Thoughts about relative spotting

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

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

[QB] Schoerner How often are you moving your infantry within a 5 meters radius of your tank?

BTW, I wouldn't like to see my tanks stopping for a half minute - not even for a second - for a smalltalk if I suspect enemy guns or tanks near by, what is nearly always true in a CM battle :eek: .

Why don't you stop to use imputations?

To help you:

imagine an infantry platoon in a safe place (maybe preparing for an attack). OK?

Imagine that it is supported by a tank and this tank is very close. OK?

This tank has radio. OK?

Will the tank-commander inform the infantry platoon by telling the next infantry unit, where enemy units are, that are reported to him by his HQ tank?

Don't you know that it was very common, that inf. platoon commanders ordered one man to the tank, for getting this precious information?

</font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Juardis:

My only thing, and I argued vehemently for this a couple years ago, is to combine the command style with the multi-level. That is...you the human can only give orders to those in C&c and you the human can only see what those units in C&C can see. Only those units with radios or such can be in C&C with you the human. If I the human can "see" it, then I can pass the word on to everyone else that is in C&C of me so they can then "see" it to. If any unit is out of C&C of me the human, the only thing they know of the battlefield is what they can see themselves and they cannot communicate with me the human at all.

In theory I like that idea

I think Steve said it would never fly so I am not all that commited to it.

BUT.....

for the sake of arguement,

"you the human can only give orders to those in C&c and you the human can only see what those units in C&C can see"

The battle would be ALL about eliminating the opponents HQ and Command units.

the Player will be totally screwed if he looses all his HQ and higher commander units in some form of "decapitation strike". Now I not talking about cruise missles here just that a lucky arty hit that takes out commanders and HQ units would REALLY compromise your ability to continue the battle so I don't expect we will ever see anything as drastic as your suggestion from BTS.

Interesting concept though

-tom w

[ April 24, 2003, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[tar]

Well, I would think that along with any real command level game there would also have to be some mechanism for commander replacement from the ranks.

This, of course, opens a real can of worms, with regard to ancilliary issues such as time delays, less effective commanders, etc.

On the other hand, I always found it rather odd that eliminating the HQ units didn't allow someone else to take over the platoon. Perhaps for the size battle depicted, it would have taken too much time, what with the time needed to realize that the platoon command element was truly eliminated and for one of the squad leaders to seize initiative and take over. This could probably be done in-between battles instead.

As far as decapitation strikes go, it is one reason why rear-area penetrations are so effective in blitzkrieg style warfare. The entire command network gets disrupted and it reduces the ability of the army as a whole to react. When the division HQ is on the move because it is in fear of being overrun, it can't be effectively acquiring situation reports and issuing new orders...

[Scipio]

Originally posted by tar:

Well, I would think that along with any real command level game there would also have to be some mechanism for commander replacement from the ranks.

This, of course, opens a real can of worms, with regard to ancilliary issues such as time delays, less effective commanders, etc.

On the other hand, I always found it rather odd that eliminating the HQ units didn't allow someone else to take over the platoon. Perhaps for the size battle depicted, it would have taken too much time, what with the time needed to realize that the platoon command element was truly eliminated and for one of the squad leaders to seize initiative and take over. This could probably be done in-between battles instead.

As far as decapitation strikes go, it is one reason why rear-area penetrations are so effective in blitzkrieg style warfare. The entire command network gets disrupted and it reduces the ability of the army as a whole to react. When the division HQ is on the move because it is in fear of being overrun, it can't be effectively acquiring situation reports and issuing new orders...

Mh, wouldn't this mean that a squad commander could take over command already when he is cut of from his platoon HQ for whatever reason?

[aka_tom_w]

bump

GREAT discussion.

-tom w

[Juardis]

tom, HQ units should be targetted first. Now and always. Just like in the BoB series, Capt Winters was not allowed to take control of his old company per his Battalion Commander, we CMBB players should be extremely hesitant of throwing our Company HQs into battle if he's the ranking commander on the battlefield.

But yes, I like the idea of promotion within the ranks if poor Sgt Goody takes one in the chest. There of course, should be associated penalties (like negative bonuses or something).

