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

[Wartgamer]

Of course during the orders phase you will still get to see what each unit sees. But how to prevent the player greedy for info from clicking on every unit in the orders phase? Maybe limit the number of units you can give orders to in each phase, although this takes some control away. Will think about this more.

Please read the posts in the last few pages first.

This has been addressed and its a crucial point I am making. That is, the game will decide for you who to order first. The game does this by feeding you units from the just viewed HQBRMP that (pay close attention) have the least enemy intel first.

So you can't jump around and must decide what to do with your units working from the ones that have the worst overall picture to the best overall picture.

I am also actually altering the gameplay.

What I am proposing flows like this:

1. Watch Grand movie if reality setting allows this

2. Game jumps to HQ unit.

3. Watch HQBRMP from that unit. Replay as needed from different angles as needed.

4. Hit Done

5. Units under that HQs command are fed to player by game. Least intel units being ordered first

6. Finish all units under that HQ.

7. Game jumps to next HQBRMP

So you actually see movies, plan turns for subordinate units from that HQ, and then move on to another movie (if applicable).

[ March 01, 2005, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Wartgamer]

'Attacking' this ability to jump around, do LOS checks, inspect terrain, etc is probably like attacking Social Security. Its politically incorrect. But the main problem with 'God' behaviour is the actual human. The human will abuse any info to get to his goals.

The game has to channel the player through the information, forcing him to make decisions at certain levels, and feeding him information in the least corruptible manner as possible.

[Philippe]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

There is no "crossroads", as you call it, in the CMx2 design. In other words, there are no abstract concepts to force the player into doing prior to doing something else. Therefore, your suggestion (as is) isn't relative.

The reason for having individual unit viewpoints is because the player is still expected to issue commands to the individual units. If you deprive the player of knowledge that unit should have, then you are depriving the player of the ability to realistically make decisions for that unit. So, even in the Replay as HQ option the C&C quality would be ignored and all units under that HQ's command would be a part of the playback. Otherwise you will have far too many situations where the player is not getting feedback when he should from a realism standpoint.

All units have an HQ in CMx2, even if it is an ad hoc relationship. If a HQ is wiped out we can still pretend it is there for the sake of playback (i.e. the player clicks on a unit in A Company and sees A Company's playback even if HQ A Company is 100% KIA).

Steve

I sense a certain level of disconnect here. I'm not entirely sure I understand how the last few posts relate to this comment.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

'Attacking' this ability to jump around, do LOS checks, inspect terrain, etc is probably like attacking Social Security. Its politically incorrect. But the main problem with 'God' behaviour is the actual human. The human will abuse any info to get to his goals.

The game has to channel the player through the information, forcing him to make decisions at certain levels, and feeding him information in the least corruptible manner as possible.

Well you are right about this point:

"'Attacking' this ability to jump around, do LOS checks, inspect terrain, etc is probably like attacking Social Security. Its politically incorrect. "

I think the goal is admirable but the suggestion maybe too structured and too mechanistic.

I think ALMOST all idea's are good idea's if they are OPTIONS and if some portion of the game playing audience would enjoy that style of play. BUT I am not so sure there would be very many folks interested in playing the game this structured way where your order of play and order issuing is sequenced AND determined step by step by the game in this very linear way...... BUT I will admit it is perhaps one way to try to "maybe" solve some of the "Player is God" problems. (the other question of course on the minds of some players is WHY is the Player is God "problem" really a problem, it is JUST a game and I LIKE to play ALL the roles of ALL the units? JUST being the devil's advocate here.)

I am open minded to the idea that the game needs and actually will have some radical changes in it from CMBO but I am not sure what you are suggesting would be my favourite game play style FOW option. (BUT that is JUST me!)

I am Keen to hear more from Steve because I know he too has been thinking about these same issues and problems for at least the past few YEARS.

-tom w

[ March 01, 2005, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[DrD]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Of course during the orders phase you will still get to see what each unit sees. But how to prevent the player greedy for info from clicking on every unit in the orders phase? Maybe limit the number of units you can give orders to in each phase, although this takes some control away. Will think about this more.

Please read the posts in the last few pages first.

This has been addressed and its a crucial point I am making. That is, the game will decide for you who to order first. The game does this by feeding you units from the just viewed HQBRMP that (pay close attention) have the least enemy intel first.[snip]

Why the assumption I haven't read your posts? I am simply proposing a different idea, without commenting on what I think of your idea.

[Wartgamer]

The Goal is realism. I believe Andreas spoke up on this point.

