aka_tom_w

I have no idea if it is realistic? :confused: I don't know how hard AT guns were to spot and then hit? (in Real Life) :confused: BUT now in the game in v1.03c, I would say this aspect of the game is "well balanced" and certainly playable as it is no longer impossible to hit AT guns behind a ridge. Just on the "feel" of "Borisovka Station" scenario alone I think the AT gun Bug has been completely dealt with and that aspect of the game works fine now. In fact in playing v1.03c lately (a lot) I would go so far as to say ALL aspects of the game work fine now. IMHO -tom w

that is a GREAT idea "having a topo map plus being able to increase the Y axis of the map, much like the shift C for unit size? shift Y perhaps." to exagerate terrain elevation with shift Y so it would sort of "grow" I like it!!! -tom w

Something like that for Sure. The game already sort of has those "sides" you refered to. As it is now the game takes over control of routed or broken units and tells them what to do. So in some cases loss of player control has already been instituted in the game. THE REAL question here is just how much "player control" can the game take away and still be FUN and playable. I would suggest most folks here can agree that if the player were to lose control (to the AI) of bailed vehicle crews that are clearly out of C&C that this would not make the game that much less fun or unplayable? :confused: your comments? -tom w [ April 28, 2003, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

"Toggled Elevation Grid. For me, others will differ; the one big human-to-computer interface problem is the lack of an ability to spot elevation/undulation changes realistically. Using the 1.25m elevation settings there is a greater change in colour for any given change in elevation, but even so, the real life ability to spot elevation change, undulations, is far greater then in CMBB. Computer screens just cannot handle it the way the human eye can in the real world. Thus the ability to toggle a grid on and off in the orders phase of the game so as to better spot undulations, would be a big plus." THIS is a BIG one for me I would like to contour lines JUST LIKE in REAL topo maps. This feature alone would likely be a rather large undertaking BUT there should be OPTIONAL contour lines showing elevation. For people like myself that LOVE topo maps this feature is a BIG deal and it is noticably missing in the CM series so far. We can be SURE we won't see in CMAK but in the African Theatre I the lack of contour lines in surely no big deal. BUT for CMX2 elevation lines and real topographic maps (A WHOLE new mapping engine/paradigm is required) to show terrain contours would be a VERY important feature for me thanks -tom w

very funny ha ha -tom w

I REALLY like this one (noted above): Perhaps this could be the rule for bailed vehicle crews, the first turn after they bail out you can give them orders, after that, if they are out of C&C the AI will automatically have them HIDE or sneak away in a retreating (SAFE) direction. I will continue to suggest and propose that more control of and intel from units that are WAY out of C&C MUST taken away from the player in the proposed (yet to be fully designed I'm guessing ) Relative Spotting EFOW in CMX2. (Just like paniced and broken units now, so the mechanism and precedent for this is there in the game already ) this is a GREAT suggestion: "Compromise. The first turn a unit gets out of C&C, give the human an opportunity to issue one last order then let the TAC AI execute it as best it can. That order can be move forward, retreat back, hold position, whatever. But after the last order is given, you get nothing from them until they get back in C&C. Hell, they may even end up taking out a whole squad, a tank, whatever, but you wouldn't know until you got them back in C&C or the game ended. I think this solution offers the best compromise between eliminating Borg spotting yet still giving the human some amount of control. I mean, the human can issue orders to ANY unit in C&C for crying out loud. In reality a Major or Colonel does not have that ability. " good thinking -tom w [ April 27, 2003, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Group think Taking place HERE from Steve: "Relative Spotting is only the underlying mechanism, not the solution. In other words, there are all SORTS of things we can do once Relative Spotting is in place that will increase realism, decrease the Borg, and at the same time make CM more fun. Having restrictions on targeting is just ONE feature made possible by Relative Spotting. A better system of artillery requests is another. More accountable and detailed C&C delays is yet another. There are LOTs of possibilities made possible because of Relative Spotting. So again, don't think of Relative Spotting as the solution, but a part of the underlying foundation for other features which in turn will do lots of things to improve the game on all levels. When we get into this phase of design we should all have a nice group think about ways we can leverage Relative Spotting and other systems to make CM more realistic. But at this point, we don't have the time to do that. Already spent too much time on this issue as it is Steve" ok onward then -tom w

