aka_tom_w

Yeah but for some folks this might make a game against the AI challenging and enjoyable (maybe?) We ALL like the idea of options and optional FOW settings, you can't go wrong giving us all lots of options for playing the game. You might find some us here asking for the FOW option that does do this " create such a mess of disinformation that the player will be totally confused and frustrated by it all." JUST so it can give the AI a fighting chance. Please please consider giving the AI a shot in the arm by offering the player the disinformation&frustration level of FOW so that sometimes solo play might present a new form of challenge that might mean the player would have to use solid recon techniques and adapt to the new challenge of that kind of Frustration FOW (FFOW and that is ONE up from EFOW) game environment. I am just saying it might be more fun than you think as an option against the AI (that of course would hopefully NOT be hobbled by the same FFOW limits and restrictions, if that is possible) Thanks! -tom w

Thanks Steve But I am still really curious what Halberdiers was proposing with his pulsed imformation style and Commander's estimate: I agree on that CMX2 must stay in squad vision, but I have an idea on how to add the "commanders vision" to the "squad vision" and have finally the "player vision": it looked like a seed of some form of new User interface suggestion but I still do not fully understand everything he is talking about... -tom w

I think there is a seed of an interesting idea here... The "idea" or concept of pulses of information and NOT a continous flow deserves some exploration for sure. I am not so sure I understand the mechanism as suggested here. From what I am reading I think the interface and the way it would work in the game sort of feels "clunky", and too mechanistic (maybe overly restrictive. although I understand that is the whole idea for realistic fog of war purposes). I am guessing this is not the avenue the boys at BFC are exploring but as a rough seed of an idea the concept has merit for sure with the idea of pulse of info and NOT a continous flow. Perhaps if you work through some of the details more throughly here more folks might post their comments. I would like to suggests more folks are not posting to comment here because the suggestion and EXACTLY how it would work in the game is very difficult to understand or at least to understand correctly, in my opinion. Perhaps if this idea can be detailed and explained much more thoroughly it someone could start a new thread with an appropriate title for this discussion? -tom w [ February 28, 2005, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Even after all the ranting here ... I suspect they will do what they were going to do anyway. (Design and develop the game irrespective of any PBEM file size consideration, which is still the best course of action IMO) MAKE the game and then see if they can make the PBEM files workable after the fact. THAT IS ALL STEVE EVER SAID! Especially after all this ranting they will in all l likelyhood just give us the HUGE PBEM file size and let us deal with it. THE ONLY reason it might not work is because Steve says they cannot be sure the PBEM file size will be small enough to be managable (whatever that is), so the easy decision is just to make the game and leave us all to our own devices to deal with Monster sized PBEM files then they can sit back and say... PBEM is in, but file transfer is up to you guys. What could be a simpler solution? Is there any problem with that? -tom w [ February 28, 2005, 07:39 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

This is MORE than true for MOST us here I would guess. Thanks -tom w

There you have it. GREAT post However, I reserve a right to whinge if after I buy it the AI is still terrible and it is all I have to play against. I think that says it all. Remember this is EXACTLY what Steve said: So I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. -tom w

Just what I said, when the subject first came up Here </font>

I am not sure that will be a problem because we have been told the CMx2 code will include unit "memory" AND Relative Spotting so that does not sound like much of a problem to me unless I don't understand what you are trying to get at? -tom w

In the history and tradition of BFC and the Combat Mission series that summary (above) of what Wartgamer suggests Steve is proposing would make the most sense to me. -tom w

Every new feature in CMx2 should pass the "cumbersome" test IMHO The idea that the movie play back would somehow provide a "more realistic" playing experience if the player was required to view the movie play back from the perspective of EACH individual friendly unit seems to me to be NOTHING more than a cumbersome mechanism to WASTE THE PLAYER'S time. However, if it was optional I suppose some players might interested. Please don't forget the "cumbersome" test for clunky User Interface mechanisms or design elements. thanks -tom w

I am left wondering how many players (ESPECIALLY those new to the NEW CMx2 game) would be interested in watching the play back movie MANY different times over FROM the unique spotting perspective of EACH FRIENDLY unit? I think my expectations of Realistic Fog of War options are pretty hard core, I but I have no interest in watching the movie play back over and over again from the spotting perspective of EACH friendly unit. (but if its an option I guess some folks might be interested in that kind of "challenge" and call it "fun" ) -tom w

