CMx2 Gamey Jeep Recon vs. Real Life Actual Military style Recon and/or Scouting?

[aka_tom_w]

Well..

Just to be fair, the original MIA unit proposal was that any non HQ unit way out of friendly LOS, way out of C&C and without a radio was originally suggested to just turn into a nationality marker, indicating to the player its last known position before it was deemed MIA. (out of sight and out of player control)

Of course I am still hoping that in very limited circumstances, some variation of this concept may still have some potential.

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Remember, hiding what a unit sees is not good enough to prevent Gamey Recon. The entire friendly unit MUST disappear from view. I mean completely. Think about it guys...

A tank of yours, way out on its own, gets whacked. The crew bails out and remains on the map BUT loses the ability to "see" units for you. Because the unit is effectively blind orders can not be given to it by the player that have any meaning, therefore the AI needs to take over control. So now your unit runs off into a some bunch of trees you haven't laid eyes on before. As your unit starts to move through the woods you notice one guy gets picked off. Your crew now turns in a different direction and is running. Another guy gets taken out, which changes the direction of the crew yet again. The last guy now is hunkered down behind a wall somewhere trading shots with SOMETHING using his pesonal weapon. This goes on for some minutes until he is out of ammo. He tries crawling away but apparently surrenders. Now he disappears completely.

Do I need to describe why having your bailed out crews, which are out of LOS and C&C, remain visible to the player still contributes to gamey recon? I hope not

These are the kinds of ramifications you guys traditionally don't think about when you make suggestions (I am not pointing any fingers at specific people when I say this, believe me!) but we are forced to. Hence the cascading effect of one decision is often thought of as being "simple" when in fact it isn't after all things are considered.

On top of this... why single out crews? What about snipers? What about FOs with no ammo to shoot off? How about the infamous Jeeps? Which gets us back to the main point that ANYTHING can be used for "gamey recon". Either we fix the underlying issues that allow this to happen, or we simply have to live with it. Singeling out one or two units for special treatment is the bassackwards approach we are trying so hard to avoid this time around.

Steve

[junk2drive]

While delays and loss of contact may be more realistic, if the new game is worse than Soviets in BB, it is not going to sell IMO.

It has to be a fun game first. Make x2 too frustrating and complicated and it's going to bomb.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

While delays and loss of contact may be more realistic, if the new game is worse than Soviets in BB, it is not going to sell IMO.

It has to be a fun game first. Make x2 too frustrating and complicated and it's going to bomb.

Well, you could be right. Then again, I thought CMBB was a bit frustrating in the beginning also, but then I came to love it and much prefer it to CMBO. Its all what you are used to I think.

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Remember, hiding what a unit sees is not good enough to prevent Gamey Recon. The entire friendly unit MUST disappear from view. I mean completely. Think about it guys...

A tank of yours, way out on its own, gets whacked. The crew bails out and remains on the map BUT loses the ability to "see" units for you. Because the unit is effectively blind orders can not be given to it by the player that have any meaning, therefore the AI needs to take over control. So now your unit runs off into a some bunch of trees you haven't laid eyes on before. As your unit starts to move through the woods you notice one guy gets picked off. Your crew now turns in a different direction and is running. Another guy gets taken out, which changes the direction of the crew yet again. The last guy now is hunkered down behind a wall somewhere trading shots with SOMETHING using his pesonal weapon. This goes on for some minutes until he is out of ammo. He tries crawling away but apparently surrenders. Now he disappears completely.

Do I need to describe why having your bailed out crews, which are out of LOS and C&C, remain visible to the player still contributes to gamey recon? I hope not

I actually experienced something similar to this in one of the best ROW scenarios I’ve ever played. I had a tank hunter manning an outpost. When other units spotted some armor several hundred meters away, without seeing any accompanying infantry, I sent the tank hunter on a wide flanking move through trees in hopes of ambushing some of the armor. Never got near the armor. While still in the trees, the tank hunter started taking fire. At first, I thought it might be long range stuff with limited LOS, so I tried pushing them ahead to get clear of it. That didn’t work so I tried pulling them back to my lines, abandoning the original mission. They never made it (eliminated, not captured) and I never even got a sound contact. Far from being mad at this outcome, I thought it worked brilliantly. I had no knowledge of the infantry that was protecting the armor and I paid the price – without gaining any intel. Yet I had control of the tank hunter the whole time.

These are the kinds of ramifications you guys traditionally don't think about when you make suggestions (I am not pointing any fingers at specific people when I say this, believe me!) but we are forced to. Hence the cascading effect of one decision is often thought of as being "simple" when in fact it isn't after all things are considered.

On top of this... why single out crews?

