Autonomy of units in a WW2 firefight and the borg

[ScouseJedi]

I have been thinking about the new engine and have come to the conclusion that it will have better graphics and be more realistic (have I surprised anyone?).

That got me thinking about borg spotting and how the game would work without it.

The game is set at Battalion level (feel free to correct me) with the player as God. In a modern environment perhaps the commander in the field would actually have enough information coming in from his forces for CM:BB to be realistic : ie he can direct individual elements in real time with modern advanced communications.

WW2 was not like this. As you can tell from my example I am no expert on squad level battles but, in BoB during the attack on Foy, Easy company were attacking with another Co (Iota?). The inital attack by Easy Co nearly ended in disaster but Iota followed the original plan. Now, transfering that situation into a CM:BB scenario the player would change the movement orders of Iota Company in order to prevent them entering the town piecemeal after the other Co was compromised.

Would a more detailed and realistic combat experience (CM2) actually take some of the free will and choice away from the player. Surely the player as commander would spend much time laying waypoints and providing fallback positions and then essentially sit back and wait - interacting much less with squads and tanks.

In 'We were soldiers Once' (the book - is the film any good?) the commander stays in the LZ and runs the battle with whatever information is passed to him. The lack of information coming to commanders 25 years before that must have paralysed commanders in WW2 indeed many generals fought the war from stately homes and chateauxs.

One solution would be to throw the player directly into the game. Im not talking FPS but something else. On the map we would see all units in LOS with the player. We would see other units shaded out by FOW. Even his own units positions would be estimated once they were out of LOS or radio communication.

This would introduce perhaps the most important unit for C & C - the radioman. A company with a living radioman would be in effective LOS other units it was in actual LOS and other units with radiomen still alive. Their contacts would be known within the radio 'net'.

Units outside the net would have to either return to actual LOS of a radio unit or proceed with AI only.

I am not an expert in how communications affected the art of warfare in this period but I just can't see how a non borg targetting game could still allow the God like attention to each squad and unit that exists in the game as we see it now. If a player can only see LOS enemies, he can switch to another unit see a tank approacing unit A, return to unit A and react accodringly. The player has to be thrown into the field of battle complete with blinkers over his eyes.

I don't want this thread to be a wish list for CM2 but what are your thoughts on Command and Control in WW2 and CM2, where actual units independent to a degree which would make a player a spectator?

[MrSpkr]

Frankly, although some grog types might like it, it sounds terribly boring to me as a player. I would rather retain a portion of the Borg level and be able to control my troops than to lose that control.

Steve

[Hat Trick]

Check out the "How realistic is CMBO" thread in the CMBO forum and the "New Spotting Model" thread in the CMBB forum. While I like the idea of a model like this, I don't think that Battlefront or most players are too keen on it.

Besides, if the next engine has a "multi-multi-player" option, with each player on a side only able to see what his units see, we'll be well on the way to a system like the one that you describe.

[Nidan1]

Play the entire game from level one.

[TheCrow]

One thing, that you had not thought. It´s that in real combat your subordinates has better "AI" than your computer.

When you command your troops, in a tactical computer wargame, it´s better than you has a direct control of them, in order to simulate your officers command. Of course this give you a unreal "God" vision, but the profit of this direct control is by far more advantageous in gaming terms.

.I think than the unit´s system control in CMBB is good enough. ¡¡¡It´s real good one!!!

[Tarquelne]

I thought I saw something about BFC working to reduce the "Borg" effect on Windows version of the new engine by having the game administer painful and disorienting electric shocks to the player? I can't find the thread now, though.

Apparently it's a fairly minor tweak to the MS code...

[Mikael]

Well, Battlefront have always stated that realism was their ultimate goal and until now they've followed that logic... Wouldn't be surprised to see something like that modelled to an extent in CMII. Personally I'm all for it anyway!

[Rokossovski]

ScouseJedi is onto something. The current command model gives the player much more information and control than a company or battalion commander would have had to play with. (This is not, by the way, meant as a criticism of CMBB - I have no adequate alternative command system to offer, and would likely prefer the current model even if a more purely "realistic" system could be devised.)

