( New ? ) idea about spotting and map.......

[Monty]

Maybe this has been discussed many times ( sorry in that case ) but this is what i think about a lot lately :

Would it possible for ( a future )CM to use this ? :

At the start of a battle, you see only a very rough Map with little details ( especially in East Front the Maps were very bad AFAIK )

When advancing units discover vital points like hills, roads, rivers and bridges, these become visible on your Map ( with different color )

Offcours, normally there would be a time delay between the spotting and when HQ would get this info but for CM we can skip it i think to make the gameplay more interesting and faster.

It seem to me, this could be used easily (??? ) in CM.

This would also mean, you can NOT see the whole map when you make the setup for units, only the area where you start.

I think this would make/give us more interesting battles

What do you guys think about my ( hopefully genius hehe ) idea ?

Monty aka Moose

[Michael Emrys]

Interesting concept, but it might be difficult to implement. For instance, assume a fairly tall hill in my set up zone. Do I automatically see all the map that can be seen from its summit, or must I place a unit there to reap the benefit? And what happens if, during the set up phase, I change my mind and place that unit somewhere else? Does all that terrain then vanish?

This kind of thing has come up on more than one occasion on the board, but so far no-one has figured out a convincing way to make it workable (that I am aware of).

Michael

[aka_tom_w]

This has been refered to as terrain fog of war and there are some folks here who are VERY opposed to it

I like the idea myself.

it has come up a few times

some here hace said that in a war game there should be no "shroud" of the unknown as in say "Warcraft"

Since this issue came up long ago I have done more reading and have lately been Reading of the exploits of the US 743rd tank battalion (DD Sherm tanks in B company).

The book is entitled "Hell Has no Heroes" by Wayne Robinson (who fought in a DD sherm in WWII).

His tank company was ordered to Malamedy without ANY maps at all, driving at night in the fog. Even at the Battalion command level they had no maps and used a newpaper clipping of the area to get a "feel" for where they where going. The author describes the process of acquiring good maps as buying trading for or stealing (liberating) local road maps which where usually a few years old from local citizens that where glad to see them at least in France and Beligum. The American advance after the D-Day breakout from the bocage country, often happened with such great speed that they had no maps and entire tank columns followed only road signs and bad directions from CO's riding around in jeeps to get them where they were needed. This book talks about getting lost in the dark without maps and having road signs changed and the snafu things like that caused.

From what I have recently read, GOOD intel from up to date maps was sometimes hard to come by. Many folks here have said both sides in the ETO always had good maps and NO terrain fog of war should be modeled.

I'm not so sure.

Steve did comment at one time that it would be kind of cool to allow units to somehow get lost in the dark in the woods on strange roads, but he also mentioned they had no way to model this at this point with any kind of realism??

I like terrain fog of war and think it would be VERY ground breaking for this kind of game if the map changed when your friendly units got LOS to certain point on it that were recently damaged and now appear different than on the last map or road map you saw in the last briefing.

your comments.....

-tom w

[ March 24, 2002, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Indeed it is an interesting concept and it could be handled in a similar way to FOW.

No fog: terrain features show up as it is now. This might be default.

Terrain fog levels then might be affetcted additionally by map details quality. In principle unseen terrain could look as a flat 2D map. The map quality would then modify the way the *real* terrain shows up when units discover it (ie have LOS). With bad map quality terrain surprises might arrive: say you are heading straight toward a pass (on the map) only to discover - once your units have direct LOS to the area - that the pass is some hundreds meters elsewhere.

Same for road intersections: might arrive quicker or farther in front with respect to the map.

Hi-quality map would limit surprises to a minimum.

Losing a LOS to terrain features *might* turn the area into a high quality map simulating the fact that you have adjourned your map once you have seen the area: the map would then faithfully represent the terrain in a 2D fashion.

OR, once terrain is discovered it could remain *visible*. I haven't decided what would be better.

One thing terrain FOG would immediately give you is the available LOS from all your units combined: you would have an additional intel tool to establish what is visible instead of going through each units and check the various LOSs.

I would welcome such an add-on.

