delays for changing them."

Well we agree there:

"except for very radical ones like committing the CM player to platoon
and company zones of control and heavy penalities like delays for changing them"

I don't think that kind of structure or rigidity would be appropriate because perhaps this is not as big an issue as you believe.

"But while he can do so in CMBO immideately, he would have lots of stuff to check in reality:
- did anybody in center spot AT guns, or mines?

(As it is in CMBO now those tanks can and DO get Whacked in ambushes in that same sitaution by unseen AT guns and mines)

Even if the unit there are forward enough to know,
it would take time to ask them - what does he tell the tanker, exactly?

(Are you trying to simulate command difficulities between different branches or nationalies?, In the case of the Germans I would think a strong case could be made for the fact that they had GREAT communication and co-ordination between units like that involved in a Combined Arms attack like you are describing)

The problem is even more apparent with Sgt. Dingo and his Bazooka, who would be out of question of redeployment within 30 minute in reality. In CMBO, he gets his ass off within 13 seconds."

(BUT who is commanding Sgt Dingo? If it is the Battelion commander than it would not be long (3 - 5 minutes maybe? BIG guess) before that order came down to haul ass over to the trouble spot.)

Maybe longer command delays are in order? But I'm not sure about that one.

I was just trying to determine where (exactly) you think the problem lies in relation to your (our) objections to the way Absolute Spotting works in the game smile.gif

-tom w

[ April 23, 2002, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[WineCape]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
So my point is that it isnt so much the SPOTTING but rather the IDing. This
is especially true for the attacker, the attacker gets WAY too much information regarding targets. The ability of all units to ascertain exactly
WHAT it is they are spotting is as much a problem as sharing spotting because that is the intel they are sharing that is SO valuable.

A game suggestion then is to bring down the IDing level but keep the spotting the same.
* Bolding mine

EXACTLY! Well put. This to me is the most elegant, workable solution for a 1-man programmer like Charles. Maybe work with MORE varying levels of ID'ing for units within LOS/out of LOS, distance and experience as currently in the game. Great discussion.

Sincerely,
Charl Theron

[KNac]

Tom sing me up or the URnEFOW (Ultra Realistic and Extreme Fog Of War) smile.gif as long as its an option and not the single possibility in the game.

I will introduce a new question, time tolink up FOW and CnC? Which is your opinion?

Different AI/CnC/FOW for each level of realism or farce sizes, what do you think? Time to give the possibility of a better platoon AI (w/o deleting the possibility of micro-management in smaller units) for larges battles?

Time for a new topic? :D

If you

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by WineCape:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
So my point is that it isnt so much the SPOTTING but rather the IDing. This
is especially true for the attacker, the attacker gets WAY too much information regarding targets. The ability of all units to ascertain exactly
WHAT it is they are spotting is as much a problem as sharing spotting because that is the intel they are sharing that is SO valuable.

A game suggestion then is to bring down the IDing level but keep the spotting the same.
* Bolding mine

EXACTLY! Well put. This to me is the most elegant, workable solution for a 1-man programmer like Charles. Maybe work with MORE varying levels of ID'ing for units within LOS/out of LOS, distance and experience as currently in the game. Great discussion.

Sincerely,
Charl Theron</font>[/QUOTE]I think it is important to credit this to some one who e-mailed it to me for me to post here:
e-mail came anonymously and unsolicitited from: Mushkin The Improbable (?)

"I have always thought that it isnt spotting but the combination of spotting
AND intel. A quick example would be illustrative:

Your 57mm ATG spots AND Identifies 4 vehicles in its LOS. It sees 2 PIV, 1
TigerI and a halftrack 251/1. It can cherry-target now (pick its best
target) and selects a PIV.

If intel were limited, the alternative scenario might be:

Your 57mm ATG spots 4 vehicles, two ID'd as light armor and 2 ID'd as medium
armor. In this case (its the same 4 vehicles as example 1 but the tiger has
been intel ID'd as a medium armor target due to the ATGs experience rating,
target being hull down, smoke, etc), it chooses one of the medium armor
targets (giving a 50 percent chance of targeting the tiger).

So my point is that it isnt so much the SPOTTING but rather the IDing. This
is especially true for the attacker, the attacker gets WAY too much
information regarding targets. The ability of all units to ascertain exactly
WHAT it is they are spotting is as much a problem as sharing spotting because
that is the intel they are sharing that is SO valuable.

A game suggestion then is to bring down the IDing level but keep the spotting
the same. This could be an extreme FOW option (cause theres always some that
like it just the way it is)."

I think there are some good points in there about the level of ID'ing that is relevant to this
discussion.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by KNac:
Tom sing me up or the URnEFOW (Ultra Realistic and Extreme Fog Of War) smile.gif as long as its an option and not the single possibility in the game.

I will introduce a new question, time tolink up FOW and CnC? Which is your opinion?

Different AI/CnC/FOW for each level of realism or farce sizes, what do you think? Time to give the possibility of a better platoon AI (w/o deleting the possibility of micro-management in smaller units) for larges battles?

Time for a new topic? :D

If youMarketing would dictate that it would HAVE to be an option in order to have the new game (any new Game AND CM II) appeal to the widest possible audience. smile.gif

It is likely WAY too early to talk about CM II but if we are dreaming about what kind of Relative Spotting and Extremely Realistic FOW we would like see, why not discuss it here and now as James brought it up and opened with an interesting idea that many other interested folks have added to and expanded upon.

ITS all just idle specualtion really but I think of it is an interesting challege or puzzle to solve smile.gif

If you are interested in a new topic there are plenty of other threads to contribute to smile.gif .

-tom w

[ April 23, 2002, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Again interesting e-mail from Muskin the Improbable
he asks me to post this

"I believe that there is two distinct issues; 1. Absolute vs Relative Spotting
AND "Quality of Spotting" as a function of Experince level, Command Control,
Battlefield conditions, etc.

They really are distinct and Relative Spotting does not address the "Quality
of Spotting/IDing"

A good aspect of this thread is the role of the player as commander, meddler, optimizer, gamey retard, etc.

In many situations, the player unrealistically optimizes targetting. In real life, a unit would not pay THAT much attention to enemy units further away than the ones that they
see. To give a friendly unit a command to fire at a target further away than the nearest enemy threat, should have consequences if that closer threat blasts your guys! they
have, in effect, lost fire superiority and should get some pinning at least for this unrealistic behaviour. So, we have consequences for unrealistic actions BUT havent denied
the player the ability to do stupid things.

It might even be justified to say that units could be limited to the NUMBER of units they could spot (and ID). Nearest enemy units having the best chances to be spotted and
then rapidly decreasing chances for farther enemy units This would at least LIMIT the number of units the hidden sharpshooter on the hill can report back. This decreasing
effect could be worse for radioless single man trucks and hardly different than it is now for a radio equipped HQ unit. Here we see C3 creeping in to the grand info pool. "

[ April 23, 2002, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Cameroon]

It'd be nice if we could get the distinction between relative spotting (aka Borg spotting) and the God's Eye View respected. The reason is that this thread purports to be about relative "borg" spotting. It's called borg because one guy (unit) knows, all the guys (units) know. What this thread has become, however, is largely about curtailing the God's Eye View "problem".

To offer one last comment about relative spotting (I'm less interested in the God's Eye View "problem"):

I believe it was tom (apologies if it wasn't) who asked what forcing the units to spot their targets gives you, since the player can still target something a unit hasn't seen yet. Apparently my earlier comment was ignored or missed ;) Even if you (Player) say "Target that Infantry Squad in those bushes", the unit would STILL have to spot it on its own (if so coded).

So let's assume that Unit A is firing at Unit B. Some other unit spots Unit C (a higher priority target to the Player) during the turn, but Unit A doesn't. Unit A will not open fire on Unit C, obviously.

Now, let's say at the end of the turn, the Player tells Unit A to target Unit C. Ok, HOWEVER, Unit A still hasn't spotted Unit C. So Unit A is trying to acquire Unit C to fire at. Meanwhile, Unit A isn't firing at anything. You could carry this further, too. A unit trying to acquire a specific target (under orders) could be less likely to spot other targets.

That is not specifically designed to limit the God's Eye View, but it does make having the God's Eye View less powerful.

[aka_tom_w]

"I believe it was tom (apologies if it wasn't {It was me smile.gif } ) who asked what forcing the units to spot their targets gives you, since the
player can still target something a unit hasn't seen yet. Apparently my earlier comment was ignored or missed Even if
you (Player) say "Target that Infantry Squad in those bushes", the unit would STILL have to spot it on its own (if so
coded).

So let's assume that Unit A is firing at Unit B. Some other unit spots Unit C (a higher priority target to the Player)
during the turn, but Unit A doesn't. Unit A will not open fire on Unit C, obviously.

Now, let's say at the end of the turn, the Player tells Unit A to target Unit C. Ok, HOWEVER, Unit A still hasn't spotted
Unit C. So Unit A is trying to acquire Unit C to fire at. Meanwhile, Unit A isn't firing at anything. You could carry this
further, too. A unit trying to acquire a specific target (under orders) could be less likely to spot other targets."

Mushkin the Improbable (?) (aka Deep Throat) replies:

I dont believe that is what Relative Spotting will be like. As you choose a unit during the orders phase, its perspective of the battlefield will 'pop up'. Only those units it can
spot/ID, will be shown. So in your example, it could not target what it cant see (maybe area fire but you get my point).

During the movie, all units will be shown and players will be screaming at their computers "shoot the guy to the left, shoot him!!!" not knowing that the unit cant see the guy to
the left. Or maybe the movie will be dynamic from a highlighted units individual perspective? Hmmmm Interesting.

Mush

[ April 23, 2002, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
So in your example, it could not target what it cant see (maybe area fire but you get my point).
So say this like it is no big matter, but it is.

All attempts to fix absolute spotting that depend on only shooting what the unit sees are futile. People will use area or indirect fire instead, if the unit refuses to give a target line to the target because it doesn't see it. And even without that, the player can turn or move the own unit so that it is guaranteed to see the desired target.

It fixes only things within one turn. This is worthwile, it is the bazooka example. This is what I understand Steve has in mind for CMIII, not more.

But when the combat phase is over, and the player plots, there is no point in not giving a unit a target option (and hence view) to an enemy in LOS. Because the player will use area fire instead, and it will only annoy the hell out of the player who needs to get the idea who cannot see that AT team to give give manual area target to all units in LOS. Much trouble for no gain.

Longer combat phases, which require more TacAI, SOPs and deciion trees would help, but that's a different game.

[Juardis]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
But ONLY IF they're in C&C!

is that what you meant?

-tom wIdeally yes, but I think if you go that far, then you're modeling who has a radio and who doesn't. All I'm suggesting is a possible solution using the current coding. You the human see everything you see now. The game keeps track of what each platoon can see. When you click on a unit within that platoon, the game only shows you what that unit can see and what that unit can see is based entirely on what ANY unit in the PLATOON can see, whether they're in C&C or not. This will allow the human to have control over each unit but it restricts what the TAC AI considers a valid target and would seriously limit the Borg syndrome. I think to actually fix the "problem" would require that the selected unit be in C&C, but I think that's getting beyond the "compromise solution until the rewrite is completed".

As for area firing, I certainly wouldn't use that option because area firing is too ineffective at both killing and breaking the area target when a more juicy target does come into LOS.

[xerxes]

You can have really poor ID'ing today with CMBO. Just fire up a conscript slugfest. They can't ID hardly ANYTHING until they stumble over it.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by xerxes:
You can have really poor ID'ing today with CMBO. Just fire up a conscript slugfest. They can't ID hardly ANYTHING until they stumble over it.Yeah! Stop playing with those gamey Regular troops!

Really, as others have suggested, you can't really fix the "God's Eye View" problem and still be playing CM. In CM you not only are the overall commander, but you're also driving that jeep, firing that piat, reconning those woods, setting that ambush, charging those foxholes, torching that building, flanking that Panther, calling in that arty, unbuttoning those hatches, firing that mortar, etc.

Without this "role playing aspect," the game would be much less fun.

So I guess what you have to do is come up with ways to inhibit unrealistic behavior. As an example -- and this is not a perfect solution, of course - you could have two types of area fire; "blind fire," and "area fire." Blind fire would be much less effective than area fire. Unaimed fire would count as "area fire" if a unit was firing at a sound contact, an unidentified unit (that the firing unit somehow knows is there), or fire at a location where the firing unit knew someone was there within the last turn, or fire at a building or fortification. Blind fire would be fire where the firing unit would have no clue that there was any enemy unit actually there. It would not be completely useless, though, because if two squads blind fired at a tree line (where an unspotted enemy unit was located) while the third squad charged it, as soon as the unspotted squad became id'd, or partially id'd, it would be taken under area and then regular fire. But it would probably not be spotted until it fired at the charging squad.

