aka_tom_w

Hi Andreas This is an interesting conversation. Maybe I need to be little more practical in my approach and a little less theoretical? I have been labouring under the thought that absolute spotting was THE biggest problem in CMBO. I have been thinking about this for such along time is hard for me to imagine that in fact Absolute spotting is nothing more than the solution to the problem of what Role is The Player playing? If the answer is ALL roles in the game, then Absolute Spotting is the solution not the problem I guess :confused: ?? I'm still not entirely convinced that we must be "stuck" with Absolute spotting as it is now in CMBO. The whole "borg spotting" concept of EVERY friendly unit knowing the exact nature, composition, strength AND Experience level of an opposing unit ONCE one single friendly unit has positivilty identified it is really JUST too un-realistic. See the post from Mister " Mushkin The Improbable" below (its posted under my name) and think about the level of ID'ing that takes place in CMBO I really think we need a solution to that problem. More than anything, I guess, (and I say this with some resignation) if the solution to this issue is to define absolute spotting as the "solution" then thinking about the all the interesting and theoretical challenges to the problem of implimenting Simultated Relative Spotting would become nothing more than idle and irrelevant speculation other thoughts? or comments? Anyone else here still want to try to find a way to overcome some of the problems of Absolute Spotting? Is Absolute spotting still THE biggest problem in the game? or am I just delusional? I'm starting to wonder about that? :confused: -tom w [ April 21, 2002, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hi Kip That is an interesting perspective, but if you are interested in playing all those roles, as you can in CMBO now, do you have any suggestions as to how you can impliment something like Relative spotting? (yes... Multi player teams with all players playing different roles and connected by instant messenger and e-mail would go along way to simulate Relative spotting) If you like to play all roles then basically because you as the Player can and will KNOW all things at all times then the problem of "BORG like" absolute spotting will live on IMHO. In fact I would hazard to guess that borg like spotting routine is the direct result of the way CMBO was programed from the ground up to allow the Player to play all those multiple roles, thus ensuring that the only form of spotting that could be used would be absolute spotting. If we want to play all roles at all times how can we possibly expect to see any form or simulated Relative Spotting in CM II? any suggestions? -tom w [ April 21, 2002, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

James Crowley "The most important is that there is an absolute connection between spotting and C&C. If you are going to be able to give a unit orders, you must be able locate that unit; have access to its status and be able to see what it sees. This, rather like the "speed of light" limiter on space travel, cannot be overcome by any number of re-writes, but must be faced up to. If you want relative spotting there has to be limiters put on C&C, which will, in turn, effect a players abilty to give full orders to all units at all times." Larsen says: "For me the problem with absolute spotting is not that I know immidiately where the bad guys are but that the units that didnot spot the bad guys can immidiately see them and fire at them. I would assume that once the shots are fired one can say that "the bad guys are somewhere there". It would be nice to make each unit to spot the enemy individually rather than collectively. " AND this: Redwolf says: "What I want a solution for is this: you are attacking with a wide screen all over the map. Lead elements to the left spot tanks. In CMBO you can immideately rush all your units, including all Bazookas from all over the map, to that spot. For me, that is one of the major reasons why tanks-heavy CMBO forces have few chances of winning against infantry on any map with decent cover. In reality, the tanks would first have more time to munch at the infantry in front of them, then they could prepare for the enemy armored reserves to arrive and other infantry would follow much later, piecemeal. In CMBO, you get a concentrated overrun from enemy infantry in a very short time." Why the repeat? do we really understand what Relative spotting should look like? do we really understand all the issues and problems of Absolute spotting? -tom w

I would be happy to make that sacrifice, but only if I get the stuff required to make my intentions work: - better TacAI - SOPs - several command paths with bollean triggers on waypoints In other words: I'm willing to give up "direct control" for "planning control", kinda "what-if" commands that can last longer. Think of it this way: for current CMBO, would you accept a push from 1 minute combat phase to 5? The thing that keeps me from wanting this is that my "planning control" is too limited, my troops would strand in the open. If you give me the tools to be happy with a 5 minutes combat phase, that are the same tools I would want for a 1 minute combat phase with much more FOW and therefor loss of direct control.</font>