[Mud]

Hm. Interesting. Can't speak as to how realistic it would be, or how difficult to model... but it would add serious niftyness.

And if combined with, say, the ability to provide a briefing with inline graphics (say, a certain amount of HTML support, heh), it could add yet more immersion. The briefing map might include a 2D map with annotations and arrows drawn along it, maybe with estimates of enemy strength, while the initial 3D map would be mostly hidden. Hmmmm.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Mud:

Hm. Interesting. Can't speak as to how realistic it would be, or how difficult to model... but it would add serious niftyness.

[snips]

I don't like using the word "realistic", which serves only to confuse things; but I would certainly like a game where people had to do terrain recce, something I have never seen a wargame do before except some miniatures games I've umpired.

People who think this doesn't matter have, presumably, neither seen a brigade commander potter off to his helo for a flight to take a look at the ground; nor can they have had the educative experience of trying to go "right flanking" through a thigh-deep bog, which stopped our rifle group doing its assault and drew sour remarks about "someone didn't do their terrain recce, did they, sir" from one of the old lags.

All the best,

John.

[aka_tom_w]

if you think this thread is interesting try reading this one:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=003938

its OLD like april 20 2000

(saved in the archives, takes a little longer to load I have found)

here is a sample:

Topic: should we be able to see so much?

mikeadams

Member

Member # 1150

posted April 20, 2000 08:38 AM

When a scenario starts we are able to view the entire terrain in complete detail. I know the tactical maps

were pretty good (at least some of the time) but should we be able to know that there is a clump of

trees behind that house etc? Is it possible in future upgrades to show a limited view, which upgrades

based on LOS knowledge?

IP: Logged

tom w

unregistered

posted April 20, 2000 09:27 AM

quote:

Originally posted by mikeadams:

When a scenario starts we are able to view the entire terrain in complete detail. I

know the tactical maps were pretty good (at least some of the time) but should we

be able to know that there is a clump of trees behind that house etc? Is it possible

in future upgrades to show a limited view, which upgrades based on LOS

knowledge?

I like that idea

maybe yes the commander had a topo map?

did the commanders have good maps after

D-Day? I don't know

were the maps out of date?

perhaps

I like the Line of Sight concept of

only seeing what your troops

LOS can see, the rest should be

greyed out in the Fog of war like

in (I hate to draw a similiarity here)

the fog of war of say, Warcraft or

Myth or Age OF Empires

I'm not suggesting you make the game

more "computer game like"

just that maybe

the allied commanders (Not the krouts

they have been there for a while, dug in) have

out of date map info?

maybe the map shows a bridge there

and when you can actually "SEE" the bridge

the bridge has a chance of "being seen" as

destroyed, same with houses, especially the

two story variety as they are more tactically

significant. Map shows house or bridge,

when your troops actually get line of sight to that

feature maybe there is a random chance its

there or its not there, if there had been

heavy fighting in the area earlier?

Thank-you BTS this is a Great Game

and thanks for the opportunity for all the input

and beta testing of the Beta Demo which is STILL

fun.

I think the suggestion is a good attempt to make

the fog of war more realistic and I like the idea

that you cannot KNOW ahead of time every last

terrain detail, you should only be able to actually

know or see features on the map, the terrain features or

structures your troops can actually see with their own

cyber eyes, (presuming, everyone

has a radio, which has been discussed before I think)

the rest of the "unseen" map is just a greyed out guess

based on your maybe out of date map?

thanks again

-tOm

IP: Logged

Mark IV

Member

Member # 346

posted April 20, 2000 09:42 AM

This was one of my most cherished suggestions for future CMs. I would like to see the unspotted

portion of the map displayed as a topo map (such as the poor commander got), which fills in with "real"

terrain as it is spotted by friendlies.

Inducing minor errors on the map would be brilliant (though they'd have to be random- a scenario

designer could be fiendishly tempted to display incorrect bridge placement to an opponent).

Some portions of the map could conceivably still be displayed as map-only at game's end. Imagine the

importance recon would suddenly assume, particularly on the Eastern Front, where maps were

notoriously inaccurate....

