CM:BB Any change in LOS tool?

[ASL Veteran]

Personally I can't see the harm in an 'expanded' LOS tool for use in the set up phase. I can sometimes spend hours (literally) setting up my various gun positions and MGs. A LOS tool like that could shave hours off my set up time. Once the game starts you could go back to the current LOS tool - I can't really see the need for it when the game is actually underway.

No, I don't see any reason to be able to check LOS from a location you aren't currently in during the game - although I suppose in the initial set up phase it probably wouldn't matter that much.

[olandt]

I would definately love a full circle los for setup. During combat, I see some merit in the idea of needing to use the current LOS tool to mimick human errors. However, I would support the idea of LOS from one location to any other. The frustrating part of this game is units not being able to think for themselves during the 60 seconds, and act accordingly.

I'll give you an example of a game I'm currently using (not sour grapes, I'm getting beaten fair and square). The opponent has 75mm pillbox at the back of the map with amazingly good field of vision of the battlefield. It's far back enough that trying to duel it would be suicide. Therefor, I'm trying to stay out of its sight. It's a pillbox, something big and not movable. I know about it for several turns before I make the following move, plenty of time for someone to let all my tankers know of its location. I decide to move one of my tanks up a pass, that from my visual scanning of the battlefield, should be COMPLETELY blocked from LOS to the pillbox by a 2 story building. If the tank knew the pillbox was there, I think a tank commander would do his utmost to be cautious about showing himself. However, since the turn is 60 seconds, the blasted tank (on hunt orders) turns out to be in full sight of the pillbox, and decides to exchange fire with it (this is a sherman 105 by the way, range is close to 800m) promptly getting killed. Didn't even try to smoke and back off, which would have been the smart thing to do. This is because the roof of that 2 story building, doesn't actually exist for purposes of determining actions, it's just there for show, and to give a false sence of security. A LOS tool from any location is needed to help units make logical choices that are too dificult to correct with a 60 second turn. Either that, or units need more flexibility on their own and the AI to back it up.

[zgrose]

IMHO, the problem is not the LOS tool. The problem is the inability to describe the intent of your orders to the unit that is going to carry them out.

For example, say you have a platoon of infantry behind a bulding and you want to order them to move to the corner so that they can fire on an enemy position. Or perhaps you have a tank that you want to move up a crest to give cover to an advance. Just where do you place the Move/Hunt/Fast/Crawl/etc order? This is why some people have asked for the Reverse LOS tool where you can plot LOS from the point you would like to observe. This would definitely be a "gamey" tool.

I would suggest that the solution to this problem is a Move to Target command. In short, you would order a unit to move (at whatever speed) in a certain direction until they have "spotted" the area that you designate.

In real world terms, "Move your men west until you can see the MG squad in the trees." or "Move that tank along this road until you can see the top of that hill to the west of the town."

Since the ability to spot the target is controlled by the AI following the standard spotting rules, I believe you would actually have a more realistic result without all of the frustrations of having misplaced the move marker 2m short of the appropriate location (and thus wasting 60 seconds).

Given the limitations of the graphics engine (such as the ability to draw LOS through buildings and other blocking terrain), a Move to Target type order provides the AI with extra information it needs to come to the conclusion that the RL soldier would.

And yes, I understand that there are some new move to hull down type orders coming in CM2. All I suggest is that same level of intelligence be given to all units in the game.

[Tero]

>The problem is the inability to describe the

>intent of your orders to the unit that is

>going to carry them out.

Exactly. The game engine is made out of abstractions and approximations all sorts but the set of orders provided for the player comprise of precision orders that call for knowledge of basic battlefield facts that are just not provided most of the time.

>.....This is why some people have asked for

>the Reverse LOS tool where you can plot LOS

>from the point you would like to observe.

>This would definitely be a "gamey" tool.

Not IMO. IIRC this feature was in SP. You could check the LOS from a location by clicking on it and LOS from that location was shown (or was it in one of the precursors Panzer Strike ? I forget, it was after all almost 15 years ago). I never saw any complaints about it being gamey then.

IRL the troops can be given FRAGOR that can be anything from "Go there undetected and raise some hell while we sneak up on them from behind" to "Move out in standard platoon column formation until you reach location grid XX.ZZ. Once there wait until HH.MM hours, then deploy to platoon line and proceed to grid XY.ZZ without being detected by the enemy last seen in dug in positions in grid XY.ZY When you have reached this grid stay hidden, observe and report back. If the enemy is still there maintain watch and alert us if they move around behind their position. Wait for our signal and commence a co-ordinated attack on my mark. Use best possible speed to close up on them and take up blocking positions to prevent them from escaping while we attack from their rear."