I would be happy to make that sacrifice, but only if I get the stuff required to make my intentions work: - better TacAI - SOPs - several command paths with bollean triggers on waypoints In other words: I'm willing to give up "direct control" for "planning control", kinda "what-if" commands that can last longer. Think of it this way: for current CMBO, would you accept a push from 1 minute combat phase to 5? The thing that keeps me from wanting this is that my "planning control" is too limited, my troops would strand in the open. If you give me the tools to be happy with a 5 minutes combat phase, that are the same tools I would want for a 1 minute combat phase with much more FOW and therefor loss of direct control.</font>

I would be happy to make that sacrifice, but only if I get the stuff required to make my intentions work: - better TacAI - SOPs - several command paths with bollean triggers on waypoints In other words: I'm willing to give up "direct control" for "planning control", kinda "what-if" commands that can last longer. Think of it this way: for current CMBO, would you accept a push from 1 minute combat phase to 5? The thing that keeps me from wanting this is that my "planning control" is too limited, my troops would strand in the open. If you give me the tools to be happy with a 5 minutes combat phase, that are the same tools I would want for a 1 minute combat phase with much more FOW and therefor loss of direct control.</font>

"I suppose the question is; who is prepared to accept that sacrifice (and perhaps it could be an option - rather like FoW)" I think it would be a given that any attempt to model some simulation of relative spotting would have to be just another Fog Of War Option. The goal should still be to try to make it as realistic and historically accurate as possible. I think further discussion should focus on the intended and desired ROLE of the Player i.e. Battelion commander vs Squad Leader, and everything inbetween. Great discussion none-the-less Thanks for Starting it James.' -tom w [ April 20, 2002, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Lets not forget where this all started: this is probably worth re-reading, so for your viewing pleasure I have re-posted it: I have recently been giving the matter of relative spotting, a concept apparently consigned to the “re-write”, some thought and believe that the current engine already contains the necessary elements, by and large, to produce the desired results. Before I expand on the above it might be a good idea to reiterate what “relative spotting” is and, more importantly, what impact that it’s implementation could have in more realistically portraying the realities of command and control. This is perhaps better done by example. Picture an infantry platoon, consisting of three squads and an HQ, moving in formation, all in command control range. As it approaches a belt of trees the lead squad comes under fire from an unidentified enemy unit, takes two casualties and is pinned. The platoon HQ immediately orders the second squad to open fire on the enemy position and the third squad to move off to the right and using a gulley for cover, to advance and attack the enemy position from the flank when in a position to do so. The third squad moves off as ordered and, as it has no radio (in common with the vast majority of units at that level in WW2) is soon too far away from its HQ to be in command control. It proceeds along the gulley until it reaches the belt of trees, moves toward the enemy position but then runs into another, as yet unseen, enemy squad, comes under fire, takes casualties and is also pinned. The reality of that situation is that the HQ is unaware of the third squad’s current status, is unaware of the existence of the second enemy unit and cannot issue any further orders to that third squad. Why? Because the third squad and the HQ have no means of communicating with each other; they are out of the C&C radius. The same situation in CMBO is very different. As soon as the third squad spots the second enemy unit and gets fired upon the player knows it’s status, can still give it orders (although they will be delayed) and, more importantly, is instantly aware of the existence and position of an enemy which, in reality, would be unknown and can react to that unrealistic situation accordingly IMO that is essence of relative spotting. There are probably very many ways of over-coming this problem but I am looking at the simplest way, which introduces the least number of changes, at least IMO (without, it must be admitted, any programming knowledge) Using the above example, let us first look at the second, previously unspotted enemy squad. It has always been there but with FoW on, does not show up on the map because it has not been spotted by a friendly unit. It is now spotted by a squad which has no means of conveying this information elsewhere but, in CMBO, its’ presence is still revealed. Suppose that the spotting unit is flagged as “out of CC” and therefore, as a result, the enemy unit is not revealed. This seems reasonable in that you, the player, are not given the “all-seeing eye” over the battlefield. However, what about the spotting squad, which obviously can see the enemy unit? This squad is still providing visual info. But not if you are no longer given access to that squad. Instead, that spotting squad becomes flagged as “out of CC” and is treated like an enemy unit as far as visual displays are concerned i.e. you can only see it as a “last seen at” marker and when that marker is clicked on the display only shows the name and type and its last known status (or maybe just “unknown” status.) Nothing new here in the visuals department, except you now have generic country markers for friendly “out of CC” units as well as for previously spotted enemy units. The primary and probably the most controversial departure from the norm is that there will possibly be more units over which you, as player, do not have control. But this seems entirely realistic to me. After all we accept that squads which are in certain states cannot be controlled; pinned, panicked, broken…. why not out of command? In previous threads on this forum, this type of suggestion has led to protests from those who say they do not want a command level game; they want to control all of their units all of the time. Well, as I have said you cannot control all of your units at all times anyway. Also who gains from the current “all knowing, all seeing” status of CMBO. Those who set-up their forces in non-historical, un-military fashion, scattered as they please, without due regard to staying in command control. Those who set up a few half-squads or MG teams or jeeps to act as unofficial “scouts,” relaying back intelligence of spotted enemy positions whilst they are way out of realistic command range. And so on. The only other change would be that the order delay function, still present for in command units, would be relegated for out of command units altogether as it would no longer be needed. Surely the trade-off in having, perhaps only temporarily, a few more units not in the players direct control is amply repaid by the great reduction of the “god” factor and by the fact that it would encourage players to adopt a more historical and realistic approach to keeping their platoons (and this could be extended to companies and battalions) in command and control range. It would also tend to amplify the role of HQ’s to something like that of their real life counterparts. Just a few thoughts. -------------------- Cheers, Jim.