IP: Logged

tom w

unregistered

posted April 20, 2000 09:50 AM

quote:

Originally posted by Mark IV:

This was one of my most cherished suggestions for future CMs. I would like to see

the unspotted portion of the map displayed as a topo map (such as the poor

commander got), which fills in with "real" terrain as it is spotted by friendlies.

Inducing minor errors on the map would be brilliant (though they'd have to be

random- a scenario designer could be fiendishly tempted to display incorrect bridge

placement to an opponent).

Some portions of the map could conceivably still be displayed as map-only at

game's end. Imagine the importance recon would suddenly assume, particularly on

the Eastern Front, where maps were notoriously inaccurate....

Exactly...

Thank you Mark IV

I could not have said it better...

THINK OF THE ROLE OF RECON....

That should and could be a significant factor

in deciding victory, and tactics

Now that concept of Fiendish scenario designing

by the unscrupuless... raises its ugly head here for sure.

I'm Sure SS-Panzerleader will have plenty to say about it

BUT .. against the AI just for fun????? Why not

or in an "officially blessed" and sanctioned scenario

perhaps approved by BTS (?) or a body of volunteers to

sanction ladder "approved" scenario, this could add a dimension

of thrill fun and excitement and tactical playability

unheard of in ANY other wargame!

GO BTS!!

Thanks

-Tom W

IP: Logged

Black Sabot

Member

Member # 1142

posted April 20, 2000 12:44 PM

Hmmm, tough one...

Although i like the idea, i see a potential problem.

If a unit is scouting, gaining info about the terrain as it advanced, would that info be lost if the unit is

wiped out? would the map revert back to it's original setting?

IP: Logged

STEVE Says:

"

Big Time Software

Administrator

Member # 42

posted April 21, 2000 07:49 PM

As for the suggestion, it is one we thought about in the original design for CM. We dropped it because it was too complicated and was one of those features that likely had a higher degree of problems to benefits. In theory we both like it. In spite of what Moon says (and I TOTALLY agree with that BTW), there is one element that the current system does not simulate at all. That is getting lost.

Here is an example. Charles, Scott Udell, and myself hopped in my Weasel right after I got it running.We drove into my "back yard" down a trail and I MISSED the turn off I was looking for. We went down the main path and I got totally confused as to where I had planned on turning. I hopped out, motor running, and jogged back up the trail to see if I had gone too far or not far enough. Turns out I had gone too far. When I got back in all three of us mentioned that this is something lacking in wargames and would be cool if it could in fact be simulated. The result would be that recon would not just be for finding out where enemy units are, but also where the objectives are, the best routes, and so on. We

think it is a desirable feature IN THEORY...

Reality though, we aren't so sure. It is something we might do for CM II but not for CM 2 (meaning a

whole new series whenever we get to it, not a direct sequel). This feature does have the risk of hitting the point of dimenishing returns quite quickly.

We also don't think there is any point in doing this until we can have relative spotting (i.e. one unit

sees the enemy, the others don't), and that too is a BIG deal to put into the game. So we are talking

two huge, fundamental, tough features at the very least. We will most likely tackle neither for quite

some time, but will go with relative spotting at some point in all likelyhood. Maybe after that we can

have an unknown map feature.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 04-21-2000).]

"

[ March 25, 2002, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Mud:

Hm. Interesting. Can't speak as to how realistic it would be, or how difficult to model... but it would add serious niftyness.

And if combined with, say, the ability to provide a briefing with inline graphics (say, a certain amount of HTML support, heh), it could add yet more immersion. The briefing map might include a 2D map with annotations and arrows drawn along it, maybe with estimates of enemy strength, while the initial 3D map would be mostly hidden. Hmmmm.

Now that would be cool

a poor quality 2D road map of sorts in the briefly and then you have to do terrain recce with your units to see the ACTUAL lay of the land in 3D.

