What Is "Relative" Spotting?

[Dr. Brian]

Okay, someone explain this please?

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Mark IV]

Right now, once an enemy unit is spotted, it is spotted by every unit. With relative spotting each of your units would need to establish its own LOS to the enemy, and presumably need to see it move or fire, before they could engage it.

[Hiram Sedai]

When you recognize your uncle Albert?

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

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal

[L.Tankersley]

Just to clarify MkIV's post a trifle, relative spotting means that, once an enemy unit is spotted by any friendly unit, any other friendly unit with LOS to that enemy knows about it, too, without having to pass a "sighting check" (my name for the probabilistic determination of whether the target is seen or not based on terrain occupied, activity, and so on).

Here's another potential research topic for those so inclined, by the way: it might be interesting to do some tests on the probability of spotting targets of different types and qualities occupying various types of terrain, at different ranges. I wonder if the number of units with LOS has an effect, and exactly what that effect is (i.e., does each unit with LOS get a sighting check, or are the number of units trying to spot all get wrapped up into one global check)?

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[Jasper]

A not too subtle attempt to turn CM into a FPS (First Person Shooter) or RPG (Role Playing Game)

[Chupacabra]

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

A not too subtle attempt to turn CM into a FPS (First Person Shooter) or RPG (Role Playing Game)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Buh? Where'd you get this from? Relative spotting won't do either, it'll make CM a more realistic wargame.

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

Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[Dr. Brian]

Ahh, thanks for the replies people.

It "sounds" good. I had no idea that when a unit is spotted by one unit, it is "spotted" by all units.

This in fact explains a lot about how the computer opponent acts too.

I would expect that unit quality comes into play (both for spotter and spotted), intervening terrain, weather, distance to HQ units that have spotted enemy, etc.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Guest Big Time Software]

Uhm... Jasper... what planet are you on right now? CM never will be a FPS, RTS, or RPG. Never, ever, ever. It is a wargame and will always be such. The more we can do to make CM realistic, the better the game will be.

Having each UNIT only capable of "knowing" where things are based on its own experience is not only a good thing for a wargame, but a vastly more realistic approach. Just think of CM like it is right now, except that some units won't be able to automatically target any unit in LOS, but instead only target those things that it actually spotted on its own (as opposed to another unit spotting and magically passing on the info to every unit in the game). It has nothing to do with the PLAYER only seeing what the individual UNIT sees.

Relative spotting has been discussed before, in depth, in several different threads. Those that are really interested should do a Search.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 12-27-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It "sounds" good. I had no idea that when a unit is spotted by one unit, it is "spotted" by all units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, and every other wargame that has ever been made so far as I know.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This in fact explains a lot about how the computer opponent acts too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both the computer AI and the Human benefit from Absolute Spotting. The Human much more so because the extra knowledge is likely to be put to better use.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would expect that unit quality comes into play (both for spotter and spotted), intervening terrain, weather, distance to HQ units that have spotted enemy, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Spotting right now is like this, but once a unit is "flagged" as "spotted" based on this stuff, all units are able to shoot at it provided they have LOS. The difference is that Relative spotting would force each unit to go through this process for each enemy unit before being able to shoot at it.

Steve

[Jasper]

"The more we can do to make CM realistic, the better the game will be."

I think it's great the BTS is still actively supporting it's product. With many traditional software companies by the time a product reaches market the developers are busy on the next title. It's a welcome change.

"The difference is that Relative spotting would force each unit to go through this process for each enemy unit before being able to shoot at it."

I acknowledge to all that I'm only a causal student of military history, but surly it's not going to be that simple minded is it? I mean the beef now is the middle management tier is 100% effective in zero time. Sounds like you're going to strip away the middle management tier entirely?

I know you guys know this stuff, but just in case other readers are confused. Given an infantry squad is pinned down by an MG on a hill. They could communicate via radio or runner to their platoon commander "Pinned down by MG on hill.", if he didn't see this fact himself. It would then passed up the infantry command chain until it crosses over somewhere (I'm only a causal student remember?) to armor support. Which then communicates back down "Anyone able to take out that MG on the hill?"

Currently that scheme takes zero time and is 100% effective. It sounds like you're going to remove that layer entirely so it's zero percent effective and takes 100% time. That's troubling.

[Doug Beman]

Jasper, what you've described isn't what they're planning to do. They're going to recode the engine (for CMII, not CM2) so that, YES, you can tell the armor to march up that hill toward enemies that only the infantry can see. There will be a command delay based on the perceived efficiency of the command structure (ie. if the infantry have good commo with their commanders, you (the player) will see the enemy pretty quickly. If the infantry are judged to have poor commo it will take time for the player to see the enemy and then order other units to act.

HOWEVER, they plan to remove the way in which you can order, say, a buttoned-up tank to fire at an enemy unit that the tank hasn't yet seen. You can see this in the game right now in the following generic example:

A tank and some infantry are moving down a road. A machine gun opens fire, and the tank closes its hatches and starts firing at the machine gun. Then the infantry see an anti tank gun; the tank COULD POSSIBLY see it but does NOT. Under the current code, during your next orders phase you can tell that tank "target that AT gun" and the tank immediately turns its turret and opens fire, WITHOUT checking to see if the tank SEES that AT gun.