And, yes, certainly Options/Options/Options. Its the mark of a good game design when the highest reality setting is played by just a minority. As it is now, I believe MOST people (a bad thing to say lately given the PBEM fiasco) play the game at the highest level of FOW?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

The Goal is realism. I believe Andreas spoke up on this point.

And, yes, certainly Options/Options/Options. Its the mark of a good game design when the highest reality setting is played by just a minority. As it is now, I believe MOST people (a bad thing to say lately given the PBEM fiasco) play the game at the highest level of FOW?

Realism is a REALLY hard thing to define when the GAME (at least as it origins were in CMx1 ) was/is all about the player a playing ALL the roles of ALL the units?

So, REALISM is really hard then to say we need more of, if the game is clearly NOT going to be a "command" game where you only get to play the role of the highest HQ. So maybe the challenge is to make the game fun while still letting the player play ALL the roles of all the units AND introduce Relative Spotting and some new C&C model and then let the player figure out which FOW realism options they want to play under...

(sorry I too am not really sure what my point was there...

Sorry I think I was just rambling....)

-tom w

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by DrD:

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

Of course during the orders phase you will still get to see what each unit sees. But how to prevent the player greedy for info from clicking on every unit in the orders phase? Maybe limit the number of units you can give orders to in each phase, although this takes some control away. Will think about this more.

Wartgamer: Please read the posts in the last few pages first.

This has been addressed and its a crucial point I am making. That is, the game will decide for you who to order first. The game does this by feeding you units from the just viewed HQBRMP that (pay close attention) have the least enemy intel first.[snip]

Why the assumption I haven't read your posts? I am simply proposing a different idea, without commenting on what I think of your idea. </font>

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

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

The Goal is realism. I believe Andreas spoke up on this point.

And, yes, certainly Options/Options/Options. Its the mark of a good game design when the highest reality setting is played by just a minority. As it is now, I believe MOST people (a bad thing to say lately given the PBEM fiasco) play the game at the highest level of FOW?

Realism is a REALLY hard thing to define when the GAME (at least as it origins were in CMx1 ) was/is all about the player a playing ALL the roles of ALL the units?

So, REALISM is really hard then to say we need more of, if the game is clearly NOT going to be a "command" game where you only get to play the role of the highest HQ. So maybe the challenge is to make the game fun while still letting the player play ALL the roles of all the units AND introduce Relative Spotting and some new C&C model and then let the player figure out which FOW realism options they want to play under...

(sorry I too am not really sure what my point was there...

Sorry I think I was just rambling....)

-tom w </font>

[DrD]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

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

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

Of course during the orders phase you will still get to see what each unit sees. But how to prevent the player greedy for info from clicking on every unit in the orders phase? Maybe limit the number of units you can give orders to in each phase, although this takes some control away. Will think about this more.

Wartgamer: Please read the posts in the last few pages first.

This has been addressed and its a crucial point I am making. That is, the game will decide for you who to order first. The game does this by feeding you units from the just viewed HQBRMP that (pay close attention) have the least enemy intel first.[snip]

Why the assumption I haven't read your posts? I am simply proposing a different idea, without commenting on what I think of your idea. </font>

[Wartgamer]

In its present form, CMx1 is only realistic at very small formation levels. At a single squad formation level, the FOW, relatively relative spotting, C&C, etc are realistic. If you bump this up to a scenario with a platoon, and keep the platoon in a tight overall formation, its still somewhat realsitic. But when you incorporate spread out companies and battalions, mixed armor/infantry forces; you rapidly fall off the reality meter.

In addition to the often discussed culprits like absolute spotting, God problems, there is also lack of modeled C&C decisions at a company/battalion level. This is what I am trying to model when I bring up the'Command-Crossroads' AFTER the HQRBMP and BEFORE actually issuing the orders to all the subordinate units of that HQ. It is NOT giving anyone direct orders. Its a command order that effects how the individual units react to the selected menu orders they are given. It also acts as a menu-limiter in that WHAT orders are seen in those little menus are a reflection of the command order.

Example. Just viewed HQRBMP movie. HQ C&C menu pops up. I choose Attack from list of options. Troops have assault/advance in most menus of all subordinate units under that HQ. Troops react quickly to these type of commands.

Its just a raw germ of an idea at this stage but I want the reader to think about its real world reflections. In a game that does model Comapies/battalions; How can you not interject this level of command into the game?

[Battlefront.com]

Wartgamer,

If the player can jump from unit to unit and playback the movie from all those units, then he will undo any benefit that relative spotting achieves.

