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

[Battlefront.com]

Wartgamer,

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

Absolutely. But don't assume that your solution isn't one of the things that can undo some benefits of the others. The God/Borg can not be defeated... attempting to do this, without keeping in mind diminishing returns (in all its forms), will harm the game itself. Probably in excess of whatever it sought to solve and likely in areas that the original problem didn't manifest itself in.

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.

Too simplistic. Yes, in general the people that play the game more will be better players than those who play less, but it is only a generalization since some people that play all the time still suck. They just suck less than they would if they played the game only a little bit

Don't confuse being a better player with being a better player through gamey tricks. Take away the tricks, and the player most likely reverts to being what he truly is... someone who uses tricks to win and not skill. We've seen this since day one and what you're talking about in terms of replaying the movie is no different. Take that away from them, either for practical reasons or game options, then there is no benefit they can get form it. Period.

Hopefully you get the point.

I do. Apparently better than you do, in fact. You pointed to an idea I came up with and said how it could be abused. I showed, using hard numbers, that in order to abuse it you'd have to be insane. And since insane people don't tend to play well with others, who cares what they do with the game? If they want to spend 40 minutes watching a 1 minute turn... I don't give a hoot. They're not harming anybody but themselves, which is the opposite of your claim.

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.

I grasp it... I just don't agree with what you're proposing for reasons you don't appear to grasp. But that's OK... you don't have to get it right... we do

Steve

[Wartgamer]

Heres a quick 'abuse' example.

I have a platoon on the reverse slope of a hill. Need to get to the top. Can't see over it. Its an infantry platoon form the 716th inf division. I would like to see on the other side. I watch all the unit based relative movie playbacks in the platoon. Huh. nothing.

I jump over to the 3rd platoon of the Panzer Company of the Panzer Lehr division (500 meters away). Just happen to be in the nabe. They can see on the reverse slope. So I watch thier movies. Hey! Seems theres two enemy platoons scrambling up the other side!

But funny thing, the panzer platoon is firing at some ATGs that are over 1000m away and not really paying any 'actual' attention to that hill. But what the heck. Back to the infantry platoon. Get them to cover and hide and give covered arcs. Thanks Panzer Platoon!

Now IF the inf platoon HAD to give orders after viewing its individual movies, and did not benefit from the gamey sharing of info from the Panzer Platoon, he may have made a very realistic mistake.

[ March 01, 2005, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Wartgamer]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely. But don't assume that your solution isn't one of the things that can undo some benefits of the others. The God/Borg can not be defeated... attempting to do this, without keeping in mind diminishing returns (in all its forms), will harm the game itself. Probably in excess of whatever it sought to solve and likely in areas that the original problem didn't manifest itself in.

Not assuming but rather opening it up for discussion where it can be shown to do so (undo others). Can you show how it it does undo any others? I have shown examples. Can you show an example?

As far as your speculation about diminishing returns, who knows? Can you really quantify many statements you make? Even you admit the game is, at best, in a very early phase of being coded.

But you seem to be throwing in a defeatist attitude if you want to give in to the God/Borg so easily. It doesn't have to be defeated completely, it just needs to be curtailed sufficiently.

[Battlefront.com]

DrD,

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.

Actually you're doing exactly the kind of thing that IS beneficial to us as a group. You clearly expressed the "problem" and the possible solutions. But you did this without getting bogged down in the minutia of each. Sometimes minutia is good, but generally only after higher level direction has been established. People coming up with their own higher level directions, which are not going to happen, simply waist their time by going low level.

As for your list of 6 options. Currently I'm thinking #1, #3, and #4 are looking pretty good. #5 isn't really a separate option since it is an option for all the other options. Optionally of course What I mean by that is some sort of turn timer can be used for the other options you outlined, and therefore isn't a feature unto itself.

Steve

[DrD]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Heres a quick 'abuse' example.

I have a platoon on the reverse slope of a hill. Need to get to the top. Can't see over it. Its an infantry platoon form the 716th inf division. I would like to see on the other side. I watch all the unit based relative movie playbacks in the platoon. Huh. nothing.

I jump over to the 3rd platoon of the Panzer Company of the Panzer Lehr division (500 meters away). Just happen to be in the nabe. They can see on the reverse slope. So I watch thier movies. Hey! Seems theres two enemy platoons scrambling up the other side!

