Contour Lines Desparately Needed

[aka_tom_w]

Mr Tittles is NOT all wrong about this.

If any of you remember or care to look it up (some time ago like 3-4 years) Steve G (Head Honcho and all around GOOD guy) said something to that effect before around the time CMBO was released. There was a thread about Terrain FOW. At the time he was talking about a ride in the Weasle (his tracked WWII fULL scale toy!) and getting lost in the forest and trying to simulate that experience in the game)

I was HEAVILY in favour of terrain fog of war meaning if you were not looking right at it or Standing RIGHT on top of it the MAP you see in the game could be WRONG!

This is STILL a GREAT idea!

Steve said something about how it would be interesting (if not down right impossible) to code the game so that units might get lost in the woods at night. OR some element of terrain fog of war would entice the player to possibly send his units off on a wild goose chase only to find that bridge (upon closer inspection) has been blown up and is not there. (These are NOT direct quotes, but Steve did participate in the Terrian Fog or War thread and DID NOT completely discount the idea but may have commented somthink like "IT would be REALLY REALLY HARD to do well and since we can do it well or make it perfect we won't do it at all (or something to that effect)"

SO I say TOTALLY YES to terrain FOW so that the map you see is the the whole REALITY of what is actually to be found on the battlefield. Thus some form of recon is required to determine the best tactics or the best plan to move forward and attack.

OR Somthing like that!

I am Sorry

Mr Tittles

"My point is that the game should control info-feed. If its left to the player to 'make the mistakes', the player will just take even longer to send a frikkin turn."

Please clarify your point:

Are you in favour of terrain FOW or are you saying NO WAY " the player will just take even longer to send a frikkin turn." ?

Sorry now I am confused

-tom w

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

The game allows the friendlies to misjudge enemy units. A Panzer IV is reported as a possible Tiger perhaps.

Why not have terrain misidentified? A clump of scattered trees far away are actually woods? A foxhole is actually a trench (yikes!)?

Missing a hill (which is in LOS) is sort of a wierd example. But missing a small depression would not be.

My point is that the game should control info-feed. If its left to the player to 'make the mistakes', the player will just take even longer to send a frikkin turn.

[ May 05, 2004, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

If you are directly commanding each squad, why is there a command delay? Think about it. Are the squad members voting on whether the Sarge is right?

yeah but

I think BFC has already admited Command dely is a kludge (sp?)

There are MANY good threads about this issue

ANY thread about relative spotting gets into the heart of this issue.

I will try to find the link.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

If you are directly commanding each squad, why is there a command delay? Think about it. Are the squad members voting on whether the Sarge is right?

yeah but

I think BFC has already admited Command dely is a kludge (sp?)

There are MANY good threads about this issue

ANY thread about relative spotting gets into the heart of this issue.

I will try to find the link.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

If you are directly commanding each squad, why is there a command delay? Think about it. Are the squad members voting on whether the Sarge is right?

Relative Spotting Revisited

this thread

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024461#000000

I think this was a LONG thread

it covered all kinds of topics like Command delays and player philosophy and a game design philosophy and it speaks to the designers game design philosophy as to EXACTLY what the player is doing in the game and what place and role the player has in the game

it is a LONG read

but some of you here may be interested:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024461#000000

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

If you are directly commanding each squad, why is there a command delay? Think about it. Are the squad members voting on whether the Sarge is right?

This cut and Paste from Steve's post in Relative Spotting Revisited will save you all from reading through 10 page of drivel (most of it mine in that Monster Thread.

this was posted over two years ago so this is NOT a new issue!

Steve says:

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted April 26, 2002 08:13 PM                

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

Oh my God but this is a really big thread

Folks, the crux of the issue is this...

Do people want a Command Style, Micromanagement Style, or Multi-Level Style game? These are terms I made up to illustrate the three major groupings. I define each as such:

1. Command Style - you are in ONE definite position of command. You can only influence the battlefield as that one command position would allow in the real world. More importantly, all subordinate units under your command would behave 100% autonomously from your will unless you were able to realistically give them "orders". I am not just talking about radio or messanger contact, but chain of command.

A Major does NOT go and order some buck private to move his MG to a better spot. He orders a Captain to set up a certain type of position in a certain location ("set up a defensive line along the north side of Hill 345"), the Captain then issues more specific commands to his LTs. ("1st Platoon go to that stand of trees, 2nd Platoon down thee road a click, 3rd Platoon deploy to 2nd's right), then each LT gives orders to his SGTs to deploy a little bit more specifically ("1st Squad, take that wall over there, 2nd Squad see if that house has a good field of fire on that gully over there, 3rd Squad go over there and see what you can do about covering that road junction"), and then each SGT in turn yells at various peeons to get moving to a VERY specific location ("behind that tree, numbnuts! Smitty!! Damn your soul... get that MG set up pronto behind that boulder facing that way or I'll tapdance on your butt for the rest of the day").