These penalties would not apply to artillery. I excluded buildings and fortification from the blind fire penalties simply because they were historically fired at blindly a lot, with some effect - in part because they are relatively compact compared to, say, a treeline.

Regardless of the God's Eye View problem, fixing borg spotting will make armor battles much more realistic, as you can't area fire with AP.

Whether a specific type of fire counted as blind fire or area fire would depend on what it was shoo

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by redwolf:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
So in your example, it could not target what it cant see (maybe area fire but you get my point).
So say this like it is no big matter, but it is.

All attempts to fix absolute spotting that depend on only shooting what the unit sees are futile. People will use area or indirect fire instead, if the unit refuses to give a target line to the target because it doesn't see it. And even without that, the player can turn or move the own unit so that it is guaranteed to see the desired target.

It fixes only things within one turn. This is worthwile, it is the bazooka example. This is what I understand Steve has in mind for CMIII, not more.

But when the combat phase is over, and the player plots, there is no point in not giving a unit a target option (and hence view) to an enemy in LOS. Because the player will use area fire instead, and it will only annoy the hell out of the player who needs to get the idea who cannot see that AT team to give give manual area target to all units in LOS. Much trouble for no gain.

Longer combat phases, which require more TacAI, SOPs and deciion trees would help, but that's a different game.</font>[/QUOTE]All attempts to fix absolute spotting that depend on only shooting what the unit sees are futile. People will use area or indirect fire instead, if the unit refuses to give a target line to the target because it doesn't see it. And even without that, the player can turn or move the own unit so that it is guaranteed to see the desired target.

I agree completely with Redwolf on this one, if we want better realism the solution cannot be just that simple. The new concept of simulated Relative Spotting should include a broader range of tweaks, fixes and solutions (including SOPs more FOW and less chance to positively ID enemy units) to make it appeal to folks who are seeking a more realistic simulation of WW II squad level combat.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

"Ideally yes, but I think if you go that far, then you're modeling who has a radio and who doesn't. All I'm suggesting is
a possible solution using the current coding. You the human see everything you see now. The game keeps track of
what each platoon can see. When you click on a unit within that platoon, the game only shows you what that unit can
see and what that unit can see is based entirely on what ANY unit in the PLATOON can see, whether they're in C&C or
not. This will allow the human to have control over each unit but it restricts what the TAC AI considers a
valid target and would seriously limit the Borg syndrome. I think to actually fix the "problem" would require that
the selected unit be in C&C, but I think that's getting beyond the "compromise solution until the rewrite is completed".

As for area firing, I certainly wouldn't use that option because area firing is too ineffective at both killing and breaking
the area target when a more juicy target does come into LOS."

received via e-mail to post here:

Mushkin the Improbable: (aka DeepThroat)

The current coding doesnt keep track of who spotted what. It is spotee centered, meaning that each unit is judged to be spotted by every other unit. So it is either spotted (and ID'd to a certain level) and thats it. The game cant keep track of who spotted what. The level of BEING spotted is kept on a units status. Anyone with a LOS to that unit can then shoot at it.

I like your idea by the way and it has merit. But I believe that CMBB will be very close to CMBO and CMII will be very different. My hope would be that BTS would implement some of the IDing type changes and include them in CMBB. I think I am going to try an all armor conscript quick battle just for fun.
I agree about the area fire also. I would never use it but would probably just use the covered arc instead. If something good pops up, then they get zapped. Its my experience that area fire seems like robotic behaviour and cant be trusted for most units. maybe it can also be made more realistic by the covered arc. That is, when targetting for area fire, a minimum covered arc has to be used. The minimum CA then distributes the FP along the arc instead of a point. Want to spray the whole house? Put a wider covered arc.

[ April 24, 2002, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Juardis:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
But ONLY IF they're in C&C!

is that what you meant?

-tom wIdeally yes, but I think if you go that far, then you're modeling who has a radio and who doesn't. .</font>[/QUOTE]Again I think the consideration of C&C should have a much greater impact in the way CM II is coded and we SHOULD indeed be trying to model who has a radio and who doesn't. I think that issue is an important concept in how the player controls units out of C&C and it is very relevant to how simulate the concept of Relative Spotting in a realistic way.

-tom w

[ April 24, 2002, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

What ??

No news, comments are dissenting opinions on the Relative Spotting front this morning?

-tom w

[xerxes]

I was going to accuse you of using gamey green troops instead of max FOW conscripts but. . .I thought better of it.

[Caesar]

IMO relative spotting (by which I mean that a unit can only see and therefor shoot at and react to what it has spotted NOT what other units have spotted) should fix most of the problems of units such as guns, and bazookas etc getting immediately wiped out by unrealistic amounts of firepower the second they show themselves. Couple this with a certain amount of fuzzy logic in the spotting based on experience, direction you are facing, cover arcs etc and I think this should increase the realism quite effectively.

The cherry picking of targets (by which I mean two or more units spot a number of targets but only one can Id them correctly yet all make use of this information for targetting) is another issue that needs to be dealt with. Someone earlier suggested simply making the IDing of enemy units less effective. I don't think that this really solves the problem. By doing this you unfairly penalise a unit that does spot them well enough to choose their targets. Consider the situation where you have some AT guns overlooking an area at some distance and a bunch of bazooka equipped troops waiting closely in ambush. Some enemy tanks arrive. The guns at a greater distance would not be able to ID them. The bazookas that are close up could tell you that one of the tank drivers has gold fillings. With the above suggested IDing solution, either the guns can cherry pick or the bazookas have to shoot the closest target. This is no better than what we have currently. One solution is for units that only have partial information, that the AI takes over the target selection i.e. You can only directly target units that the shooter has completly Identified or identified enough to determine the level of threat to the shooter. There might have to be some caveats to this though, an infantry unit probably shouldn't have to know the difference between the types of infantry (e.g. paras vs glider) to be able to specifically target them. This would also hopefully help deal with some of the unrealistic targetting of units that are not an immediate threat in preference to those shooting at them. I like that idea that someone earlier mentioned of increasing the consequences of doing this.

As I have suggested in an earlier post, I think using CnC based delays to augment the spotting mechanisms above i.e. if a unit in CnC accurately spots enemy units then another unit that also is in CnC would eventually be able to indirectly using area fire for units that cannot spot them at all, or direct fire for those units that can spot them but not ID them. As mentioned by someone above, Area fire from units that cannot spot the target and completely without LOS should be heavily penalised (blind fire I think he called it)

Introducing movement penalties for units moving out of CnC could also help to deal with the God view issue where I as a player suddenly move all my AT assets to deal with a problem that in reality I would have had no information on. I have suggested this before but this discussion has caused my ideas to develop a bit. Platoon HQs should have to remain within a certain command radius of their Comapny HQ (varying dependent on communication methods, experience etc). A unit should have a limit to how far a move plotted will place out of CnC. Once out of CnC a unit move limit should be decreased. This, coupled with the increased movement delays you get with units out of CnC would severely penalise players not respecting CnC. Another variation on this theme would be the increase in delay as the plotted move becomes larger. This would be to help simulate the fact that the larger the move the more likely that it is the result of an order coming from further up the command chain.

[aka_tom_w]

IMO relative spotting (by which I mean that a unit can only see and therefor shoot at and react to what it has spotted
NOT what other units have spotted) should fix most of the problems of units such as guns, and bazookas etc getting
immediately wiped out by unrealistic amounts of firepower the second they show themselves. Couple this with a
certain amount of fuzzy logic in the spotting based on experience, direction you are facing, cover arcs etc and I think
this should increase the realism quite effectively.

The cherry picking of targets (by which I mean two or more units spot a number of targets but only one can Id them
correctly yet all make use of this information for targetting) is another issue that needs to be dealt with. Someone
earlier suggested simply making the IDing of enemy units less effective. I don't think that this really solves the
problem. By doing this you unfairly penalise a unit that does spot them well enough to choose their targets. Consider
the situation where you have some AT guns overlooking an area at some distance and a bunch of bazooka equipped
troops waiting closely in ambush. Some enemy tanks arrive. The guns at a greater distance would not be able to ID
them. The bazookas that are close up could tell you that one of the tank drivers has gold fillings. With the above
suggested IDing solution, either the guns can cherry pick or the bazookas have to shoot the closest target. This is no
better than what we have currently. One solution is for units that only have partial information,

Muskin the Improbable (aka Deep Throat) replies

Actually relative spotting will not stop cherry picking of targets! A quick example is as follows:
1. select an ATG unit, see what he can see. he sees 4 generic tanks lets say.
2. Go to another unit with a better view (but perhaps an ineffective weapon) and see what he can see. He sees 3 PIIIL42 and one
PIVL48.
3. Go back to ATG unit and pick PIVL48.

You see its the detailed info that is tripping us up.

Its been suggested that units be presented to the player in a certain order (that is, the game will highlight who gets orders for you).
Those with the least intel first. But this is a radical departure from present gameplay and would not be well recieved. I believe that
knowing the experience level of troops and many other factoids about targets has been acknowledged by BTS as something they
are going to address. Info that a commander couldnt possibly have certainly leads to gaminess. believe it or not, you are getting
way too much info. As other people have said, play with only conscripts and you will be surprised at how much fog of war rolls in. Is
that a split up platoon running at me or a weak company?

I think as people that have looked at books on tanks and built models and visited museums; we have more info than many grunts
that actually served. I think as CM players, we want to selct the targets. Anything that took that away would get howling protests
from the majority. If the game only allowed you to give orders like:

1. Destroy armor (select a Covered arc)
2. Destroy infantry (select..)
3. Deny area (mark area with covered arc)

It would not go over well. But its the coordination that is what makes the game unrealistic. So is it realism or fun you want? I say its
a compromise. Let people do gamey things but there must be consequences. An example is the penalty for firing area fire at a
location and someone opens up on you (especially someone close). In real life, you are screwed. You would be pinned flatter than
a pancake. the game should reflect that.

I dont quite follow this by the way..

The guns at a greater distance would not be able to ID them. The bazookas that are close up could tell you that one
of the tank drivers has gold fillings. With the above suggested IDing solution, either the guns can cherry pick or the
bazookas have to shoot the closest target.

Bazookas would shoot the closest targets in real life. But if the gamey player wants to take a long range shot over the tanks at a
quad 20mm halftrack then fine, but there should be consequences. Especially if he misses. Why would the ATGs cherry target? Are
you assuming that bazooka crews can share info? i dont agree that an infantry unit needs to report what model of tank is spotted.
The game reports too much info. Even with relative spotting, the game should not report so much detail about enemy units. Infantry
should just be that and vehicles generically reported.

[ April 24, 2002, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Das Boot]

Originally posted by Muskin

i dont agree that an infantry unit needs to report what model of tank is spotted.
The game reports too much info. Even with relative spotting, the game should not report so much detail about enemy units. Infantry
should just be that and vehicles generically reported.
I like this idea and I don't like it. I agree that the amount of info on enemy units makes it too gamey and that it needs to be restricted more. But I don't like that all vehicles should be generically reported at all times (if that's what you mean). For me half the fun is the visual side and I can't find a way to combine that with you suggestion. It would definately be more realistic but I don't think it would be CM and I doubt I'd play it.

Tue

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Das Boot:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Originally posted by Muskin

i dont agree that an infantry unit needs to report what model of tank is spotted.
The game reports too much info. Even with relative spotting, the game should not report so much detail about enemy units. Infantry
should just be that and vehicles generically reported.
I like this idea and I don't like it. I agree that the amount of info on enemy units makes it too gamey and that it needs to be restricted more. But I don't like that all vehicles should be generically reported at all times (if that's what you mean). For me half the fun is the visual side and I can't find a way to combine that with you suggestion. It would definately be more realistic but I don't think it would be CM and I doubt I'd play it.

Tue</font>[/QUOTE]From Muskin the Improbable (aka Deep Throat)

Tue,

I think alot of the game's charm is built around the visuals and the mods. People need to see ambush panzer colors and such.