Borisovka Station IF you have not yet played this scenario vs AI as the Russians you should try it use the LATEST v1.03c patch there are AT guns behind the the crest of a ridge they are hard to hit BUT not impossible if anyone thinks "the unhittable AT gun behind the crest of the ridge" bug is still an issue you should try this scenario as the Russians. I have played this one a few times now ( I got decimated the first time!) and I feel VERY good about the way AT guns behind the ridge are handled. I think this is a good example of how v1.03c completely fixes this old bug!!! I have been play testing (playing) v1.03c since it came and it feels and looks VERY good to me at this point! MANY thanks to Charles for the dedication and persistance in dealing with the unhittable AT gun bug. I think it is good and FIXED now IMHO. Anyone else out there play testing Borisovka Station as the Allies? Thanks Again!! -tom w

What? :confused: This great thread drops to the second page? What happened did all you guys take the weekend off THINKING and/or posting cheers -tom w

PSI above 10-11 will likely be risky and are more likely to bog IMHO I would say 11.5 is the upper limit to feel "safe" you are NEVER really safe but you are ALOT better off with vehicles below 10-11 I would say. Good luck stay on the roads -tom w

"However, overall I am very optimistic. The mixture of perfected Extreme FOW, units doing their own spotting, plus Live Team play will lead to a very realistic mix. In my view. Where I differ with others here is in the extent to wish Borg Spotting can be dealt with in games with just one player on each side. Unless you give up the role of squad/AFV commander, which am not in favor of." Hi Kip Steve's comments on this issue (thus far) should indicate you have NOTHING to worry about but I would say Steve and some other folks at BTS see this issue pretty much the same way as you do judging from what can be infered from past posts about this issue in that BIG 8 page Relative Spotting Revisited thread. -tom w

"Compromise. The first turn a unit gets out of C&C, give the human an opportunity to issue one last order then let the TAC AI execute it as best it can. That order can be move forward, retreat back, hold position, whatever. But after the last order is given, you get nothing from them until they get back in C&C. Hell, they may even end up taking out a whole squad, a tank, whatever, but you wouldn't know until you got them back in C&C or the game ended." Yes I would most certainly be in favour of something like that. ALSO Lets not forget SOP's..... If units could be issued Standard Operating Procedures, or battlefield orders (e.g Defend, attack, retreat if attacked, advance at all costs, or whatever,) then units out of C&C could "sort of" remain effective, even when completely out of control C&C of the player. Under this suggestion all bailed crews from ALL vehicles would have SOP orders, that would tell them to either stay put and hide or retreat cautiously to the rear where possible without getting captured or killed and of course they would be completely out of the players control and would reveal NO battlefield intel to the player. Perhaps some variation of idea's like these could be included as some form of "Relative Spotting Extreme Realism FOW" optional FOW setting. RSERFOW your comments? -tom w [ April 25, 2003, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

