What is Relative Spotting ? (4 years ago they knew what they wanted in a game)

[aka_tom_w]

This is an old thread

its title is

"What is Relative Spotting"

NOTICE the date:

What is Relative Spotting Circa Dec 2000!

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted December 27, 2000 03:21 PM             

Uhm... Jasper... what planet are you on right now? CM never will be a FPS, RTS, or RPG. Never, ever, ever. It is a wargame and will always be such. The more we can do to make CM realistic, the better the game will be.

Having each UNIT only capable of "knowing" where things are based on its own experience is not only a good thing for a wargame, but a vastly more realistic approach. Just think of CM like it is right now, except that some units won't be able to automatically target any unit in LOS, but instead only target those things that it actually spotted on its own (as opposed to another unit spotting and magically passing on the info to every unit in the game). It has nothing to do with the PLAYER only seeing what the individual UNIT sees.

Relative spotting has been discussed before, in depth, in several different threads. Those that are really interested should do a Search.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 12-27-2000).]

IP: Logged

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted December 27, 2000 03:25 PM             

quote:

It "sounds" good. I had no idea that when a unit is spotted by one unit, it is "spotted" by all units.

Yup, and every other wargame that has ever been made so far as I know.

quote:

This in fact explains a lot about how the computer opponent acts too.

Both the computer AI and the Human benefit from Absolute Spotting. The Human much more so because the extra knowledge is likely to be put to better use.

quote:

I would expect that unit quality comes into play (both for spotter and spotted), intervening terrain, weather, distance to HQ units that have spotted enemy, etc.

Yes. Spotting right now is like this, but once a unit is "flagged" as "spotted" based on this stuff, all units are able to shoot at it provided they have LOS. The difference is that Relative spotting would force each unit to go through this process for each enemy unit before being able to shoot at it.

Steve

IP: Logged

Jasper

Member

Member # 4314

posted December 27, 2000 05:00 PM                  

"The more we can do to make CM realistic, the better the game will be."

I think it's great the BTS is still actively supporting it's product. With many traditional software companies by the time a product reaches market the developers are busy on the next title. It's a welcome change.

"The difference is that Relative spotting would force each unit to go through this process for each enemy unit before being able to shoot at it."

I acknowledge to all that I'm only a causal student of military history, but surly it's not going to be that simple minded is it? I mean the beef now is the middle management tier is 100% effective in zero time. Sounds like you're going to strip away the middle management tier entirely?

I know you guys know this stuff, but just in case other readers are confused. Given an infantry squad is pinned down by an MG on a hill. They could communicate via radio or runner to their platoon commander "Pinned down by MG on hill.", if he didn't see this fact himself. It would then passed up the infantry command chain until it crosses over somewhere (I'm only a causal student remember?) to armor support. Which then communicates back down "Anyone able to take out that MG on the hill?"

Currently that scheme takes zero time and is 100% effective. It sounds like you're going to remove that layer entirely so it's zero percent effective and takes 100% time. That's troubling.

Posts: 193 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted December 27, 2000 05:34 PM             

Trooper:

quote:

Command Decision has a 'handoff period' whereby stands in the same unit can fire at a recently spotted target in the next phase, but stands in a different unit must wait for the handoff in the next turn.

We have a bit of this in CM. Buttoned up tanks have built in target aquisition delays. They aren't huge because if they were the vehicle would be unfairly penalized for things it really did spot right away.

quote:

Then again, CD is modelled with one turn = 15 minutes...

Yeah, much easier to abstract this sort of stuff with longer turn times. Since a "turn" in CM is actually a partial second (i.e. every partial second some action happens) it is really tough to hack in realistic behavior into an Absolute system.

Jeff wrote:

quote:

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

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

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

Steve'

END quote

So why did I post this?

FOUR whole years ago they knew they wanted and would someday build relative spotting into the game. I am guessing they have been thinking about how it will work.

NOW the only real big question is what EXACTLY will it look like when we play CMx2???

-tom w

[Philippe]

Notice that if any unit not seen by the unit that you click on becomes invisible, you immediately get a pretty good idea of who can see that unit.

So limiting visible units to what the currently highlighted unit can see (or has in command) kills several birds with one stone.

