Gamey Recon Technique?

[Grognerd_Fogman]

I've brought this up a couple of times in the past two weeks but I still haven't found a response to as why people are not willing to use Ambush markers early on in the game for all their rear forces that they wish no-one to recon (tanks, antitanks, guns etc...)and expose early on. All guns and HQ units can plot these things really really close to the other units (in command) and supposedly in version 1.05 they will make them stick to them even better than before so they won't open up when they see something a little beyond the marker. If they don't open up on the recon unit, it would really have to be close just to see it, especially when hidden too. You can still keep your normal spotting units un-markerized and unhidden (like half-squads reconners) and maybe a machine gun on each flank so that they can see better and take out a light skinned recon vehicle if encountered. Maybe this only seems to be working for me and others might see flaws with it or it's not to their liking for some reason. Would like to hear why people aren't willing to do it. Is there any inherent risks in doing something like this that I haven't seen?

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

Thanks for Athskin!

[aka_tom_w]

Hi Steve,

Since you posted the proposed changes you and Charles will make in the next patch, I don't think anyone in this forum has suggested they are wrong, ill advised or unwelcome. (Ok I just re-read some stuff and I think one person mentioned they were not in favour of changes)

I hope others will comment here but I would suggest most folks here who are contributing to this thread are supportive of the changes you suggested to make the game more realistic.

I was only trying to help out by asking questions about the depth and breadth of the proposed changes in the hope that even more gamey loopholes like have troops riding in the back of fast moving trucks and universal carriers would also be treated the same way you intend to penalize spotting for fast moving jeeps.

My only point is that some of us here are always looking for ways to risk the fewest points or the cheapest units in recon roles to get the most recon intel by paying the cheapest price. When this tactic is combined with Absolute spotting as is currently modeled in the game the deep fast suicide jeep recon joy ride becomes very gamey indeed and VERY effective.

I think most, if not all who read and contribute to this thread are supportive or "very supportive" of your suggestions to address the way this tactic totally takes adavantage of telepathy amongst units and absolute spotting.

I hope more folks here will show support for the suggested changes you plan to impliment in the next patch. My point was that while you are at it why don't you close up as many of the other loopholes in the absolute spotting code that can also lead to gamey tactics.

Are there any other suggestions here as to what other changes might be made to make this game and especially recon in this game, given the limitations of the way absolute spotting is implemented, more realistic in a Real World sense?

It is my opinion that the majority of comments regarding the changes Steve said would be in the next patch regarding spotting and fast moving vehicles have been positive and supportive. Some of us here just didn't want to see you miss anything else that may not have been so obvious that needed tweaking as well.

Steve, Thanks SO MUCH for your ongoing participation in this discussion, as you can tell we are all inspired to write more here when we know someone is listening, even if we do all disagree

I really do think almost everyone in this thread supports EVERY effort you and Charles make to ensure the game is more realistic and reduce the use of gamey tactics to a point where they are not worth using.

BUT I will still try to maximize my recon intel by risking or advancing the cheapest unit I have until contact with the enemy and I will still enjoy the game and love playing with other folks whose tactics are inventive, creative and unconventional to the point of gameyness in a no holds barred battle. That's the way I like to play. you set the code and the rules in CM and we'll do the rest, gamey or not. I know there are folks here who won't PBEM with me, but thats ok because I know there are others that will. I prefer to play full contact "no holds barred" Combat Mission, if the game is changed to make it even more realistic, ALL the better.

Thanks to all for this delightful thread, I look forward to reading all your responses, even from those that are disgusted with my opinions and tactics and who tell me I STILL don't understand what gamey tactics really are.

(don't worry I have a VERY thick skin, usually)

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-21-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

Steve Said

" 3. Players can use this tactic if the so wish. However, we as the game developers do not

have to sit back and allow a gaping hole in the simulations strides towards reality to exist.

The proposed changes mentioned earlier are there to help fix realism problems with the

game as is. They are not plucked out of the air. We clearly made some minor design flaws

that have contributed to the "gamey" tactic's success. It is our responsibility to fix these

errors with historically correct and logically sound code changes."

I could be wrong, (again ) but I think the vast majority of folks posting here FULLY support any and ALL your efforts to change the code and tweak the game and specifically the role of recon spotters in fast moving vehicles to make the game MORE realistic.

