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

[Wartgamer]

Do you understand the implications of Relative Spotting?

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Perhaps its time for a NEW fresh bone thread?

I think there is nothing left here to naw on!

-tom w

Not sure what's being shown in these 'bones' threads are really 'bones'. They are sort of preliminary design goals.

Many developmental and coding considerations could radically change/delete/obsolete them. I would hope that 'Must-Haves' do not clash and major improvements outweigh 'Neato-ideas'.

[DrD]

"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?"

This is the "Player is God" problem and Steve is clear that there is NOT much they can do about this issue.

-tom w

It has been hinted that "false spotting" might play a role. Not only will units give false reports, but they may spot units off their true positions or even spot units that aren't there. This makes much more risky for the player to move units based on a spotting report from just 1 or 2 units, and will help decrease this problem.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Do you understand the implications of Relative Spotting?

Relative Spotting has been discussed to death since before the dawn of CMBO (almost)

this is a page from a 9 page thread with OVER 200 posts

Relative Spotting Revisited

"Big Time Software

unregistered

posted April 26, 2002 11:51 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't" 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 "

[ February 25, 2005, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Wartgamer]

And that cut and paste does not have much to do with Relative Spotting.

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by DrD:

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

"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?"

This is the "Player is God" problem and Steve is clear that there is NOT much they can do about this issue.

-tom w

It has been hinted that "false spotting" might play a role. Not only will units give false reports, but they may spot units off their true positions or even spot units that aren't there. This makes much more risky for the player to move units based on a spotting report from just 1 or 2 units, and will help decrease this problem. </font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

And that cut and paste does not have much to do with Relative Spotting.

sorry

I found this quote and ressurected it in the "What is Relative Spotting Thread"

"quote:

from December 27, 2000 05:34 PM (its in the CMBO Archive here )

What is the best way to let the player know what a given unit has spotted or not?

quote:

Steve Says:

This is the single biggest problem. And unless we come up with a workable solution, Relative spotting will kill the fun of playing. So needless to say we will pay a great amount of attention to this aspect of the system

Our rough concept is to utilize 3D video card graphics features. Say... you click on a unit and all non-spotted units get darker or transparent. Something like that.

Steve'

[Wartgamer]

I vote varying degrees of transparency.

[Wartgamer]

This also brings up more 1:1 questions.

Will the whole concept of Spotting/Information be revamped?

Will there be partial spotting? Several enemy 1:1 soldiers of an enemy 'unit' displayed yet surrounded by many 'spooks'?

A quick example would be a 2 man LMG suddenly opening up. The game routines display a slew of soldiers, all spooks initially. If the gun continues to fire, perhaps one or two more definite flashes/soldiers are displayed. As the turn continues, less spooks are seen and a more definite firing point appears. Unless the LMG was in a position with no concealment at all (foxhole in the open lets say), the actual "I see a LMG" is never realized.

Note: I would like to see more 'shoot'n'scoot' type infantry commands to model infantry not blasting away for a whole 'turn'. IRL, you will displace and get to alternate firing positions (or be suppressed) and the information outpour ceases.

[ February 25, 2005, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[DrD]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

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

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

"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?"

This is the "Player is God" problem and Steve is clear that there is NOT much they can do about this issue.

-tom w

It has been hinted that "false spotting" might play a role. Not only will units give false reports, but they may spot units off their true positions or even spot units that aren't there. This makes much more risky for the player to move units based on a spotting report from just 1 or 2 units, and will help decrease this problem. </font>

[citizen]

Another FOW consideration: When a unit leaves positive sighting, it leaves behind a marker. That's fine.

What's not fine is that when that unit shows itself 17 minutes later to a different unit 1000m away, the old marker automatically disappears, so your your opponent knows with absolute, 100% infallible certainty that it's the same unit.

There should be a 10% chance of a marker staying on the field, even when that unit has been re-sighted.

[Battlefront.com]

As I said earlier, transparancy levels is a poor way to display spotting information. Yes, I know... sounds great in theory, but it would be a big flop in reality. Don't believe me? I don't care

Spotting rules in CMx2 are not going to be like spotting rules in CMx1. More variability, more uncertainty, and of course more realism in terms of who can spot what.

