Thoughts about relative spotting

[Scipio]

I just wonder how a concept of relative spotting can be realized - wouldn't this mean that each single unit must have a LOS status for each single enemy unit, and this for each moment of the action phase?

On the other hand...what are the real problems of the current system - I think it only get really annoying when guns are spotted, and all tanks target them in same moment immediatly.

I wonder if this could be fixed in an easy way. In one of my matches I had an interesting experience. A 2cm gun was shooting on one of my tanks, and all the time I had only a sound spotting. In other words, wouldn't it help if guns - at least in some covered terraine - would be much more difficult to spot?

Well, of course it's another question if this would 'violate' realism...

[Redwolf]

The only thing that can be fixed with the current system is that one unit doesn't automatically, instantly sees what another unit sees.

But even then nothing short of a pure command game can prevent the player from ordering area fire from one unit based on spottings he got from a different unit.

Or in other words, it fixes only the in-turn situation. The moment the next order phase comes the player shortcuts relative spotting.

Many people in this community don't understand this and expect some magic to be done in the next engine.

[ April 21, 2003, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Auggy]

This is what I think will happen. The tank will get shot at, turn it's gun and start shooting back. You can't see the enemy unit for yourself, and only have a vauge idea of what it is. As time passes, you will be able to see the unit marker, and then finally the unit itself.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Sir Augustus:

This is what I think will happen. The tank will get shot at, turn it's gun and start shooting back. You can't see the enemy unit for yourself, and only have a vauge idea of what it is. As time passes, you will be able to see the unit marker, and then finally the unit itself.

This is exactly what is not going to happen, as I understand Steve.

You would just have to follow the gun direction and elevantion and could just direct other units to that spot. To make this work you would have to hide the player's unit orientation.

[aka_tom_w]

perhaps this will help:

from that OLD thread Steve had this to say

everyone who is interested in how Borg spotting might be modeled in the next game really "should" take a minute and read these posts:

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted April 26, 2002 08:13 PM                

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

Oh my God but this is a really big thread

Folks, the crux of the issue is this...

Do people want a Command Style, Micromanagement Style, or Multi-Level Style game? These are terms I made up to illustrate the three major groupings. I define each as such:

1. Command Style - you are in ONE definite position of command. You can only influence the battlefield as that one command position would allow in the real world. More importantly, all subordinate units under your command would behave 100% autonomously from your will unless you were able to realistically give them "orders". I am not just talking about radio or messanger contact, but chain of command.

A Major does NOT go and order some buck private to move his MG to a better spot. He orders a Captain to set up a certain type of position in a certain location ("set up a defensive line along the north side of Hill 345"), the Captain then issues more specific commands to his LTs. ("1st Platoon go to that stand of trees, 2nd Platoon down thee road a click, 3rd Platoon deploy to 2nd's right), then each LT gives orders to his SGTs to deploy a little bit more specifically ("1st Squad, take that wall over there, 2nd Squad see if that house has a good field of fire on that gully over there, 3rd Squad go over there and see what you can do about covering that road junction"), and then each SGT in turn yells at various peeons to get moving to a VERY specific location ("behind that tree, numbnuts! Smitty!! Damn your soul... get that MG set up pronto behind that boulder facing that way or I'll tapdance on your butt for the rest of the day").

Now, in such a system the Major (that would be you!) does not know or even care about these details. That is called deligation of responsibility and initiative, which is what every modern armed force is trained around doing. The Major's responsibilities are to keep in touch with his neighboring formations and higher HQ, requisitioning stuff (units, supplies, guns, etc.) to get his mission accomplished, and making sure everything is running smoothly before, during, and after contact with the enemy. In non combat situations there are a LOT more responsibilities than that, but we are only focusing on the combat aspect.

What each unit under his command can or can not see, shoot at, or deal with is NOT the Major's direct concern. It is the direct concern of the unit in question and its HQ. The Major is, of course, trying to get as much information as possible so he can best lead the battle, but he doesn't care a hoot if there is an enemy squad 203.4 meters and closing on 1st Squad, 3rd Platoon, E Company. At least specifically he doesn't care.