Thanks OK I see two places where there could be MORE delay. I would prefer to focus on the way the game (and your friendly units) transmits info and recon intel BACK to the player. If the Delays were long and the ability to get reliable intel from your units on the map (especially those out of C&C) was substantially degraded by increased FOW (and maybe the player has to see opposing units only from view one, but I doubt that will be a very popular proposal) THEN there would not have be the additional command delay to order units to move across the map. Two things should be considered here recon intel Moves UP the chain of command to the player and unit and movement, attack/defend orders move DOWN the chain of command from the Player I do not believe we should compromise the ability of the player (by added command delays for units IN C&C to encourage wise use of HQ units) to issue orders to units in a severely punitive way, by excessive command delays. (its good enough now, PLAY Green troops and try to make them do ANYHTHING when they are out of C&C and see how far you get?) NO I would rather focus the effort on how the info goes more slowly up the chain of command to the Player. This means increasing FOW and decreasing what the player can know with any certianty about the opposing units strength or composition. It also seems to mean trusting the Tac AI a little more I think. -tom w [ April 20, 2002, 08:16 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

This sounds like my suggestion, except that I would not limit the player to being in View 1. Yes? Michael</font>

have we really defined the problem we want to solve?? Again I will repost these suggestions: Larsen says: "For me the problem with absolute spotting is not that I know immidiately where the bad guys are but that the units that didnot spot the bad guys can immidiately see them and fire at them. I would assume that once the shots are fired one can say that "the bad guys are somewhere there". It would be nice to make each unit to spot the enemy individually rather than collectively. " AND this: Redwolf says: "What I want a solution for is this: you are attacking with a wide screen all over the map. Lead elements to the left spot tanks. In CMBO you can immideately rush all your units, including all Bazookas from all over the map, to that spot. For me, that is one of the major reasons why tanks-heavy CMBO forces have few chances of winning against infantry on any map with decent cover. In reality, the tanks would first have more time to munch at the infantry in front of them, then they could prepare for the enemy armored reserves to arrive and other infantry would follow much later, piecemeal. In CMBO, you get a concentrated overrun from enemy infantry in a very short time." "In reality, the tanks would first have more time to munch at the infantry in front of them" One solution here is to have longrt command delays for units out of C&C (like several minutes, anywhere from 2-5 minutes, now that is punitive) and longer periods of time for recon info ( like "Hey that is a tank firing at us and we are taking a pounding") to work its way back to the knowledge of the player (BUT its ok if the local TAC AI of the unit knows it should "run away quick" without waiting for the Player's command), this would mean that at some point some of your infantry units might get into deep trouble and take a pounding before you would even know about it, this happens already when tanks get KO'd by the shot that no one knows where it comes from). Do the 5 suggestions posted by Caesar address these problems? I fully support Terrain Fog of War this one has come up plenty of times and I think it would add fun to the Recon element of the game AND if used in combination with some other Extreme FOW suggestions in this thread it could reduce some of the undesirable side effects of absolute spotting. "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." So we must ask ourselves (seriously).... "What is the Role of the