aka_tom_w

Again e-mail from Muskin the Improbable... Clarification... Vanir said: "Not allowing units out of C&C to target specific spotted enemy units in LOS would not make sense for the reasons Kip just outlined." Mushkin said: I also disagree with this. No one has said this. The units could target them. I am not sure what this is based on. Vanir responds: This: quote:A defender has a cutoff HMG. He is out of C&C and LOS of ALL friendly units. The player wants him to target a particularly bothersome enemy squad that he fears (its a Russian guards PPSH equipped unit that is getting too close). The player opens the HMG menu and selects a fire command. He draws a line but a covered arc appears instead! He cannot guarantee that the HMG will select the bothersome squad because other enemy units also occupy the covered arc. Damn, he says and decides to withdraw and makes a note to keep HQs near HMGs in the future. Mushkin: The hypothetical example is only showing that the PLAYER cannot target specific enemy units (But he is giving a general direction). The TACAI could. Its a subtle point but has to be understood. The player control has diminished from surgeon to traffic cop. Instead of a precise designation of target, its a general direction. He can only put a covered arc down of a minimum angle and therefore may or may not get his unit to shoot at the threat HE (the player) considers greatest. The designation has been fuzzified, if you will. The TACAI would then have to be trusted to do what it considers fit. The game already does override some target designations I believe. I believe that no matter what, any player (especially myself) wants to win. It clouds your judgment and you dont even see the gamey things that you are doing. You need firepower to win the scenario and dont care who or what is doing it, or where it is coming from. In real situations, the units have more important goals, like saving their own lives. So when I instantly coordinate every unit within reach to shoot at a cherry target that only one of my guys can really see that well, well we all know its unrealistic. Letting loose of the reins a bit is what I am talking about. Its anti-boolean and more shades of grey. -Muskin [ April 26, 2002, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Again e-mail from Muskin the Improbable... das boot writes.. I'm heading out the door for a long weekend, so I havn't given it a lot of though yet but your ideas sound good to me. The key point for me is restricting the GOD-mode currently used by players while keeping the fun elements in the game, and it seems to cover that. Thats the intent. Its really a BTS decision about what they think the game should be and what they can do about it. But you are the customer. I really disagree with Kip. I think the ASL mindset and the whole "squad level" argument isn't true. You say that CM is not a command level game (whatever that means, I am not really sure) but I say it isn't a commando level game either. By that, I mean the on-the-fly, realtime coordination that CM players now accept as "The Game". Its like some SWAT exercise with all the troops having mikes clipped on their ears. I dont think that Kip is playing the role of squad leader/AFV commander but rather omni-micromanager. I was in the US Army and command rolls downhill (along with you know what). Orders are given and they come from above squad level. Unless a squad is on a mission like a recon AWAY from the platoon (not a Combat Mission), there's very little free-agent activities going on. If the player was only commanding a platoon, and his info only came from the other platoon members (like suggested before), than maybe Kip's argument has weight. But, the fact is that he wants the shared intel from across the board. Kip's argument about needing more info than is realistic just strikes me as reactionary. I think it must be reiterated that people are calling for OPTIONAL enhancements to the game by the way. I think that certain units, under certain conditions, should not be directly controlled by the player. I gave specific examples of "soft-failures" because I know that it will bring out the reactions from the control people. Not allowing units out of C&C to target specific spotted enemy units in LOS would not make sense for the reasons Kip just outlined. I also disagree with this. No one has said this. The units could target them. I am not sure what this is based on. (tom Edits: I think some additional clarity is needed on the last two points, from both Muskin and Kip) -Mushkin