I think if BTS were to model relative spotting this way, it would engage the human player that much more. They become an EXTENSION of the battlefield instead of GOD of the battlefield. And like all suggestions, this should be optional (much like FOW has optional settings).

[aka_tom_w]

"Wicky

Member

Member # 7974

posted April 25, 2003 11:17 AM                      

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

I know the spotting ability from bailed tank crews has been diminished since CMBO. But I'm playing a PBEM CMBB scenario 'Manstein Cometh' and I've just taken out 5 flanking opposition t-34s, my tanks have moved on but even my opponent admitted "Yeah, sorry about the gamey use of the tank crew's, couldn't resist the temptation." referring to moving them to borg spot, what I would have hoped to have been a subsequent surprise manoeuvre. My only other options would have been to divert my tanks (no nearby infantry), some considerable distance, to capture or kill the crews.

Could the spotting ability/range for bailed crews be pleased looked at again for the 1.03 patch & CMAK"

Wicky makes a GOOD point here !

Those bailed out crew members, (in fact any balied crew from a vehicle) from a tank or vehicle that has flanked or penetrated deep into the opponent's territory can still provide the player with VERY valuable recon info even though there is no possible way they could relay this info up the chain of command, (presumming they don' t have a radio.)

I a considering staring yet another Relative Spotting thread in an attempt to discussion the exact nature of the issue here and attempt to more clearly define the problem.

WHAT exactly is the problem with Absolute Spotting in CMxx now.

What are all the issues?

I have to assume Steve and BTS are aware of the problems and the issues. In some cases the problems and issues that have be articulated and defined in other relative spotting threads in the past have been determined by BTS to be completely insurrmountable or unfixable in any multi level (NON command style) game they intend to design.

Will we ever have a situation or a game where Bailed vehicle crews without LOS or Radio that are CLEARLY out of C&C from ALL other friendly units, CANNOT possibly pass on or relay to the PLAYER, or any friendly units in the game, ANY info about the opponents units or defences?

This suggests if they encounter hostile forces the Player of the bailed crew would not see them die one by one and have NO idea why or how, but would either notice them GONE completely (disappeared = MIA to the player in the case of capture) or they disappear completely in the case of death or elimination and the player has NO info as to how or why?

What about other friendly units that are COMPLETELY out of C&C? Or does this only matter for bailed crews?

is this a reasonable request?

:confused:

just thinking out loud?

-tomw

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Juardis:

tom, HQ units should be targetted first. Now and always. Just like in the BoB series, Capt Winters was not allowed to take control of his old company per his Battalion Commander, we CMBB players should be extremely hesitant of throwing our Company HQs into battle if he's the ranking commander on the battlefield.

OK

Good point I do agree with that

I think BTS has been VERY clear about not wanting to build or design what they refer to as a "command style" game.

So it sounds like we should all get used to the fact that Absolute Spotting will never REALLY go away completely. The REAL question becomes exactly how do they make Relative Spotting workable and playable and FUN in CMX2????

:confused:

I for one am VERY curious

More curious about this issue than ANY other aspect of the new game.

-tom w

[James Crowley]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

"Wicky

Member

Member # 7974

posted April 25, 2003 11:17 AM                      

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

I know the spotting ability from bailed tank crews has been diminished since CMBO. But I'm playing a PBEM CMBB scenario 'Manstein Cometh' and I've just taken out 5 flanking opposition t-34s, my tanks have moved on but even my opponent admitted "Yeah, sorry about the gamey use of the tank crew's, couldn't resist the temptation." referring to moving them to borg spot, what I would have hoped to have been a subsequent surprise manoeuvre. My only other options would have been to divert my tanks (no nearby infantry), some considerable distance, to capture or kill the crews.

Could the spotting ability/range for bailed crews be pleased looked at again for the 1.03 patch & CMAK"

Wicky makes a GOOD point here !

Those bailed out crew members, (in fact any balied crew from a vehicle) from a tank or vehicle that has flanked or penetrated deep into the opponent's territory can still provide the player with VERY valuable recon info even though there is no possible way they could relay this info up the chain of command, (presumming they don' t have a radio.)

I a considering staring yet another Relative Spotting thread in an attempt to discussion the exact nature of the issue here and attempt to more clearly define the problem.

WHAT exactly is the problem with Absolute Spotting in CMxx now.