Whether a battalion commander was at a command post or forward with the leading elements, he could only SEE what he could observe with his own eyes. Playing CMBB from view level 1 - as has been proposed - solves only part of this difficulty. In the game, regardless of what perspective you choose to view the map from, you are privy to instant communication from other elements of your force. They provide you not merely with a report (ie, "D Company reports they are encountering machine-gun fire from a clump of trees to their left") but you are actually shown what is happening, and can observe it and place it in the context of the map even if you are not "there." The problem is not so much that you get "too much" information, but rather that it is presented to you in a way that is too easy to quickly understand. It's rather like the problem with intelligence gathering - it's easy to collect information - the problem is making sense of it all, forming a picture, and finding out what is important.

Imagine yourself as the commander of an infantry battalion. You have chosen to move forward near the lead company. There is a sudden chatter of fire to your left, and soon your radioman reports that B Company has run into trouble. Speaking by radio to the company commander, the two of you try to make yourself understood over the roar of gunfire. Meanwhile, a tank round smacks into the ground 15 meters away. You see a group of enemy tanks swing around the bend of a road ahead, and you take cover behind a fallen log. Into the radio net, various exited commanders scream out warings and reports of one sort or another, while you try to form a picture of what is happening.

In the game, it is fairly easy to sort through the chaos of combat, to instantly form a visual picture of what is happening - and even to provide fairly detailed orders in response. Again THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM of CMBB. The AI that would be necessary to provide coherent and context-specific "reports" from the field is likely beyond the current state of the art. More importantly, such a game would be an exercise in confusion and frustration.

I play the game with the understanding that I am not the battalion commander, but rather am an amalgam of all of the officers, junior and senior, and that we somehow can coordinate our actions with remarkable skill. The game does do an excellent job of maintaining the fog of war regarding enemy dispositions, and that is enough for me. I enjoy having just the amount of control the game gives me (which is a lot, somewhat modified by my troop's survival instincts) but I agree with ScouseJedi that "realism" would force me to surrender some of that control.

[Redwolf]

The real issue with the original question is:

why do you assume it is that much better today?

You can read any halfway detailed account of Desert Storm to realize that the kind of coordination you are talking about was incredibly hard to reach even for the 1991 US army.

[aka_tom_w]

this relative spotting issue has come up before

has you might have guessed:

try this:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024461#000001

here is a sample:

James Crowley

Member

Member # 5698

posted April 18, 2002 11:53 AM                      

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

I have recently been giving the matter of relative spotting, a concept apparently consigned to the “re-write”, some thought and believe that the current engine already contains the necessary elements, by and large, to produce the desired results.

Before I expand on the above it might be a good idea to reiterate what “relative spotting” is and, more importantly, what impact that it’s implementation could have in more realistically portraying the realities of command and control.

This is perhaps better done by example.

Picture an infantry platoon, consisting of three squads and an HQ, moving in formation, all in command control range. As it approaches a belt of trees the lead squad comes under fire from an unidentified enemy unit, takes two casualties and is pinned. The platoon HQ immediately orders the second squad to open fire on the enemy position and the third squad to move off to the right and using a gulley for cover, to advance and attack the enemy position from the flank when in a position to do so.

The third squad moves off as ordered and, as it has no radio (in common with the vast majority of units at that level in WW2) is soon too far away from its HQ to be in command control. It proceeds along the gulley until it reaches the belt of trees, moves toward the enemy position but then runs into another, as yet unseen, enemy squad, comes under fire, takes casualties and is also pinned.

The reality of that situation is that the HQ is unaware of the third squad’s current status, is unaware of the existence of the second enemy unit and cannot issue any further orders to that third squad. Why? Because the third squad and the HQ have no means of communicating with each other; they are out of the C&C radius.

The same situation in CMBO is very different. As soon as the third squad spots the second enemy unit and gets fired upon the player knows it’s status, can still give it orders (although they will be delayed) and, more importantly, is instantly aware of the existence and position of an enemy which, in reality, would be unknown and can react to that unrealistic situation accordingly

IMO that is essence of relative spotting.