Now, in such a system the Major (that would be you!) does not know or even care about these details. That is called deligation of responsibility and initiative, which is what every modern armed force is trained around doing. The Major's responsibilities are to keep in touch with his neighboring formations and higher HQ, requisitioning stuff (units, supplies, guns, etc.) to get his mission accomplished, and making sure everything is running smoothly before, during, and after contact with the enemy. In non combat situations there are a LOT more responsibilities than that, but we are only focusing on the combat aspect.

What each unit under his command can or can not see, shoot at, or deal with is NOT the Major's direct concern. It is the direct concern of the unit in question and its HQ. The Major is, of course, trying to get as much information as possible so he can best lead the battle, but he doesn't care a hoot if there is an enemy squad 203.4 meters and closing on 1st Squad, 3rd Platoon, E Company. At least specifically he doesn't care.

So there you have it. This is how REAL combat works in terms of C&C. There is absolutely no way to simulate the reality of the battlefield without taking the player's mits 99% off direct control of units.

2. Micromanagement Style - You read all of the above, correct? Well, forget about it A Mircormanagement style game doesn't give a hoot about command and control aspects of warfare. You get some units, you use units as you see fit. When you click on one of the units you can order it to do whatever the heck you want without any thoughts about command and control. I would even include games with very primative attempts at C&C being lumped into this group.

3. Multi-Level Style - The player is neither a single commander nor an über micromanager. Orders can be given to any unit, but those orders and behaviors are influenced, to some degree or another, by Command and Control rules. In other words, you CAN order that individual MG to move 2.5 meters to the left, but you can not do this for "free". Some set of rules are set up to make such an order be more or less effective depending on the circumstances (in/out C&C, good/poor morale, good/poor experience, etc). The player is therefore still has far more flexability than a single commander would ever have, but not total and utter control in any and all circumstances.

Examples of each game...

Command Style - I know of no commercial wargame in existance that does this type of simulation. A game like the upcoming Airborne Assault comes VERY close, but even that one doesn't limit you to one command position with only the ability to see and affect the action as that one position would allow.

Micromanagement Style - best example I can give you guys is something like Panzer General or Close Combat. In both of these games you could order your units to do whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted without the slightest interference in terms of command decisions.

Multi-Level Style - Combat Mission and Steel Panthers come to mind. The original system in Steel Panthers was quite simplistic compared to Combat Mission's, but both sought to penalize units which lacked C&C with their higher HQs. Combat Mission took many previous game concepts a few steps further, as well as adding a few new ones of its own. Some games, like Combat Mission, lean more towards Command Style while others, like Airborne Assault go even further. Other games, like Steel Panthers, lean more towards Micromanagement Style.

In terms of realism, Command Style is the highest ideal, Micromanagement the lowest, and Multi-Level somewhere inbetween. In terms of playability, Micromanagement is the highest ideal, Command Style the lowest, and Multi-Level somewhere inbetween.

In terms of proven trackrecord of being fun, the pie is split between Micromanagement and Multi-Level. No wargame has ever fit the definition of Command Style, so it has no reecord. We are not going to try and be the first because we would rather watch paint dry than play such a game. And we are very sure that 99% of our customers would agree. And that 1% would most likely not really wind up liking the game anyway. Sometimes people need to be careful about what they ask for because they just might get it

Command Style games do not exist for a reason. They are nearly impossible to make (the AI necessary boggles the mind!) and the gameplay value near non existant. So why bother trying?

Instead we will make Combat Mission more realistic through our system of Relative Spotting. Reading through some of the posts here, I don't think people necessarily totally understand what a profound impact it will have on the game. Will it make CM 100% realistic? No, and I pitty any fool developer who attempts such a silly venture. But will CM be more realistic than any Squad level wargame yet? Well... of course we already think it is , but we know we can do better.

So until we get into coding the new engine, do a search on Relative Spotting and see what has been said on the subject before. Lots of good stuff to read through.

Steve

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

IP: Logged

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted April 26, 2002 08:27 PM                

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

U8lead asked:

quote:

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

Do units in C&C spot and ID better then the same units out of C&C in the current game?

And if so, do any of the HQ bonuses (possibly combat bonus) apply to spotting and ID?

If units out of C&C had a substantialy reduced positive ID range would that help Borg ID?

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

No, no, and no

Why should a unit out of C&C be able to see less far? How is that more realistic? And if it can't see out as far, but in real life should, how does that affect the realistic ability of that individual unit to respond to the oncoming threat? Should a Tiger Tank with a Crack crew sit around NOT spotting an ISU-152 which it should plainly see, just because it doesn't have radio contact with BN HQ? I think not I also think we would have people screaming at us until we "fixed it or did somefink"

This is one of the fundamental problems I have seen in discussions like this. And that is thinking that unrealistically penalizing an individual unit somehow makes the game more realistic. At best it is a wash. At worst, it makes the game on the whole less realistic.