What are all the issues?

I have to assume Steve and BTS are aware of the problems and the issues. In some cases the problems and issues that have be articulated and defined in other relative spotting threads in the past have been determined by BTS to be completely insurrmountable or unfixable in any multi level (NON command style) game they intend to design.

Will we ever have a situation or a game where Bailed vehicle crews without LOS or Radio that are CLEARLY out of C&C from ALL other friendly units, CANNOT possibly pass on or relay to the PLAYER, or any friendly units in the game, ANY info about the opponents units or defences?

This suggests if they encounter hostile forces the Player of the bailed crew would not see them die one by one and have NO idea why or how, but would either notice them GONE completely (disappeared = MIA to the player in the case of capture) or they disappear completely in the case of death or elimination and the player has NO info as to how or why?

What about other friendly units that are COMPLETELY out of C&C? Or does this only matter for bailed crews?

is this a reasonable request?

:confused:

just thinking out loud?

-tomw

Hi Tom

Good to see the old relative spotting beast reappear!

Your point about the bailed crews is the nub of the whole problem IMO.

We all intuitively know that bailed crews couldn't possibly generate battlefield intel at the CM level. As players we shouldn't need or be able to control those crews in any way, nor gain info about enemy forces from them.

Does everyone agree with that? (I doubt it, but never mind)

That being the case, why should we be able to control and obtain intel from any unit that is totally out of C&C; the lone marksman, the AT team, the half squad and so on? (I know, define totally). Thr sinple fact is we shouldn't.

This has nothing to do with suggesting a 'command level' game. It has everything to do with helping to reduce borg spotting, being realistic and historical, to boot.

"But what happens if a big shell happens to blow up my company HQ, I won't be able to issue any orders"

Of course this occurs all the time doesn't it and if it did then, guess what, you are spot on. You are in the ****!

Anyone who has read much around WW11 company/battalion level actions will know that more often than not attacks ground to a halt not because of huge manpower losses (although that could do it) but because of the loss of officers and nco's. Your average WW11 squaddie (I don't care whose army he was in ) was bollixed if deprived of leadership - the few that weren't either got a VC, got dead or both.

If you want gamey (and I think a lot do) then field a force of half squads, marksmen, AT teams etc,well in advance of your main force and youv'e got lots of good battlefield intel at very little cost. Just explain to me how that marksman, 500yards ahead, instantly informs his side that he has spotted a tank (that no one else can see)?

I really believe we need to alter our thinking on this whole issue. The middle ground that CM treads at the moment, around command control, time delays etc is better than most. The only way it will be improved is if we can accept that we cannot control every single unit, all of the time. Units out of C&C should be like units that are panicked or broken; they will do their own thing and, most of the time that will be little other than defending themselves, until leadership is re-established in one form or another. That is the reality of a WW11 battlefield, like it or lump it.

The trick to successful battles will then be holding things together on the C&C front as much as pushing tanks and troops hither and thither.

[Juardis]

Mr. Crowly is spot on.

To clarify the out of C&C units, they provide you with NO intelligence. You cannot even give them orders. The TAC AI will make it behave like a soldier, so if it's a sniper in some rubble way out of C&C, well, he shoots at things. No battlefield commander that I know of was able to tell a sniper to shoot that MG loader in that house at this time. No sir, Mr. sniper went to a belfry and did his own thing.

If you have a squad break in the game right now, you cannot issue orders to them. I don't think they give intel either. And they behave in a survivalist mode. So the concept is there already. All I'm saying is if they're out of C&C, and you want to give them orders, send a HQ unit over there to get them back in C&C.

Compromise. The first turn a unit gets out of C&C, give the human an opportunity to issue one last order then let the TAC AI execute it as best it can. That order can be move forward, retreat back, hold position, whatever. But after the last order is given, you get nothing from them until they get back in C&C. Hell, they may even end up taking out a whole squad, a tank, whatever, but you wouldn't know until you got them back in C&C or the game ended.