Please reply to this if you actually disagree with the changes Steve said will be in the next patch with regard to the way spotting in fast moving vehicles will be modeled in the future.

I'm really not sure who here is actually lobbying for the inclusion of loopholes that allow gamey tactics. Really? who is lobbying for that?

I think by now ALL here argree that the fast deep jeep recon joy ride, takes FULL advantage of the way Absolute Spotting is modeled and way the resulting borg-like telepathy of recon intel is communicated is totally unrealistic, I think by now that is a given. Anyone? is it not a given?

The question is what will be done about it and how will it be implemented?

More Fog of war is Better and More Realistic spotting "rules/code" will be welcomed buy Most here I think.

Comments?

-tom w

[Banshee]

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

I've brought this up a couple of times in the past two weeks but I still haven't found a response to as why people are not willing to use Ambush markers early on in the game for all their rear forces that they wish no-one to recon (tanks, antitanks, guns etc...)and expose early on. All guns and HQ units can plot these things really really close to the other units (in command) and supposedly in version 1.05 they will make them stick to them even better than before so they won't open up when they see something a little beyond the marker. If they don't open up on the recon unit, it would really have to be close just to see it, especially when hidden too. You can still keep your normal spotting units un-markerized and unhidden (like half-squads reconners) and maybe a machine gun on each flank so that they can see better and take out a light skinned recon vehicle if encountered. Maybe this only seems to be working for me and others might see flaws with it or it's not to their liking for some reason. Would like to hear why people aren't willing to do it. Is there any inherent risks in doing something like this that I haven't seen?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The recon vehicles retain very good spotting capability against infantry going at fast speed (esp unbuttoned, which a jeep always is). So even hidden forces can get spotted. And ambushing that same recon force behind your lines gives you the benefit of taking out the vehicle, but the opponent still gets valuable recon.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[CavScout]

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

I've brought this up a couple of times in the past two weeks but I still haven't found a response to as why people are not willing to use Ambush markers early on in the game for all their rear forces that they wish no-one to recon (tanks, antitanks, guns etc...)and expose early on. All guns and HQ units can plot these things really really close to the other units (in command) and supposedly in version 1.05 they will make them stick to them even better than before so they won't open up when they see something a little beyond the marker. If they don't open up on the recon unit, it would really have to be close just to see it, especially when hidden too. You can still keep your normal spotting units un-markerized and unhidden (like half-squads reconners) and maybe a machine gun on each flank so that they can see better and take out a light skinned recon vehicle if encountered. Maybe this only seems to be working for me and others might see flaws with it or it's not to their liking for some reason. Would like to hear why people aren't willing to do it. Is there any inherent risks in doing something like this that I haven't seen?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting but it is simply using one game function to try and stop another game functions.

CM has limitations, no offense to BTS, just as any other game, computer or otherwise. It can only simulate so much.

In RL one could have forward units to allow recon elements to pass through their positions. When we would perform a screen mission we would ID enemy recon units and observe them as they passed through our screen. We would then hand them off to a "hunter team", usually tanks, that would move up and engage them behind the screen. This way the enemy would not have information on the location of the screen.

Cav

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

If anybody wishes to challenge this point, kindly produce documentation that shows that Jeeps (or other fast vehicles) regullarly drove around INSIDE the kill zone of enemy lines spotting things left right and center and INSTANTLY reporting the EXACT location, makeup, and disposition of each unit spotted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve, at the risk of nitpicking, there is a flaw in your argument; if a player KNEW that he was inside the kill zone of enemy units, he wouldn't have to recon! What we (or at least I ) are talking about is racing through dangerous and possibly enemy-controlled territory in order to determine what is there. But there IS a question of definition. If it turns out that there are no nearby enemy units and it is not a kill zone, would that make it OK?

How do you define a kill zone? Say for instance you are in woods and you can see a single enemy tank 900 m away on a hill across some mostly open terrain with a few houses and patches of woods. Is sending a recon vehicle zigzagging say 300 m away from your woods to see if perhaps enemy tanks or something is hiding behind the nearby obstacles "gamey"? You say yes, I say no, because the alternative is to either engage the tank at long range and if you lose the exchange you are back to square one, or else to move your infantry out into the open advancing against unknown enemy dispositions.

