Total intelligence.

[Sten]

In the flank-discussion Steve mentions the problem with 'total intelligence' or 'God-view' over the battlefield. The difference between reality and all wargames I've seen is precisely that. On the real battlefield the commander has no chance whatsoever of making his troops respond immediately and correctly to all the info he has.

("Hey, guys! Our sniper on the hill 900m SW of us spotted the enemy tank going into the valley 1000m NW of us just 2 seconds ago. That means it can't see us! Let's stop this 'crawling around in the mud business' and double-time to the edge of the forest so we can set up a perimeter.")

CMs one-minute 'movie' turns fixes this somewhat, but it's still not perfect. Could this be remedied by putting a probability, say 2%/turn, that a unit will be unable to recieve changes in its orders? The unit will continue to execute the same orders it had last turn, or just stop and hold still depending on the tactical situation. This would mean that once every 50:th turn the unit would not 'highlight' when I select it and I would be unable to change its orders.

Is this a good idea?

Sten

[This message has been edited by Sten (edited 05-04-99).]

[This message has been edited by Sten (edited 05-04-99).]

[BDW]

I like this idea. It is a double edged sword.

I don't like the total randomness aspect of it though. I think the probability should be variable depending on other variables that I'm sure Steve can rattle off. In fact, doesn't CM already kind of simulate this with the reaction times of units?

[Sten]

You're right, CM simulates this, to a degree. What this suggestion would change is the feeling of total control. Players should 'know' more than the individual troops 'know'. The lack of info on their part should come with a penalty that is unrelated to experience.

Therefore:

A troop with no enemy units in sight should be less responsive than a troop with several enemies in sight.

The % should be very low (or 0) for troops in contact with the enemy, but the point is to prevent the player from manipulating the still unknowing units on what to do. Not all of the time, but just irritating enough so that you are forced to make plans that stretch at least two turns ahead, just in case.

Sten

[This message has been edited by Sten (edited 05-04-99).]

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

This could be introducing new problems. A unit might not have los to an enemy but if his actions are unrelated, why is it being penalized? Ex: a squad covering a valley gets penalized for a local action to the far side of the map.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A troop with no enemy units in sight should be less responsive than a troop with several enemies in sight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If two squads each have a different enemy in sight, they would not get penalized therefore thier respective enemy would be unrealisticly giving them an advantage over the other enemy they can't see.

What is important is not what the squad sees but what it *knows* and that is simulated through HQs.

However, there is a relationship between how many units see the enemy and how much the HQ knows. So maybe the leadership rating of an HQ can be *temporarily* influenced by the number of units under its command that have LOS to the enemy. In this way the HQ benifits from risking multiple squads, (benifit increasing to a point), by exposing them to the enemy.Even if those squads don't fire, more info is going back to the HQ.Vision an HQ handling a flanking manouver better because it has placed,(and risked), more squads to observe the enemy.

Now the negative effects of hasty attacks will be better simulated since less squads have been placed to observe the enemy. Yes the player knows where the enemy is but the HQ is not up to max speed until it is benifiting from info received from well placed squads. An enemy can keep the HQs knowledge down by moving. Even if the player sees this , the moving enemy might be dissapearing from the HQs observers therefore negating the benifits the HQ receives.

Now a squad far from the action is not penalized locally. It's just not contributing to the awareness of the HQ in question.

[This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 05-04-99).]

[Sten]

Well, the words 'penalty' or 'penalized' are ill-chosen. The squad isn't 'penalized' in any way. Neither is the player. Although it stings in my wargaming soul to even consider having units 'out of order(s) ' like this.

The squad in your example could:

A) React to an event on the other side of the map (i.e. start moving). This is clearly a case of 'God-view' or 'total intelligence'.

Continue to cover the valley with no change in orders.

My suggestion will SOMETIMES stop you from using A for one turn (we could outrule consectutive turns). Since B is by far more realistic this doesn't seem unreasonable to me. This also forces the player to consider that the order he gives his units MIGHT, however unlikely, stand for 2 minutes.

You got a point when two units sees different enemies, but that would only bring us back to the 'God-view' we have now. (Not even on the most selfrighteous of days would I claim to solve the whole problem. )

Regarding what a HQs 'know'; Is it realistic for different units within a HQ to react immediately to something some unit within the same HQ has seen?

If the answer to this is 'Yes' then maybe this suggestion should be modified so that it only applies to units from different HQs. This goes along the same lines as the last part of your post. But it seems harsh to disallow the changing of orders for all units within the same HQ, just because another HQ made contact.

So maybe the units under the 'unknowing' HQ should have a 4% risk of being disallowed a change of orders and the units under the 'knowing' HQ should have 0% risk?

Sten

[This message has been edited by Sten (edited 05-04-99).]

[This message has been edited by Sten (edited 05-04-99).]

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The squad in your example could:

A) React to an event on the other side of the map (i.e. start moving). This is clearly a case of 'God-view' or 'total intelligence'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The squad would have a delay if it is far from the HQ. The HQ can't be everywhere so spreading out your forces will cause delays somewhere. If there are many HQs, you can assume there is mucho communications.

How can you be certain that an action a squad is taking is related to something on the other side of the map.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Regarding what a HQs 'know'; Is it realistic for different units within a HQ to react immediately to something some unit within the same HQ has seen? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the squad is within the HQ's command radius, reacting immeadiatly is acceptable. The harder question is how many squads can react in this way ? This would depend on the leadership rating of the HQ which in turn would be enhanced by how many of it's squads have LOS. without being too nitty gritty on who sees what, in general, if the HQ is getting good recon from many squads, this should enhance the group as a whole.

[Sten]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

How can you be certain that an action a squad is taking is related to something on the other side of the map.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't.

But if it's unrelated then the player had the opprtunity to give those orders one turn before. Why would he change the orders for the unit at this precise moment if it is totally unrelated?

This forces the player to think ahead TWO turns instead of one. Intervening in those orders should be for when you get enemy contact.

Sten

[This message has been edited by Sten (edited 05-04-99).]

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>quote:Why would he change the orders for the unit at this precise moment if it is totally unrelated?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There could be various ongoing tasks. there's not necessarialy one hotspot. A squads flexibility can't be only related to LOS on units on the other side of the map. Remember a player is planning for things he can see *and* things he can't see.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>:at this precise moment<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

how precise can the game get?

And so now I've come full circle and I think my suggestion of HQ's having variable ratings might not be such a good thing. Suppose my HQ assigns a couple of squads to observe a weak position only to pump up it's rating so that it could use extra points for another unrelated matter.Not realistic eh? Oh well.

[This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 05-04-99).]

[Sten]

Heh!

Hindsight is a mother...

Is there any suggestion in this matter that we can agree on?

How about this:

All units, regardless of HQ, run a X% risk of not getting to change its orders this turn (unless 'no-change' was in effect last turn). When a unit spots an enemy then that X goes to 0 for all units under the same HQ.

Would that be OK?

Sten

[This message has been edited by Sten (edited 05-04-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

We don't want to be too hard on units out of C&C. The truth is that if a unit were cut off it would STILL be able to do something. Good 'ol sarge isn't braindead, ya know So what we have are delays to simulate the "uh, what do you think we should do now" bit. The better the unit, the quicker they are able to figure this out and carry out their orders.

Unfortunately, as with all wargames, you can coordinate this decision with your über plan and/or other units. Short of yanking control from a unit, and having the AI decide, there is absolutely NO way to simulate the reality of being out of C&C. Delays, based on unit experience, is the best thing to do. But too much of this and the unit becomes overly penalized and becomes an unrealistic sitting duck, while still not restricting the unrealistic coordination of local decision making.

Another thing to keep in mind is that units will freak out from enemy fire more if they are out of C&C, or if they have a poor leader. The lower the unit quality, the greater the chance the unit will run away when out of C&C. This is a further incentive for keeping units together.

The upshot is that units outside of C&C are faced with several, strong, penalties. No, they don't prevent coordination eventually (i.e. after the delays have passed), but once again only making the AI control the units will do this. Oh, and they would have to be invisible to your eyes as well, so you couldn't coordinate in control assets based on what is happening to the out of control ones. And we don't think gamers would like any of this. Combat Mission is, when all is said and done, still a game so these things count

Steve

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When a unit spots an enemy<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The transmission of orders does not get any better because an enemy is spotted. The order might be clearer but the transmission is not any better, in fact it is probably worse. So you state that the error drops to zero for squads within the HQ. What if the squad's actions are not related to the unit that is spotted? Why should it have any benifits then. The tough nut to crack is putting a relationship between a spotted unit and the *intentions* of other squads. The other squads may or may not need the extra info. So why should they be adversly or positively be affected, and how can you be certain what the relationship is at any moment?