Player"?? Some agreement around the answer to that question should help establish to what degree we want to see Relative Spotting implemented. -tom w [ April 20, 2002, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I don't think so, at least not to the same extent that you apparently do. If a squad sees a company of troops or tanks break out of a treeline half a mile away, don't you think Sarge is going to send someone back to let the Looey know about it, assuming Looey is not placed where he can see it with his own eyes? Also, if Looey hears one of his squads open fire (or anybody else in the neighborhood for that matter) he's going to suspect that something is up and begin remedial action (if he's any good). Michael</font>

"Another thing which would effect movement somewhat but without impinging unduly on a player's freedom would work this way: When the player clicks on a unit to give it a movement or fire command, the only enemy units shown on the map are those presently spotted by the friendly unit and by it alone. Obviously a player can still depend on his own recall of where enemy units are located, but unless he has eidetic memory, that recall is going to be less precise than having the enemy units actually depicted on the map." I'm sorry to disagree but I don't believe this suggestion solves anything. Using the - and + keys most players routinely scroll through ALL their units on EVERY turn to find out there status and location, simply by clicking +++++++, + + + many times quickly from view 8 you will see where all the enemy units are that your units can see and it will be NO different than it is now. Of course the Same can be true of Click +++++++ (next unit) while in view 1 to see the enemy units your forces can see as well so I'm not sure that is such a good solution either :confused: -tom w [ April 19, 2002, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Let's not get hung up on radio communication. Even in the US Army, which was relatively speaking lavishly supplied with radios, platoon leaders communicated with their squads primarily by hand signal, voice, runners, and good old "pass the word". There were in other armies also whistles, flares (Very lights), signal flags, even bugles. I've probably skipped something, but I hope you get the idea. Michael</font>

"That suggestion still doesn't solve the problem that the units which are not covered by the player need to act on their own -> messy heap of TacAI, AI, SOP etc." with reference to this: "If the game were limited to showing enemy units only while the player was in camera view 1 and locked onto one of his units, this would (somewhat) limit the players ability to make maximum use of his “God’s eye” view." I like the above proposal IN addition to the SAME kind of control players now have in CMBO over all units and even those units out of C&C. So the proposal is NOT to take away control of units out of C&C just to limit the visual representation of enemy icons to that of view 1 only from the unit that spots what they think is the enemy. Its not Iron Man rules is just that the Player ONLY gets to see what one of his friendly units (in C&C or NOT) gets to see from view 1. If that friendly unit is in C&C radius then MAYBE the game would know that and show the player a little more detailed info. If the friendly unit is out of C&C then the ONLY thing the game would EVER display from view 1 while that friendly unit was selected would be a completely un-identifiable enemy nationality marker and NOTHING more. Now for vehicles which ALL have radios that always work then they would always get the benefit of viewing from within C&C, so they would see and the game would reveal more detailed info to the player. This might make it "feel" more like Relative Spotting without ever taking the control of any units away from the player. Meaning that JUST the level of FOW would be substantially increased. How's that? -tom w [ April 19, 2002, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