To effect this in CM now the player has to make do with a 3D map and precision orders: Move, Sneak, Hide, Run and Target coupled with waypoints he questimates are appropriate. One precision waypoint misplaces by a mere meter can and will blow the entire plan. With a reverse LOS tool the player would be able to assign precision waypoints that would normally picked by the platoon/squad leader as per SOP and orders.

I fail to see why it would be gamey to be able to assign way points that do not inadvertantly bring the unit in LOS prematurely. The tool would be available for both players and both can utilize it to their advantage.

>I would suggest that the solution to this

>problem is a Move to Target command.

That does have potential. But what would also be appropriate is some sort of Stealth mode coupled with a directional order (that would make the unit take into account the direction they should be avoide being detected from) and some lattitude it can deviate from the path between waypoints to avoid detection when moving using Stealth mode.

That should not affect the unit speed but would enable it to use TacAI discretion in choosing its path between waypoints and

>In short, you would order a unit to move (at

>whatever speed) in a certain direction until

>they have "spotted" the area that you

>designate.

But does the planned order work like that ? Can the player designate a target area or just the direction the unit should move towards ready to rumble ?

>In real world terms, "Move your men west

>until you can see the MG squad in the

>trees." or "Move that tank along this road

>until you can see the top of that hill to

>the west of the town."

Will there be a "Do not pass Go" option or is the movement continuous until in contact with a previously soptted unit ? How will the unit take into account the possibility of being ambushed ?

>Since the ability to spot the target is

>controlled by the AI following the standard

>spotting rules, I believe you would actually

>have a more realistic result without all of

>the frustrations of having misplaced the

>move marker 2m short of the appropriate

>location (and thus wasting 60 seconds).

Or the unit.

>Given the limitations of the graphics engine

>(such as the ability to draw LOS through

>buildings and other blocking terrain), a

>Move to Target type order provides the AI

>with extra information it needs to come to

>the conclusion that the RL soldier would.

I hope so.

>And yes, I understand that there are some

>new move to hull down type orders coming in

>CM2. All I suggest is that same level of

>intelligence be given to all units in the

>game.

Yes. Including the infantry units.

[Dogface21]

Wow, those are good ideas, backed up well. To bad that the development team has ruled it out. Maybe CM3? By that time, hopfully processor speed wont be as much of a issue.Also, if these tools were made optional, players would have thier choice as wether or not to use it. It could become a new rul, Like; Fions 75, village, ME,old LoS.. or somthing to that effect.....

[Tripps]

oh please :eek:

unrealistic?? for a 360 LOS arc? who hasnt tried to place a HHMG and spent 5 minutes with the current LOS tool for checking his firing arc, no one is saying is has to report that it can hit every knook and cranny from here to timbucktoo, but a general fire arc (opps, didnt see that gradual rise in the ground which cuts off LOS 100 metres out...)

it would save a hellava lot of 'micromanagement' IMHO.

and unrealistic? and that time you called over your zook team from 400 metres across town to take out the tank was done by, what? cellphone? theres going to be that factor of 'unrealism', because it is, unrealistic. what ppl are asking for is a tool to speed the turn up a bit, if you dont like it because your pc canna handle it, or its not 'real' dont use the thing....

[Andreas]

I strongly suggest a search with Steve's member number and the key-word LOS or somefink. All the hot air expended in this thread on the matter will then be shown to be superfluous. In the meantime, it is vaguely amusing to see arguments along the line of 'it was in another game and nobody complained' or 'we have one unrealistic feature, so what is the problem with another one'. Bring on the rocket tanks. They are in another game and nobody complained (hey, if you don't like them, don't use them) and since we have unrealistic absolute spotting, what does it matter if the Germans have rocket tanks? Yeah, go rocket tanks!

You people are funny.

[Tero]

>All the hot air expended in this thread on

>the matter will then be shown to be

>superfluous.

Since it seems you already did the search you could point us to the relevant tread instead of using Lord God Steve as a weapon without so much as giving him the credit of quoting him and the people he has trashed before us, chapter and verse.

>Bring on the rocket tanks. They are in

>another game and nobody complained (hey, if

>you don't like them, don't use them) and

>since we have unrealistic absolute spotting,

>what does it matter if the Germans have

>rocket tanks? Yeah, go rocket tanks!

Are you on something ? If you have issues with unrealistic weapons platforms go spend your energy in other treads.