There are probably very many ways of over-coming this problem but I am looking at the simplest way, which introduces the least number of changes, at least IMO (without, it must be admitted, any programming knowledge)

Using the above example, let us first look at the second, previously unspotted enemy squad. It has always been there but with FoW on, does not show up on the map because it has not been spotted by a friendly unit. It is now spotted by a squad which has no means of conveying this information elsewhere but, in CMBO, its’ presence is still revealed.

Suppose that the spotting unit is flagged as “out of CC” and therefore, as a result, the enemy unit is not revealed. This seems reasonable in that you, the player, are not given the “all-seeing eye” over the battlefield. However, what about the spotting squad, which obviously can see the enemy unit? This squad is still providing visual info. But not if you are no longer given access to that squad. Instead, that spotting squad becomes flagged as “out of CC” and is treated like an enemy unit as far as visual displays are concerned i.e. you can only see it as a “last seen at” marker and when that marker is clicked on the display only shows the name and type and its last known status (or maybe just “unknown” status.)

Nothing new here in the visuals department, except you now have generic country markers for friendly “out of CC” units as well as for previously spotted enemy units.

The primary and probably the most controversial departure from the norm is that there will possibly be more units over which you, as player, do not have control. But this seems entirely realistic to me. After all we accept that squads which are in certain states cannot be controlled; pinned, panicked, broken…. why not out of command?

In previous threads on this forum, this type of suggestion has led to protests from those who say they do not want a command level game; they want to control all of their units all of the time.

Well, as I have said you cannot control all of your units at all times anyway. Also who gains from the current “all knowing, all seeing” status of CMBO.

Those who set-up their forces in non-historical, un-military fashion, scattered as they please, without due regard to staying in command control. Those who set up a few half-squads or MG teams or jeeps to act as unofficial “scouts,” relaying back intelligence of spotted enemy positions whilst they are way out of realistic command range. And so on.

The only other change would be that the order delay function, still present for in command units, would be relegated for out of command units altogether as it would no longer be needed.

Surely the trade-off in having, perhaps only temporarily, a few more units not in the players direct control is amply repaid by the great reduction of the “god” factor and by the fact that it would encourage players to adopt a more historical and realistic approach to keeping their platoons (and this could be extended to companies and battalions) in command and control range. It would also tend to amplify the role of HQ’s to something like that of their real life counterparts.

Just a few thoughts.

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

Cheers, Jim.

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

IP: Logged

aka_tom_w

Member

Member # 1515

posted April 18, 2002 12:07 PM                      

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

OK

I like it

I like it in concept...

BUT...

If I may (As a Gamey Loophole looking for kind of guy ) I would like to suggest if that system was implimented some form of extra FOW must be used to prevent easy indentification of enemy HQ's. (all kinds of HQ)

Playing under those suggestions I would expend EVERY available resource to try to take out all the enemy HQ units thus leaving their remaining squads out of command and under control of the AI. This would be akin to isolating them and letting them starve to death out of control of the enemy player.

I like the idea in theory......

but if destroying all the enemy HQ units leaves the enemy player with all his remaining infantry comletely out of his control there may be a problem there.

and what about vehicles?

they all have radio's so there is no problem really? (I suspect)

-tom w

[ April 18, 2002, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

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

"So if a player's idea of fun is to use "gamey" tactics to beat the other guy, I guess we did "remove" some of the "fun" in CMBO. But in doing so we made CMBB more of what CMBO was always, ALWAYS, supposed to be. And the next game will continue that trend of improvement towards the unobtainable goal of perfect simulation of tactical warfare. And in our opinions, perfect means most realistic."

-Steve of BFC Nov 1 2002

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

IP: Logged

Juardis

Member

Member # 1381

posted April 18, 2002 12:18 PM                      

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

Very similar to what I suggested about a year, yet more simple and therefore, more appealing.

I like it.

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

IP: Logged

redwolf

Member

Member # 3665

posted April 18, 2002 12:21 PM                         

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

Cool idea! (I mean in general)

What I was thinking about is a game which doesn't show whom and where it is fighting the enemy, but just a "in trouble" marker. The position of the friendly units then becomes "fuzzy", as in a stripe of land it was supposed to go and you don't know whether they made it.

But I am missing on thing from you suggestion: higher-level FOW. I don't think you idea works well above the level of inner-platoon or for single vehicles.

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.