Hi Kip Your points are also well made and I respect your opinion as well You suggest I "like to play the game as a platoon commander, not as a squad commander." Its sort of funny but I have never looked at it from that perspective. (honest) I enjoy playing CMBO and think it plays well and it is fun. To be honest I enjoy seeking out gamey loopholes and ways to exploit the game engine. I like to figure out how things work and where their strengths and weakneses are The whole issue of Absolute Spotting is more of a theoretical puzzle I enjoy thinking about than anything else. This "thinking about" thing includes studying Absolute Spotting in a sort of analytical way to establish exactly what is not realistic about it, if you think about it that way and look at Absolute Spotting from the perspective of where is the problem and what causes the problem of lack of realism, then you can start to look at all kinds of things like FOW and C&C and the loss of control of units out of C&C and the LOSS of the recon intel as well.... Maybe I am in the minority here (who knows this thread seems to have a fairly narrow readership, what I mean is that only a hand-full of folks here have chosen to post an opinion) but I thought most folks who played CMBO considered the Absolute Spotting protocol to be the single biggest factor that made the game unrealistic. So after James' post I started to think about it... and the more I thought I about it and the more I posted here the more I came to the conclusion that if the Player wants to play ALL roles then the Player is then the cause of the Borg Spotting protocol because the Player knows TOO much. For me this issue was NEVER an attempt to play only the role of the Platoon HQ and above, it was attempt to find out who knows what on the battlefield and how to model C&C more correctly. For instance it is NOT just that I think I can't be the squad leader, not really, my theory on this extends to EVERY unit out of C&C and we need C&C for vehicles too. So yes you might lose some control of some light vehicles without radios as well. I have no doubt most of the idea's here that I agree with will probably not make it into the game as Steve seems to be adamant that the solution to Absolute Spotting that includes some form of Simulated Relative Spotting will not include addressing issues of C&C, (I'm not sure how he feels about issues of reduced Spotting ability across the board and extreme FOW) I am not suggesting my view of this is anymore "right" or correct than anyone else's opinion here, as there are plenty of good ideas and LOTS of opinions in this thread. All I am really trying to do is look at how the game models Absolute Spotting and how that might be improved with some form of Relative Spotting. I'm REALLY not sure if I would actually enjoy playing CM II if all of the extreme suggestions here were implimented. For instance the idea of ONLY seeing the opposing units from View Level 1 while the friendly unit that spotted them is Selected by the player may sound good theoretically (I think it sounds GREAT theoretically and it would solve many Abosolute Spotting problems) BUT I suspect NO one, well, maybe a few hardcore Grogs, (perhaps out of some sense of "duty" it has been suggested) would actually enjoy playing this way, it would be tedious and probably VERY confusing and not much fun at all. I have no doubt that it might not be fun, I think it would be correct and I think it would be a viable solution to Absolute Spotting and a good way to impliment Simulated Relative Spotting, but if the reaction of this thread is any measure of how well that idea would be received by the majority of folks who play CMBO it should be clear that EVEN if it was a FOW option it would not be worth the time it would take Charles to code it up because NO one but a few grogs would use that option anyway. It seems there is already be a plan or an agenda or a somewhat well defined concept, of how BTS will impliment Relative Spotting in CM II and I doubt any of these "Radical" idea's we are proposing for Simulated Relative Spotting and Extreme FOW that included loss of control of all units (not just Squads) out of C&C will get very far because these idea's (at least in this thread) seem fairly unpopular. Oh well its still an interesting theoretical challenge and sort of fun puzzle to think about -tom w [ April 25, 2002, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Maybe you should ask them to crawl if that what you want to see on the screen. SNEAK has been loosely translated into "Movement to Contact and RETURN fire". It is NOT exactly sneaking as you think of the word sneak, in CMBO the sneak command means advance cautiously and then sit tight and return fire when fired upon (mostly, IIRC IMHO) -tom w