I think this solution offers the best compromise between eliminating Borg spotting yet still giving the human some amount of control. I mean, the human can issue orders to ANY unit in C&C for crying out loud. In reality a Major or Colonel does not have that ability.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Jim posted,

“I really believe we need to alter our thinking on this whole issue. The middle ground that CM treads at the moment, around command control, time delays etc is better than most. The only way it will be improved is if we can accept that we cannot control every single unit, all of the time. Units out of C&C should be like units that are panicked or broken; they will do their own thing and, most of the time that will be little other than defending themselves, until leadership is re-established in one form or another. That is the reality of a WW11 battlefield, like it or lump it.”

Problem is, whatever else one may call it; it would not be a CM game you would be playing any more. It would be a form of Command Game. We all carry around in our heads visions of the perfect wargame, and, of course these differ. The above is an example of changing CM to a game in which one no longer plays the role of the squad/AFV commander.

For me the magic of CM, and previously Squad Leader/Advanced Squad Leader, is that one does play the role of squad/AFV commander as well as platoon, company and battalion commander.

It has long been my view that the only way to deal fully with Borg Spotting related problems is for every unit to do its own spotting, plus live team play. In live team play you only “see”/spot what the individual units you personally command can see. I think this will happen. However, in games played by just one player on each side, or one player against the AI, one has to accept that the single player has near God like knowledge of the battlefield and can control all his units to a similar extent as is currently the case. If you wish still to be playing a CM type game. Some do wish for a command game, but I am not one of them.

This thread is in large part about the constant struggle to fully deal with Borg Spotting without the need to play team, multi-multi player CM. To fully deal with the Borg Spotting problem while the CM game in question is only being played by one human on each side or against the AI. To deal with the Borg Spotting problem in full, with just one player on each side, is not possible, in my view. You will never come up with a formula that fully works. All the solutions you come up with have massive draw backs. Take delays to area fire. In the great majority of cases when I use Area Fire, and now in CMBB I use it a lot due to the non hero modeling, I am not using it in a situation that one may call “cheating”. I am using it to suppress places in which I think there may be a so far unspotted enemy unit just at the moment when I advance.

I am sure CMX2 will go a long way in solving the problem of Borg Spotting even when there is only one player. Each unit doing its own spotting, with or without delays to area fire, will be a big step in that direction. But to truly deal with Borg Spotting, my guess is you will have to gather together some like minded chums for “team” or multi-multi player CM.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. I read a post of Steve’s in which he was explaining his view that there is a big difference between targeted and area fire in the context of one of these Borg type questions. The “spin” on his comments was that simply no longer being able to fully target a spotted unit, in itself, made a big enough difference. Time will tell what he meant, but I have seen him post the CM will “never” become a Command Game, so I am relaxed.

[Schoerner]

James, Juardis:

WOW, i think BTS will hardly be able to resist that excellent idea.

Quite easy to program, CM stays CM and doesn't turn into a more or less other game, and we get more realism, too.

[ April 25, 2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[tar]

With regard to Tom W's tank crews:

Those bailed out crew members, (in fact any balied crew from a vehicle) from a tank or vehicle that has flanked or penetrated deep into the opponent's territory can still provide the player with VERY valuable recon info even though there is no possible way they could relay this info up the chain of command, (presumming they don' t have a radio.)

I think that it would be a reasonable solution to have bailed vehicle crews come completely under the control of the game itself. The OpAI level for them would be really simple: They would try to get off the map, avoiding known enemy units (OK, this makes them somewhat Borg-ish, but since they aren't controlled by the player it shouldn't be a problem).

This will eliminate the use of bailed vehicle crews in ahistoric ways, and can also make them unhelpful for spotting. The real problem is that there is currently NO mechanism that will allow these vehicle crews to spot nearby enemy units (to avoid them, for example) without also making them visible to the controlling player. So, although intriguing, the idea of taking control away from the player will not actually work in the current CM series, although perhaps it should be considered as part of the rewrite.

As for the idea of banning orders for out of C&C units, this is clearly something that is beyond the current AI and user interface limits of the game. The real problem is that one can't give high level orders to units. If you want to take away a player's ability to give orders at multiple-levels (the sometime micromanagement), then the orders you can give need to be much higher level -- for example "Move to this village (indicate) and clear out the houses." Until that is possible, you can't really take away the human control.