SdKfz-251 with rockets saw widespread service. And it is in CM (kindasortof). Galliope Shermans saw service but are they modelled in CM: beats the hell out of me.

A few Sturmtiger was built and it did see limited service. Do I lament it not making it to CM: no.

But I do lament the fact that the player is given NO lattitude in giving precision orders in a world of abstactions and approximations.

Most of the gripes rise from the illusion that the player is thinking he is giving orders and that the unit executing them knows what the players intentions are. And most of the expectations are based on fair assumptions and some basic knowledge of battlefield dynamics.

I have the pleassure of watching my sons go through the motions of learning and one of the toys they like to play with is the box that has diffrent shaped openings and blocks that fit the openings. CM is my toy and I can share the frustration of my sons when they try to fit the square block in a round hole

Only in CM the blocks LOOK like the openings in the box but at closer examination their shape fit the openings only in some cases. As you have to use the same blocks to effect different actions (= sqeeze them through diffrently shaped holes) some force has to be excerted for the blocks to go through. When it is time to go and fetch the hammer people take the gripes up in this board.

Unfortunately unlike the childrens toy learning CM better only increases the need to use the hammer to make the blocks go through the holes. This is because once you know the basics of the game engine you feel the need to start doing neat tricks and that is when the going gets tough.

[olandt]

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

I strongly suggest a search with Steve's member number and the key-word LOS or somefink. All the hot air expended in this thread on the matter will then be shown to be superfluous. In the meantime, it is vaguely amusing to see arguments along the line of 'it was in another game and nobody complained' or 'we have one unrealistic feature, so what is the problem with another one'. Bring on the rocket tanks. They are in another game and nobody complained (hey, if you don't like them, don't use them) and since we have unrealistic absolute spotting, what does it matter if the Germans have rocket tanks? Yeah, go rocket tanks!

You people are funny.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off, you come off sounding pompous when you come in and say "This has been dicussed before, don't waste your time". Well, there are obviously plenty of people who have not discussed it before. If you don't want to discuss it, go read another thread. Being part of an active discussion can often be more beneficial than simply reading the results of somebody elses, and who's to say we won't come upon something new? I'm not saying we would, be your coments imply that we won't, which is insulting.

Secondly, arguements concerning unrealistic features are a valid line of reasoning. This is a game, and therefor inherently flawed because it's a game. What we are talking about is a trade-off of unrelaistic features.

Some obviously feel that an LOS arc is a reasonable trade-off. Saves time, gives more information than maybe it should. But all that information can already be gained by using the LOS tool. So by having the current system, you reward players who spend the most time checking every LOS possible. Well, some of us would like to spend more time thinking about tactics than moving our cursors around the screen, especially on setup where troops would normally have plenty of time to check their LOS.

One possible solution would be to do a better job of matching the visual representation with the underlying modeled one where all the computations are done. Obviously this would require a rewrite. Do I expect BTS to do it? No, they'll do what they want, but maybe that just might find something interesting may come out of a tread that has "been talked about before".

[Andreas]

ª???$riginally posted by olandt:

First off, you come off sounding pompous when you come in and say "This has been dicussed before, don't waste your time". Well, there are obviously plenty of people who have not discussed it before. If you don't want to discuss it, go read another thread. Being part of an active discussion can often be more beneficial than simply reading the results of somebody elses, and who's to say we won't come upon something new? I'm not saying we would, be your coments imply that we won't, which is insulting.

[olandt]

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

Well, you exercise your right to free posting, I do exercise mine. I sound pompus, to me you sound ignorant when you dismiss previous discussions. Discussing anything with Tero is a waste of time, so I won't. If you want to know BTS reasoning, you can do a search. If you don't, don't. Your choice. expecting them to come on to repeat what they said a few times for the benefit of people who don't want to use the search function is a waste of their time. I am not the only one who pointed towards the BTS statement, Moon has too. Maybe look at his profile if you don't trust me. He wrote the Handbook for CM, IIRC, so I would take him as a credible source, but then again, I am pompous.

My statement about hot air was directed at the two later contributions of tero and whatshisname, who showed amazing reasoning. There is nothing wrong with discussing this, but if the intellectual quality of your arguments is coming down to those two I made fun of, you don't really have a case. Which does not say you won't find something new to the discussion. Maybe you do - it is not my intention to stifle your interesting debates, by all means carry-on debating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did do the search and found over 200 threads in which Steve uses LOS in his replys. I found this single reply in a thread from November of 99.

