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

[JonS]

Originally posted by dalem:

In CMx1 terms, I suggested that the initial 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.

Oddly enough, I was thinking something similar (are you my long lost, illegitimate, half-wit brother, or sumfink?) in response to the recent discussion around withdrawing units in the midst of a CMx2 battle. Now, if that (withdrawing units) makes sense, then it seems to me that it also makes sense that units which start on the map may not be useful, or usable, for some time, or until certain things happen. You see this kind of functionality fairly often in operational level games - the simplest case being "unit x cannot move until an enemy unit moves within y hexes". I've been having an internal debate over whether it makes sense in a tactical level game. What I keep coming back to is - well, not all the time, but sometimes, yes sure, but probably only in larger scenarios.

Jon

[Andreas]

Why does that remind me of von Lucke's story of having to convince at gunpoint the commander of the 88 battery near Caen of the beneficial nature that shooting at tanks might have?

[aka_tom_w]

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

And what about during movie playback, what shows then ????

NOW this is a HUGE question. WHAT the heck does show during play back???

The totality of all real and imagined spottings of all units?? :confused:

Who amongst has considered what the play back will, might or should reveal to the player using the new Relative Spotting game code in CMx2??? :confused:

Up until this question I was almost completely comfortable with everything Steve was telling us about FOW and Relative Spotting and the new C&C model and all the new changes in CMx2.

BUT Now ...what the heck does the play back actually show the player????

-tom w

Originally posted by jeffsmith:

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

[Battlefront.com]

Dale, you can't say "I told you so" yet I still have my doubts about the identity. Lewis can't go more than 2 or 3 posts without melting down, like CommonSense, so that is my major reason for thinking I'm going to win the bet. Yet there is still there is an oddly familiar ring. Probably someone else we all know.

Jon, of course when you select no friendly units you won't see any enemies. I'm not sure how it could be done otherwise since spotting is always relative to the selected unit. No selection, nothing to be relative to

As for the concept of locking certain units into their own sectors. This is tricky for a number of reasons, so we aren't likely to do much with it. One of the things you have to keep in mind is that the senior commander of a force usually (not always) had the ability to move assets around as he saw fit. At least ones directly under his control. But it is harder to redeploy stuff in real life than in CMx1. There are some reasons for this...

The Absolute Spotting system (yes, THAT again ) creates less uncertainty, and therefore less disincentive to moving units around radically. In real life you have three companies abreast at the beginning of an op, for example, for a reason... to cover your butt all along the line. In CMx1 there comes a time when you are pretty sure you know where all the enemy is that is worth knowing about, and can therefore change your plans accordingly. That won't be as easy to do in CMx2. Plus, the certainty that moving x unit to y location so it can fire at z enemy unit is also not certain since Relative Spotting removes this assured behavior. Lastly, C&C rules in CMx2 will make things, in general, harder to coordinate.

All the above does, however, depend on the way the player chooses to play the game. Least realistic settings will mean more flexibility, most realistic even more restrictions than I've mentioned.

Playback is an interesting aspect of Relative Spotting. We want to restrict the player from seeing anything in the Movie that he wouldn't know during the game. However, some players might not like the full implications of this, so we will likely allow some options. The first option is that he sees all enemy units as if he is looking at all his units at once (i.e. from the relative position of each friendly unit all at once).

When there is conflicting information, like two different units spotting the same enemy unit in two spots, the more accurate spotting is the one that gets displayed by default. If you clicked on the friendly unit that had the poorer viewpoint, then you would indeed still see the more wrong position for that enemy unit.

Again, this will be up to player choice. The more realistic minded players will not want to have the über view because it reintroduces some of the God and Borg aspects which Relative Spotting works to undercut during the Orders Phase.

Steve

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

When there is conflicting information, like two different units spotting the same enemy unit in two spots, the more accurate spotting is the one that gets displayed by default. If you clicked on the friendly unit that had the poorer viewpoint, then you would indeed still see the more wrong position for that enemy unit.

Why not add to the uncertainty by displaying both reported positions? I would think that two different squads reporting the same tank, but using two different reference points, could easily result in the mistaken belief that two different tanks had been spotted. For example, a squad could report seeing a Panther tank about 100 yards down the road from them. A second squad could report the same tank as being just to the west of a farmhouse. Anyone getting both these reports would have to initially question whether there are one or two tanks in the vicinity.