Any idea how to solve the latter?

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

IP: Logged

Cameroon

Member

Member # 7030

posted April 18, 2002 02:41 PM                      

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

I'll prefix this with: I, too, do not want borg spotting and I am not a grog nor do I have aspirations of becoming one

That said, I don't particularly like this idea. To put it another way, it would not make me want to play CM (I don't know if it would make me avoid playing, though).

The crux of the matter is that I want to play a game that is as real as possible while still being fun. It would be no fun to watch -- wait no I couldn't even do that -- my units sit there for 20 turns because my HQ was killed or broke and ran away. Or hell, the HQ wouldn't even have to run just break for awhile. I think a lot of people would feel the same way. I mean, war is hell but I don't think BTS needs to make CM hell to play. Of course, I could be wrong.

For instance, what if you wanted to tell third squad (or that sniper) to sneak up that ridge (out of C&C), see what they could see and come back? Or what if unit X saw a stationary object, like a pillbox, out of C&C. Then, lets say they broke and ran back into C&C, recover and... now what? Do I know the pillbox is there or not? I should, they saw it and can say its there. But how would the system allow it? These seem to be valid possibilities and certainly realistic. Right now they are approximated because of borg spotting.

Basically, there are lots of problems for BTS to tackle with relative spotting. We all know that of course, but it seems that borg spotting is currently the lesser of the evils.

I do like the idea of not knowing exactly what is troubling those troops out of C&C. Perhaps a compromise is to have a really large delay on when you (the player) learn of details for troops out of C&C but to learn immediately if they are in C&C or move back into C&C.

And I am a programmer so I know the difficulties involved in even the seemingly simplest of things. I'm sure BTS will do right by us as always though

END QUOTE

-tom w

[ February 11, 2003, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

from an old post in the above noted thread:

Redwolf posts

"I didn't want to imply I have a solution. My example is what I think is the upper end of the Borg problem.

Why do I have a problem with this example? Because I am a tank player and people knock out my tanks! No, seriously. It breaks much realism in decision-making about the deployment of your forces. Imagine you attack with an infantry battalion, a tank platoon and you have an option for a TD platoon from regiment. You make decisions about how to deploy your forces. You send that Bazooka team "Sgt Dingo" with the third platoon from the right. You know that once you made that decision, you Bazooka is away for most practial purposes for the duration of this firefight of 45 or 60 minutes. But in CMBO, no matter where enemy tanks appear, you can run it across the whole battlefield. Instantly. A more detailed view: you commit you battaltion one company left, one right, one reserve. The tanks stay with the reserve initially. Third platoon from the right opens a gap where an enemy MG jammed and got overrun and neightbourhood platoons were confused about the direct of you attack. It reports back. You press your reserve including the tanks into the weak spot. Enemy commander Modelchen observes the scene, sees the attack commit his tanks and second echolon on the attackers right side and commit his Panther platoon against the now weak left side of the attacker. In reality, the commander of the attacking force would get the word about the panthers quite quick. But there are few thing to do with certaincy. He can call his Shermans to turn, cross the battlefield and strike against the counterattcking Panther's flank. But while he can do so in CMBO immideately, he would have lots of stuff to check in reality: - did anybody in center spot AT guns, or mines? Even if the unit there are forward enough to know, it would take time to ask them - what does he tell the tanker, exactly? The problem is even more apparent with Sgt. Dingo and his Bazooka, who would be out of question of redeployment within 30 minute in reality. In CMBO, he gets his ass off within 13 seconds. I don't say I have a solution, except for very radical ones like committing the CM player to platoon and company zones of control and heavy penalities like delays for changing them."

Well we agree there: "except for very radical ones like committing the CM player to platoon

and company zones of control and heavy penalities like delays for changing them" I don't think that kind of structure or rigidity would be appropriate because perhaps this is not as big an issue as you believe. "But while he can do so in CMBO immideately, he would have lots of stuff to check in reality: - did anybody in center spot AT guns, or mines?

