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

[JonS]

Dale,

correct, though generally it still comes down to indicating areas, of greater or lesser size.

I can see both POVs. In some cases you may receive fire, and not be sure of it's exact location. At other times you might observe movement, even if only breifly, and so have an exact location but not be sure of what it signifies.

A single logic path from first contact to fully id'd seems unrealistic to me.

Jon

P.S. where's my turn?

[dalem]

Originally posted by JonS:

Dale,

correct, though generally it still comes down to indicating areas, of greater or lesser size.

I can see both POVs. In some cases you may receive fire, and not be sure of it's exact location. At other times you might observe movement, even if only breifly, and so have an exact location but not be sure of what it signifies.

A single logic path from first contact to fully id'd seems unrealistic to me.

Jon

P.S. where's my turn?

I agree that the kind of progression I described is, at best, a beginning. In the end, whatever BFC decides will have to straddle the line of "I see where the assistant MG gunner is, even 100 yds away" and "I took fire from those woods 100 yds away and we returned fire where we thought it was coming from, and it stopped" somewhere though, right?

And I have finally upgraded to 1.03 so I will try and convert your turn tonight sir.

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

Quick comment...

CMx1 has much of what you guys are talking about, though certainly not as many inbetween states (i.e. not fully identified, but somehow located) as we would all like to see. The primary problem with CMx1's ID'ing system has to do with Absolute Spotting. With such a system it is very, very difficult to get highly variable states of identification that stick for very long. At least when there are lots of units in play or in theory visible to each other. Don't believe me?

To test what I am saying, make a map with heavily closed in terrain and sparsely spread out infantry. Oh, say Heavy Woods. Try this in day, night, and heavy fog. You'll see it is very difficult to identify stuff, yet this is the same exact code you guys are talking about.

What this means is that if we changed NOTHING else except Absolute Spotting, the CMx2 Spotting and IDing system would yield a lot less informative than what the average CMx1 game experience is like.

As for what sorts of options players will have regarding levels of Fog of War... that is something I can't get into just yet. But yes, there will be various options that can be used to create more or less difficult games in terms of enemy intel. But in all options, no matter what, Relative Spotting will exist. It won't mean as much for the least realistic FOW option as it will for the most, but it will still have an impact.

Steve

[JonS]

Originally posted by dalem:

I have finally upgraded to 1.03 so I will try and convert your turn tonight sir.

Eh - no need. I've saved the 1.01 exe for just that reason. I'm playing games in both versions right now.

[Wartgamer]

I think if the CMx1 code just did not give out the level of detail that it does, the Absolute Spotting would not have had the shared intel impact that it does (it would still be flawed but not as bad).

This intel is not as nessesary as many believe nor realistic.

[Tero]

Will the graphical representation of the spotting be modified so that when the active unit is changed the targets that unit has spotted disappear and the targets the new active unit has spotted appear instead ?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Tero:

Will the graphical representation of the spotting be modified so that when the active unit is changed the targets that unit has spotted disappear and the targets the new active unit has spotted appear instead ?

If it doesn't work like that I can't imagine how else you might make relative spotting work?

However I am open to any other interesting theories as to how you could provide a game interface or user experience for the player to enjoy playing with the new Relative Spotting game code in CMx2.

I am curious as well.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Quick comment...

"As for what sorts of options players will have regarding levels of Fog of War... that is something I can't get into just yet. But yes, there will be various options that can be used to create more or less difficult games in terms of enemy intel. But in all options, no matter what, Relative Spotting will exist. "

Steve

Thanks Steve!!!

I am thrilled to hear that CMx2 will have Relative Spotting that CANNOT be turned off by the player and it will have Various optional levels of Fog of War. (What about NO Fog of War?)

To be honest, the new Relative Spotting and the OPTION of various differing levels of Fog of War and C&C modeling in CMx2 are the features I am MOST interested in. I think everyone here hopes you get these features and options JUST right so EVERYONE can find their own way (by choosing from the various optional settings) to enjoy the new game!!!

Please give us a couple of Extremely Ultra OVER-the-Top Realistic FOW settings like Ironman or Extra Ultra HARD (even unrealistically limiting) Fog of War settings so that the AI might have half a chance to provide a much more challengeing game experience for the solo user against the AI opponent.

Please.

-tom w

[ February 24, 2005, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Wartgamer]

Many things in the game will be driven by what they can do with Relative Spotting (or how they do it). Since this is a 'must have', it will act as a driver that might limit other aspects of the game.

It will be a major non-abstraction, in that whatever the actual 'unit' (whatever level that may be), will have to have some database of actual enemy 'units' (again whatever size or level THEY are) that it can see. Certainly a 1:1 representation is out of the question for larger modeled conflicts involving companies, etc.

So a fireteam may have a constantly updating list of enemy units (perhaps enemy fireteams) that it 'sees' on the battlefield. How often this list can be updated and how long the list (could be shorter or longer depending on things like experience/pinning/etc) might be hardware driven.

