Relative Spotting revisited

[aka_tom_w]

Lets not forget where this all started:

this is probably worth re-reading, so for your viewing pleasure 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

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>

[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 ). 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>

[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>

[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>

[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>

[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?

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? 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?

-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