Muskin Says: Pinned unit beyond C&C. You want to give him a movement order so you can see how long it will take (and then master mind a coordinated assault with other units). Firstly, there are no movement orders in his menu! You are restricted to firing and hiding and withdrawing. This "soft failure" isnt a total loss of control but a shade of loss. Half squad out of C&C and out of its platoon HQ visual LOS. You give a sneak order and want to see how long it will take. Sneak is an option and you select it and draw a line. A ? shows up in the delay time. You dont know how long it will take. He is also, by the way, taken some fire the previous turn and may be under strength. Since he is out of C&C and LOS, those losses are not reported to you. The info pool is shrinking again. The attacker is slowly losing his borgiosity. A defender has a cutoff HMG. He is out of C&C and LOS of ALL friendly units. The player wants him to target a particularly bothersome enemy squad that he fears (its a russian guards PPSH equipped unit that is getting too close). The player opens the HMG menu and selects a fire command. He draws a line but a covered arc appears instead! He can not guarantee that the HMG will select the bothersome squad because other enemy units also occupy the covered arc. Damn, he says and decides to withdraw and makes a note to keep HQs near HMGs in the future. That Sounds GREAT! I think the focus on C&C is completely relevant here. I truly don't believe that we can really solve some of the problems of lack of Realism that Absolute Spotting creates if we don't SERIOUSLY look at C&C and who commands who and who communicates with who and who KNOWS what and how did they find out, (i.e. did the Player tell them to LOOK for it? OR did they Spot the threat themselves???) Pinned units out of C&C should be next to useless to the Player. These are ALL great ideas that will take SOME control away from the Player when the unit is out of C&C: "Pinned unit beyond C&C. You want to give him a movement order so you can see how long it will take (and then master mind a coordinated assault with other units). Firstly, there are no movement orders in his menu! You are restricted to firing and hiding and withdrawing. This "soft failure" isnt a total loss of control but a shade of loss. Half squad out of C&C and out of its platoon HQ visual LOS. You give a sneak order and want to see how long it will take. Sneak is an option and you select it and draw a line. A ? shows up in the delay time. You dont know how long it will take. He is also, by the way, taken some fire the previous turn and may be under strength. Since he is out of C&C and LOS, those losses are not reported to you. The info pool is shrinking again." Who is in C&C and who is NOT should be REALLY important in the implimentation of Simulated Relative Spotting in order to add more REALISM to the game. -tom w [ April 25, 2002, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I like this idea and I don't like it. I agree that the amount of info on enemy units makes it too gamey and that it needs to be restricted more. But I don't like that all vehicles should be generically reported at all times (if that's what you mean). For me half the fun is the visual side and I can't find a way to combine that with you suggestion. It would definately be more realistic but I don't think it would be CM and I doubt I'd play it. Tue</font>