"I really believe we need to alter our thinking on this whole issue. The middle ground that CM treads at the moment, around command control, time delays etc is better than most. The only way it will be improved is if we can accept that we cannot control every single unit, all of the time. Units out of C&C should be like units that are panicked or broken; they will do their own thing and, most of the time that will be little other than defending themselves, until leadership is re-established in one form or another. That is the reality of a WW11 battlefield, like it or lump it." Some very articulate folks here have now lead this thread to become "command style" heavy IMHO We have all been round and round with these issues. in previous threads there has been a REAL outpouring of "loud" posts demanding that the player can assume the role of the leader and commander of EVERY unit on the battle field as it is now in CMBO. I have argued strongly against this but my impression from Steve's posts on this issue is that he and BTS will never let Combat Mission become a "command style" game. :confused: SO where does that leave us with Relative Spotting in that old Thread Steve and I discused this and he is quite CLEAR about what CM will not be: "Tom, quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ...even if the BTS idea of Relative Spotting were implimented, in that each and every unit makes it own spotting check and cannot target (but MAY be ordered to use "area Fire" at) enemy units it has not spotted, (BUT the player KNOWS where those enemy units are he can order or direct EVERY unit, irrespective of whether it has spotted the enemy unit or not, or whether it is in C&C or NOT, to fire or move in that general direction (NOW thats a "BORG Like Swarm" ™ to use Redwolf's term), what would that solve? --------------------- Steve: Uhm... A HECK OF A LOT Area fire is useless against a moving target and has reduced accuracy and effects against a stationary one. If you think that Area Fire is a fine and dandy substitute for direct targeting, might I suggest booting up CMBO and playing a game on the defensive only using Area Fire commands. I think that ought to get you to see that you are taking a rather extreme and unfair look at what ONE ASPECT of Realitive Spotting will do. quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tom ASKS AGAIN: I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat. --------------------------------------------------------------- In a black and white world, where there is only Borg and Not Borg, you would be correct. But that is a world I don't live in As I described above, there is absolutely NO solution to the Borg problem except to remove the human player from the game. Do you really want that? If so we could easily make CM play so that you deploy your troops (which CM buys for you) by simply clicking down the HQs at the next level lower than your own (i.e. if you are the Major, you can only click on the Company HQs). CM would then deploy all the rest of the units without you even seeing them. Yup, you wouldn't see anything except what was around your HQ unit, which would be set up and unmovable (for the most part) after the Setup Phase. Then the game would start. You would issue a couple of vauge orders to your next lower HQs and then sit back and wait. From Turn 1 on all friendly units would disappear from the map. Every so often a Spotted icon would appear where MAYBE one of your directly subordinated HQ was. At this point in time you might get back some meaningful information from the HQ, or perhpas not. Depending on if the HQ is in radio contact or not, you could issue orders to the HQ along the vauge lines of Turn 1. You will have no idea what that HQ does with them until the next time he resurfaces. If there is no radio contact, runners would be necessary and that means instant communication would be impossible, thus making that Spotted icon appear less frequently and even more prone to error. After the shooting would start you might have a rough idea about where and the nature of the shooting. But until one of those ghost icons popped up, you wouldn't know much more than that. And even when that does happen, you would only get back snipts of text about what was going on and you could still only issue a few vauge orders. Gee... DAMN does that sound like fun! Whoopie Cripes, we wouldn't even need to program in anything except some sort of ZORK like text adventure script engine and a few generalized combat resolution equations. You see.. THAT is the be all, end all Black and White counter balance to the RTS type Borg system. CM is already somewhere inbetween the two, and CMBB is a bit more towards the realism side. The engine rewrite will be even more towards the REALISM side of the equation by reducing the effectiveness of the Borg aspect. But no way, no how can we eliminate it. So why bother having such a black and white set of standards when one side is available and not liked (i.e. RTS with no C&C rules at all) and the other would be a yawner to even those who THINK they want it (i.e. human player almost totally removed from even watching the action)? Wouldn't it be more interesting and productive to focus on practical ways to make the game more realistic without all the hoo-ha about it not going far enough? Hmmm? Tom, I know you have been a participant in many of the previous discusions. I would have hoped that you picked up on the fact that Relative Spotting is only the underlying mechanism, not the solution. In other words, there are all SORTS of things we can do once Relative Spotting is in place that will increase realism, decrease the Borg, and at the same time make CM more fun. Having restrictions on targeting is just ONE feature made possible by Relative Spotting. A better system of artillery requests is another. More accountable and detailed C&C delays is yet another. There are LOTs of possibilities made possible because of Relative Spotting. So again, don't think of Relative Spotting as the solution, but a part of the underlying foundation for other features which in turn will do lots of things to improve the game on all levels. When we get into this phase of design we should all have a nice group think about ways we can leverage Relative Spotting and other systems to make CM more realistic. But at this point, we don't have the time to do that. Already spent too much time on this issue as it is Steve"

OK Good point I do agree with that I think BTS has been VERY clear about not wanting to build or design what they refer to as a "command style" game. So it sounds like we should all get used to the fact that Absolute Spotting will never REALLY go away completely. The REAL question becomes exactly how do they make Relative Spotting workable and playable and FUN in CMX2???? :confused: I for one am VERY curious More curious about this issue than ANY other aspect of the new game. -tom w