For example, not allowing a unit out of C&C to do anything until it is in C&C is totally unrealistic. Such a system simply swaps in one Borg behavior for another. It doesn't make the game any more realistic, but instead hobbles real life flexibility to the point of making the game unplayable and a joke of a simulation. Don't believe me? Try this one out...

Let us assume that units have to be in C&C with their higher HQs to pass on information and receive orders. OK, can anybody tell me what would happen, under this system, if the BN HQ unit got whacked on the first turn by a lucky artillery bombardment? Would the player just sit there staring at a screen totally lacking friendly and enemy units? Or would all the friendly units show up but the player couldn't do anything or yield any information about themselves or what they see?

The above situation illustrates why removing realistic tactical control is not the right direction to go towards. Because if you follow it to its logical conclusion (i.e. the ultimate realistic state), this is what you wind up with.

Honestly folks, your feedback is appreciated. But I for one am very glad some of you are gamers and not game designers

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

More from Steve

this is a LONG cut and paste

I post it a RE post to summarize the Design values and Philosophy as posted by Steve about 2 years ago...

and as some of you here may have already noted this MAY be WAY way off topic from the original post about contour lines BUT since the discussion here started to "flow"/drift toward game design and game design philosophy decsions I thought I would take the opportunity to post Steves thoughts and remarks from 2 years ago:

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted April 26, 2002 08:51 PM                

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

Tom,

quote:

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

I think it has been a positive and constructive discusion with several different points of view represented.

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

I agree, but I must also point out that this discussion is not that different than a 1/2 dozen other ones held in the past. That is not to take away anything from anyone who participated here and not in the others, but rather to point out that the CM's borg problems are pretty well established by now. They are also not inherently different than those of other games, although we would argue CM deals with them better.

The ideas people are kicking around in this thread are also ones that have been kicked around in other threads. Specifics might not be exactly the same, but the core motivation behind certain lines of thinking are surprisingly similar.

Some people think the key to better realism is to have a sort of "you got it or you don" system of C&C where units not in C&C sit around dumbly until they are contacted again. A variation on that is that the AI somehow handles these units while you are not in command of them. The former is utterly unrealistic, the latter so difficult to program effectively that it is not the best design to pursue (i.e. spending a year making the AI for this means a year of doing nothing else ).

Others think that the way to go is to simulate "orders" down through the chain of command. This is something that most people would find about as exciting as watching paint dry Watering this idea down to make there be more game also means watering down the potential realism and reintroducing the Borg problem.

Believe me, I am not trying to ridicule people for their theories on how the Borg issue should be dealt with. I'm just trying to point out that some "cures" will actually kill the pateient before the operation is even over Others suggest things which will leave nasty scars and open up the doctors for lawsuits (or rather unpleasant commentary on BBSes ). But in general, I think most people understand the basic issues and some even see very simple solutions to some of the problems. Or at least can see how a huge problem can be tackled by several smaller, comprehensive changes.

I think that once people see CMBB they will understand how the Big Problems can be tackled by smaller, perhaps even subtle, changes. Not completely, of course, because to do that the human player would have to be removed almost completely from the game. Later, I think people will see that Relative Spotting (as we have discussed it in the past) they will understand that it reduces or eliminates most of the Big Problems in CM that remain after CMBB's changes. Will the future CM be perfect? From a realism standpoint, of course not. But I can assure you that we will get damned close. Close enough that people will probably ask for Relative Spotting related features to be optional

Steve

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

IP: Logged

aka_tom_w

Member

Member # 1515

posted April 26, 2002 09:17 PM                      

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

Thanks Steve

I think you and everyone else here has figured that this is the basic summary of my position on this issue:

"...even if the BTS idea of Relative Spotting were implimented, in that each and every unit makes it own spotting check and cannot target (but MAY be ordered to use "area Fire" at) enemy units it has not spotted, (BUT the player KNOWS where those enemy units are he can order or direct EVERY unit, irrespective of whether it has spotted the enemy unit or not, or whether it is in C&C or NOT, to fire or move in that general direction (NOW thats a "BORG Like Swarm" ™ to use Redwolf's term ), what would that solve?

I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat."

sorry to repeat that.

From what I understand, yourself (and Most folks here it woud seem) will be comfortable with the Player responding to an enemey threat that is only identified and spotted by one friendly unit by directing all other friendly units in the vicinity to fire at that location or start to move toward that location, (EVEN from WAY across the map) if this is an acceptable situation as a result of the NEW Relative Spotting protocol, to most folks here then I should simply agree to live with it and retire back to that old gunnery optics discussion that was so much fun.

(Posted in the very BEST of humour)

Thanks again its a GREAT game and chatting about it on this forum is even MORE fun than playing sometimes

-tom w

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

Posts: 4902 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted April 26, 2002 09:53 PM                

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

Tom,

quote:

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

...even if the BTS idea of Relative Spotting were implimented, in that each and every unit makes it own spotting check and cannot target (but MAY be ordered to use "area Fire" at) enemy units it has not spotted, (BUT the player KNOWS where those enemy units are he can order or direct EVERY unit, irrespective of whether it has spotted the enemy unit or not, or whether it is in C&C or NOT, to fire or move in that general direction (NOW thats a "BORG Like Swarm" ™ to use Redwolf's term ), what would that solve?