IMO relative spotting (by which I mean that a unit can only see and therefor shoot at and react to what it has spotted NOT what other units have spotted) should fix most of the problems of units such as guns, and bazookas etc getting immediately wiped out by unrealistic amounts of firepower the second they show themselves. Couple this with a certain amount of fuzzy logic in the spotting based on experience, direction you are facing, cover arcs etc and I think this should increase the realism quite effectively. The cherry picking of targets (by which I mean two or more units spot a number of targets but only one can Id them correctly yet all make use of this information for targetting) is another issue that needs to be dealt with. Someone earlier suggested simply making the IDing of enemy units less effective. I don't think that this really solves the problem. By doing this you unfairly penalise a unit that does spot them well enough to choose their targets. Consider the situation where you have some AT guns overlooking an area at some distance and a bunch of bazooka equipped troops waiting closely in ambush. Some enemy tanks arrive. The guns at a greater distance would not be able to ID them. The bazookas that are close up could tell you that one of the tank drivers has gold fillings. With the above suggested IDing solution, either the guns can cherry pick or the bazookas have to shoot the closest target. This is no better than what we have currently. One solution is for units that only have partial information, Muskin the Improbable (aka Deep Throat) replies Actually relative spotting will not stop cherry picking of targets! A quick example is as follows: 1. select an ATG unit, see what he can see. he sees 4 generic tanks lets say. 2. Go to another unit with a better view (but perhaps an ineffective weapon) and see what he can see. He sees 3 PIIIL42 and one PIVL48. 3. Go back to ATG unit and pick PIVL48. You see its the detailed info that is tripping us up. Its been suggested that units be presented to the player in a certain order (that is, the game will highlight who gets orders for you). Those with the least intel first. But this is a radical departure from present gameplay and would not be well recieved. I believe that knowing the experience level of troops and many other factoids about targets has been acknowledged by BTS as something they are going to address. Info that a commander couldnt possibly have certainly leads to gaminess. believe it or not, you are getting way too much info. As other people have said, play with only conscripts and you will be surprised at how much fog of war rolls in. Is that a split up platoon running at me or a weak company? I think as people that have looked at books on tanks and built models and visited museums; we have more info than many grunts that actually served. I think as CM players, we want to selct the targets. Anything that took that away would get howling protests from the majority. If the game only allowed you to give orders like: 1. Destroy armor (select a Covered arc) 2. Destroy infantry (select..) 3. Deny area (mark area with covered arc) It would not go over well. But its the coordination that is what makes the game unrealistic. So is it realism or fun you want? I say its a compromise. Let people do gamey things but there must be consequences. An example is the penalty for firing area fire at a location and someone opens up on you (especially someone close). In real life, you are screwed. You would be pinned flatter than a pancake. the game should reflect that. I dont quite follow this by the way.. The guns at a greater distance would not be able to ID them. The bazookas that are close up could tell you that one of the tank drivers has gold fillings. With the above suggested IDing solution, either the guns can cherry pick or the bazookas have to shoot the closest target. Bazookas would shoot the closest targets in real life. But if the gamey player wants to take a long range shot over the tanks at a quad 20mm halftrack then fine, but there should be consequences. Especially if he misses. Why would the ATGs cherry target? Are you assuming that bazooka crews can share info? i dont agree that an infantry unit needs to report what model of tank is spotted. The game reports too much info. Even with relative spotting, the game should not report so much detail about enemy units. Infantry should just be that and vehicles generically reported. [ April 24, 2002, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

well well there are more here: http://www.lingerie-99.com/usshop/export/c67.html

What ?? No news, comments are dissenting opinions on the Relative Spotting front this morning? -tom w

Ideally yes, but I think if you go that far, then you're modeling who has a radio and who doesn't. .</font>

"Ideally yes, but I think if you go that far, then you're modeling who has a radio and who doesn't. All I'm suggesting is a possible solution using the current coding. You the human see everything you see now. The game keeps track of what each platoon can see. When you click on a unit within that platoon, the game only shows you what that unit can see and what that unit can see is based entirely on what ANY unit in the PLATOON can see, whether they're in C&C or not. This will allow the human to have control over each unit but it restricts what the TAC AI considers a valid target and would seriously limit the Borg syndrome. I think to actually fix the "problem" would require that the selected unit be in C&C, but I think that's getting beyond the "compromise solution until the rewrite is completed". As for area firing, I certainly wouldn't use that option because area firing is too ineffective at both killing and breaking the area target when a more juicy target does come into LOS." received via e-mail to post here: Mushkin the Improbable: (aka DeepThroat) The current coding doesnt keep track of who spotted what. It is spotee centered, meaning that each unit is judged to be spotted by every other unit. So it is either spotted (and ID'd to a certain level) and thats it. The game cant keep track of who spotted what. The level of BEING spotted is kept on a units status. Anyone with a LOS to that unit can then shoot at it. I like your idea by the way and it has merit. But I believe that CMBB will be very close to CMBO and CMII will be very different. My hope would be that BTS would implement some of the IDing type changes and include them in CMBB. I think I am going to try an all armor conscript quick battle just for fun. I agree about the area fire also. I would never use it but would probably just use the covered arc instead. If something good pops up, then they get zapped. Its my experience that area fire seems like robotic behaviour and cant be trusted for most units. maybe it can also be made more realistic by the covered arc. That is, when targetting for area fire, a minimum covered arc has to be used. The minimum CA then distributes the FP along the arc instead of a point. Want to spray the whole house? Put a wider covered arc. [ April 24, 2002, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