But funny thing, the panzer platoon is firing at some ATGs that are over 1000m away and not really paying any 'actual' attention to that hill. But what the heck. Back to the infantry platoon. Get them to cover and hide and give covered arcs. Thanks Panzer Platoon!

one possible solution, as I've previously suggested, is to increase false spotting.

In your example:

platoon hides, sets up CA. Waits. Waits some more. Huh? Nothing happens. You round up to courage to go over the hill and there's nothing there. 2 turns wasted.

Or worse, they were really sneaking around the hill, and hit your flank outside of CA, and chew up a squad or 2 before you can get to the orders phase and return fire.

What happened is that your BU tank platoon gave a false report, they thought they saw infantry, or maybe your platoon thought that's what they said they saw. Or they saw them or reported them in the wrong spot.

So to go back to the begining, your info from the tank platoon may be worse than useless.

What Steve is saying, is that relative spotting (hereafter RS) has alot of benefits:

units won't look at enemies they don't see, so less spotting in general, so less info overall.

units won't target units they can't see (does this mean you can't target a unit out of LOS like you can now in order for your unit to fire at it as soon as it moves into LOS?)

other effects TBA.

What it won't do, Steve is saying, is elminate the seperate but related problem of the player's God-like ability (hereafter GA) to move units around in response to way more info then a real commander would have.

We are suggesting other ways that RS or other techniques could be used to reduce or eliminate GA.

However, Steve seems to be implying that RS by itself is enough of a solution, and that given that it is impossible to entirely eliminate GA it's not worth the game-play compromises that would be required to reduce it further.

[DrD]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

DrD,

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

Actually you're doing exactly the kind of thing that IS beneficial to us as a group. You clearly expressed the "problem" and the possible solutions. But you did this without getting bogged down in the minutia of each. Sometimes minutia is good, but generally only after higher level direction has been established. People coming up with their own higher level directions, which are not going to happen, simply waist their time by going low level.

As for your list of 6 options. Currently I'm thinking #1, #3, and #4 are looking pretty good. #5 isn't really a separate option since it is an option for all the other options. Optionally of course What I mean by that is some sort of turn timer can be used for the other options you outlined, and therefore isn't a feature unto itself.

Steve </font>

[dalem]

(Standard Disclaimer: Again, all comments by me are made in terms of CMx1, which is all us chillin's be knowin' right now.)

Warty-

RE your description above of a real problem - the jumping around to achieve more battlefield intel than you "should" have:

1) Is, at its base, still better than the situation we have now.

2) Carries its own price in terms of time spent (as noted by Steve). This would really become evident in timed TCP-IP games. I suppose it is technically possible for CMx2 to include an "orders timer" in all gameplay flavors as opposed to limiting it to TCP-Ip as it is in CMx1. If one is burning up "order chits" (shout out to my hexgame homies!) to get intel reports from neighboring units instead of issuing orders, that seems reasonable to me.

3) Probably not that big a deal to the casual gamer anyway. I would hazard a guess that most of the players of CM don't really strive for the level of realism that locks them into the "Ironman View Level 1 Rules" or the level of perfection that has them viewing turn movies a dozen times.

Heck, I rarely watch a turn playback more than once myself, and it shows, but I still have been enjoying the game lots.

So in all I typed I see one relatively useful concept - an orders timer for all 3 types of play - PBEM, Solo, and TCP-IP. Doesn't seem too hard to me, and it seems fairly obvious. So...

Steve-

Conceptually, am I making sense as far as design issues go? Is an Orders Timer a relevent concept in CMx2, and if so, is it possible to make it optional for all gameplay types?

Thanks,

-dale

--edited -- Woops, all that, and Steve's already answered the question. Poop.

[Battlefront.com]

Wartgamer,

Heres a quick 'abuse' example.

Here's a quick example of why Relative Spotting's importance is during the turn crunching more than anything else...

But funny thing, the panzer platoon is firing at some ATGs that are over 1000m away and not really paying any 'actual' attention to that hill.

Then the chances are they wouldn't have spotted anything because their attention isn't focused on the backside of that hill. So you are, in effect, creating a problem in theory that shouldn't happen in reality. In fact, this sort of thing is already up and running in CMx1 games... but it is far less effective because of Absolute Spotting.