"Wicky Member Member # 7974 posted April 25, 2003 11:17 AM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I know the spotting ability from bailed tank crews has been diminished since CMBO. But I'm playing a PBEM CMBB scenario 'Manstein Cometh' and I've just taken out 5 flanking opposition t-34s, my tanks have moved on but even my opponent admitted "Yeah, sorry about the gamey use of the tank crew's, couldn't resist the temptation." referring to moving them to borg spot, what I would have hoped to have been a subsequent surprise manoeuvre. My only other options would have been to divert my tanks (no nearby infantry), some considerable distance, to capture or kill the crews. Could the spotting ability/range for bailed crews be pleased looked at again for the 1.03 patch & CMAK" Wicky makes a GOOD point here ! Those bailed out crew members, (in fact any balied crew from a vehicle) from a tank or vehicle that has flanked or penetrated deep into the opponent's territory can still provide the player with VERY valuable recon info even though there is no possible way they could relay this info up the chain of command, (presumming they don' t have a radio.) I a considering staring yet another Relative Spotting thread in an attempt to discussion the exact nature of the issue here and attempt to more clearly define the problem. WHAT exactly is the problem with Absolute Spotting in CMxx now. What are all the issues? I have to assume Steve and BTS are aware of the problems and the issues. In some cases the problems and issues that have be articulated and defined in other relative spotting threads in the past have been determined by BTS to be completely insurrmountable or unfixable in any multi level (NON command style) game they intend to design. Will we ever have a situation or a game where Bailed vehicle crews without LOS or Radio that are CLEARLY out of C&C from ALL other friendly units, CANNOT possibly pass on or relay to the PLAYER, or any friendly units in the game, ANY info about the opponents units or defences? This suggests if they encounter hostile forces the Player of the bailed crew would not see them die one by one and have NO idea why or how, but would either notice them GONE completely (disappeared = MIA to the player in the case of capture) or they disappear completely in the case of death or elimination and the player has NO info as to how or why? What about other friendly units that are COMPLETELY out of C&C? Or does this only matter for bailed crews? is this a reasonable request? :confused: just thinking out loud? -tomw

good question the first thing we heard about this is it would be ready by the end of February (that was A LONG time ago) then maybe it would be ready at the end of march I thought the very latest "official" announcement on this was it would be shipping around the END of April? any other guesses? -tom w

bump GREAT discussion. -tom w

In theory I like that idea I think Steve said it would never fly so I am not all that commited to it. BUT..... for the sake of arguement, "you the human can only give orders to those in C&c and you the human can only see what those units in C&C can see" The battle would be ALL about eliminating the opponents HQ and Command units. the Player will be totally screwed if he looses all his HQ and higher commander units in some form of "decapitation strike". Now I not talking about cruise missles here just that a lucky arty hit that takes out commanders and HQ units would REALLY compromise your ability to continue the battle so I don't expect we will ever see anything as drastic as your suggestion from BTS. Interesting concept though -tom w [ April 24, 2003, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hm??? I was talking about radio communication of tanks within the same platoon, anyway. This would be extremely unrealistically. On the battlefield every unit can speak to every unit within it's communication radius; tanks: if they can communicate with a unit nearby depends, if they are buttoned/unbuttoned. Why shouldn't a normal tank commander (not only the platoon leader) be able to inform any unit close enough, about the infos of unit positions he gets over radio? That's quite normal. ... Ofcourse information delay would be fine, but we shouldn't expect to much. Normal relative spotting, would be a huge step forward and therefore enough, IMO. And once this is implemented well, the engine could allow further refinements... </font>