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

Hi Ian,

Keep in mind that each turn is only 60 seconds. If your guys crawl to a space and are 10m too far into the woods to see out, then another 30-40 seconds to crawl into position is reasonable and realistic. For example, a tank commander is not going to know the *exact* position where it can fire at a particular location from 200m away, or even 50m away. Precision is something that takes time. This is something that other wargames simulate poorly, mostly because they aren't using a realistic LOS model for starters. Being able to pan around and use the LOS tool already gives you way more information than your unit should realistically have, so a partial turn penalty to scoot a unit to the exact spot where it can get the perfect shot is probably too kind. Also, you can see roughly where you need to be by checking out where the LOS line breaks up. Note the different colors the line has depending on the degree of blockage. This can help you out a whole lot.

Steve <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve comments was in relation to using LOS from any spot on the board, not just from units.

Quite frankly, I don't want to do a search and sift through 200 threads every time an interesting conversation comes up. And I also don't expect any BTS employee to respond to anything we say or ask on the forum, I'm not looking for them to. If I did, I would send a letter directly to them.

Germanboy, I've read plenty of your posts on many threads, and I don't think you're pompus. But I do think you did come off SOUNDING pompus. Yes it's important to know what has been said before, but I don't have the time to read through the number of posts provided even by the search engine. Steve has posted over 6000 times.

I actually think some of the things mentioned by Terro sounded good. I've had no previous interactions with him, so I have no bias against him, and even if I did, I shouldn't let it get in the way of determining whether he has a valid point or not.

I don't think any of us wish to have a tool that gives us exact knowledge of the battlefield. That would be unrealistic. What we do want is a fair trade off on capabilities so that our troops can be made to react in a somewhat realistic manner. Whether that involves better AI or allowing us greater LOS tools, or deciding we have already reached that compromise.

Pete

[Andreas]

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

[snip]I actually think some of the things mentioned by Terro sounded good. I've had no previous interactions with him, so I have no bias against him, and even if I did, I shouldn't let it get in the way of determining whether he has a valid point or not.

I don't think any of us wish to have a tool that gives us exact knowledge of the battlefield. [snip]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pete, I know the search engine does not work as it should. Please note that I do not have a particularly strong opinion on a LOS tool from a unit. I pointed out at the start of this thread that BTS had made a design decision and that was that. I accept that, I don't have a problem with the way things are now, but I can see why some people may want to have more. Others play by Ironman rules. A matter of taste really. Then tero came on, claiming that a LOS tool from any point on the map would be realistic because (amongst other reasons) the Germans had been in France for four years, so they would know the lay of the land. He lost me then and there, and I refuse to take him or any further arguments from him pushing this line seriously. I may miss out on something big because of that, but to be honest, I don't think so.

So there are really two issues here, LOS tool unit based, LOS tool anywhere. I can see your point of view regarding the first, and good luck debating it. I doubt BTS will change it, but hey, give it a try. But I can tell you now that if it comes down to Tribbs' 'hey, absolute spotting is so unrealistic, we can have this unrealistic feature as well' is not going to get you anywhere. I seem to remember somebody else trying that sometime ago.

So, I think you are wrong in your assumption that nobody here wants a totally unrealistic tool. At least tero does.

Enjoy the game.

[Tero]

>Then tero came on, claiming that a LOS tool

>from any point on the map would be

>realistic because (amongst other reasons)

>the Germans had been in France for four

>years, so they would know the lay of the

>land. He lost me then and there, and I

>refuse to take him or any further arguments

>from him pushing this line seriously.

>

>So, I think you are wrong in your

>assumption that nobody here wants a totally

>unrealistic tool. At least tero does.

One of the most basic axioms in the CM world is the fact that ALL recon is done and the game picks up when the battle proper starts. Hence absolutely no recce type formations appear in the game. Funnily enough no realistic recce data is provided for the player as a compensation.

Now, could it be fairly assumed that since ALL recce operations are supposeldy done there has actually been some reconnoitering in the forthcoming area in which the battle is to take place ? As things stand now all you get to know is perhaps the nationality/force type you are going up against. If even that.

I do not know about the other WWII armies but the Finnish army took notes on the terrain (if the area had not been mapped previously, please ask tss how effective the map making in the Finnish army was back then) as well as the enemy units and assets in the area. The reconnoitering would indicate advantageous and disadvantageous terrain features for both movement and defence and things like distances between prominent terrain features. Depending on the type of the mission at hand the force commander would then prepare his battle plans and backup plans as well as initial troop deployment according to the recce data.

What is the level of this pre-battle recce data the player is given now in CM and is there any way to represent it ? IMO a free ranging LOS tool could be one.