In the proposed changes, that tank will only obey your target order if it succeeds its own LOS check to "see" the AT gun for itself. If it doesn't, it will ignore the AT gun and fire at whatever it, itself, can see.

This change will make AT ambushes (and AT guns in particular) more effective. As it is, as soon as an AT gun opens fire, EVERY tank (or whatever) that CAN POSSIBLY draw an LOS to it can be ordered to shoot at that gun, REGARDLESS of whether or not they "see" it for themselves.

DjB

[This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 12-27-2000).]

[Trooper]

Yup, and every other wargame that has ever been made so far as I know.

Command Decision has a 'handoff period' whereby stands in the same unit can fire at a recently spotted target in the next phase, but stands in a different unit must wait for the handoff in the next turn.

CD also models the infantry/tank co-operation. If infantry are with the tanks, the infantry can act as spotters for the tanks. Be it by the telephone on the back, or a guy hanging onto the turret gesticulating in front of the periscope.

Then again, CD is modelled with one turn = 15 minutes...

NTM

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

The difference between infantrymen and cavalrymen is that cavalrymen get to die faster, for we ride into battle!

[Jeff Heidman]

Interface Question:

What is the best way to let the player know what a given unit has spotted or not?

For example, I see the anti-tank gun since I have a unit that spotted it. but the tank the AT gun is targeting has not spotted the AT gun. How can I (as the player) tell which of my units have/have not spotted the AT gun? What would be the best way to do that?

Off the top of my head, I would think that when you select a unit by clicking on it, any units it has spotted should be differentiated somehow, maybe shaded differently?

Jeff Heidman

[Guest Big Time Software]

Trooper:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Command Decision has a 'handoff period' whereby stands in the same unit can fire at a recently spotted target in the next phase, but stands in a different unit must wait for the handoff in the next turn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have a bit of this in CM. Buttoned up tanks have built in target aquisition delays. They aren't huge because if they were the vehicle would be unfairly penalized for things it really did spot right away.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Then again, CD is modelled with one turn = 15 minutes...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, much easier to abstract this sort of stuff with longer turn times. Since a "turn" in CM is actually a partial second (i.e. every partial second some action happens) it is really tough to hack in realistic behavior into an Absolute system.

Jeff wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What is the best way to let the player know what a given unit has spotted or not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the single biggest problem. And unless we come up with a workable solution, Relative spotting will kill the fun of playing. So needless to say we will pay a great amount of attention to this aspect of the system

Our rough concept is to utilize 3D video card graphics features. Say... you click on a unit and all non-spotted units get darker or transparent. Something like that.

Steve

[Jeff Heidman]

Sounds about right to me.

Of course, then there are all the other issues to be resolved.

Are you going to do variable realtive spotting? Can one unit have a firm contact while another a sound contact? One tank thinks that AFV is a Tiger, the other one thinks its a PzIIL? How does one unit spotting a target effect another units ability to spot that target? Will this be different for every unit? Radios? Semaphores?

The performance hit could be huge. You are looking at an exponential (squared) number of calculations, and on a very large map with a lot of units, it could get ugly really fast.

Sounds like lots of fun!

Jeff Heidman

[Vanir]

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

Our rough concept is to utilize 3D video card graphics features. Say... you click on a unit and all non-spotted units get darker or transparent. Something like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like a fine idea to me. This would be similar to that handy feature in Steel Panthers where you could right click in any direction while a unit was selected and all terrain not in the unit's LOS would be darkened out.

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

You mean my Java coded Real Time Bar Fight Simulator Madmatt Mission: Beyond BiteMe ISN'T going to be published?!?

Madmatt

[Jasper]

"A tank and some infantry are moving down a road. A machine gun opens fire, and the tank closes its hatches and starts firing at the machine gun. Then the infantry see an anti tank gun; the tank COULD POSSIBLY see it but does NOT. Under the current code, during your next orders phase you can tell that tank "target that AT gun" and the tank immediately turns its turret and opens fire, WITHOUT checking to see if the tank SEES that AT gun."

How much time to you propose it take for the infantry to let the tank crew know about the AT gun?

Didn't all German tanks of the period have phones on them? If they did then Jeff D could probably give model number and production plant! I think that initially M4's did not have phones on them, but eventually that they too had phones.

Failing that - they could use those cool SPR type hand signals. Remember the sniper in to tower communicating with Tom Hanks? Bang on the tanks hull to get the crews attention maybe? In a pinch they could pass notes through the drivers view slit!

[aka_tom_w]

I know this suggestion has been contemplated by Steve and BTS, as it was mentioned some time ago, and while it might be slightly off topic here.....

Lets not forget about the "COOL" idea of units actually getting lost? I think this is perhaps a distant cousin of the Relative spotting dream.

If and when you succeed in implementing relative spotting, Recon will take on a whole NEW meaning in CM AND if a unit is alone in the dense woods in the fog at night, MAYBE it could actually get good and LOST.

