Relative Spotting revisited

[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>

[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 guess

I'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!" 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 )

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 ).

I'm just sewing seeds now 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

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).

Steve

Obviously 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.

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

-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

[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

oh ok

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

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>

[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