So there you have it. This is how REAL combat works in terms of C&C. There is absolutely no way to simulate the reality of the battlefield without taking the player's mits 99% off direct control of units.

2. Micromanagement Style - You read all of the above, correct? Well, forget about it A Mircormanagement style game doesn't give a hoot about command and control aspects of warfare. You get some units, you use units as you see fit. When you click on one of the units you can order it to do whatever the heck you want without any thoughts about command and control. I would even include games with very primative attempts at C&C being lumped into this group.

3. Multi-Level Style - The player is neither a single commander nor an über micromanager. Orders can be given to any unit, but those orders and behaviors are influenced, to some degree or another, by Command and Control rules. In other words, you CAN order that individual MG to move 2.5 meters to the left, but you can not do this for "free". Some set of rules are set up to make such an order be more or less effective depending on the circumstances (in/out C&C, good/poor morale, good/poor experience, etc). The player is therefore still has far more flexability than a single commander would ever have, but not total and utter control in any and all circumstances.

Examples of each game...

Command Style - I know of no commercial wargame in existance that does this type of simulation. A game like the upcoming Airborne Assault comes VERY close, but even that one doesn't limit you to one command position with only the ability to see and affect the action as that one position would allow.

Micromanagement Style - best example I can give you guys is something like Panzer General or Close Combat. In both of these games you could order your units to do whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted without the slightest interference in terms of command decisions.

Multi-Level Style - Combat Mission and Steel Panthers come to mind. The original system in Steel Panthers was quite simplistic compared to Combat Mission's, but both sought to penalize units which lacked C&C with their higher HQs. Combat Mission took many previous game concepts a few steps further, as well as adding a few new ones of its own. Some games, like Combat Mission, lean more towards Command Style while others, like Airborne Assault go even further. Other games, like Steel Panthers, lean more towards Micromanagement Style.

In terms of realism, Command Style is the highest ideal, Micromanagement the lowest, and Multi-Level somewhere inbetween. In terms of playability, Micromanagement is the highest ideal, Command Style the lowest, and Multi-Level somewhere inbetween.

In terms of proven trackrecord of being fun, the pie is split between Micromanagement and Multi-Level. No wargame has ever fit the definition of Command Style, so it has no reecord. We are not going to try and be the first because we would rather watch paint dry than play such a game. And we are very sure that 99% of our customers would agree. And that 1% would most likely not really wind up liking the game anyway. Sometimes people need to be careful about what they ask for because they just might get it

Command Style games do not exist for a reason. They are nearly impossible to make (the AI necessary boggles the mind!) and the gameplay value near non existant. So why bother trying?

Instead we will make Combat Mission more realistic through our system of Relative Spotting. Reading through some of the posts here, I don't think people necessarily totally understand what a profound impact it will have on the game. Will it make CM 100% realistic? No, and I pitty any fool developer who attempts such a silly venture. But will CM be more realistic than any Squad level wargame yet? Well... of course we already think it is , but we know we can do better.

So until we get into coding the new engine, do a search on Relative Spotting and see what has been said on the subject before. Lots of good stuff to read through.

Steve

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

IP: Logged

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted April 26, 2002 08:27 PM                

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

U8lead asked:

quote:

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

Do units in C&C spot and ID better then the same units out of C&C in the current game?

And if so, do any of the HQ bonuses (possibly combat bonus) apply to spotting and ID?

If units out of C&C had a substantialy reduced positive ID range would that help Borg ID?

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

No, no, and no

Why should a unit out of C&C be able to see less far? How is that more realistic? And if it can't see out as far, but in real life should, how does that affect the realistic ability of that individual unit to respond to the oncoming threat? Should a Tiger Tank with a Crack crew sit around NOT spotting an ISU-152 which it should plainly see, just because it doesn't have radio contact with BN HQ? I think not I also think we would have people screaming at us until we "fixed it or did somefink"

This is one of the fundamental problems I have seen in discussions like this. And that is thinking that unrealistically penalizing an individual unit somehow makes the game more realistic. At best it is a wash. At worst, it makes the game on the whole less realistic.