PS Big Time just posted before I got a chance to post this. That was a fast draw!

[This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 05-04-99).]

[Sten]

Steve, I was talking about units in C&C all the time. I was differntiating between units under different HQs.

John, the idea was to hamper the player somewhat to avoid an unrealistic amount of coordination. Agreed, the suggested method is arbitrary and cumbersome, but at least it's something.

Ah, well. Maybe it was a bad idea from the beginning.

-Sigh-

Sten

[Moon]

With its 60 sec. action turns I believe the problem of total intelligence will be far less than with any other game. During these 60 sec. your units are more or less on their own and that is more than in any other game I have seen so far... Throw in the emphasis that CM puts on C&C and I believe it is as close as it gets to restricting players from taking too much advantage of the "über plan" - at least unless you decide to give complete control over to the AI, as Steve suggested...

[Guest Big Time Software]

Sten, OK, I see that I missed a bit of your suggestion. CM does, to some degree, offer a penalty for changing ones mind mid-order based on what could be an unrealistic knowledge of the battlefield as a whole. Here it is...

When a unit is given orders, and is in the process of executing them, it can not radically alter its mission without getting hit with a delay penalty. So, you run that squad from A to B and finally to C. If in the process of getting from B to C someone else figures out that it would be better to go to D instead, the player is faced with a decision. If he stops the unit from going to C the unit will halt right where it is (perhaps an open field) and take whatever command penalty is due. This could be very bad, and even if safe, costly in terms of delays. So players can not just, on a whim, go changing unit movement orders without serious, and perhaps deadly, penalties.

I can almost bet you that if two players go head to head, and one player clearly thinks out his moves and generally sticks with them, while the other one keeps trying to micromanage based on unrealistic knowledge of the battlefield, all else being equal the former player will be the latter.

This is not a perfect solution, but it is enough to force players to make a decision and at least THINK before altering it. And if the alteration is ordered, take substantial penalties.

BTW, we do allow individual units to have some degree of local decision making with the above system. A unit can move waypoints without getting a delay, where as canceling them means automatic delay. The degree of waypoint movement depends on the unit's quality. An Elite unit might be able to alter a waypoint by 50m in any direction, but a Green one only 20m. This simulates individual initiative within the scope of higher orders. The second thing we have is the "Withdraw" order. If a unit is in a real jam it can opt to move someplace new without a C&C penalty. Say you are moving through a field and you get hit by MG fire and go to ground. No reason you should have to wait 40 secs (that is the upper range of delays) to get the Hell out of there. Only problem is that you risk making your men panic, so your unit will most likely break in the direction you indicated rather than move if the unit isn't in good shape and of good quality.

In short, I think we have done as much as we can in CM to simulate the problem of too much info in the player's hands. For the next version we will look towards making a more radical system, but fear that we might not like what we come up with. Better to not screw with stuff like that the first time around, eh?

Steve

[Guest Rhet Schmidt]

This is interesting:

quote:

"Only problem is that you risk making your men panic, so your unit will most likely break in the direction you indicated rather than move if the unit isn't in good shape and of good quality."

If you provide effective coverfire for the unit you intend to withdraw does it reduce the chance of the withdrawing unit breaking?

------------------

Rhet

[This message has been edited by Rhet Schmidt (edited 05-04-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Rhet, yes this happens. Basically, the chance of the unit breaking depends on how badly it is getting beat up. So the more enemy fire you get off of your guys, the better the chance of them getting out of there in good working order. However, the longer you delay giving them the Withdraw order, the greater the chance that they will take casualties or break on their own.

We think it is a pretty cool feature. Gamers should get sweaty palms during the first seconds of the next turn; "ooooooh, I hope they don't break! Please, please, please, don't break!"

Steve

[Guest Rhet Schmidt]

"Please, please, please, don't break!"

How did you know my mantra from Squad Leader!

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

What is the advantage of giving waypoints that take longer than 60 seconds to execute to a unit. The clear disadvantage is that the player gets a penalty if he makes changes to waypoints extending into more than one turn. So to avoid the penalty all I have to do is only plan for sixty sedconds at a time. Right?

[Guest Rhet Schmidt]

John, I would imagine that a unit that was given an order during a preceeding turn will not incure a delay penality. I'll try to explain this better with an example. (Note: delay times in this example are my estimations and may bear no resemblence to those BTS uses)

Say you wanted to have a squad sprint across an open field. The distance is great enough that it will take 115 seconds to reach cover on the other side.