I strongly disagree with this. The bulk of the benefits from Relative Spotting comes during resolution and also from the restrictions it places on the player's ability to issue target orders. It is also a prerequisite for CoPlay, once we introduce that feature.

What you're talking about is further restrictions to the God/Borg issue, which is separate from Relative Spotting (though obviously interrelated in some ways). As I've said many times before, there is no way to eliminate the God/Borg problem. There is also a point of diminishing returns where the game begins to suffer greatly for a relatively small amount of reduction of God/Borg.

But the main problem with 'God' behaviour is the actual human. The human will abuse any info to get to his goals.

In a vacuum, this is true and therefore is something we always consider. However, you have to look at the practical application of this theory before you can judge a feature's potential for abuse.

In CMx1 you can command up to a BN sized force. But let's downplay that to a reinforced company for this example. How many units does the player have under his control? Let us say 2 companies of mixed infantry, tanks, support weapons, etc. A conservative estimate on unit counts for such a force would be about 35 units.

Now... let us assume the player attempts to watch the turn playback from the perspective of each unit one time with the turn time being 1 minute and 10 seconds in between each viewing (finding unit, clicking on stuff, etc.). That is just over 40 minutes of viewing 1 minute of combat. No Orders, no nothing... just viewing. Let us assume that the player spends 20 minutes per turn, average, issuing Orders. Another 5 minutes for turn crunching and inefficiencies of player behavior... so that 25 minutes per turn. Assume the average game to be 30 turns long. Do the math... that's just over 30 hours to play one medium sized game! Assume the average person has 2-3 hours to spend every other day, we're now talking about nearly 3 weeks to complete a single player game. And if this goes up substantially if the player opts to look at playbacks from more than one perspective. Sheesh... with something like 40 scenarios for a game that would mean 2 and a quarter years just to play the premade scenarios!!

Anybody want to tell me that the average player is going to view the playback from each unit all the time, every time? Note that I did not mention things like turn timers and multi-player impatience that can completely eliminate this problem without us doing anything further.

Can you tell that I don't think viewing playback from a single unit perspective undermines the reduction of God/Borg powers?

Steve

[dalem]

Steve-

I like pepperoni and sausage.

-dale

[aka_tom_w]

Its just a raw germ of an idea at this stage but I want the reader to think about its real world reflections. In a game that does model Comapies/battalions; How can you not interject this level of command into the game?

um OK

But I still hoping Steve has some ideas for this one:

" In a game that does model Comapies/battalions; How can you not interject this level of command into the game?"

But so far we have not had much of a chance to fully understand all of his thoughts and ideas on this issue.

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Guys, I must remind you (again) that getting too low level with your ideas is not a good thing. No slight on anybody here, but you all know less about the overall game design than you know, and therefore intricate designs made by you are almost certainly a wasted effort since they aren't relevant. Stick to higher level concepts and then imagine how the influence game behavior. Avoid everything else for your own sake and the sake of your ideas. When I see a highly detailed "solution" I often can't figure out what the person thinks is being solved and therefore my eyes glaze over and I skip the post. There might be a nugget of something in the design, but it is simply lost because it is buried under a heap of stuff that isn't useful.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

YES to this!

Assume the average person has 2-3 hours to spend every other day,

This man know his target audience.

Now we all know kids and teenagers and Single folks and even folks that are married without kids have more time!!!

But for the average Married with Children wargame fanatic here (and I am one of them) 2-3 hours to play time every other day is a VERY VERY realistic estimate.

AND with THAT in mind I hope some game design decisions will let me (if I choose the appropriate FOW OPTIONS) play one FULL game againt the AI in 3-4 hours (1 or 2 hours worth of lost of sleep once or twice a week will be an acceptable cost for playing CMx2 I suspect! !!)

Thanks!

-tom w

[Wartgamer]

Just as on the battlefield there are 'Force' multipliers, in wargames, there are Reality Multipliers. That is the interelationship I see between things like introducing Relative Spotting, HQ_C&C, Unit_Order_Sequence (giving orders to units with least intel first), 1:1 Representation, etc. is one where each complements the other and the sum of the effects is greater overall than each seperately.

One badly modeled can undo some of the benefits of the others.