This is particularly the case with support units. Suppose that you have a platoon with a supporting HMG and you want to assault some buildings. You put the HMG in an overwatch position, possibly with one of the squads and move across the open into the buildings with the platoon leader and the rest of the squads. But then your HMG would be stranded until you are free to move your platoon HQ back just in order to get them to move up. In real life, you would only need to send a runner from HQ, not move the entire thing. That is why I think that long command delays are a quite reasonable solution. You can think of it as just being the extra time to get a runner the further distance.

If you want less control, then perhaps a case for lengthening out of command delays can be made. As I noted above, one could easily try this out by a gentleman's agreement to insert additional pauses before movement.

Picking up another point here, I think that adding command delays for area fire seems like a good idea. Make them the same as the current movement delays.

[xerxes]

I think there is a lot of merit to out of CC units behaving under AI control and in particular, not giving the player information.

But, a couple of sticking points (maybe).

1. How can you have a unit be ordered to go over there (out of C&C) take a look and report back? Seems like this should be possible. I guess you could plot the entire movement for the unit and when he returns to C&C the "stars"/"crosses" indicators could appear on the map of what he had seen in his travels.

2. Crews should only be under AI control ONLY if they are out of C&C.

Overall I think it's a quite workable idea and it would not turn CM into a "command" game at all in my mind.

[James Crowley]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Hi,

Jim posted,

“I really believe we need to alter our thinking on this whole issue. The middle ground that CM treads at the moment, around command control, time delays etc is better than most. The only way it will be improved is if we can accept that we cannot control every single unit, all of the time. Units out of C&C should be like units that are panicked or broken; they will do their own thing and, most of the time that will be little other than defending themselves, until leadership is re-established in one form or another. That is the reality of a WW11 battlefield, like it or lump it.”

Problem is, whatever else one may call it; it would not be a CM game you would be playing any more. It would be a form of Command Game. We all carry around in our heads visions of the perfect wargame, and, of course these differ. The above is an example of changing CM to a game in which one no longer plays the role of the squad/AFV commander.

For me the magic of CM, and previously Squad Leader/Advanced Squad Leader, is that one does play the role of squad/AFV commander as well as platoon, company and battalion commander.

It has long been my view that the only way to deal fully with Borg Spotting related problems is for every unit to do its own spotting, plus live team play. In live team play you only “see”/spot what the individual units you personally command can see. I think this will happen. However, in games played by just one player on each side, or one player against the AI, one has to accept that the single player has near God like knowledge of the battlefield and can control all his units to a similar extent as is currently the case. If you wish still to be playing a CM type game. Some do wish for a command game, but I am not one of them.

This thread is in large part about the constant struggle to fully deal with Borg Spotting without the need to play team, multi-multi player CM. To fully deal with the Borg Spotting problem while the CM game in question is only being played by one human on each side or against the AI. To deal with the Borg Spotting problem in full, with just one player on each side, is not possible, in my view. You will never come up with a formula that fully works. All the solutions you come up with have massive draw backs. Take delays to area fire. In the great majority of cases when I use Area Fire, and now in CMBB I use it a lot due to the non hero modeling, I am not using it in a situation that one may call “cheating”. I am using it to suppress places in which I think there may be a so far unspotted enemy unit just at the moment when I advance.

I am sure CMX2 will go a long way in solving the problem of Borg Spotting even when there is only one player. Each unit doing its own spotting, with or without delays to area fire, will be a big step in that direction. But to truly deal with Borg Spotting, my guess is you will have to gather together some like minded chums for “team” or multi-multi player CM.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. I read a post of Steve’s in which he was explaining his view that there is a big difference between targeted and area fire in the context of one of these Borg type questions. The “spin” on his comments was that simply no longer being able to fully target a spotted unit, in itself, made a big enough difference. Time will tell what he meant, but I have seen him post the CM will “never” become a Command Game, so I am relaxed.

Hi Kip

Always good to see the opposing viewpoint.

We can discuss this at length at the Chandos tomorrow night (if you get there before me, mines a guiness)

I can introduce you to my 6'6", 20 st friend, who supports my viewpoint. Perhaps reasoned argument can persuade you to our way of thinking; alternatively........

Just joking; look forward to seeing you at the London drinkies.

