What Is "Relative" Spotting?

[Doug Beman]

Jasper, I agree units DO communicate with one another.

However, the time variable is so unpredictable, and influenced so differently by variables at different times, that simulating an "accurate" commo delay on-the-fly is so difficult as to be functionally impossible.

As Steve said, infantry phones on tanks were very rare, meaning that it could be very difficult for an infantry unit to point out an AT gun to a tank. Or, perhaps something happens that makes the infantry-tank communication much faster sometimes.

Whatever the case, allowing infantry to ALWAYS talk to tanks (or whatever) really quickly because SOMETIMES they could is as bad as NEVER allowing quick communications because SOMETIMES they couldn't

BTS has to abstract this information flow as accurately and "feels-rightly" as possible. The current situation works, and I really like CM. A recode to allow relative spotting (the tank has to "see" a target for itself before it can attack), even without addressing the "information flow rate" problem, would almost certainly make the game even better. Being forced to let each unit act on what each unit can, itself, see, will make better commanders out of me, at least.

DjB

[Guest Big Time Software]

Doug wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Whatever the case, allowing infantry to ALWAYS talk to tanks (or whatever) really quickly because SOMETIMES they could is as bad as NEVER allowing quick communications because SOMETIMES they couldn't<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I know what you meant to say here, but I thought I would clarify our take on it.

In WWII near-instantenous transfer of information from unit to unit was almost unheard of. The transfer of totally correct and accurate information from unit to unit, even with significant time delays (say a turn or two at CM's scale), was almost never seen on a WWII battlefield.

However, CM's current model (like all other wargames before it) allows BOTH of these things to happen. Instantenous communication of exact and accurate information. So any reasonable system that hinders both of these things is a step in the right direction towards better realism.

On balance, if we have a Relative system with absolutely NO sharing of information between units, it would be overwhelmingly more realistic than the Absolute system we have now. We will try to have some unit to unit communications, in realistic ways, if possible. But even if we don't, the new system will be far better than any that has come before it.

Steve

[Jasper]

In closing:

The term Blah Blah spotting is not really the issue. The issue is, of course, C3. Command Control & Communications (?) Take a 'relative' spotting scheme and give it a 100% C3 system and you can't tell the difference between that and the 'absolute' system. All units still know everything - One for All and All for One. This is the way most wargames run.

The 'relative' spotting idea is to make it C3 - C1 = C2 - Still have 100% control and 100% command, but the inner-unit communications is gone entirely No shouting, no radio contract - zip. Personally I think this will cause problems of micro-management and I suspect when the TacIA jumps in and switches a unit away from 'Area Fire' it will become very unpopular indeed. So be it. End of my posting on this issue.

[Phoenix]

What's funny is that you've decided how relative spotting will be a problem, and yet BTS hasn't even decided how to implement it.

Man, can you get anymore negative?

[dNorwood]

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

Man, can you get anymore negative?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah - there you go with the negative waves.

Have a little faith, baby!

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jasper, respectfully you still do not fully grasp the problem, and therefore do not understand the solution in the correct context.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The issue is, of course, C3.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it is not. This is an entirely different issue. The issue really is, quite simply, spotting.

Most units in WWII had NO radios. None. Even if they did, they had very limited ability to cross communicate. A platoon could only communicate with its own Company HQ, not any unit in the field. Shouting, hand signals, etc. have only a VERY limited range, especially in the chaos of battle. Even if all these things were working between two specific units, the transfer of information would not be INSTANT nor would it be EXACT. Currently this is how it works in CM.

Now... this MIGHT appear to be C3 issues. It is not. Repeat, it is not. The problem is that in real life a unit must spot its own targets. Even if it is tipped off by another unit, it still must establish its own visual contact. In Combat Mission, once ONE unit establishes visual contact, every unit in the game INSTANTLY establishes visual contact. Even if the enemy unit is not in LOS, was spotted by a 1 man sharpshooter only, or is over 2000m away. C3 aspects doesn't even factor in because the spotting already established complete, instant information before any treatment of C3 can be simulated.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The 'relative' spotting idea is to make it C3 - C1 = C2 - Still have 100% control and 100% command, but the inner-unit communications is gone entirely<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was never simulated, so it can not be removed. Put another way, Combat Mission does NOT simulate inter-unit communication right now. Absolute spotting eliminates the opportunity to do so.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No shouting, no radio contract - zip.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You appear to not understand how limited such contact was in WWII. You are also missing the point that this is not simulated now. Quite the contrary, it is totally not simulated.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Personally I think this will cause problems of micro-management<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know how you can come to this conclusion. First, because we haven't even made the system yet. Second, because it does not change the nature of the human's control over his units. All it does is limit the ability of one unit to directly target a unit it has no realistic "right" to target.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and I suspect when the TacIA jumps in and switches a unit away from 'Area Fire' it will become very unpopular indeed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just stated that it would likely NOT be possible for us to undo human issued Area Fire orders. You apparently missed that, as you missed the suggestion by me that we will try to actually simulate that which you think we are removing (inter-unit communications).

Steve

[Guest Seimerst]

Jeff,

For the allies it is easier than you think. Every tank they see or hear-- they think is a Tiger. <grin>

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

One tank thinks that AFV is a Tiger, the other one thinks its a PzIIL?

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Dr. Brian]

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

In Combat Mission, once ONE unit establishes visual contact, every unit in the game INSTANTLY establishes visual contact. Even if the enemy unit is not in LOS, was spotted by a 1 man sharpshooter only, or is over 2000m away. C3 aspects doesn't even factor in because the spotting already established complete, instant information before any treatment of C3 can be simulated.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another interesting thought/idea popped into my mind.

Imagine the repercussions to the computer opponent's tactical subroutines when/if relative spotting is/can be implemented?

Consider that now, when the "computer is thinking" its actions are based on absolute spotting (which is only fair, since so is the human).

I can't even begin to imagine the algorithmic code for "proper" (or even decent) tactical decisions. If anything, this is clearly a case for heuristic reasoning on part of the programmer. If BTS can pull this off (and by reading, I think this is a MAJOR, yet worthwhile, undertaking) with an expert system, I'll buy them a six pack.

I guess, this may not even be an issue since the computer, even though the unit can't target, it still 'knows" the unit is there, just like the human.

Okay, I just went in a circle, and talked myself out of it. Guess it won't be a problem after all, and current algorithmic code will be adequate. Sorry to take up bandwidth on that.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 12-28-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Okay, I just went in a circle, and talked myself out of it. Guess it won't be a problem after all, and current algorithmic code will be adequate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... exactly. The Strategic planning aspects will be the same. The difference will be that Tactical planning (i.e. which unit to target what) and execution (TacAI during a turn) will be constrained by target choices. So while I do think we will have to do a fairly decent amount of AI programming, it will be more along the linds of "fleshing out" instead of a total rewrite.

Steve

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I dunno, you guys are making this topic far too complicated. It's quite simple, once you spot the relative, quickly grab your wallet, keys etc. and fly out the back door, over the fence through the neighbours back yard and down to the local pub to avoid the mother in law/cousin/grandparent. It's really that simple. Hope this has helped.

Regards

Jim R.