So say this like it is no big matter, but it is. All attempts to fix absolute spotting that depend on only shooting what the unit sees are futile. People will use area or indirect fire instead, if the unit refuses to give a target line to the target because it doesn't see it. And even without that, the player can turn or move the own unit so that it is guaranteed to see the desired target. It fixes only things within one turn. This is worthwile, it is the bazooka example. This is what I understand Steve has in mind for CMIII, not more. But when the combat phase is over, and the player plots, there is no point in not giving a unit a target option (and hence view) to an enemy in LOS. Because the player will use area fire instead, and it will only annoy the hell out of the player who needs to get the idea who cannot see that AT team to give give manual area target to all units in LOS. Much trouble for no gain. Longer combat phases, which require more TacAI, SOPs and deciion trees would help, but that's a different game.</font>

"Many new trails were blazed for historical accruacy that undoubtedly stunned the actual participants at Normandy. " Now that is funny!! ROTFLMAO -tom w

"I believe it was tom (apologies if it wasn't {It was me } ) who asked what forcing the units to spot their targets gives you, since the player can still target something a unit hasn't seen yet. Apparently my earlier comment was ignored or missed Even if you (Player) say "Target that Infantry Squad in those bushes", the unit would STILL have to spot it on its own (if so coded). So let's assume that Unit A is firing at Unit B. Some other unit spots Unit C (a higher priority target to the Player) during the turn, but Unit A doesn't. Unit A will not open fire on Unit C, obviously. Now, let's say at the end of the turn, the Player tells Unit A to target Unit C. Ok, HOWEVER, Unit A still hasn't spotted Unit C. So Unit A is trying to acquire Unit C to fire at. Meanwhile, Unit A isn't firing at anything. You could carry this further, too. A unit trying to acquire a specific target (under orders) could be less likely to spot other targets." Mushkin the Improbable (?) (aka Deep Throat) replies: I dont believe that is what Relative Spotting will be like. As you choose a unit during the orders phase, its perspective of the battlefield will 'pop up'. Only those units it can spot/ID, will be shown. So in your example, it could not target what it cant see (maybe area fire but you get my point). During the movie, all units will be shown and players will be screaming at their computers "shoot the guy to the left, shoot him!!!" not knowing that the unit cant see the guy to the left. Or maybe the movie will be dynamic from a highlighted units individual perspective? Hmmmm Interesting. Mush [ April 23, 2002, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

The comparison is not a bit screwy. The comparison is void. Modern tank weapons systems are as far removed from WW2 tanks as are modern guided missiles from WW2 rockets. The M1A1's combination of laser range-finding, real-time atmospheric data collection, computerized calculation of these and all other factors (barrel bend, etc) completely alter the matter. </font>

Again interesting e-mail from Muskin the Improbable he asks me to post this "I believe that there is two distinct issues; 1. Absolute vs Relative Spotting AND "Quality of Spotting" as a function of Experince level, Command Control, Battlefield conditions, etc. They really are distinct and Relative Spotting does not address the "Quality of Spotting/IDing" A good aspect of this thread is the role of the player as commander, meddler, optimizer, gamey retard, etc. In many situations, the player unrealistically optimizes targetting. In real life, a unit would not pay THAT much attention to enemy units further away than the ones that they see. To give a friendly unit a command to fire at a target further away than the nearest enemy threat, should have consequences if that closer threat blasts your guys! they have, in effect, lost fire superiority and should get some pinning at least for this unrealistic behaviour. So, we have consequences for unrealistic actions BUT havent denied the player the ability to do stupid things. It might even be justified to say that units could be limited to the NUMBER of units they could spot (and ID). Nearest enemy units having the best chances to be spotted and then rapidly decreasing chances for farther enemy units This would at least LIMIT the number of units the hidden sharpshooter on the hill can report back. This decreasing effect could be worse for radioless single man trucks and hardly different than it is now for a radio equipped HQ unit. Here we see C3 creeping in to the grand info pool. " [ April 23, 2002, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Marketing would dictate that it would HAVE to be an option in order to have the new game (any new Game AND CM II) appeal to the widest possible audience. It is likely WAY too early to talk about CM II but if we are dreaming about what kind of Relative Spotting and Extremely Realistic FOW we would like see, why not discuss it here and now as James brought it up and opened with an interesting idea that many other interested folks have added to and expanded upon. ITS all just idle specualtion really but I think of it is an interesting challege or puzzle to solve If you are interested in a new topic there are plenty of other threads to contribute to . -tom w [ April 23, 2002, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

