So What about Relative Spotting (Ode to Deanco)

[Panzer Leader]

I was under the impression that relative spotting would be impossible to do within the confines of the CM1 engine, but now it turns out that in a recent magazine article (Computer Games - July) BTS has said it WILL be included.

I would be very interested in knowing a few more details about this. The only way I could see it being accomplished is that a unit has a knowledge only of units it, or perhaps its HQ, has personally seen.

This would mean that on the battlefield, even though you click on "Anti-tank?" unit, your nearby tank would not be able to target it, for it is buttoned and has not (yet!) been introduced.

I can't wait to find out just how its done, but that is the only method I can tell. One other way would be (oh this is good) when you select a unit, only enemy units IT has confirmed will show up, but when you have no selected unit, then you would see ALL spotted enemy units.

Edit#1 I meant to have a question mark at the end of the topic so it didn't sound like "Yeah, well so what."

Edit#2 You're the greatest, Deanco!

[ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ]

[Robert Mayer]

Steve was pretty adamant when he talked to me about this. "It changes everything," he says, and I guess I believe him :cool: How, exactly, it will work, well, he was a little bit more coy about--probably because they want to save some stuff for later, and possibly because they're still working out the details....

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robert Mayer:

Steve was pretty adamant when he talked to me about this. "It changes everything," he says, and I guess I believe him :cool: How, exactly, it will work, well, he was a little bit more coy about--probably because they want to save some stuff for later, and possibly because they're still working out the details....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, Robert, tell me - is your magazine availalble in CANADA on newsstands - or do I have to (gulp) subscribe?

[deanco]

My 2c, as a punter :

I hope it's toggleable.

And I really wonder if the payoff in realism terms is worth the hassle, given that the player MUST know everything that happens on the screen anyway. Otherwise it's not a game anymore, it's letting the little guys fight it out for themselves while you watch. And I'm worried, as a gamer, that the fun factor is going to suffer because of it.

Here's the way I picture it. During the move portion, if you have no unit selected, no enemy units are shown on the screen at all. However, you could bandbox the whole map and get an overall view of the action anyway. So lets say a zook off by himself sees a tank but no one else does. When you click on anyone else but the zook, the tank dissapears. No symbol, no nothing. Open terrain. But there's nothing stopping the "gamey" player from diverting a few nearby forces towards that general area, now is there? Instant psychic communication once again. The only difference is, instead of 'click on the enemy and kill that specific unit' it's now 'head (or hunt) in this general direction, a little birdy told me you may find something there, heheh'. It's adding another complexity layer which will only address 10-15% of the gamey issues with absolute spotting.

When Steve said, 'It changes everything', I believe him. I'm just worried that CM2 with absolute spotting will turn into, "draw 30 turn Master Strategy on map during Turn 1, then watch movie for turns 2-30" instead of 'use tactical skills to counter and adapt to the enemy as the situation changes on a turn by turn basis'. If this is gamey, it is also 90% of the challenge and dare I say...90% of the fun as well.

Having said that, if anyone can do it and make it fun, Steve and Charles can. Maybe there's a way to avoid this drawback of cosmic knowledge of the player, but ah shore cain't figger it out.

I just hope it's toggleable.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

I was under the impression that relative spotting would be impossible to do within the confines of the CM1 engine, but now it turns out that in a recent magazine article (Computer Games - July) BTS has said it WILL be included.

I would be very interested in knowing a few more details about this. The only way I could see it being accomplished is that a unit has a knowledge only of units it, or perhaps its HQ, has personally seen.

This would mean that on the battlefield, even though you click on "Anti-tank?" unit, your nearby tank would not be able to target it, for it is buttoned and has not (yet!) been introduced.

I can't wait to find out just how its done, but that is the only method I can tell. One other way would be (oh this is good) when you select a unit, only enemy units IT has confirmed will show up, but when you have no selected unit, then you would see ALL spotted enemy units.

Edit#1 I meant to have a question mark at the end of the topic so it didn't sound like "Yeah, well so what."

Edit#2 You're the greatest, Deanco!

[ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IS this TRUE!???

Can someone confirm this?

Relative Spotting for CM2 ????

now that would be HUGE!

But I agree with Deanco, I'm sure most of us are puzzled here since the player (supreme God Like Commander) will somehow eventually have to know and see everything his/her units can see and identify and as Deanco says, simply direct the appropriate units to respond in the appropriate way to the new discovered threat.

BUT if they did relative spotting with an Iron Man or Extreme FOW setting then that could be VERY interesting, that WOULD change everything, so I wonder what new surprises they have in store for us.

-tom w

[Robert Mayer]

Computer Games Magazine is available in Canada, but as in the US which precise stores will have it is something of a crap shoot.

As for relative spotting, I suspect it'll be more along the lines of displaying everything just as is done now, but not allowing the tac AI to "see" things not directly observed by a unit. So, if you have an AT gun that is shooting at a tank, and the rest of that tank's platoon can't see the gun, then until (unless) the original tank lets them know where the AT gun is, or they move to where they can see it, the tac AI will handle those tanks as if that AT gun doesn't exist.

Of course, if this is the case the player will be able to send tanks to the AT gun anyhow, but those tanks will not be wary, because they won't know the gun is there, so you might be sending them into an ambush.

Just speculation on my part, however. In any event, I see Deanco's points, but on balance I think the "fun factor" will only be enhanced by this. Then again, I have a higher tolerance than most for excessive abstraction

[Panzer Leader]

I think Robert is right. Steve and Charles have great faith in Tac-AI (for good reason) and I am not surprised that they are using it for this purpose.

Pesonally, it is a battle within about how I feel about Tac-Ai. I mean its wonderful, but I always think "I wish I would have commanded the squad to do that."

I am glad that BTS is strengthening the Tac-Ai. It really adds to the fun-factor playability, and even the realism. Wow, Tac-Ai is really important to the success of this game. I never noticed how much it influences just about every aspect of the game until now. I guess I can understand those loooooong turn computations a little better now...

[Conscript Bagger]

I'm wondering if there will be any way in which units that don't see an enemy can be made aware by those that do. AFVs with radios could alert each other to the presence of a gun, for example.

As for giving orders to units that haven't spotted a certain enemy yet, in a way we get that already since in CM you can target enemies that are out of LOS. Maybe the relative spotting will work similarly, with your units showing a preference for shooting at unspotted enemies you've targeted, once they can see them.

Anyway, it's all conjecture right now, but I'm interested to see what everybody thinks.

[Gryphon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So, if you have an AT gun that is shooting at a tank, and the rest of that tank's platoon can't see the gun, then until (unless) the original tank lets them know where the AT gun is, or they move to where they can see it, the tac AI will handle those tanks as if that AT gun doesn't exist.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does this mean early war German players will have the advantage over the russians since their tanks were equipped with radios? If so i believe that would add some more fun factor.. since the spotter could "radio in" the position of the enemy to his other platoon members making it alot more realistic.

Gryphon

[Robert Mayer]

If, and again this is just speculation on my part, the game handles relative spotting like we've discussed here, I suspect that yes, radios will figure in prominently. BTS has said they will be paying special attention to radios or the lack thereof in the game, with radio-less units getting some significant C3I penalties.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Well, everyone's pretty much nailed it: relative spotting cannot be entirely relative since YOU the player in charge of all your men will always know when one of your teams encounters the enemy. And when that happens, your other units can now be directed to go to that location. I don't know how prevalent radios were to each squad, but if you have a lone zook team sneaking through some trees, they did not have a radio just for them. Therefore, this "relative spotting" is not entirely realistic in itself, is it?

With that said, I supposed it's better than what we have now but that raises the question of, "Is BTS hurting the interest in CM1 by introducing radical changes like this?" I just hope CM2 is backwards compatible so CM1 isn't looked down upon in 6 months time as being obsolete. If CM2 took place in the same theatre, it wouldn't matter to anyone but that isn't the case here and some of us like the Western Front more than the Eastern. BTS, please don't leave CM1 in the dust...

[Freak]

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

With that said, I supposed it's better than what we have now but that raises the question of, "Is BTS hurting the interest in CM1 by introducing radical changes like this?" I just hope CM2 is backwards compatible so CM1 isn't looked down upon in 6 months time as being obsolete. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes exactly. That is exactly what came to my mind. CMBO.

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

If CM2 took place in the same theatre, it wouldn't matter to anyone but that isn't the case here and some of us like the Western Front more than the Eastern. BTS, please don't leave CM1 in the dust...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes exactly. I just don't want to see CMBO become obsolete so quickly. There is an obvious difference in the game which makes them different, but if one is better then then in a big way I would fear that CMBO would take a horrible backseat.

I know this is what happens in life to great games, but CM was released just a year ago. Thats not a very long for game of CMBO's stature to reign sepremecy

[ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Panzer Leader]

...So...how about that Relative Spotting then?

[Robert Mayer]

I can understand the concern for CMBO, once CMBB is out, and I kinda share the feeling, but I can't for the life of me figure out how BTS can get around the problem. From what I've been told, and from what we've all seen, the changes in CM2 are going to be pretty significant. Some of them, like the "weapon racks" and the unit designations, require an 800 by 600 minimum interface. Others, like relative spotting, vehicle morale, and vehicle organization, have huge effects on gameplay.

I can't see any way of retrofitting these to CMBO in a cost-effective manner. I suspect that to do so BTS would have to suspend work on CMII, and on CM3/4 as well. And all the improvements for the original game would in effect be uncompensated--they'd be revamping the game for no additional revenue, but with a lot of additional work.

Then there are the issues of performance and hardware requirements. CMBO has a very low hardware threshold. CMBB has a somewhat higher threshold. To retrofit the one to the other would necessitate upgrades for some--perhaps man--CMBO owners. Sure, owners of the first came could choose not to upgrade, but then, they'd only be able to play with other unupgraded people, the flow of user created scenarios would dry up, and soon they'd be outcasts anyhow.

Some companies are able to pass upgrades down the line--HPS comes to mind, for the Panzer Campaign series--but those games are much simpler in many ways and the improvements are incremental (and it's getting harder and taking longer to do these upgrades with each release, anyhow).

I sure as hell can't and won't speak for BTS, but as much as I'd love to have CMBO upgraded, I'm not holding my breath, nor do I begrudge them the decision not to offer such retrofits, if that's the course they choose. We'll just have to wait for CMII to return to the West maybe, with an even better engine....

[Fred]

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

My 2c, as a punter :

I hope it's toggleable.

And I really wonder if the payoff in realism terms is worth the hassle, given that the player MUST know everything that happens on the screen anyway. Otherwise it's not a game anymore, it's letting the little guys fight it out for themselves while you watch. And I'm worried, as a gamer, that the fun factor is going to suffer because of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

right on target Deanco.

If too much "realism" kills the game as a game (and it is a wargame, not an academy simulation or rpg), and if any IRON MEN RULES or this "relative spotting" are forced on the player, well, then I will stay with CMBO.

I have this eerie feeling, CM slowly drifts away from a wargame to...well, maybe some kind of a "3-D Study in Command"...not my cup of tea.

Fred

[PawBroon]

Well I am not doing a search and post pointers just now but some might remember that BTS said the games would be backward compatible and that enhancement of one would be in the rest of the series so that interrest would be the same all along.

It was specifically stated that it would be done in order to AVOID such things as we are discussing here to happen.

Now they may have changed minds and keep that for CMII.

In any case I trust BTS to do the best for us as they've done so far in such an outstanding way...

[Vanir Ausf B]

A few points, my opinions only.

1. No way will relative spotting be toggleable. That would require 2 different TacAIs. Also, being as it seems relative spotting is being incorperated into CM2's all new C&C model, playing without it would break the game.

2. No way will it be backwards compatible. Robert laid out the reasons pretty well. They would have to basically remake CM1 all over again for free. I know Steve said they would try to make it backwards compatible last year, but he has been backing away from that recently. Personally, I think this is a good thing. It would be a serious mistake for BTS to make future games less than they could be for fear of making older games obsolete. That is called stagnation. If you're not moving forward, you're moving backward.

3. From what Steve said in another relative spotting thread a few months back, the way it will basically work is that the player will always see all spotted units as he does now, but when he selects one of his own units all units spotted by that unit will be highlighted (different color base or something).

It's true that you can never get 100% real C&C as long as one person (the player) controls all the units and has a god's eye view of the battlefield. You do the best you can and get it as close as you can instead of throwing your hands in the air and saying "We can never achieve perfection, so why bother."

All in all, great news. It's good to see that CM2 will be more than just CMBO with Russians.

[ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Schrullenhaft]

I find some of the reactions to Relative Spotting amusing. Already there are worries that CM will become unplayable with such a feature, while others have been groaning that such a feature doesn't already exist in CMBO.

No wonder game designers feel there is just no way of pleasing their audience. They can't win if any of their improvements require change. There are already grumblings about upping the minimum hardware requirements for CMBB. The ones who will feel the worst of this are those who have older laptops - the investment in a more capable laptop is a daunting consideration just for a new game.

I for one, welcome the addition of relative spotting. Just like the TacAI's control of your units during playback, it reduces some of the players control over their units. This is a key difference between CM and other wargames or games of "strategy". The player does not have complete and absolute control over his/her units. While having this level of control is desirable to many players, since it allows them to exercise their strategy and tactics without "interference", it is also a formula for boring repetition. Just look at the RTS games on the market. It is hard for them not to fall into some sort of "formula" for winning (other than "I click faster than you"). The variety and capability of units still doesn't solve this problem for those type of games. While CM isn't immune to "formulas" (especially in purchasing units), it is a bit less predictable due to the TacAI. Obviously CM stands or falls on the strength of its TacAI. Any unrealistic behavior by units in combat are quickly noticed and derided. So tweaks to the TacAI can have an immense effect on the game. Relative Spotting will be a huge difference to the game. The first implementation may not live up to everyone's expectations, but I'm sure it will be a very worthy start.

However I can't envision any method to keep the player from a god-like view of the board. As some people mentioned, following "absolute relative spotting" would eventually force the game into a mode of designing a "grand strategy" and then executing it with no interaction - a huge movie. This is NOT BTS's intent. They are VERY well aware of what they want the game system to do and sacraficing a huge chunk of player interaction is not one of them. Steve & Charles are game designers and they obviously have to balance game mechanics with playability. There will always be sacrafices of "absolute reality" for playability. In my opinion BTS has done a great job in that department. There's always a desire for more "reality", but I'm aware that there are limitations to this (time, code and hardware capability).

I have no idea if relative spotting will be "toggable". Since most TacAI actions/reactions aren't adjustable by the user, then my guess is that it won't be. (Vanir's points on this are probably a little more accurate in how it fits into the entire game system than mine.) This may put some people off since it isn't part of their "play-style", but it is the vision that BTS has for CombatMission (much as the TacAI is). However I don't think that IRONMAN Rules will be forced upon players since it is a very subjective handicapping that affects playability and enjoyment of the game (more so than CMBB's modeling of relative spotting would be in my opinion).