For example, not allowing a unit out of C&C to do anything until it is in C&C is totally unrealistic. Such a system simply swaps in one Borg behavior for another. It doesn't make the game any more realistic, but instead hobbles real life flexibility to the point of making the game unplayable and a joke of a simulation. Don't believe me? Try this one out...

Let us assume that units have to be in C&C with their higher HQs to pass on information and receive orders. OK, can anybody tell me what would happen, under this system, if the BN HQ unit got whacked on the first turn by a lucky artillery bombardment? Would the player just sit there staring at a screen totally lacking friendly and enemy units? Or would all the friendly units show up but the player couldn't do anything or yield any information about themselves or what they see?

The above situation illustrates why removing realistic tactical control is not the right direction to go towards. Because if you follow it to its logical conclusion (i.e. the ultimate realistic state), this is what you wind up with.

Honestly folks, your feedback is appreciated. But I for one am very glad some of you are gamers and not game designers

Steve

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted April 26, 2002 08:51 PM                

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

Tom,

quote:

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

I think it has been a positive and constructive discusion with several different points of view represented.

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

I agree, but I must also point out that this discussion is not that different than a 1/2 dozen other ones held in the past. That is not to take away anything from anyone who participated here and not in the others, but rather to point out that the CM's borg problems are pretty well established by now. They are also not inherently different than those of other games, although we would argue CM deals with them better.

The ideas people are kicking around in this thread are also ones that have been kicked around in other threads. Specifics might not be exactly the same, but the core motivation behind certain lines of thinking are surprisingly similar.

Some people think the key to better realism is to have a sort of "you got it or you don" system of C&C where units not in C&C sit around dumbly until they are contacted again. A variation on that is that the AI somehow handles these units while you are not in command of them. The former is utterly unrealistic, the latter so difficult to program effectively that it is not the best design to pursue (i.e. spending a year making the AI for this means a year of doing nothing else ).

Others think that the way to go is to simulate "orders" down through the chain of command. This is something that most people would find about as exciting as watching paint dry Watering this idea down to make there be more game also means watering down the potential realism and reintroducing the Borg problem.

Believe me, I am not trying to ridicule people for their theories on how the Borg issue should be dealt with. I'm just trying to point out that some "cures" will actually kill the pateient before the operation is even over .

Others suggest things which will leave nasty scars and open up the doctors for lawsuits (or rather unpleasant commentary on BBSes ).

But in general, I think most people understand the basic issues and some even see very simple solutions to some of the problems. Or at least can see how a huge problem can be tackled by several smaller, comprehensive changes.

I think that once people see CMBB they will understand how the Big Problems can be tackled by smaller, perhaps even subtle, changes. Not completely, of course, because to do that the human player would have to be removed almost completely from the game. Later, I think people will see that Relative Spotting (as we have discussed it in the past) they will understand that it reduces or eliminates most of the Big Problems in CM that remain after CMBB's changes. Will the future CM be perfect? From a realism standpoint, of course not. But I can assure you that we will get damned close. Close enough that people will probably ask for Relative Spotting related features to be optional

Steve

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted April 26, 2002 09:53 PM                

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

Tom,

quote:

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

...even if the BTS idea of Relative Spotting were implimented, in that each and every unit makes it own spotting check and cannot target (but MAY be ordered to use "area Fire" at) enemy units it has not spotted, (BUT the player KNOWS where those enemy units are he can order or direct EVERY unit, irrespective of whether it has spotted the enemy unit or not, or whether it is in C&C or NOT, to fire or move in that general direction (NOW thats a "BORG Like Swarm" ™ to use Redwolf's term ), what would that solve?