If you can get a professional soldier to tell me that the best real-life solution in this case is to send out the foot infantry instead of a recon vehicle, I will be puzzled but will have to admit that I am wrong. And if the thing to do is to send out a vehicle, it has a better chance of survival the faster it goes.

As for EXACT spotting information, that is a property of the game and not of the technique of spotting. Why should the game give more exact spotting information from moving vehicles than for stationary infantry? You wrote the program, don't complain to ME

Henri

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Lewis,

I don't know what else to say. I have explained our position on relative spotting very plainly, others seem to understand, yet you do not. I'm not saying that makes you particular dense or anything, but it certainly doesn't mean that I haven't answered your questions in a direct manner. ANd of course, you know that I only give back the attitude you show me... so you shouldn't have any complaints there.

I'll try one more time to lay this all out for you.

1. We thought of doing relative spotting 2 years ago.

2. At the time, with a daunting design list and a pile of unknowns up to the roof, we decided that this feature was one too many to tackle for the first version.

3. Hindsight might lead us to believe that it could have been implemented without too many problems we were worried about biting us in the ass. HOWEVER, since we still haven't coded this up, the jury is still out.

4. You are judging the wisdom of our design decision based on what you see in front of you now, not where we were 2 years ago when we had to make the decision. This is not only unfair, but a rather silly position to maintain.

5. As for being a "missed opportunity", I disagree. Although it is not in CM1, and probably not CM2, it most certainly will be introduced later on.

6. With all the other ground breaking parts of Combat Mission in place, it is rather tripe to dig in on one that we passed up on for very sound reasons (note: at the time! and that is all that matters).

7. We can't just toss in something now. It is still a fundamental change and needs to be given the time and energy that such changes require to be done right.

8. Your suggestion about having relative spotting in the Orders Phase only can not work since spotting is done during the Resolution Phase. Your suggestion requires this knowledge be there, but it is not.

9. Nothing short of a full treatment of this issue will work, which #7 above addresses. We have the design experience and knowledge of the code to know this for sure. Nobody, no matter how well intentioned, can question this.

I don't know how else to say it. This is a complicated and fundamental game design element. As desirable as it is, it wasn't practical to do for the first go. Might not even be practical to do for the second go. But it will happen when we can in fact do it right.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve

I am mostly curious about the following:

"Spotting is done on a partial second basis during the resolution part of the game. In the Orders Phase this information is already known, i.e. that x unit is spotted. There is no code in the game that tracks who spotted who. What you are talking about is pure LOS, which is already in the game. In other words, you can not figure out who spotted what during the Orders Phase unless it was done on the fly during the resolution process. And that is where the major recoding effort lies. All other issues about gameplay effects and user interface impact still remain on top of this."

1. This paragraph is supposed to be clear?

I am also judging the wisdom of your design not by what I see in front of me now (I guess you mean CMBO) but by what I have designed in my own game. I then thought, hey, why didnt they do this? Its not hardly gamey and helps realism..

So CM2 wont likely have it. Great.

I agree that its a fundamental change. And in my threads I usually say that tweaks are OK and fundamental changes get the list treatment.

I actually suggested 'respotting' or having the game check LOS and spotting once a unit decides to fire but forget it.

So the orders phase 'spotting situation' derives from the resolution phase (end?) I gather.

I guess we'll see how BTS's russian front game differs if at all from CMBO. I am getting the feeling its going to be very similar.

And again, your welcome from us vets for the tweak info. Gamey tactics come from gamey modeling and good abstractions can wisely keep them in check.

Lewis

[Henri]

OK, I have spent considerable energy defending tactics that I don't use (I have never done recon with a jeep as far as I can remember), and like everyone else, I support any programming changes that improve the realism of the game. On the other hand, I am somewhat worried about changes that solve a small problem at the cost of creating a bigger one.

Anyway , here is what I believe to be the ONLY solution to gamyness in Combat Mission! Although this is clearly not possible to implement, it is the standard against which "realism " must be measured.