[Jasper 2x]

Why cant you just area fire at the enemy if another unit can see it?

[Michael Emrys]

Did someone say you can't?

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

*gag* DP

Michael

[Ardem]

Well area fire might actually work better anyway <smile> saves the problem of disappearing and reappearing targets.

[Battlefront.com]

Hehe... four years ago (egads...) I wrote this:

Yes. Spotting right now is like this, but once a unit is "flagged" as "spotted" based on this stuff, all units are able to shoot at it provided they have LOS. The difference is that Relative spotting would force each unit to go through this process for each enemy unit before being able to shoot at it.

Then a few days ago I said this:

Likewise with smokeless powder or getting lost at night. These things can only be realistically simulated to the degree the Borg and God stuff are curbed. It does no good to add an extra hiding modifier to an AT gun when the enemy already has far too many chances of spotting it in the first place (note that AT guns are harder to spot, inherently and artificially, within the game as it is right now. If they weren't, they would be even easier to pick off).

Amazing coincidence, dontchathink? There was something else I wrote a few days ago that was even more similar to the dusty old quote Tom dug up, but I didn't find it quickly so stopped looking.

Relative Spotting is indeed far more complex than the above quotes implies. However, like many fundamental shifts between CMx1 and CMx2... the complexity comes from all the stuff that results from rather small sized changes.

It really is fair to say that the heart of Relative Spotting is as simple as "a unit can only spot what it sees, shoot at what it spots". That's it! However... the implications of that one rather modest change are huge. It now affects all sorts of things which are not directly part of the spotting system. It also opens the door to completely new features that were simply impossible to do without Relative Spotting.

Think of Relative Spotting like the invention of the first microchip. In and of itself the first microchip was rather simplistic in concept and execution was straight forward. But this one thing allowed for a lot more than that chip or the computers that later were made possible because of them. Entire economies and societies have been changed by this one rather small invention.

I'm not saying that Relative Spotting is going to get us a spot on the year 2105 successor show to Burke's "Connections", but it will be significant for CMx2 for sure

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Area Fire... we can't prevent someone from shooting at an area in LOS, but we can realistically remove most of the benefits of doing so. Direct fire weapons, like an AT gun, require very exact targeting. Even then they miss quite frequently. Firing an AT gun blindly is highly unlikely to produce a result unless the range is small and there is some sort of aiming hint.

Area Fire is also tying up that unit and hindering its abilities to react to things which it can spot. Also gives away its position if hidden. And if not hidden, it increases the chances of the other side's units spotting through the new Relative Spotting system. I'll expand on this a bit...

The old saying is that LOS works both ways is very true. Same with Relative Spotting; it makes enemy units harder to spot and target, but it also makes your units harder to be spotted an targeted. In CMx1 as soon as one of your hidden units fired or was bumpped into it became known to the enemy player (even if not exactly at first). The more eyes the enemy player had in LOS, the greater the chance the unit would be fully spotted and kept track of. But in CMx2 if you keep quiet, even if a unit bumps into you that doesn't mean that automatically every enemy unit in LOS can shoot at you. So Relative Spotting means if your units don't want to attract too much attention they probably can. Since shooting wildly at spots will attract attention, yet probably not cause much harm to the enemy within the Area Fire target area, there is a pretty strong incentive to sit tight (which is VERY realistic).

These are all signfiicant drawbacks to shooting at stuff for a likely insignificant result.

Artillery, or other big things that go boom, can be another matter. While all the above applies, the effect against a soft target is quite possibly going to be effective. This can be worked around for indirect weapons quite easily by having more realistic artillery system. Not completely, of course, but it helps a great deal.

To sum up... it is pretty easy to reduce the likelyhood of small arms being used effectively and without penalty against targets it shouldn't be aiming at in the first place (excepting "recon by fire"). It is very easy to reduce people finding direct fire guns to be worth using. Artillery type weapons, direct or indirect, are harder to curb from working around Relative Spotting, but there are realistic controls we can put into place to curb the excess. And in all cases, there will be the chance of at least some negative ramification for doing blind Area Fire (wasting ammo, exposing to enemy fire, drawing attention, reducing attention to other areas, etc.).

No matter what, on balance Realtive Spotting will make a big difference.