Because, out of all units, crews are the most likely to wind up in a position where the player can gain a spotting advantage <u>without intending to</u>. When the lead AFV trips an ambush, the rest of the AFVs will know about it from the smoking wreck. But they will continue to gain intel on the situation from the bailed out crew, whether the player had a gamey intention or not.

I'm not suggesting singling out crews for CMx2, since I have no idea as how things will work - just thought I would answer the question from a CMx1 perspective.

[aka_tom_w]

On top of this... why single out crews?

-Steve

Ace:

Because, out of all units, crews are the most likely to wind up in a position where the player can gain a spotting advantage without intending to.

This is a VERY good point many players may not care or know that their bailed crew spotting activity may be considered unrealistic or distastefully "gamey" to some other players.

Bailed crews are special because they always seem to end up bailed out RIGHT in a GREAT spot to play the role of gamey spotters for the player. (maybe without intention but you can never be sure )

Why is that?

Well it might be because players send fast cheap vehicles on suicide missions straight up the gut, KNOWING full well at least one or two crew members will survive the wreck and bail out provideing invaluable spotting info. Bailed crews are specfically the topic of choice on this issue because the player KNOWS they will bail out and survive the destruction of the vehicle (if they are near cover) and STILL provide spotting info back to the player NO MATTER how far away they are from the main body of units.

I am suggesting this should be looked at because Ace Pilot is RIGHT ON! when he says the player "will continue to gain intel on the situation from the bailed out crew, whether the player had a gamey intention or not. "

This aspect of unintentional gamey spotting behaviour should be considered (somehow) in the CMx2 game design.

I'm not suggesting singling out crews for CMx2, since I have no idea as how things will work - just thought I would answer the question from a CMx1 perspective.

Agreed

Good Post Ace Pilot!

-tom w

[ February 03, 2005, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[kipanderson]

Steve,

“Yes, CoPlay (co-op play) eliminates all sorts of Intel problems through very hard nosed restriction of intel sharing. Unfortunately, that creates another set of challenges for us since players will need some way of sharing intel. And that is why it isn't happening for CMx2's first release ”

All sounds great… you seem only too aware of the sort of matters that make me nervous that, unwittingly, the magic of CM may be lost.

When it comes to communication between players in CoPlay I always took for granted it would just be text messages in a box as used in live play today. Text messages seem to me to model shouted messages, crackling radio messages, very well.

“Number 1 platoon flank left of the church and attack the warehouse, ” from a company commander to platoon commander. In the excitement of the game this may not be noticed, or may be misinterpreted as in real war. Just what we are after. The company commander may then go forward to look for himself as in real war… and risk becoming a casualty.

Anyway… I know this is all for the next game, so will not distract with more of my rantings on this one…

All the best,

Kip.

[jim crowley]

I tend to agree with the notion that bailed crews are somewhat different from other units and, therefore, ought to be treated differently.

They only pop into existence when their vehicle is disabled and, in their new and unwelcome role, have no place at all on the battlefield.

Irrespective of how they are tagged - MiA, symbol or whatever - if out of command control, however that is to be measured, the owning player should have zero control over them and receive no intel or even current status report.

The AI controlling them should really only need to consider:

If being shot at; stay put (much as in CMx1)

If there is potential danger; stay put (ditto)

If neither of the above, withdraw to nearest friendly board edge.

Once in C&C, status report could resume but orders should be limited to Withdraw only.

No more gamey intel gathering. But......

If there was no radio in the first place, what has changed? Other than that the crew are no longer in the vehicle.... which brings us back full circle to the enormity of the problem surrounding this whole issue.

[JonS]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

When it comes to communication between players in CoPlay I always took for granted it would just be text messages in a box as used in live play today. Text messages seem to me to model shouted messages, crackling radio messages, very well.

Heh - that was my mental image too.

The only caveat would be who gets to talk to whom? Imagine a single coy with each pn and Coy HQ under separate players. In that case everyone can talk to everyone. Now imagine two companys - can everyone talk to everyone still? Or only internal coy comms, with comms between coy HQs? What about adjacent pns from different coys - should they be able to talk? If they can, how do you prevent stagering alternate pns along the line so in effect everyone can talk to everyone again? Assuming you even want to prevent it, of course. What about different arms (inf, arty, engrs, armour) talking to each other? Does it vary by army/equipment/date/doctrine/weather (eg wind/train/fog interferes with comms)/day or night (eg very limited radio comms by night)/other-parameters-set-by-designer?

Universal comms is undoubtedly the easiest, but as the size of the scen increases it would also be the least realistic.

[Battlefront.com]

Bailed out crews, in all forms of CMx1, are already singled out in terms of what they can see, how easily they are routed, and how lame their combat abilities are. And yet the abuse is still possible. So my point is that putting the spotlight on them again, in CMx2, is unlikely to be much better unless we look for a better solution than simplistic modifiers here and there. And this solution should not care if the unit is a this or that, only that it shouldn't be seeing and reporting. Period.