Here is how to do it: you need one player for each commander in the game, down to the level of platoon leader, CPX-style. The overall commander (say Battalion) gives his WRITTEN orders to his Company commanders, that is he tells them what the objective is and in general terms how to do it. Each company commander can see the whole map, but he can see only the units seen by his subordinates. Each company commander then gives written orders to his platoon leaders, who can see only the units seen by their subordinates. The platoon leaders, who can see only enemy units seen by thier subordinates, the write the orders to each of their squads, and these orders are then handed to a referee who executes them with the game following to his best ability the orders of the PLATOON LEADERS (he does not interpret the orders of the higher level commanders because he doesn't know what they are), and he takes into account ONLY the information that the squad that he is moving would have in a realistic situation.

Even this kind of play would have its problems, such as the question of how much information from one squad or platoon is available to other squads or platoons, taking into account distance, availability of radio communications and so on. But it would be as close to reality as this game allows.

Now the question of reqlism of CM is: how close to this ideal is the game now, and how close can it become with further programming?

The answer to the first question is not too much, but better than all other games, and the answer to the second question is: as long as a single player is controlling one side, he will have an unrealistic amount of information.

So the question we are REALLY discussing here is how close can the PRESENT game be made to the ideal by imposing artificial rules? My opinion is that we are trying to sculpt a six-foot statue of David into a block of jello, and we won't succeed.

Henri

[CavScout]

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

Steve, at the risk of nitpicking, there is a flaw in your argument; if a player KNEW that he was inside the kill zone of enemy units, he wouldn't have to recon! What we (or at least I ) are talking about is racing through dangerous and possibly enemy-controlled territory in order to determine what is there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And here is your "fatal flaw". One would not determine enemy presence by racing through an area. In fact, racing through an area in RL is likely not to "confirm or deny" anything about the enemy. It is only because the game engine causes units to fire on "recon" units that such a "tactic" works.

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

But there IS a question of definition. If it turns out that there are no nearby enemy units and it is not a kill zone, would that make it OK?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No because the method is not something that would realisticaly used on the battlefield. Hell, recon used SLOW down when enemy contact is likely using things such as boudning overwatch.

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

If you can get a professional soldier to tell me that the best real-life solution in this case is to send out the foot infantry instead of a recon vehicle, I will be puzzled but will have to admit that I am wrong. And if the thing to do is to send out a vehicle, it has a better chance of survival the faster it goes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From <u>FM 17-98 SCOUT PLATOON</u> Chapter 8 Basic Scout Skills, Open Areas

Open areas frequently afford the scout the opportunity to observe the enemy from long ranges. Conversely, they often require that the scout be exposed to possible enemy observation and fire for long periods of movement. Therefore, the platoon must make maximum use of the terrain and employ effective observation techniques to avoid exposing itself to a well-concealed and camouflaged enemy.

Before moving across a large open area, the scout platoon must make a thorough visual scan of the area. This should be done both dismounted and mounted, using all available optics. This scan focuses not only on finding potential enemy positions, but also on locating covered and concealed routes for bounding and a covered and concealed position to which the unit can move. If time and terrain permit, dismounted scouts may be used to move to the far side of the open area and secure it. In very large open areas, use of dismounts may not be feasible because of the distances between covered and concealed positions.

Once the area has been cleared using visual means and/or dismounts, the scouts move across it. They use bounding overwatch because of the likelihood of enemy contact. If the open area is very large, the overwatch vehicle should only remain stationary until the bounding vehicle has moved a distance equal to half the effective range of the overwatching vehicle’s weapon system. When that point is reached, the overwatch vehicle must move out, even if the bounding vehicle has not yet reached a position of cover and concealment.

When moving across large open areas with limited cover and concealment, the scouts should consider the use of reconnaissance by indirect or direct fire to provide additional security as they move. Additionally, indirect fire can provide concealment, with smoke either used alone or mixed with suppressive fires. However, using smoke is feasible only for limited periods because of Class V supply restrictions on supporting mortar or artillery units.

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-21-2000).]

[Hamstersss]

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

Steve

1. This paragraph is supposed to be clear?

I am also judging the wisdom of your design not by what I see in front of me now (I guess you mean CMBO) but by what I have designed in my own game. I then thought, hey, why didnt they do this? Its not hardly gamey and helps realism..

So CM2 wont likely have it. Great.

I agree that its a fundamental change. And in my threads I usually say that tweaks are OK and fundamental changes get the list treatment.

I actually suggested 'respotting' or having the game check LOS and spotting once a unit decides to fire but forget it.