60 sec plan method:

In the first planning phase you tell the squad to sprint approximatey half way across the field. In the following action phase the squad incures a 5 second delay to execute your command then proceed to run to the point you selected. In the second planning turn you tell them to finish the sprint to cover on the other side. In the next action phase the squad would incure a 3 second delay before running towards cover (3 sec was used insted of 5 sec since this was the same command as the last one issued).

120 sec plan method:

In the first planning phase you plan the move as a direct sprint to the cover on the other side. During the first action phase the squad incures the same 5 second delay for executing your command then runs toward the selected point on the other side for the remaining 55 sec of this turn. In the second planning phase you give that squad no additional orders so it will continue to act on its original orders. During the second action phase the squad would incure no delay since it was acting on previous orders and completes the sprint to cover.

(So what right?)

Aftermath:

In the first example the squad took 123 sec to cross the field. In a game that has 60 second turns this would take 3 turns to complete this manuvre. The second example took exactly 120 sec. so this squad would have reached cover a turn before the first squad.

I can forsee an advantage to limiting your orders to 60 sec as well as planning ahead for a few turns. Players will have to evaluate which method is best for each units circumstances (this is all completly speculation BTS's mileage may vary).

------------------

Rhet

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

That makes sense. Good example. Shows not only the delay but, (perhaps more importantly), also how the delay can cost you an extra turn. Thanks.

[Sten]

As usual BTS was waaay ahead of me.

The delay incurred on units for changing orders solves (in part) the problem with 'über plan'. I should have figured that one out myself.

Good example. Thanks

Sten

[Guest Big Time Software]

Rhet, you are basically correct. However, an out of C&C "Regular" unit would probably take 180 seconds to cross that field in two hops, rather than 140 for one hop. Point here is that the penalties for changing orders are much larger in general. And as we all know, sitting in an open field for 40 seconds is just ASKING for trouble

Sten, not to worry! There are plenty of things we probably haven't thought of. Problem is, how are you supposed to know which is which In fact, all of our changes help discourage unrealistic micromanagement to a LARGE extent, but in the end the player still knows what the heck is going with each and every one of his units. All we did was make this knowledge harder to apply in places. We have ideas on how to take this a step further, but we want to wait for future versions. Better to have a solid foundation for such a change.

Steve

[Guest Bobb]

This topic reminds me of speculating upon whether this approach to wargaming will set off spinoffs with variations and additions of features. It certainly seems to me to have such possibilities.

I can envision a system which could more exactly duplicate the battlefield as a commander might experence it by putting out one of the god's viewing eyes so to speak.

This has already been done for enemy units unspotted. Why not provide that the battlefield for friendly units out of command and control only be viewable from the eye level of that unit and from points immediately adjacent to that unit.

Orders to that unit would be restricted to the restricted "map" availabe to that unit.

As I describe this I am vexed by numerous alternative schemes pushing up -- such as orders being given only on a 2d map and then watching the results on a 3d "movie screen" as already provided in CM.

3D views during the Orders Phase would be at eye level from points immediately adjacent to the units with command and control as suggested above.

This system (CM), like the early primitive 3d first person shooters, is truely rich in posibilities.

The number of topics turning up lately not directly targeting CM mechanisms suggests to me that the interactive process is slowing down. The success of the process seems to be yielding to the law of diminishing returns as work proceeds to completion. That it is not dead is exemplified by the current Flamethrower topic. What a privilage to have viewed the process taking place.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Bobb, we have thought about the "poking out an eye" concept very hard. Unfortunately, gamers WANT to control everything, so you have to be *very* careful how you handle things. Having said that, we are planning on experimenting with these things down the road. It is much easier to figure out if they are any good/fun with a mature game engine. The problem some developers get into is that they try and reinvent not only the wheel on their first time round, but also the combustion engine, hydraulics, lubrication, etc.

Although the discussion has come to a point where we are mostly talking about things that have been thought of, stuff like the Flamethrowers and variable VP locations still crop up. We think the quality of these discussions has not dropped off in that respect. Even if someone sparks up a thread about something that has already been coded, it is always nice for us to see that we have a base covered. And always good to know when we have missed one. CM will be 10 times better thanks to both forms of feedback here on this board!

Steve

[Fionn]

LOL Steve, it's not our fault we're treading beaten paths.

We don't have the game to know what is and isn't done perfectly yet.. I'm sure when its released or betas go out that a lot of cool in-depth discussion will take place.

Fionn