[Username]

I kind of sped read through this and having been part of some of the old threads, want to pitch some ideas again.

I dont feel that a player should be able to just pick a spot and start looking around from it. He should have to commit to it. That is, place a movement down that cant be canceled. This simulates a scout out scenario.

Suppose I commit to a movement. Then I get to look around from that triangle or whatever is at the end of the movement line. Suppose then I see that yeah, I can see the house in the next valley (what I wanted), but I also can see the top of the hill to the north and also the hill to the east. Being possible enemy observation and gun positions, I decide that discretion is the better part of valour and put down a second movement line further back. I get to LOS from the second spot too. Note; this is a second movement order not a editted first movement order.

So info comes at a price. Since the game gives unlimited map info, it would be unfair to give away LOS info without just a little movement from the player. recon with half squads, jeeps, armored cars becomes more important, etc. How you approach the top of the hill will be important (sneaking/crawling). LOS checks btw are just that, not spotting or targetting or anything.

Just an idea. Hey Germanboy. Take a CHEEEELL MON.

Lewis

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Tripps]

oh wow, you've really pulled my post apart!

so, either i recover gracefully and allow in variances in interpretation as to what i said/was trying to say, or i think you really are the pompass ass other ppl think you are...

Originally posted by Germanboy:

or 'we have one unrealistic feature, so what is the problem with another one'.

i was merely tryin to say that the tool being discussed was not to give complete spotting power to the unit, but rather than using the existing one, and moving it around the battlefield checkin out lines of site that angle, between those buildings, 800 yards straight ahead, can i see that reverse slope over there etc etc, it would be nice if we could check all that at a glance!!

the reference to 'unrealism' was not to say because we have one, lets have another, as you so kindly interperated to suit your own needs, it was in refernce to those who say its unreal, as i was TRYING to say we can "do it already" so make it less time consuming...

if you look at my line after that reference to 'unrealism', you'll see the whole point of my post, to speed up the turn, not give radar like qualities...

and if we look at that, your comparison to this vs kick ass units is kinda dumb

i really think you took my post completely the wrong way, and put me on the side of Tero, who you obviously have a problem with, and thats clouding your judgement, but thats your problem, not mine

[Priest]

Here is an idea....

Leave it the same. It works. It is handy and takes some amount of skill. Really the graphical engine is good enough that by simply going to a position and going to view one is more than realistic. Please going to any spot on the battlefield and using the LOS tool smacks of C@C and Starcraft quality handicaps. I would like to think that we are better as a group. Germanboy you have an ally here, and while you are pompous , you are pompous in a good way

[Username]

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

Here is an idea....

Leave it the same. It works. It is handy and takes some amount of skill. Really the graphical engine is good enough that by simply going to a position and going to view one is more than realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats a bad idea. Good ideas deal with change.

In my idea, the use of level one "squattin on the target" is not going to be allowed anymore. Squattin on one of your units is what you can do.

Level one limitations. I like it.

Lewis

PS I am supporting tero here because..well.. he told off Snapdragon and it was cool.

[John Kettler]

Tero,

Spot on! I believe you just identified one of the biggest problems with the game: the recon that was done but was never briefed to us and marked on our maps as unit commanders. Seems to me the game either needs to be recast to allow effective prebattle recon by the players or some mechanism has to be devised to give them the benefits therof without having to physically do the work.

If the former, we need to have armed recon crews which can dismount from their vehicles, snoop about, then slip back to their vehicles, remount and advance, preferably while overwatched by a buddy. We need procedures for sending spotting reports up the pipe and in differentiating between a sighting made through binoculars and the unaided eye, between a trained observer and a vanilla grunt. We need an effective way to run LPs and OPs. We need to be able to perform route and engineering recon, too.

We need going maps. We need target overlays. We need photos or high res maps with the vital info plotted on them. We need phase line overlays with unit boundaries and objectives clearly marked.

Right now, especially in QBs, we have the worst of both worlds. We have no recon and are practically hamstrung because of it. We are like people walking through a pitch black room full of open manholes. In spite of our God's eye views of the battlefield, we see less going in most of the time than did our real life counterparts. They at least got briefed over the hood of a jeep. There ought to be some way to flag and note various zones, even on the current map, e.g.,confirmed MG, possible tank, took AT fire from here, etc. Even that level of detail would be a huge help, since it would at once eliminate many possibilities from military consideration. A hot key controlled overlay, some way to depict boundaries and phase lines and even a simplified symbol set would open up vast new gaming possibilities. You could even have engagements devoted to learning specific things about certain aspects of the defenses, a natural for an op, IMO.