I think these were Steve's most relevant posts on this issue And YES some form of Relative Spotting is (as far as I understand) going to be implimented in CMX2 in some form these post may help us understand Steve's vision for CMX2 "Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 08:27 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ U8lead asked: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do units in C&C spot and ID better then the same units out of C&C in the current game? And if so, do any of the HQ bonuses (possibly combat bonus) apply to spotting and ID? If units out of C&C had a substantialy reduced positive ID range would that help Borg ID? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ No, no, and no Why should a unit out of C&C be able to see less far? How is that more realistic? And if it can't see out as far, but in real life should, how does that affect the realistic ability of that individual unit to respond to the oncoming threat? Should a Tiger Tank with a Crack crew sit around NOT spotting an ISU-152 which it should plainly see, just because it doesn't have radio contact with BN HQ? I think not I also think we would have people screaming at us until we "fixed it or did somefink" This is one of the fundamental problems I have seen in discussions like this. And that is thinking that unrealistically penalizing an individual unit somehow makes the game more realistic. At best it is a wash. At worst, it makes the game on the whole less realistic. For example, not allowing a unit out of C&C to do anything until it is in C&C is totally unrealistic. Such a system simply swaps in one Borg behavior for another. It doesn't make the game any more realistic, but instead hobbles real life flexibility to the point of making the game unplayable and a joke of a simulation. Don't believe me? Try this one out... Let us assume that units have to be in C&C with their higher HQs to pass on information and receive orders. OK, can anybody tell me what would happen, under this system, if the BN HQ unit got whacked on the first turn by a lucky artillery bombardment? Would the player just sit there staring at a screen totally lacking friendly and enemy units? Or would all the friendly units show up but the player couldn't do anything or yield any information about themselves or what they see? The above situation illustrates why removing realistic tactical control is not the right direction to go towards. Because if you follow it to its logical conclusion (i.e. the ultimate realistic state), this is what you wind up with. Honestly folks, your feedback is appreciated. But I for one am very glad some of you are gamers and not game designers Steve Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 08:51 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" 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 Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 09:53 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tom, quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ...even if the BTS idea of Relative Spotting were implimented, in that each and every unit makes it own spotting check and cannot target (but MAY be ordered to use "area Fire" at) enemy units it has not spotted, (BUT the player KNOWS where those enemy units are he can order or direct EVERY unit, irrespective of whether it has spotted the enemy unit or not, or whether it is in C&C or NOT, to fire or move in that general direction (NOW thats a "BORG Like Swarm" ™ to use Redwolf's term ), what would that solve? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Uhm... A HECK OF A LOT Area fire is useless (bold mine)against a moving target and has reduced accuracy and effects against a stationary one. If you think that Area Fire is a fine and dandy substitute for direct targeting, might I suggest booting up CMBO and playing a game on the defensive only using Area Fire commands. I think that ought to get you to see that you are taking a rather extreme and unfair look at what ONE ASPECT of Realitive Spotting will do. quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In a black and white world, where there is only Borg and Not Borg, you would be correct. But that is a world I don't live in As I described above, there is absolutely NO solution to the Borg problem except to remove the human player from the game. Do you really want that? If so we could easily make CM play so that you deploy your troops (which CM buys for you) by simply clicking down the HQs at the next level lower than your own (i.e. if you are the Major, you can only click on the Company HQs). CM would then deploy all the rest of the units without you even seeing them. Yup, you wouldn't see anything except what was around your HQ unit, which would be set up and unmovable (for the most part) after the Setup Phase. Then the game would start. You would issue a couple of vauge orders to your next lower HQs and then sit back and wait. From Turn 1 on all friendly units would disappear from the map. Every so often a Spotted icon would appear where MAYBE one of your directly subordinated HQ was. At this point in time you might get back some meaningful information from the HQ, or perhpas not. Depending on if the HQ is in radio contact or not, you could issue orders to the HQ along the vauge lines of Turn 1. You will have no idea what that HQ does with them until the next time he resurfaces. If there is no radio contact, runners would be necessary and that means instant communication would be impossible, thus making that Spotted icon appear less frequently and even more prone to error. After the shooting would start you might have a rough idea about where and the nature of the shooting. But until one of those ghost icons popped up, you wouldn't know much more than that. And even when that does happen, you would only get back snipts of text about what was going on and you could still only issue a few vauge orders. Gee... DAMN does that sound like fun! Whoopie Cripes, we wouldn't even need to program in anything except some sort of ZORK like text adventure script engine and a few generalized combat resolution equations. You see.. THAT is the be all, end all Black and White counter balance to the RTS type Borg system. CM is already somewhere inbetween the two, and CMBB is a bit more towards the realism side. The engine rewrite will be even more towards the REALISM side of the equation by reducing the effectiveness of the Borg aspect. But no way, no how can we eliminate it. So why bother having such a black and white set of standards when one side is available and not liked (i.e. RTS with no C&C rules at all) and the other would be a yawner to even those who THINK they want it (i.e. human player almost totally removed from even watching the action)? Wouldn't it be more interesting and productive to focus on practical ways to make the game more realistic without all the hoo-ha about it not going far enough? Hmmm? Tom, I know you have been a participant in many of the previous discusions. I would have hoped that you picked up on the fact that Relative Spotting is only the underlying mechanism, not the solution. In other words, there are all SORTS of things we can do once Relative Spotting is in place that will increase realism, decrease the Borg, and at the same time make CM more fun. Having restrictions on targeting is just ONE feature made possible by Relative Spotting. A better system of artillery requests is another. More accountable and detailed C&C delays is yet another. There are LOTs of possibilities made possible because of Relative Spotting. So again, don't think of Relative Spotting as the solution, but a part of the underlying foundation for other features which in turn will do lots of things to improve the game on all levels. When we get into this phase of design we should all have a nice group think about ways we can leverage Relative Spotting and other systems to make CM more realistic. But at this point, we don't have the time to do that. Already spent too much time on this issue as it is Steve" [ April 22, 2003, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Mh, I read from Steve's post that their won't be a relativ spotting.</font>