So the orders phase 'spotting situation' derives from the resolution phase (end?) I gather.

I guess we'll see how BTS's russian front game differs if at all from CMBO. I am getting the feeling its going to be very similar.

And again, your welcome from us vets for the tweak info. Gamey tactics come from gamey modeling and good abstractions can wisely keep them in check.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lewis,

From someone who has managed and implemented software design and worked with major entertainment software companies I have to say that your attitude comes off as that of an insufferable prat.

I'm amazed that BTS has the patience to respond to each of your posts, as it's obvious that while you have some grasp of logic, you do not understand the basic foundations of software development. Your tendency to harp about abstractions clouds the issue, as everyone knows that any software program is an abstraction.

Your remarks about how you've solved something in your game are a joke. Not only is your game a seperate piece of code, (Which I would lay odds is not 1/100 as complex as CM) but it is also non-existent. It is, for lack of a better metaphor, the girlfriend in Canada (No offense to all you Canucks). It is everything that you want it to be with no flaws.

Finally, this superior attitude of yours, as demonstrated in many other posts besides these, is completely unfounded. Your lack of humility shows no respect and lays bare your naivette.

Frankly, and here's the quotable sentence, I find myself clenching my jaw every time I read your inane and redundant posts.

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

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve, at the risk of nitpicking, there is a flaw in your argument; if a player KNEW that he was inside the kill zone of enemy units, he wouldn't have to recon!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Henri,

Lets try to let go of some of the terminology, becasue it appears that we have difefrent definitions for recon.

In every single DYO battle I have ever played against another human being, I know that the enemy OWNS the other side of the map. I know where the edge of my deployment zone is. I know that the enemy deployment zone will be roughly the same size. The area in between these zones is a combat area.

The kind of recon you are thinking about would only be happening to find out GENERAL enemy locations; the kind of GENERAL information that we already have when we start a battle.

Perhaps Steve chose the wrong word, "killzone", but the point still stands. In the kinds of battles you see in CM, the "no mans land" instead of "killzone", ie the ground beyond your deployment zone is a Frontline Combat Area. Jeeps were not sent into Frontline Combat areas on lone shoot-em-ups. I am sorry, but..just no. You don't have to agree, its not a slight against you to define this as such, its just the truth.

I want to play informed people who think to themselves before moving "Is this something that would really work?" They dont have to be right every time (I'm sure not), but the INTENT is key. I intend to play and learn how to do things that would really work in Combat.

Henri ,no one is insulting you, lets try to keep this discussion emotion-neutral..

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve, at the risk of nitpicking, there is a flaw in your argument; if a player KNEW that he was inside the kill zone of enemy units, he wouldn't have to recon!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhm.... exactly my point and that of others A Combat Mission battle is just that. One big unhappy kill zone. Sure, you might not know that the enemy has x in y position, but that was rarely known in real life either. What you WOULD know would be generalized information which recon had picked up BEFORE the battle you are now playing. If this is a premade battle you might even receive specific information (ex: "the enemy is known to have at least one Tiger and 3 pillboxes").

So it is not a flaw in my position.

Steve

[Mannheim Tanker]

First, I'll just reiterate what Tom said. Great job, BTS, and thanks a bunch Steve for all of your participation in this thread (and on the forum in general). I'm still dumbfounded (I'm NEVER speechless!) at the level of involvement you and Charles have in this forum, especially when I compare it to the "big guys'" sites...

Tom, I think you "got" it a long while back, and am in full agreement with you on 99% of what you're posting. I just don't agree to USE it

Henri, if you ever took any of my criticisms personally, please don't, as they're never meant to be taken that way. I think our lapse in communication with one another stems from applying different meaning to the same word (eg Recon). Also, I'll tell you from personal experience, even if today's vehicles can go 30mph cross country, it's pretty hard to see a squad sitting in a treeline (unless you use thermal sights). Try this experiment some time: Have a few of your buddies put on camoflage clothing and hide in the woods a few meters off of a stretch of road a mile or so long, but don't have them tell you exactly where they are. Next, drive down the road and see if you can spot them...even on a smooth road, I think you'll find it harder than you think.

Great discussion, guys.

