Camouflage And Hiding

[mav1]

It would be a good idea to be able to camouflage afv's and gun's. You should be able to do this in scattered trees and edges of woods (afv's should be allowed to go into the edges of woods). This would make them harder to spot by enemy units including aircraft. If they move or fire then they can be spotted as normal. This would make ambushing possible for afv's (especially against other afv's). Camouflage could replace hiding for afv's and guns. It would also be good to hide small guns in buildings (great for ambushing).

[flamingknives]

There is already a camouflage bonus for guns and tanks that are stationary at the beginning of the game.

Not that you'd notice though. Borg spotting sucks

[Imperial Grunt]

How about for sniper teams. It is very frustrating in CM when snipers get ID'd at the first shot.

A good sniper team in a good hide is very hard to find and they can cause more damage, physically and psychologically, than a HMG to an enemy unit. And modern US sniper teams would have both 7.62mm and .50 cal sniper rifles, not to mention their most powerful asset, their radio.

One of the worst feeling in the world is to be shot at and have no idea where the fire is coming from. Especially when the first shot exploded the leader's head.

[MikeyD]

In CMx1 there weren't snipers per se but 'Saving Private Ryan'-style sharpshooters. One guy in the platoon gets designated to carry a scoped rifle, another gets designated to carry the BAR, and another gets handed the .30 cal LMG. U.S. infantry squads in WWII had such high turnover with raw replacementsI really doubt there was much specialized training at all. Of course among the surviving combat veterans some self-selection would take place for weapons preferences.

BFC said special forces would be included but it sounded more like they'd be attached to the unit for special tasks (like targetting for laser bombs, etc.), and not really as über-Ninja soldiers. Then again, time will tell

As to camouflage, I figured the only thing putting a 'hide' command on an AT gun in the middle of an open field could mean was that the gun was laying-low all camou'd-up.

[aka_tom_w]

Did they officially say there wil be "real" sniper teams this time around?

Or are you just guessing thats "sharp shooters" will be in as well as "sniper teams" this time?

curious

I don't recall the official answer (if there is one)

-tom w

[Peter Cairns]

I'd quite like it if they could have some concealed "graphics". so that a hidden AT Gun at the start of a scenario, had a camo net over it or something.

I also think that with relative spotting these weapons should be slightly harder to spot the first time a new unit has aline of sight, even if they have already fired, as it would still have better concealment that a weapon or vehicle that had moved.

Peter.

[SteveP]

I'm not sure I understand exactly what the issue is. AFAIK, everything except AFVs, when on defense, are invisible to the attacker at the start of a battle, assuming they have any sort of cover/concealment at all. And AFVs certainly can be put into positions for ambushing in most cases. Is the objection that large guns are too easily spotted at range once they open fire? Is it that they are too easily spotted by aircraft? It sounds like the objection is that large guns and AFVs get spotted even when they don't fire, at a greater range than mav1 thinks is appropriate. I wonder what he would consider to be more appropriate. My own experience is that you will spot the trench or foxhole much sooner than the weapon occupying it, if it doesn't open fire first.

Also, I'm unclear on how the shift to relative spotting will solve this problem (if it is a problem). This shift doesn't change the "god" problem. If one of your units spots a concealed defender, you will know it is there, and can give your orders accordingly. AFAIK, the only thing the shift to relative spotting does, is prevent the instant reaction from all the other friendly units firing at an enemy unit that has just been spotted by one of them. In effect, it's just a reprogramming of the TacAI.

[Imperial Grunt]

Another thing to consider regarding concealment is that most the thermal sights used by US forces will ID concealed targets anyways. Hopefully the Syrian forces will be able to employ some unconventional types of concealment, such as putting a tank inside a house or mosque and fixing up the house so it does not damaged. Same for IEDs and mines. The Serbs made good use of abandoned vehicles and dummy vehicles to draw US firepower away from their actual ground forces. The US air campaign in the Balkans was not as effective as once thought since it was a war conducted entirely from the air and many targets were not validated by forces on the ground.

If the Syrian player uses his tanks and forces in a defense in depth, with an ambush mentality, then he has a good chance of causing some serious damage to US forces, especially to a Stryker formation.

I am also hoping for tunnels and "spider holes", basically ultra-camoflauged fighting holes. The VC and NVA made very good use of these to hide from US firepower. A Syrian version of the tunnels of Cu Chi.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by SteveP:

Also, I'm unclear on how the shift to relative spotting will solve this problem (if it is a problem). This shift doesn't change the "god" problem. If one of your units spots a concealed defender, you will know it is there, and can give your orders accordingly. AFAIK, the only thing the shift to relative spotting does, is prevent the instant reaction from all the other friendly units firing at an enemy unit that has just been spotted by one of them. In effect, it's just a reprogramming of the TacAI.