This is necessarily rough, but what do the rest of you think?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler:

...we need to have armed recon crews which can dismount from their vehicles, snoop about, then slip back to their vehicles, remount and advance, preferably while overwatched by a buddy. We need procedures for sending spotting reports up the pipe and in differentiating between a sighting made through binoculars and the unaided eye, between a trained observer and a vanilla grunt. We need an effective way to run LPs and OPs. We need to be able to perform route and engineering recon, too.

We need going maps. We need target overlays. We need photos or high res maps with the vital info plotted on them. We need phase line overlays with unit boundaries and objectives clearly marked.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need TacOps!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...but what do the rest of you think?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John, I think you are wildly optimistic in estimating how much information--let alone accurate information--the grunts in the line usually possessed.

Yes, there was usually some recon done before a firefight. It might have been hasty or it might have been thorough, more likely the former. But in no case did anyone go over the battlefield with measuring chains and a theodolite. Unless a line had been stable for weeks, an attacking company often had to do it's own recon, and might well have only had the last 24 hours to do it in.

Maps, when they were available at all, were often in too small a scale to be helpful to a company commander, let alone a squad leader, and if by some miracle they managed to get ahold of large-scale maps of the area they were interested in, and in time to be of any use, they were more often than not either incomplete or simply wrong. And this was just the permanent features of the landscape. Don't get me started on enemy dispositions.

There are probably many ways that the CM experience can be improved, and some of the suggestions you made at the top of the page have merit. But I think we need a clearer idea of what life was actually like for the guys on the ground. Mostly it consisted of slogging through chaos, not nice neat arrows slicing with mathematical precision across maps that are exact models of the ground they fought on.

Michael

[ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[John Kettler]

Michael,

I'm not asking for perfect information, nor for a whole lot of it. There were cases, though, where our maps showed every single German gun position and its field of fire. Merely showing such a map to a German commander near Cherbourg, I believe, led to his surrendering a major fortress complex. We had better data on his positions than he did.

Similarly, Belton Cooper in his DEATH TRAPS talks about a crash effort to transfer aerial photo coverage derived info to maps in time for an assault in Germany. He says that the interpreters were able to identify camouflaged MG positions by the grass blown down from the muzzle blast and minefield locations from the disturbed earth.

Granted, these are not typical of battlefield intel at the consumer level, but they do show what could be done, given time, resources and cooperative weather. What I would like to see, though, if we're not given the means to do our own recon, is some sort of at least crude sketch (overlay) showing us at least a smattering of information on what we're facing.

We routinely go into battle in CM knowing nothing of what we're facing. Such a routine condition would, IRL, have been wholly unacceptable and would've gotten the intel officers sacked for gross incompetence.

Do people make mistakes and misidentify units?

Yes. Do positions get wrongly plotted or get missed completely? Again, yes? Does the enemy sometimes slip new units in which aren't

found until it's too late? Happens. But did units routinely attack and defend knowing effectively zero about the expected foe, as we do in every QB? No!

That's what patrols are for, to gradually build and expand a picture of who the enemy is, where he is, what he has, even how good he is. That's why raids are mounted to snatch prisoners and gather intel. That's what observation aircraft are for, what radio monitoring is for, what photo recon's all about. Most battles aren't fought in an information vacuum. Fighting in chaos, in darkness, in rain, at the junction of two maps

may be the norm, but that is NOT the same as having NO information before entering combat.

Someone proposed buying intel by paying points

for it. Maybe that's the way to go. In any event, how difficult would it be to write a bit of code which randomly reveals X percent of the foe's setup, said locations off by Y percent and force strength by Z percent? That alone would be an incredible advance over our present complete absence of prebattle recon data. That's what I'm looking for, Michael.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Tero]

>You need TacOps!

That is true. But again there are some quirks in the team orders once you advance to the rank of Lt and how you have to be able to have be able to work your mouse and KB with the precision and speed of a lightning. Otherwise you end up shooting all the enemy units by yourself. That is good for the score but....

>John, I think you are wildly optimistic in

>estimating how much information--let alone

>accurate information--the grunts in

>the line usually possessed.

That specific level of intel that seeped through the ranks is largely a force specific issue and as such out of the scope of this discussion.

But at least the grunts had SOME of it. They could say "the map is we received is BS and the intel is clearly inteded for the neighbouring sector. Sod this, we make it up as we go along". But that meant that they used their own best judgement and experience to fill in the gaps in adapting to the situation, including staying out of sight to obtain a better position. A way point was a way point but the route was not linear and straight between the WP's.