"I do see a way of implementing a psudeo form of relative spotting. If the game were limited to showing enemy units only while the player was in camera view 1 and locked onto one of his units, this would (somewhat) limit the players ability to make maximum use of his “God’s eye” view. The player could still view the map and his units in any other camera view, or while unlocked from his unit, but he couldn’t see any enemy units." I REALLY like that idea that one makes sense (not entirely realistic) and maybe not GREAT for playability for some but it seems like a GREAT compromise for an EXTREME FOW setting. Very inovative thinking there. " If the game were limited to showing enemy units only while the player was in camera view 1 and locked onto one of his units, this would (somewhat) limit the players ability to make maximum use of his “God’s eye” view." AND given the nature of the contact AND whether the friendly unit was in C&C this icon that you see from view one might be very indescript, MAYBE it stay just a sound contact for a LONG time, maybe it is JUST the sound of gun fire? maybe its just sounds of equipment rattling on the infantry (Higher chance of rattling sound for Green and consript troops ). That one is a good suggestion to be SURE! Like Iron Man rules but only for the implimentation of Relative Spotting for enemy units. GREAT idea! -tom w

I think this one boils down to what you as the Player can know about the enemy as opposed to what your units (in contact) with the enemy can know about the enemy. to deal with these two issues: Larsen says: "For me the problem with absolute spotting is not that I know immidiately where the bad guys are but that the units that didnot spot the bad guys can immidiately see them and fire at them. I would assume that once the shots are fired one can say that "the bad guys are somewhere there". It would be nice to make each unit to spot the enemy individually rather than collectively. " AND this: Redwolf says: "What I want a solution for is this: you are attacking with a wide screen all over the map. Lead elements to the left spot tanks. In CMBO you can immideately rush all your units, including all Bazookas from all over the map, to that spot. For me, that is one of the major reasons why tanks-heavy CMBO forces have few chances of winning against infantry on any map with decent cover. In reality, the tanks would first have more time to munch at the infantry in front of them, then they could prepare for the enemy armored reserves to arrive and other infantry would follow much later, piecemeal. In CMBO, you get a concentrated overrun from enemy infantry in a very short time." The Fog of War MUST be enhanced, to such a large extent, that in order for you as the Player to NOT lose control of your units which are OUT of C&C, (implying that control would be lost if CM II turns into a Command game), then those units that ARE out of C&C (and this comes down to how to we want to model radio communications) MUST not be able to report (to you The Player) any good information about who or what they are fighting or shooting at, BUT still we would need to trust the AI to make sure they, (our inf units out of C&C) employ a suitable tactic (hide, fire back, run away) when they make contact with an enemy unit that they CANNOT tell us (The Player) ANYTHING about because they are out of C&C. Either that or you LOSE complete control of all units out of C&C and most folks here find that excessively punitive and undesirable if I understand the gist of this thread correctly. This is a REAL tricky problem, but thinking about it sure is FUN! -tom w [ April 19, 2002, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