[DrD]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Guys, I must remind you (again) that getting too low level with your ideas is not a good thing. No slight on anybody here, but you all know less about the overall game design than you know, and therefore intricate designs made by you are almost certainly a wasted effort since they aren't relevant. Stick to higher level concepts and then imagine how the influence game behavior. Avoid everything else for your own sake and the sake of your ideas. When I see a highly detailed "solution" I often can't figure out what the person thinks is being solved and therefore my eyes glaze over and I skip the post. There might be a nugget of something in the design, but it is simply lost because it is buried under a heap of stuff that isn't useful.

Steve

Well, speaking for myself only, I post my ideas simply because I enjoy thinking about stuff that isn't my job (you know, all that death and disease stuff.) I have no expectations whatsoever that you will even read much less incorporate any of my ideas.

So for me it's no more of a wasted effort than a political discussion with someone who I know ahead of time won't change their mind, it's the means, not the end.

Anyway, my understanding so far is:

Problem: how to display relative spotting information during playback of movie while maintaining the FOW achieved through relative spotting?

solution 1: show each unit's info only when it is selected. Good for realism, bad for fun. Means alot of time is spent watching movie from different unit's views.

solution 2: show all known info at the same time. CLUTTER!

solution 3: show all info at the same time, but only "best" info. MAYBE too "God-like."

solution 4: combine 1 and 3 using C+C. HQ's have more of a god-like view depending on how much info they are getting from their subordinates. Simplest is to assume they see what all units in their C+C see, using "best info" concept from #3. Thus not really different from #1.

solution #5: as #4, but also adding a timer to the movie playback, so the player will not be able to watch every single unit's movie. Solves time problem.

Solution #6: The Wartgamer approach. Realisitic C+C with the order of orders based on how much a unit can see, and the player only seeing what these units can see when selected (thus the info is gradually dribbled to the player in the orders phase.) this prevents a player from moving units towards enemies they can't see since the player won't see them either. Most relaistic, seems to solve the god problem, but complicated and restrictive. (most players like to go through their units by geography, i.e. all units in this group by the house, then the units over hear in the field, etc.

If I have understood Steve's earlier posts he is leaning towards #4.

[DrD]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

YES to this!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Assume the average person has 2-3 hours to spend every other day,

This man know his target audience.

Now we all know kids and teenagers and Single folks and even folks that are married without kids have more time!!!

But for the average Married with Children wargame fanatic here (and I am one of them) 2-3 hours to play time every other day is a VERY VERY realistic estimate. {snip}

-tom w </font>

[Wartgamer]

Having lack-of-time-in-your-life as a reality driver will just make people with no obligations the best players out there. I respectfully find it not a good design hinge.

Many games utilize an accelerated playback feature. This saves time in games where not much is happening yet. Why not just unaccelerate time so that the playbacks are even slower and the unobligated lifeless player is even restricted (insert smiley face).

Hopefully you get the point.

Another 'low-level' problem is that all that unit relative data will need to stream back and forth. Perhaps nailing the coffin on PBEM games.

But having the player watch each each individual unit based relative movie and not forcing him to at LEAST order that unit after that movie given that info feed really shows that you are not grasping the fundamentals of what is being proposed here. And these are not low-level fundamentals. They are game wide reality impacts.

Why would you go and view all the movies and THEN come back and order the individual units? There is only one reason and effect. Thats to gamily abuse all that info.

[aka_tom_w]

this is VERY interesting

Lets look at #1. Relative Playback (Unit Based)

This one would appear to be the MOST realistic play back FOW option. (yes?)

does it mean as the God like player I REALLY need to see the play back from every unit. Heck NO!

I think All i might need is an Arty spotter on a hill with a good vantage somewhere, and a maybe 2 or three other KEY observers in critical places and I "should" be set! Why do I say this, as it is now I am guessing I don't look at the play back movie more that 2-3 times in CMx1 so 3 -4 GOOD perspectives of the battlefield "should" do it for me.

THEN in the orders phase everytime I click on a unit to give it orders I WILL see what it sees.

AT first I REALLY feared the need or suspect "desire" to want to use 1. Relative Playback (Unit Based) FOW but I absolutely DREADED the thought that I would NEED to see WHAT the movie would show me from the perspective of EVERYONE of my friendly units. BUT like Steve said "Look at the reality" of the situation, the player will not want to or need to see the play back movie over and over again FROM every units perspective, as many of them might in fact look ALMOST identical or at the very least be very repetitive.

I am now feeling pretty GOOD about these FOW play back options! Cheers to Steve I think this is going to be ONE GREAT game despite all Arm Chair General/Wargame Designer blathering and posturing and noise (what have you )

THANKS STEVE!!!

Keep up the Good Work!