sorry for all the long re-posts but I think this is relevant here: redwolf Member Member # 3665 posted April 19, 2002 10:28 AM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The major problem with the solutions proposed: 1) the troops out of C&C must fight on their own, they need much more TacAI -> nightmare, nightmare, nightmare, and effectivly the game become a partly command game. 2) if you show troops that are out of C&C, and they start fighting an enemy only they have seen and they do not report back to you, they you need to invent a graphical representation of "fighting" that doesn't expose the kind of position of the enemy they fight. For example, a tank running into a gun is just shown "fighting" and you see it shoot, but not where it shoots and on what. But this is a very dractics break from the CMBO model which shows you all the detail. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IP: Logged aka_tom_w Member Member # 1515 posted April 19, 2002 11:21 AM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by redwolf: The major problem with the solutions proposed: 1) the troops out of C&C must fight on their own, they need much more TacAI -> nightmare, nightmare, nightmare, and effectivly the game become a partly command game. 2) if you show troops that are out of C&C, and they start fighting an enemy only they have seen and they do not report back to you, they you need to invent a graphical representation of "fighting" that doesn't expose the kind of position of the enemy they fight. For example, a tank running into a gun is just shown "fighting" and you see it shoot, but not where it shoots and on what. But this is a very dractics break from the CMBO model which shows you all the detail. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 " 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.... [ April 22, 2003, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

