(Old Bone from) CMx2 Fog of War Options.. Steve said something like.... (??????)

[aka_tom_w]

Sorry to ask

I have been searching for a quote from Steve

About how he said the player would have many fog of war choices.

It is now hidden deep in all the noise in the "bones" threads and there are lots of bones files.

there was only about 2-3 sentences, less then one paragraph about how the player would be able to choose just how much borg and how much "God-Like" influence the player would like to have.

but the words Fog of War settings or choice of fog of war settings or selectable by the player never really came up in the post.

Does anyone remember where that post was?

I am still searching for it.

Thanks

-tom w

[ February 23, 2005, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

I think this is the one I was looking for ......

"Will some of you guys HATE some of the things we are doing with CMx2? I'd say that is probably true. Good news is that most of those features will be optional. Relative Spotting, 1:1 simulation, and some other things will not be,

-Steve"

So I am left wondering if there be a WIDE range of settings INCLUDING new Fog of War options for the player to choose from in CMx2?

I am hoping this means optional FOW settings that might even include IronMan settings!

-tom w

Battlefront.com

Administrator

Member # 42

posted February 06, 2005 11:44 AM                         

A reminder to folks like Rick... my postings started with posts about kicking the Borg in the butt. Look back over the last couple of weeks for some huge threads and you'll get a lot of info.

Yes, CMx2 will be a bit more what CMx1 was supposed to be in terms of scale. We had always intended CMx1 to be used mostly for engagements of less than Battalion scale. While this probably does reflect the bulk of games played over the last 5 years, certainly lots of people wanted to play larger games. CMx2 will still be able to simulate a Battalion sized force, but certain ways of playing the game will make people happier with a Company sized force instead. Just think about the things we've talked about regarding uncertainty, relative spotting, chains of command, etc.

To reassure the huddled CM masses all I can say is that we have no intention of abandoning what CMx1 so great for you guys. Yet at the same time we aren't fearing moving the game to an entirely different plane of existance either. Stagnation in this industry is a disease we do not wish to get caught up in.

Will some of you guys HATE some of the things we are doing with CMx2? I'd say that is probably true. Good news is that most of those features will be optional. Relative Spotting, 1:1 simulation, and some other things will not be, but the number of people that will balk at these features will hopefully be miniscule and worth pissing off to make the others happier than they were with CMx1 (not to mention being able to attract a LOT more people to the game).

Basically, what I am saying is that we are going to do what we feel strongly needs to be done to advance the game system. Some won't like what they hear initially (as can already be seen on this Forum ), but that was the case with CMBO and even CMBB. Ignoring the calls for 2D hex based systems with tons of artificially phases and roll modifiers was obviously a good thing, eh? When all is said and done we expect the vast majority of the existing base to be playing CMx2 and loving it.

Steve

tom wonders.....

I have been thinking about Fog of War options and the possibility of various new levels we might be hoping to see in CMx2.....

how about:

1 No Fog of War (just a BASIC option to learn the game)

2 Partial FOW (same as the Partial FOW from CMx1)

3 CMBO Standard FOW (?)

4 CMBB EFOW (?)

5 CMx2 EFOW (with Relative Spotting AND the new command structure for C&C modeling battlefield communications)

6 MIA CMx2 EFOW

( units OUT of friendly LOS and WAY out of C&C are deemed MIA and replaced with a generic nationality maker or some such indication they are missing (From the player) in action)

7 MIA Iron Man CMx2 IMFOW ... Where you can ONLY see enemy units from the level 1 or level 2 (church tower) perspective of your OWN friendly units WITHIN C&C range as per Frankco's True Combat Rules. (I would guess the CMx2 AI should be able to easily beat any average player using these IronManFOW settings for the first time! So this would theoretically give the AI some "teeth" and a possible out for BFC when folks bitch about how easy it is to beat the AI, "Did you beat the AI in Ironman FOW??? huh, huh Did ya???!)

It would be my guess that most folks would play with CMx2 FOW #5 and be happy with that as the NEW gold standard in FOW.

However....

AS OPTIONS FOW #6 and #7 might not be the setting that most users would use most of the time BUT to add some spice to the game or VARIABILITY to the user experience if they could be included as REAL Fog of War options! AND as an AI "force multiplier". Here is the concept, if you can't make the AI better make the FOW OPTIONs of the user experience MORE demanding or more challenging with regard to FOW settings so as to make the AI (in all its new CMx2 glory) "feel" more challenging and capable!

I guess Numbers 3 and 4 are not really necessary and/or advisable:

(#3 CMBO Standard FOW and #4 CMBB EFOW... NOT needed)

[ February 22, 2005, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Philippe]

That's a great list, with some interesting material in it. It might have a tad too many options in it though. One of the things I hate about John Tiller games is staring at that realism menu, and wondering if the most realistic thing I can do is to just turn everything on (and I'm pretty sure it isn't). The choices of all, nothing, or somewhere in between are pretty much all that I can get my addled brain to sort through on most days, and if I can't sort through more than three or four items, I pity what the poor casual gamer is going through.