(As it is in CMBO now those tanks can and DO get Whacked in ambushes in that same sitaution by unseen AT guns and mines). Even if the unit there are forward enough to know, it would take time to ask them - what does he tell the tanker, exactly? (Are you trying to simulate command difficulities between different branches or nationalies?, In the case of the Germans I would think a strong case could be made for the fact that they had GREAT communication and co-ordination between units like that involved in a Combined Arms attack like you are describing). The problem is even more apparent with Sgt. Dingo and his Bazooka, who would be out of question of redeployment within 30 minute in reality. In CMBO, he gets his ass off within 13 seconds." (BUT who is commanding Sgt Dingo? If it is the Battelion commander than it would not be long (3 - 5 minutes maybe? BIG guess) before that order came down to haul ass over to the trouble spot.) Maybe longer command delays are in order? But I'm not sure about that one. I was just trying to determine where (exactly) you think the problem lies in relation to your (our) objections to the way Absolute Spotting works in the game."

END quote

-tom w

[ February 11, 2003, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Steve says:

Big Time Software

unregistered (42)

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

[aka_tom_w]

Steve has been VERY clear on this issue:

"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"

END QUOTE

[aka_tom_w]

Since Steve had so much to say on this issue and posted answers to some questions that have come up a few times I though I would repost his comments and answers to questions that came up in "Relative Spotting Revisited":

"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

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

IP: Logged

aka_tom_w

Member

Member # 1515

posted April 26, 2002 09:17 PM                      

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

Thanks Steve

I think you and everyone else here has figured that this is the basic summary of my position on this issue:

"...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?

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."

sorry to repeat that.

From what I understand, yourself (and Most folks here it woud seem) will be comfortable with the Player responding to an enemey threat that is only identified and spotted by one friendly unit by directing all other friendly units in the vicinity to fire at that location or start to move toward that location, (EVEN from WAY across the map) if this is an acceptable situation as a result of the NEW Relative Spotting protocol, to most folks here then I should simply agree to live with it and retire back to that old gunnery optics discussion that was so much fun.

(Posted in the very BEST of humour)

Thanks again its a GREAT game and chatting about it on this forum is even MORE fun than playing sometimes

-tom w

[ April 26, 2002, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

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

"So if a player's idea of fun is to use "gamey" tactics to beat the other guy, I guess we did "remove" some of the "fun" in CMBO. But in doing so we made CMBB more of what CMBO was always, ALWAYS, supposed to be. And the next game will continue that trend of improvement towards the unobtainable goal of perfect simulation of tactical warfare. And in our opinions, perfect means most realistic."

-Steve of BFC Nov 1 2002

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

IP: Logged

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"

End Quote

-tom w

[Michael Dorosh]

I always pictured the new engine's spotting as being something like this -

You click on rifle squad "A", and all enemy units that "A" can see are displayed on the map.

You click on rifle squad "B", and all the units above disappear - only those units in LOS of "B" are shown on the map.

You click on the platoon HQ that A and B belong to and are in command of, and all enemy units that both A, B and the HQ can see are displayed on the map.

You click on the company HQ that the platoon belongs to, ... etc.

Perhaps clicking an area on the map (not on any unit) would show all sighted enemy?

Would make giving orders a bit more realistic.

Is this the plan for the new model?

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I always pictured the new engine's spotting as being something like this -

You click on rifle squad "A", and all enemy units that "A" can see are displayed on the map.

You click on rifle squad "B", and all the units above disappear - only those units in LOS of "B" are shown on the map.

You click on the platoon HQ that A and B belong to and are in command of, and all enemy units that both A, B and the HQ can see are displayed on the map.

You click on the company HQ that the platoon belongs to, ... etc.

Perhaps clicking an area on the map (not on any unit) would show all sighted enemy?

Would make giving orders a bit more realistic.

Is this the plan for the new model?

I would like something like this -- perhaps take it further and allow the player to turn on a feature that would "gray out" the portion of the map not immediately visible to his men. Note that by "gray out" I do NOT mean the rest of the screen would turn gray and you could not see any other part of the map, but instead that the portions the selected unit cannot see would have a transparent gray filter applied to them. This would make it a lot less time consuming than the old "use the LOS tool over and over and over" method.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

That's how Steel Panthers did it, no?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

And East Front, West Front by Talonsoft as well, from memory. Or was that only in relation to how far the unit could move in any one turn?