there are still some good ideas here

perhaps this will help: from that OLD thread Steve had this to say everyone who is interested in how Borg spotting might be modeled in the next game really "should" take a minute and read these posts: Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 08:13 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh my God but this is a really big thread Folks, the crux of the issue is this... Do people want a Command Style, Micromanagement Style, or Multi-Level Style game? These are terms I made up to illustrate the three major groupings. I define each as such: 1. Command Style - you are in ONE definite position of command. You can only influence the battlefield as that one command position would allow in the real world. More importantly, all subordinate units under your command would behave 100% autonomously from your will unless you were able to realistically give them "orders". I am not just talking about radio or messanger contact, but chain of command. A Major does NOT go and order some buck private to move his MG to a better spot. He orders a Captain to set up a certain type of position in a certain location ("set up a defensive line along the north side of Hill 345"), the Captain then issues more specific commands to his LTs. ("1st Platoon go to that stand of trees, 2nd Platoon down thee road a click, 3rd Platoon deploy to 2nd's right), then each LT gives orders to his SGTs to deploy a little bit more specifically ("1st Squad, take that wall over there, 2nd Squad see if that house has a good field of fire on that gully over there, 3rd Squad go over there and see what you can do about covering that road junction"), and then each SGT in turn yells at various peeons to get moving to a VERY specific location ("behind that tree, numbnuts! Smitty!! Damn your soul... get that MG set up pronto behind that boulder facing that way or I'll tapdance on your butt for the rest of the day"). Now, in such a system the Major (that would be you!) does not know or even care about these details. That is called deligation of responsibility and initiative, which is what every modern armed force is trained around doing. The Major's responsibilities are to keep in touch with his neighboring formations and higher HQ, requisitioning stuff (units, supplies, guns, etc.) to get his mission accomplished, and making sure everything is running smoothly before, during, and after contact with the enemy. In non combat situations there are a LOT more responsibilities than that, but we are only focusing on the combat aspect. What each unit under his command can or can not see, shoot at, or deal with is NOT the Major's direct concern. It is the direct concern of the unit in question and its HQ. The Major is, of course, trying to get as much information as possible so he can best lead the battle, but he doesn't care a hoot if there is an enemy squad 203.4 meters and closing on 1st Squad, 3rd Platoon, E Company. At least specifically he doesn't care. So there you have it. This is how REAL combat works in terms of C&C. There is absolutely no way to simulate the reality of the battlefield without taking the player's mits 99% off direct control of units. 2. Micromanagement Style - You read all of the above, correct? Well, forget about it A Mircormanagement style game doesn't give a hoot about command and control aspects of warfare. You get some units, you use units as you see fit. When you click on one of the units you can order it to do whatever the heck you want without any thoughts about command and control. I would even include games with very primative attempts at C&C being lumped into this group. 3. Multi-Level Style - The player is neither a single commander nor an über micromanager. Orders can be given to any unit, but those orders and behaviors are influenced, to some degree or another, by Command and Control rules. In other words, you CAN order that individual MG to move 2.5 meters to the left, but you can not do this for "free". Some set of rules are set up to make such an order be more or less effective depending on the circumstances (in/out C&C, good/poor morale, good/poor experience, etc). The player is therefore still has far more flexability than a single commander would ever have, but not total and utter control in any and all circumstances. Examples of each game... Command Style - I know of no commercial wargame in existance that does this type of simulation. A game like the upcoming Airborne Assault comes VERY close, but even that one doesn't limit you to one command position with only the ability to see and affect the action as that one position would allow. Micromanagement Style - best example I can give you guys is something like Panzer General or Close Combat. In both of these games you could order your units to do whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted without the slightest interference in terms of command decisions. Multi-Level Style - Combat Mission and Steel Panthers come to mind. The original system in Steel Panthers was quite simplistic compared to Combat Mission's, but both sought to penalize units which lacked C&C with their higher HQs. Combat Mission took many previous game concepts a few steps further, as well as adding a few new ones of its own. Some games, like Combat Mission, lean more towards Command Style while others, like Airborne Assault go even further. Other games, like Steel Panthers, lean more towards Micromanagement Style. In terms of realism, Command Style is the highest ideal, Micromanagement the lowest, and Multi-Level somewhere inbetween. In terms of playability, Micromanagement is the highest ideal, Command Style the lowest, and Multi-Level somewhere inbetween. In terms of proven trackrecord of being fun, the pie is split between Micromanagement and Multi-Level. No wargame has ever fit the definition of Command Style, so it has no reecord. We are not going to try and be the first because we would rather watch paint dry than play such a game. And we are very sure that 99% of our customers would agree. And that 1% would most likely not really wind up liking the game anyway. Sometimes people need to be careful about what they ask for because they just might get it Command Style games do not exist for a reason. They are nearly impossible to make (the AI necessary boggles the mind!) and the gameplay value near non existant. So why bother trying? Instead we will make Combat Mission more realistic through our system of Relative Spotting. Reading through some of the posts here, I don't think people necessarily totally understand what a profound impact it will have on the game. Will it make CM 100% realistic? No, and I pitty any fool developer who attempts such a silly venture. But will CM be more realistic than any Squad level wargame yet? Well... of course we already think it is , but we know we can do better. So until we get into coding the new engine, do a search on Relative Spotting and see what has been said on the subject before. Lots of good stuff to read through. Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IP: Logged Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 08:27 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ U8lead asked: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do units in C&C spot and ID better then the same units out of C&C in the current game? And if so, do any of the HQ bonuses (possibly combat bonus) apply to spotting and ID? If units out of C&C had a substantialy reduced positive ID range would that help Borg ID? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ No, no, and no Why should a unit out of C&C be able to see less far? How is that more realistic? And if it can't see out as far, but in real life should, how does that affect the realistic ability of that individual unit to respond to the oncoming threat? Should a Tiger Tank with a Crack crew sit around NOT spotting an ISU-152 which it should plainly see, just because it doesn't have radio contact with BN HQ? I think not I also think we would have people screaming at us until we "fixed it or did somefink" This is one of the fundamental problems I have seen in discussions like this. And that is thinking that unrealistically penalizing an individual unit somehow makes the game more realistic. At best it is a wash. At worst, it makes the game on the whole less realistic. For example, not allowing a unit out of C&C to do anything until it is in C&C is totally unrealistic. Such a system simply swaps in one Borg behavior for another. It doesn't make the game any more realistic, but instead hobbles real life flexibility to the point of making the game unplayable and a joke of a simulation. Don't believe me? Try this one out... Let us assume that units have to be in C&C with their higher HQs to pass on information and receive orders. OK, can anybody tell me what would happen, under this system, if the BN HQ unit got whacked on the first turn by a lucky artillery bombardment? Would the player just sit there staring at a screen totally lacking friendly and enemy units? Or would all the friendly units show up but the player couldn't do anything or yield any information about themselves or what they see? The above situation illustrates why removing realistic tactical control is not the right direction to go towards. Because if you follow it to its logical conclusion (i.e. the ultimate realistic state), this is what you wind up with. Honestly folks, your feedback is appreciated. But I for one am very glad some of you are gamers and not game designers Steve Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 08:51 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" 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 Big Time Software unregistered posted April 26, 2002 09:53 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tom, quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ...even if the BTS idea of Relative Spotting were implimented, in that each and every unit makes it own spotting check and cannot target (but MAY be ordered to use "area Fire" at) enemy units it has not spotted, (BUT the player KNOWS where those enemy units are he can order or direct EVERY unit, irrespective of whether it has spotted the enemy unit or not, or whether it is in C&C or NOT, to fire or move in that general direction (NOW thats a "BORG Like Swarm" ™ to use Redwolf's term ), what would that solve? --------------------- Uhm... A HECK OF A LOT Area fire is useless against a moving target and has reduced accuracy and effects against a stationary one. If you think that Area Fire is a fine and dandy substitute for direct targeting, might I suggest booting up CMBO and playing a game on the defensive only using Area Fire commands. I think that ought to get you to see that you are taking a rather extreme and unfair look at what ONE ASPECT of Realitive Spotting will do. quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat. --------------------------------------------------------------- In a black and white world, where there is only Borg and Not Borg, you would be correct. But that is a world I don't live in As I described above, there is absolutely NO solution to the Borg problem except to remove the human player from the game. Do you really want that? If so we could easily make CM play so that you deploy your troops (which CM buys for you) by simply clicking down the HQs at the next level lower than your own (i.e. if you are the Major, you can only click on the Company HQs). CM would then deploy all the rest of the units without you even seeing them. Yup, you wouldn't see anything except what was around your HQ unit, which would be set up and unmovable (for the most part) after the Setup Phase. Then the game would start. You would issue a couple of vauge orders to your next lower HQs and then sit back and wait. From Turn 1 on all friendly units would disappear from the map. Every so often a Spotted icon would appear where MAYBE one of your directly subordinated HQ was. At this point in time you might get back some meaningful information from the HQ, or perhpas not. Depending on if the HQ is in radio contact or not, you could issue orders to the HQ along the vauge lines of Turn 1. You will have no idea what that HQ does with them until the next time he resurfaces. If there is no radio contact, runners would be necessary and that means instant communication would be impossible, thus making that Spotted icon appear less frequently and even more prone to error. After the shooting would start you might have a rough idea about where and the nature of the shooting. But until one of those ghost icons popped up, you wouldn't know much more than that. And even when that does happen, you would only get back snipts of text about what was going on and you could still only issue a few vauge orders. Gee... DAMN does that sound like fun! Whoopie Cripes, we wouldn't even need to program in anything except some sort of ZORK like text adventure script engine and a few generalized combat resolution equations. You see.. THAT is the be all, end all Black and White counter balance to the RTS type Borg system. CM is already somewhere inbetween the two, and CMBB is a bit more towards the realism side. The engine rewrite will be even more towards the REALISM side of the equation by reducing the effectiveness of the Borg aspect. But no way, no how can we eliminate it. So why bother having such a black and white set of standards when one side is available and not liked (i.e. RTS with no C&C rules at all) and the other would be a yawner to even those who THINK they want it (i.e. human player almost totally removed from even watching the action)? Wouldn't it be more interesting and productive to focus on practical ways to make the game more realistic without all the hoo-ha about it not going far enough? Hmmm? Tom, I know you have been a participant in many of the previous discusions. I would have hoped that you picked up on the fact that Relative Spotting is only the underlying mechanism, not the solution. In other words, there are all SORTS of things we can do once Relative Spotting is in place that will increase realism, decrease the Borg, and at the same time make CM more fun. Having restrictions on targeting is just ONE feature made possible by Relative Spotting. A better system of artillery requests is another. More accountable and detailed C&C delays is yet another. There are LOTs of possibilities made possible because of Relative Spotting. So again, don't think of Relative Spotting as the solution, but a part of the underlying foundation for other features which in turn will do lots of things to improve the game on all levels. When we get into this phase of design we should all have a nice group think about ways we can leverage Relative Spotting and other systems to make CM more realistic. But at this point, we don't have the time to do that. Already spent too much time on this issue as it is Steve

this is for scipio -tom w