Hey wait a minute...I *am* a casual gamer...

[Captain Pies]

Nice ideas, but wouldn't it be equally as valid to just have independant FOW setting for the player and the AI. For a real challenge you could give yourself IMFOW and the AI God mode Mind you some of my results suggest that is the case anyway

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Captain Pies:

Nice ideas, but wouldn't it be equally as valid to just have independant FOW setting for the player and the AI. For a real challenge you could give yourself IMFOW and the AI God mode Mind you some of my results suggest that is the case anyway

OK

Maybe I did not exactly say that...

"for a real challenge you could give yourself Iron Man FOW and the Artificial Inteligence would still be in God mode"

BUT was thinking something like that when I posted:

"Here is the concept, if you can't make the AI better/smarter, then make the FOW OPTIONs of the user experience MORE demanding or more challenging with regard to FOW settings so as to make the AI (in all its new CMx2 glory) "feel" more challenging and capable!"

or words to that effect.... as you suggested AI still in all knowing GOD mode while the player is Stuck in Frankco's True Combat/Iron Man Rules FOW! The concept being this might some how artificially inflate the cabability of the AI to do something smart and out wit the player. Hey ! Its always good to dream!

-tom w

[ February 23, 2005, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Wartgamer]

I would want Extremely-Ultimate-FOW. Everything Generic. No tank details (unless a movie playback for the finished game is available), no infantry roll call or type. Even if slightly unrealistic, it shrinks the Borg effect.

[flamingknives]

Not even tank details if you're sitting on top of it? Except when a new vehiclce turns up for the first time, intel is usually available to soldiers about their own and the enemies technical specs.

Infantry type? Battalions, on the Western front anyway, knew the formations they were facing

[Wartgamer]

nope. even if it seems unrealistic, it balances out the equally unrealistic things like knowing if an infantry unit in a house is a HQ, etc.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

nope. even if it seems unrealistic, it balances out the equally unrealistic things like knowing if an infantry unit in a house is a HQ, etc.

Well .... the original idea was to use the Player's Fog of War option choices to balance out other factors including the perceived short comings of the Artificial Inteligence opponent.

-tom w

[Wartgamer]

and this might be optional?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

and this might be optional?

CMx1 has ALWAYS had optional fog of war settings.

after much moaning and bitching the CMBB offering included EFOW (Extrem Fog of War)

I have been trying to read all the hints and bones Steve has tossed out and this is the ONLY one that seems to "hint" at Fog of War options:

"Will some of you guys HATE some of the things we are doing with CMx2? I'd say that is probably true. Good news is that most of those features will be optional. Relative Spotting, 1:1 simulation, and some other things will not be,

-Steve"

I don't have ANY idea which "features" Steve means will be optional but it would not be just a bad guess to think there will be a RANGE of new fog of war options.

At least I HOPE there will be anyway.

-tom w

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

nope. even if it seems unrealistic, it balances out the equally unrealistic things like knowing if an infantry unit in a house is a HQ, etc.

Well, stopping the distinction between HQ and line infantry would do that.

Distinguishing weapons (MGs, mortars, AT teams) ought also to be possible and some units would be able to pick out HQs (like sharpshooters)

[Wartgamer]

true but look at german inf. if they were in some woods, would you know a HMG or a LMG was really firing (assume same rate)?

In many cases where armor was not parked out stationary in the open, would it actually be ID'd by model?

The game, no matter what, will present an overall picture of the battlefield in some level of information. what happens will be interesting

[ February 23, 2005, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[dalem]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

true but look at german inf. if they were in some woods, would you know a HMG or a LMG was really firing (assume same rate)?

Eventually I think you would make an educated guess based on how often they changed out for ammo, sure. For game graphics purposes I'd rather eventually establish a solid graphic like we do now, even if it eventually changes to something else when we get close enough or the game ends.

I could see the following, for instance:

- You start taking fire from a woodline 100m away.

- First location marker is a sound marker like what we have now.

- Next is generic "infantry" marker - say a half dozen grey guys in generic poses, each with occasional muzzle flash.

- Next level would be the right color for your enemy with real positions for individual guys - here is where your count might go up or down - could be 2 guys, could be 12, right? But at this point you can begin to trust the count and the rough positioning. Muzzle flashes only for the guys actually firing.

- for the rest of that exchange, you'd have to watch for soldier icons on screen but not firing to let you know how you're affecting them - you may never get more info than that unless you move in much closer.

Seems like a reasonable progression to me.

-dale

[Wartgamer]

Actually, it brings up another problem with 1:1 modeling.

Seeing the actual physical location of an enemy soldier will almost certainly make things unrealistic if targetting is allowed.

Something like area fire being abused for sure.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Actually, it brings up another problem with 1:1 modeling.

Seeing the actual physical location of an enemy soldier will almost certainly make things unrealistic if targetting is allowed.

Something like area fire being abused for sure.

yeah but....

1:1 Modeling should let you know where ALL your guys are but it does not mean spotting info will ALL be 1:1.