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

Uhm... A HECK OF A LOT Area fire is useless against a moving target and has reduced accuracy and effects against a stationary one. If you think that Area Fire is a fine and dandy substitute for direct targeting, might I suggest booting up CMBO and playing a game on the defensive only using Area Fire commands. I think that ought to get you to see that you are taking a rather extreme and unfair look at what ONE ASPECT of Realitive Spotting will do.

quote:

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

I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat.

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

In a black and white world, where there is only Borg and Not Borg, you would be correct. But that is a world I don't live in As I described above, there is absolutely NO solution to the Borg problem except to remove the human player from the game. Do you really want that?

If so we could easily make CM play so that you deploy your troops (which CM buys for you) by simply clicking down the HQs at the next level lower than your own (i.e. if you are the Major, you can only click on the Company HQs). CM would then deploy all the rest of the units without you even seeing them. Yup, you wouldn't see anything except what was around your HQ unit, which would be set up and unmovable (for the most part) after the Setup Phase. Then the game would start. You would issue a couple of vauge orders to your next lower HQs and then sit back and wait. From Turn 1 on all friendly units would disappear from the map. Every so often a Spotted icon would appear where MAYBE one of your directly subordinated HQ was. At this point in time you might get back some meaningful information from the HQ, or perhpas not. Depending on if the HQ is in radio contact or not, you could issue orders to the HQ along the vauge lines of Turn 1. You will have no idea what that HQ does with them until the next time he resurfaces. If there is no radio contact, runners would be necessary and that means instant communication would be impossible, thus making that Spotted icon appear less frequently and even more prone to error. After the shooting would start you might have a rough idea about where and the nature of the shooting. But until one of those ghost icons popped up, you wouldn't know much more than that. And even when that does happen, you would only get back snipts of text about what was going on and you could still only issue a few vauge orders.

Gee... DAMN does that sound like fun! Whoopie Cripes, we wouldn't even need to program in anything except some sort of ZORK like text adventure script engine and a few generalized combat resolution equations.

You see.. THAT is the be all, end all Black and White counter balance to the RTS type Borg system. CM is already somewhere inbetween the two, and CMBB is a bit more towards the realism side. The engine rewrite will be even more towards the REALISM side of the equation by reducing the effectiveness of the Borg aspect. But no way, no how can we eliminate it. So why bother having such a black and white set of standards when one side is available and not liked (i.e. RTS with no C&C rules at all) and the other would be a yawner to even those who THINK they want it (i.e. human player almost totally removed from even watching the action)? Wouldn't it be more interesting and productive to focus on practical ways to make the game more realistic without all the hoo-ha about it not going far enough? Hmmm?

Tom, I know you have been a participant in many of the previous discusions. I would have hoped that you picked up on the fact that Relative Spotting is only the underlying mechanism, not the solution. In other words, there are all SORTS of things we can do once Relative Spotting is in place that will increase realism, decrease the Borg, and at the same time make CM more fun. Having restrictions on targeting is just ONE feature made possible by Relative Spotting. A better system of artillery requests is another. More accountable and detailed C&C delays is yet another. There are LOTs of possibilities made possible because of Relative Spotting. So again, don't think of Relative Spotting as the solution, but a part of the underlying foundation for other features which in turn will do lots of things to improve the game on all levels.

When we get into this phase of design we should all have a nice group think about ways we can leverage Relative Spotting and other systems to make CM more realistic. But at this point, we don't have the time to do that. Already spent too much time on this issue as it is

Steve

[Mr. Tittles]

Thats a bit much there tom.

My opinion is that there is better reality at smaller TO&E. By that, I mean there is no borg when I play a game of one tank against one tank. Spotting is just spotting (and hopefully it was tested this way). Likewise, playing a platoon of infantry against a platoon of infantry can be very realistic. The shared spotting, not getting unreasonable.

But the borg is a big looming slob over these huge scenarios that are designed. The players identity in the game is blurred and the gaminess rules.

The main point is; What is the scale of the game? Is it a company level game? Battalion level? You could not get me to play one of those battalion level desert eyesore scenarios. Is it always relative spotting's fault? If there was multiplayers for each side, relative spottings effects would be decreased.

As far as units getting lost, thats a different topic.

I think command delay is a pretty good abstraction. I think that delays longer than a minute turn should not be allowed to be canceled or edited later. That is, the player has committed himself to those 60 seconds. If nothing else, it would speed up play and decrease micromanagementitus.

[ May 05, 2004, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[aka_tom_w]

sorry

please indulge me with one more

I promise it is the last:

Kallimakhos

Member

Member # 5131

posted May 07, 2002 09:56 PM                     

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

quote:

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

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Of course I'm sure we would all like to find a solution where we could "Have our Cake and EAT it too!" I'm always wondering if we have over looked something...