Steve

[ January 19, 2005, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Mupid]

I am a bit weary about the concept that a unit can only target what it has identified clearly.

ex.: squad A spots an enemy unit; squad B which is nearby does not; squad A opens fire on the enemy unit and signals squad B to do also by giving directions, tracer ammo etc; squad B will also open fire even if not seeing the enemy unit clearly, directed by the fire of squad A;

probably it would be possible to give units rules of engagement? in this case the player could set the unit-AI like this: if another unit fires on an enemy unit try also to do so using area fire; or: only fire on units you clearly identified yourself; possible options could be adjusted by quality level of the unit etc; more complex RoEs could only be selected by units in command and/or good quality level; this could add even more depth to the game. like this you could even have friendly fire incidents; e.g.: squad A has spotted an enemy unit in the woods and fires on it; squad B (green unit, "fire on everything in sight") has not identified it but fires also as ordered in its RoE but hits squad C which is also located/advancing in the woods near the enemy unit;

hmm this is going astray

In the case of relative spotting in my opinion you should also be able to target e.g. sound contacts without the staticness of area fire - meaning that if the sound-contact moves your fire adjusts automatically.

I would also like to see options like "recon fire", where the infantry squad advances and automatically area-fires into suspected positions to suppress enemy units(definded by the AI and the quality level of the squad).

well all this was probably discussed already...

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Mupid:

In the case of relative spotting in my opinion you should also be able to target e.g. sound contacts without the staticness of area fire - meaning that if the sound-contact moves your fire adjusts automatically.

I don't understand this part. Sound contacts, even as it is in the game already, can be wildly off the generic marker, so area shooting a sound contact is the least possible effective treatment. But maybe I'm missing your point ?

[Tero]

Another related issue is firing beyond the visual range (night, fog etc visual conditions).

IRL doable but how will it be modelled in the new engine as in the current engine it is denied.

[Thompson]

Originally posted by Mupid:

I would also like to see options like "recon fire", where the infantry squad advances and automatically area-fires into suspected positions to suppress enemy units(definded by the AI and the quality level of the squad).

Whoa there! Automatically area-firing into suspected enemy positions? I'll wager that would lead to all sorts of disasters, smart AI or not. I for one do not want squads automatically area-firing anywhere. If I want them conducting recon by fire or area fire, I want to be the one to choose when and where. Maybe that's just me.

[Thompson]

Forgot to comment this.

Originally posted by Mupid:

I am a bit weary about the concept that a unit can only target what it has identified clearly.

ex.: squad A spots an enemy unit; squad B which is nearby does not; squad A opens fire on the enemy unit and signals squad B to do also by giving directions, tracer ammo etc; squad B will also open fire even if not seeing the enemy unit clearly, directed by the fire of squad A;

Well, I like the fact that direct fire (i.e. targetted at a specific unit) is possible only against enemies the unit has spotted itself. Note that I'm saying spotted, not identified - these are two different things. SPotting is knowing that there's an enemy unit in a certain location, identifying would be knowing that it's a German infantry 41 squad with 7 men left. Or have I managed to get my definitions mixed somehow?

Maybe you should look at the situation like this: with relative spotting, squad B will not magically become aware of the enemy unit squad A has spotted (which is a Good Thing), but might get a spotting bonus now that the enemy unit is under fire (and probably returning fire), i.e. it is more likely to spot the enemy on its own now. Once spotted it can directly fire at the enemy, otherwise it should be limited to area fire, IMHO.

[ January 20, 2005, 04:50 AM: Message edited by: Thompson ]

[Mupid]

@Tarkus

"off the generic marker" means "off from where it actually is" i guess; sorry for my english;

I was not talking about efficency; in a combat situation I don't think you always take the time to identify(or even spot) the enemy; i pretty much like the system of CM (sound contact, infantry squad?, rifle squad) a system which is also enjoyable to play (and that's not always true with more "accurate" models); though I excpect that a squad would probably fire on sound contact in certain situations;

@ Thompson

I totally agree with you on the identify - spotting difference, thanks for correcting me in that;

I also agree that becoming magically aware of the spotted unit is not a good thing at all

I do think that you don't always spot an enemy squad and direct fire at the squad; you also do spot an enemy in a target area and direct fire there; so if you spot a squad in a small wood, you direct your fire in the woods; the more automatic (and in this time also inaccurate) the weapons the more likely is this approach in my opinion;

if a tank shells a small building or a small wood it doesn't matter a lot if he has spotted infantry in it or not; the effect will be similar - if the unit was spotted then the fire could be directed more accurately, that's true;

I personally tend more to fire lanes, fire zones and the like in contrast to CMs system of fire against individual targets; but I don't know if it still would be so much fun then

well this is getting way off topic, sorry

[Tarkus]

Mupid,

I don't think it's off topic at all, since you're talking about spotting issues.

