Thoughts about relative spotting

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by 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.

Something like that for Sure.

The game already sort of has those "sides" you refered to.

As it is now the game takes over control of routed or broken units and tells them what to do. So in some cases loss of player control has already been instituted in the game.

THE REAL question here is just how much "player control" can the game take away and still be FUN and playable.

I would suggest most folks here can agree that if the player were to lose control (to the AI) of bailed vehicle crews that are clearly out of C&C that this would not make the game that much less fun or unplayable?

:confused:

your comments?

-tom w

[ April 28, 2003, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Juardis]

With regards to higher level SOPs....I don't think they'll work too well in this framework. I played M1 Tank Platoon 2 a LOT and there was the ability to give your tank platoon SOPs when a) an endpoint was reached in the movement commands or when the enemy was engaged. In theory it worked great. In practice my tanks were running into each other, driving in front of the other tanks, and generally looking like the keystone cops. Several times I took out on of my own tanks as it manuevered in front of me. And this was just 4 tanks in open ground.

Translate that into squads or companies of men, in any terrain, and I think you have a nightmare. Besides, the latest movement commands give some sort of SOP (e.g., move to contact, hunt, assault, advance, etc).

Furthermore, Steve's comment about area targetting in CMBO is no longer relevant. You can indeed play the area target game to great effect in CMBB provided there's enough ammo.

And finally, if the C&C rules I outlined were initiated, then we could have broken C&C rules intentionally so that TEAM play would be much better. For example, think a 4 player rumble here, 2 vs. 2. Each player controls a company. If my suggestion is followed, then it could be done such that the human player only controls one company and only "sees" what those units in C&C of his company "sees". So teammates will not be able to see, on the CMBB battlefield, what is going on with the other guy unless they communicate outside the game. That is a BEAUTIFUL situation to simulate IMO.

[Humus B. Chittenbee]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

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

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.

THE REAL question here is just how much "player control" can the game take away and still be FUN and playable.

I would suggest most folks here can agree that if the player were to lose control (to the AI) of bailed vehicle crews that are clearly out of C&C that this would not make the game that much less fun or unplayable?

-tom w </font>

[aka_tom_w]

ok perhaps we can agree to disagree

I don't really see it from that perspective

"some form of battlefield scavaging), I might want my crews (in instances where they had just spotted [before tank-death] a relatively nearby friendly unit) to join that (e.g.) deplenished squad, arm themselves from the battlefield and be a productive addition to my force. "

It is my opinion Steve and BTS will never permit that level of "gameyness" to flourish in CMX2

I think we will be VERY lucky if we can permit vechicle crew members to dismount for recon on foot purposes (ONLY) and then remout their vehicle. It will likely be suggested here that once a vehcile crew has its ride shot out from under it that crew should be next to useless to the player and in an operation should be "saved" for the next battle and in CM battles that are not operations the TAC AI should correctly take TAC AI control over them and save them for the theoretical next battle

-tom w

[ May 03, 2003, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by James Crowley:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>