aka_tom_w

this relative spotting issue has come up before has you might have guessed: try this: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024461#000001 here is a sample: James Crowley Member Member # 5698 posted April 18, 2002 11:53 AM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IP: Logged aka_tom_w Member Member # 1515 posted April 18, 2002 12:07 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 ] -------------------- "So if a player's idea of fun is to use "gamey" tactics to beat the other guy, I guess we did "remove" some of the "fun" in CMBO. But in doing so we made CMBB more of what CMBO was always, ALWAYS, supposed to be. And the next game will continue that trend of improvement towards the unobtainable goal of perfect simulation of tactical warfare. And in our opinions, perfect means most realistic." -Steve of BFC Nov 1 2002 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IP: Logged Juardis Member Member # 1381 posted April 18, 2002 12:18 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Very similar to what I suggested about a year, yet more simple and therefore, more appealing. I like it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IP: Logged redwolf Member Member # 3665 posted April 18, 2002 12:21 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IP: Logged Cameroon Member Member # 7030 posted April 18, 2002 02:41 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 END QUOTE -tom w [ February 11, 2003, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

that is good news! did you test it already ? They did say they fixed that issue -tom w

What is a Blog? Something like "batch Log?" how is it different than a Forum like this one? Why is a Blog (?) not a Forum? Curious -tom w

Information at CMHQ sez different though. BDH </font>

Um Is that .... Cable News Network (?) there are two flavours CNN proper, (all news all the time with analysis and commentary) and Headline News, CMBB was on Headline News, that one plays the same news every 30 minutes with updates all the time. -tom w

you don't have enought RAM I think it is that simple 64 megs of ram is just not enough My guess would be more ram (AT LEAST 64 megs More) would get you up and running at full resolution good luck -tom w

I those ten points should probably end up on someone's signature file. I'm thinking about it myself, but I don't really want to change the one I have now . -tom w

Patch or no patch Here is a Question: When you bought CMBO did you get your money's worth for US $ 45.00?? :eek: Seriously.... how about CMBB? Anybody here NOT get their money's worth for US $ 45.00? We got a whole bunch of FREE patches for the first one and TWO solid patches for CMBB (assuming of course v1.02 is the patch to end all patches ) I cannot believe the whinning and the drivel in this thread! I am THRILLED to hear BFC is now full steam ahead on the next BIG thing. Maybe by the spring or summer of 2005 we will have another MASTER PIECE of wargaming, a real new inovative, ground breaking, combat simulation to play. (on a MAC no less!) Lets encourage them on their next project Good luck Gentlemen -tom w [ February 09, 2003, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

failed how? Did CMBB fail? Did I miss that thread? :confused: Did I miss the part where BFC says "Oh I guess we will just go back to flipping burgers because CMBB was such a catastropic FAILURE!" :eek: I'm sorry... Did I miss the part where CMBB sales and profts FELL off the scale compared to CMBO? Can some tell me what part of CMBB "failed"? :confused: yours in sarcasm alone... -tom w [ February 08, 2003, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

thanks Steve ! That sounds GREAT! -tom w

CMBO U.S. 76 mm + Tungsten late 44 and 45 (and the British Firefly with the 17lbr and guns like it) I think they give the German armour the most to worry about. -tom w [ February 08, 2003, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

yup its one EVERY hour today on Headline news at starting at 53 minutes past the hour its on now

saw it AGAIN ITS on RIGHT now! at 8:55 AM EST on Headline news Watch for is on Headline news ALL Day Saturday at maybe 24 minutes and 54 minutes past the hour good luck -tom w

WOW great thanks for the update -tom w

OK I saw it on CNN It lasted about 20-30 secs they showed everything from view level 1 on NEVER switched there were infantry units under Arty bombardment and they showed a smallish (4x4) German armoured car moving in some trees up close in the fall or winter (looked unmodded) and a Russian armoured car ALL from view level one. They clicked on a unit and show the "info" screen for only 20-30 secs on Primetime CNN coverage its was GOOD! Tracy claimed it was "the hottest game out there" and went out of her way to call it a combat simulation and NOT a FPS. the www.Battlefront.com graphic was on the screen the whole time. For free publicity you could not ask for much Better! Astrocat should get some free "stuff" or something from the BFC crew if he had anything at all to do with getting ALL that free publicity from Headline news!! (nice work) It looked good! -tom w [ February 06, 2003, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OK! CMBB on Headline news will be ON between 10:40 and 10:50 PM EST coming up in this next 30 minutes -tom w

that should be 9:45 EST ? yes? I will be watching -tom w

I was there I was also at the Alice Cooper Riot at the CNE at Toronto as well BUT that was A LONG time ago, BUT there were REAL t-shirts proclaiming "I survived the Alice Cooper Riot CNE Toronoto" for that one! -tom w

OK I think is on NOW I mean after this commercial break about 8:47- 8:48 PM EST lets see what they say about video game on Headline news here it comes NOPE nothing this time Jeany KimTrace talked about some Unreal II FPS thingy maybe next half hour with that BABE Rudi Baktiar! -tom w [ February 06, 2003, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

when? Like lately Who gave the report? -tomw

GOOD WORK! That looks great I downloaded it and printed it out VERY handy! THANKS -tomw

Any time Steve has enough time to post here that must be a good thing as it might signal that all the hard work is complete on the latest patch Thanks to Steve to dropping to comment I am sure most everyone here will all welcome what tweaks and fixes that await us in v1.02 some hints and a partial list can be found here: http://www.militarygameronline.com/boots_tracks/index.php?page=bttimes -tom w [ February 05, 2003, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Mr Picky would point out that you've never played ASL or SL. </font>

If you would like to read more to see where the discussion has been/gone on this issue you should read this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024461#000001 Relative Spotting Revisited... If you are keen and you want to read all 8 pages (there are MANY posts) you can find some GREAT posts by Steve as to what they hope to do with the Engine re-write. Good luck happy reading -tom w

Really? (asked a spokesman for Mr. Picky). And there was me thinking it was based on the de Marre equations with some suitable tweaks, which is not what I would call physics-based modelling. I suspect that the computational overhead for a finite-element-cum-CFD penetration model would be quite noticeable. All the best, John. </font>