kipanderson Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 Relative spotting, what is it? Hi, I fully understand why BTS are returning a favour to various magazines by letting them have the info on CM2 first. But for those of us outside the US, that realistically cannot get the magazine, I know because I tried, What does “relative spotting” mean. I am not asking for the entire article to be published on the net, just if someone, in his or her own words, would take mercy on me and explain what BTS mean by it. All the best, Kip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 You can buy 'Spotters Guides' in the shops. Go and get the 'Relative Spotters' one. It helps if you have a wide range of aunties and uncles at this point - otherwise spotting a low number of relatives amongst 6 billion people can get quite dull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stixx Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 Well i'm not sure that last post really helped ya there kipanderson. The best way i can explain it simply is. If some vehicle crew sees a Panther on the north side of the hill then the friendly Hellcat on the south side of the hill can't "Automatically see it". Basically every unit has to "see" the enemy to know it's there, intelligence isn't "automatically" passed about the entire battallion. There are exceptions to this such as units within command radius and vehicles that have radios etc. Thats the basics of it. I'm not sure how it will be implemented in the game but i'm sure 99% of us will be happy with it. Stix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 This thread should tell you all you need to know: Gamey Recon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 this is also a GREAT thread! http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/003938-2.html (but we can post to it to bump it anymore ) -tom w [ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 Here is an old post from Steve that is sort of relevant: "Big Time Software Moderator posted 04-21-2000 07:49 PM As for the suggestion, it is one we thought about in the original design for CM. We dropped it because it was too complicated and was one of those features that likely had a higher degree of problems to benefits. In theory we both like it. In spite of what Moon says (and I TOTALLY agree with that BTW), there is one element that the current system does not simulate at all. That is getting lost. Here is an example. Charles, Scott Udell, and myself hopped in my Weasel right after I got it running. We drove into my "back yard" down a trail and I MISSED the turn off I was looking for. We went down the main path and I got totally confused as to where I had planned on turning. I hopped out, motor running, and jogged back up the trail to see if I had gone too far or not far enough. Turns out I had gone too far. When I got back in all three of us mentioned that this is something lacking in wargames and would be cool if it could in fact be simulated. The result would be that recon would not just be for finding out where enemy units are, but also where the objectives are, the best routes, and so on. We think it is a desirable feature IN THEORY... Reality though, we aren't so sure. It is something we might do for CM II but not for CM 2 (meaning a whole new series whenever we get to it, not a direct sequel). This feature does have the risk of hitting the point of dimenishing returns quite quickly. We also don't think there is any point in doing this until we can have relative spotting (i.e. one unit sees the enemy, the others don't), and that too is a BIG deal to put into the game. So we are talking two huge, fundamental, tough features at the very least. We will most likely tackle neither for quite some time, but will go with relative spotting at some point in all likelyhood. Maybe after that we can have an unknown map feature. Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 04-21-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 Tom, threads from the old forum are present in the new forum. Simply copy the URL for a current thread, and replace the number with that of the original thread. As such: should we be able to see so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Tom, threads from the old forum are present in the new forum. Simply copy the URL for a current thread, and replace the number with that of the original thread. As such: should we be able to see so much?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Great! Thanks David A! I bumped it for fun -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 Ack, another disappointment. Beehive telepathic mentality in CMBO. I always suspected it, witnessing how an AT gun or bazooka immediately draws the attention of every soul from the other side, butoned up or not. However, that beehive telepathic force entity does not seem to be universal in CMBO. Specifically, it seems not to apply to buttoned up tanks cooperating with infantry in regard to enemy regular infantry or tanks. Or am I wrong? To me it seems as though the butoned-up tank does not benefit from the spotting capabilities of a nearby infantry squad should an enemy tank appear at it's rear etc. Relative spotting - a definitive must-have for CM2. Should've been in the first one already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: However, that beehive telepathic force entity does not seem to be universal in CMBO. Specifically, it seems not to apply to buttoned up tanks cooperating with infantry in regard to enemy regular infantry or tanks. Or am I wrong? To me it seems as though the butoned-up tank does not benefit from the spotting capabilities of a nearby infantry squad should an enemy tank appear at it's rear etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is true. There is a built in delay between when an infantry unit spots a unit and when armor will react to its presence. The delay is greater if the tank is buttoned. I'm surprised people are just learning about the Borg spotting model. It has been the subject of much discussion here since the game came out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted June 6, 2001 Author Share Posted June 6, 2001 Hi, Thanks for the replies. Seems to mean that manoeuvre units must “spot for themselves”. All sounds good. All the best, Kip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted June 7, 2001 Share Posted June 7, 2001 I apologise profusely for the moronic and feeble attempt of humour that was my first post on this thread. I am ashamed and can only say this in my defence - it was 8am, I was at work, my job sucks, and I needed some coffee. Sorry. OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted June 7, 2001 Share Posted June 7, 2001 I beleive that the original poster is refering to the new 3 page CM2 preview that is currently running in Computer Games Magazine. Unfortunately there are two rather LARGE mistakes in that preview. #1 CM2 will NOT repeat N O T include relative spotting!!! That is a HUGE undertaking and would not be possible until we completely re-write the game code which is slated for CM II. I think the author of that article might have gotten his roman numerals comfused there. #2 CM2 will NOT include the Winter War Campaign (1939-40). CM2 is only 1941-45. Sorry for any (and I am sure there will be tons of it) misunderstanding that is caused by those mistakes in that article. Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted June 7, 2001 Share Posted June 7, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: #1 CM2 will NOT repeat N O T include relative spotting!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whoa. Well, I was rather surprised when I heard it would be in as we had always been told it would not happen before the engine rewrite. I can see the writer must have confused CM2 with CMII. Now we have to feel disappointed that we are not getting a feature that we had been told all along we would not get anyway I'm going to go read the ISU-152 thread to cheer myself up [ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted June 7, 2001 Share Posted June 7, 2001 Well since there wont be this relative spotting then BTS should consider toning down each individual squads/units spotting to reduce the Hive-spotting. This would be non-linear with range. It should fall off like an inverse cube. Its an abstraction that takes into account this fundamental game flaw. Spotting (and IDing) should be toned down also for units that are in cover/ small in size/etc so they arent spotted by everyone at once. Perhaps this can be an option with settings. I find the way it is now that it gives the attacker (since he usually out numbers the defender) a great advantage. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 7, 2001 Share Posted June 7, 2001 Lewis, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well since there wont be this relative spotting then BTS should consider toning down each individual squads/units spotting to reduce the Hive-spotting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It won't work. Toning it down more risks unrealistic behavior on a 1:1 relationship level, which is even worse than unrealistic strategic level info. There is simply no way to get Relative type behavior out of an Absolute system. We have done the best we can do with it. Putting in things like delays for armored vehicles and such. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This would be non-linear with range. It should fall off like an inverse cube.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Spotting in CMBO has always been non-linear since the first day the code was added. A unit has a MUCH greater chance of spotting something up close than it does far away. Spotting is also dependent on unit type, unit state (i.e. pinned), weather, and terrain as well as distance. Steve [ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted June 7, 2001 Author Share Posted June 7, 2001 Hi, OK, so no relative spotting. This is not a problem for me, as I had never really noticed any form of “spotting problem” to start with. I think spotting and LOS are handled very well. Quite understand some others do not share my view. Whenever changes are introduced extreme care must be taken to “spoil what we have” as I believe CM works so well in all fields. All the best, Kip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts