BTS: Spotting and IDing in CM2

[Username]

This came from another thread:

"Lewis,

quote:

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

Well since there wont be this relative spotting then BTS should consider toning down each individual squads/units spotting to reduce the Hive-spotting.

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

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.

quote:

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

This would be non-linear with range. It should fall off like an inverse cube.

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

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"

I dont believe the current "compromise" works as well as BTS thinks. It is very attacker friendly and favors the player with more units. The game gives you unrealistic strategic level info when unit types, without real commo, are sharing info. IDing of units (the ability to know info with telepathic interrogation) is a related but seperate issue and should be addressed as such. Globally seeing a unit is one thing but what gets "reported" needs attention. Putting in delays for armored vehicles can sometimes be counter productive. An example is the lack of a withdrawl command for armor. This does not address the issue and only makes more problems.

Possible Solution: Perhaps spotting routines should depend on the spotter also. If the spotter is an infantry type (not gun/tank) spotting might be toned down when spotting vehicles. Not that they couldnt "see" them but rather that the type, experience status, etc. are not reported (just because some infantry have seen a tank at a few hundred yards doesnt mean the player gets its model number..)

Lets go to an example. You have a platoon of infantry scattered on your flank. They are 3 squads foward with the platoon HQ behind a small hill to the rear. The spotting routine is run for all 3 squads and several enemy vehicles are determined to be in LOS and get "spotted". What is reported is very generic because of the following:

1. Some infantry are out of command control of the platoon HQ.

2. Some infantry dont have an LOS to its HQ.

3. The HQ didnt spot any vehicles itself.

4. One squad was in command control and LOS of its HQ but is pinned and green.

So what happens? Several generic lt armor and tank type enemy vehicles show up as spotted. In real life, this can represent an alarm type situation. It was common practice to either fire an alarm flare (red for tanks lets say) or to bang pots or whatever. But in game terms, you have just rudimentary info that there are some kind of armored vehicles on that flank. The infantry platoon have spotted targets, and can target them if they are crazy enough, but the gameyness of planting infantry squads on flanks to determine tank types is limited. Also, in real life, anyone one of the 3 squads could have in actuality ID'd the vehicle type, but in strategic reporting, theres no real point to it.

So the real issue is not really spotting but IDing.

Another example. A player craftily puts an armored car on his flank to protect this area from TDs. Sure enough, enemy TDs show up and are of different types. The armored car is run through the spotting routine and since he is a crack achtrad and unbuttoned, he spots and IDs the menace (which is actually the same menace from the example above), IDs them by type M18 and M10 (and starts an immediate withdrawl).

So a game benefit is that a recon element can be modeled in the game. His abstracted value is the info element.

One more example:

A company HQ and nearby sherman are positioned near a roadblock. The spotting routine runs and the sherman doesnt spot anything. The Company HQ does spot an enemy hetzer and since the HQ has an LOS to the sherman tank and has a "radio" link, then theres the chance that the hetzer will be "reported". Otherwise it pops up generic.

The whole issue of optics has a spotting/IDing link to it. To show that a side enjoys an optics advantage, it can be integrated into the spotting/IDing routines. Take a case of a platoon of tanks that can see a company of vehicles 2000 meters away. For the sake of argument, lets say its a platoon of early war T34s. Then there would be a field of spotted tanks but very little info as to what type they are. The player would then have to target them as generic. This would put an end to what I call cherry-target-picking. This is when a player puts custom shooters onto hand selected targets thereby gamily maximizing his weapons.

So the strategic knowledge overview can be limited depending on who does the info gathering. Things like radios and experience and recon, etc add a new flavor to the positioning of troops. A bloody nuisance? Might be. But I dont feel the present abstraction is very good, or that the 1:1 for that matter, is more important than the overall effect. In fact, the 1:1 would be benefitted by this.

How much of this could be worked into CM2? I dunno. But I dont know if CM2 is going to be that much of a leap forward without some better abstractions.

Lewis

[Username]

Thought I might get one response but everyones so IS3 happy that nothing will get their attention.

I thought that BTS was going the route of selling CM2 as "what should have been fixed in CMBO". Now, I am not so sure.

Armored warfare in CMBO was hamperted by the whole sighting, targetting, hull down, TACAI dancing and generic shot distribution thing.

I dont think that BTS is adressing much of this if at all. Its going to be "The weak panzers visit the eatern front".

But I am going to Vegas. CYA

[Schrullenhaft]

The "absolute spotting" model of the current CM engine may limit what you can implement to reduce it. Though your suggestions are geared towards the current engine, these limitations may still prevent their implementation without major code changes that aren't slated until CMII.

ID'ing and C&C would probably be the closest we could get to relative spotting with the current engine, but there are limitations with those methods too that may not be satisfactory. While the system you propose sounds very reasonable on the surface, it can have a big impact on the playability of the game. By attempting to limit info available to the human player (which is the net intent here) the gameplay emphasis shifts to a simulation of higher-level command (since local tactical info becomes very limited). The current "playability" model of CM has the human player assuming direct command of all units present (the "1:1" that you mention). With the ID/C&C rules you suggest some of this control would have to be relinquished to the TacAI in order to preserve a decent level of engagement.

The biggest problem I see with your system is the method of suitably/realistically engaging enemy units with units that are out of "radio link" (and hence the unit remains "unidentified" to the human player). Do you order your units to attack these units unidentified, taking the chance that the unit is susceptible to your weapons ? This makes CM a guessing game that it tactically shouldn't be (and most players would vehemently disagree with). The one way to resolve this and preserve the "lack of info" to the human player is to have the TacAI identify and engage the unit, but keep the actual unit identification hidden from the player until a unit with "C&C" is in view of it. Such decisions would have a large impact on player enjoyment of the game since a good chunk of tactical decisions will be removed for them (of course this may vary depending on scenario and deployment of units).

In my view the level of changes to the TacAI necessary to carry this out most likely won't be happening for CM2. If no changes were made to the TacAI, then the human player-based engagment of such targets with incomplete knowledge would be very unsatisfactory to many players. Further refinements to your suggestions would be necessary. The points about limiting info about enemy unit experience levels are very applicable (in my mind) to the current engine (though it is possible that even that is hard to code for).

One other problem may be deciding which units are capable of accurately identifying enemy units - number (infantry) and type.

Admittedly this is mostly (uhh..) academic since BTS may already have their plans solidly in place for what they intend to include in CM2.

When you mention "generic shot distribution" are you speaking of distribution of location of hits on the target (and their subsequent effects) ?

[Moon]

Hmm, Lewis, enemy tanks are far from being insta-identified in CM. Infantry has a really low chance to actually ID an enemy tank. Best you get is Tank? or Assaultgun? usually, unless they are really close and the infantry has nothing else to do - and sometimes you won't even get an ID then. Armor, due to optics and a generally better knowledge about enemy tanks, has a much higher chance to ID an enemy vehicle, just as you're calling for. So what's your point?

[dalem]

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

Thought I might get one response but everyones so IS3 happy that nothing will get their attention.

I thought that BTS was going the route of selling CM2 as "what should have been fixed in CMBO". Now, I am not so sure.

Armored warfare in CMBO was hamperted by the whole sighting, targetting, hull down, TACAI dancing and generic shot distribution thing.

I dont think that BTS is adressing much of this if at all. Its going to be "The weak panzers visit the eatern front".

But I am going to Vegas. CYA<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never gotten the impression that any major "fixes" were going to come until CMII. I thought CM2 was just going to be CM:BO on the East Front with some refinements/tweaks.

-dale

[Chris Cline]

You are cordially invited to take this with a grain of salt, but if you are challenging the ID element of the CM engine, you have to understand the implications. It's hard to design a tactical wargame (thanx doctor obvious ), and simply based on the information that you know about your own troops, the terrain, your viewpoint, etc., you already are in a sort of omniscient position. The only true solution to the problem you are addressing is to completely mask and censor all output from the game. That, however realisticly it might represent the role of a military commander, is boring. I wouldn't play the game unless I could view the whole battlefield and examine the details of my troops. Again, my input, as usual, is most likely worthless...

Vale

[Username]

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

Hmm, Lewis, enemy tanks are far from being insta-identified in CM. Infantry has a really low chance to actually ID an enemy tank. Best you get is Tank? or Assaultgun? usually, unless they are really close and the infantry has nothing else to do - and sometimes you won't even get an ID then. Armor, due to optics and a generally better knowledge about enemy tanks, has a much higher chance to ID an enemy vehicle, just as you're calling for. So what's your point?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point is about the sharing of info. And as I suspected , someone would focus on the microscopic instead of the whole picture.

If you go back to my origional post:

"I dont believe the current "compromise" works as well as BTS thinks. It is very attacker friendly and favors the player with more units. The game gives you unrealistic strategic level info when unit types, without real commo, are sharing info. IDing of units (the ability to know info with telepathic interrogation) is a related but seperate issue and should be addressed as such. Globally seeing a unit is one thing but what gets "reported" needs attention. Putting in delays for armored vehicles can sometimes be counter productive. An example is the lack of a withdrawl command for armor. This does not address the issue and only makes more problems."

So the attacker with many disconnected eyes is rewarded. Thats the point. So while what you are saying is true, that BTS already implements a differential between infantry IDing and "ARMOR" IDing, it should be toned downed some more.

And again, for the myopic types; It doesnt mean that these units cant see and/or possibly ID but that this global info isnt at the player control level. I actually like Schrullenhaft's idea of the having the units act on better IDing but that would definitely need coding.

But, its just a last stab at getting something into the present CMBO/CM2 level of play. And I am beggining to think that CM2 play wont be that different than CMBO.

lewis

[Username]

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

When you mention "generic shot distribution" are you speaking of distribution of location of hits on the target (and their subsequent effects) ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTS models the distribution of hits on AFVs according to some generic percentile distribution (ie 10% tracks, 50%hull, etc).

Since many vehicles (like odd shaped tanks and assault guns) dont fit nicely into this model, certain vehicles have bigger weaknesses than in real life. An example would be a pzIV turret front. The 50mm area is actually very small but recieves a large number of hits (in my experience).

Steve has said that CM2 will continue to use this model (which might hurt T3476 since the small turret front wasnt as trong as the sloped hull).

Lewis

[ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[aka_tom_w]

I thought I read somewhere (sorry I'm too lazy to serach for it) that Steve said the Spotting and ID'ing in CM2 would be different and they were working VERY diligently to over come the absolute spotting "hive like borg inteligence" nature of spotting in CMBO.

Was there not a BTS answer to a question somewhere in one of these threads about CM2 that stated that trying to implement some from of work around (short of full blown relative spotting) was a major priority for CM2?

anyone else read that?

-tom w

[Juardis]

Lewis, FWIW, I agree with you that CM2 will "play" like CMBO in some respects. I also agree that relative spotting, or lack thereof, is THE major drawback to a very fine system. But let's not forget that, even in it's current incarnation, the CM engine is VERY VERY good.

Having said that, I do believe we can improve on the spotting thing with the current engine. The problem I have is once a unit is spotted by one, it is spotted by all. I don't care if it comes up Tiger? or PZ-IVH, an AFV is an AFV for the most part. So IDing a unit is not *that* big of a problem IMO.

NOTE 1: the following is one suggestion for a band-aid fix using the current engine.

I believe there are 2 elements to the problem. One is the TAC AI in that the TAC AI delays spotting of certain units by certain units depending on LOS. This is acceptably implemented in the current engine IMO. The other element is when the 60 second movie ends and now the human player can retarget. My suggestion is, if a movement order is given, it is carried out as is now. Reasoning is that if you give a order to move, you move. But if a target order is given, then a delay is implemented per the TAC AI rules governing spotting. If, prior to acquiring the human designated target, another threatening target is seen by the TAC AI, the TAC AI overrides the human command depending on the threat level. Reasoning behind this is, if I give a target order, I'll do my damndest to carry out the order, but I have to find the target first. So if I see another threat before I find the original target, I'm going to take the initiative and shoot at the known threat instead of looking for an unknown threat. Now obviously, if I was told to target a Tiger at 600m away and during the process of finding that Tiger I spot a shreck team at 100m away, I'm going to fire at the schreck team. Why? Because it's a known target that I have found as opposed to a possibly unknown target that I still have yet to acquire.

NOTE 2: What I have suggested goes against one of the complaints issued shortly after release of CMBO. That complaint was that you knew there was a Tiger coming down the road and was going to be w/in LOS in 30 sec but the tanks continued targetting units that were already within LOS. To some people, the human should be allowed to sit and wait for the Tiger to come around the corner. I disagree. My point is, if it's a threat and it's seen, shoot it. Until the C&C rules are changed, unless the Tiger coming around the corner was spotted by another AFV that had a radio link to your tank, you wouldn't know there was a tank coming and hence the human couldn't even give the target command.

Just my 2 cents on how the spotting routines could possibly be improved with the current engine.

[Username]

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

I do believe we can improve on the spotting thing with the current engine. The problem I have is once a unit is spotted by one, it is spotted by all. I don't care if it comes up Tiger? or PZ-IVH, an AFV is an AFV for the most part. So IDing a unit is not *that* big of a problem IMO.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. It all depends on who is doing the spotting of that AFV. Thats the point.

I have no real problem with the spotting. Theres no quick way around the ingrained routines the game is running. I quite frankly think that it is going to take alot more than an engine rewrite.

Its the sharing of detailed info between disconnected units that kills the present gameplay for me.

My major concern is battles with tons of russian infantry eyeballing everything in sight.

Lewis