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This paragraph is supposed to be clear?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, and still looks clear to me. What is the backbone of relative spotting Lewis? The unit only being aware of things it realistically could have seen. Correct? So... how does checking LOS AFTER the Resoultion Phase and before the Orders Phase achieve that? All it can do is see what the unit can spot at that milisecond in time. What if an enemy, which was being fired upon, just happened to pop out of view on second 59.999? Your system would make the unit, which had been firing at it, suddenly become totally unaware that the unit exists? And what happens once the player hits GO! again. As mentioned before, all concept of relative spotting would vanish because you are no back to a "if it is spotted any unit can shoot at it" system.

If you can't understand this it doesn't surprise me. You don't kick the the tires of your ideas very well. So I don't know why I should bother doing it for you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am also judging the wisdom of your design not by what I see in front of me now (I guess you mean CMBO) but by what I have designed in my own game. I then thought, hey, why didnt they do this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, so I get it now. You had your own game design done up, complete with an assesment of how long it would take to code based on experience before you ever saw or heard about Combat Mission? If that is the case... where is this game of yours? Easy for you to defend something that doesn't exist as being perfect.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I actually suggested 'respotting' or having the game check LOS and spotting once a unit decides to fire but forget it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As stated above, you are ignoring the flaws in this system. It involves probably just as much coding and interface work as it would be to put it in the right way, yet it wouldn't yield an overall improvement in realism IMHO. It would be DIFFERENT, but I think not significantly better. So if we are going to put in that kind of effort, why not do it right?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So the orders phase 'spotting situation' derives from the resolution phase (end?) I gather.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite. The 'spotting situation' as seen in the Orders Phase is the last known position/strength/stance of each unit. However, all the system knows is that at least ONE friendly unit is aware of the enemy unit in question. The system has no concept of which friendly units should be aware of that unit at the particular milisecond when the turn ends. You can recalc the LOS, but you can't backtrack to figure out who should know what. And that is the core of what relative spotting is all about.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I guess we'll see how BTS's russian front game differs if at all from CMBO. I am getting the feeling its going to be very similar.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True to some extent. There will be many significant game changes, but we are not planning on doing any radical overhauls at this time. As it is we feel that a year to get CM2 done is a bit cramped. There is a LOT to do in this short period of time. Opening up the game engine and tinkering with something this fundamental is not planned for now.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And again, your welcome from us vets for the tweak info. Gamey tactics come from gamey modeling and good abstractions can wisely keep them in check.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... Lewis, you are a real piece of work. Question... why are you wasting your precious game development time with our gamey modeling and poorly thought out abstractions? This must putting your game far behind schedule. And that means I have to wait longer to get my chance to get in a good laugh

Steve

[Grognerd_Fogman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Uhm.... exactly my point and that of others A Combat Mission battle is just that. One big unhappy kill zone. Sure, you might not know that the enemy has x in y position, but that was rarely known in real life either. What you WOULD know would be generalized information which recon had picked up BEFORE the battle you are now playing. If this is a premade battle you might even receive specific information (ex: "the enemy is known to have at least one Tiger and 3 pillboxes").

So it is not a flaw in my position.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm Steve, you've just made the best point I've seen for eliminating all fast recon vehicles in the game. Meaning that if all the general recon was completed prior to CM type battles, then there would really be no reason for jeeps without MG's and Kubelwagons. Drop all vehicles that are fast, have no firepower and small passenger capability. Gamey recon fixed...

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

Thanks for Athskin!

[Banshee]

I do believe that this thread has caught Steve's fancy

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Hamstersss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Hehe... Lewis, you are a real piece of work. Question... why are you wasting your precious game development time with our gamey modeling and poorly thought out abstractions? This must putting your game far behind schedule. And that means I have to wait longer to get my chance to get in a good laugh

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dammit Steve, you plagiarized my work! And my post was much more succinct, too. In fact, if you had implemented the points in my post into your post, your post would have been, at least, 150% better. This, of course, is based on my post, and I haven't really studied how long it would take to integrate it into your post, though I think the regression testing would be negligible.

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

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

There is a place and time for those vehicles in CM I think. Those jeeps and small vehicles are great for getting important teams from place to place in big battles...

I don't make my Crack Sharpshooters walk! Perish the thought! They are chauferred to their positions in style!

[Mannheim Tanker]

Plus, don't forget that Kubelwagons are a great way to keep your Sturmtruppen warm in winter. Just poke them over a ridge, and viola! Instant bon fire.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This paragraph is supposed to be clear?

