What the hell is 'Borg Spotting' ?

[hoolaman]

Thanks indeed. Any words from the mouth of the horse are valued, even if they are a little dated.

I am shocked that they think it is impossible to provide command limitations without removing the player from the game. I think it can be done.

So, to provide so answers to these two-and-a-half year old posts!

Big Time Software

unregistered:

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").

There is a way to achieve this without limiting any of what the player actually sees on the map. This could be done with my HQ command zones idea, (which I am sure no-one will have trouble finding if they require more info.

In the example above, the player clicks on the major on the map, and orders a company to go to area x on the map, in this case, a strait corridor taking in the area of the north side of Hill 345. He plots a zone for the company to follow, which they cannot go out of. This simulates the Major's orders: Where to go and (roughly) how to get there.

The captain then plots a zone for his platoon to follow, hich they cannot go out of, and which end in their required setup area; 1st Platoon go to that stand of trees, 2nd Platoon down thee road a click, 3rd Platoon deploy to 2nd's right.

This simulates the Captain's orders: Organisation, where to set up, how to get there (somewhat precisely).

The platoons advance down these zones and when they get to the general area they are told to go to, the squads are free to setup where the player sees fit, eg "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"

This simultes the Lt. orders: setup right there, look out that way.

At each level the player can only give the orders realistic for the rank of the HQ.

What will this solve? If all units are bound to their last known orders, realistic C&C is already there. No "Borg-like swarm" is possible, because to adjust the orders requires the HQ to actually get out orders.

Of course there is more to it, but a link to the discussion of same is provided above.

Big Time Software

unregistered:

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.

As I explained above, it is not neccesary to obscure anything from the player. They can still play at squad level, but only if they are bound to chain of command by being forced to follow the orders of the major.

Naturally a purely realistic game is a contradiction in terms. There will be abstractions in this model, and the player will still have a god like awareness. The initial plan is conceived by the player as it is now, but to adjust to a threat with a "borg like swarm" would be difficult unless it is simulated that new orders are handed down.

[aka_tom_w]

perhaps this will help to add some context

aka_tom_w

Member

Member # 1515

posted April 26, 2002 01:43 PM                      

quote:

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

quote:

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Mushkin:

The hypothetical example is only showing that the PLAYER cannot target specific enemy units (But he is giving a general direction). The TACAI could. Its a subtle point but has to be understood

Oh, I understand completely. What you must understand is that currently in CM the player assumes the role of the MG gunner when he gives the order to fire, so there is no logical reason why he should not be able to specify an exact target unless you are going to say that the player is the platoon LT, not the sergeant or corporal leading the squad, manning the MG. This is what people mean when they talk about making CM a "command level" game: the player gives general orders to his units and lets the TacAI carry them out. This is a different type of game than CM, and one I would not like as much for reasons I and others have explained.

If the player is the MG gunner, the Squad Leader, the Jeep driver, the Tank TC, the Arty Spotter, the Company CO AND the Platoon HQ, then the player is the CAUSE of the Borg Like Absolute spotting problem because the player knows ALL, sees ALL, and Commands All.

"This is what people mean when they talk about making CM a "command level" game: the player gives general orders to his units and lets the TacAI carry them out."

BUT then why are there command delays in CMBO?

WHY do we really want to try to keep our squads within command radius?

If the folks who play CMBO insist on Playing ALL the roles then most of the Problems of Absolute Spotting (if they are problems ?) that we have been attempting to identify in this thread, cannot be solved. (except by TCP-IP multi-player TEAM play)

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?

So then what has that implimentation of Simulated Relative Spotting achieved?

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.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

and this one...

Pinned unit beyond C&C. You want to give him a movement order so you can see how long it will take (and then master mind a coordinated assault with other units). Firstly, there are no movement orders in his menu! You are restricted to firing and hiding and withdrawing. This "soft failure" isnt a total loss of control but a shade of loss.

