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 ) 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

[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.

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

[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

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 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>

[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.

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.

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

Rune

the 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

-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 )

-tom w

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