Perhaps the game could then use generic tanks but represent them with real tanks with ? marks. This way you could see a Panther
G but it has a ? in the unit box at the bottom. The fact that it is really a JagdPanther or a TigerI or even a Panzer III (a conscript
soup kitchen spotted it), must be taken into account. This way, the visuals are there but viewer beware.

This would also be an option. Extreme FOW lets say. I never play anything but FOW right now. It could be a way of having the
game be all things to all people. It would be nice to have an aftermath supermovie of all the turns that showed the actual units
involved too. This would be another level of enjoyment.

Certain information, like unit experience level, squad type, number of men in a unit, is over reported. I am not sure how someone
would determine a truck is green or veteran at 300 meters (all trucks should be conscript by the way). caveat: I would like to see
some of that info if I took prisoners.

I think this thread stands out because it addresses some important issues:

1. What do you enjoy in the game?

2. What roles do you think you play in the game?

3. Does Relative spotting really cure all the percieved ills?

4. Can Realism exist side by side with Fun?

5. Will Modders and Grogs ever agree on anything?

6. What is too much information?

I think that certain elements of control will evolve away from the player. One element that hasnt been discussed too much is Orders
Limitations. This would be a "soft failure" somewhere between having your guys go completely beyond your control (routed and
such) and being robots that have variable response times. An example would be:

Pinned unit beyond C&C. You want to give him a movement order so you can see how long it will take (and then master mind a
coordinated assault with other units). Firstly, there are no movement orders in his menu! You are restricted to firing and hiding and
withdrawing. This "soft failure" isnt a total loss of control but a shade of loss.

Half squad out of C&C and out of its platoon HQ visual LOS. You give a sneak order and want to see how long it will take. Sneak is
an option and you select it and draw a line. A ? shows up in the delay time. You dont know how long it will take. He is also, by the
way, taken some fire the previous turn and may be under strength. Since he is out of C&C and LOS, those losses are not reported
to you. The info pool is shrinking again. The attacker is slowly losing his borgiosity.

A defender has a cutoff HMG. He is out of C&C and LOS of ALL friendly units. The player wants him to target a particularly
bothersome enemy squad that he fears (its a russian guards PPSH equipped unit that is getting too close). The player opens the
HMG menu and selects a fire command. He draws a line but a covered arc appears instead! He can not guarantee that the HMG
will select the bothersome squad because other enemy units also occupy the covered arc. Damn, he says and decides to withdraw
and makes a note to keep HQs near HMGs in the future.

Infantry squad with low ammo is given an assault order. He is understrength yet in C&C. He is given an assault order but the delay
is a flashing ?. This could be a wildcard. He may or may not carry out that order! Luckily a commisar equipped company HQ is next
to him and shoots at his feet. The other feet start moving.

-Muskin

[Das Boot]

Muskin,
I'm heading out the door for a long weekend, so I havn't given it a lot of though yet but your ideas sound good to me. The key point for me is restricting the GOD-mode currently used by players while keeping the fun elements in the game, and it seems to cover that.

Tue

[aka_tom_w]

Muskin Says:

Pinned unit beyond C&C. You want to give him a movement order so you can see how long it will take (and then master mind a coordinated assault with other units). Firstly, there are no movement orders in his menu! You are restricted to firing and hiding and withdrawing. This "soft failure" isnt a total loss of control but a shade of loss.

Half squad out of C&C and out of its platoon HQ visual LOS. You give a sneak order and want to see how long it will take. Sneak is an option and you select it and draw a line. A ? shows up in the delay time. You dont know how long it will take. He is also, by the way, taken some fire the previous turn and may be under strength. Since he is out of C&C and LOS, those losses are not reported to you. The info pool is shrinking again. The attacker is slowly losing his borgiosity.

A defender has a cutoff HMG. He is out of C&C and LOS of ALL friendly units. The player wants him to target a particularly bothersome enemy squad that he fears (its a russian guards PPSH equipped unit that is getting too close). The player opens the HMG menu and selects a fire command. He draws a line but a covered arc appears instead! He can not guarantee that the HMG will select the bothersome squad because other enemy units also occupy the covered arc. Damn, he says and decides to withdraw and makes a note to keep HQs near HMGs in the future.

That Sounds GREAT! smile.gif

I think the focus on C&C is completely relevant here. I truly don't believe that we can really solve some of the problems of lack of Realism that Absolute Spotting creates if we don't SERIOUSLY look at C&C and who commands who and who communicates with who and who KNOWS what and how did they find out, (i.e. did the Player tell them to LOOK for it? OR did they Spot the threat themselves???)

Pinned units out of C&C should be next to useless to the Player.

These are ALL great ideas that will take SOME control away from the Player when the unit is out of C&C:

"Pinned unit beyond C&C. You want to give him a movement order so you can see how long it will take (and then master mind a coordinated assault with other units). Firstly, there are no movement orders in his menu! You are restricted to firing and hiding and withdrawing. This "soft failure" isnt a total loss of control but a shade of loss.

Half squad out of C&C and out of its platoon HQ visual LOS. You give a sneak order and want to see how long it will take. Sneak is an option and you select it and draw a line. A ? shows up in the delay time. You dont know how long it will take. He is also, by the way, taken some fire the previous turn and may be under strength. Since he is out of C&C and LOS, those losses are not reported to you. The info pool is shrinking again."

Who is in C&C and who is NOT should be REALLY important in the implimentation of Simulated Relative Spotting in order to add more REALISM to the game. smile.gif

-tom w

[ April 25, 2002, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[James Crowley]

I don't know who this improbable Muskin is but he is coming up with some damn fine, very "probable" suggestions on how to combine C&C limitations, some form of relative spotting and the "fun" factor of controlling all of your units.
Hopefully he is someone with some influence in the BTS camp :D

[kipanderson]

Tom W, hi,

I appreciate what you are after, and you articulate it extremely clearly. However, to me it always comes back to the same thing. You like to play the game as a platoon commander, not as a squad commander.

You wrote,
“Who has in C&C and who is NOT should be REALLY important in the implimentation of Simulated Relative Spotting in order to add more REALISM to the game.”

This is fine, so long as you are not playing the game as a squad commander. If you are a squad commander and cannot re-act to a threat, use your initiative, because you are out of contact with your platoon commander, it is “not realistic” if you are playing the role of the squad commander. However, it “is realistic” if you are playing the game as the platoon commander, as long as the TacAI is of outstanding quality.

My view remains that in wargames you play a lot of different roles. The primary role one plays is dependant on the maneuver units in the game. In games where you maneuver by platoons your primary role is that of platoon commander, but also company and battalion commander. TacOps is an example of this. However, in CM the maneuver units are squads and individual AFVs. In CM our primary role is that of squad and AFV commander. But of course, also platoon, company and battalion commander.

There is really no way round this. I am 100% sure that Steve and co. could produce a very fine platoon commander game, for all I know they will. However, it would no longer be CM. At the heart of CM it the exact, tactical maneuver of squads and AFVs, within the limits of squad and crew training/ability. Hence, delay times for some orders are realistic. Factoring in delay times for a limited number of orders that can be assumed to have come through radios to Soviet tank commanders also seems reasonable, but care must be taken not to assume the Soviet tank commander is stupid.

Having each maneuver unit do its own spotting, plus live team play, will help move towards the type of game you are after, while still maintaining CM as the same type/style/scale of game it is today. BTS may decide to turn CM into a platoon commander game. But from the posts that were quoted about half way through this thread I think it is unlikely, I agreed with what was quoted from Steve.

Time will tell. Whenever this topic comes up I always remember a line from Steve in a similar discussion about a year ago to do with C&C in CMBB, Steve clearly stated CM will “not become a command game”. But, of course, it is all a matter of degree, at the margins anyway. From what I have read the modeling of C&C in CMBB is spot on, but still not a command game.

All the best,
Kip.
PS. No one is after “realism” more than I am, my posts on this forum go on and on… about tweaks to add more “realism”. But I am happy to play the primary role of squad/AFV commander.We will never fully agree because we are after different things.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Pinned units out of C&C should be next to useless to the Player.Units pinned outside of C&C already are of marginal usefullness. Command delays of over 1 minute are common in this situation and return fire is usually ineffective.

Extreme FOW is already a feature of CMBB.

Not allowing units out of C&C to target specific spotted enemy units in LOS would not make sense for the reasons Kip just outlined.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by kipanderson:
Tom W, hi,

I appreciate what you are after, and you articulate it extremely clearly. However, to me it always comes back to the same thing. You like to play the game as a platoon commander, not as a squad commander.

(snip)

But, of course, it is all a matter of degree, at the margins anyway. From what I have read the modeling of C&C in CMBB is spot on, but still not a command game.

All the best,
Kip.
PS. No one is after “realism” more than I am, my posts on this forum go on and on… about tweaks to add more “realism”. But I am happy to play the primary role of squad/AFV commander.We will never fully agree because we are after different things.Hi Kip

Your points are also well made and I respect your opinion as well smile.gif

You suggest I "like to play the game as a platoon commander, not as a squad commander."

Its sort of funny but I have never looked at it from that perspective. (honest) I enjoy playing CMBO and think it plays well and it is fun. To be honest I enjoy seeking out gamey loopholes and ways to exploit the game engine. I like to figure out how things work and where their strengths and weakneses are smile.gif

The whole issue of Absolute Spotting is more of a theoretical puzzle I enjoy thinking about than anything else. This "thinking about" thing includes studying Absolute Spotting in a sort of analytical way to establish exactly what is not realistic about it, if you think about it that way and look at Absolute Spotting from the perspective of where is the problem and what causes the problem of lack of realism, then you can start to look at all kinds of things like FOW and C&C and the loss of control of units out of C&C and the LOSS of the recon intel as well....

Maybe I am in the minority here (who knows this thread seems to have a fairly narrow readership, what I mean is that only a hand-full of folks here have chosen to post an opinion) but I thought most folks who played CMBO considered the Absolute Spotting protocol to be the single biggest factor that made the game unrealistic.

So after James' post I started to think about it...

and the more I thought I about it and the more I posted here the more I came to the conclusion that if the Player wants to play ALL roles then the Player is then the cause of the Borg Spotting protocol because the Player knows TOO much.

For me this issue was NEVER an attempt to play only the role of the Platoon HQ and above, it was attempt to find out who knows what on the battlefield and how to model C&C more correctly.

For instance it is NOT just that I think I can't be the squad leader, not really, my theory on this extends to EVERY unit out of C&C and we need C&C for vehicles too. So yes you might lose some control of some light vehicles without radios as well.

I have no doubt most of the idea's here that I agree with will probably not make it into the game as Steve seems to be adamant that the solution to Absolute Spotting that includes some form of Simulated Relative Spotting will not include addressing issues of C&C, (I'm not sure how he feels about issues of reduced Spotting ability across the board and extreme FOW)

I am not suggesting my view of this is anymore "right" or correct than anyone else's opinion here, as there are plenty of good ideas and LOTS of opinions in this thread. smile.gif

All I am really trying to do is look at how the game models Absolute Spotting and how that might be improved with some form of Relative Spotting. I'm REALLY not sure if I would actually enjoy playing CM II if all of the extreme suggestions here were implimented. For instance the idea of ONLY seeing the opposing units from View Level 1 while the friendly unit that spotted them is Selected by the player may sound good theoretically (I think it sounds GREAT theoretically and it would solve many Abosolute Spotting problems) BUT I suspect NO one, well, maybe a few hardcore Grogs, (perhaps out of some sense of "duty" it has been suggested) would actually enjoy playing this way, it would be tedious and probably VERY confusing and not much fun at all. I have no doubt that it might not be fun, I think it would be correct and I think it would be a viable solution to Absolute Spotting and a good way to impliment Simulated Relative Spotting, but if the reaction of this thread is any measure of how well that idea would be received by the majority of folks who play CMBO it should be clear that EVEN if it was a FOW option it would not be worth the time it would take Charles to code it up because NO one but a few grogs would use that option anyway.

It seems there is already be a plan or an agenda or a somewhat well defined concept, of how BTS will impliment Relative Spotting in CM II and I doubt any of these "Radical" idea's we are proposing for Simulated Relative Spotting and Extreme FOW that included loss of control of all units (not just Squads) out of C&C will get very far because these idea's (at least in this thread) seem fairly unpopular.

Oh well smile.gif

its still an interesting theoretical challenge and sort of fun puzzle to think about smile.gif

-tom w

[ April 25, 2002, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Again e-mail from Muskin the Improbable...

das boot writes..