If they noted a spot in the selected route that exposed them against orders and made them vulnerable in the process they A) walked as if the situation was OK regardless of the fact that by doing so they deliberately jeopardiced the mission AND themselves or changed their route to reflect this chance in the situation ?

Does a unit in CM under TacAI work like this ? Does the player have the same level of knowledge a RL company/platoon/squad leader would have on the spot about the surrounding terrain WHEN he is giving precision orders to single squads ? This is supposed to be WWII infantry tactics, NOT WWI infantry tactics for crying out loud.

>Yes, there was usually some recon done

>before a firefight. It might have been

>hasty or it might have been thorough, more

>likely the former.

I disagree.

Depending on the type of battle: generally hasty for the attacker while the defender HAD to be more thorough. Also, it was hasty and done by forces in place if it was a meeting engagement or a pursuit situation. The recce done while preparing for a deliberate attack/assault involved specialized troops and methods (radio listening, recce flights over the area, LRRP deep into enemy territory etc).

The defender had the edge in all the cases as it was in his best interest to choose the best possible terrain AND know what route the enemy would most propably would use.

>But in no case did anyone go over the

>battlefield with measuring chains and a

>theodolite.

But they would have binoculars (with a degree scale) and (if the preparations are done properly) most propably a the handheld thingimajig we arty pukes use to measure how many degrees and minutes a terrain feature is from another terrain feature.

>Unless a line had been stable for weeks, an

>attacking company often had to do it's own

>recon, and might well have only had the

>last 24 hours to do it in.

What about the recce data obtained by efforts ordered by the higher ups and executed with the upper echelon (regiments, battalions, divisions, armies) assets ?

>Maps, when they were available at all, were

>often in too small a scale to be helpful to

>a company commander, let alone a squad

>leader, and if by some miracle they managed

>to get ahold of large-scale maps of the

>area they were interested in, and in time

>to be of any use, they were more often than

>not either incomplete or simply wrong.

So the units worked like robots and they did not use nor were they allowed to use their own initiative to adapt to the situation ? The CM TacAI is not just equipped to simulate that, it is all up to the player.

>And this was just the permanent features of

>the landscape. Don't get me started on

>enemy dispositions.

That is why they were usually told how old the data is.

>Mostly it consisted of slogging through

>chaos,

That is true. IIRC 90% of inactivity followed by 10 % of sheer terror.

>not nice neat arrows slicing with

>mathematical precision across maps that are

>exact models of the ground they fought on.

Mathematical precision being the operative phrase here. To simulate the full range of battle field stimuli based on sights and sounds we have been given tools. But they have their limitations as they are presicion tools and the world they are operated is based on abstractions and approximations.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Hence absolutely no recce type formations appear in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could have sworn I've seen German fusilier companies available. Plenty of other recce units also (jeeps, Greyhounds, 234s, ect.).

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

Seems to me the game either needs to be recast to allow effective prebattle recon by the players or some mechanism has to be devised to give them the benefits therof without having to physically do the work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given deeper QB maps, greater starting distance between forces, and enough turns, this could be done. Some people do this to some extent already.

But frankly, I don't see what any of this has to do with the LOS tool.

As far as that goes, I see no problem with a 360 degree function, especially during setup. As for being able to use the LOS tool without it being anchored to a unit, this has been shot down by BTS more than once as too unrealistic. I think you're all wasting your time on that one.

[Priest]

Username,

First off saying change is "good" because it is change is really a lacking statement. Hmmm Hitler changed Germany, Hussien changed the status of Kuwait, hell Coca Cola changed its formula and it was all bad! In fact this reminds me of X-COM. You all remember, one of the best games ever made. Many have called it the best game ever made. Well after the first one (the first "sequel was really an add-on pack) the whole franchise tanked. Why? Because people said "Whoa that was great but I wonder if you could do it in Real-Time? Change=X-COM Apocolypse. Then they said "Gee whiz that Wing Commander is a great game!" Change=X-COM Interceptor. And finally they said "Gee Duke Nukem kills aliens and X-Com guys kill aliens soooooo..." and we got the latest trash which I and many other do not know the name because we stopped caring!

Now lets look at some successful games as of late...

Baldurs Gate I ---> Baldurs Gate II

Minor changes to the system only.

Mechwarrior III ---> Mechwarrior IV

A new engine but an evolution of the old one that except for the build process of mecha played exactly as the old game.