As mentioned in the OLD thread from April 2000 it would be IDEAL (we are not very likely to see anything like this any time soon but it sure would be COOL) to see the Lousy 2D map in places where your own units do not have LOS. SO once your units get LOS to more of the map, MORE real 3D features like Trees and rough tiles and bushes and buildings and 3D elveation features would somehow appear (thats the tricky part) and replace the low quality 2D road map. That would mean EVERY scenario would have a 2D map, (easy enough to do, just extract it without elevation info from the scenario editor) and a FULL 3D complete map. The 2D map could be generated at the same time as the scenario is saved in the map editor into a lousy 2D road map without buidlings or trees by useing a piece of code to only allow it to show only what would be determined to be "allowed" or admissible on the "Lousy 2D" road map.

This lousy 2D road map would then be what you see in the briefing (only smaller) and would be what you see spread out before you on the battlefield until your units got LOS to more of it turning those parts of the map that your friendly units have LOS to into the FULL blown 3D map we see now.

THAT would radically require new thinking and terrain recce for SURE! and it would be COOL.

I suspect we will be VERY lucky to see anything like that even in CM II the next generation game engine. Oh well its fun to dream

-tom w

[ March 25, 2002, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

anyone else have anything to add on this topic?

-tom w

[Doug Beman]

Sometimes the leaders of CM-scale battles had quite good info about terrain, sometimes they had very poor info. The most probable points of confusion would be stream fords, places where vehicles could pass through wooded areas, and the exact shape of hills.

An ideal solution IMHO would be one in which the scenario builder could set how accurate each side's terrain info is. If he decides that one combatant has never seen this ground before (maybe like the 3d Armored's troops when they drove on Bastogne) then this could be simulated by giving a sketchy briefing map, and forcing troops to actually SEE stream fords, areas where tanks can pass through woods, etc.

DjB

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

Sometimes the leaders of CM-scale battles had quite good info about terrain, sometimes they had very poor info. The most probable points of confusion would be stream fords, places where vehicles could pass through wooded areas, and the exact shape of hills.

An ideal solution IMHO would be one in which the scenario builder could set how accurate each side's terrain info is. If he decides that one combatant has never seen this ground before (maybe like the 3d Armored's troops when they drove on Bastogne) then this could be simulated by giving a sketchy briefing map, and forcing troops to actually SEE stream fords, areas where tanks can pass through woods, etc.

DjB

good point

the scenario designer could determine what would show up in the 2D map in the breifing. In the scenario editor the scenario designer could "filter" (in user configurable settings) what would make it on to the 2D road map of terrain info (or even if one was available) and make these decisions differnent for each side.

OK now we are REALLY dreaming

oh well its fun to dream

-tom w

[Monty]

Good points all !

Here is a completely different approach : ( easier to use for CM )

It would be nice if the scenario designer have an option to stop the players using view 3,4,5,6 en 7. ( forced )

Together with another new feature ( you cant scroll outside of your setup zone ) this gives a much more realistic way of viewing / spotting.

The player can choose if he looks around the whole map when the battle has started or he can play "realistic" by only look from his battle line positions.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Monty:

Good points all !

Here is a completely different approach : ( easier to use for CM )

It would be nice if the scenario designer have an option to stop the players using view 3,4,5,6 en 7. ( forced )

Together with another new feature ( you cant scroll outside of your setup zone ) this gives a much more realistic way of viewing / spotting.

The player can choose if he looks around the whole map when the battle has started or he can play "realistic" by only look from his battle line positions.

that sounds reasonable and very do-able for CMBB

good idea

-tom w

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

anyone else have anything to add on this topic?

-tom w

Wel as for the getting lost thing, and I don't see that anyone mentioned it, but it seems obvious to me to have the scenrio designer use a 50% (or whatever) probability to the reinforcement arrival. You then have a chance of reflecting gettng lost.... then in the scenario briefing you just mention that 3rd platoon called on the radio looking for directions as they think they are back at grid refernce XXX-XXX but they don't see landmark X they were expecting, or some such thing.

[aka_tom_w]

I'm a little surprised this thread is not of MORE interest to more folks here? :confused:

maybe it is because we are still discussing the same thing as the actual TOPIC of the thread

perhaps we have to get WAY of topic before more folks will consider participating

Someone once commented "Its NOT Recon Mission you know, its COMBAT Mission" so all the Terrain fog of war stuff has no place....

I wonder who said that?

-tom w