As for the sound contact generic icon, I was refering to the grey tank/light armor/truck/infantry unit that CM places on the map visually to indicate that something has been heard. I agree that firing on a place that you suspect might be hiding ennemy units (the so called "recon by fire") is a possible way of doing things, and even an efficient one. But to me, this isn't exactly related to sound contact. It is, but as far as CM engine models it. The more you play CM, the more accurate you get at guessing the location of a sound contact, and for this reason alone, I believe that the way a sound contact is represented in the game isn't perfect, since a visual representation of a sound source put the problem in reverse. It is a solution that works pretty good and, in game terms, is easy to grasp, but it could be implemented differently to better effect, if the physics of sound was better modelled, something I can't comment on since I am not exactly sure where we are at, technically speaking, to represent doppler effect, echoes and such. But that is why I was asking, back in the "Bones a plenty" thread, what were the plans @ BFC about sound, since it has a very direct effect on the way the game is played.

For example, if it was possible to successfully implement a way to make the sounds in game relative to the actual position of its source (it is already, but it's basically a volume level, where a firing gun sounds a lot different depending on the position of the one hearing it), it might be possible to make the "sound contact" source position a lot harder to spot, leaving those grey generic "?" markers out entirely. A led on a unit interface might tell the player that something has been heard, and by moving around, the player might get to ear something, but that would be it. He could then guess as to what is going on, who's where and such, but he could not guess, for example, that there is most probably a tank moving at high speed along "X" road because the sound contact icon is moving fast along the same axis, something we regularly do in current CM. I am not saying it is unrealistic, but merely that it is a bit too accurate as it is now, and that it could probably be represented a little differently.

Cheers.

[ January 20, 2005, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[Mupid]

@Tarkus

I like Your idea concerning sound contact, though I can understand the need for visual representation in some form; some flashing leds as You said would be probably a good solution; in a very small battle (as I like them the most it would be sufficient to listen; on a larger scale I think a visual representation is needed just to get some overview;

I don't see a problem with the sound contact beeing identified as a tank, in both ways You describe it; actually I like it - adds a lot to the flair in my opinion;

I have a lot of catching up to do´- reading all the threads which have been written since 2 years

[Wicky]

Just to add with the EFOW as is, a squad or vehicle is only detected once by this process of: sound contact > rough ID > positive ID. If the enemy disappears and is later spotted it is immediately positively identified again, even if it's 2, 10 or 20 turns later.

I would like in CMX, if units have memory, for them also to have doubts about their memory after a certain time* and have to start from scratch to ID what's around them.

* Possibly experience related

Existing last spotted markers, if they exist in the new engine, could linger and exist overlapping temporally with the subsequent reappearance of the original unit.

This would could lend a greater realism to do with FOW about what and how many are out there.

[aka_tom_w]

How Will it WORK????

this is the Biggest mystery and perhaps their biggest challenge!

"quote:

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

Steve Says:

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

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

Steve'

If they could do this so that SOMEHOW video card effect transparency could communicate to the player the "degree" of spotting. I know this is a loose and nebulous concept this whole spotting thing BUT as Steve has said if you click on a unit other enemy units NOT spotted by the unit become transparent, (maybe just ghost outlines or GONE all together) BUT here is the tricky part, WHAT IF the enemy units the friendly selected unit can "see" or thinks it can spot where to appear to the player in various degrees of transparency, from the barely visible GENERIC nationality marker, through varying degree of transparency right up to the fully identified fully "uncloaked" HARD intel %100 spotted unit that the friendly unit has identified exactly.

THAT is what this Whole Relative spotting thing NEEDS is the Romulan Cloaking Device! Unspotted units are cloaked in transparency by the Relative Spotting code working with the video card. (except the WHOLE notion of video card transparency effect thing has been REALLY dodgy in the past, but maybe those days are behind us from a technical point of view!)

BUT as the basis of a REALLY great idea I think that using various levels of enemy unit transparency to indicate there level of spotting intel or info communicated to the player "could" work REALLY well, obviously ghost like transparent enemy units would be those spotting reports your friendly units are still only guessing about MUCH like sound contacts!!! Which was a Brilliant new idea when it first appeared in CMBO!!

Any other suggestions?

-tom w

[ February 25, 2005, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Another OLD Quote:

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted December 08, 2000 05:22 PM             

Jeff, this is something that will be addressed in CMII (the engine rewrite). As you guessed, making a Relative spotting model is not easy. To the best of our knowledge, no wargame has never used such a system even though, as you stated, it is much more realistic.

For the rest of you... CMII will certainly come after CM2 (the Eastern Front). It will be a rather large rewrite of the existing codebase to incorporate many fundamental changes. Relative Spotting is one of them. Another one would be to have a lighting model so we can simulate better low light/night stuff (see Terence's post above). Other changes are more mundane coding things that never-the-less have a great impact on what we can do as game designers.

We do not expect CMII to see the light of day for at least 2 years. CM2 will keep us busy for most of the next year.

Steve

[ February 25, 2005, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Juardis]

Ahhhhh, Relative spotting, a topic near and dear to me, even after 4 years.

The problem with the video card clicking is that you still know where the enemy is regardless of whether you can target it or not.

I'll post what I did a few years ago and its basis is that you the human can only see what is spotted by a unit that can communicate with you the human somehow. This presupposes that you are the battlefield commander and can accurately recreate on a map (the CM battlefield) what has been reported to you via radio signals or hand signals (reguires los to your units).

Take for example a sniper...one with a radio. Say the sniper is order to go over the ridge, top a church tower, and report on enemy movement. He is out of LOS from all friendly units. Regardless of where he is though, you the human will always know what he sees because he has the radio. If he loses the radio, all you the human know is where the sniper is initially, then he fades to a star, then disappears altogether until he a) fixes his radio (impractical) or finds another radio or gets within LOS of a friendly. The AI will attempt to have him carryout his last given orders, whatever they were. Your sniper may die and you not know it, or he may repel and entire invasion and you not know it (other than the sounds of battle emanating from that area).

However, once you reacquire LOS to that sniper, then whatever he sees, you the human sees.

This makes radios and LOS extremely important to the human player directing the battle. You want realism? That, I think, is realism.

The question is, will it be fun?

[aka_tom_w]

As an OPTION I do indeed hope they will give the player the choice of a Level of Fog of War that would be just as you describe, but I think there are still problems modeling the exactl nature and realism of the radio and communication net on the battlefield.

BUT

I agree with your suggestion and it should be a FOW option for the player under Ultra Extreme Realism or something new.

-tom w

Originally posted by Juardis:

Ahhhhh, Relative spotting, a topic near and dear to me, even after 4 years.

The problem with the video card clicking is that you still know where the enemy is regardless of whether you can target it or not.

I'll post what I did a few years ago and its basis is that you the human can only see what is spotted by a unit that can communicate with you the human somehow. This presupposes that you are the battlefield commander and can accurately recreate on a map (the CM battlefield) what has been reported to you via radio signals or hand signals (reguires los to your units).

Take for example a sniper...one with a radio. Say the sniper is order to go over the ridge, top a church tower, and report on enemy movement. He is out of LOS from all friendly units. Regardless of where he is though, you the human will always know what he sees because he has the radio. If he loses the radio, all you the human know is where the sniper is initially, then he fades to a star, then disappears altogether until he a) fixes his radio (impractical) or finds another radio or gets within LOS of a friendly. The AI will attempt to have him carryout his last given orders, whatever they were. Your sniper may die and you not know it, or he may repel and entire invasion and you not know it (other than the sounds of battle emanating from that area).

However, once you reacquire LOS to that sniper, then whatever he sees, you the human sees.

This makes radios and LOS extremely important to the human player directing the battle. You want realism? That, I think, is realism.