Diablo I ---> Diablo II

Uhm same game. At least that is how I felt, maybe with some better graphics. Actually this is a good example as while I was a little disappointed in the game others madly flocked to it, so the company made the right decision it would seem.

Quake I ---> Quake II ---> Quake III

Same game better graphics and each one has sold better than the last

Rainbow Six ---> Rogue Spear

Same game with different graphics and sound and some extra options.

See what I am getting at?

Guys I am all for realism but this is a game. I repeat this is a game. And BTS is a business, a business with the customer in mind, but a business nevertheless. What you folks are suggesting is not good for the game (makes it more difficult) and not good for business (detracts from the experience of the non-Grog). Combat Mission can be played at a very high level and knowing the velocity of the US 76mm can and does make a difference in the game. That being said, anybody can play the game and enjoy it because it boils down to, find it and shoot it. As long as you have a grasp of basic tactics you can play the game.

These customers do not want to sit through countless setup maps and intel. They do not want to flip through screens of text and pictures. They want to play the game. It is not a simulation to them. They are part of the community (a large part) and BTS would be wrong to alienate them.

Lastly the LOS tool as it stands now is not a tool as much as a balance device. The LOS tool can show you what your troops can see which if you were actually there you could do. For a myriad of reasons the graphical engine cannot resolve LOS well enough without it so it is there.

Lastly your level one arguement also is lacking. First off what is the big deal about level one, last big gamey thread said that anything above level two was gamey, so which is it. Maybe BTS should send you an airplane ticket to France and a tent and you can sit in the tent with a radio and wait from comms from you troops (expect a long wait as they do not exist!)

You know it is amazing to me that back in the day we all praised BTS and CMBO. We said it had a great AI. We said it's interface was a great revolution of ease of use and depth. Now it would seem is that the lot of you can only complain. Beg for patches and demand changes that have already been said no to or do not look at the larger picture BTS has to look at. Wasn't someone going to design there own game "fixing" what BTS did wrong. Was that you Username? Where is the game? Where can I buy this piece of perfection? It only took two guys to make CMBO together and if this other persons idea was sooooo good then it should have been easy to bring people aboard. Yet I still have heard nothing about it. You want more realism then try CMMC or another in depth operations game. Then you can be spending many hours a day looking at maps and considering logistics. Hell the rulebook is hundreds of pages long so go to it. But do not spread meaningless baseless drivel and try to influence BTS to do something fatal to the game. If you have a good idea fine but so far I am still waiting.

BTS remember X-Com's plight and stay the course.

[ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: Priest ]

[Username]

Priest

Looks like you play way too many games as it is.

I think that the player, flying about the field of battle, squatting down onto areas he doesnt have troops in and looking around appeals to people that play games like you mention.

I am saying that as a FOW OPTION,the player can only be level 1 over an area that has a friendly unit in it. Literally, select unit, hit TAB and then be able to go down to level 1.

Its a reality setting. Now go back to your unreality and dont you mind my game.

Lewis

[Priest]

Actually User I have played very few of those games at length but I do happen to know quite a bit about games and do follow the market.

Hmmm so username you do play Combat Mission right? So when you draw little lines for movement on the screen is that realistic? Did folks string out colored rope before they moved in WWII? Hmm did not know that. Well I guess you learn something everyday! (note sarcasm!)

And your reality setting is fine if it can be implemented without hurting the rest of the game and/or impacting BTS's goals for system requirements but I would put it down very low on the "things to do" list. While it may be unrealistic what really do you gain from doing it. Also as long as you can "fly" all over the map I can tell contour and such from level 4 most of the time so big deal. Heck if you use certain grass textures you can tell contours in even the top down views so do not give me a speech on how not using view 1 has anything to do with "scouting" a maps "sweet spots" because it does not.

So to achieve your non-gamey totally realistic LOS rule we would have to program an entire system, not allow a free roaming camera, and lock the mod community out of terrain features. Yeah sounds like a well thought out super idea. (again note sarcasm)

Sorry Username but your idea does not wash. Too many other factors can achieve what you are trying to change and you are targeting the wrong culprit as view one is a "fun" view for watching explosions and taking screenshots (all I really use it for) and the LOS tool which is simple and easy and wonderfully informative.

Now I agree using the LOS tool anywhere is ludicrous you need to have a unit there to use it.

So Username let me clear up one last thing. CMBO is not your game, it is not my game, it is BTS's game (as I stated in my post) and my only concern is that Steve and Charles do not listen to such ignorant posts and comments from folks such as....well lets not start a flame war!