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Taking Jon's suggested options list as a starting point, here are the pros/cons of each:

1) Relative playback - when you click on a unit you only see what that unit sees. Since players aren't likely to watch the playback dozens of times to get the perspective of each unit they are instead likely to watch from a few key vantage points. When the Orders Phase comes around again they'll make decisions based on incomplete information. That is the pro and the con.

2) Full Playback c/w Spooks - you see all the action from all unit's perspectives simultaneously. Pro is that you get a ton of information in one go. Con is you get a ton of information in one go AND quite a lot of it is conflicting, thereby being very confusing.

3) Full Playback with Single Marker Using Best Info (ie no spooks). - you get a subset and more refined version of #2, missing the elements that will cause consternation more often than not. That is the pro. The con is that you are now looking at the whole battlefield in its entirety (undermines #1's pro) with better refined information (undermines #2's pro). So, while on the whole it is the least realistic of the three, it is also likely the most "enjoyable" because the player gets to experience the whole battle as a passive, God like observer (the latter bit is the obvious reason for the reduction in realism).

The suggestion of combining #1 with #3, centered around an HQ, is an interesting suggestion since it fits sorta inbetween the two extremes. It is also something I've already thought of I was thinking of this for CoPlay (Co-Op Play) in the sense that #3 would be limited to your own force and not those of other players. However, there is no reason why this behavior couldn't also be allowed for single player (i.e. one player per side) forces.

So.... how about this?

1. Relative Playback (Unit Based)

2. Relative Playback (HQ Based)

3. Relative Playback (Force Based)

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by DrD:

But stop and think about it.

Solution #1 is not so bad, you can look at the Movie play back FROM any friendly unit's perspective!

You may only need 2 -3 friendly units in the RIGHT place to make this work PERFECTLY. Usually there is an arty spotter on a hill some where that can see EVERYTHING (on a good day) and you might put a company or battalion HQ in another PRIME viewing spot.

Maybe you might need to see the play back from ONE Squad HQ, after that all the rest of the play back movie's might fact be quite repetitive and mostly reveal the SAME spotting intel you, as the player, had ALREADY figured out from the perspective of the Arty Spotter and the Battalion HQ perched in PRIME viewing spots to see what is going on!

I don't think this one has as many cons as might first be suspected. I think you might only need 2-3 REALLY good vantage spots to view the battlefield and you should be set. OK maybe a few more in a Big battle but I would think many of these individual unit Relative Spotting movie's would start to become VERY repetitive at some point

-tom w

[ March 01, 2005, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Many games utilize an accelerated playback feature. This saves time in games where not much is happening yet. Why not just unaccelerate time so that the playbacks are even slower and the unobligated lifeless player is even restricted (insert smiley face).

OK!

I like that one

I HOPE this nugget REGISTERS with Steve....

Speed up the playback!!

YES yes yes..... !!!!!

There should be a "speed watching" setting to let us see the playback a double time or 4 times as fast!

Please make this one work.

Some folks might like Slow motion replay but I would really like to see at the very least a double speed play back so that a one minute turn could take 30 sec or EVEN 4 times and it would take just 15 seconds!! NOW that would be a GREAT and welcomed feature for all players with VERY little free time to play!

That is the BEST I idea I have read so far this week on this forum!

-tom w

[Wartgamer]

For very small games, like a platoon vs platoon type vignette; I would want unit based relative movie playbacks. But there is a very good reason for this, its a small venue. There is no company/Battalion C&C considerations. Intel at this level could be shared and not gamily abused.

But even still, if I sent a squad around a flank and he was so much as pinned, his relative movie playback would be 'scrogged' and a realistic detriment.

And again, If I viewed a units relative movie, it should be given orders right after and those orders are not editable till the next turn.

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

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

Many games utilize an accelerated playback feature. This saves time in games where not much is happening yet. Why not just unaccelerate time so that the playbacks are even slower and the unobligated lifeless player is even restricted (insert smiley face).

OK!

I like that one

I HOPE this nugget REGISTERS with Steve....

Speed up the playback!!

YES yes yes..... !!!!!

There should be a "speed watching" setting to let us see the playback a double time or 4 times as fast!

Please make this one work.

Some folks might like Slow motion replay but I would really like to see at the very least a double speed play back so that a one minute turn could take 30 sec or EVEN 4 times and it would take just 15 seconds!! NOW that would be a GREAT and welcomed feature for all players with VERY little free time to play!

That is the BEST I idea I have read so far this week on this forum!

-tom w </font>