But still there should be more fog of War and so far most folks in this thread have been saying we DON'T want to see Relative spotting adopted if it means we will loose control of units out of C&C? What is Relative Spotting? How is Is it Different from Absolute Spotting? Do we REALLY want Relative Spotting. I think I should revist some old threads from Steve on this issue. "should we be able to see so much is one sucg thread: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=003938 "As for the suggestion, it is one we thought about in the original design for CM. We dropped it because it was too complicated and was one of those features that likely had a higher degree of problems to benefits. In theory we both like it. In spite of what Moon says (and I TOTALLY agree with that BTW), there is one element that the current system does not simulate at all. That is getting lost. Here is an example. Charles, Scott Udell, and myself hopped in my Weasel right after I got it running. We drove into my "back yard" down a trail and I MISSED the turn off I was looking for. We went down the main path and I got totally confused as to where I had planned on turning. I hopped out, motor running, and jogged back up the trail to see if I had gone too far or not far enough. Turns out I had gone too far. When I got back in all three of us mentioned that this is something lacking in wargames and would be cool if it could in fact be simulated. The result would be that recon would not just be for finding out where enemy units are, but also where the objectives are, the best routes, and so on. We think it is a desirable feature IN THEORY... Reality though, we aren't so sure. It is something we might do for CM II but not for CM 2 (meaning a whole new series whenever we get to it, not a direct sequel). This feature does have the risk of hitting the point of dimenishing returns quite quickly. We also don't think there is any point in doing this until we can have relative spotting (i.e. one unit sees the enemy, the others don't), and that too is a BIG deal to put into the game. So we are talking two huge, fundamental, tough features at the very least. We will most likely tackle neither for quite some time, but will go with relative spotting at some point in all likelyhood. Maybe after that we can have an unknown map feature. Steve " "And practically speaking since the human knows all of what his units know, it won't take long in any open terrain scenario to pretty much know what the map looks like. Just put one guy on the nearest hill and bingo BUT... It still would be cool to introduce the uncertainty (and error!!) of local navigation at the lowest tactical level. It would certainly change the nature of CM, just as CM has already changed the nature of wargaming in general (3D terrain, variable spotting, etc.). So if we ever do something like this it will be a fundamental shift into something new. And because of that trying to slap something in would most likely be a disaster. So until the time comes when we can and want to do it right, not going to happen As I said a few posts earlier, Charles and I see relative spotting to be more important and probably required for map "uncertainty" in any case. But this too is a HUGE undertaking on many levels, so don't expect that any time soon either Steve " " Steve Whats relative spotting? Is this when you choose one unit on your side and the battlefield "changes" to correspond to his perspective? ie he only sees what is in his line of sight and other enemy (or friendly) units are sensed as noise contacts/stars/crosses? I was thinking about that myself and have it in my platoon game "notes" ( I am developing a game proposal..if any game companies are listening..). Basically I would handle it by forcing the player to order his units in the following order. Those units with the LEAST battlefield info are first with succeeding units given to the player. I am sure this will go over bigtime with all the control freaks here but its just an idea. Lewis" there must be MORE good Relative Spotting vs. absolute Spotting threads out there we can refer to here. I would like to know "What exactly is the problem?" (I think this is a good place to start: Larsen says: "For me the problem with absolute spotting is not that I know immidiately where the bad guys are but that the units that didnot spot the bad guys can immidiately see them and fire at them. I would assume that once the shots are fired one can say that "the bad guys are somewhere there". It would be nice to make each unit to spot the enemy individually rather than collectively. " AND this: Redwolf says: "What I want a solution for is this: you are attacking with a wide screen all over the map. Lead elements to the left spot tanks. In CMBO you can immideately rush all your units, including all Bazookas from all over the map, to that spot. For me, that is one of the major reasons why tanks-heavy CMBO forces have few chances of winning against infantry on any map with decent cover. In reality, the tanks would first have more time to munch at the infantry in front of them, then they could prepare for the enemy armored reserves to arrive and other infantry would follow much later, piecemeal. In CMBO, you get a concentrated overrun from enemy infantry in a very short time." And what are the proposed solutions to deal with these issues? Great thread.... it takes up ALL of my time at work (except for when I skip offf for Lunch ) -tom w [ April 19, 2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