As for backwards compatibility with CMBO (CMBO using the CMBB engine), my impression is that BTS would like to accomplish this in some manner, but there is no guarantee that they will (again, Vanir's recollection on this is accurate in my mind). My assumption is that if they do accomplish this that they may limit the "upgrade" to those who have purchased CMBB. They do have to make a living on this after all... My guess is that it may be easier to port the units from CMBO over to CMBB rather than upgrade CMBO's code. However, I'm sure this issue isn't as cut and dried as it may appear to the gamers.

If user input was a factor (for this particular business decision) I'd vote for including CMBO's units into CMBB, even if it meant a delay in CMBB's release. I'd even be willing to pay US$60 for a copy of CMBB if it were to included this (just as an incentive to delay the release to include CMBO's units and reap a slightly higher profit margin). While I'd be willing to pay even more, I think that US$10-15 increase in the price would be a fair compensation for the additional work to bring all of CM up to CMBB's level.

I think it is expecting a little too much from BTS to have them upgrade CMBO to CMBB's engine for no compensation.

[ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: Schrullenhaft ]

[Triumvir]

I don't see anywhere in the article that they are doing relative spotting. They say in CGW (fair use, etc) that "in 1941, most of the Russian tanks didn't have radios; the tankers had to use hand signals to communicate. The command model is changing in CM 2 to reflect such difficulties."

This doesn't necessarily imply relative spotting.

[James Crowley]

A possible way of introducing relative spotting (although I don't think It is the way BTS will go) is to ally it to a tighter and, IMO,a more realistic C&C structure.

Currently, for instance, a platoon can have its constituent squads spread across the width of the battlefield, divided into half-squads and thus used in a totally ahistoric manner to provide instant recon. of the entire area. Even if none of the squads are in C&C with the platoon leader, the worst penalty is a command delay to the squads in question; almost complete control is still, unrealistically, maintained.

When units start to "loose it" under fire etc. the player, in fact starts to lose control anyway. Units can be unpredictable when pinned and when they panic or break all control is, at least temporarily, lost to the player.

Why should this not be extended to C&C? Those units not in C&C range cannot be given orders (and will do what comes naturally given the situation i.e. sit tight and shoot back if attacked)and cannot,therefore,report units that only they spot. Those units would remain totally unseen (to all other units other than the spotter)until spotted by another unit etc. At that point the only units that could target the enemy would be dictated, as has been suggested, by the TAC AI.

Just a thought>

[offtaskagain]

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

I don't see anywhere in the article that they are doing relative spotting. They say in CGW (fair use, etc) that "in 1941, most of the Russian tanks didn't have radios; the tankers had to use hand signals to communicate. The command model is changing in CM 2 to reflect such difficulties."

This doesn't necessarily imply relative spotting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Robert Mayer says Steve told him it would be in, then I would bet Steve wouldn't lie to the managing editor of CGM

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

I don't see anywhere in the article that they are doing relative spotting. They say in CGW (fair use, etc)....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Different article, different magazine. This one is in Computer Games Magazine (CGM).

[SenorBeef]

As a general rule, it is MUCH easier to integrate old data into new code than new code into old code -

This means, in practical terms, for CM2 to be 'backwards compatable' with CM1 actually means that the unit object/model/details could be imported and work with cm2, rather than any code changing to CM1. In other words, they MIGHT be able to put CM1 units into the CM2 game, in a way being 'backwards compatable', but it depends on how much they're changing things.

[Panzer Leader]

As I understand it, the models are all more intricate and hi-res, so even adding them back in, graphic-wise, would be quite a chore. As far as their attributes go, it doesn't seem like much more than cut-n-paste.

[Ken Talley]

Jason, you beat me to the point. I was going to say exactly the same thing. You wouldn't see what you were fighting until the information reaches a certain command level or is viewed by a particular command level. Until that information reached you, your troops would do the best they could as controlled by the AI. Of course, you could always pull them out or move reinforcements in but basically you wouldn't have detailed info as available now. The end result would be a certain restriction in the squad leader role. Would definitely be interesting.

[ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: Ken Talley ]