I think the "god" problem will also be addressed in a limited sort of way by only allowing area fire against unspotted targets, even if they have been spotted by other units. If it was me coding this, I'd have area fire have some level of unpredictability about it as well - kind of like an arty strike going off target - and also maybe limitations on it if the firing unit is aware of friendlies near the targeted area (reduced number of bursts, chance of disobeying the order, that kind of thing).

[SteveP]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

I think the "god" problem will also be addressed in a limited sort of way by only allowing area fire against unspotted targets, even if they have been spotted by other units. If it was me coding this, I'd have area fire have some level of unpredictability about it as well - kind of like an arty strike going off target - and also maybe limitations on it if the firing unit is aware of friendlies near the targeted area (reduced number of bursts, chance of disobeying the order, that kind of thing). [/QB]

I have to admit I haven't followed every "bones" thread and related posts, so you may be right. That being said, I would be skeptical that the game will have that level of complexity. After all, how would that really work in practice? Would it work like this: you click on one of your units and an enemy unit pops into view (because you happened to click on the unit that actually spotted the enemy unit) and then you click on another of your units and the enemy unit disappears (or maybe there's an icon??)? Do you then have to click around among your units, watching the enemy unit appear and disappear, as you figure out who can fire?

Or is it that you aren't allowed to target the enemy unit (Target or Next Target), if your unit hasn't spotted him. Except that you won't know if it's because there's a blockage in the LOF or because of the delay in spotting. So does that mean they have to come up with a new tool or a modified targeting tool, which you would have to check each time, for each unit, to find out if the problem is delayed spotting, or an LOF blockage?

And, in any event, it won't matter that much, because you will be able to give appropriate orders (advance, covered arc, orientation) to ensure that units which haven't spotted the enemy unit right away, will do so pretty quickly. So why would you want to authorize that area fire, when you might be in a position to deliver direct fire a few seconds later?

So, allowing once again that I may have missed the relevant "bone," my guess is that nothing very dramatic will be done about the "god" problem, since that problem can't be solved by reprogramming the TacAI.

One idea that would work in that context would be to build in more of a delayed reaction from the TacAI. At minimum, relative spotting means that the TacAI considers spotting on a unit by unit basis, just as it now gives firing orders. The player then tries to intervene and give direct firing orders to units which did not open fire (because they hadn't spotted the enemy themselves). The TacAI accepts that order, but delays executing the order until the firing unit in question actually spots the enemy. This would work similarly to what happens when you send an AFV around the corner of a building, while at the same time giving it an order to fire at an enemy AFV that it can't yet see. Only in the solution I'm proposing, movement by your unit isn't involved -- just a delay until the target is fully acquired. All that could be handled quite easily by the TacAI (which also means that it would be compatible with the way the AI as a whole works). Maybe the targeting line could have a different color so that you know there is going to be delay while your unit tries to spot the target.

[juan_gigante]

As I understood relative spotting, it's the first thing you listed. I could be wrong, but I believe that's it.

[Cpl Steiner]

I'm pretty sure that's how it would work too, i.e. that each unit has it's own list of spotted targets and any others simply don't show up when you select that unit. I would assume, however, that you will still be able to see all known enemy targets in some mode, perhaps by deselecting all of your units.

[Severin]

Been lurking for quite a while. Might as well make myself seen.

"Snipers, be they solo or in teams, are accurately portrayed. No abstractions like in CMx1...

-Steve"

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000290#000013

It took about 30 to search for this.

On that note, Welcome to the community Mav1. As had been stated before, most of the questions you are asking have been answered before. No need to clog up the board with new threads.

[ March 04, 2006, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: Severin ]

[Severin]

Also:

"The problem with story driven campaigns is that if you try to balance things out, to make it interesting for both sides, the battles all tend to seem similar. With a single player only option the story can be far more interesting and dynamic. The non-player side might have a single sniper and some mines, for example. Horrible experience for a Human player to command tht side, but the AI doesn't mind at all [big Grin] And from the other side, it could possibly be one of the most challenging scenarios that the player has ever experienced, even though he's not facing a dozen tanks an a battalion of enemy troops. So to NOT have the option to do something like this, simply to make sure the opposing side isn't bored to tears, is just not an option. Which is why most story driven campaigns are single player only, even for otherwise multi-player games.

Will we allow for multiplayer campaigns at a later date? Perhaps, but for the first title the answer is as above... no.

Steve"

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000271#000001

[kipanderson]

Hi,

The God or Borg or Single Controlling Mind issue will not be solved by any one feature alone but by a mixture of features. Equally when there is in fact just one controlling mind, one player on each side, there will always be limits to the extent to which the God effect can be reduced. Ultimately “if” there is just one controlling mind on each side those players will know all or the great majority of what each one of their units knows. If there is a single controlling mind…. there is a single controlling mind full stop.

However all is not lost.

The replacement of Absolute Spotting by Relative Spotting will make a huge difference. Imagine the classic Absolute Spotting situation in which a company of tanks is advancing over open ground and a single enemy AT gun opens up. Because the AI controlling each tank correctly regards the suppression of AT guns as a top priority in CMX1 all the tanks will both spot and target the enemy AT gun with in half a turn, with the current system. With Relative Spotting an AI controlled company of tanks in such a situation may only get two or three tanks, as opposed to ten plus tanks, targeted on the enemy AT gun in the first 30 seconds. Also consider the speed with which such crisis play out from the tanks point of view. The fact that the time to get, say four tanks targeting the AT gun… is doubled will often lead to twice the tank casualties. In open terrain, desert, steppe whatever, Relative Spotting will greatly act to the advantage of the defender even with all its limitations due to the speed with which these incidents play out.

The human player controlling the tanks will still be able to direct all of his company to fire Area Fire at the AT gun but this is a lot slower than the tanks by themselves spotting and targeting the AT gun as is currently the case.

But there is more.

Remember we have Co-Op play to look forward to. Each side being controlled by two to six players or more. Imagine an example where a combined arms team of infantry and tanks advance over open terrain when unexpectedly an enemy AT gun opens fire from the flanks. Currently all the friendly infantry and tanks would spot and then target the AT gun if even one friendly infantry squad spotted the AT gun, a very likely outcome.

Now imagine a situation in which the advancing force is commanded by half a dozen players. Each player only able to spot what the units he personally commands can spot. So if you command a platoon of infantry you can only spot enemy units individually spotted by units in your platoon Also remember we have Relative Spotting in this new situation. If a combined arms team of infantry and tanks were advancing over the open and an enemy AT gun opened fire from the flanks in the first 30 seconds it may be that only a couple of infantry squads spot the enemy AT gun and therefore target it. Very different from the present situation of the entire attacking force spotting the AT gun if just one of your friendly units sees the AT gun. The players controlling the tanks may note even know from which flank the AT has opened fire, they just see some of their tanks seemly randomly destroyed in the first 30 seconds. The mixture of Relative Spotting and Co-Op play could result in treble the armour casualties before the AT gun were suppressed compared with CMX1.

My point being that in the situations where Absolute Spotting most distorts the outcome in CMX1 the combination of features, Relative Spotting and Co-Op play, will act together to cause the chaos we so crave.

The only true way to overcome the problem of the Single Controlling Mind will be to have more than one controlling mind on each side, when you can gather together groups of CM chums. My guess is that teams will soon form.

All good fun ,

All the best,

Kip.

[Peter Cairns]

kipanderson,

Team play will really make a difference, as you will have to make decisions as too who's respomsibility that AT gun is. Everyone could engage it, but then you could have an entire company stopping to blast one HMG.

A better response might be for the players to decide to allocate it to the platoon on that flank.

I am looking forward to a five player team sort of game, with three infantry platoon players, a company commander with support and artillery spotters, and a fifth player controlling an attached armour platoon.

I don't know how team TOE's will work, but I'd quite like it if you couldn't mix armour and infantry. Ie if you had two players on a team one would be infantry and the other armour, as opposed to each player having a mix of each.

By keeping them separate it would better simulate the C3 difficulties of commanding armour and infantry.

I remember years back playing a six player game of Squad leader, ( three each side). I was German Infantry on the offensive, and the Guy who had the Panthers was one of these Ober Freaks who loved German equipment.

Problem was we had to take part of the town map, and he wouldn't put his precious Panthers anywhere near it in case they got hit.

The casualties I took, bloody coward.

Peter.

[kipanderson]

Peter, hi,

You posted,

“I am looking forward to a five player team sort of game, with three infantry platoon players, a company commander with support and artillery spotters, and a fifth player controlling an attached armour platoon.”

I agree… the above is “the” way to split forces to most realistically simulate the chaos of battle. You end with armour and infantry commanders blaming each other for not taking enough risks just as you indicated .

Relative Spotting plus live team play/Co-Op Play will do the job very nicely .

Looking forward to it,

All the best,

Kip.

[LongLeftFlank]

I've always found the best cure to the "God" command issue in CM1 is to restrict all unit views to level 1 throughout the game (a la the airborne drop scenarios) + strict time limit to plan moves.

In my experience, this really forces units to go for the objectives and enemies immediately in front of them, as they generally would in real life. It also really ratchets up the challenge of playing vs. the AI.

[Peter Cairns]

A possible scenario that could emerge would be this.

You command a platoon on the flank, and as you move forward one of your squads spots an HMG engaging the player to your left who is advancing down the centre.

Your squad engages it and you order the rest of your platoon who haven't spotted it to use area fire on the estimated HMG position.

Then two things happen.

Firstly the player to your left starts yelling "WHAT THE F*** ARE YOU DOING"

and secondly,

As the rest of your platoon concentrates on the area around the HMG they spot two things,

First the HMG and then, friendly squad assaulting it that your area fire has cut to shreds......

Peter.

[mav1]

I apologize to every one else for going over old ground and creating too many new threads. Iam new to the forum and have arrive too late. Because of this I havn't had a chance to comment on things already been said. You guys have all ready have disscussed things that I would have liked to have commented on. Iam going to try to find the threads that cover the questions i have asked, if i ever find them.

By the way, why can't afv's be invisible at the start of the game if they are camouflage. That was the point I was trying to make SteveP. If you are on the defensive, totaly outnumbered and have worse tanks that your opponent then why wouldn't you try to coamouflage your afv's to give yourself an advantage.The germans relied on a lot of camouflage towards the end of the war, so that they could ambush there more numerous enemy's. Also to make it harder for aircraft to spot them.

[mav1]

I know that you can put afv's into ambushing positions but camouflaging them as well would slow down the reaction time of being spotted. At the moment as soon as an enemy can be possibly spotted it is targetted. Its like the crew have infa red eyes and built in radar. It dosn't matter if the crew are veteren or green, they can all instantly spot the enemy at computer quick speeds, even at long ranges. There is no human factor in targeting, humans make mistakes. The afv crews at the moment are robotic. At the moment afv's are spotted as quick in open terrain as afv's in scattered trees or near woods.

It would be good to see graphics for camouflage on afv and guns.

[SteveP]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

I'm pretty sure that's how it would work too, i.e. that each unit has it's own list of spotted targets and any others simply don't show up when you select that unit. I would assume, however, that you will still be able to see all known enemy targets in some mode, perhaps by deselecting all of your units.

OK, that might be workable, and it would be something that could be easily programmed into the TacAI, I think. If that's the way it works, then I think it would work best for players who are generally willing to let the TacAI alone, rather than constantly wanting to micromanage all the actions as much as possible. But that's a matter of personal taste rather than a fundamental problem in the design of the game. It will be interesting to see what actually comes out.

[SteveP]

Originally posted by mav1:

By the way, why can't afv's be invisible at the start of the game if they are camouflage. That was the point I was trying to make SteveP. If you are on the defensive, totaly outnumbered and have worse tanks that your opponent then why wouldn't you try to coamouflage your afv's to give yourself an advantage.The germans relied on a lot of camouflage towards the end of the war, so that they could ambush there more numerous enemy's. Also to make it harder for aircraft to spot them.

I haven't played a lot of scenarios with aircraft, so I don't have much of an intuitive feel for how easily aircraft spot AFVs or any other units that haven't moved. However, I think it's fair to say that AFVs and other units that are in the open (which I think includes infantry in foxholes) are pretty easily spotted by aircraft. Maybe that's not appropriate -- I'll leave that to the grogs to offer opinions about. Whether AFVs are easily spotted when they are in trees is unclear. It would be interesting to know if someone has tested for that.

As to your other concern, all my testing indicates that AFVs do get a camouflage bonus, like other units, at the start of a battle, which they lose if they move. However, they have to be deeper in or further behind cover than infantry to be invisible (a good rule of thumb, I think, is one tile back in scattered trees). Also, the profile of the AFV is a factor in how deep they need to be. If you think that AFVs ought to be invisible when they are just a meter or two within scattered trees, for example, the way that infantry can be, then again that's something for the grogs to weigh in on. But there's no need for them to be there, in order to be effective at ambushing.

[Peter Cairns]

The only real problem I've ever had, is that I think AFV's are a bit too easy to spot in built up areas. A couple of times I've seen aircraft quite clearly attack Tanks close to buildings in towns where they would be difficult to spot from almost any angle, when there were clearer targets in the open.

I don't think thats a flaw so much as something that probably needs "tweaked".

Peter.

[SteveP]

Ok, so I did my own little test and it does seem that AFVs, at least, don't get any real camouflage protection against aircraft, when in scattered trees (much less any other sort of terrain). The test involved a non-moving PZIV in a defensive setup. Don't know how relevant that is to CMSF, but might be something to look at if and when they get back to WW2.

Of course, I have no idea whether the modeling for close air support in CM is very realistic in any event. I've always treated it like a kind of wild card that adds a element of uncertainty to a battle situation.that might otherwise seem cut-and-dried.