Half squad out of C&C and out of its platoon HQ visual LOS. You give a sneak order and want to see how long it will take. Sneak is an option and you select it and draw a line. A ? shows up in the delay time. You dont know how long it will take. He is also, by the way, taken some fire the previous turn and may be under strength. Since he is out of C&C and LOS, those losses are not reported to you. The info pool is shrinking again. The attacker is slowly losing his borgiosity.

A defender has a cutoff HMG. He is out of C&C and LOS of ALL friendly units. The player wants him to target a particularly bothersome enemy squad that he fears (its a russian guards PPSH equipped unit that is getting too close). The player opens the HMG menu and selects a fire command. He draws a line but a covered arc appears instead! He can not guarantee that the HMG will select the bothersome squad because other enemy units also occupy the covered arc. Damn, he says and decides to withdraw and makes a note to keep HQs near HMGs in the future.

That Sounds GREAT!

I think the focus on C&C is completely relevant here. I truly don't believe that we can really solve some of the problems of lack of Realism that Absolute Spotting creates if we don't SERIOUSLY look at C&C and who commands who and who communicates with who and who KNOWS what and how did they find out, (i.e. did the Player tell them to LOOK for it? OR did they Spot the threat themselves???)

Pinned units out of C&C should be next to useless to the Player.

These are ALL great ideas that will take SOME control away from the Player when the unit is out of C&C:

"Pinned unit beyond C&C. You want to give him a movement order so you can see how long it will take (and then master mind a coordinated assault with other units). Firstly, there are no movement orders in his menu! You are restricted to firing and hiding and withdrawing. This "soft failure" isnt a total loss of control but a shade of loss.

Half squad out of C&C and out of its platoon HQ visual LOS. You give a sneak order and want to see how long it will take. Sneak is an option and you select it and draw a line. A ? shows up in the delay time. You dont know how long it will take. He is also, by the way, taken some fire the previous turn and may be under strength. Since he is out of C&C and LOS, those losses are not reported to you. The info pool is shrinking again."

Who is in C&C and who is NOT should be REALLY important in the implimentation of Simulated Relative Spotting in order to add more REALISM to the game.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

and this one...

Pinned unit beyond C&C. You want to give him a movement order so you can see how long it will take (and then master mind a coordinated assault with other units). Firstly, there are no movement orders in his menu! You are restricted to firing and hiding and withdrawing. This "soft failure" isnt a total loss of control but a shade of loss.

Half squad out of C&C and out of its platoon HQ visual LOS. You give a sneak order and want to see how long it will take. Sneak is an option and you select it and draw a line. A ? shows up in the delay time. You dont know how long it will take. He is also, by the way, taken some fire the previous turn and may be under strength. Since he is out of C&C and LOS, those losses are not reported to you. The info pool is shrinking again. The attacker is slowly losing his borgiosity.

A defender has a cutoff HMG. He is out of C&C and LOS of ALL friendly units. The player wants him to target a particularly bothersome enemy squad that he fears (its a russian guards PPSH equipped unit that is getting too close). The player opens the HMG menu and selects a fire command. He draws a line but a covered arc appears instead! He can not guarantee that the HMG will select the bothersome squad because other enemy units also occupy the covered arc. Damn, he says and decides to withdraw and makes a note to keep HQs near HMGs in the future.

from another gaming contributor (aka Lewis if any of you remember him, he is not here anymore)

tom says:

I think the focus on C&C is completely relevant here. I truly don't believe that we can really solve some of the problems of lack of Realism that Absolute Spotting creates if we don't SERIOUSLY look at C&C and who commands who and who communicates with who and who KNOWS what and how did they find out, (i.e. did the Player tell them to LOOK for it? OR did they Spot the threat themselves???)

Pinned units out of C&C should be next to useless to the Player.

These are ALL great ideas that will take SOME control away from the Player when the unit is out of C&C:

"Pinned unit beyond C&C. You want to give him a movement order so you can see how long it will take (and then master mind a coordinated assault with other units). Firstly, there are no movement orders in his menu! You are restricted to firing and hiding and withdrawing. This "soft failure" isnt a total loss of control but a shade of loss.

