Rob Deans Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 Most people know recce as being against the enemy. Just as much recce is done "against" the ground. My thoughts were this.... Would it be possible to build some sort of ambiguity into the ground features that could only be clarified with close inspection? Examples that come to mind are fords in rivers. Muddy fields that can not support tanks. Bush that is impassible. To name a few. This would introduce another aspect of the game and add to its already huge flexibility. The way the game is now, we know everything about the ground with out actual "first hand" experience. "According to our maps, the road goes is covered by bush on either side..." In actual fact the road goes in the open, devoid of any cover. I guess I'm looking at really two different levels of ground ambiguity. That which can be rectified by inspection from afar. (Bush, the route of a road or river, buildings that are not on the map, etc...) The second type is that terain which can only be clarified through direct inspection.(fords, the thickness of bush, the condition of roads, etc...) So much of the tactical battle field is affected by the ground and the lack of knowledge on it. An example.... The attack is setup for a left flanking. The approach will take the mixed company/squadron from behind a copse down into some low ground and launch an attack from the far edge of the depression. As the low ground (which at this time shows only clear ground with a wall through it) comes under direct observation of the column, it becomes evident that there is bush and such at the bottom. Mmmmmm.. will this impeade movement? As the lead tank gets to the bottom, it realises that the ground is soft and he is getting stuck. The condition of the ground was not know until the tank was on it (or close to it). Two more tanks get stuck leaving the infantry to carry on up the far side. The point so far is that the tanks were not sent into a situation knowing full well that they ran a high possibility of becoming immobilised. They were sent blind into dead ground without any recce done at all. Granted lack of recce will be an occurrance if time is at a premium. The infantry carry on to the start line and shake out for the attack. As they come to the top of the dead ground they come under fire from a barn in defilade that was not "on the map". Its location could not be oserved from the original starting locations and only "appeared" becuase a unit directly observed it. I think that terrain ambiguity would add so much to this already wonderful game. It would introduce a realistic information level and add so much to the fog of war. (Obviously not until a later version of the game) As a final point. This could be used as part of an operation as a stand alone "battle" between deliberate attacks (or whatever) to scout routes and find objectives. Things that happen in reality. Comments? Thanks Rob Deans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 This is something I always wanted to see implemented in a wargame someday. I would love it. Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 That is a very neat idea, Dean! It makes very good sense. It adds even more fog to the "fog of war." ------------------ Wild Bill Wild Bill's Raiders Director of Scenario Design, The Gamers Net billw@thegamers.net http://wbr.thegamers.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 The Japanese assault on the Philippines was seriously hampered by the very poor, large scale maps issued to ground units. They were badly misinformed about, or unaware of, serious terrain obstacles and features, and often blundered into deep jungle and steep slopes unawares. I found this surprising given Japan's proximity to the islands and normal obsession with detail but it is well-documented. It's quite possible that they had detailed maps of an appropriate scale but that these were not issued. Anyway, I agree. Maps on the East front were notoriously sketchy. Also, visualizing reality from a topo requires considerable skill and imagination. Information on ground cover is often wrong. Wouldn't it be cool if those parts of the map not directly spotted were displayed only as a WWII-era topo map until physically observed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fester Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 Great Idea Rob! I fully second this. Another really cool aspect that could be added to this is in a defensive role, you could have intimate knowledge of the terrain nuances, since youve most likely been parked there awaiting some type of offensive action. However the nme would only be presented with the sketchy information you described. So how bout it BTS? Fester -out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 Charles and I very much wanted to do this for CM 1. However, a HUGE and fundamental system would need to be created to handle this realistically and present it in a way that could be understood (i.e. like the various levels of spotting for units). We decided that it was far too big a bite to take for CM as we already had so many other huge groundbreaking things in there. The developer that goes for everything the first time usually never even finishes the first game Better to add things as we go along. No idea when we might tackle this. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted January 15, 2000 Share Posted January 15, 2000 Rob Deans said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Would it be possible to build some sort of ambiguity into the ground features that could only be clarified with close inspection?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've suggested Fionn implement this type of recon mission into his CM Meta-Campaign system. It would work in that because it would be handled by players instead of the game engine. For instance, your map shows a bridge but you don't know whether it will support your Tigers. Before you can plan in confidence, therefore, you have to send somebody to take a look. The true state of the bridge is known to Fionn and the recon mission gets played out by the CMMC players, to decide whether or not they get the answer, or get it right But I ain't heard back from him on this, so I don't know if it'll be in CMMC. I sure hope so, however. -Bullethead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WendellM Posted January 15, 2000 Share Posted January 15, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Charles and I very much wanted to do this for CM 1. However, a HUGE and fundamental system would need to be created to handle this realistically and present it [...] No idea when we might tackle this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting: "when" and not "if". Since the entire span of CM2-5 has been planned out on this board, I may safely conclude that it's only a matter of time . More seriously, something like this does seem to have great merit. Wendell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted July 10, 2000 Share Posted July 10, 2000 Rob, Me thinks your Mess overalls have twin yellow stripes? I fully endorse your concept and I think the best way is to make the Recce the first phase of an Operation. Each side could be given a "limit of exploitation" or "deny penetration past" lines and we could employ Recce units properly rather than as target markers for the main body (oh there goes the Daimler /Greyhound / Puma somethings up ahead). Then in the next phase the ground the player sees can be thought of as a confirmed recce rather than a God-like map one. ------------------ Regards, Mark:-{) Anxiously awaiting the G4 PowerBook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest *Captain Foobar* Posted July 10, 2000 Share Posted July 10, 2000 The hard part as I see it with ground ambiguity, will be how players undestand the interface. Your natural tendancy is to "trust" what you see on the monitor, as something that can be seen by your men. This FOW idea you guys are discussing is a good one, but there is value in having a "what you see is what you get" kind of interface. One example of where CM veers away from utopian perfection is LOS at the edge of buildings, and hull down firing stuations, and LOS through woods. Now I am not complaining about these things, as I can work with them now that I am aware of them, but the visual interface is something that CM seems to do very well overall right now, and it should be guarded.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted July 10, 2000 Share Posted July 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: I found this surprising given Japan's proximity to the islands and normal obsession with detail but it is well-documented. It's quite possible that they had detailed maps of an appropriate scale but that these were not issued. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's a bit like saying Norwegians have to have detailed maps of Sicily, because it is so close - or Canadians of Mexico. Have a look at a map and you'll be surprised about the distances involved. As for the topic of this thread, I think it is a great idea, much better than the blanket 'Let's have it all black unless we have been there' approach. Hopefully we'll see this later in the series. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts