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

[-Havermeyer-]

It all sounds revolutionary and really, really cool.

Are there diminishing returns in "FUN" with increasing realism?

It's like a sub game. Maximum realism? 20-30 days of patrolling your territory without any contact and returning to port for resupply. Real. Not a game.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by -Havermeyer-:

It all sounds revolutionary and really, really cool.

Are there diminishing returns in "FUN" with increasing realism?

It's like a sub game. Maximum realism? 20-30 days of patrolling your territory without any contact and returning to port for resupply. Real. Not a game.

Well the one thing the comes to mind.

some folks may jump to the conclusion that the game will become a little overly combersome to play given that the UI in the most realistic FOW setting will require the player to cycle constantly through all units (one at time) to attempt to gather spotting intel from all over the map.

Just to be CLEAR.....

I am in NO WAY critical of this concept because other than varying degrees of transparency I see no other viable way to make Relative Spotting work other than Steve's mention of the leading concept of the player jumping from friendly unit to friendly unit to see what each friendly unit can see independently of all other units. Perhaps to facilitate this "cumbersome" process for the player the NEW CMx2 UI will have the OoB list or chart or some such thing where all units are listed down the edge of the interface and the player can just select the unit from the list and the game UI will take the player to that unit and reveal what that unit can see so that for the player there would be SOME ADDITIONAL way to navigate beside cycleing from unit to unit on the map.

But that is just a thought.....

-tom w

[ February 25, 2005, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[dumrox]

If multiple friendly units are selected, will we be able to see all enemy units, even those only seen by a portion of the selected units? If so, will units not visible to all selected units appear differently, perhaps with some degree of transparency as proposed above?

[Battlefront.com]

No, I don't think that various degrees of transparancy is a good UI device. Too difficult to tell what is what. Also, in a busy environment transparant units might be too hard to see. They also hit the CPU and the video card, though that is probably the lesser of all issues.

Fun... well, that is always hard thing to judge. I know for sure that many people will find the sum total of CMx2 features MORE fun simply because there will be less unrealistic frustration. Some will find them more fun because they derrive fun from overcoming puroseful, understandable challenges. Some people won't. Overall we feel that the latter will be in the minority, but there really is no way to tell until the game is finished.

Here is a simple analogy. A jigsaw puzzle can come in all sorts of forms. Depending on the size, complexity of the pieces, size of the pieces, and the image's complexity the puzzle can be inherently easier or tougher to complete. Is one more fun than the other? Depends on the individual person, for sure.

CMx2, and even CMx1, are sorta like computerized jigsaw puzzle games. The player can set some of the difficulty variables and then work with the results. Too difficult? Make the piece sizes bigger or the puzzle smaller. Too easy? Change the picture to a super difficult one with no symmetry and lots of dark areas and BINGO... tougher.

Once CMx1 players get a gander at CMx2 I think MOST of the fears about "fun" will go away. Some will, however, remain until the demo. And that's OK. We had many doubters during CMBO development that were quickly converted once they got the Beta Demo.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

In CMx1 when you select multiple units you can only have one "Current Unit". Same for CMx2. Meaning, if you select 10 units only one of them is displayed in the user interface and that is the one you will see intel from.

Steve

[jeffsmith]

OK Relative Spotting is cool

but in RL units (sometimes) could communicate with each other by various means:

Radios, Hand Signals, Running Away

"There is something very deadly coming around the corner towards you"

I assume this will somehow will be modelled

ie a unit with LOS and good intel can SOMEHOW inform another unit of the situation

or is that part of our job as "demi-god game player" ?

because as you have said sometimes there will be a time limit

and some interaction (though less than the current Borg) might be helpful

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, depending on the player's chosen options info will pass between units more or less realistically. We are of course fully aware of the many different ways info is moved around and intend on simulating them in the most realistic way possible. But that gets into the C&C modeling, not the Relative Spotting system.

Steve

[Juardis]

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.

presumably, this means units within C&C or LOS are able to share their intel with other units within C&C or LOS, thereby allowing every unit within C&C or LOS to have the same knowledge.

[Juardis]

HAVERMEYER!!!! good to see you again mate.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Juardis:

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

presumably, this means units within C&C or LOS are able to share their intel with other units within C&C or LOS, thereby allowing every unit within C&C or LOS to have the same knowledge. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Anything that has to do with information sharing is a C&C issue, not a spotting issue. Therefore, any questions concerning C&C are going to have to wait until we are ready to discuss the C&C system. Well, at least for detailed questions and detailed answers. All I will say at this point is that the CMx2 C&C system is based on real world communications as closely as we can get it. In other words... we are going for a non-abstracted system as much as is practical to acheive.

Steve

[Yair Iny]

Steve,

You know this means you're gonna have to make the maps usable in printable form (i.e. with elevation markings, etc.)

With high realism level, the only way the player, i.e. the supreme commander, can see the overall known disposition of enemy forces, is by drawing them with a grease pencil on a printed map, by his Intelligence officer updating the map from the individual unit reports...

Just the thought of it makes me drool! Maybe I should hibernate until the end of 2005 so that I can wake up and buy CMx2 immediately.

Cheers

P.S. edited for spelling mistakes so the terrorists don't win

[Webs]

It's probably too late to set something like this into CM2, but I might as well bring it up.

What if there were two frames of reference - one at unit level and another at, say, battalion or division level? Call it Rear HQ.

Unit level would work pretty much as we have it now. Say we have an infantry squad. When we select it, we would only see those enemy units that that squad can see. If the squad is in command of its platoon HQ, then it can get markers for all enemy units that the platoon can see. (And, possibly, markers for information relayed from higher levels of command.)

The change would come into the Rear HQ perspective. In CM now, we have an overall view of the battlefield taht we can fly through like a hyperdragonfly. We can check out anything and everything any squad spots. I would remove this completely. The only way to view the actual terrain and spotted units would be from the perspective of your soldiers on the ground. You would not get the freedom to flit about the terrain.

Instead, Rear HQ would get a separate screen of its own. This would have the terrain mapped, literally, on a 2-D top-down map. It could have terrain contours and terrain type mapped on it, but it would be a abstraction of the battlefield, like any other map you've ever used. This map would be the only comprehensive perspective of the battle.

All units that you are in contac with and all enemy units that your units can tell you about would appear in abstract for on this Rear HQ map - it would look a lot like a wargame board, in fact. You could select units on this map and be taken to them on the battlefield. You could even give orders through this map, as in "run to that hill." (Of course, you could give orders at unit level as well.)

What a scheme like this would accomplish is to divorce front line action and threats from master plans, the interlocking of which is I think the primary complaint when you boil down whines about borg spotting.

[-Havermeyer-]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Here is a simple analogy. A jigsaw puzzle can come in all sorts of forms. Depending on the size, complexity of the pieces, size of the pieces, and the image's complexity the puzzle can be inherently easier or tougher to complete. Is one more fun than the other? Depends on the individual person, for sure.

Great analogy. A puzzle with 10,000 pieces of the same shape would be challenging. It also would be marketed to only a slice of the puzzle market.

CMBO was revolutionary in its "realism" step change, and hooked me. CMBB and CMAK being evolutionary fixed some of things I didn't like about CMBO but also introduced some new things I didn't like.

My expectation of CMX2 is that it will be revolutionary relative to CMBO. I look forward to it.

In the limit, though, there is a lot about war that is waiting, boring and frustrating even amidst a heated battle. This speaks to some amount of diminishing returns in "fun" relative to "realism." I trust the designers to find the balance, this being a very subjective thing (recall the 10k puzzle).

I think adding a "soul," as Steve characterized it previously, would offset the diminishing returns in Fun I experienced between CMBO and CMBB (never bought CMAK).

[-Havermeyer-]

Originally posted by Yair Iny:

Steve,

Just the thought of it makes me drool! Maybe I should hibernate until the end of 2005 so that I can wake up and buy CMx2 immediately.

I think Steve said winter of 2005/2006. I put money on winter 2006.

[aka_tom_w]

bump