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

Uhm... A HECK OF A LOT

Area fire is useless against a moving target and has reduced accuracy and effects against a stationary one. If you think that Area Fire is a fine and dandy substitute for direct targeting, might I suggest booting up CMBO and playing a game on the defensive only using Area Fire commands. I think that ought to get you to see that you are taking a rather extreme and unfair look at what ONE ASPECT of Realitive Spotting will do.

quote:

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

I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat.

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

In a black and white world, where there is only Borg and Not Borg, you would be correct. But that is a world I don't live in As I described above, there is absolutely NO solution to the Borg problem except to remove the human player from the game. Do you really want that?

If so we could easily make CM play so that you deploy your troops (which CM buys for you) by simply clicking down the HQs at the next level lower than your own (i.e. if you are the Major, you can only click on the Company HQs). CM would then deploy all the rest of the units without you even seeing them. Yup, you wouldn't see anything except what was around your HQ unit, which would be set up and unmovable (for the most part) after the Setup Phase. Then the game would start. You would issue a couple of vauge orders to your next lower HQs and then sit back and wait. From Turn 1 on all friendly units would disappear from the map. Every so often a Spotted icon would appear where MAYBE one of your directly subordinated HQ was. At this point in time you might get back some meaningful information from the HQ, or perhpas not. Depending on if the HQ is in radio contact or not, you could issue orders to the HQ along the vauge lines of Turn 1. You will have no idea what that HQ does with them until the next time he resurfaces. If there is no radio contact, runners would be necessary and that means instant communication would be impossible, thus making that Spotted icon appear less frequently and even more prone to error. After the shooting would start you might have a rough idea about where and the nature of the shooting. But until one of those ghost icons popped up, you wouldn't know much more than that. And even when that does happen, you would only get back snipts of text about what was going on and you could still only issue a few vauge orders.

Gee... DAMN does that sound like fun!

Whoopie Cripes, we wouldn't even need to program in anything except some sort of ZORK like text adventure script engine and a few generalized combat resolution equations.

You see.. THAT is the be all, end all Black and White counter balance to the RTS type Borg system. CM is already somewhere inbetween the two, and CMBB is a bit more towards the realism side. The engine rewrite will be even more towards the REALISM side of the equation by reducing the effectiveness of the Borg aspect. But no way, no how can we eliminate it. So why bother having such a black and white set of standards when one side is available and not liked (i.e. RTS with no C&C rules at all) and the other would be a yawner to even those who THINK they want it (i.e. human player almost totally removed from even watching the action)? Wouldn't it be more interesting and productive to focus on practical ways to make the game more realistic without all the hoo-ha about it not going far enough? Hmmm?

Tom, I know you have been a participant in many of the previous discusions. I would have hoped that you picked up on the fact that Relative Spotting is only the underlying mechanism, not the solution. In other words, there are all SORTS of things we can do once Relative Spotting is in place that will increase realism, decrease the Borg, and at the same time make CM more fun. Having restrictions on targeting is just ONE feature made possible by Relative Spotting. A better system of artillery requests is another. More accountable and detailed C&C delays is yet another. There are LOTs of possibilities made possible because of Relative Spotting. So again, don't think of Relative Spotting as the solution, but a part of the underlying foundation for other features which in turn will do lots of things to improve the game on all levels.

When we get into this phase of design we should all have a nice group think about ways we can leverage Relative Spotting and other systems to make CM more realistic. But at this point, we don't have the time to do that. Already spent too much time on this issue as it is

Steve

[Scipio]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

perhaps this will help

from that OLD thread Steve had this to say

everyone who is interested in how Borg spotting might be modeled in the next game really "should" take a minute and read these posts ...

Yep, good reading. I agree to all of it.

But as I said before, the only serious problem I have with the current system is with guns. Because of there (relativ or total) immobility and their hight target priority they suffer most from borg spotting. Or is there another kind of unit that I miss? Let me show two situations.

a) Typical - I have a (Soviet 100mm AT) in light wood to cover a road. Now, a group of Tigers show up, 1000-1500m away. My gun opens fire. It was able to get out three shots before it was spotted, all Tigers target it, and the gun was killed before it made the fourth shot. It was overcast weather in dawn/dusk, so visibilty was not optimal.