Reminder that there is a chance of misidentifying unit types in CMx1 already. A halftrack might turn out to be an armored car or even a light tank. A HMG team might turn out to be a Squad. Not as much as we would like, perhaps, but the basics are already in CMx1.

As for markers being left behind... think Relative Spotting! If one unit spots a unit and the last known location is in a house, the marker stays on that house. Another unit comes and looks at that house, but has no knowledge of the enemy unit, there won't be a marker there at all. But if the second friendly unit spots the same enemy unit someplace else, then a marker goes on that location. If there is no communication between the two friendly units then there will be TWO markers for that one unit. The first thinks the unit is in the house, the second knows it is someplace else.

Steve

[Wartgamer]

You keep saying 'Spotting' and 'Units'. But a big question is how does 1:1 play into spotting/FOW?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

If there is no communication between the two friendly units then there will be TWO markers for that one unit. The first thinks the unit is in the house, the second knows it is someplace else.

That is good and proper. But how will this be represented to the Player Almighty ? How will it play out if both units in guestion are in CC as opposed to either or both of them are out of CC ?

[Wartgamer]

As for markers being left behind... think Relative Spotting! If one unit spots a unit and the last known location is in a house, the marker stays on that house. Another unit comes and looks at that house, but has no knowledge of the enemy unit, there won't be a marker there at all. But if the second friendly unit spots the same enemy unit someplace else, then a marker goes on that location. If there is no communication between the two friendly units then there will be TWO markers for that one unit. The first thinks the unit is in the house, the second knows it is someplace else.

This has implications to the spotter based 'database' that Relative Spotting seems to imply.

You are implying that each 'units' spotter database will also include 'spooks' as well as actual spotted units.

How big will each 'units' database be?

[Battlefront.com]

I've said earlier that I am not going to speculate on how we are going to get around the inability to do 1:1 spotting. Period. It is not the right time for that since whatever design we go with will be highly influenced by technological limitations, not creative limiations.

Tero, I explained this earlier. It is really straight forward. You click on one unit and it shows what it can see. You click on another unit and it shows what it can see. The two may or may not overlap, they may or may not be in conflict with each other. The less C&C contact, the less those two units will likely have in common with each other. Circumstances are, of course, very important so there is no one right answer.

Wartgamer, your questions are too low level and not relevant to what the player needs to know. It is also something I can't answer since we haven't coded it at this point. Nothing good every comes when lay people try to get this low level. Never. Focus on behavior questions and the rest will follow.

Steve

[dalem]

Steve-

Are you considering developing a way for a scenario designer to assign areas of responsibility to units such that it is "easier" for them to get things done in their area and "harder" outside of it? Or is this the kind of conceptual thing that will be taken care of by other elements of the CMx2 design?

-dale

[ February 26, 2005, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: dalem ]

[Wartgamer]

Yes they are relevant to what a coder would need to know if a designer (who was not a coder) suggested these 'design' ideas.

My point is that you that you think about them before you start coding. Thats systems engineering.

AS far as a game like cmx2, everyone is a lay person to a degree. IT hasnt been done before.

And yes I have coded.

[Battlefront.com]

Dale, not sure what you're asking about.

Wartgamer, you're starting in again. Specifically, mistaking what you know for what you think you know. I say you're wasting your time and distracting the discussion. Since I know what I'm talking about, and you don't... I'd say my opinion means more

BTW... Dale... I might want to back out of that bet. I smell a story about bulldozer AI coming up to prove how little I know.

Steve

[Wartgamer]

Is there a link to a translator for Combat MIssion Speak?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Tero, I explained this earlier. It is really straight forward. You click on one unit and it shows what it can see. You click on another unit and it shows what it can see. The two may or may not overlap, they may or may not be in conflict with each other. The less C&C contact, the less those two units will likely have in common with each other. Circumstances are, of course, very important so there is no one right answer.

OK. One guestion though: no unit clicked, nothing showing ?