I'm heading out the door for a long weekend, so I havn't given it a lot of though yet but your ideas sound good to me. The key point for me is restricting the GOD-mode currently used by players while keeping the fun elements in the game, and it seems to cover that.

Thats the intent. Its really a BTS decision about what they think the game should be and what they can do about it. But you are the customer.

I really disagree with Kip. I think the ASL mindset and the whole "squad level" argument isn't true. You say that CM is not a command level game (whatever that means, I am not really sure) but I say it isn't a commando level game either. By that, I mean the on-the-fly, realtime coordination that CM players now accept as "The Game". Its like some SWAT exercise with all the troops having mikes clipped on their ears. I dont think that Kip is playing the role of squad leader/AFV commander but rather omni-micromanager.

I was in the US Army and command rolls downhill (along with you know what). Orders are given and they come from above squad level. Unless a squad is on a mission like a recon AWAY from the platoon (not a Combat Mission), there's very little free-agent activities going on. If the player was only commanding a platoon, and his info only came from the other platoon members (like suggested before), than maybe Kip's argument has weight. But, the fact is that he wants the shared intel from across the board. Kip's argument about needing more info than is realistic just strikes me as reactionary. I think it must be reiterated that people are calling for OPTIONAL enhancements to the game by the way.

I think that certain units, under certain conditions, should not be directly controlled by the player. I gave specific examples of "soft-failures" because I know that it will bring out the reactions from the control people.

Not allowing units out of C&C to target specific spotted enemy units in LOS would not make sense for the reasons Kip just outlined.

I also disagree with this. No one has said this. The units could target them. I am not sure what this is based on.

(tom Edits: I think some additional clarity is needed on the last two points, from both Muskin and Kip)

-Mushkin

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I also disagree with this. No one has said this. The units could target them. I am not sure what this is based on.This:

A defender has a cutoff HMG. He is out of C&C and LOS of ALL friendly units. The player wants him to target a particularly bothersome enemy squad that he fears (its a russian guards PPSH equipped unit that is getting too close). The player opens the HMG menu and selects a fire command. He draws a line but a covered arc appears instead! He can not guarantee that the HMG will select the bothersome squad because other enemy units also occupy the covered arc. Damn, he says and decides to withdraw and makes a note to keep HQs near HMGs in the future.

[aka_tom_w]

Again e-mail from Muskin the Improbable...

Clarification...

Vanir said:

"Not allowing units out of C&C to target specific spotted enemy units in LOS would not make sense for the reasons
Kip just outlined."

Mushkin said:

I also disagree with this. No one has said this. The units could target them. I am not sure what this is based on.

Vanir responds:
This:

quote:A defender has a cutoff HMG. He is out of C&C and LOS of ALL friendly units. The player wants him to target a particularly bothersome enemy squad that he fears (its a Russian guards PPSH equipped unit that is getting too close). The player opens the HMG menu and selects a fire command. He draws a line but a covered arc appears instead! He cannot guarantee that the HMG will select the bothersome squad because other enemy units also occupy the covered arc. Damn, he says and decides to withdraw and makes a note to keep HQs near HMGs in the future.

Mushkin:
The hypothetical example is only showing that the PLAYER cannot target specific enemy units (But he is giving a general direction). The TACAI could. Its a subtle point but has to be understood. The player control has diminished from surgeon to traffic cop. Instead of a precise designation of target, its a general direction. He can only put a covered arc down of a minimum angle and therefore may or may not get his unit to shoot at the threat HE (the player) considers greatest. The designation has been fuzzified, if you will. The TACAI would then have to be trusted to do what it considers fit. The game already does override some target designations I believe.

I believe that no matter what, any player (especially myself) wants to win. It clouds your judgment and you dont even see the gamey things that you are doing. You need firepower to win the scenario and dont care who or what is doing it, or where it is coming from. In real situations, the units have more important goals, like saving their own lives. So when I instantly coordinate every unit within reach to shoot at a cherry target that only one of my guys can really see that well, well we all know its unrealistic.

Letting loose of the reins a bit is what I am talking about. Its anti-boolean and more shades of grey.

-Muskin

[ April 26, 2002, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
Mushkin:
The hypothetical example is only showing that the PLAYER cannot target specific enemy units (But he is giving a general direction). The TACAI could. Its a subtle point but has to be understoodOh, I understand completely. What you must understand is that currently in CM the player assumes the role of the MG gunner when he gives the order to fire, so there is no logical reason why he should not be able to specify an exact target unless you are going to say that the player is the platoon LT, not the sergeant or corporal leading the squad, manning the MG. This is what people mean when they talk about making CM a "command level" game: the player gives general orders to his units and lets the TacAI carry them out. This is a different type of game than CM, and one I would not like as much for reasons I and others have explained.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
Mushkin:
The hypothetical example is only showing that the PLAYER cannot target specific enemy units (But he is giving a general direction). The TACAI could. Its a subtle point but has to be understoodOh, I understand completely. What you must understand is that currently in CM the player assumes the role of the MG gunner when he gives the order to fire, so there is no logical reason why he should not be able to specify an exact target unless you are going to say that the player is the platoon LT, not the sergeant or corporal leading the squad, manning the MG. This is what people mean when they talk about making CM a "command level" game: the player gives general orders to his units and lets the TacAI carry them out. This is a different type of game than CM, and one I would not like as much for reasons I and others have explained.</font>[/QUOTE]If the player is the MG gunner, the Squad Leader, the Jeep driver, the Tank TC, the Arty Spotter, the Company CO AND the Platoon HQ, then the player is the CAUSE of the Borg Like Absolute spotting problem because the player knows ALL, sees ALL, and Commands All.

"This is what people mean when they talk about making CM a "command level" game: the player gives general orders to his units and lets the TacAI carry them out."

BUT then why are there command delays in CMBO?
WHY do we really want to try to keep our squads within command radius?

If the folks who play CMBO insist on Playing ALL the roles then most of the Problems of Absolute Spotting (if they are problems :confused: ?) that we have been attempting to identify in this thread, cannot be solved. (except by TCP-IP multi-player TEAM play)

EVEN if the BTS idea of Relative Spotting were implimented, in that each and every unit makes it own spotting check and cannot target (but MAY be ordered to use "area Fire" at) enemy units it has not spotted, (BUT the player KNOWS where those enemy units are he can order or direct EVERY unit, irrespective of whether it has spotted the enemy unit or not, or whether it is in C&C or NOT, to fire or move in that general direction (NOW thats a "BORG Like Swarm" ™ to use Redwolf's term smile.gif ), what would that solve?

So then what has that implimentation of Simulated Relative Spotting achieved?

I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat.

-tom w

[ April 26, 2002, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Redwolf]

Just to explain why I'm silent for some time now:

I think that for CM, and what it tries to do, there can be no better fix that the "small" fix. That is that within one turn a spotted unit only comes under fire from units which fairly spotted it themself, not by passing the word within the turn.

Inter-turn there is few to be done because of area and indirect fire that the player may execute.

I don't see any solution to the "whole force rediction like a swarm of herrings" that wouldn't destroy CM gameplay.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

This has been an interesting thread. However, in very long threads one always reaches the point when we all start to repeat ourselves, this point has probably been reached so I will just make a few last points in no particular order.

1)What is a command game? A command game is a game in which the most junior role you play is “above” the level of the manoeuvre units. In CM the manoeuvre units are squads and individual AFVs; so in a command game you would give up the role of squad and AFV commander and play as platoon commander and above. This would have a lot of implications that have been discussed already. Such as spotting.

2)What can this type of computer wargames do? I subscribe to a number of military journals, one of which is the in house US Army “Armor” magazine. They often review wargames, both those used by the military and commercial games. The US Army view is that wargames, such as TacOps, teach tactics in a time period, and at a cost, that no other media can match. Put two captains to playing head to head TacOps and they learn tactics almost immediately. Lecturers can also use wargames such as TacOps to illustrate and teach tactics. This is also my view. CM does not simulate C&C very well, nor is it ever likely to. But it is a stunningly realistic “tactical” simulation. So good it is a form of military history. The exact manoeuvre of squads and AFVs is what it is all about. Do not expect too much more from it. Wargames, at this scale, cannot deliver much more.

3)Remember the primary role. The primary role in CM is that of squad and AFV commander. Remove that, and much of the tactical depth and detail will go. As will much of the immersion.

4)I do not play FPS or SWAT type games. The reason I do not is that, in my view, one can only simulate a scale below CM “in the doing”. By this I mean that in order to simulate a scale below CM you have to get out there an go for a run in the woods, shoot up the range, do your battle drills, play force-on-force games with laser assisted weapons, and so…. Computers cannot model it realistically. Even the most realistic, such as Operation Flashpoint and Ghost Recon, are not realistic enough for me. CM, Steel Beasts, TacOps and Airborne Assault are the only current games that pass my test for realism. But, of course, we all have our own views on this.

5)Changes that will help Tom W and Muskin. It is worth repeating that there are changes on the way that will greatly help the aims of Tom W and Muskin, but without turning the game into a command game. a) Live team play. b) Each unit doing its own spotting. c) More realistic FOW. Together they will make a big difference.

All good fun, have just about said all I can on this subject for now. Vanir Ausf B and I are lucky in that we have the style of game we want. As someone said, BTS may introduce a “Platoon Commander” option, along the same lines as more extreme FOW. Then Tom W and Muskin would also be happy.

All the best,
Kip.
PS. CM does simulate moral, training, experience and troop quality very well, in my view, but not C&C. This is not a criticism as I do not believe one can model C&C very realistically in this type of game. You do need a command game for C&C modelling. From what I read about CMBB it will be close to perfect!

[ April 26, 2002, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

[aka_tom_w]

First off before you read this, let me state (again) Muskin is some person who I don't know AT ALL who sends me e-mail and asks me to post here.

I have no idea who he/she (?) is
If you have any clue who this person sounds like you think you know what other identity they might go by please e-mail me or post your thoughts here.
I'm concerned some of you might think I have spontaneously developed Multiple Personalities or I'm prone to delusion or something wierd like that. smile.gif

Anyway (my rant aside) here is his last post:

From Muskin

aka_tom_w says:
"If the player is the MG gunner, the Squad Leader, the Jeep driver, the Tank TC, the Arty Spotter, the Company CO AND the Platoon HQ, then the Player is the CAUSE of the Borg-Like Absolute Spotting problem because the Player knows ALL, sees All and Commands All."

Muskin:

Exactly. Unless BTS makes a multiplayer game where each player only commands a platoon or less, there is no resolution to the BORG being the HUMAN'S fault. The game should not feed the Borg.
DO NOT FEED THE BORG! It is my new motto. smile.gif

There will always be the people that like things the way they are. There are always people that like things a little differently. I haven't read that many posts from people demanding that the game go back to rev 1.1. I also feel that the majority play the game on full FOW and will move to Extreme FOW once CMBB comes out. Who knows if they wouldnt go for Super-Extremely Realistic Anti-Borg FOW. (tom edits: SERA-B FOW smile.gif )

In the HMG example I gave, I never said that the russian PPSH unit was the greatest threat TO THE HMG! It was the greatest threat to the players agenda. I wonder if some people want a TACAI at all? Maybe the TACAI can be a variable setting? A slider that the player can preset before the battle (from 'take control' to 'follow orders robot'). maybe it can be set for each platoon lets say.

I was a squad leader (well mostly assistant SL but also SL) and most actions I would take were really drills. Preset, undserstood actions that I could holler out and the troopies' **** would snap to action. It was all from the platoon commander's direction that this flowed and his actions flowed from the Comp CO (mostly top). Its a team effort
and loose cannons are discouraged because they endanger the group effort. My contention is that most of these drills can easily be performed by the TACAI. Most movement orders are really 'Command Decisions' and aren't within the realm of the TACAI.

Muskin

[ April 26, 2002, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[U8led]

Question:

Do units in C&C spot and ID better then the same units out of C&C in the current game?

And if so, do any of the HQ bonuses (possibly combat bonus) apply to spotting and ID?

If units out of C&C had a substantialy reduced positive ID range would that help Borg ID?

U8led

[xerxes]

Well at least the disagreement has crystallized. Some players LIKE total control, some players think total control make the game very unrealistic. Both views are understandable, it's part of the old micromanagement debate.

Personally, I would prefer the limited C&C approach that takes away micromanagement when out of C&C, to me that makes sense and adds to the game (significantly). This could be a setting that is part of the FOW.

I believe most players will use max fog of war and rarity in CMBB.

-marc s

-marc s

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by U8led:
Question:

Do units in C&C spot and ID better then the same units out of C&C in the current game?