Hi Ace Pilot Steve indicated there would be range of FOW options for the playback so I am wondering if your suggestion would not be something we should expect to see in the MOST realistic FOW play back setting, because I think Steve may have mentioned a FOW back option that was refering to how they might impliment one of the least realistic play back FOW options. BUT I am just guessing here. -tom w Why not add to the uncertainty by displaying both reported positions? I would think that two different squads reporting the same tank, but using two different reference points, could easily result in the mistaken belief that two different tanks had been spotted. For example, a squad could report seeing a Panther tank about 100 yards down the road from them. A second squad could report the same tank as being just to the west of a farmhouse. Anyone getting both these reports would have to initially question whether there are one or two tanks in the vicinity. </font>

WOW!! I think we would all like to hear a lot more about all of this will work. The Play back options will be a BIG factor in how far you can go with eliminating the God Problem and the borg spotting problem. I am left wondering exactly what the Player will get to see in the play back for the MOST realistic Fog of War play back setting? And how would this be determined? I am hoping this does not include the suggestion that the play back movie could be played back revealing differing spotting intel from each DIFFERENT spotting perspective of each friendly unit. I say that because that sounds cumbersome and does not sound like much fun from a "game play" point of view. IMO So what other options are there? The "What does the Player see in the movie play back?" question is a BIG one for me because until today I had not given it much thought. I am however confident Steve et. al. has been thinking about it for quite some time and I hope they will include various play back options that will keep EVERYBODY (or almost everybody) happy ! thanks -tom w [ February 27, 2005, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

NOW this is a HUGE question. WHAT the heck does show during play back??? The totality of all real and imagined spottings of all units?? :confused: Who amongst has considered what the play back will, might or should reveal to the player using the new Relative Spotting game code in CMx2??? :confused: Up until this question I was almost completely comfortable with everything Steve was telling us about FOW and Relative Spotting and the new C&C model and all the new changes in CMx2. BUT Now ...what the heck does the play back actually show the player???? -tom w and what about during movie playback, what shows then </font>

presumably, this means units within C&C or LOS are able to share their intel with other units within C&C or LOS, thereby allowing every unit within C&C or LOS to have the same knowledge. </font>

Well the one thing the comes to mind. some folks may jump to the conclusion that the game will become a little overly combersome to play given that the UI in the most realistic FOW setting will require the player to cycle constantly through all units (one at time) to attempt to gather spotting intel from all over the map. Just to be CLEAR..... I am in NO WAY critical of this concept because other than varying degrees of transparency I see no other viable way to make Relative Spotting work other than Steve's mention of the leading concept of the player jumping from friendly unit to friendly unit to see what each friendly unit can see independently of all other units. Perhaps to facilitate this "cumbersome" process for the player the NEW CMx2 UI will have the OoB list or chart or some such thing where all units are listed down the edge of the interface and the player can just select the unit from the list and the game UI will take the player to that unit and reveal what that unit can see so that for the player there would be SOME ADDITIONAL way to navigate beside cycleing from unit to unit on the map. But that is just a thought..... -tom w [ February 25, 2005, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Thanks Steve!! It would still be a nice idea to follow-up on the proposal that the player might see varying levels of transparency on enemy units to represent various spotting/intel levels that you had flirted with earlier. Thanks! -tom w [ February 25, 2005, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Fog of War options may come in varying degrees of FOG or blindness to the player. BUT Relative spotting is a black and White concept to me, each unit has to make its OWN independent spotting check AND the fog of war option the player chooses to play under will impact what the player learns from that spotting check. I say this because Steve tells us 1:1 Representation AND Relative Spotting will not be optional, BUT there will be varying Fog Of War Options in CMx2 -tom w

As an OPTION I do indeed hope they will give the player the choice of a Level of Fog of War that would be just as you describe, but I think there are still problems modeling the exactl nature and realism of the radio and communication net on the battlefield. BUT I agree with your suggestion and it should be a FOW option for the player under Ultra Extreme Realism or something new. -tom w

sorry I found this quote and ressurected it in the "What is Relative Spotting Thread" "quote: from December 27, 2000 05:34 PM (its in the CMBO Archive here ) What is the best way to let the player know what a given unit has spotted or not?