What about keeping all these ideas in mind:

"So my point is that it isn't so much the SPOTTING but rather the IDing. This

is especially true for the attacker, the attacker gets WAY too much

information regarding targets. The ability of all units to ascertain exactly

WHAT it is they are spotting is as much a problem as sharing spotting because

that is the intel they are sharing that is SO valuable.

A game suggestion then is to bring down the IDing level but keep the spotting

the same. This could be an extreme FOW option (cause theres always some that

like it just the way it is)."

And add some of these ideas:

The idea of ONLY seeing enemy units from view 1 (ONLY) while your friendly unit is selected) is a novel approach to the problem. This suggestion does not limit ANYTHING else to view 1 it only limits the ability of the player to see opposing units (which should be VERY poorly ID'd to prevent positive intel info) that his friendly units are in contact with or have LOS to from their unique perspective in view 1. All other views work fine (but you can't see any opposing units unless you are in view 1 and have the unit selected that has LOS to the opposing unit). Combine this suggestion with a few of Ceasar's proposals:

"1. Every unit had to individually spot a unit. Obviously if the enemy unit fires, it will be easier to spot as all units will turn to the sound of fire. Fuzzy logic should determine spotting i.e you get x% chance of spotting in the given conditions (depending on the unit quality as now), with this chance increasing with sound and other factors drawing units attention to that area.

3. FOW applied to the map. The map should only initially give broad information (the sort you could get off a map and with general info from the local populace) The map should only get updated as units within CnC (up to at least the Co level if one is present). If a player gives an order, that as a result of ignorance of the map, cannot be obeyed then the unit will stop and behave with normal TacAI behaviour. This will cause the unexpected delays that would happen in real life. Spotting from a distance should have fuzzy logic applied that causes inaccuracies such as incorrect elevetions, missing small copses, ditches etc. The map updating should suffer the same CnC delays as above.

4. Allow normal squad level delays to be applied to small movements and 5 - 7 waypoints for those in local CnC, but much greater delays related to the above CnC delays for large movements or higher numbers of waypoints. This would force players to maintain realistic command structures and more importantly slow down the current almost immediate response to a significant threat.

5. As CnC would be much more important, units that lose their HQ should be able to attach to other HQs with reduced performance (and none of the modifiers)"

Or the AI could Grow or spawn new leaders from the ranks of the non-coms. Sorry I don't have source on that it was someone elses idea to provide an option for short term leadership (depending on mitagating circumstances) as an emergency measure so that there would be a chance the Player would not instantly loose ALL control over all units not in C&C after the loss of their HQ unit.

-tom w

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

Ha! I knew I was NOT going to be the first one to think of this. Now that I've read all (well, most) the previous posts I see that my thinking is going along same paths with Tom on many issues, but maybe there are some original ideas in my innocent little suggestion.

So, where to go if we want to avoid both the Borg and Gods view problems as much as possible, and at the same time give the player control and ideally right amount of information at the squad/vehicle level, platoon/company commander level and at the supreme commander level? This is indeed possible and as additional bonus your troops can get lost or end up in wrong place both at middle and squad level, in a very natural way, which was before just a distant dream for Steve G.

The solution could be called simply Iron man Immersion (bit easier than the IMSRS-FOW ) which naturally should be optional "ultimate ffow", meant only for the groggiest and the most anal gamers (which could very likely make the majority!). This is a solution to most if not all major conserns raised before, not perfect but closest I can concieve.

This gives also answer to the question which role does the player take. A dual role. On the one end supreme commander, with the cumulating knowlegde of the overall situation on an evolving 2D map, being able to give direct and more general orders to platoons and companies. On the other hand the role of each squad/vehicle with very limited visibility (only level 1) and limited info (relative spotting). There is also the intermediate level, platoon/company commander, which would be some sort of mix of these two, and needs lot more thinking.

One of the good points is that there is clear distinction between different roles, and player can choose by the size of battle, individual tastes and other factors weather he prefers giving the "planning orders" (2D) or "control orders" (limited 3D).

Nothing good comes without cost, in return we must give up some of the fun, no unlimited movie watching (only level 1 and not even for every unit) until the end, and assigning individual orders to squads/vehicles could be bit tedious, as it must be done in a certain order and cycling through units without mouse pointing (unless there is a good roster which BTS might oppose). Even though this model greatly reduses the available information, I don't see how it would be possible to totally avoid some "unrealistic" bits and peaces of info spilling from the order fase and limited movie whatching for the perceptive human minds. E.g. whatching from a hill can give you clues how not to get lost with a unit. Also, it is actually quite hard to imagine how and if this would really work in actual game, for one I've never played with Iron man rules and this is quite different.

I'm sure there must be something very wrong with this suggestion, because it sounds too good, and I'm sure these will be pointed out. But now to the details:

1. As the supreme commander HQ ('you') you have the 2D map of the battlefield, and on that map you see your troops in C&C and the cumulating info on the enemy positions and map details. This info can also be false. On the map you can give more complicated movement orders (many waypoints) with shorter delays to co's and platoons with established communications. This of course requires improving the AI, to handle formations with some skill. Changing these orders before the object has been reached or contact made with the enemy means long delays (getting the orders to all concerned, regrouping etc.) Once in contact (ie fired at) unit should respond with more autonomy, so shorter delays. In other words, now the player is in a way in the shoes of the platoon commander. Many intermediate C&C issues still need a closer look at this level.

- 2D map can contain also some prebattle recon info, not necessarily allways true, on enemy troops and positions, depending on the type of the battle and randomized or bought before the battle.

- Recon order, as somebody already suggested. On the 2D you can give orders to appropriate units to recon in a certain direction, and if succesfull and not dying, after a while, depending on communications, you get more info on the 2D map. Special AI routines needed of course. This way if a recon unit with no radio and out of C&C is totally destroyed, no info is given, except getting meeting enemy somewhere along the route. If crew or stragler survives the more accurate info comes after long delay if at all.

- Same way all info from units encountering enemy units and in C&C, end up eventually on the 2D map, after certain delays which also take into account info going from up to down to all subcommanders, which then naturally happens "instantaneously" because they are your 'alter egos'. But because they can "see" only at level 1, in game terms they only know there is something in that direction, and their movement is more limited than when given orders on 2D map.

- artillery: spotters in contact with higher headquarter units, especially 'you', mean shorter delays.

- If the 'you' HQ is lost, also much of the information on the 2D map is lost.

- giving a order on 2D map includes random risk that the unit gets lost or ends up in wrong location. This won't be presented on the 2D map, but if you notice something is wrong in the level 1 view, you can reorder with considerable delay.

2. Level 1 view, commanding individual squads and vehicles. First, different set of orders from the 2D map which represent "planning orders, and include only various types of movement. These control orders include also targeting, searching hull down positions etc. There could also be some special orders for midlevel HQ's. Relative spotting, only enemy units you see here are those spotted by the selected units and those spotted by units in close contact or good communication line, with a certain delay. The "send runner" command suggested by someone sounds also very good.

- a big handicap is that to keep it realistic, control orders should probably be given in certain order (which?), after planning orders, to get no extra information from other units, and could be given just once in every turn. But maybe with the more flexible and easier "planning orders" on 2D map this could be avoided, if the biggest problem in "Gods view" is moving all the troops you want to handle a situation those troops should have no knowledge of. Also although the level 1 view would give you more info on enemy troops than the 2D map, it would be much harder to grasp and put to context. Anyway, there is a real problem here.

- giving movement orders only in visible boundaries preferred, but it should be possible to plot also into "grey" areas, with considerable risk and delay. The system should be flexible enough to work well in all wheather conditions.

- general "battle sounds this way" markers.

- if unit out of C&C, only generic markers for spotted enemy units to avoid unrealistic ID'ng.

- suppressed units available info even more limited.

- unit can get lost relatively easily in the "natural way", as prescribed earlier.

- possibility for enemy units to go back to totally unspotted under certain circumstanses.

3. The movies. Only level one and 2D map. Ideally the map shows "hotspots" which you can click and see when something worthwhile is going on, so you dont have to go through each and every unit, although this would still be possible, starting with HQ's, spotters etc down to ordinary units, except for units out of C&C (panic, too far etc), so no info can be gained from those. Unlimited movie wathcing after the game has ended obligatory reward after getting through the hardship!

- units coming back to C&C could show their earlier movies (battlestories for mates ) at that point, if necessary.

Underlying the whole system individual unit communicative abilities as has been suggested,(depending on technology, experience etc.) which affect information delays and accuracy, spotting aid for other units etc.

Well, now that much of my original hybris has worn off I see there are many unsolved problems, programming difficulties, gameplay could perhaps get too complicated, so maybe this is not worth while (the price is too high?). Still, hopefully there are at least few good ideas to add to those presented earlier. "

(End Quote)

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

OK

sorry

thanks for your reply I do indeed understand your point now and you do make a good point!

I am done now that I have all that game design philosophy/terrain FOW stuff out of my system.

ahh..

that feels better

now back your regularily scheduled thread...

sorry for the rants and the long reposts

-tom w

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Thats a bit much there tom.

My opinion is that there is better reality at smaller TO&E. By that, I mean there is no borg when I play a game of one tank against one tank. Spotting is just spotting (and hopefully it was tested this way). Likewise, playing a platoon of infantry against a platoon of infantry can be very realistic. The shared spotting, not getting unreasonable.

But the borg is a big looming slob over these huge scenarios that are designed. The players identity in the game is blurred and the gaminess rules.