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

Redwolf posts "I didn't want to imply I have a solution. My example is what I think is the upper end of the Borg problem. Why do I have a problem with this example? Because I am a tank player and people knock out my tanks! No, seriously. It breaks much realism in decision-making about the deployment of your forces. Imagine you attack with an infantry battalion, a tank platoon and you have an option for a TD platoon from regiment. You make decisions about how to deploy your forces. You send that Bazooka team "Sgt Dingo" with the third platoon from the right. You know that once you made that decision, you Bazooka is away for most practial purposes for the duration of this firefight of 45 or 60 minutes. But in CMBO, no matter where enemy tanks appear, you can run it across the whole battlefield. Instantly. A more detailed view: you commit you battaltion one company left, one right, one reserve. The tanks stay with the reserve initially. Third platoon from the right opens a gap where an enemy MG jammed and got overrun and neightbourhood platoons were confused about the direct of you attack. It reports back. You press your reserve including the tanks into the weak spot. Enemy commander Modelchen observes the scene, sees the attack commit his tanks and second echolon on the attackers right side and commit his Panther platoon against the now weak left side of the attacker. In reality, the commander of the attacking force would get the word about the panthers quite quick. But there are few thing to do with certaincy. He can call his Shermans to turn, cross the battlefield and strike against the counterattcking Panther's flank. But while he can do so in CMBO immideately, he would have lots of stuff to check in reality: - did anybody in center spot AT guns, or mines? Even if the unit there are forward enough to know, it would take time to ask them - what does he tell the tanker, exactly? The problem is even more apparent with Sgt. Dingo and his Bazooka, who would be out of question of redeployment within 30 minute in reality. In CMBO, he gets his ass off within 13 seconds. I don't say I have a solution, except for very radical ones like committing the CM player to platoon and company zones of control and heavy penalities like delays for changing them." Well we agree there: "except for very radical ones like committing the CM player to platoon and company zones of control and heavy penalities like delays for changing them" I don't think that kind of structure or rigidity would be appropriate because perhaps this is not as big an issue as you believe. "But while he can do so in CMBO immideately, he would have lots of stuff to check in reality: - did anybody in center spot AT guns, or mines? (As it is in CMBO now those tanks can and DO get Whacked in ambushes in that same sitaution by unseen AT guns and mines) Even if the unit there are forward enough to know, it would take time to ask them - what does he tell the tanker, exactly? (Are you trying to simulate command difficulities between different branches or nationalies?, In the case of the Germans I would think a strong case could be made for the fact that they had GREAT communication and co-ordination between units like that involved in a Combined Arms attack like you are describing) The problem is even more apparent with Sgt. Dingo and his Bazooka, who would be out of question of redeployment within 30 minute in reality. In CMBO, he gets his ass off within 13 seconds." (BUT who is commanding Sgt Dingo? If it is the Battelion commander than it would not be long (3 - 5 minutes maybe? BIG guess) before that order came down to haul ass over to the trouble spot.) Maybe longer command delays are in order? But I'm not sure about that one. I was just trying to determine where (exactly) you think the problem lies in relation to your (our) objections to the way Absolute Spotting works in the game -tom w [ April 23, 2002, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