Another OLD Quote: [ February 25, 2005, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

How Will it WORK???? this is the Biggest mystery and perhaps their biggest challenge! "quote: What is the best way to let the player know what a given unit has spotted or not? If they could do this so that SOMEHOW video card effect transparency could communicate to the player the "degree" of spotting. I know this is a loose and nebulous concept this whole spotting thing BUT as Steve has said if you click on a unit other enemy units NOT spotted by the unit become transparent, (maybe just ghost outlines or GONE all together) BUT here is the tricky part, WHAT IF the enemy units the friendly selected unit can "see" or thinks it can spot where to appear to the player in various degrees of transparency, from the barely visible GENERIC nationality marker, through varying degree of transparency right up to the fully identified fully "uncloaked" HARD intel %100 spotted unit that the friendly unit has identified exactly. THAT is what this Whole Relative spotting thing NEEDS is the Romulan Cloaking Device! Unspotted units are cloaked in transparency by the Relative Spotting code working with the video card. (except the WHOLE notion of video card transparency effect thing has been REALLY dodgy in the past, but maybe those days are behind us from a technical point of view!) BUT as the basis of a REALLY great idea I think that using various levels of enemy unit transparency to indicate there level of spotting intel or info communicated to the player "could" work REALLY well, obviously ghost like transparent enemy units would be those spotting reports your friendly units are still only guessing about MUCH like sound contacts!!! Which was a Brilliant new idea when it first appeared in CMBO!! Any other suggestions? -tom w [ February 25, 2005, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Relative Spotting has been discussed to death since before the dawn of CMBO (almost) this is a page from a 9 page thread with OVER 200 posts Relative Spotting Revisited "Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 11:51 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tom, quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I think it has been a positive and constructive discusion with several different points of view represented. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I agree, but I must also point out that this discussion is not that different than a 1/2 dozen other ones held in the past. That is not to take away anything from anyone who participated here and not in the others, but rather to point out that the CM's borg problems are pretty well established by now. They are also not inherently different than those of other games, although we would argue CM deals with them better. The ideas people are kicking around in this thread are also ones that have been kicked around in other threads. Specifics might not be exactly the same, but the core motivation behind certain lines of thinking are surprisingly similar. Some people think the key to better realism is to have a sort of "you got it or you don't" system of C&C where units not in C&C sit around dumbly until they are contacted again. A variation on that is that the AI somehow handles these units while you are not in command of them. The former is utterly unrealistic, the latter so difficult to program effectively that it is not the best design to pursue (i.e. spending a year making the AI for this means a year of doing nothing else ). Others think that the way to go is to simulate "orders" down through the chain of command. This is something that most people would find about as exciting as watching paint dry Watering this idea down to make there be more game also means watering down the potential realism and reintroducing the Borg problem. Believe me, I am not trying to ridicule people for their theories on how the Borg issue should be dealt with. I'm just trying to point out that some "cures" will actually kill the pateient before the operation is even over Others suggest things which will leave nasty scars and open up the doctors for lawsuits (or rather unpleasant commentary on BBSes ). But in general, I think most people understand the basic issues and some even see very simple solutions to some of the problems. Or at least can see how a huge problem can be tackled by several smaller, comprehensive changes. I think that once people see CMBB they will understand how the Big Problems can be tackled by smaller, perhaps even subtle, changes. Not completely, of course, because to do that the human player would have to be removed almost completely from the game. Later, I think people will see that Relative Spotting (as we have discussed it in the past) they will understand that it reduces or eliminates most of the Big Problems in CM that remain after CMBB's changes. Will the future CM be perfect? From a realism standpoint, of course not. But I can assure you that we will get damned close. Close enough that people will probably ask for Relative Spotting related features to be optional Steve " [ February 25, 2005, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

"My main concern is that the game will somehow reward someone with extra spotting abilities if they break up the squads into fireteams, seperate bazookas, etc, and this allows extra battlefield intel. " I am not sure why this is a concern it simply models the REALITY of the battlefield, more eyes in more different varied locations should indeed reward the player with better spotting intel... How could it be otherwise? Same deal with Split squads, basically they see twice as much? (two spotting entities instead of one) But that is still realistic is it not? -tom w