"Hehe... Lewis, you are a real piece of work. Question... why are you wasting your precious game development time with our gamey modeling and poorly thought out abstractions? This must putting your game far behind schedule. And that means I have to wait longer to get my chance to get in a good laugh

Steve"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFLMAO !!!!

I'm still laughing

Great sense of humour Steve!

I read this forum because not only can you get into some great debates, but in between there is always the chance a shinning glint of really good humour that will surely brighten my day.

Thanks

And Lewis, Thank-you also, I find your posts equally entertaining

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-21-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Captain Foobar is correct. There is a time and a place for such vehicles. But Grognerd_Fogman is escentially correct. Jeeps, Kübels, and trucks of all sort have very little realism value to add to most CM battles. In fact, I have never purchased any of these vehicles in any game I have ever played. However, for atmospheric reasons alone, they have a place in CM. Cripes, I have even had people wanting us to add 50 different truck types, and of course motorcycles!, as well. GOOD LORD! Can you imagine how motorcycles would be used in CM

There is a place for any AFV of any sort. Although they weren't as common on the battlefield as people like to think, they were very much up there with the line infantry. Recon units were also often asked to fight like regular infantry (especially German units) and their main firepower came from things like armored cars and halftracks.

Also, there is something to be said about SLOW recon. A few lightly armored AFVs in front of a slowly moving to contact infantry or armored force is in fact correct for CM's scale. I do this all the time and try to remove the HTs from danger as soon as it manifests itself. In the game I just played with Dan I should have been able to had at least 2 or 3 of my 4 HTs survive the game. But I made some unlucky decisions and boom

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-21-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

C

and of course motorcycles!, as well. GOOD LORD! Can you imagine how motorcycles would be used in CM

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can just imagine how great quick all seeing Motorcyles would be for the ulitimate in gamey recon

One does not need a particularly good imagination to visualize this cheap fast quick motorbike recon joy ride deep into unknown territory.

When did you say we would be getting these instant borg recon bikes?

still laughing

-tom w

[Mannheim Tanker]

Motorcycles!? God no! LOL!

[Banshee]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Also, there is something to be said about SLOW recon. A few lightly armored AFVs in front of a slowly moving to contact infantry or armored force is in fact correct for CM's scale. I do this all the time and try to remove the HTs from danger as soon as it manifests itself. In the game I just played with Dan I should have been able to had at least 2 or 3 of my 4 HTs survive the game. But I made some unlucky decisions and boom

B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC Recon is supposed to "Find & Fix" the enemy, that is the way I conduct my recon. Just enough force (Amis: Usually a squad or two + M8, M20, or HT , Germans : Luch or HT + infantry) to establish and hold contact to allow the more powerful force to bring their firepower to bear in a benificial manner. If you don't have enough firepower forward it doesnt work because the enemy can overwhelm the force before the trailing units can effectively bring fire. I use a similair system to Steve except I usually keep my AFV's at best even with the infantry and usually 20-50m's behind depending on the cover. I think he must use cover better than I do because my AFV's get toasted if they get in front of the infantry.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[:USERNAME:]

What is the backbone of relative spotting Lewis? The unit only being aware of things it realistically could have seen. Correct?

Lewis: Have seen? Is seeing? You have decided on the time slice being one minute. Thats when the player gives orders.

So... how does checking LOS AFTER the Resoultion Phase and before the Orders Phase achieve that?

Lewis: Its working around your time/command abstraction. You decided that 1 minute is the slice of time to give orders. You decided thats the time, so it depends on that time.

All it can do is see what the unit can spot at that milisecond in time. What if an enemy, which was being fired upon, just happened to pop out of view on second 59.999?

Lewis: What if one just popped into view on the last millisecond? It works both ways!!

Your system would make the unit, which had been firing at it, suddenly become totally unaware that the unit exists?

Lewis: That happens in the game alot!!! Tanks lose a target and get short term memory loss and start targeting whatever.. you are basing your argument on that!!!?? How many wrongs make a right in your world?

And what happens once the player hits GO! again. As mentioned before, all concept of relative spotting would vanish because you are no back to a "if it is spotted any unit can shoot at it" system.

Lewis: What?