[ February 27, 2005, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: Ace Pilot ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Playback is an interesting aspect of Relative Spotting. We want to restrict the player from seeing anything in the Movie that he wouldn't know during the game. However, some players might not like the full implications of this, so we will likely allow some options. The first option is that he sees all enemy units as if he is looking at all his units at once (i.e. from the relative position of each friendly unit all at once).

Steve

WOW!!

I think we would all like to hear a lot more about all of this will work.

The Play back options will be a BIG factor in how far you can go with eliminating the God Problem and the borg spotting problem.

I am left wondering exactly what the Player will get to see in the play back for the MOST realistic Fog of War play back setting?

And how would this be determined?

I am hoping this does not include the suggestion that the play back movie could be played back revealing differing spotting intel from each DIFFERENT spotting perspective of each friendly unit. I say that because that sounds cumbersome and does not sound like much fun from a "game play" point of view. IMO

So what other options are there?

The "What does the Player see in the movie play back?" question is a BIG one for me because until today I had not given it much thought. I am however confident Steve et. al. has been thinking about it for quite some time and I hope they will include various play back options that will keep EVERYBODY (or almost everybody) happy !

thanks

-tom w

[ February 27, 2005, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Hi Ace Pilot

Steve indicated there would be range of FOW options for the playback so I am wondering if your suggestion would not be something we should expect to see in the MOST realistic FOW play back setting, because I think Steve may have mentioned a FOW back option that was refering to how they might impliment one of the least realistic play back FOW options.

BUT I am just guessing here.

-tom w

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

When there is conflicting information, like two different units spotting the same enemy unit in two spots, the more accurate spotting is the one that gets displayed by default. If you clicked on the friendly unit that had the poorer viewpoint, then you would indeed still see the more wrong position for that enemy unit.

Why not add to the uncertainty by displaying both reported positions? I would think that two different squads reporting the same tank, but using two different reference points, could easily result in the mistaken belief that two different tanks had been spotted. For example, a squad could report seeing a Panther tank about 100 yards down the road from them. A second squad could report the same tank as being just to the west of a farmhouse. Anyone getting both these reports would have to initially question whether there are one or two tanks in the vicinity. </font>

[Wartgamer]

So a PBEM player (assuming there is PBEM), would want to watch the movie from each unit's perspective? I say 'want to watch' for the obvious reason that he can logically determine 'God' type info from the individual relative info.

I can't see how anyone could really comprehend/enjoy the game otherwise.

How does this effect TCP/IP play? Does it force a player to try to 'watch' the movie from only several perspectives?

Perhaps an abstraction could be an 'Absolute' combination of all HQ units relative spotting combined. This would include 'passed' info from other units with a resulting loss of detail.

Another alternative is to 'force-view' the units. It works like this:

1. Pick unit (or game selects unit for you)

2. Movie plays from his perspective (a time accelerator would help here so maybe the movie is seen in 'fast' time)

3. Unit must now be given orders.

4. Next unit is chosen by player or force fed him by game. Movie plays from his perspective, orders then issued.

5. No going back and editting units orders.

[Wartgamer]

I have brought this up before, the idea that the game selects the unit it wants you to 'order'. The game determines who knows least and you are forced to order that unit first. The implication is that least intel units can not share from 'max' intel units.

Having this done by a Formation by Formation process might stop the 'jump-around' that might occur. So all the jump-around is within a company lets say. Once that Company is finished, then the next company (or tank platoon, etc) starts.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

So a PBEM player (assuming there is PBEM), would want to watch the movie from each unit's perspective? I say 'want to watch' for the obvious reason that he can logically determine 'God' type info from the individual relative info.

I am left wondering how many players (ESPECIALLY those new to the NEW CMx2 game) would be interested in watching the play back movie MANY different times over FROM the unique spotting perspective of EACH FRIENDLY unit?

I think my expectations of Realistic Fog of War options are pretty hard core, I but I have no interest in watching the movie play back over and over again from the spotting perspective of EACH friendly unit. (but if its an option I guess some folks might be interested in that kind of "challenge" and call it "fun" )

-tom w

[Wartgamer]

This concept can also model the concept of reserves nicely.