Bottom line, singling out crews is the WRONG way to fix the problems with gamey intel. Any concept that involves this sort of limited thinking is just not getting the scope of the problem.

Don't worry... we've already solved this problem (at least as much as we think is possible without ruining the game). Just can't tell you how yet because of our standard policy of not talking things up until we've first seen it work in code. And we ain't there yet

Steve

[junk2drive]

If crews can only exit the map then they would not be able to recrew abandoned AFVs as some people want.

Another idea would be to have no crew units at all. The AFV is out of the game and no one appears outside.

[Battlefront.com]

Don't get me wrong... command and control delays, provided they are realistically modled, absolutely should be modeled. The point I was making is that these sorts of delays can't be blanket, abstract stuff or the game will lack realistic capabilities. For example, if a Platoon HQ sees an enemy tank coming up... and they have a radio, how long do you think it takes to get that intel to the Company HQ (prorviding, of course that the radio link works)? 1 minutes, 2 minutes, 10.34 seconds? Hard to say, but we need to keep this in mind when compared to a Squad seeing something and the Platoon HQ not having a good radio link to the Company HQ. In this case it could take 20 minutes for the information to arrive up the chain. Therefore, the system needs to model the reality of communications, not simply slapping arbitrary delays on stuff without the detailed command network and calling it good.

Steve

[Ron]

Radios and 'runners' weren't the only way of communicating - coloured flares were used also to signal enemy attack, enemy tanks, and for coordination purposes when attacking etc. I hope just because radios aren't present that platoons/coys are left 'hanging'.

Ron

[hoolaman]

Not to mention three-shots or three blasts on a whistle, or just yelling really loud!

These "within earshot" effects would be incredibly hard to get right if attempted in the new C&C system. However they were integral to some of the small action C&C breakdowns I have read about. Will a particularly noisy environment prevent orders being followed??

[Paul AU]

It’s impressive and reassuring to see central issues like this being given such intelligent consideration.

I’d like to break the trend,

AND be off topic. (But I can’t help sticking one of my niggles under Battlefront.com’s nose when I see it).

About these crews we’re not singling out for special LOS/Command-treatment; why are they in the game at all? I realise it’s ‘realistic’ to have them in the game – but to my mind this is far-outweighed by game-play negatives.

They have no chance of re-manning their gun/tank, and so they just become either points-values to be preserved/killed, or irresistibly - subjects for the ultra-unrealistic jeep-type recon (sans jeep), or Flag-warmers, or equally unlikely missions, (besides their undoubted ‘Borg’ value).

And they clutter up my field of targets, being lowest-priority targets I have to sort through. “Wait, what’s that? Oh, it’s just that tank crew. Again.”

I recall reading that BFC didn’t think that horses and motorcycles were worth the headache of including in the game (and I quite agree), so I don’t understand why crews are included? They just become player-admin. burdens, with all their tactical implications being negative to game-play, IMO.

I reckon there’s two options for CMx2: either take crews completely out of the game - which would be fine with me.

OR (my preferred option) give them some remote chance to (eventually) re-crew their weapon. That’d provide an increased incentive to keep them alive and near their gun/tank.

(Although… crews of “knocked out” weapons would obviously have no chance to re-crew – the weapon itself is dead. Which again leaves us with a useless crew. Hmm).

I don’t know, but I imagine that in real-life, crews, especially tank crews, play no active part in battle once their weapon is disabled, and would react less than enthusiastically to suggestions such as:

“Boys, now that you’ve irrevocably decided that your AT gun is too much of a bullet-magnet, I have a much more dangerous mission for you. What I want you to do, see, is sneak over that hill, around that wood, and…”

Dunno why, but the ‘Borg’ spotting effect annoys me less than just having the somewhat cute but wholly annoying crews wandering around the map trying to find a gamey way to be useful, while having a large “shoot me, I’m worth a couple of points” sign slung around their neck.

[ February 04, 2005, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: Paul AU ]

[aka_tom_w]

Hey!

New Guy!

Excellent Post!

Very direct and very entertaining.

keep 'em coming!

-tom w

Originally posted by Paul AU:

It’s impressive and reassuring to see central issues like this being given such intelligent consideration.

I’d like to break the trend,

snip

Dunno why, but the ‘Borg’ spotting effect annoys me less than just having the somewhat cute but wholly annoying crews wandering around the map trying to find a gamey way to be useful, while having a large “shoot me, I’m worth a couple of points” sign slung around their neck.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Paul AU:

They have no chance of re-manning their gun/tank

Perhaps they will in CMx2?