Suprising - My tanks move over steppe. An enemy 2cm opens fire. I only get a 'sound spotting' marker from a wood ~1000-1500 meters away. Well, now I order area fire into the wood. I was not able to take out that gun. Weather was good, daytime. Optimal visibilty.

I think situation B was much more realistic than situation A.

- Even if a big AT gun is a large target, the crew ussually spends some time to camo it. They know about their vulnarability. At least if the gun has not been moved or under fire for some minutes.

- It is generaly difficult to find out from what direction the fire comes. Not to speak about the difficulties to tell somebody else where you have seen something. Try to show somebody else where you see a bird sitting in a tree 3m away.

- An additional problem is indeed from borg spotting. Infantry units with better spotting values can spot the gun, while (I assume) the tanks only wouldn't. But the tanks then open the fire.

So it is my impression that the borg problem would be solved to some degree if guns would be much harder to discover, depending on the terrain of the gun position and the crew experience. Unless a friendly unit - even with a GOOD spotting value - is 'close' (a few 100 meters), the gun is only visible as 'sound spotted'.

Mh, when I think about it - it mostly depents on the number of shots if gun is spotted or not. Maybe a variant of the 'Shoot & scoot' command would be an idea, too?

[Sergei]

Maybe there needs to be a command delay system for targeting as well?

If the player wants all his tanks to target that patch of woods where there is an ATG, those tanks which have spotted the gun can target it right away. But those who haven't, need to get instructions from their commander, to area fire. This would then take some time, depending on all the normal modifiers.

It's never been really obvious to me that why I can tell a machinegun team with no HQ contact to fire at any particular spot of terrain with no delay at all, while if I order them to move 2 metres to a foxhole, they have to wait for the orders? You'd think that having them fire at some spot, where they don't know the enemy is, would be beyond the team's own reasoning, while moving to the best cover available would be something they'd do automatically.

[Andreas]

Scipio, in your example you are really comparing Apples and Oranges. A 10cm gun has a much more significant signature when fired, and is also a lot more difficult to disguise because of its sheer size, than a 2cm popgun (have a look at footage of such guns firing to see what I mean). You may have noted that it is often difficult to spot the very light ATGs (37mm, to some extent 45mm) even when they fire repeatedly. Heavy and medium ATGs should not be so difficult to spot.

I don't think the spotting model is the problem, I would agree with Sergei that the information transmission model is more likely to be the culprit.

If you really want to test the spotting model, I would suggest putting a single tank against the ATG for starters. Then start adding single units to see how much more quickly it goes.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Andreas:

... Heavy and medium ATGs should not be so difficult to spot. ...

The keyword is should. It sounds logic that a large AT gun is easy to spot and a small one not. But don't underestimate the distance. It is easy (well, for me) to forget how small things get already at a range of 500 or more meters when you turn the unit size to maximum in CM. Maybe you want to make a test?

It's not a problem to see your camo painted pick-up (to take something of the right size) in the open at 1000m distance. Now drive it in a wood. Wear a red dress, climp on the loading area, jump up and down, wave with the arms and shoot in the air with a big rifle all the time. Tell a friend 1000m away to stop the time until he has spotted you. Hopefully he is faster then the guys from the next assylum who want to keep this moron in a red dress back who jumps up and down on a pickup, waving with his arms and shoot in the air all the time.

Command delay is of course another problem. Of course this would mean that all direct orders must delayed.

[ April 22, 2003, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Redwolf]

I think the idea to give area targetting a command delay is an excellent one.

(for unit targetting it isn't, the TacAI often needs to be overwritten in its bad choices, but for area fire it sounds cool)

[ April 22, 2003, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Scipio:

It sounds logic that a large AT gun is easy to spot and a small one not. But don't underestimate the distance. It is easy (well, for me) to forget how small things get already at a range of 500 or more meters when you turn the unit size to maximum in CM. Maybe you want to make a test?