And if so, do any of the HQ bonuses (possibly combat bonus) apply to spotting and ID?

If units out of C&C had a substantialy reduced positive ID range would that help Borg ID?

U8ledThese are GOOD questions smile.gif !

I'm not sure anyone here REALLY knows the answers.

-tom w

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

BUT then why are there command delays in CMBO?
WHY do we really want to try to keep our squads within command radius?I answered this question in my first post.

So then what has that implimentation of Simulated Relative Spotting achieved?I answered this earlier as well.

I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat.I can live with that. smile.gif

Redwolf:

I think that for CM, and what it tries to do, there can be no better fix that the "small" fix. That is that within one turn a spotted unit only comes under fire from units which fairly spotted it themself, not by passing the word within the turn.

Inter-turn there is few to be done because of area and indirect fire that the player may execute.

I don't see any solution to the "whole force rediction like a swarm of herrings" that wouldn't destroy CM gameplay.I completely agree. Even the major changes being proposed here by some would only lessen the god's eye "problem" marginally. The player would still know everything all his units knew, it would just limit his ability to act on it by distancing the player from the decision making. In truth, the only way to 100% remove the god's eye issue entirely is for every unit in the game to be controled by a seperate player... or the AI. Neither will ever happen but the multi-multiplayer feature in the rewrite will be something to look forward to.

Kip:

[quote]However, in very long threads one always reaches the point when we all start to repeat ourselves, this point has probably been reachedYep. smile.gif

[ April 26, 2002, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by xerxes:
Personally, I would prefer the limited C&C approach that takes away micromanagement when out of C&C, to me that makes sense and adds to the game (significantly). This could be a setting that is part of the FOW.
I think there is not so much player disagreement here, as technical difficulties.

Limits in C&C only work when you have a useful mix of TacAI, SOPs and planning with multiple branches of orders (received Steel beasts yesterday, BTW, will post something later).

We have never seen a game with a really sophisticated mix of these. So far some players who like a more abstract level are willing to live with the currently available mix and accept seeing very stupid moves on part of their units. Other players hate such crap and want control for themself. But that doesn't mean all these players actually want the micromanagement. Some want the micromanagement, other would prefer more autonomous units if thoese weren't ending up being morons.

In any case, I think a game with optional detailed control won't be a good solution, since usually you will have the player controlling more come out better. Both (all) players most be forced to command on the same level to get fun gameplay.

Except, and we are back to my pet feature again, we get a game where we can load our own TacAI or generally AI.

It will be interesting how AA turn out to be. It allows a choice of levels and I am curious how superiour those players will be who do everything themself. I seem some indications things require handwork (like the Tiger company charging alone into the infantry defense), but I also think think the game scale and consept are favourable to succeed in this regard. I'm curious.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by U8led:
Question:

Do units in C&C spot and ID better then the same units out of C&C in the current game?

And if so, do any of the HQ bonuses (possibly combat bonus) apply to spotting and ID?

If units out of C&C had a substantialy reduced positive ID range would that help Borg ID?

U8ledDoes anyone here know (for certain) any of the answers to these questions. I could make some guesses but I'm not sure they would be right.

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Oh my God but this is a really big thread smile.gif

Folks, the crux of the issue is this...

Do people want a Command Style, Micromanagement Style, or Multi-Level Style game? These are terms I made up to illustrate the three major groupings. I define each as such:

1. Command Style - you are in ONE definite position of command. You can only influence the battlefield as that one command position would allow in the real world. More importantly, all subordinate units under your command would behave 100% autonomously from your will unless you were able to realistically give them "orders". I am not just talking about radio or messanger contact, but chain of command.

A Major does NOT go and order some buck private to move his MG to a better spot. He orders a Captain to set up a certain type of position in a certain location ("set up a defensive line along the north side of Hill 345"), the Captain then issues more specific commands to his LTs. ("1st Platoon go to that stand of trees, 2nd Platoon down thee road a click, 3rd Platoon deploy to 2nd's right), then each LT gives orders to his SGTs to deploy a little bit more specifically ("1st Squad, take that wall over there, 2nd Squad see if that house has a good field of fire on that gully over there, 3rd Squad go over there and see what you can do about covering that road junction"), and then each SGT in turn yells at various peeons to get moving smile.gif to a VERY specific location ("behind that tree, numbnuts! Smitty!! Damn your soul... get that MG set up pronto behind that boulder facing that way or I'll tapdance on your butt for the rest of the day").

Now, in such a system the Major (that would be you!) does not know or even care about these details. That is called deligation of responsibility and initiative, which is what every modern armed force is trained around doing. The Major's responsibilities are to keep in touch with his neighboring formations and higher HQ, requisitioning stuff (units, supplies, guns, etc.) to get his mission accomplished, and making sure everything is running smoothly before, during, and after contact with the enemy. In non combat situations there are a LOT more responsibilities than that, but we are only focusing on the combat aspect.

What each unit under his command can or can not see, shoot at, or deal with is NOT the Major's direct concern. It is the direct concern of the unit in question and its HQ. The Major is, of course, trying to get as much information as possible so he can best lead the battle, but he doesn't care a hoot if there is an enemy squad 203.4 meters and closing on 1st Squad, 3rd Platoon, E Company. At least specifically he doesn't care.

So there you have it. This is how REAL combat works in terms of C&C. There is absolutely no way to simulate the reality of the battlefield without taking the player's mits 99% off direct control of units.

2. Micromanagement Style - You read all of the above, correct? Well, forget about it smile.gif A Mircormanagement style game doesn't give a hoot about command and control aspects of warfare. You get some units, you use units as you see fit. When you click on one of the units you can order it to do whatever the heck you want without any thoughts about command and control. I would even include games with very primative attempts at C&C being lumped into this group.

3. Multi-Level Style - The player is neither a single commander nor an über micromanager. Orders can be given to any unit, but those orders and behaviors are influenced, to some degree or another, by Command and Control rules. In other words, you CAN order that individual MG to move 2.5 meters to the left, but you can not do this for "free". Some set of rules are set up to make such an order be more or less effective depending on the circumstances (in/out C&C, good/poor morale, good/poor experience, etc). The player is therefore still has far more flexability than a single commander would ever have, but not total and utter control in any and all circumstances.

Examples of each game...

Command Style - I know of no commercial wargame in existance that does this type of simulation. A game like the upcoming Airborne Assault comes VERY close, but even that one doesn't limit you to one command position with only the ability to see and affect the action as that one position would allow.

Micromanagement Style - best example I can give you guys is something like Panzer General or Close Combat. In both of these games you could order your units to do whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted without the slightest interference in terms of command decisions.

Multi-Level Style - Combat Mission and Steel Panthers come to mind. The original system in Steel Panthers was quite simplistic compared to Combat Mission's, but both sought to penalize units which lacked C&C with their higher HQs. Combat Mission took many previous game concepts a few steps further, as well as adding a few new ones of its own. Some games, like Combat Mission, lean more towards Command Style while others, like Airborne Assault go even further. Other games, like Steel Panthers, lean more towards Micromanagement Style.

In terms of realism, Command Style is the highest ideal, Micromanagement the lowest, and Multi-Level somewhere inbetween. In terms of playability, Micromanagement is the highest ideal, Command Style the lowest, and Multi-Level somewhere inbetween.

In terms of proven trackrecord of being fun, the pie is split between Micromanagement and Multi-Level. No wargame has ever fit the definition of Command Style, so it has no reecord. We are not going to try and be the first because we would rather watch paint dry than play such a game. And we are very sure that 99% of our customers would agree. And that 1% would most likely not really wind up liking the game anyway. Sometimes people need to be careful about what they ask for because they just might get it ;)

Command Style games do not exist for a reason. They are nearly impossible to make (the AI necessary boggles the mind!) and the gameplay value near non existant. So why bother trying?

Instead we will make Combat Mission more realistic through our system of Relative Spotting. Reading through some of the posts here, I don't think people necessarily totally understand what a profound impact it will have on the game. Will it make CM 100% realistic? No, and I pitty any fool developer who attempts such a silly venture. But will CM be more realistic than any Squad level wargame yet? Well... of course we already think it is smile.gif , but we know we can do better.

So until we get into coding the new engine, do a search on Relative Spotting and see what has been said on the subject before. Lots of good stuff to read through.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

U8lead asked:

Do units in C&C spot and ID better then the same units out of C&C in the current game?

And if so, do any of the HQ bonuses (possibly combat bonus) apply to spotting and ID?

If units out of C&C had a substantialy reduced positive ID range would that help Borg ID?No, no, and no ;)

Why should a unit out of C&C be able to see less far? How is that more realistic? And if it can't see out as far, but in real life should, how does that affect the realistic ability of that individual unit to respond to the oncoming threat? Should a Tiger Tank with a Crack crew sit around NOT spotting an ISU-152 which it should plainly see, just because it doesn't have radio contact with BN HQ? I think not smile.gif I also think we would have people screaming at us until we "fixed it or did somefink" ;)

This is one of the fundamental problems I have seen in discussions like this. And that is thinking that unrealistically penalizing an individual unit somehow makes the game more realistic. At best it is a wash. At worst, it makes the game on the whole less realistic.

For example, not allowing a unit out of C&C to do anything until it is in C&C is totally unrealistic. Such a system simply swaps in one Borg behavior for another. It doesn't make the game any more realistic, but instead hobbles real life flexibility to the point of making the game unplayable and a joke of a simulation. Don't believe me? Try this one out...

Let us assume that units have to be in C&C with their higher HQs to pass on information and receive orders. OK, can anybody tell me what would happen, under this system, if the BN HQ unit got whacked on the first turn by a lucky artillery bombardment? Would the player just sit there staring at a screen totally lacking friendly and enemy units? Or would all the friendly units show up but the player couldn't do anything or yield any information about themselves or what they see?

The above situation illustrates why removing realistic tactical control is not the right direction to go towards. Because if you follow it to its logical conclusion (i.e. the ultimate realistic state), this is what you wind up with.

Honestly folks, your feedback is appreciated. But I for one am very glad some of you are gamers and not game designers smile.gif

Steve

[ April 26, 2002, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:
Oh my God but this is a really big thread smile.gif

Folks, the crux of the issue is this...

Do people want a Command Style, Micromanagement Style, or Multi-Level Style game? These are terms I made up to illustrate the three major groupings. I define each as such:

snip

So until we get into coding the new engine, do a search on Relative Spotting and see what has been said on the subject before. Lots of good stuff to read through.

SteveHi Steve smile.gif

Thanks for the the latest post.

I would be thrilled to think you actually read every post in this thread. :eek:

I think it has been a positive and constructive discusion with several different points of view represented. smile.gif

Thanks

-tom w

[ April 26, 2002, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Battlefront.com]

Tom,

I think it has been a positive and constructive discusion with several different points of view represented.I agree, but I must also point out that this discussion is not that different than a 1/2 dozen other ones held in the past. That is not to take away anything from anyone who participated here and not in the others, but rather to point out that the CM's borg problems are pretty well established by now. They are also not inherently different than those of other games, although we would argue CM deals with them better.

The ideas people are kicking around in this thread are also ones that have been kicked around in other threads. Specifics might not be exactly the same, but the core motivation behind certain lines of thinking are surprisingly similar.

Some people think the key to better realism is to have a sort of "you got it or you don" system of C&C where units not in C&C sit around dumbly until they are contacted again. A variation on that is that the AI somehow handles these units while you are not in command of them. The former is utterly unrealistic, the latter so difficult to program effectively that it is not the best design to pursue (i.e. spending a year making the AI for this means a year of doing nothing else smile.gif ).

Others think that the way to go is to simulate "orders" down through the chain of command. This is something that most people would find about as exciting as watching paint dry smile.gif Watering this idea down to make there be more game also means watering down the potential realism and reintroducing the Borg problem.

Believe me, I am not trying to ridicule people for their theories on how the Borg issue should be dealt with. I'm just trying to point out that some "cures" will actually kill the pateient before the operation is even over smile.gif Others suggest things which will leave nasty scars and open up the doctors for lawsuits (or rather unpleasant commentary on BBSes :D ). But in general, I think most people understand the basic issues and some even see very simple solutions to some of the problems. Or at least can see how a huge problem can be tackled by several smaller, comprehensive changes.