This will be a much greater CPU hit than the current 'target-based' Absolute spotting. Here a unit has assigned to it a state that all enemy units can take advantage of if they have LOS to the unit. Hence the sharing.

How LOS is determined, and what friendly and enemy units LOS 'point' are (the actual spot that LOS checks are made to and from) will also be interesting. With Relative Spotting, the LOS checks ARE the spotting checks if you follow.

I can imagine pinning a unit so bad that you would be able to get behind them and they would not even know it. But, even still, other non-pinned units, might be able to see the encircling units, so some preventive action might be possible (withdrawl in a intelligent manner).

[ February 24, 2005, 07:58 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by Tero:

Will the graphical representation of the spotting be modified so that when the active unit is changed the targets that unit has spotted disappear and the targets the new active unit has spotted appear instead ?

Very good point. And whats to stop someone from just bouncing back to the first unit and making decisions based on his newly aquired knowledge of enemy dispositions?

One could have a touch-it-use-it rule. Once selected, you must finish any movement/fire/etc orders and move on.

But still, should the game decide which units you get to issue orders to first? Based on those with least intel being issued first? I would not like this if it bounced me all over the map so I could not keep track of what I was doing.

What if the game declared a formation for you. It would show a company lets say. All units you will be issuing orders to are shown (all others on your side disappear for the time being). You could study teh immediate situation and then ask for a first unit. The game would decide which unit in the company has least intel of enemy at that time. You would then issue that unit orders and proceed with the next unit. No going back and editing orders for previous units. When done with this formation, the next is brought up. Lets say a Tank platoon. All infantry disappear now (so you cant see them exactly).

This would be a radical change, but does it not force the single player to act on what the actual units 'see'?

[ February 25, 2005, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[aka_tom_w]

We are not suggesting to let the AI "cheat" just maybe you could find a way to balance solo game play against the AI by letting the user choose to have the AI use a more "forgiving" Fog of War Setting like for instance playing aginst the AI when it was set to "Partial FOW"?

In this case the player would be choosing a more limiting FOW setting (MIA Ultra-EFOW) to somewhat "handicap" his much more clever human brain against the capable, but not so clever AI opponent.

Is this doable?

I wonder?

-tom w

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

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

[Wartgamer]

We are not suggesting to let the AI "cheat" just maybe you could find a way to balance solo game play against the AI by letting the user choose to have the AI use a more "forgiving" Fog of War Setting like for instance playing aginst the AI when it was set to "Partial FOW"?

This is my intent also. The AI needs some help.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

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

Will the graphical representation of the spotting be modified so that when the active unit is changed the targets that unit has spotted disappear and the targets the new active unit has spotted appear instead ?

Very good point. And whats to stop someone from just bouncing back to the first unit and making decisions based on his newly aquired knowledge of enemy dispositions?

One could have a touch-it-use-it rule. Once selected, you must finish any movement/fire/etc orders and move on.

But still, should the game decide which units you get to issue orders to first? Based on those with least intel being issued first? </font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

We are not suggesting to let the AI "cheat" just maybe you could find a way to balance solo game play against the AI by letting the user choose to have the AI use a more "forgiving" Fog of War Setting like for instance playing aginst the AI when it was set to "Partial FOW"?

This is my intent also. The AI needs some help.

We AGREE completely. On this issue.

-tom w

[Wartgamer]

I think Relative Spotting is such a driver that it will decide how 1:1 Representation will be included/excluded in the game. Its a core level design decision. Its a major abstraction remover.

Relative Spotting must decide on a unit level that this occurs at. If 1:1 single soldier is too small could 4-6 man fireteams/weapons systems be the next step up?

How often do you 'update' the units 'database'? This update is a major concern as it forces the system to crunch out the LOS attempts.

One saving grace is that units might NOT update IF they have a 'full' database. This is a nod to the fact that units will spot units closest to them (and to the front) and there is a limit to what can be 'observed'. Take for example a 4 man fireteam that has two full squads of enemy manuvering in front of them. They are exchanging fire. You think if a enemy tank 900 meters away breaks from cover briefly and moves into a ditch, that this will get into the units 'database'?

This brings up an odd effect. If all your units are 'involved' and saturated with targets, the game turns might crunch quicker!

[ February 24, 2005, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

I think Relative Spotting is such a driver that it will decide how 1:1 Representation will be included/excluded in the game. Its a core level design decision. Its a major abstraction remover.

Relative Spotting must decide on a unit level that this occurs at. If 1:1 single soldier is too small could 4-6 man fireteams/weapons systems be the next step up?

Sorry

I am not sure what you mean

Steve said 1:1 Representation WILL be in the game for SURE

and Relative Spotting (how ever it works or however it is modeled) WILL be in the game for sure.