[aka_tom_w]

"I really believe we need to alter our thinking on this whole issue. The middle ground that CM treads at the moment, around command control, time delays etc is better than most. The only way it will be improved is if we can accept that we cannot control every single unit, all of the time. Units out of C&C should be like units that are panicked or broken; they will do their own thing and, most of the time that will be little other than defending themselves, until leadership is re-established in one form or another. That is the reality of a WW11 battlefield, like it or lump it."

Some very articulate folks here have now lead this thread to become "command style" heavy IMHO

We have all been round and round with these issues.

in previous threads there has been a REAL outpouring of "loud" posts demanding that the player can assume the role of the leader and commander of EVERY unit on the battle field as it is now in CMBO.

I have argued strongly against this but my impression from Steve's posts on this issue is that he and BTS will never let Combat Mission become a "command style" game.

:confused:

SO where does that leave us with Relative Spotting

in that old Thread Steve and I discused this and he is quite CLEAR about what CM will not be:

"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?

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

Steve:

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:

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

Tom ASKS AGAIN:

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"

[aka_tom_w]

"Compromise. The first turn a unit gets out of C&C, give the human an opportunity to issue one last order then let the TAC AI execute it as best it can. That order can be move forward, retreat back, hold position, whatever. But after the last order is given, you get nothing from them until they get back in C&C. Hell, they may even end up taking out a whole squad, a tank, whatever, but you wouldn't know until you got them back in C&C or the game ended."

Yes

I would most certainly be in favour of something like that.

ALSO

Lets not forget SOP's.....

If units could be issued Standard Operating Procedures, or battlefield orders (e.g Defend, attack, retreat if attacked, advance at all costs, or whatever,) then units out of C&C could "sort of" remain effective, even when completely out of control C&C of the player.

Under this suggestion all bailed crews from ALL vehicles would have SOP orders, that would tell them to either stay put and hide or retreat cautiously to the rear where possible without getting captured or killed and of course they would be completely out of the players control and would reveal NO battlefield intel to the player.

Perhaps some variation of idea's like these could be included as some form of "Relative Spotting Extreme Realism FOW" optional FOW setting.

RSERFOW

your comments?

-tom w

[ April 25, 2003, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Boris Balaban]

My 2 cents.

So as not to have Borg communication a squad will start shooting in the distance and you wonder why? What the AI sees is an opposing unit but you do not see anything and you do not know where he is shooting. Some time later (based on C&C) you see the unit under fire or a marker.

This might help a little.

So if a tank see's somthing you see it for the tank should have a radio (if it is working or equiped). Wait till CMAF where not all tanks have raido's (i may be wrong).

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Jim posted,

“Always good to see the opposing viewpoint.

We can discuss this at length at the Chandos tomorrow night (if you get there before me, mines a guiness)

I can introduce you to my 6'6", 20 st friend, who supports my viewpoint. Perhaps reasoned argument can persuade you to our way of thinking; alternatively........”

Jim, great hear that you will there, adds to the fun. I never forget a face, but am terrible with names, so forgive me if I did not recognize your name. See you there.

And, yes, on this thread I am outnumbered. It is the nature of the subject. This thread is bound to be for those who are most upset by Borg Spotting, and there is clearly a large overlap between such people and those who tend towards CM becoming a “platoon commanders” game. The argument tends to be along the lines of “in real life a platoon commander would not be able to instantly order this and this… or would not know this and this instantly”. At the heart of my view is the idea that “you are the squad command” therefore it follows that you can see what the squad can see, and so on.

However, overall I am very optimistic. The mixture of perfected Extreme FOW, units doing their own spotting, plus Live Team play will lead to a very realistic mix. In my view. Where I differ with others here is in the extent to wish Borg Spotting can be dealt with in games with just one player on each side. Unless you give up the role of squad/AFV commander, which am not in favor of.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. In fact I normally play at the platoon level, and am an unhinged fan of greater realism. I play no other computer games, and come at this from the military history stand point. I just do not wish to give up the role of squad/AFV commander.

[aka_tom_w]

"However, overall I am very optimistic. The mixture of perfected Extreme FOW, units doing their own spotting, plus Live Team play will lead to a very realistic mix. In my view. Where I differ with others here is in the extent to wish Borg Spotting can be dealt with in games with just one player on each side. Unless you give up the role of squad/AFV commander, which am not in favor of."