Also, how does the player know that the Panzer Platoon spotted everything there? What if the enemy infantry wasn't spotted by the Panzer Platoon. What then? Does the Infantry Platoon on the other side KNOW that the coast is clear? No, absolutely not. Just because you don't see something doesn't mean nothing is there. Also, just because you see something doesn't mean you see everything.

Any solution that proposes to fix a problem that doesn't exist is unnecessary at best.

Not assuming but rather opening it up for discussion where it can be shown to do so (undo others). Can you show how it it does undo any others? I have shown examples. Can you show an example?

Firstly, I don't think your system solves much that isn't already solved by other things (see above example). Secondly, we are against ridged "phase" like interface. Always have been, always will be. Reason being is that it takes a heck of a lot of fun out of a game. You probably disagree, and that's fine. You can make your own games that way, but not us.

As far as your speculation about diminishing returns, who knows? Can you really quantify many statements you make? Even you admit the game is, at best, in a very early phase of being coded.

We have a dozen years of PRACTICAL experience designing games... if we didn't have a decent idea of what will work or not BEFORE we spent weeks or months coding stuff I can assure you we'd never have been able to make any one of the games we've been involved with. Certainly not CM.

But you seem to be throwing in a defeatist attitude if you want to give in to the God/Borg so easily.

"Give in easily"... that's rather funny considering the fact that almost all the posts I have made to this Forum in recent weeks have been discussing pretty much nothing but how to reduce the effects of the God/Borg problem. Guess you also forgot about the reasons I posted the Grog Parable.

It doesn't have to be defeated completely, it just needs to be curtailed sufficiently.

No kidding... I think I've said that... oh... about 10000 times over the last FOUR YEARS

Steve

[Wartgamer]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully you get the point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do. Apparently better than you do, in fact. You pointed to an idea I came up with and said how it could be abused. I showed, using hard numbers, that in order to abuse it you'd have to be insane. And since insane people don't tend to play well with others, who cares what they do with the game? If they want to spend 40 minutes watching a 1 minute turn... I don't give a hoot. They're not harming anybody but themselves, which is the opposite of your claim.

Those 'hard' numbers can easily be refuted. Want me to show an example? Here's one...

I need to know whats on the other side of a hill. I quickly look around and judge a neighboring unit to have possible LOS. I grab one of its units, do an LOS check to verify that indeed he can see the ground in question, start his movie and fast forward through it to see what he sees.

Your whole insane time theory has been shot up. It would not take as long as you imagine.

Thats the whole point of people. They are smart. They will maximize whatever info they get.

[Wartgamer]

Then the chances are they wouldn't have spotted anything because their attention isn't focused on the backside of that hill. So you are, in effect, creating a problem in theory that shouldn't happen in reality. In fact, this sort of thing is already up and running in CMx1 games... but it is far less effective because of Absolute Spotting.

Just replace the Panzer Platoon with a Forward Observer group. He has no FFE at the time. He is scanning for targets. He has no possible way of relaying any info to the infantry platoon.

You can say the Panzer Platoon is under a covered arc 'attack armor' order then (not shooting at anything at the time). They arent firing. They would be scanning that terrain and see the eneemy infantry.

[ March 01, 2005, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Battlefront.com]

DrD,

Looks like you're paying attention Yes, everything you said is correct. The combo of Relative Spotting and better Command & Control modeling will get rid of the bulk of the fundamental Borg/God problems. We can probably nip a few more edges off it with some other features, but they had better not be very time consuming or harmful to other goals/features since such things are at risk of diminishing returns.

Dale, you're also right on the money (except for the Pizza bet... I am still 90% sure you're wrong ).

Conceptually, am I making sense as far as design issues go? Is an Orders Timer a relevent concept in CMx2, and if so, is it possible to make it optional for all gameplay types?

It could be, but we aren't planning on going that route for other reasons. The C&C aspect will get us most of what we want without having to resort to abstracted limitations such as a limited amount of orders and what not.