A formation, lets say a tank destroyer platoon, is designated a Reserve.

It will then be the last formation that will be given orders. It therefore benefits from the overall Command Intel that the player has accumulated . This is the natural memory the player will have by the end of the Formation by Formation orders process.

[Wartgamer]

The idea of a unit perspective movie that is based on that unit's relative spotting could include not only enemy units but also just the friendlies that unit can see. This adds more fun (depends on what you call fun I suppose).

I see the cmx2 movie to be some sort of macro viewing intially and then many microviewings. In some cases, like a tank battle in open terrain, a macro view could be sufficient that the microviews may be watched superquick or even skipped over.

[Wartgamer]

I think my expectations of Realistic Fog of War options are pretty hard core, I but I have no interest in watching the movie play back over and over again from the spotting perspective of EACH friendly unit. (but if its an option I guess some folks might be interested in that kind of "challenge" and call it "fun" )

-tom w

I suppose that there is also Relative FOW. That is, just as there is Relative Spotting, there is Relative FOW from the unit's perspective.

The game must have some macroview, so that if there is PBEM, a person can view the movie and turn it around to the sender if its not an 'orders' turn. The FOW in this macroview might be some accumulation of info or best left generic.

But I think the heart of it is the microview at the unit's perspective. That is the heart of the improvement.

[ February 27, 2005, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Wartgamer]

I wonder if this need for microviews will make PBEM files impossibly large? That is, is there a need for an individual movie for each units turn perspective? The movie tracks what the individual unit sees in each timeslice.

[ February 27, 2005, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[kipanderson]

Steve, hi,

Ok, just to check I have got this right…. am not being too thick, just normally thick

“Jon, of course when you select no friendly units you won't see any enemies. I'm not sure how it could be done otherwise since spotting is always relative to the selected unit. No selection, nothing to be relative to ”

The above is in the Orders Phase… yes?

Then during the live movie phase, if the player wished, he could see all, that “all” of his units can see. But enemy units will only be identified to the extent that one of his units can identify a given enemy unit in its own right.

If I have got it right, then all sounds great

It is interesting how different people have very different ideas about realism. For my part I am very happy with the idea that in CM one plays the role of all the squad and individual AFV commanders. For me, that is what CM is. Hence one can see all that the squad and individual AFV commanders can see. My view is that the “only” realistic way to play a game of this scale is in live team play, CoPlay. The more players on each side, the smaller the number of units each player commands, the more realistic the game.

I can tell from the above posts that this view is far from universal. When playing as one player on each side.. you are playing God, so just relax and enjoy it But I am still a huge fan of Relative Spotting, each unit doing its own spotting for Targeting and such.

No matter… all adds to the fun. We are all different.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. CM is a squad game, no point in pretending otherwise, in my view. But if BFC wished to develop a platoon or company game… even better a game in which the manoeuvre units are battalions, then go for it. Change is good. But I will always hope that now and then there is a return to the current CM/squad scale… as it is my number one favourite. The fact that Squad Leader, and even more so CM, are the number one wargames of all time is in part, due to scale, in my view. And, of course, the stunning quality of execution.

[Tero]

One work around could be to assign human player with dedicated "initial" unit (not necessarily a command unit since there is no fixed force structure the player preferences may end up the force being comprised of exclusively non-command units) through which eyes the play back would be seen through.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Jon, of course when you select no friendly units you won't see any enemies. I'm not sure how it could be done otherwise since spotting is always relative to the selected unit. No selection, nothing to be relative to

I think you got your wires crossed somewhere. I was only referring to playback.

Playback is an interesting aspect of Relative Spotting. We want to restrict the player from seeing anything in the Movie that he wouldn't know during the game.

Well, duh! Who said anything about 'bonus' information? Also, I thought the playback was part of the game :confused:

However, some players might not like the full implications of this, so we will likely allow some options. The first option is that he sees all enemy units as if he is looking at all his units at once (i.e. from the relative position of each friendly unit all at once).

Which is waht we have now, and would avoid having to watch the movie once through for each unit. Less realistic? Possibly. Less frustrating and time wasting? yep.

When there is conflicting information, like two different units spotting the same enemy unit in two spots, the more accurate spotting is the one that gets displayed by default.