the only work around that I can think of on that issue is the posibility of pre-programing squads with some SOP's you can select from a menu in the event they find themselves out of C&C because you sent them on a recon mission (in which case you should send a RADIO with them) or their HQ got killed maybe some things like i) hold position assume defensive posture, and ambush ii) sneak forward and advance until contact iii) advance agressively fire on the nearest enemy unit and take out there position (??) iv) hide, and fire only when fired upon v) seek C&C find the nearest friendly HQ vi) seek the nearest cover and hide vii) recon forward and avoid detection (this is USELESS if they can't tell you what they find :confused: anyway) IMHO I think we need SOPs if units out of C&C are completely out of control of the player -tom w [ April 23, 2002, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

my applogies on the dice rollling I was presuming a frontal penetration from 100 m asumming a smaller target and more armour to penetrate. your dice rolls are more in keeping with the picture I did not see the pic when I "suggested" my dice rolling odds outcome. thanks for the update -tom w [ April 18, 2002, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

blah blah blah wWII grand stratgy game PC Windoze Blah blah blah of COURSE it does not run on a Mac! well screw it! Cmbo is and CMBB will be more fun anyway why isn't there a game like this that runs on a Mac?? -tom w

that was a lucky (or unlucky) shot, the explosion of the tank probably cause the 5 inf Casualites. if you were rolling dice on an imaginary "hit table" you got lucky several times. first to hit the Tiger from 100 m (Box Cars) did the round penetrate (lucky shot = Snake eyes) What damage did it do? (KO the Tiger Lucky shot Box Cars AGAIN) Crew casualties? (lucky shot takes our 5 inf riding on the back of the Tiger (best possible roll = snake eyes) bottom line I'd say it was a pretty lucky shot -tom w

Rune, your example shows exactly what the problem is. If we move to a command-like game, then all the units we do not command must be under a kind of TacAI. That is a nightmare to get right. TacAI is hard enough as it is, but fully autonumous multi-turn movement would be harder. A real command game would hide all the details, in all cases and could in hindsight assume the squad did an apropriate thing. But in CMBO you have lots of detail with explictit representation, so you need explitit movement.</font>

"What is so special about platoon HQ compared to squad HQ?" I think the answer to that is some folks here are trying to model radio communications with respect to knew what and when did they know it about what was actually happening on the battlefield. The presumption here is that Platoon HQ's (Lt. Guys) in there 4 man HQ outfit had Radios and squad leaders did not have radios, thus those who had maps and radios (Lts. HQ and above) made decisions based on info from radios and maps. It is a NOBLE concept and the idea here of find a solution to the largely unpopular concept of Borg Spotting. This means asking question like: 1) Who knew what and when did they know it 2) who could communicate with who and what orders could they give 3) who could tell who what about what was seen on the battlfield 4) how quickly could this info be reasonably expected to be acted upon? Just questions in an attempt to understand and define the issue or problem we are trying to find a solution to. -tom w

I would say it boils down to who (which units) has a radio and who doesn't? Does that radio ALWAYS work? I would seem that we are assumeing that ALL Platoon Leaders at the Lt. level of HQ had radios and they always worked, at all times for all nations (in this new proposal, above). I say this because if the player is the overall commander then you are suggesting we model FOW through the kind of communication that was technologically feasible on the WW II battlefield at that time. Either that or we don't worry about modeling C&C (borg Spotting rears it ugly head again) and you the player (as it is now) are the Squad Leader, Tank Commander, Sniper, Company Leader and Battlion leader all at the same time. All vehicles seem to be presummed to always have working radios as well. I am ALL for increased FOW and some form of relative spotting to free ourselves from the absolute (borg) spotting we have now. But I suspect the actual implimentation of that concept in the game will be VERY tricky indeed. The proposal above is sort of an invitation to just try to KILL all the guys with radio's so the rest of the infantry will instantly be out of control and command and will then be easily nuetralized. I am sorry I do not have somthing more positive or contructive to add to this thread more comments? -tom w [ April 18, 2002, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]