I think the difference there is something that you can not do with a truck. Produce an almighty bang, flash, and quite a lot of sudden movement. Moving objects are much easier to spot - sudden movement in an otherwise tranquil area, such as a flash and dust being kicked up, or foliage being ripped, is yet much easier to spot.

Also, tanks, and quite a few of the other units in the game, have magnifying binos or other instruments, yet again making the spotting job a lot easier.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scipio:

It sounds logic that a large AT gun is easy to spot and a small one not. But don't underestimate the distance. It is easy (well, for me) to forget how small things get already at a range of 500 or more meters when you turn the unit size to maximum in CM. Maybe you want to make a test?

I think the difference there is something that you can not do with a truck. Produce an almighty bang, flash, and quite a lot of sudden movement. Moving objects are much easier to spot - sudden movement in an otherwise tranquil area, such as a flash and dust being kicked up, or foliage being ripped, is yet much easier to spot.

Also, tanks, and quite a few of the other units in the game, have magnifying binos or other instruments, yet again making the spotting job a lot easier. </font>

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Maybe there needs to be a command delay system for targeting as well?

If the player wants all his tanks to target that patch of woods where there is an ATG, those tanks which have spotted the gun can target it right away. But those who haven't, need to get instructions from their commander, to area fire. This would then take some time, depending on all the normal modifiers.

It's never been really obvious to me that why I can tell a machinegun team with no HQ contact to fire at any particular spot of terrain with no delay at all, while if I order them to move 2 metres to a foxhole, they have to wait for the orders? You'd think that having them fire at some spot, where they don't know the enemy is, would be beyond the team's own reasoning, while moving to the best cover available would be something they'd do automatically.

I think this is an EXCELLENT idea!!! The logic, as presented by Sergei, is so elegant yet simple, that I can't believe command delays weren't implemented in CMBB. The only thing I can add is that the amount of command delay could be a function of the range to the target. This presumes that an order to plaster the building across the street can be given faster than an order to hit the clump of trees about 800m north of your position. Better make that 900m.

[Tero]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I think the idea to give area targetting a command delay is an excellent one.

(for unit targetting it isn't, the TacAI often needs to be overwritten in its bad choices, but for area fire it sounds cool)

What if the target is or can be actually spotted by the firing unit legitimately ? No need to use area fire if the target is lit up and targetable as a point target.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by redwolf:

I think the idea to give area targetting a command delay is an excellent one.

(for unit targetting it isn't, the TacAI often needs to be overwritten in its bad choices, but for area fire it sounds cool)

What if the target is or can be actually spotted by the firing unit legitimately ? No need to use area fire if the target is lit up and targetable as a point target.

Units always select their targets on their own if not ordered to hide or a covered arc. BTW, will a hide or 'cover arc' command have a delay, too?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Scipio:

Don't be so sure that the flash is so easy to spot at daytime, especially in sunshine. I will not say that it is invisble, but is not so obvisious as you might think if you don't look into that direction.

Lets look at the pertaining laws of physics of the matter: sound travels at ~300 meters per second while the shot travels at or near 1000 meters per second.

If the circumstances are right and you do not see the shot being actually fired the shell will hit its target before you hear the report. And the sound of the hitting round may inundate the sound of the gun firing thus discuising the approximate direction the shot was fired from.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Scipio:

Units always select their targets on their own if not ordered to hide or a covered arc.

Ay, even if they are facing 180º away from it when it lits up.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I think the idea to give area targetting a command delay is an excellent one.

(for unit targetting it isn't, the TacAI often needs to be overwritten in its bad choices, but for area fire it sounds cool)

sorry for all the long re-posts

but I think this is relevant here:

redwolf

Member

Member # 3665

posted April 19, 2002 10:28 AM                         

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

The major problem with the solutions proposed:

1) the troops out of C&C must fight on their own, they need much more TacAI -> nightmare, nightmare, nightmare, and effectivly the game become a partly command game.