As Ace Pilot said, why not just display both? Otherwise you are giving away FOW info: select none - enemy units and spooks displayed. Select a unit - spooks disappear.

Again, this will be up to player choice. The more realistic minded players will not want to have the über view because it reintroduces some of the God and Borg aspects which Relative Spotting works to undercut during the Orders Phase.

lol. And, erm, players with a time budget. Computers are supposed to reduce work. The Composite View (CV, i.e., a composite of what all your units are seeing displayed at the same time) could be acheived by playing the movie back umpteen times, or it could just be displayed if no unit is selected. The same info is available either way, it's just less frustrating with one of them.

Jon

[ February 27, 2005, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[aka_tom_w]

Every new feature in CMx2 should pass the "cumbersome" test IMHO

The idea that the movie play back would somehow provide a "more realistic" playing experience if the player was required to view the movie play back from the perspective of EACH individual friendly unit seems to me to be NOTHING more than a cumbersome mechanism to WASTE THE PLAYER'S time. However, if it was optional I suppose some players might interested.

Please don't forget the "cumbersome" test for clunky User Interface mechanisms or design elements.

thanks

-tom w

[JonS]

You forgot to quote someones post in full. Twice.

[Wartgamer]

I am not sure that the playback movie can be watched from just the unit's perspective like I thought. It seems the designer is saying that you will be presented with a single playback movie of varying degrees of accumulated info (depends on a reality setting selected before play) and that's it. During the orders phase, when you select a friendly unit, its perspective will be presented and you will issue orders from viewing that info.

Or maybe not?

The problem would seem to be that the game would have to keep a track (database) of what the single unit sees during the whole turn. This is sort of a chronology of events that 'click' during the turn. If the playback movie could just display what and when the unit sees the enemy, I suppose that it is possible to have a playback movie from a relative spotting perspective?

[ February 27, 2005, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

It seems the designer is saying that you will be presented with a single playback movie of varying degrees of accumulated [spotting] info (depends on a reality setting selected before play) and that's it.

In the history and tradition of BFC and the Combat Mission series that summary (above) of what Wartgamer suggests Steve is proposing would make the most sense to me.

-tom w

[Wartgamer]

I added to that post

[aka_tom_w]

"The problem would seem to be that the game would have to keep a track (database) of what the single unit sees during the whole turn."

I am not sure that will be a problem because we have been told the CMx2 code will include unit "memory" AND Relative Spotting so that does not sound like much of a problem to me unless I don't understand what you are trying to get at?

-tom w

[Wartgamer]

Depends on how the game develops the movie. As it is now, its a fixed file. As the game ticks each time unit (lets say its a second increment), the game 'develops' the movie. It just needs to know if units have been spotted for each time increment. It doesnt care who spotted what and 'forgets' this info. It develops this info fresh for the next time increment.

But with relative spotting, you must have a spotter based 'database' and wether you memorize that constantly changing database or not determines if you can do relative spotting playback. You may just keep the last developed database for each unit (for the orders phase) and toss the other 59 out.

[Andreas]

There is no such thing as the cumbersome test. If there were, we would have a magic eye to figure out LOS in CM now.

There is a fine line to be walked, between making the game playable, and making it realistic. BFC want to add to realism, and they have come down firmly on that side when the LOS tool issue was raised. Too firm for many players who would prefer such a tool.

The same happened with infantry modelling between CMBO and CMBB. There is no doubt that the new infantry modelling in CMBB would have failed any imaginary 'cumbersome test'.

So, don't invent 'tests' that never existed, even when you think you are just talking about the interface - that is clearly not the case with what units and the commander can see. It is not an interface issue, but a core modelling question. The concern that Jon raises is a valid one - and BFC have acknowledged that concern in the past, AFAICR.

Instead it would be an interesting discussion on how far realism can be pushed, both in terms of technology, and in terms of customer satisfaction. There maybe* diminishing returns from some point (witness the PBEM discussion), and at some point these may well turn negative (if it was technologically feasible, would you like to have olfactory sensations?).

*It may of course also be the case that while some customer groups are dissatisfied, including radically different features would open up whole new customer groups that never before would have thought of buying CM games. Even while staying true to realism, i.e. not by selling out to the RTS space lobster crowd.