The question is, will it be fun?

[Juardis]

IMHO, fog of war and relative spotting are one and the same.

How is this platoon one click away and below a ridgeline to know that there is 1 PZ-IV, 2 PZ-IIIs, 1 squad of Fallshirmjaegers bunkered in 3 houses at the x-y cross roads if they can't see them? Answer - they know if they have radio communication with someone that does know. Otherwise, they don't know.

And yes, it should be optional.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Juardis:

IMHO, fog of war and relative spotting are one and the same.

How is this platoon one click away and below a ridgeline to know that there is 1 PZ-IV, 2 PZ-IIIs, 1 squad of Fallshirmjaegers bunkered in 3 houses at the x-y cross roads if they can't see them? Answer - they know if they have radio communication with someone that does know. Otherwise, they don't know.

And yes, it should be optional.

Fog of War options may come in varying degrees of FOG or blindness to the player.

BUT

Relative spotting is a black and White concept to me, each unit has to make its OWN independent spotting check AND the fog of war option the player chooses to play under will impact what the player learns from that spotting check. I say this because Steve tells us 1:1 Representation AND Relative Spotting will not be optional, BUT there will be varying Fog Of War Options in CMx2

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

FOW and Relative Spotting work hand in hand, but they are different systems. Relative Spotting is kinda like a car engine, FOW is kinda like all the stuff that can be stuck onto it. You can simply have an engine that provides basic functions, or an engine that is highly tweaked out and provides all sorts of extra features to the driver. Those features can be any number of things, but without the engine to power them... they ain't going to work.

In CMx2 terms this means that we can have a single Relative Spotting system and several FOW systems, which is what we are going to to do. Relative Spotting, inherently, will work the same for all players all the time every time. But how the player gets and is able to act on Intel will be different depending on various settings.

We've made no hard plans for how the UI will work for Relative Spotting, but for the most realistic FOW setting the leading concept is that when no friendly unit is selected all enemy units are hidden from view 100%. When a friendly unit is selected only those untis that it has some Intel on will appear on the map, in various forms depending on level of identification. When you switch to another friendly unit the map is completely updated yet again to show only what that unit can see and how it can see it.

In this way you might have two Squads in the same Platoon showing slightly different representations of what they believe to be true. For example, both Squads see an enemy Squad go into a house, but only one sees it leave and hide behind a wall. Clicking on each will show the same enemy unit in two different places and with two different degrees of knowledge.

This might not affect the player's God like understanding of the battlefield (i.e. the player knows the unit really is behind the wall), but it does introduce uncertainty. If you are under time pressure to give orders (i.e. a turn timer is ticking away) you might not have enough time to check both Squads and instead act on the info ONE of the Squads provides. If it is the 1st Squad, and you call for a tank to pound the house it is no lonter in... well, that is a significant reduction of the Borg and a small chip out of the God ability. Now magnify theses situations force wide over many turns and many games... it should be a pretty big factor.

Oh, and obviously in CoPlay games (CoOp Play for CMx2's second release) you can see the big issues this will cause, right? Your platoon sees a target very clearly, asks if the other player can, the answer might be "yeah" but in reality they only THINK they know where it is.

Relative Spotting in CoPlay will also introduce a lot more chance of fratricide (Blue on Blue casualties) because friendly units will need to be spotted as well. This should also help slow down the tempo of operations to a more realistic level since hurrying might be the death of you!

For less realistic levels of FOW the options should be obvious. We can have a unit, once spotted, be known to all units but only targetable when LOS/LOF is available. Or we can simply make sure that a spotted enemy unit is always shown in the same spot for all units who can spot it. So on and so forth.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Thanks Steve!!

We've made no hard plans for how the UI will work for Relative Spotting, but for the most realistic FOW setting the leading concept is that when no friendly unit is selected all enemy units are hidden from view 100%. When a friendly unit is selected only those untis that it has some Intel on will appear on the map, in various forms depending on level of identification. When you switch to another friendly unit the map is completely updated yet again to show only what that unit can see and how it can see it.

It would still be a nice idea to follow-up on the proposal that the player might see varying levels of transparency on enemy units to represent various spotting/intel levels that you had flirted with earlier.

Thanks!

-tom w

[ February 25, 2005, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]