2) if you show troops that are out of C&C, and they start fighting an enemy only they have seen and they do not report back to you, they you need to invent a graphical representation of "fighting" that doesn't expose the kind of position of the enemy they fight. For example, a tank running into a gun is just shown "fighting" and you see it shoot, but not where it shoots and on what. But this is a very dractics break from the CMBO model which shows you all the detail.

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

IP: Logged

aka_tom_w

Member

Member # 1515

posted April 19, 2002 11:21 AM                      

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

quote:

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

Originally posted by redwolf:

The major problem with the solutions proposed:

1) the troops out of C&C must fight on their own, they need much more TacAI -> nightmare, nightmare, nightmare, and effectivly the game become a partly command game.

2) if you show troops that are out of C&C, and they start fighting an enemy only they have seen and they do not report back to you, they you need to invent a graphical representation of "fighting" that doesn't expose the kind of position of the enemy they fight. For example, a tank running into a gun is just shown "fighting" and you see it shoot, but not where it shoots and on what. But this is a very dractics break from the CMBO model which shows you all the detail.

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

But still there should be more fog of War and so far most folks in this thread have been saying we DON'T want to see Relative spotting adopted if it means we will loose control of units out of C&C?

What is Relative Spotting?

How is Is it Different from Absolute Spotting?

Do we REALLY want Relative Spotting.

I think I should revist some old threads from Steve on this issue.

"should we be able to see so much is one sucg thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=003938

" Steve

Whats relative spotting? Is this when you choose one unit on your side and the battlefield "changes"

to correspond to his perspective? ie he only sees what is in his line of sight and other enemy (or

friendly) units are sensed as noise contacts/stars/crosses?

I was thinking about that myself and have it in my platoon game "notes" ( I am developing a game

proposal..if any game companies are listening..). Basically I would handle it by forcing the player to order his units in the following order. Those units with the LEAST battlefield info are first with succeeding units given to the player. I am sure this will go over bigtime with all the control freaks here

but its just an idea.

Lewis"

there must be MORE good Relative Spotting vs. absolute Spotting threads out there we can refer to here. I would like to know "What exactly is the problem?"

(I think this is a good place to start:

Larsen says:

"For me the problem with absolute spotting is not that I know immidiately where the bad guys are but that the units that didnot spot the bad guys can immidiately see them and fire at them. I would assume that once the shots are fired one can say that "the bad guys are somewhere there". It would be nice to make each unit to spot the enemy individually rather than collectively. "

AND this:

Redwolf says:

"What I want a solution for is this: you are attacking with a wide screen all over the map. Lead elements to the left spot tanks. In CMBO you can immideately rush all your units, including all Bazookas from all over the map, to that spot. For me, that is one of the major reasons why tanks-heavy CMBO forces have few chances of winning against infantry on any map with decent cover. In reality, the tanks would first have more time to munch at the infantry in front of them, then they could prepare for the enemy armored reserves to arrive and other infantry would follow much later, piecemeal. In CMBO, you get a concentrated overrun from enemy infantry in a very short time."

And what are the proposed solutions to deal with these issues?

Great thread....

[ April 22, 2003, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Scipio:

Don't be so sure that the flash is so easy to spot at daytime, especially in sunshine. I will not say that it is invisble, but is not so obvisious as you might think if you don't look into that direction.

Lets look at the pertaining laws of physics of the matter: sound travels at ~300 meters per second while the shot travels at or near 1000 meters per second.

If the circumstances are right and you do not see the shot being actually fired the shell will hit its target before you hear the report. And the sound of the hitting round may inundate the sound of the gun firing thus discuising the approximate direction the shot was fired from.

Good point.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by redwolf:

I think the idea to give area targetting a command delay is an excellent one.