As to your Point 3 about keeping in mind how most people are going to play the game... absolutely. To come up with a fundamentally different way to play the game, specifically for a minority of players, is not going to happen from the get go. Small stuff, sure thing... but the kind of restrictive phase like thing Wartgamer is suggesting... it's a non-starter for this reason alone. Plus, we have more and better things for the über Grog player that I can't go into now

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Wartgamer... I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with you. As I sit here looking at the game design, in its entirety and with a dozen years of real world experience, all I can say is that you are wrong. If you want to prove me wrong you'll have to make a game yourself AND have it be better than CMx2. There is no other way than that, so unless you're going to do that I'd suggest dropping it and moving on.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

If the side bet is Wartgamer is Lewis.... I am pretty sure Wartgamer is NOT Lewis/Username but there is maybe one way to find out....

-tom w

[c3k]

Hmmm,

Okay, for Wartgamer, two points: what if I watched the playback from my Panzer platoon first? (You know, the one from your example which would let the rifle platoon know what was on the other side of the ridge.)

Secondly, REALISM is __NOT__ the goal. Not for me. For the record, I have been shot at, I have gone weeks without bathing, I've eaten nothing but cold rations for days on end, being cold, wet, tired and hungry the entire time. I have experienced, in the most infinitesimal way, what the REALITY of the game must be like. The goal is - wait for it - A FUN GAME!!!!

Okay, the whole God thing: Steve, when I play, I AM GOD! I NEED to float over the battlefield and survey my domain. I command my units - all of them, like the god I am. Their weaknesses and confusion may prevent them from carrying out my desires, but, as a benevolent god, I understand. I merely repeat my orders a minute later and force them to comply. Any restriction on my god-powers would not enhance the experience. If I wanted that, I'd play some sort of "iron-man" rules. As a voluntary option!!

Restrictions on my style of play are bad.

Thank you,

Ken

[aka_tom_w]

Plus, we have more and better things for the über Grog player that I can't go into now

Steve

NOW that's what I want to hear!!

He's just teasing us again !

It is does boost my confidence to know that they MUST have a few tricks up their sleeve that they will INDEED save for the demo.

I would like to urge Steve et. al. to please NOT give away all the secrets and new features so that the first time we get to play the demo we are SURPRISED! In fact what I really want is to play the Demo (sometime next year ) AND with this in mind " we have more and better things for the über Grog player that I can't go into now" be completely surprised and BLOWN AWAY by new stuff in the demo that WORKS great and has not previously been tossed out as a bone for the insatiable masses here!

Please

-tom w

[Wartgamer]

Am I supposed to be one or amongst a number of people or what? Trolling was brought up by the designer and what are these little snippy posts but Trolling? Since the Administrator is also partaking in this behaviour, what option is there for anyone who wants to discuss issues?

And anyone that can not illustrate what they have to say with examples, or can only look for strawman arguments is not discussing issues. So he is right; he wastes his time.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[QB]It could be, but we aren't planning on going that route for other reasons. The C&C aspect will get us most of what we want without having to resort to abstracted limitations such as a limited amount of orders and what not.

Cool beans. Now about Area Fire... Boy do I have some things to say about Area Fire.

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Am I supposed to be one or amongst a number of people or what? Trolling was brought up by the designer and what are these little snippy posts but Trolling? Since the Administrator is also partaking in this behaviour, what option is there for anyone who wants to discuss issues?

And anyone that can not illustrate what they have to say with examples, or can only look for strawman arguments is not discussing issues. So he is right; he wastes his time.

Some of us have something called a "Sense of Humor". You should check one out sometime.

-dale

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Wartgamer... I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with you. As I sit here looking at the game design, in its entirety and with a dozen years of real world experience, all I can say is that you are wrong. If you want to prove me wrong you'll have to make a game yourself AND have it be better than CMx2. There is no other way than that, so unless you're going to do that I'd suggest dropping it and moving on.

Steve

Um I must be confused :confused: ??

Is this the Admistrator post that is alleged to be some form of trolling?

I thought it was a clear and direct rebuke, (at least it was addressed to a specific person) perhaps I am mistake...?

-tom w

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by c3k:

Hmmm,

Okay, for Wartgamer, two points: what if I watched the playback from my Panzer platoon first? (You know, the one from your example which would let the rifle platoon know what was on the other side of the ridge.)