BUT I suspect Fog of War settings may be the "in between" varible you may be overlooking, depending on how the player chooses to pick his Fog of War setting, what the new Relative Spotting paradigm may show the player with regard to enemy units represented on a 1:1 basis might change dramatically?

But I am just guessing about all this stuff like everyone else (except Steve ) here.

-tom w

[ February 24, 2005, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Wartgamer]

Yes I am guessing also. But you do not build the second floor bedroom without laying the foundation first.

But in my opinion, FOW is just a level of detail setting. Relative Spotting may be independant of it. So Spotting is spotting. What the exact details of being spotted (how many men, type of unit, etc) is dictated by FOW.

[Wartgamer]

One saving grace is that units might NOT update IF they have a 'full' database. This is a nod to the fact that units will spot units closest to them (and to the front) and there is a limit to what can be 'observed'. Take for example a 4 man fireteam that has two full squads of enemy manuvering in front of them. They are exchanging fire. You think if a enemy tank 900 meters away breaks from cover briefly and moves into a ditch, that this will get into the units 'database'?

Of course, the unit would still have to 'refresh' its database on the update to determine if it can still 'see' the enemy units already 'spotted'.

It would cycle through all its spotted units and if one 'falls-out', then it would have to start grinding through all enemy units to either fill the slot or just exhaust the search.

[ February 24, 2005, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[citizen]

I'm still hoping for a "Campaign FOW" setting that mega-campaign GMs can turn on that doesn't give away whether the battle is a meeting engagement or standard attacker/defender.

I want that entire lower left-hand box gone. I don't want to see flags. I don't want to see arrows showing who is attacking and who is dug in. I don't want to see the score. I kinda don't want to see Morale, as players should know when they are getting creamed.

Right now campaign players are given way too much free information in that little box.

-citizen

[Wartgamer]

Heres a small example:

Suppose we have a single 40 man platoon game. Each platoon has the following 'fireteams'..

4 man HQ section (1)

1st SQD

6 man Sgt Section (2)

6 man Cpl Section (3)

2nd SQD

6 man Sgt Section (4)

6 man Cpl Section (5)

3rd SQD

6 man Sgt Section (6)

6 man Cpl Section (7)

So 7 fireteams make up this platoon. Just for an example, we model each fireteam's database for each one by half the number of men in each actual fireteam (Just making this up). We give the HQ two extra to abstract its radio/commo/signal ability.

So we have 22 database spots right here. (There are seven databases correct? Each one at the fireteam level)

So even if all the databases were full of enemy spotted units, each spotting update would require 22 confirmations at least. If the update 'clock' was set to an update rate of 1 cycle per second, then the minimum would be 22 LOS checks/second.

Suppose the databases were empty, and we are facing a 40 man platoon of enemy based around 7 fireteams. If we are to take each potential spotter (fireteam) and try to spot each enemy fireteam, then we are looking at 49 spotting checks each cycle. In 60 seconds, thats 2940 spotting checks. Mind you, the game must also do the same for the enemy platoon.

Now if we were to try to spot fireteams to individual enemy soldiers, then the number goes up to 280 per second or 16800 per minute.

Obviously, this number gets huge if we are to try to do this 1:1 for each soldier/database.

[ February 24, 2005, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Wartgamer]

In the present system, theres some time saving measures that may not apply to the new system.

The simplest time saver in the present syetm is once a unit is fully spotted/revealed, do no more spotting attempts on him till the next cycle. This is because the present system is unit based and not databased. That is, being spotted is a characteristic of the unit itself. Once spotted, twice shy.

There will always be those units that are out of everyone LOS and the game must crunch through all possibilities I suppose.

A useless idea (yeah, I know try to control yourselves..) at this point would have been to assign each unit 'spotting chits'. Each successful spotting attempt under the present system would have taken away a chit from the spotter. The spotting would still be a target based system but infinite spotting attempts would have been curtailed.

[ February 24, 2005, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Wartgamer]

A real driver for all this is the Minimum Acceptible Turn Crunch Hour (MATCH).

Given a middle of the road machine and a middle of the road sized game; How long will people be willing to sit there for, while the game crunches numbers? 1 minute, 3 minutes More??

[ February 24, 2005, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[dalem]

Originally posted by JonS:

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

I have finally upgraded to 1.03 so I will try and convert your turn tonight sir.

Eh - no need. I've saved the 1.01 exe for just that reason. I'm playing games in both versions right now. </font>

[Wartgamer]

A. I foolishly did not as I thought I was the last guy on Earth to upgrade.

B. I, foolishly, did not; as I thought I was the last guy on Earth to upgrade.

C. I! foolishly? did not as, I! thought, I was? the last guy on Earth to upgrade?

D. I foolishly did, not as I thought, I was the last guy on Earth to upgrade.

I pick D

[ February 24, 2005, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[aka_tom_w]

Perhaps its time for a NEW fresh bone thread?

I think there is nothing left here to naw on!

-tom w