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul AU:

They have no chance of re-manning their gun/tank

Perhaps they will in CMx2? </font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Now if we are talking about “dismounting“ from the vehicle to conduct a recce task or “scouting” then that’s a different issue (normally you leave a member of the crew with the vehicle anyway - if only to protect your jack rations from the ever hungry, ever scrounging infantry).

I am not sure how this might be done

but for the purpose of REALISM somehow maybe crew members could dismount to scout in the new game.....

This is an interesting suggestion because one other new suggestion in this thread is to completely do away with crew members and any kind of crew representation in the game altogether.

Voluntary Crew dismount for scouting purposes should be considered (maybe?) BUT somehow a volutary dismount for scouting purposes would have to be treated very differently than the bailed crew gamey spotting issue.

BUT

Steve says they think they have this bailed crew problem all figured out so, maybe we are barking up the wrong tree here.

-tom w

[ February 04, 2005, 06:23 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul AU:

They have no chance of re-manning their gun/tank

Perhaps they will in CMx2? </font>

[kipanderson]

Hi,

JonS posted,

“Heh - that was my mental image too.”

Good to have you on my side…

I also agree with your points. Who is to be allowed to text whom…? And so on. When I think about it there is indeed potential for things to get complicated. But simple, easily missed, text messages are a good way to start.

All the best,

Kip.

[Tarkus]

I know the thread deals with gamey recon and scout, but since comms are somewhat related...

Some games use shortcuts for standard comm procedures, like Day of Defeat's hand and voice signals. You simply hit a shortcut and a prefab message is sent on the air (text, voice or, in this case, hand signals). It can be quite useful for simple things in the heat of battle like "Taking fire, left flank!" and so on. You can also use voice chat for additional infos.

Text -and voice- messages would be a good way to do it, with prefab and customizable messages. That way simple info could be transmitted in no time, but would need time to get used to. The real difficulty would be when trying to be specific about planning, deployement and coordination in battle, giving the relative innacuracy of radio reports (when compared to situationnal awareness in current CMx1).

Hence the usefulness of a planning/drawing tool. Here again, Day of Defeat is an interesting starting point for further discussion. In the game, you can toggle a birdeye view of the area, and you can add some infos manually, like mg nests, snipers, etc. The main problem is that you generally lack time to use it properly since the game is such a fast paced one. But there are some nice and realistic advantages.

One being that the process of getting the information is not instantaneous but fragmented. First, a visual sign appear on the screen to tell the player the map has been updated (delays could be added here, depending on his "acting HQ" situation, for example).

Next the player must toggle the map on, and it can take some time to do it if he is doing other things. He can then see new markings and notations made earlier, but doesn't have a precise idea as to WHEN the info was put on the map, and if this info is still up-to-date.

Add a timer to limit the time available for the player to give orders and plan his own move, and he will simply not be possible for him to start writing novels while reporting useful intelligence.

Within this model, higher echelon HQs could act as C&C hubs while managing intel (priority, directions, release of, etc) and decision. Being high in the rank would get a whole new meaning and need some quite specific leadership and management talents.

It seems to me this is realistic uncertainty within a workable user interface. And somewhat relate to gamey recon... well, kind of...

Cheers

[ February 04, 2005, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[Battlefront.com]

Remanning vehicles and crew served weapons happens frequently enough that it should be simulated. Crews of guns often had a hideout when the going got rough, then they would come back and reman their weapon (if it was still functional!) after the enemy's attention was diverted to other areas. It is also not unheard of for a tank crew to prematurely abandon their vehicle and then to reman it when they realize that "critical hit" tunred out to have simply knocked off a storage bin.

Read into this what you will

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Remanning vehicles and crew served weapons happens frequently enough that it should be simulated. Crews of guns often had a hideout when the going got rough, then they would come back and reman their weapon (if it was still functional!) after the enemy's attention was diverted to other areas. It is also not unheard of for a tank crew to prematurely abandon their vehicle and then to reman it when they realize that "critical hit" tunred out to have simply knocked off a storage bin.

Read into this what you will

Steve

Ummm...yay?

And about time!

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Remanning vehicles and crew served weapons happens frequently enough that it should be simulated. Crews of guns often had a hideout when the going got rough, then they would come back and reman their weapon (if it was still functional!) after the enemy's attention was diverted to other areas. It is also not unheard of for a tank crew to prematurely abandon their vehicle and then to reman it when they realize that "critical hit" tunred out to have simply knocked off a storage bin.

Read into this what you will

Steve

Something along the lines of “A bridge too far” where the pak crews shelter from XXX Corps opening barrage and then return to make the Irish Guards day?

[JonS]

will dismounting be under player control?

Also, note Gibbos point about veh crews dismounting for a nosy around - those guys needs to have at least as good spotting abilities as a regular unit, possibly an HQ element (ie, incl binos), not the degraded spotting abilities we see for crews in CMBB/AK.

Jon