My XMAS gift to everyone: Relative spotting (sort of)

[:USERNAME:]

While trying out shoots of different tanks on tanks it occured to me that I was playing with something close to relative spotting.

I was matching a sherman 75 platoon (AI)against a Mk IV H platoon (ME). The map was flat rural large so that I could have some long range shooting.

Since the US insists on smoking heavily with its roof mortors and smoke shells, the Mk Ivs were able to close the range to the central victory flags. At one point I had a MKIV over on my right flank spotting nicely for the rest of the group so that they could move forward in leaps and bounds. He could keep an eye on every sherman as the smoke cleared and reappeared. The AI sensed it was overmatched and raely fired AP at this MkIV.

But..

A lucky AP round smacked the front of this MKIVs turret and effectively stripped my view of all the sherman tanks! Since the MKIV platoon would have radio contact, it was realistic that they would have shared info. Its also realistic that they lose this shared intel. The shermans all went to white stars and I began to realize that they were closing the range on me! A discrete retreat allowed me to get back into favorable AP range but they made me pay. The surviving crew from the MKIV did not spot which was realistic.

I hope that BTS pursues something like this in the game. That is; have armor commander and infantry/arty commanders on the same side be seperate entities. To break up the shared knowledge would really be a leap forward in the game without spending two years trying to get a full blown relative spotting answer.

Merry Xmas you slugs

Lewis

[Guest Rob/1]

Merry Xmas to you to slug lover!

[:USERNAME:]

Rob already has relative spotting. Thats when his father mounts his leg.

On a side note, I think small platoon actions like the armor battle I described makes for great TCP/IP play. Its almost panzer elitist in its action.

[Doug Beman]

Lewis, is this historically accurate? Were infantry and armor always, or was it SOP, separate groups that never passed info to each other? If an infantry unit can see stuff that your tanks can't, won't they pass the word up their command net, which passes it to the tanks? What I mean is, if you had had an infantry platoon on that hilltop to give anti-infantry defense to the spotting MkIV, and then the MkIV died, the infantry would keep passing info on, right?

Perhaps I'm not interpreting your suggestion correctly though.

DjB

[M. Bates]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rob already has relative spotting. Thats when his father mounts his leg.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol

When relative spotting appears in CM3, I might actually have to adopt good tactics. In the mean time, my map-hugging infantry are safe in their hideaways.

[Guest Rob/1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

Rob already has relative spotting. Thats when his father mounts his leg.

On a side note, I think small platoon actions like the armor battle I described makes for great TCP/IP play. Its almost panzer elitist in its action.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Realy now can't we all just get along? No I didn't thinks so.

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman:

Lewis, is this historically accurate? Were infantry and armor always, or was it SOP, separate groups that never passed info to each other? If an infantry unit can see stuff that your tanks can't, won't they pass the word up their command net, which passes it to the tanks? What I mean is, if you had had an infantry platoon on that hilltop to give anti-infantry defense to the spotting MkIV, and then the MkIV died, the infantry would keep passing info on, right?

Perhaps I'm not interpreting your suggestion correctly though.

DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the game as it is now is at an extreme. Perhaps what I suggest is also at an extreme but closer to what actually was happening in early CMBO scenarios.

The shared knowledge really has a big reality hit. It makes issues like optics moot as 1 man bazooka teams a thousand yards away spots for you. It kind of ruins games you have played already because the counting down of the enemy vehicles is easier. I have suggested what I call counter-abstractions here to no avail so dont get me started.

I hope that BTS will pursue the "team" approach. It would be alot of fun.

[Doug Beman]

Lewis, I've seen some posts from BTS lately re: relative spotting vs. command&control issues, and they've led me to believe that a lot of the discussion about spotting rules and command structure have been garbling together.

That said, and assuming that fixing EITHER spotting or command structure will be faster than fixing BOTH, I would rather have BTS implement relative spotting and maintain the current "instant-info" command structure than vice-versa. Relative spotting plus "instant info" will eliminate the "bazooka team sees AT gun and tank can shoot at it immediately" and force each vehicle to "see with its own eyes" while allowing me to command my entire force without totally random "info flow" delays. This would be eliminating one abstraction (spotting) while keeping another.

On the flipside, keeping absolute spotting while installing command structure and info flow delays will, for me, detract from the game. I would still be able to order my units to shoot at enemies that they haven't actually seen yet. At the same time, the command structure of my force will be subjected to abstracted time delays etc that I have no clue about (unless BTS plans to model command structure factors with the same detail as armor stats, gun performance, etc). This would be keeping the abstraction of relative spotting, while exchanging the current abstracted "instant info" for another abstracted system.

Did I explain that clearly? It's pretty convoluted even in my mind.

DjB

[This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 01-02-2001).]

[:USERNAME:]

uh no.

I think that the time slice, the sharing of spotting and the ability to extend your orders beyond the time slice, as well as edit the extended orders and ..uh .. some other stuff.

What were we talking about?

Lewis