Hi Kip

Steve's comments on this issue (thus far) should indicate you have NOTHING to worry about but I would say Steve and some other folks at BTS see this issue pretty much the same way as you do judging from what can be infered from past posts about this issue in that BIG 8 page Relative Spotting Revisited thread.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

What? :confused:

This great thread drops to the second page?

What happened did all you guys take the weekend off THINKING and/or posting

cheers

-tom w

[kipanderson]

tom w, hi,

yes, I do feel very lucky. When I read Steve’s comments on his vision of what CM is/should be I do find myself thing “yup, that is also my idea of a perfect wargame”.

Given that CMBO was designed to play on a P200, it was indeed my vision of a perfect wargame. CMBB then improved things greatly with the slower pace and non hero modelling. With Borg Spotting dealt with, within the limits of still playing the role of squad /AFV commander, plus say AFVs blocking LOS where a appropriate and perfecting Extreme FOW, plus the usual list of other things, we are once again talking my idea of the perfect wargame on a 2 GHz machine.

I would add one more thing about CMBB which is sometimes over looked. In my view it is also a work of serious military history of the order of a major David Glantz book. It did not set out to be that, but it is. If I were teaching military history I would recommend two or three David Glantz books, plus CMBB, when it comes to the Eastern Front.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[aka_tom_w]

Group think Taking place HERE

from Steve:

"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"

ok

onward then

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Juardis:

Mr. Crowly is spot on.

To clarify the out of C&C units, they provide you with NO intelligence. You cannot even give them orders. The TAC AI will make it behave like a soldier, so if it's a sniper in some rubble way out of C&C, well, he shoots at things. No battlefield commander that I know of was able to tell a sniper to shoot that MG loader in that house at this time. No sir, Mr. sniper went to a belfry and did his own thing.

If you have a squad break in the game right now, you cannot issue orders to them. I don't think they give intel either. And they behave in a survivalist mode. So the concept is there already. All I'm saying is if they're out of C&C, and you want to give them orders, send a HQ unit over there to get them back in C&C.

Compromise. The first turn a unit gets out of C&C, give the human an opportunity to issue one last order then let the TAC AI execute it as best it can. That order can be move forward, retreat back, hold position, whatever. But after the last order is given, you get nothing from them until they get back in C&C. Hell, they may even end up taking out a whole squad, a tank, whatever, but you wouldn't know until you got them back in C&C or the game ended.

I think this solution offers the best compromise between eliminating Borg spotting yet still giving the human some amount of control. I mean, the human can issue orders to ANY unit in C&C for crying out loud. In reality a Major or Colonel does not have that ability.

I REALLY like this one (noted above):

Perhaps this could be the rule for bailed vehicle crews, the first turn after they bail out you can give them orders, after that, if they are out of C&C the AI will automatically have them HIDE or sneak away in a retreating (SAFE) direction.

I will continue to suggest and propose that more control of and intel from units that are WAY out of C&C MUST taken away from the player in the proposed (yet to be fully designed I'm guessing ) Relative Spotting EFOW in CMX2. (Just like paniced and broken units now, so the mechanism and precedent for this is there in the game already )

this is a GREAT suggestion:

"Compromise. The first turn a unit gets out of C&C, give the human an opportunity to issue one last order then let the TAC AI execute it as best it can. That order can be move forward, retreat back, hold position, whatever. But after the last order is given, you get nothing from them until they get back in C&C. Hell, they may even end up taking out a whole squad, a tank, whatever, but you wouldn't know until you got them back in C&C or the game ended.

I think this solution offers the best compromise between eliminating Borg spotting yet still giving the human some amount of control. I mean, the human can issue orders to ANY unit in C&C for crying out loud. In reality a Major or Colonel does not have that ability. "

good thinking

-tom w

[ April 27, 2003, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[tar]

I don't know if this would be feasible with the current engine, but what if one could introduce two additional "sides" to the battle. The additional sides would have control of the bailed crews. That way the current spotting rules could work, but the bailed crew side would always (even in two-player games) be run by the AI.

I don't think that taking player control of crews away would necessarily be a bad thing. Even if they were in C&C, the crews would presumably be trying to get to the rear and either hide there or try to get refit with equipment.