aka_tom_w

tom says: 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. Vanir says: This just makes the game more difficult to play without increasing realism. The player still has the same information available to him as he did before, he just has to click all over the place to find it. PITA. "The player still has the same information available to him" Not at all.. The player could now be faced with condradictory or conflicting info and intel as each unit he selects spots something different EVEN it is is looking at the same thing. That is what I call a fog of war enhancement I highly doubt very many folks here are interested in what I will now call Iron Man Simulated Relative Spotting ( IMSRS-FOW the Player only sees the opposing unit while the friendly unit that spotted it is selected in view 1) Someone else here is keen on same idea but you can see enemy units while the friendly unit that spotted it is selected from ANY view, I was originally critical of this idea but it does seem like it would make the game MORE fun and MORE playable and still allow multiple friendly units to ID the same opposing unit as two different things which is in my opinion one of the strongest "features" of this suggestion in that it increases the FOW fun factor substantially -tom w

If it could be done properly I'm all for it but I have serious doubts abouth the TAC AI. CM:BO's AI is good but no match for any decent human and by increasing the dependence on the AI I fear it will decrease the realism rather than the opposite. Tue</font>

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 </font>

I disagree. It is entirely possible to have relative spotting and still allow the player to control all the units at once. In fact, that is what BTS plans to do, according to those old posts.</font>

it does it for you Tac AI takes care of that -tom w

I'm all for SOPs and extereme FOW and better TacAI(as is BTS, btw), but none of that is a substitute for the player feeling a connection between his decisions and the results in the game. Realism is not an end itself but a means to an end: enjoyment of the game (often refered to as "fun" ). I will probably get branded a heratic for saying that, but oh well. For me, and I suspect most CM players though I can't prove it, the more decision making you take out of the player's hands and give to the AI, the more distant and less involved the player feels with the game and hence less fun. The question is where do you strike the balance? I like the balance pretty much the way it is now.</font>

Thanks for your comments and reply " 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?" I do not believe the game would ever degenerate into a bore to play if there were additional features like SOP's and a more extreme FOW setting and TAC AI that you could trust when your units were out of C&C were added to CM II. I am sure that game would NOT be a bore to play. I know BTS will never let it be a bore to play -tom w [ April 22, 2002, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

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>

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 ]

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 ]

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

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

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

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 ]

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

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

One thing that BTS always likes to tell us is that in this game there is ALMOST never a %100 chance to hit. There are no "SURE things" which means you can have a streak of REALLY bad luck. Most players new to the game somehow seem to hit this streak of REALLY bad luck early in their experience of the game. BUT then after that I guess we get used to it OR it goes away and we aren't always so unlucky. The theory from BTS goes something like this: "In the heat of combat with the Fog of War all round you and your buddies in their tanks brewing up beside you, and your own tank being fired upon next, with 88 mm AT rounds zipping past your head, the whole concept of the those "theoretical" chance to hit probabilities And accuracy data from non-combat, pristine, gunnery range accuracy tests GOES STRAIGHT out the window and so they downgraded all "to hit" accuracy data and percentages to simulate tank gunners in combat situations being routinely "flustered" THUS tanks MISS sometimes. If you want REAL fun play a battle with ALL green tanks (they miss all the time and it is a REAL heart pounding thrill sitting there watching your tanks dual it out with enemy tanks waiting to get that FIRST hit) Green tanks Almost NEVER get first shot kills. anyway its just my opinion IMHO -tom w

Want more info on tank optics and accuracy do a search use the keyword, either optics or accuracy and my member number: 1515 Have fun and by the way you just got REALLY unlucky on those five misses with a Vet crew, probably won't happen again like that in the next 100 games you play. (Honest) the gunnery optics and accuracy now are WAY better than they were in the demo and in the first release, mostly due to ALOT of bitching for MORE accurate modeling of tank gunnery accuracy -tom w [ April 21, 2002, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Superior German optics?? Did he say Optics??? We ave been haggling over optics here for over two years. Here are a few of the more memorable threads: TANK GUN ACCURACY AT SHORT/MED RANGE December 30, 2000 Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001) 76mm HE INFERIORITY January 07, 2001 Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001) 1.1 Hull Turning Thing--See for Yourself January 11, 2001 Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001) 550m Accuracy With Jagd Panther February 03, 2001 Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001) Tank accuracy!?! April 24, 2001 Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001) Update on Armor Penetration Book May 03, 2001 Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001) German Optics May 04, 2001 Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001) Quality of T34/B sights. June 18, 2001 Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001) What is so special about this game?? June 16, 2001 Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001) Accuracy While Firing On the Move (OR FAST) in CMBO June 20, 2001 Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001) CM2 Suggestion,Yes another one Please Model the Dud rate June 21, 2001 Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001) Do Tanks Die Too Quickly In CM? July 23, 2001 Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001) Really, how far is 545m? August 03, 2001 Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001) Bias in CMBO? October 12, 2001 Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001) Your contribution to CM November 25, 2001 Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001) CMBB FAQ -- The REAL DEAL November 27, 2001 Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001) Tank Gunnery Optics try this one as a primer: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=022679 -tom w

OK NOW I'm Ticked! :mad: I'm on a MAC and I can't check out how all this C&C and SOP's (?) work in AA. BUT I'm Very interested in reading all of your posts and observations -tom w

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 ]

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 ]

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

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 ]

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