Personally, I think such a "greying out" or highlighting would be a very elegant, simple solution.

Regards

Jim R.

[aka_tom_w]

bump

[tabpub]

Michael Dorosh

Member

Member # 4604

posted February 12, 2003 12:59 AM

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

That's how Steel Panthers did it, no?

IP: Logged

Kanonier Reichmann

Member

Member # 2155

posted February 12, 2003 01:25 AM

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

And East Front, West Front by Talonsoft as well, from memory. Or was that only in relation to how far the unit could move in any one turn?

Personally, I think such a "greying out" or highlighting would be a very elegant, simple solution.

Regards

Jim R.

ah, but aren't the referenced games all hex based? It is fairly easy to determine LOS when you are basing everything on a hex system; the numbers of LOS checks are finite, there are only say 500 hexes to check for LOS for each individual unit/hex. Here in the CM world, the LOS checks would be virtually infinite. Now, when checks are done, it is based on unit to unit, which is also a finite number; can A see B? no, but wait, B moves forward and now A can see. The process would be greatly slowed for this type of "constant" LOS determination. Look at the "To the Volga". I am sure that in addition to the craters/damage on the map slowing things, that the vast number of LOS checks come into play to slow that beast down. I would imagine that the same would occur with a "constant" LOS check going on for all units.

[Schoerner]

This is where compromises must be made: besides highest possible realism, the game primarily must be fun to play.

What you describe, sounds very boring to me.

And it even isn't realistically enough:

the German army always used 'Auftragstaktik' very strictly:

the Officer only received the order for the goal - how he achieved it, was his free decision.

The same with Panzers. Usually no Major directed any single tanks.

The platoon leaders knew what the goal was (i.e. 'keep this street open'). But how they planned to achieve it (where to move the single tanks or squads, where to hide, when to attack), was completely their own decision (extraordinary commanders like Wittmann, Nowotny, Galland, Rudel, Skorzeny... needed this highest possible freedom to develop their skills).

If this would be modelled realistically, we would never be able to control i.e. a single german tank in CM.

[ July 30, 2003, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Chelt]

Originally posted by ScouseJedi:

The game is set at Battalion level (feel free to correct me) with the player as God.

As the player you can see a tremendous amount of information, but you are not God; you know only the sum of what every soldier on your side knows.

As others have suggested in older threads, it might be more accurate to say that the game is set at company or battalion level, with the player taking the role of every commander engaged: every section leader, every platoon commander, every company OC, right up to the battalion CO.

And that argues against radical changes to the command model.

The lack of information coming to commanders 25 years before that must have paralysed commanders in WW2 indeed many generals fought the war from stately homes and chateauxs.

Certainly a divisional commander, say, knows nothing about the circumstances of a particular tank crew up in the line, but he aims to understand the fortunes of the brigades and battalions under him. More than that, he does not need to know, because everyone down the line is a living, thinking person, able to make decisions on his own. In fact, more information would prove paralyzing.

The problem with CM is that the AI simply can't equal a human's cunning and reasoning. That's why a player has to take on all of these roles - fun and games aside.

One solution would be to throw the player directly into the game.

Here's a solution: roleplay. We humans can outfight the AI, and we can imagine and reason better as well.

Say 3 Platoon, out of touch on the right flank, is being overrun. As the human player, you know what is happening, but now put yourself in the company commander's shoes - you would hear the firing but that's all! So, instead of sending 2 Platoon to counterattack, you might just send an imaginary runner to see what's happening.

Or a freakishly lucky pilot drops a bomb bang on top of your Battalion HQ party, just after your troops step off from the start line. Happened to me in a recent scenario. Imagine what might happen - chaos, confusion, someone from the rear rushing to take command. For now, your companies push on according to plan, but respond more slowly when the picture changes. You might even have different companies acting at cross-purposes.

All of this you can do right now, just with the power of your beautiful human imagination. It's good fun against the AI.

Maybe I'll even work up a rule-set so that one can try this with a trustworthy human opponent. I've had notions of figuring out a way to encourage players to behave more cautiously, too, so that games don't disintegrate into "victories" with one side wiped out and the other one straggling on low on ammunition, with 80% casualties - one does read of such victories but not as a rule.

Kind Regards,

David