I think that once people see CMBB they will understand how the Big Problems can be tackled by smaller, perhaps even subtle, changes. Not completely, of course, because to do that the human player would have to be removed almost completely from the game. Later, I think people will see that Relative Spotting (as we have discussed it in the past) they will understand that it reduces or eliminates most of the Big Problems in CM that remain after CMBB's changes. Will the future CM be perfect? From a realism standpoint, of course not. But I can assure you that we will get damned close. Close enough that people will probably ask for Relative Spotting related features to be optional smile.gif

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Thanks Steve smile.gif

I think you and everyone else here has figured that this is the basic summary of my position on this issue:

"...even if the BTS idea of Relative Spotting were implimented, in that each and every unit makes it own spotting check and cannot target (but MAY be ordered to use "area Fire" at) enemy units it has not spotted, (BUT the player KNOWS where those enemy units are he can order or direct EVERY unit, irrespective of whether it has spotted the enemy unit or not, or whether it is in C&C or NOT, to fire or move in that general direction (NOW thats a "BORG Like Swarm" ™ to use Redwolf's term ), what would that solve?

I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat."


sorry to repeat that.

From what I understand, yourself (and Most folks here it woud seem) will be comfortable with the Player responding to an enemey threat that is only identified and spotted by one friendly unit by directing all other friendly units in the vicinity to fire at that location or start to move toward that location, (EVEN from WAY across the map) if this is an acceptable situation as a result of the NEW Relative Spotting protocol, to most folks here then I should simply agree to live with it and retire back to that old gunnery optics discussion that was so much fun. ;) smile.gif
(Posted in the very BEST of humour)

Thanks again its a GREAT game and chatting about it on this forum is even MORE fun than playing sometimes smile.gif

-tom w

[ April 26, 2002, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Battlefront.com]

Tom,

...even if the BTS idea of Relative Spotting were implimented, in that each and every unit makes it own spotting check and cannot target (but MAY be ordered to use "area Fire" at) enemy units it has not spotted, (BUT the player KNOWS where those enemy units are he can order or direct EVERY unit, irrespective of whether it has spotted the enemy unit or not, or whether it is in C&C or NOT, to fire or move in that general direction (NOW thats a "BORG Like Swarm" ™ to use Redwolf's term ), what would that solve?Uhm... A HECK OF A LOT smile.gif Area fire is useless against a moving target and has reduced accuracy and effects against a stationary one. If you think that Area Fire is a fine and dandy substitute for direct targeting, might I suggest booting up CMBO and playing a game on the defensive only using Area Fire commands. I think that ought to get you to see that you are taking a rather extreme and unfair look at what ONE ASPECT of Realitive Spotting will do.

I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat.In a black and white world, where there is only Borg and Not Borg, you would be correct. But that is a world I don't live in smile.gif As I described above, there is absolutely NO solution to the Borg problem except to remove the human player from the game. Do you really want that?

If so we could easily make CM play so that you deploy your troops (which CM buys for you) by simply clicking down the HQs at the next level lower than your own (i.e. if you are the Major, you can only click on the Company HQs). CM would then deploy all the rest of the units without you even seeing them. Yup, you wouldn't see anything except what was around your HQ unit, which would be set up and unmovable (for the most part) after the Setup Phase. Then the game would start. You would issue a couple of vauge orders to your next lower HQs and then sit back and wait. From Turn 1 on all friendly units would disappear from the map. Every so often a Spotted icon would appear where MAYBE one of your directly subordinated HQ was. At this point in time you might get back some meaningful information from the HQ, or perhpas not. Depending on if the HQ is in radio contact or not, you could issue orders to the HQ along the vauge lines of Turn 1. You will have no idea what that HQ does with them until the next time he resurfaces. If there is no radio contact, runners would be necessary and that means instant communication would be impossible, thus making that Spotted icon appear less frequently and even more prone to error. After the shooting would start you might have a rough idea about where and the nature of the shooting. But until one of those ghost icons popped up, you wouldn't know much more than that. And even when that does happen, you would only get back snipts of text about what was going on and you could still only issue a few vauge orders.

Gee... DAMN does that sound like fun! Whoopie smile.gif Cripes, we wouldn't even need to program in anything except some sort of ZORK like text adventure script engine and a few generalized combat resolution equations.

You see.. THAT is the be all, end all Black and White counter balance to the RTS type Borg system. CM is already somewhere inbetween the two, and CMBB is a bit more towards the realism side. The engine rewrite will be even more towards the REALISM side of the equation by reducing the effectiveness of the Borg aspect. But no way, no how can we eliminate it. So why bother having such a black and white set of standards when one side is available and not liked (i.e. RTS with no C&C rules at all) and the other would be a yawner to even those who THINK they want it (i.e. human player almost totally removed from even watching the action)? Wouldn't it be more interesting and productive to focus on practical ways to make the game more realistic without all the hoo-ha about it not going far enough? Hmmm? :D

Tom, I know you have been a participant in many of the previous discusions. I would have hoped that you picked up on the fact that Relative Spotting is only the underlying mechanism, not the solution. In other words, there are all SORTS of things we can do once Relative Spotting is in place that will increase realism, decrease the Borg, and at the same time make CM more fun. Having restrictions on targeting is just ONE feature made possible by Relative Spotting. A better system of artillery requests is another. More accountable and detailed C&C delays is yet another. There are LOTs of possibilities made possible because of Relative Spotting. So again, don't think of Relative Spotting as the solution, but a part of the underlying foundation for other features which in turn will do lots of things to improve the game on all levels.

When we get into this phase of design we should all have a nice group think about ways we can leverage Relative Spotting and other systems to make CM more realistic. But at this point, we don't have the time to do that. Already spent too much time on this issue as it is ;)

Steve

[ April 26, 2002, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[ianc]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The enemy units can ONLY be viewed by the player while the player has the friendly unit selected (only in view level 1, (?) that one may be a sticky point, maybe from any view level to make the game actually FUN and playable) that originally spotted the unit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This just makes the game more difficult to play without increasing realism. The player still has the same information available to him as he did before, he just has to click all over the place to find it. PITA.Hmmm... Quite true. I agree 100% with the second part of this quote, but I'm scared to death that someone actually even suggested it, since BTS used exactly this same logic in not including a 'Unit Navigation Screen' that would allow you to see your unit list and jump to a particular unit by clicking on it. Keeping fingers crossed for its NON adoption as a possible solution...

ianc

P.S. Yes I know I'm a snivelling little thread-hijacking bitch. Sorry...

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:


Tom, I know you have been a participant in many of the previous discusions. I would have hoped that you picked up on the fact that Relative Spotting is only the underlying mechanism, not the solution.In other words, there are all SORTS of things we can do once Relative Spotting is in place that will increase realism, decrease the Borg, and at the same time make CM more fun. Having restrictions on targeting is just ONE feature made possible by Relative Spotting. A better system of artillery requests is another. More accountable and detailed C&C delays is yet another. There are LOTs of possibilities made possible because of Relative Spotting. So again, don't think of Relative Spotting as the solution, but a part of the underlying foundation for other features which in turn will do lots of things to improve the game on all levels.
When we get into this phase of design we should all have a nice group think about ways we can leverage Relative Spotting and other systems to make CM more realistic. But at this point, we don't have the time to do that. Already spent too much time on this issue as it is ;)

Steve

"I would have hoped that you picked up on the fact that Relative Spotting is only the underlying mechanism, not the solution."

OK that sounds good. I have very little idea of how Extreme FOW will be implimented in CMBB so of course I am only guessing as to how Relative Spotting might be part of the Borg problem in CM II. smile.gif

"Having restrictions on targeting is just ONE feature made possible by Relative Spotting. A better system of artillery requests is another. More accountable and detailed C&C delays is yet another. There are LOTs of possibilities made possible because of Relative Spotting. So again, don't think of Relative Spotting as the solution, but a part of the underlying foundation for other features which in turn will do lots of things to improve the game on all levels."

That sounds very positive. smile.gif

"When we get into this phase of design we should all have a nice group think about ways we can leverage Relative Spotting and other systems to make CM more realistic."

WELL OK! if thats an invitation to participate in discusions on the Design of CM II with respect to Simulated Relative Spotting and the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) problem, then I can't wait to get started smile.gif . I'm sure lots of folks here would be interested in participating.

As you can imagine we all CAN'T wait to see exactly HOW Extreme FOW works in CMBB smile.gif and your latest solutions and tweaks! :D

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Well I guess that's about that! :(

oh well,
it was fun while it lasted

-tom w

[James Crowley]

I wonder would it be possible, maybe as part of the next "bone-throwing" session, to have a bit more hard info. around what extreme FoW in CMBB actually is, and some indicators as to the dampening effect on the borg problem.

I appreciate much of what Steve has said in this very interesting thread, although I'm not sure I necessarily agree with all of it.

If I have time, which is rather in short measure at this point, I will try and post in a few more ideas, assuming anyone's interested.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by James Crowley:


If I have time, which is rather in short measure at this point, I will try and post in a few more ideas, assuming anyone's interested.Sure smile.gif

I'm interested when you find the time ....

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by James Crowley:
I wonder would it be possible, maybe as part of the next "bone-throwing" session, to have a bit more hard info. around what extreme FoW in CMBB actually is, and some indicators as to the dampening effect on the borg problem.

I appreciate much of what Steve has said in this very interesting thread, although I'm not sure I necessarily agree with all of it.

If I have time, which is rather in short measure at this point, I will try and post in a few more ideas, assuming anyone's interested.any further ideas?

Well the thread has now totally dropped off the rader screen.....

it may be gone but it is not forgotten smile.gif

-tom w

[Kallimakhos]

Haven't yet read all the posts to this thread, maybe this has already come up, but anyway:

What I would really like to see in the next generation is the hard-coded, non cheatable level 1 view only hard core gaming mode (don't remember how it was nicked) as an option. Sure there would be lot of room to get this perfect, like forcing the player give orders in a certain order etc, but this would be quite close to realistic relative spotting. Also getting lost would be a real possibility especially in low visibility, when your unit has lost contact to his pals (it's night, all you see is woods around you, hear nothing but wind in the trees, have no idea where others disappeared and which way you should be going... no way to plot your movements but guessing - or start yelling for others and get shot by a nearby enemy MG ;) ). Higher officer view could have a compass on the screen + a map with varying level of detail and accuracy, evolving as more information is gathered.

Lot of possibilities here, one that comes to mind is giving grafical clues to where south might be, (moss on the stones, foliage of trees etc) which could make a big difference in player skills.

The big problem here is how to show the movie without ruining the game. The all knowing movie would be out of question, and on the other hand going through the movie from each units point of view would take ages. One possibility is to show whats happening first on a crude map, from where you can jump to hotspots and visual goodies in 3d.
Additional possibility is not to be able to see the movie when unit is not in C&C, or seeing it after a delay. At the end player should be rewarded by seeing the whole movie same way as now.

Hope this makes some sense.

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Of course I'm sure we would all like to find a solution where we could "Have our Cake and EAT it too!" smile.gif I'm always wondering if we have over looked something...

What about keeping all these ideas in mind:

"So my point is that it isn't so much the SPOTTING but rather the IDing. This
is especially true for the attacker, the attacker gets WAY too much
information regarding targets. The ability of all units to ascertain exactly
WHAT it is they are spotting is as much a problem as sharing spotting because
that is the intel they are sharing that is SO valuable.

A game suggestion then is to bring down the IDing level but keep the spotting
the same. This could be an extreme FOW option (cause theres always some that
like it just the way it is)."

And add some of these ideas:

The idea of ONLY seeing enemy units from view 1 (ONLY) while your friendly unit is selected) is a novel approach to the problem. This suggestion does not limit ANYTHING else to view 1 it only limits the ability of the player to see opposing units (which should be VERY poorly ID'd to prevent positive intel info) that his friendly units are in contact with or have LOS to from their unique perspective in view 1. All other views work fine (but you can't see any opposing units unless you are in view 1 and have the unit selected that has LOS to the opposing unit). Combine this suggestion with a few of Ceasar's proposals:

"1. Every unit had to individually spot a unit. Obviously if the enemy unit fires, it will be easier to spot as all units will turn to the sound of fire. Fuzzy logic should determine spotting i.e you get x% chance of spotting in the given conditions (depending on the unit quality as now), with this chance increasing with sound and other factors drawing units attention to that area.

