BFC Attempt at Relative Spotting simulated in CMBB?

[aka_tom_w]

I think this is welcome news.

This was gleaned (ok I copied and pasted it) from Kump's great CMBB preview page and his notes about game play issues that impact C&C and radios.

If any of you recall the discusion in the Relative Spotting revisted thread you may recall some suggestions to limit the "borg like" nature of absolute spotting in CMBO.

from that thread Steve said this:

"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 "

And

"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?

(I think I got a lecture here )

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."

-Steve

So Kumps reports we see these changes in CMBB THEY Sound GREAT!

The interface is still undergoing work, such as the new large 'in command' indicator that apparently was just introduced, as well as the unit leader rank indicator.  All in all, a

very professional looking interface and one I wish I had in CMBO.

Unit Radios

Units may have radios now.  Vehicles can now be in or out of command, which effects movement delays, capabilities, etc.  That means radios are very important and gives 'in

command' even though there is no LOS.  This gives big benefits to radio using units.  Forward Observers (FOs) also may have a radio or use wire.  If using wire

communications, don't expect to be embarking FOs on vehicles to rush them to that forward hill. 

Unit Command Delay

The unit command delays have been reduced.  This means units will start moving quicker.  However, this is countered by the new additional delay rules.  The normal unit

quality has an impact, but as stated, reduced. You now have fitness of troops that impact the delay.  If units are 'out of command', then additional delay is accrued.  And most

notable, the more waypoints you plot for a unit, the greater the delay.  The reasoning is that the commands are more complicated.  Overall, I love this change.

Those sound like sublt ways to reduce the "ugly-ness" of absolute spotting as it impacts play in CMBO!

Who else CAN'T wait for extreme FOW in CMBB!!?

-tom w

[ July 14, 2002, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[JMcGuire]

And most

notable, the more waypoints you plot for a unit, the greater the delay.

Yikes. :eek:

Here's hoping they've improved the game engine's ugly habit of creatively re-interpreting your commands... I can see it now:

Player - "Run from point A to point B"

CM - "Run into building 1, out of building 1, into building 2, out of building 2, into building 3, out of building 3..."

Command delay: 18 minutes...

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JMcGuire:

Here's hoping they've improved the game engine's ugly habit of creatively re-interpreting your commands... I can see it now:

Player - "Run from point A to point B"

CM - "Run into building 1, out of building 1, into building 2, out of building 2, into building 3, out of building 3..."

Command delay: 18 minutes...

That is not how it works.

[Stixx]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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

Here's hoping they've improved the game engine's ugly habit of creatively re-interpreting your commands... I can see it now:

Player - "Run from point A to point B"

CM - "Run into building 1, out of building 1, into building 2, out of building 2, into building 3, out of building 3..."

Command delay: 18 minutes...

That is not how it works.</font>

[JMcGuire]

Originally posted by Andreas:

That is not how it works.

Ok, I'll bite.

How does it work?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JMcGuire:

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

That is not how it works.

Ok, I'll bite.

How does it work?</font>

[JMcGuire]

Cool, gotcha. Thanks.

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by JMcGuire:

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

That is not how it works.

Ok, I'll bite.

How does it work?</font>

[aka_tom_w]

Its sort of hard to believe no cares about the horrors of Absolute Spotting any more?

-tom w

[Michael Emrys]

Well, tom, I guess since there's nothing to be done abut it at the moment, and it's been talked to death ten ways from Sunday, most of us have stopped obsessing about it. Don't worry though, it's bound to come around again in the fullness of time.

Michael