Secondly, REALISM is __NOT__ the goal. Not for me. For the record, I have been shot at, I have gone weeks without bathing, I've eaten nothing but cold rations for days on end, being cold, wet, tired and hungry the entire time. I have experienced, in the most infinitesimal way, what the REALITY of the game must be like. The goal is - wait for it - A FUN GAME!!!!

Okay, the whole God thing: Steve, when I play, I AM GOD! I NEED to float over the battlefield and survey my domain. I command my units - all of them, like the god I am. Their weaknesses and confusion may prevent them from carrying out my desires, but, as a benevolent god, I understand. I merely repeat my orders a minute later and force them to comply. Any restriction on my god-powers would not enhance the experience. If I wanted that, I'd play some sort of "iron-man" rules. As a voluntary option!!

Restrictions on my style of play are bad.

Thank you,

Ken

Good question. If the game did not let you watch the Panzer Platoon first, then you would not have to ask the question.

I get your point, and it brings up the crux of the change, that is; what if you were not allowed to choose what units to view/command first. The game would decide which units based on its overall communications capability with higher command, number of enemy units spotted, etc.?

And it is not perfect. There will always be a sequence where you will carry over some uber info from one formation to another. But an effort to limit it should be taken.

Point taken. Thats why there are options. Things should be optional. Some people play those FPS games in some God mode and they can't die and they evidently like that.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by DrD:

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

Darn! I missed too much of this post to really jump in but I offer this:

- Would it be possible to produce "unit video"?

[Edit: idea already in the thread, up there somewhere...]

- One of the problems that relative spotting, combined with C&C issues, seems to be is that it can cut a good margin of the fun for the player since he sees nothing. A RL commander, on the other hand, while seing very little, constantly receive informations. So I'm just submitting the idea that some sort of "commander interface" with spotting and comm options could form part of the answer.

A report window with premade written report of various quality could be shown; A led system could show that contact occured; A noise indicator could hint about the direction of a fight; I am not saying all this is practical, but mainly that it could be a way to merge the conflicting problems of realistic spotting with communication and control in the game.

FWIW. Cheers.

[ March 01, 2005, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[Wartgamer]

Um I must be confused ??

Is this the Admistrator post that is alleged to be some form of trolling?

Tom. Let me clear on this. You are confused.

No. Its not about that rebuke.

But thanks for the suggestion about accelerated movie viewing in cmx2. I also think its long overdue.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Steve posted.

“So.... how about this?

1. Relative Playback (Unit Based)

2. Relative Playback (HQ Based)

3. Relative Playback (Force Based)”

Perfect… something for everyone. I will be using 3. Relative Playback (Force Based.) most of the time. With games of anything over platoon+ v company I think it is the only practical option. Certainly when playing human v human, my favourite method of play.

Strangely… most, including Steve, seem to feel that option 3. is less realistic than the others. I disagree;) With one player on each side, or solo play, you are the single controlling mind; you do play the role of all the squad and AFV commanders, so why pretend otherwise Everyone to their own though. I will also enjoy the other options in small games.

Steve,

When it comes to CoPlay I think it is hugely important that each player can only see what the units he personally commands can see. From my point of view, it is as close to a “must have feature” as one can get. Really is the point of CoPlay, to realistically create chaos. But of course, the more options the better.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[aka_tom_w]

I think this just about covers it...

these are GREAT idea's

Its just that some of us would like to know if 1. Relative Playback (Unit Based) would mean the player COULD in fact view the playback movie from the perspective of ANY unit and it would ONLY show that units Relative Spotting intel info to the player?

Thanks

-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

[Battlefront.com]

c3k... not to worry... with all the "realism" features turned off you'll have your God/Borg game to play. A little bit more restricted than CMx1 in the sense that Relative Spotting can not be turned off, but by and large it will still feel like CMx1.

Wartgamer... I have zero doubts that you are either a previously banned poster or someone who has abandoned an account in order to take on a different persona. Both are against the Forum rules and are a bannable offense.

If I banned you now I don't think I'd be wrong to do so. Yet I'd like a little more hard evidence, and so until that time I'll let you stay and even engage you in conversations taht you most likely shouldn't be involved in.

Some think you are Lewis, but unless Lewis has had amazing success with therapy... I doubt it. Even more so for Maximus. But there are plenty of others that have come and gone over the years. The only question is who were you before you became "Wartgamer"?

Steve