3. FOW applied to the map. The map should only initially give broad information (the sort you could get off a map and with general info from the local populace) The map should only get updated as units within CnC (up to at least the Co level if one is present). If a player gives an order, that as a result of ignorance of the map, cannot be obeyed then the unit will stop and behave with normal TacAI behaviour. This will cause the unexpected delays that would happen in real life. Spotting from a distance should have fuzzy logic applied that causes inaccuracies such as incorrect elevetions, missing small copses, ditches etc. The map updating should suffer the same CnC delays as above.

4. Allow normal squad level delays to be applied to small movements and 5 - 7 waypoints for those in local CnC, but much greater delays related to the above CnC delays for large movements or higher numbers of waypoints. This would force players to maintain realistic command structures and more importantly slow down the current almost immediate response to a significant threat.

5. As CnC would be much more important, units that lose their HQ should be able to attach to other HQs with reduced performance (and none of the modifiers)"

Or the AI could Grow or spawn new leaders from the ranks of the non-coms. Sorry I don't have source on that it was someone elses idea to provide an option for short term leadership (depending on mitagating circumstances) as an emergency measure so that there would be a chance the Player would not instantly loose ALL control over all units not in C&C after the loss of their HQ unit.
-tom wHa! I knew I wasn't going to be the first one to think of this. Now that I've read all (well, most) the previous posts I see that my thinking is going along same paths with Tom on many issues, but maybe there are some original ideas in my innocent little suggestion.

So, where to go if we want to avoid both the Borg and Gods view problems as much as possible, and at the same time give the player control and ideally right amount of information at the squad/vehicle level, platoon/company commander level and at the supreme commander level? This is indeed possible and as additional bonus your troops can get lost or end up in wrong place both at middle and squad level, in a very natural way, which was before just a distant dream for Steve ;)

The solution could be called simply Iron man Immersion (bit easier than the IMSRS-FOW ;) ) which naturally should be optional "ultimate ffow", meant only for the groggiest and the most anal gamers (which could very likely make the majority!). This is a solution to most if not all major conserns raised before, not perfect but closest I can concieve.

This gives also answer to the question which role does the player take. A dual role. On the one end supreme commander, with the cumulating knowlegde of the overall situation on an evolving 2D map, being able to give direct and more general orders to platoons and companies. On the other hand the role of each squad/vehicle with very limited visibility (only level 1) and limited info (relative spotting). There is also the intermediate level, platoon/company commander, which would be some sort of mix of these two, and needs lot more thinking.

One of the good points is that there is clear distinction between different roles, and player can choose by the size of battle, individual tastes and other factors weather he prefers giving the "planning orders" (2D) or "control orders" (limited 3D).

Nothing good comes without cost, in return we must give up some of the fun, no unlimited movie watching (only level 1 and not even for every unit) until the end, and assigning individual orders to squads/vehicles could be bit tedious, as it must be done in a certain order and cycling through units without mouse pointing (unless there is a good roster which BTS might oppose). Even though this model greatly reduses the available information, I don't see how it would be possible to totally avoid some "unrealistic" bits and peaces of info spilling from the order fase and limited movie whatching for the perceptive human minds. E.g. whatching from a hill can give you clues how not to get lost with a unit. Also, it is actually quite hard to imagine how and if this would really work in actual game, for one I've never played with Iron man rules and this is quite different.

Im sure there must be something very wrong with this suggestion, because it sounds too good, and I'm sure these will be pointed out. But now to the details:

1. As the supreme commander HQ ('you') you have the 2D map of the battlefield, and on that map you see your troops in C&C and the cumulating info on the enemy positions and map details. This info can also be falce. On the map you can give more complicated movement orders (many waypoints) with shorter delays to co's and platoons with established communications. This of course requires improving the AI, to handle formations with some skill. Changing these orders before the object has been reached or contact made with the enemy means long delays (getting the orders to all concerned, regrouping etc.) Once in contact (ie fired at) unit should respond with more autonomy, so shorter delays. In other words, now the player is in a way in the shoes of the platoon commander. Many intermediate C&C issues still need a closer look at this level.

- 2D map can contain also some prebattle recon info, not necessarily allways true, on enemy troops and positions, depending on the type of the battle and randomized or bought before the battle.

- Recon order, as somebody already suggested. On the 2D you can give orders to appropriate units to recon in a certain direction, and if succesfull and not dying, after a while, depending on communications, you get more info on the 2D map. Special AI routines needed of course. This way if a recon unit with no radio and out of C&C is totally destroyed, no info is given, except getting meeting enemy somewhere along the route. If crew or stragler survives the more accurate info comes after long delay if at all.

- Same way all info from units encountering enemy units and in C&C, end up eventually on the 2D map, after certain delays which also take into account info going from up to down to all subcommanders, which then naturally happens "instantaneously" because they are your 'alter egos'. But because they can "see" only at level 1, in game terms they only know there is something in that direction, and their movement is more limited than when given orders on 2D map.

- artillery: spotters in contact with higher headquarter units, especially 'you', mean shorter delays.

- If the 'you' HQ is lost, also much of the information on the 2D map is lost.

- giving a order on 2D map includes random risk that the unit gets lost or ends up in wrong location. This won't be presented on the 2D map, but if you notice something is wrong in the level 1 view, you can reorder with considerable delay.

2. Level 1 view, commanding individual squads and vehicles. First, different set of orders from the 2D map which represent "planning orders, and include only various types of movement. These control orders include also targeting, searching hull down positions etc. There could also be some special orders for midlevel HQ's. Relative spotting, only enemy units you see here are those spotted by the selected units and those spotted by units in close contact or good communication line, with a certain delay. The "send runner" command suggested by someone sounds also very good.

- a big handicap is that to keep it realistic, control orders should probably be given in certain order (which?), after planning orders, to get no extra information from other units, and could be given just once in every turn. But maybe with the more flexible and easier "planning orders" on 2D map this could be avoided, if the biggest problem in "Gods view" is moving all the troops you want to handle a situation those troops should have no knowledge of. Also although the level 1 view would give you more info on enemy troops than the 2D map, it would be much harder to grasp and put to context. Anyway, there is a real problem here.

- giving movement orders only in visible boundaries preferred, but it should be possible to plot also into "grey" areas, with considerable risk and delay. The system should be flexible enough to work well in all wheather conditions.

- general "battle sounds this way" markers.

- if unit out of C&C, only generic markers for spotted enemy units to avoid unrealistic ID'ng.

- suppressed units available info even more limited.

- unit can get lost relatively easily in the "natural way", as prescribed earlier.

- possibility for enemy units to go back to totally unspotted under certain circumstanses.

3. The movies. Only level one and 2D map. Ideally the map shows "hotspots" which you can click and see when something worthwhile is going on, so you dont have to go through each and every unit, although this would still be possible, starting with HQ's, spotters etc down to ordinary units, except for units out of C&C (panic, too far etc), so no info can be gained from those. Unlimited movie wathcing after the game has ended obligatory reward after getting through the hardship! smile.gif

- units coming back to C&C could show their earlier movies (battlestories for mates smile.gif ) at that point, if necessary.

Underlying the whole system individual unit communicative abilities as has been suggested,(depending on technology, experience etc.) which affect information delays and accuracy, spotting aid for other units etc.

Well, now that much of my original hybris has worn off I see there are many unsolved problems, programming difficulties, gameplay could perhaps get too complicated, so maybe this is not worth while (the price is too high?). Still, hopefully there are at least few good ideas to add to those presented earlier.

[aka_tom_w]

Thanks for posting Kallimakhos

Thanks also for taking the time to read all the previous posts smile.gif

I really liked this point:

"The solution could be called simply Iron man Immersion (bit easier than the IMSRS-FOW ) which naturally should be optional "ultimate FOW", meant only for the groggiest and the most anal gamers (which could very likely make the majority! smile.gif ). This is a solution to most if not all major conserns raised before, not perfect but closest I can concieve."

I agree, of course it should be optional something like FOW for REAL men smile.gif of course suggesting that playing with any "less" FOW would be for "girlymen" (use thick Germanic accent for optimal effect :D re: Saturday night live)

That was one helluva of lengthy post on relative spotting.

Of course it all sounds mostly good and I agree with almost all of it smile.gif

-tom w

[ May 07, 2002, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Kallimakhos,

you speak ALOT about the "2D" map...

may I suggest you re-read your post and edit it to include suggestions as to how and when the 2D map may "relate" or "turn into" the 3D map we all know and love. What is the relationship between your 2D map and the 3D map we see in the movie?

Are you suggesting a 'shrouded' area of grey like in Warcraft for example? If so you should be prepared for major dissent and dissagreement on that suggestion. I highly doubt BTS would ever consent to the implentation of any form or shroud of grey unknown map area.

BUT some form of RECON "could" transform a 2D "road map" into the detailed 3D map we see in CMBO.. somehow ...the trick is how... as always the Devil is in the details! smile.gif

great post none the less...

-tom w

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
Kallimakhos,

you speak ALOT about the "2D" map...

may I suggest you re-read your post and edit it to include suggestions as to how and when the 2D map may "relate" or "turn into" the 3D map we all know and love. What is the relationship between your 2D map and the 3D map we see in the movie?

Are you suggesting a 'shrouded' area of grey like in Warcraft for example? If so you should be prepared for major dissent and dissagreement on that suggestion. I highly doubt BTS would ever consent to the implentation of any form or shroud of grey unknown map area.

BUT some form of RECON "could" transform a 2D "road map" into the detailed 3D map we see in CMBO.. somehow ...the trick is how... as always the Devil is in the details! smile.gif

great post none the less...

-tom wThanks, nice to see I'm not beating up a totally dead horse.

Good questions. First the map. What I'm thinking, the maps are exactly the same in terms of game mechanics, just like now, level 1 (3D) and level 8 (2D). The difference is that the 2D map would have lot of various information filters, both on map details and positions of one's own troops (if out of C&C, only last known position shown) and positions of enemy troops, and also random distortion of information. It would be nice also make the map more maplike, altering the graphical symbols, for more realistic feel. I can see that the whole thing would require a lot if ingenious programming, but probably something similar is going to be done anyway in the lines of unknown territory.

A very good question is how much randomness there should be in the beginning, maybe the commander on advance could some times have a just a crude map showing roads and villages (a LOT of filtering), and the map getting more detailed as more information is gathered. Defending commander would of course have much better map in the beginning, showing heights, woods etc. This information could also be bought before setup (aerial recon). A evolving map is of course not very "realistic" (your troops are not cartographers), but good for the gameplay.

This whole consept is based on Iron man rules, and so the commander shouldnt be able to use any 3D map (exept the view from his command post), because that would allow "flying" and memorizing terrain features to use later when ordering units in level 1 view.

I see that I forgot to spell it out that unit view (level 1) should be static, in the way that you can turn your hed but not change the camera position. This makes giving movement orders tricky. One problem I had in mind was this: it's night and thick fog, visibility 30 meters. Should the unit be able to move only 30 meters at a time, or more? And how to plot your movement to the other side of a house, where you can't see? Also what the player sees in level 1 and what the selected unit sees are not the same thing. So there are actually three possibilities:
1. Movements can be on plotted inside the visibility (line of sight) of the selected unit.
2. Movements can be plotted only where the player sees in level 1 view
3. No restriction on movement.
Someone with more experience with the Iron man rules could have better insights if this is really a problem and how to solve it, but to me it seems the current system could be better, ex. if you leave a house, from which you can't see outside, it is very difficult to know how far away from the house you actually end... hey, now I got it!

Well, to think of it, the solution seems quite easy, apparently too obvious to me! Make the movement line show distance just like the targeting line, and you can give easily simple order like move 100 meters to that direction, even if you don't know whats out there!

Once again, getting confused trying to write and think at the same time, Kallimakhos.

[aka_tom_w]

OK

lets revisit IronMan Rules

Franko also independantly codified these rules into this document. (see below)

(I am somewhat ashamed to admit I have never had the self discpline to adhere strictly to these rules in a CMBO game BUT if there was an OPTION to Play IronMan FOW with Relative spotting I think it would be fun for the hard core grogs out there smile.gif )

found here:

http://home.arcor.de/tcmhq/Nifranko.htm

FRANKO'S TRUE COMBAT RULES

1. INTRODUCTION. The following rules are designed to maximize the realism and immersion of single-player play. Generally speaking, as the human player, you are not allowed to do use the tools
of the game interface for the purpose of doing anything your troops could not do in real life. All
rules set forth below must be construed according to that principle.

2. SELECTING UNITS. Only use the "+" or "-" keys to move from friendly unit to friendly unit. Then,
use the "tab" key. You can then only rotate in place to scan the surrounding terrain (imagine you are
where the unit is, and that you can only see what THAT unit can see..its pretty simple).