(for unit targetting it isn't, the TacAI often needs to be overwritten in its bad choices, but for area fire it sounds cool)

What if the target is or can be actually spotted by the firing unit legitimately ? No need to use area fire if the target is lit up and targetable as a point target.

That is what I said, if the enemy unit is visible to your unit you can order fire directly at at that unit without delay. Only area fire would have delay.

The retionale is that area fire is a command from higher HQ, but that selecting one of several known targets is just making sure the TacAI doesn't screw up.

[Malakovski]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I think the idea to give area targetting a command delay is an excellent one.

YES.

I was about to post the same thing myself. A simple command delay on ALL targetting, area or direct, would make this issue go away. An insignificant delay for units very close to the "spotter" ranging to a very long delay for a unit with no visual/oral/radio/smoke signal contact with any unit that has seen it.

That's it. Finis. End of problem.

I wonder why this hasn't been implemented before. I too have wondered why firing orders never have a delay, but ordering the same unit to move may take 120 seconds...

[Redwolf]

A delay for direct fire on a target unit visible to the shooter would make things worse and wouldn't be neccessary to improve the borg problem.

It only makes sense for area fire for the reasons given above.

[Sergei]

What if the target is or can be actually spotted by the firing unit legitimately ? No need to use area fire if the target is lit up and targetable as a point target.

It is of course necessary that the engine keeps track of which targets within LOS of a unit have been spotted by that particular unit, and which targets within LOS haven't been spotted by that unit. (Ie. which targets the unit CAN acquire for direct fire, and which it CAN't - except by area fire.)

The current engine only keeps record of which targets have been spotted by any unit in the entire force, so that if you went scouting a kilometre ahead of me and found an enemy gun, then I'd get the information immediately and was able to target it. With a simple individual or relative spotting, I wouldn't see that gun, but I still could target the spot where it lies, thus losing nothing. But with targeting delays, I'd have to wait for some time to get the instructions to target that area where the enemy is. That time being dependent on variables such as range, experience, proximity to a unit that has spotted the enemy and being in contact with a HQ, especially if the HQ or another member of the platoon has spotted the enemy. This would give another advantage for purchasing AFV's in platoons instead of individually.

There is, however, the caveat that should a tank column get ambushed in open by a gun, they probably wouldn't just stand still and keep their cool until someone figured out where the gun actually was, but they would start firing at most probable locations to keep the enemy heads down while they move to a safer location. Having this hindered by too great a delay wouldn't make sense to me, while I guess it'd take some time for the surprised TC's to react and give any sensible orders orders to the gunner.

[ April 22, 2003, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Sergei ]

[Scipio]

Originally posted by redwolf:

But even then nothing short of a pure command game can prevent the player from ordering area fire from one unit based on spottings he got from a different unit.

Oh, there is indeed a solution, and a very simple one, too, and they even don't need to implement a new concept: Fog of war. Above has been mentioned some problems of spotting an enemy unit, especially guns. With a 'sound spotting' you have only a raw idea were the enemy unit is. It only would be necessary that the position of a unit, especially a gun in covered terraine, can not be verified that easy, so you spott the unit at a certain place, but it may be 30m away in some direction - so you know only the gun is somewhere in an area of ~9 map tiles. That's close enough for an area fire, but maybe you shoot all the time to the wrong place anyway.

[Schoerner]

Reading Steve's very good thoughts and explanations about c&c and spotting, i have an estimation what CMX2's relative spotting will bring...

a unit sees only what's in it's LOS

plus

it gets all the information about enemy units

from friendly units, that are in it's own radius of listening (command).

Examples:

in a radio-equipped platoon (within range) of tanks, every tank-commander knows about the enemies in LOS of each tank. If one tank discovers a gun, all others know about it, too.

If all groups of a platoon are under c&c of the HQ, each unit has full knowledge about the enemy units seen by each unit.

Maybe the system will be made independent from/additionally to HQs: each unit has a listening/screaming radius and shares it's own information with any other unit within that range.

Maybe we will also get a very limited angle of view of buttonedp tanks. And their view can be supported by other units?