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Tero, I explained this earlier. It is really straight forward. You click on one unit and it shows what it can see. You click on another unit and it shows what it can see. The two may or may not overlap, they may or may not be in conflict with each other. The less C&C contact, the less those two units will likely have in common with each other. Circumstances are, of course, very important so there is no one right answer.

OK. One guestion though: no unit clicked, nothing showing ?

and what about during movie playback,

what shows then ?

[JonS]

Originally posted by jeffsmith:

what about during movie playback, what shows then?

a) Any enemy unit that can be seen by at least one friendly unit (which is essentialy what we have now)?

Any enemy unit that can be seen by all friendly units (which essentially would be nothing)?

c) Any enemy unit that can be seen by the currently selected friendly unit?

A combination of a) (when nothing - or an enemy unit - is selected) and c) (when a friendly is selected) would seem most useful. If too much is chopped out during the movie, a good part of the entertainment value would be lost. A hardcore FOW option might be a combination of and c) though.

Here's a thought - what shows when an enemy unit is selected during the orders phase? How about an option for only those friendly units that can see it (and have self-detected it, presumably)?

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dale, not sure what you're asking about.

I think what he's getting at is a way of setting, and then enforcing unit boundaries, phase lines, and the like. For example, during setup (or scen design) you might specify that I Bn will operate "south of the road", while II Bn has "north of the road and east of Pt 117", with these respective areas painted out in a manner similar to setup zones in CMx1.

During play each bn would operate normally within it's assigned Area of Operations, but if need be it could move outside it's boundaries. However, when it does leave its AO, things become "harder". Longer orders delays is the most obvious example that springs to mind, and would reflect the additional liaison and co-ordination required when moving into or through someone else's part of the battlefield. This scheme probably wouldn't make a lot of sense below company level, but from that point up in the food chain it certainly does.

The "harder" stuff could be mitigated by, for example, a functioning link between the top level commander and the COs of I and II Bns. Or maybe not.

Erm, is that the gist of it Dale?

Jon

[dalem]

Originally posted by JonS:

Erm, is that the gist of it Dale?

Jon

Pretty much. I once phrased it suchly in an email to Moon or Kwazy, many moons ago:

Now I know this is all in CMx1-ese, but that's my only reference point for now. Anyway...

Say I am defending a simple crossroads from an attack from the East, and say I have a generic rifle company. My understanding of Real Life is that I might give the following orders:

"1st Platoon, cover the left (north) side of the road, 2nd Platoon, cover the right (south) side. 3rd Platoon, stay back near the whatsis and watch my position for signals - you're the reserve." Or something like that.

Now, currently in CMx1 I can put that in a scenario briefing, lock the platoons in their start positions, and that's it. Once the defender starts, he is free to immediately move any element anywhere in response to anything, but in RL, there would be clear reasons for not doing that, not the least of which are everyone's orders within the battleplan.

Now clearly a silly move or overreaction will most probably hurt the defender, but it doesn't reflect the initial difficulty of, say, 1st Platoon's bazooka team to immediately react to vehicle activity in 2nd platoon's "sector".

In CMx1 terms, I suggested that the intial start areas be set just like setup areas, and platoons that start within them cannot move outside of them. This restriction could be relaxed over the course of the battle to represent the gradual acquisition of intel from the whole battlefield, changes of orders, runners, etc. Say the first 10 turns, 1st platoon is limited to all tiles North of the road, the second 10 turns the movement area expands by a tile in each direction each turn, the last 10 turns it's completely free.

Now clearly that's a very clumsy mechanism based on CMx1 thinking and modeling, the concept is of arguable utility, and perhaps flatly impossible to code up due to memory or any other of a thousand issues anyway.

But I think it would be kinda neat to have as an option.

Knowing essentially nothing about CMx2, the new goal for non-Borg spotting, or anything related, I don't even know if the question makes sense. But I think there's a whole class of "battlefield friction" issues that maybe the concept could be a part of.

And Steve, I am not the sort of guy who likes to say "I told you so."

I LOVE to say "I told you so."

-dale