The main point is; What is the scale of the game? Is it a company level game? Battalion level? You could not get me to play one of those battalion level desert eyesore scenarios. Is it always relative spotting's fault? If there was multiplayers for each side, relative spottings effects would be decreased.

As far as units getting lost, thats a different topic.

I think command delay is a pretty good abstraction. I think that delays longer than a minute turn should not be allowed to be canceled or edited later. That is, the player has committed himself to those 60 seconds. If nothing else, it would speed up play and decrease micromanagementitus.

[Mr. Tittles]

Please clarify your point:

I am in favor of terrain FOW.

I am not a fan of making the game 'sneaky-graphics' that are hard to look at and rely on players crawling all over the place and stretching LOS lines and looking at them from strange angles. The design intent being, lets make it miserable so that the player makes mistakes.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

[QB]

Kallimakhos

Member

Member # 5131

posted May 07, 2002 09:56 PM                     

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

quote:

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

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Of course I'm sure we would all like to find a solution where we could "Have our Cake and EAT it too!" I'm always wondering if we have over looked something...

What about keeping all these ideas in mind:

"So my point is that it isn't so much the SPOTTING but rather the IDing. This

is especially true for the attacker, the attacker gets WAY too much

information regarding targets. The ability of all units to ascertain exactly

WHAT it is they are spotting is as much a problem as sharing spotting because

that is the intel they are sharing that is SO valuable.

A game suggestion then is to bring down the IDing level but keep the spotting

the same. This could be an extreme FOW option (cause theres always some that

like it just the way it is)."

This is a very astute observation by Kallimakhos. He is basically saying that the often heard chant of the "relative spotting can't be fixed" is not exactly right. Its the detail of the spotting thats important.

Lets say a conscript half squad out of C&C is out on a flank. He spots 8 infantry types breaking cover and coming at the flank of his platoon. Now, are they 8 12 man squads? Or 3 full squads and a HQ and 2 lmgs? Or maybe 4 depleted half squads and some shot up crews?

So its the details that are the shades of omnispotting that were missed by the designers?

[ May 05, 2004, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[aka_tom_w]

Lets not forget Steve was involved in that discussion and it

took place over two years ago

I am hopefull they have not missed "details that are the shades of omnispotting" .

So far there has been ALMOST no disscusion about these issues in the next big thing CMX2 so I am always happy to try to sneak in a few questions about what's happening with the game design for CMX2 any time these issues come up.

he he

-tom w

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

This is a very astute observation by Kallimakhos. He is basically saying that the often heard chant of the "relative spotting can't be fixed" is not exactly right. Its the detail of the spotting thats important.

Lets say a conscript half squad out of C&C is out on a flank. He spots 8 infantry types breaking cover and coming at the flank of his platoon. Now, are they 8 12 man squads? Or 3 full squads and a HQ and 2 lmgs? Or maybe 4 depleted half squads and some shot up crews?

So its the details that are the shades of omnispotting that were missed by the designers?

[Mr. Tittles]

I think further de-borging of this relative spotting might take into account if the spotter is firing or moving himself. Also, the number of spotting 'attempts' one unit can make should be limited.

Getting back to the origional topics:

1. Yes to some kind of contour map (detail depending on conditions)

2. LOS improvement devices. Only friendly unit based. Certainly.

3. FOW for terrain. Yes.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Chelco:

Regarding that we are supposed to make mistakes, I wish they wouldn't be related to missjudging the terrain and they would be all related to improper tactical use of my forces.

The impression I have gained from my readings is that misjudging the terrain, often with tactical consequences, was rather common unless one had had troops in the area long enough to scout the ground and note the militarily significant features. Just how long "long enough" was naturally enough depended on the nature of the terrain and how much needed to be noted. I suspect that in the desert in a locale where the ground is fairly flat and featureless, a single shallow ravine offering a covered approach could be absolutely crucial, and might or might not be readily apparent to the eye. A defender who had been in the area for any length of time would almost certainly know of it and take appropriate measures regarding this weakness in his defense (unless he were Italian ). Would an attacker spot it in time to make use of it? Depends, doesn't it?

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Papa Khann:

Call me gamey and unrealistic...

Well [reluctantly] okay...you're gamey and unrealistic.

...why not provide us with better tools that are easier to use?

I don't think anybody would argue with that sentence, at least I wouldn't. What we are haggling over is the definition of the terms 'better' and 'easier'.

We aren't playing the role of a single battlefield commander in CM.

You're right and I would further agree that such a game would likely not be a great deal of fun. But the question is how far should CM go in allowing to be an all-seeing eye of god? It gives us some latitude in that area at present. Some players would clearly like more, which would I suppose make CM more like a game of chess: a pure test of tactical and strategic skill. Others—and I must declare myself in this camp—want to retain some degree of the wonkiness and unpredictability that we see in real life. Too much of that would just reduce the game to a crap shoot. Not enough would destroy its credibility as a representation of an actual historical event, which is an important factor contributing to immersion of many of the players who have flocked to this game and thus their pleasure in playing it.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by jrrich0000:

OK, how about this? That little window that shows the geographic area of the battle is useless... I mean I know I'm fighting in Italy for gosh sakes. Why not use that space for a topo map of the battlefield with widely spaced contour lines that would give an overall impression of the terrain?