Units getting lost or loosing their bearings in a recon role would also add another element of realism to an already GREAT game.

Relative spotting and the successful execution of the idea is something we ALL look forward to.

Thanks

-tom w

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Are you going to do variable realtive spotting?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mind you that this feature is a long ways off, and there is NO design for it yet, but I will take a few off the cuff stabs at your questions...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Can one unit have a firm contact while another a sound contact? One tank thinks that AFV is a Tiger, the other one thinks its a PzIIL?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, this is easy to do. Unfortunately, the other major reality problem (i.e. the Human player) will be able to order his units to move based on the correct identification even if, for that turn, the units will act based on what they think the target is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How does one unit spotting a target effect another units ability to spot that target?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dunno. This could be a REALLY tough one. I suppose we could have some sort of "information transfer" based on the type of unit, experience, stance (pinned, running, etc), and proximity. However, I have no idea if this will be possible due to CPU limitiations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The performance hit could be huge. You are looking at an exponential (squared) number of calculations, and on a very large map with a lot of units, it could get ugly really fast.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly why it is not in the game now When we release the rewritten CM engine the dramatic increase in calculations will likely be OK for the processors of the day.

Jasper wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Didn't all German tanks of the period have phones on them? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, German tanks did not have phones. Most Allied tanks did not either. In fact, I don't think any did as standard equipment. I do know that the US, with their typical extra equipment and creativeness, did rig up standard field phones between a tank commander and an infantry man outside. This was generally done for very careful and close cooperation, not every day combat.

Steve

[Sitting Duck]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Interface Question:

What is the best way to let the player know what a given unit has spotted or not?

...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remember playing a computer war game once that would change the shading of the map to show LOS. Normal color for visible hexes and a translucent grey for non-visible hexes.

If I recall correctly (could be wrong here), if no unit was selected, the map would be shaded with "absolute spotting" rules showing all hexes visible to all of your units.

If you selected a unit, you could toggle the LOS for that unit and change the shading of the hexes.

Forget the name of the game...but that shading system seemed pretty good as an interface.

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

Steve of BTS - "With a company our size, every sale does in fact count (unlike every vote in certain assbackwards states )."

[This message has been edited by Sitting Duck (edited 12-27-2000).]

[Doug Beman]

Jasper, I missed a step in my example. The current system is for the infantry to INSTANTANEOUSLY tell the player "dude, there's an antitank gun over there!" Then you, the player, tell the tank to shoot at the antitank gun, and the tank INSTANTANEOUSLY does that.

What will be changed is "the tank INSTANTANEOUSLY does that." The infantry will still communicate that the gun is there, but if that tank fails its own LOS check, it won't "see" the gun, and won't shoot at it.

So the infantry can INSTANTANEOUSLY tell you, who tells the tank, which has to see the gun before it can shoot. Or perhaps it takes some time for the information to get from the infantry to the player, who tells the tank, who has to see the gun.

This will make "area fire" more important. As it is, if the player knows the gun is there the tank can shoot right away, regardless of whether it can see the gun. In the new system, if the tank doesn't see the gun it will look for other targets, allowing the gun to draw a bead. Players will have to use "area fire" to put fire near the gun, instead of direct-targeting and counting on the tank "seeing" the gun (if it doesn't see the gun it doesn't do ANYTHING against the gun)

DjB

[Dr. Brian]

So far, I've been soaking up all this great information and discussion. So, thanks to all of you that have participated.

However, to throw a wrench into the system with one of the examples above…

Squad and tank move side by side. Enemy MG opens up, and is spotted by the friendly AFV. ATG opens up and is spotted by the squad.

However, I (the player) place an "area fire" marker from the friendly AFV onto the ATG even though I don't "see" the AT Gun.

Does this bother anyone? Thoughts appreciated.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Does this bother anyone? Thoughts appreciated.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, but I don't think there is anything we can do about it. This is what we call the Borg problem - the human gets to watch and coordinate all units in the game using one train of thought and logic.

To have foolproof realism we would need to restrict the user to a passive part of the game. In other words, restrict the Borg. This would mean that the Human can do nothing at all but watching the action controlled by the AI. Since this kills off any notion of game, we have to accept that the human is going to be able to do things that aren't necessarily realistic.

Relative Spotting is far more realistic than Absolute Spotting. But it isn't perfect since the Human is allowed to interact with all units using one shared "conciousness".

Steve

[Jasper]

Doug Beman:

I'm confused. Do you agree that units communicate with each other? Or not?

Question: Will a unit hammer away with an 'Area Fire' order until it runs out of ammunition - or will the unit commander start thinking once juicy target(s) come into view?

[Jeff Heidman]

Jasper, barring a more interesting target, a unit with an "Area Fire" target will continue to fire until it runs out of ammo or is ordered to stop. I think there is an exception if the target is a building and it is destroyed.

However, they will stop to engage something the TacAI considers more important. An annoying part is that the unit has no "memory", so if they see a tank for an instant and start to engage it and then the new juicy target leaves or is destroyed, they will not go back to the area target. Chalk it up to the limitations of the 60 second turn.

Jeff Heidman