It seems my suggestion would be a good compromise to all that's been discussed. Click on a squad and whatever one unit in that plt sees, all units in that plt see. And you as the human player sees what that squad would see. So, for example, the current system allows the human to see ALL that ANY ONE of your pixellated units see. If none see it, the human sees a generic unit marker (or nothing at all). Keep that system but modify it as follows. Click on a unit and the game would render only those units that a platoon member can see and would render generic unit markers (or nothing) for those units no one in the plt can see. You as the human player may KNOW what is where because of your God-like ability, but all the squad knows is that 1) something IS there 2) something MIGHT be there or 3) nothing is there. To make it easy for the human to know what has been spotted by that plt and what hasn't the God-like view changes to a Platoon level view. I think taking this level of coding down to platoon level would entail a lot of work, but I also think it would be better than what we have now. For support units, vehicles, and tanks, then you could assume that whatever one tank/vehicle sees, all tanks/vehicles see. And support units can only see what they have LOS to or what the HQ unit they're in C&C can see.</font>

Hi Redwolf I'm at work and it is getting busy now. I have read your latest post and will think about it more and re-read it before I post again. interesting rant re: "Why do I have a problem with this example? Because I am a tank player and people knock out my tanks!" -tom w

Oh, if you know me you can Count on that ! -tom w [ April 23, 2002, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

"What I think would be reasonable for a CM style game is that a unit which is fighting in a position where it is way out of C&C is fighting without graphical feedback. You only know it is fighting, but not what, how and where the opponent is. All you see is "trouble". Yes that is my point exactly: Units out of C&C cannot give the player any spotting info that would positively ID any enemy units they have spotted or are in contact with. (only nationality markers are revealed to the player by units out of C&C) (the newer enhanced TAC AI and SOP's will allow that friendly unit out of C&C to engage in fire fights with that unidentified nationality marker, or hide or run away) and you the Player "may" (or May not) see the casualities and unit strength go down and you would NOT know what that unit ( that was not in C&C ) was fighting with.) "That is what I think would be reasonable to break up - make it fight, but don't show where it shoots. It is a break from the current precise graphical representation, but probably a reasonable one - lightweight and giving a huge benefit." yes that is what I mean. Redwolf: I am still curious as to your reaction to this question? "I'm still not entirely clear where Redwolf thinks the problems lies? What is so unrealistic about directing some AT units to the location where an armour threat has been identified? Is it just the SPEED with which the player now (in CMBO) mobilizes his units in response to the threat? It does not seem unreasonable (at least to me) the inf units now spot and ID tanks quite quickly, from the point of view of the inf my guess is they don't really need to know how to identify the exact model of the opposing tank just that there is one and it is firing on them. This info comes back to the Player in CMBO fairly quickly, then the player reacts by quickly mobilizing his units to respond to that threat. Does the spotting need to be Delayed more? (I think not IMHO) Does the Player need to be denied the info that the inf unit is under attack by a tank for a longer period of time (Greater delay due to out of C&C) (Perhaps?) IMHO Does the Player need to have a longer Command Delay forced on his orders so his units have to react slower than they do now? (I hope not) IMHO -tom w