Fog of War should mean that not all enemy units or men will be spotted 1:1 or is that what you meant?

I am sorry but I am not sure I understand the main point of your last comment?

"Seeing the actual physical location of an enemy soldier will almost certainly make things unrealistic if targetting is allowed."

Surly if a friendly unit has LOS to a spotted enemy unit, it will have LOF and be able to target that spotted unit.

no?

-tom w

[Wartgamer]

So you are saying that enemy units will not be revealed 1:1? They will always be 'abstracted'?

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

true but look at german inf. if they were in some woods, would you know a HMG or a LMG was really firing (assume same rate)?

In many cases where armor was not parked out stationary in the open, would it actually be ID'd by model?

The game, no matter what, will present an overall picture of the battlefield in some level of information. what happens will be interesting

Being as the German LMG and HMG are the same gun, if it's firing at the same rate it will be indistinguishable. However, what makes it a HMG is that it can sustain a higher rate of fire. This is how it is possible to tell the difference. Soldiers would look for that sort of thing. It might not be easy (it isn't in CMX1 to tell the difference between LMG and HMG teams) but it would be possible if you got close enough or observed for long enough. Binoculars would be useful here.

Identifying a tank , SP gun or whatever, even in cover, would be possible, at least as far as an approximate type. You look for salient features and ID it that way. You don't always get it right though. How often in CMX1 is an armour unit identified by model? A Panther from a tiger, sure, but panther A from a V? Rarely.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

So you are saying that enemy units will not be revealed 1:1? They will always be 'abstracted'?

I am suggesting it will depend on the player's choice of fog of war setting, (the player "could" be playing with fog of war OFF (in the past it was an option) and if fog of war is off then sure you should see all enemy units 1:1

but varying levels of fog of war might reveal differences in spotting levels that might lead to less than accurate 1:1 representation of enemy units. BUT if you waited long enough and if you got CLOSE enough and you finally spotted with %100 accuracy then you should see all enemy units represented in their true 1:1 glory.

BUT that is JUST my guess...

-tom w

[Wartgamer]

A German tripod HMG could be firing very short bursts (getting the range or conserving ammo). A German LMG could have some trigger happy 17 year old shooting it.

Another factor is that rarely does just one weapon open up. In reality, its a platoon or more. The Germans having 6 MGs firing from a treeline could easily hide the fact that one is a tripod weapon.

But any available 'realistic' data is always abused by the God like player.

[flamingknives]

Indeed, sometimes the information the gunners give out is false. Bren guns were often, AIUI, fired in single shot so they could not be distinguished from the rifles as this would inevitably draw heavy fire on the automatic weapon.

These are all reasons for making it difficult to pick out the weapon type, but not impossible. Veteran troops could make it harder to determine a weapon type, while Green troops would be more likely to give such info away.

A further point - the extra information is key to speeding up the game. If the information coming back to the player is severly limited, each game would take over an hour of turn time, and more real time.

[Wartgamer]

One reason may be the 'size' of the game forces.

FOW settings may run from the NO FOW to something seemingly excessive. A larger scenario with many units may benefit realistically from limited shared info. Smaller games may not be so benefitted.

I would also like to see FOW be settable by side. One side playing extreme and the other realistic; something like that. A nice way to play the computer it would seem. The human taking extreme setting of course.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

I would also like to see FOW be settable by side. One side playing extreme and the other realistic; something like that. A nice way to play the computer it would seem. The human taking extreme setting of course.

THat is a VERY interesting suggestion

I have NO idea how easy or hard that would be to program into the code, but if each side could have different FOW setting chosen by the player that would be GREAT. (I think it would be EXTREMELY hard to code, but then everything is hard to code so what do I know )

For sure it would be great to play against the AI with an "easier" FOW option Even NO FOW for the AI just to see if that would make any difference in how the AI played the game.

I have never played any CMx1 game with no FOW but I am wondering if the AI is any better in a No FOW game in CMx1. (somehow I don't think it makes any difference to the AI but that is hard to imagine.... BUT I know I have never tested it.)

-tom w

[Wartgamer]

Actually, I do not think that even a platoon leader knows the exact position of his troops in most terrain. In the rare example like a dugin platoon that has everyone entrenched and the platoon leaders can inspect all positions, yes, but in most dynamic situations; Does a commander 'know' the exact postion of all the men? Is 1:1 position of your own troops just more omniknowledge that can be abused?

The more I think of the 1:1 representation, the more it just makes me feel that the player has to be backed off from knowing more detail about the enmy and less control of his own men.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Actually, it brings up another problem with 1:1 modeling.

Seeing the actual physical location of an enemy soldier will almost certainly make things unrealistic if targetting is allowed.

Something like area fire being abused for sure.

Well it was only an outline. Surely the actual known location of individuals would have to fairly far along in the battlefield intel process. But assuming enough time and presence of mind, a squad or platoon leader could definitely note the position of individual firing points.

That's part of their job, isn't it? To identify, as best they can, the places where their solders should be directing their fire? Maybe I have a misunderstanding of their role though.

-dale