New Spotting Model

[SFJaykey]

I know there have been a lot of threads related to "Borg spotting," but I haven't seen anyone mention this suggestion for a better model, so here goes... (keeping in mind I know squat about coding and have know idea how hard it would be to implement)

Base spotting on the chain of command. Enemy units spotted directly by the highest-level HQ on the field (usually a company or battalion) are immediately visible to the player. Units spotted directly by lower tier commanders remain invisible for a time related to the command delays of the individual HQs, simulating the time needed to pass the info up the chain of command and each HQ's efficiency in doing that.

Enemies spotted only by individual squads or teams would only become visible onscreen after waiting through the appropriate delay for each layer of HQ they have to pass through on the way up the ladder. The friendly units would react to the enemy, returning fire, pinning etc, but the location of the contact would not be visible to the player until after the cumulative delay had expired. If the enemy goes out of LOS before the delay expires, the player would see the "last sighted here" symbol.

Fog of War setting should affect the delays....I would vote that under Extreme FOW units spotted only by out-of-command squads or teams _remain_ invisible indefinitely, or until that unit again came within command range....at which time the delay would _start_ ticking.

This would seem to make the game a lot tougher, and large battles very difficult to manage, but I think it'd be a lot more realistic. Of course, for larger battles the FOW setting could be turned down....perhaps the new "Full FOW" would look similar to the current "Extreme," and so on. Keeping units in command would become even more important, as would troop quality. And sound contacts would become more important...a company HQ would likely hear an enemy firing long before they got a good report on its location and ID.

Like I said I don't know anything about computer code, but it seems like using the chain of command might be a way to build un-Borg spotting into the engine without starting from scratch? And have it come out feeling realistic? Any thoughts?

MattT

[RSColonel_131st]

I guess it depends on what you want to simulate. If you want to put the player into the position of the local Combat Group Commander, it's realistic that he can only know about units after a certain delay.

However, it would certainly be frustrating to see your troops run into an ambush and not to be able to counter it because you can't see a damn thing.

[Ace Pilot]

I like the concept. I think there are 2 issues with this approach.

1. The TacAI will need to be improved to implement this. For example, you send a squad out to recon and they come across an enemy unit a mere 20 meters away. You, as the player, don't know if it's a machine gun, a Tiger tank, or a truck, because of the delay in the flow of information. This means you won't know what orders to give, whereas in reality, the squad leader would be giving orders to address the situation. Currently, the TacAI isn't good enough to figure out how to deal with these different situations.

2. While I agree with what you propose, it would clearly cast the player in the role of company or battalion commander. Many people find the appeal of CM to be the ability to take on many roles simulatenously, all the way down to squad leader or tank commander. Implementing an "information delay" would effectively kill any ability for the player to act as a squad leader or tank commander.

If you'd like to read more on spotting model ideas, look at this thread.

I seem to recall that BFC may try to implement some sort of communcations model in the next version of CM. Whether that includes the flow of intel or not, I don't know. It will be interesting to see.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by SFJaykey:

I know there have been a lot of threads related to "Borg spotting," but I haven't seen anyone mention this suggestion for a better model, so here goes... (keeping in mind I know squat about coding and have know idea how hard it would be to implement)

Base spotting on the chain of command. Enemy units spotted directly by the highest-level HQ on the field (usually a company or battalion) are immediately visible to the player. Units spotted directly by lower tier commanders remain invisible for a time related to the command delays of the individual HQs, simulating the time needed to pass the info up the chain of command and each HQ's efficiency in doing that.

Enemies spotted only by individual squads or teams would only become visible onscreen after waiting through the appropriate delay for each layer of HQ they have to pass through on the way up the ladder. The friendly units would react to the enemy, returning fire, pinning etc, but the location of the contact would not be visible to the player until after the cumulative delay had expired. If the enemy goes out of LOS before the delay expires, the player would see the "last sighted here" symbol.

Fog of War setting should affect the delays....I would vote that under Extreme FOW units spotted only by out-of-command squads or teams _remain_ invisible indefinitely, or until that unit again came within command range....at which time the delay would _start_ ticking.

This would seem to make the game a lot tougher, and large battles very difficult to manage, but I think it'd be a lot more realistic. Of course, for larger battles the FOW setting could be turned down....perhaps the new "Full FOW" would look similar to the current "Extreme," and so on. Keeping units in command would become even more important, as would troop quality. And sound contacts would become more important...a company HQ would likely hear an enemy firing long before they got a good report on its location and ID.

Like I said I don't know anything about computer code, but it seems like using the chain of command might be a way to build un-Borg spotting into the engine without starting from scratch? And have it come out feeling realistic? Any thoughts?

MattT

If you would like to read more to see where the discussion has been/gone on this issue you should read this thread:

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

Relative Spotting Revisited...

If you are keen and you want to read all 8 pages (there are MANY posts) you can find some GREAT posts by Steve as to what they hope to do with the Engine re-write.

Good luck

happy reading

-tom w

[Hat Trick]

I've also thought about a proposal like this, and while I personally like it, I think that it would have to be implemented as an option that a player could turn on or off, separate from fog of war. Its just too big a change mix it up with fog of war. A few other thoughts:

This change would work best in multiplay, where each side has multiple commanders at different levels. Delays to platoon commanders would be relatively short, while delays to battalion commanders would be longer. In fact, the game could be structured under this option so that, say, battalion commanders never get detailed info on enemy units that they cannot see personally, but rely on reports from lower level commanders.

In single player per side games, the addition of user definable standard operating procedures for units (e.g., when vehicle X sees enemy vehicles of type Y, pop smoke and reverse) should help players feel more comfortable about what their units do when they engage the enemy on their own.

Another minor tweek would be to add a delay to ordering units to fire. While not directly related to your proposed changes, it has always seemed odd to me that it takes time to get a message to my units to move, but not to fire.

Finally, one of the reasons that I like this idea is that it gives the company and battalion commanders a role to play other than as spare headquarters units. I always find it annoying (i.e., gamey) when my opponent uses a battalion headquarters to lead a recon platoon or assault by a squad. The costs of losing your high level headquarters units in CM are just not that great.

[SFJaykey]

Thanks for pointing out the earlier thread...it is a long one and i have only started reading it. As someone said: "there are no new ideas." Well maybe that's an overstatement, but I'm not surprised that others have mentioned this before.

As far as the objections to the "chain of intel" model: RSColonel and Ace are right, it would cast the player as an on-field commander....but that's the way I'd like to play. Others might prefer a more liberal spotting model, and I would want it too in certain situations...it should be something that could be turned on and off, whether as part of the FOW setting or as a distinct setting. And the fact that this model would reward more responsible use of HQs is one of its more attractive points, IMO.

Yes the TacAI would need to be upgraded for this to work really well, but I expect that's the plan in any case. As it is the TacAI already makes a lot of decisions about target selection and withdrawl from superior forces, so I don't think it's too far away...a few new tools to go with Covered Arc, Cover Armor, Hulldown etc, and some refinement of the tools already in the game, and I think it'd be very workable.

The idea of true multiplayer games, with several human players to a side, is exciting....A C&C tree built into the engine would seem to make this possible and I think that'd would be a heckuva lot of fun!

Just my $.02, anyhoo...the folks at BFC clearly know what they're doing and I expect the next game will probably offer something even better than what I'm suggesting.

- Matt