Too small. You couldn't put any useful information in that window. If you aren't going to put contour lines on the main map, better to have a full-screen pop-up window that you could toggle.

Michael

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Papa Khann:

Call me gamey and unrealistic...

Well [reluctantly] okay...you're gamey and unrealistic.

</font>

[Michael Emrys]

No, just a litle bit retarded. We try not to mention it in front of him. He gets mad and sulks and won't fetch the papers the way he was brought up to do.

Michael

[aka_tom_w]

"You're right and I would further agree that such a game would likely not be a great deal of fun. But the question is how far should CM go in allowing to be an all-seeing eye of god? It gives us some latitude in that area at present. Some players would clearly like more, which would I suppose make CM more like a game of chess: a pure test of tactical and strategic skill. Others—and I must declare myself in this camp—want to retain some degree of the wonkiness and unpredictability that we see in real life. Too much of that would just reduce the game to a crap shoot. Not enough would destroy its credibility as a representation of an actual historical event, which is an important factor contributing to immersion of many of the players who have flocked to this game and thus their pleasure in playing it."

OK sorry this thread was supposed to be about contour elevation lines on the map.

Since the title looked interesting I poked my head in.

I have wanted contour elevation lines on the map since I saw the Gold Demo of CMBO. But all we ever got was shades of green grass light for higher and darker for lower, (same for snow or desert)

So I was interested in the Topic

then terrain FOW came up and I was interested in THAT too

And this more question about this kind of thing came up:

" But the question is how far should CM go in allowing to be an all-seeing eye of god?"

This is also an issue of relative spotting and absolute spotting and borg like knowledge of the commander to see and KNOW all things at ALL times on the battlefield.

One thing Redwolf said sometime ago was "How can you reduce the impact of the Borg spotting and the "swarm" response"

Meaning that once the Player has one unit that spots one threat anywhere on the map that player can then direct the actions and the fire of ALL other units towards that threat even if those units have not spotted the thread or COULD NOT KNOW it even exists in the VERY NEXT minute of combat.

So I posted some of Steve's comments about the Borg Swarming Response issue. And since some people who were posting here were commenting and discussing game design and game design philosophy issues here I thought it might be ok to re-post some of Steve G's juicy quotes about how and why the game is the way it is.

So back to contour elevation lines YES I would like to see them on the map.

Terrain Fog Of War Hell YES! ....

Some form of recon in the game would be more fun so a player would have to have units with LOS to specific parts of the map so that player could "actually" see what his units see on the REAL battlefield as opposed to what the player "thinks" he sees on his 2D map of the area. (There could and should be a difference between what is really on the 3D battle field and what the player sees on his 2D map from view 7 or 8)

I hope that was not too confusing or too contenious

OK?

-tom w

(aka_tom_w has been a vocal contributor on this forum since before CMBO (yeah the FIRST CMxx release) was released)

[Mr. Tittles]

Maybe he's just a little bit Canadian and mildly retarded.

[Ron]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

The impression I have gained from my readings is that misjudging the terrain, often with tactical consequences, was rather common unless one had had troops in the area long enough to scout the ground and note the militarily significant features. Just how long "long enough" was naturally enough depended on the nature of the terrain and how much needed to be noted.

Michael

There is that but also how experienced the units are in 'reading' the terrain. I am currently reading "An Army at Dawn" and it mentions the difficulty the US forces had in Tunisia in using the terrain, even defending, whereas the Germans had no such problem, even though they had just captured it or moved into the area. Something to consider.

Ron

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Ron:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

The impression I have gained from my readings is that misjudging the terrain, often with tactical consequences, was rather common unless one had had troops in the area long enough to scout the ground and note the militarily significant features. Just how long "long enough" was naturally enough depended on the nature of the terrain and how much needed to be noted.

Michael

There is that but also how experienced the units are in 'reading' the terrain. I am currently reading "An Army at Dawn" and it mentions the difficulty the US forces had in Tunisia in using the terrain, even defending, whereas the Germans had no such problem, even though they had just captured it or moved into the area. Something to consider.</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Maybe he's just a little bit Canadian and mildly retarded.

But...wouldn't that be a tautology?

:confused:

Michael

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Maybe he's just a little bit Canadian and mildly retarded.

But...wouldn't that be a tautology?

:confused:

</font>

[JasonC]

Well, me, I don't think you need to fuzzy up everything and confuse the players as much as possible and map hangnails and whether socks are dirty or clean.

I just want to be able to see a 5 meter elevation change in sand without spending an hour per turn doing so.

Which some nice bright ugly neon contour lines will do for me, just fine.

Those who don't want or need them can turn them off.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled complexification and unplayability "realism as snipe hunt" factory.