Half squad out of C&C and out of its platoon HQ visual LOS. You give a sneak order and want to see how long it will take. Sneak is an option and you select it and draw a line. A ? shows up in the delay time. You dont know how long it will take. He is also, by the way, taken some fire the previous turn and may be under strength. Since he is out of C&C and LOS, those losses are not reported to you. The info pool is shrinking again."

Who is in C&C and who is NOT should be REALLY important in the implimentation of Simulated Relative Spotting in order to add more REALISM to the game.

-tom w

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

1) Who knew what and when did they know it

2) who could communicate with who and what orders could they give

3) who could tell who what about what was seen on the battlfield

4) how quickly could this info be reasonably expected to be acted upon?

Just questions in an attempt to understand and define the issue or problem we are trying to find a solution to.

-tom w

Id like to dredge up some of aka_tom_w's stuff from the depths.

I have tried to incorporate all this into a command system.

I think all these factors must be taken into account in a true C&C simulation.

1) This is easy. Individual per-unit calculation for spotting. I think the game map should remain "all-seeing" for the player, displaying the "most-spotted" version of every enemy contact. I see maybe a little icon appearing above the head of a unit that has spotted something new during the turn. When the player clicks on him, the LOS and units spotted by this unit are displayed.

Enemy sightings a unit has been "told" about could also be marked for HQ units.

2,3&4) As I have said before, the communication options could be very simply abstracted. LOS, radios, field telephones, and distance between units translates into:

A time delay for orders to be acted upon by a unit. Orders must come from a particular HQ eg. click on HQ, assign orders to platoons.

A time delay for reports of enemy contact to be recieved and marked on the HQ's maps, also quality of the reports could play a factor. Like now, incorrect ID's could be made by bad reports.

Clicking on a HQ could bring up the LOS of that unit, but also plots the units on the map that it has been "told" about with a ?tank? or ?infantry? marker.

[aka_tom_w]

OK

but do you need a full chain of command??

As steve says what happens when the Battalion HQ gets knocked

out by a lucky hit (ALL KIA)

what happens if the platoon HQ gets killed?

I suport your vision and we all want a simliar more realistic system

But we really have NO idea what BFC is up to at this point since they are not talking much about this aspect of the new GAME

except to say they are working on it and it will be BETTER.

(we all HOPE!)

and so we wait..

and wait

and wait

for a release if we are lucky sometime around this time (or later) next year

-tom w

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

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

1) Who knew what and when did they know it

2) who could communicate with who and what orders could they give

3) who could tell who what about what was seen on the battlfield

4) how quickly could this info be reasonably expected to be acted upon?

Just questions in an attempt to understand and define the issue or problem we are trying to find a solution to.

-tom w

Id like to dredge up some of aka_tom_w's stuff from the depths.

I have tried to incorporate all this into a command system.

I think all these factors must be taken into account in a true C&C simulation.

1) This is easy. Individual per-unit calculation for spotting. I think the game map should remain "all-seeing" for the player, displaying the "most-spotted" version of every enemy contact. I see maybe a little icon appearing above the head of a unit that has spotted something new during the turn. When the player clicks on him, the LOS and units spotted by this unit are displayed.

Enemy sightings a unit has been "told" about could also be marked for HQ units.

2,3&4) As I have said before, the communication options could be very simply abstracted. LOS, radios, field telephones, and distance between units translates into:

A time delay for orders to be acted upon by a unit. Orders must come from a particular HQ eg. click on HQ, assign orders to platoons.

A time delay for reports of enemy contact to be recieved and marked on the HQ's maps, also quality of the reports could play a factor. Like now, incorrect ID's could be made by bad reports.

Clicking on a HQ could bring up the LOS of that unit, but also plots the units on the map that it has been "told" about with a ?tank? or ?infantry? marker. </font>