One important point here is: "Personally, I have difficulty getting blocks of time so I'd always be very interested in PBEM" If the average age on this board is 30-35 (I think that is the most recent statistc) then for most folks here (including myself) the multiplayer TCP/IP battle with MANY different players would all be a dream come true IF we were all KIDS or the "Idle Rich", or retired but we are not, and finding the time all together to play multiplayer now with ONE person on TCP-IP is challenging enough. I think the problem of Absolute Spotting can be resolved without saying the ONLY way to do it is Multiplayer TCP-IP. I'm personally keen to play against the NEW (someday it will be new in CM II ) AI with FULL extreme FOW and Relative Spotting if the computer AI plays by the same rules it will be one helluva GREAT game! -tom w [ April 23, 2002, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I firmly believe it is crucially important that we have a solid (and agreed upon) understanding of the exact nature of the fundamental problems of Absolute Spotting. I thank Redwolf for detialing one such issue quite clearly: Redwolf says: "What I want a solution for is this: you are attacking with a wide screen all over the map. Lead elements to the left spot tanks. In CMBO you can immideately rush all your units, including all Bazookas from all over the map, to that spot. For me, that is one of the major reasons why tanks-heavy CMBO forces have few chances of winning against infantry on any map with decent cover. In reality, the tanks would first have more time to munch at the infantry in front of them, then they could prepare for the enemy armored reserves to arrive and other infantry would follow much later, piecemeal. In CMBO, you get a concentrated overrun from enemy infantry in a very short time." I'm wondering how he would respond to these proposals: How will it work: The player must lose some control of units out of C&C. More than in CMBO but NOT complete loss of control. Units out of C&C cannot give the player any spotting info that would positively ID any enemy units they have spotted or are in contact with. (only nationality markers are revealed to the player by units out of C&C) (the newer enhanced TAC AI and SOP's will allow that friendly unit out of C&C to engage in fire fights with that unidentified nationality marker, or hide or run away) and you the Player "may" (or May not) see the casualities and unit strength go down and you would NOT know what that unit ( that was not in C&C ) was fighting with.) (Hence, KILL all the opponent's HQ units and you have effectively blinded your opponent ) Units out of C&C are controled by the player somewhat but are extremely compromised by command delays. (Tac AI can perhaps Spawn some NCO HQ units after the loss of the HQ ??) All units, and Units out of C&C, could benefit from NEW enhanced command tools like Standing Orders or SOPs, and the addtion of enhanced TAC AI. The enemy units can ONLY be viewed by the player while the player has the friendly unit selected (only in view level 1, (?) that one may be a sticky point, maybe from any view level to make the game actually FUN and playable) that originally spotted the unit. Of course every friendly unit must make its own spotting check to ID enemy units. (Given that you can only see the enemy unit FROM the perspective of the unit that spotted it, it is possible for two friendly units to positively ID an enemy unit and both be WRONG). One friendly unit may see an opposing tank and positively ID's it as a StuG (from their perspective when you the Player Selects that unit and therefore see only their perspective) and another different friendly unit, across the map, sees the same (or another near-by tank maybe there are two tanks and you the Player at this point cannot know the whole story) tank and Positively ID's it as a Hetzer (the tank in question may in fact be a well hidden StuH they think they see or a Mark IV LANG?) From the Allied perspective friendly Inf can ALWAYS ID Pz Mark IV's as Tigers, but CMBO already does that NOW thats Fog Of WAR! The player should ONLY see the enemy unit from the perspective of the friendly unit that ID'd the enemy in the first place. This will allow for completely realistic conflicting reports in the early stages of a battle. Hows that so far? Do they address that question? I think the answer is it depends on whether the inf unit getting crunched by the tank is in C&C or not, then the player would know sooner and he would order his other units to that location to deal with the threat. I'm still not entirely clear where Redwolf thinks the problems lies? What is so unrealistic about directing some AT units to the location where an armour threat has been identified? Is it just the SPEED with which the player now (in CMBO) mobilizes his units in response to the threat? It does not seem unreasonable (at least to me) the inf units now spot and ID tanks quite quickly, from the point of view of the inf my guess is they don't really need to know how to identify the exact model of the opposing tank just that there is one and it is firing on them. This info comes back to the Player in CMBO fairly quickly, then the player reacts by quickly mobilizing his units to respond to that threat. Does the spotting need to be Delayed more? (I think not IMHO) Does the Player need to be denied the info that the inf unit is under attack by a tank for a longer period of time (Greater delay due to out of C&C) (Perhaps?) IMHO Does the Player need to have a longer Command Delay forced on his orders so his units have to react slower than they do now? (I hope not) IMHO -tom w [ April 23, 2002, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]