If there is friendly unit within the line of sight (LOS) of the unit you have currently selected, you
do not have to use the + and - keys. Instead, you can simply point and click on that target unit,
THEN hit the tab key. Any other way of accessing an enemy unit is forbidden.

3. VIEWING YOUR SURROUNDINGS.

A. PANNING. After accessing the unit and hitting the tab key(which orients the view of the unit
forward), you can only "look around" by using the pivot keys (1,3,7,9) on the keypad. In other words,
you can pan 360 (your guys can turn around and look where they are).

B. BUILDINGS: If your units are in a building or he unit icon (such as vehicle), blocks your view,
you can use the "8" key to click ahead only such distance which is necessary to clear the sprite.

C. ELEVATED VIEWS. Once turns begin (after setup), you may use only the lowest-level view ("1" on the
keyboard), unless the following apply:

1. If your unit occupies are a two-level building, you may use View 2 ("2" on the keyboard") from the
units location; and

2. If you are on the top floor of a church, you can use View 2 or View 3, whichever you prefer

Note: The Setup procedure may offer you further viewing options. See Rule __, Below.

4. ENEMY UNITS. You may not, under any circumstances, "click on" or "select" an enemy unit. Use the
"N" key to select targets.

5. ZOOM KEYS. You may not use the "zoon key" (the brackets), unless the following exceptions apply:

A. You may use up to Zoom 2x if you're unit you are "looking from" is platoon leader or above.

B. Your unit may use up to Zoom 4x if it has optics (e.g, an artillery observer, an AT gun, a tank).
If you really want to be anal, buttoned up tanks or tanks that suffered casualties can only use up to
zoom 4x in the direction of their turret facing, because, that's where the gunners optics are facing!
American tanks may not be able to zoom at all..we can debate that one later.

C. During Setup, under specified conditions (see below)

6. WEATHER. You must always have weather and fog set to "full"

7. SPECIAL SETUP RULES. The following setup rules apply depending on whether you are the attacker,
defender, or if the battle is a meeting engagement.

A. Attacker: During setup you may use View Level 7 ("7" on the keyboard)to aid in setup, in addition
to the views you are permitted in Rules 1, 2, or 3, above. This "attacker's map" rule represents the
"map" your troop commander would use to help prepare your troops for the assault. Whether such a map
is available should be specified in your briefing by the designer.

B. Defender: During setup you can use the map rule, above, if your signal corps has its act together.
In addition, you can freely move about the map in level 1, or view level 2 (or 3, if a church) if
that part of the map your viewing from is a multi-level building

C. Meeting Engagements. Both sides may only view using the Attacker's map rule, or from any spot in
their setup zone (only). Again, if a spot in their setup zonehas a church or building, adjust
accordingly.

D. OPTIONAL RULE: During setup you may print out a map (by taking a screen shot and printing the .bmp
file) for use during the battle. This map should be at the minimum View Level 7.

8. GAME SETTINGS. Use only "Realistic" Sized units. Always have "full terrain" on. Turn unit bases
and detailed armored hits "off". Generally speaking, use only those feature that the troops could
use. Needless to say, Fog of War is ALWAYS set to FULL!

Always interested in your input.

Frank M. Radoslovich

[ May 08, 2002, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

"This whole concept is based on IronMan rules, and so the commander shouldnt be able to use any 3D map (exept the view from his command post), because that would allow "flying" and memorizing terrain features to use later when ordering units in level 1 view."

The REALLY REALLY tricky part about all this is "What does the Player actually see??"

As it is now the CMBO game is played on a 3D map in total 3D space and both players see all things in "God view" 3D technicolor, both while plotting the move and while the movie plays back.

OK for CM II lets assume for the moment they will stick with the same format (i.e. the plot orders phase and then the 1 minute movie combat resolution phase, everyone here seems mostly comfortable with that format) then how do you make the relationship between the 2D road map you get to see when you are setting up before the battle and the FULL blown 3D environment map you see in the movie where your units are fighting and moving?

For relative spotting and terrain FOW and to eliminate the concerns with regard to the "borg Like" behaviour of units, it would seem some things (intel & info ) must be kept from the player, and this is either control of units or information about the map and the battle and whats actually happening out there.
(I think I have said that a few times). One way to do this is with the 2D road map, BUT we must be very careful not to suggest we are trying to make this like another board game like Squad Leader, (Clearly, BTS would never let that happen smile.gif ) NO, what we want is EXACTLY the opposite with Relative Spotting, realistic immersion in the battlefield experience and terrain Fog Of War. (OK, I would hope we would all want it to be FUN to play as well, however from this thread we can see there are many many different ideas of what "Fun to Play" means!) I think we have to be careful here because when this has come up in the past many folks have loudly stated they did not want to end up playing a game called "Recon Mission", something to the effect... "HEY! this is not Recon Mission, its Combat Mission!" I for one would like to see MUCH more emphasis on Recon prior to the battle, this would mostly be from for solitar play against the AI on defense as the AI i patient and won't care how long your recon missions take. smile.gif

So back to the point, the question then becomes what does the Player see in the 1 minute movie play back (from WHAT perspective) and what does the Player see during the orders plotting phase. Franco's list of IronMan True Combat rules suggests a quideline for what the player sees during the orders phase, but what about the Movie playback phase and what about how to include the 2D road map? Surely I think we can all agree we don't want to see combat resolution during the one minute movie play out with ugly icons on a flat ugly 2d road map! redface.gif

-tom w

[ May 08, 2002, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
OK

lets revisit IronMan Rules

Franco also independantly codified these rules into this document. (see below)

(I am somewhat ashamed to admit I have never had the self discpline to adhere strictly to these rules in a CMBO game BUT if there was an OPTION to Play IronMan FOW with Relative spotting I think it would be fun for the hard core grogs out there smile.gif )

Thanks for reposting the Iron man rules, a good memory refresher. I share your sentiments, it's now too much self control also for me but I hope there will be some kind of hardcoded option for this type of play in the future versions of CM.

If not anything else, I believe this thread has presented many good ideas for this type of game.

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

So back to the point, the question then becomes what does the Player see in the 1 minute movie play back (from WHAT perspective) and what does the Player see during the orders plotting phase. Franco's list of IronMan True Combat rules suggests a quideline for what the player sees during the orders phase, but what about the Movie playback phase and what about how to include the 2D road map? Surely I think we can all agree we don't want to see combat resolution during the one minute movie play out with ugly icons on a flat ugly 2d road map! redface.gif

-tom wI agree, I wouldn't mind seeing lot more recon elements implemented in the game.

How much I try, i can not see other way around the combined effect of Borg spotting and God's view than to give up level 4 both during movie watching and giving orders, and there is a heavy cost, ex. using minor elevations for cover during longer movements besides some of the fun. But it is also fun to know you don't know everything, and at squad level, in the middle of the incomprehenciple chaos around you, you soon develop a new kind of relationship for your pixelmen. Also knowing that good communication lines would really make a difference would have a profound effect on how one manages his troops, and this would make the game tactically and strategically even more interesting.

Now let's see how one certain player watches his movies, and that would be me, cause I can't lurk behind other players shoulders :( . There would be of course be as many styles as there are players. Usually first I whatch the movie 1-3 times on level 4, depending on the map size, to get overall picture of what is happening. Then, because I'm sucker for immersive graphics, I run aboard a vehicle along a road on level 1 locked to the unit, go along a infantry assault against enemy positions, whatch how my tank creeps to the hill and engages, smokes one enemy before getting smoked etc. This can go on for a long long time, depending on my mood.

So for me the biggest thrill in 3D graphics is on level 1 locked on unit, which gives the feeling of immersion, other modes (mainly level 4) are more for the intellectual "chess game" purposes, seeing what is happening and how I can counteract. Conclusion? If I would see the generel development of the battle only on the 2D map, but still see the hot spot and other movies in immersive first person 3D graphics, personally I wouldn't feel like losing lot of the fun I'm used to, and this would be compensated in other areas. But I'm sure many players would feel otherwise.

[aka_tom_w]

sorry for the bump
I know this is an old thread

well you know, I was just wondering want Extreme FOW in CMBB will be like???? smile.gif
(since is does not show up well in pretty screen shots AND they are stunning!, I thought I would ask about Extreme FOW in CMBB again?)

So I bumped this one, please excuse the interuption.

thanks

-tom w

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:
If so we could easily make CM play so that you deploy your troops (which CM buys for you) by simply clicking down the HQs at the next level lower than your own (i.e. if you are the Major, you can only click on the Company HQs). CM would then deploy all the rest of the units without you even seeing them. Yup, you wouldn't see anything except what was around your HQ unit, which would be set up and unmovable (for the most part) after the Setup Phase. Then the game would start. You would issue a couple of vauge orders to your next lower HQs and then sit back and wait. From Turn 1 on all friendly units would disappear from the map. Every so often a Spotted icon would appear where MAYBE one of your directly subordinated HQ was. At this point in time you might get back some meaningful information from the HQ, or perhpas not. Depending on if the HQ is in radio contact or not, you could issue orders to the HQ along the vauge lines of Turn 1. You will have no idea what that HQ does with them until the next time he resurfaces. If there is no radio contact, runners would be necessary and that means instant communication would be impossible, thus making that Spotted icon appear less frequently and even more prone to error. After the shooting would start you might have a rough idea about where and the nature of the shooting. But until one of those ghost icons popped up, you wouldn't know much more than that. And even when that does happen, you would only get back snipts of text about what was going on and you could still only issue a few vauge orders.

Gee... DAMN does that sound like fun! Whoopie smile.gif Cripes, we wouldn't even need to program in anything except some sort of ZORK like text adventure script engine and a few generalized combat resolution equations.As someone who has served in the company headquarters of a reserve Infantry company, I would say that Steve makes sound much more fun that it really is, if you can believe that. In the open terrain in which our company operates, I usually don't even see anyone, and sometimes will go through an entire exercise without hearing any shooting. Granted, I have only been on a handful of exercises as part of the company headquarters element, I nonetheless can attest to the fact that the company OC usually checks his map and leaves things to the platoon commanders. The main role of company headquarters is to stay in place, liase with battalion HQ, make sure that the CQMS is operating and providing the company with rations and bullets, dealing with POWs, etc.

Such a game would be perfectly simulated by a chat room, where you listen to the CSM and the OC telling war stories, getting the odd meteorological report on the radio, doing your radio or line checks every hour, and having the OC move periodically to the CQMS, RQMS, or battalion HQ for an Orders Group.

[James Crowley]

Tom W

I agree, it would be nice to get an idea of what extreme FoW entails; even if only a brief outline.
However, given the comments accompanying the recent 'bone', it seems fairly unlikely that there will be much in the way of explanations about anything, at least for the time being.

Oh well, all in good time I suppose.

[Bruno Weiss]

Now here's something. I thought that once an FO had targeted that if he thereafter moved the incoming fire would stop "when" he moved. Maybe I'm not remembering this right but I just had an instance where a German 120mm FO had re-targeted with a 14 second delay and seven rounds left at the beginning of the turn. He was on the second floor of a large building taking incoming fire. Just prior to the 14 seconds passing, he decides to up and bolt out of the building in a safe direction. Now, the whole time he's high tailing it the 120's start falling right on target. His LOS to the target was held during the run out of the building "luckily" I suppose. So I guess I remembered wrong about arty fire stopping if an FO moves?

[Michael Emrys]

I'm confused about this too, Bruno. In my early games I noticed that the countdown paused while the FO was moving and took that to be the norm. But lately I noticed a couple of times when I had the FO in motion the countdown continued. So I dunno...

Michael

[aka_tom_w]

this is topic is fashionable once again

-tom w

[Bruceov]

The proiblem with the solution to borg spotting is this: In real life the cut off platoon would probably act intelligently aiding the overall effort. With relative spotting a lot depernds on the q

[Bruceov]

I really hope someone reacts to this. In real life the cut off platoons fate is subject to the skill of the non-commisioned officer in command and the courage of the men. This person will probably direct the platoon to take appropriate action. At the critical moment the squad may act heroicly or they may rout. Unless the ai was a lot better than it is now the player is not going to get the benefit of the occasion when the squad acts intelligently or heroically.

[Bruceov]

Sorry about the first post, it was unintentional

[Bruceov]

In other words: the AI is not intelligent enough to effectuate relative spotting and have an enjoyable game.

[wbs]

I'll claim post # 200 because I can :D