Discussion - Borg dead or at least Wounded?

[FinnN]

Those ancient Peter Turcan games (1989-90) had something which sounds similar to me. You passed orders down to your subordinates who then generated orders to theirs based on what you'd told them and what their situation (especially if your orders had expired) was. Likewise orders were passed up the chain too. In all cases the orders were carried by couriers who could be killed, so if your army was split up you could find part of the battle going completely out of your control, not to mention some units using their own initiative. Obviously the AI was fairly crude, but the whole thing was quite good for its time. Example orders might be something simple like "NEY MOVE TO UTITSA" or it could be quite complex like "EUGENE SHELL THE ENEMY CAVALRY 1 MILE NORTH OF YOU FOR 30 MINUTES" or even fairly abstract like "Eugene, form an attack line from the north flank, to the pontoons linking with Ney", "MONTBRUN, AT 6.30 AM GIVE SUPPORT TO NEY AND DAVOUT" or "EUGENE, CHANGE YOUR STRATEGY TO DEFENCE". All very impressive considering, and I've never since seen a game try to achieve something similar since. A shame as I wonder what it'd be like now with more horsepower and better graphics, maybe Les Grognards will be similar?:

http://eager.orgfree.com/SSHOT/B/borodino.png

http://eager.orgfree.com/SSHOT/W/waterloo.png

http://eager.orgfree.com/SSHOT/D/dreadnoughts.png

http://eager.orgfree.com/SSHOT/G/gettysburg.png

In any case it's a good thing if CM:SF takes a stab at more detailed modelling of command and control.

Have fun

Finn

[Lt Bull]

I think BF had done a great job at implementing Realitve Spotting into CMSF. It is undeniably one of the best new features BF have brought to the game. It is certainly a step forward in all respects.

I agree with some comments that even playing elite, way too much info on an enemy unit is provided without too much effort.

eg. number of men in that unit, is it a HQ unit, regular squad or RPG? etc

I just think way too much information is given away to easily too soon. The less intelligence is given away, the more challenging the game may become as a consequnce, well in the case of human to human gameplay.

However, in the case of human to CPU opponent gameplay, unless you allow the CPU opponent to "cheat", in this case being able to spot/ID your units easier than you can spot/ID theirs, then you might also expect the CPU opponent to be even less of a capable opponent because of this reduced capacity to spot/ID your units.

It is probably a good suggestion to be able to adjust the size of the unit icons like you could in CMx1.

Originally posted by Fetchez la Vache:

I'm in agreement with Other Means in so much that it's rather becoming a memory test if, by de-selecting a unit, you can see a 'summary' of all spotted units. That's still too Borg-like for me, but a great improvement nonetheless.

??? I don't see how else you could have it. I mean if by deslecting a unit you saw the current MINIMUM spotting level of each enemy unit, or even no enemy icons altogether, instead of the current MAXIMUM spotting level of each enemy unit, THEN it would even be more a memory test for you. So what are you suggesting? Or is this another case of complaining about something wthout even considering if another logical solution exists?

[LuckyStrike]

Sometimes seems to take units a while to see others that are apparently in clear view, even almost adjacent, but obviously there are many factors involved so that is fine. Overall, the new spotting system is brilliant.

[Fetchez la Vache]

Lt Bull,

I am surprised that you apparently think I am complaining in an unproductive manner. I believe that I made a suggestion in that enemy units not seen by the selected unit, but seen by another friendly unit, should be made transparent (or greyed out). This is the type of approached used in ToW and I feel it works well.

I'm also trying to point out that I (in agreement with others) find it strange that I can gain more information about the enemy's position and composition by not selecting any unit. During play I am always clicking on the map in order to gain maximum intel before re-selecting a unit to issue orders. That simply doesn't feel right in my opinion.

Maybe another solution IS to not display any enemy icons if no unit is selected?

[wolf66]

Well I disabled the floating icons because I hate them and therefore it is more immersive and harder to spot enemies from any kind of view .....

[Scipio]

Steve, may I point you to this thread? Seems my uestion there is related to the Borg spotting.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002210

[Lt Bull]

You said by de-selecting a unit, you can see a 'summary' of all spotted units (which is exactly how it is in CMSF) and then follow that with "that's still too Borg-like, but a great improvment nonetheless", which indicates to me that you are implying that BF could have gone even further in their efforts to "kill the Borg".

Did I misinterpret you?

[Fetchez la Vache]

Perhaps not my most erudite post ever! But yes, I feel that showing all spotted icons when deselecting is still rather Borg-ish and doesn't work well with only showing a selected unit's spotted enemy. There's two levels of information going on here don't you think?

I can understand why it is done like this since you could labouriously select all the units and get the same info with the current spotting model.

I think BF have made a great step in the right direction and should keep trying to perfect the system. How about not allowing multiply selected unit's spotting to stack at all? Or only allow those that have a time-dependent high level of communications?

[benpark]

I almost posted the same comment about getting rid off having all icons displayed when clicking on the map in the "elite" difficulty setting. I agree that this should at least be optional to not see them. It would encourage players to "play the unit", and become a perfect version of the old "iron man" rules.

This issue is by no means indicative of a faulty system. I really enjoy the new FOW rules, and see that massive amounts of work went into them to get it right. Yo, Respec', as my esteemed friend from Staines would say.

This icon issue speaks more towards human behavior being what it is, and taking advantage where it shouldn't. It may be a way where a curb that would make the game more "realistic" might alleviate even the honest players all too persistent memories.

[Martin Krejcirik]

I think the player's view (when no unit is selected) should be abstracted a litle bit as a higher command view, show contacts after some delay and with very little intel info. Suppresed and green units should report incorrect and exaggregated information.

[-E]

It beats the hell out of the old LOS tool. Now I can tell an enemy is spotted and then click on the enemy and can tell WHO spotted him. Instead of trial and error through all my units as before.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Yes… the end of Borg Spotting is a huge step forward .

After years of playing CMX1, mainly CMBB, Borg Spotting finally killed the game for me… in CMSF, when played in Veteran mode, the FOW is “perfectly” handled for one player per side/or V computer. I would not change anything, for single player games, one player per side games.

Job well done just as advertised .

In the long run live team play/CoOp play is the answer for more realistic chaos. With each player only able to spot what his own troops can spot, both other friendly and enemy units. If people want more realistic chaos, more players on each side is the way to go.

All great stuff,

All the best,

Kip.

[Denwad]

i guess i just have to get used to it

but my T-72 commanders in the demo can't see an M1A1 abrams directly infront of their tank, in an open field, with clear LOS to the tank ( i know because the abrams blows it up after it realizes its there )

[Percopius]

Note:

I have POA2. There are 4 FOW settings.

1. You know everything perfect

2. You know your side perfect

3. everyone know only what they see, and what is communicated to them. You can see the last reported position of everything, or within an adjustable time period (I can set the map to display the last reported position of everything for the last 20min)

4. Standard Wargame. You know your side perfect, when you spot an enemy, your whole side sees. Spotted units stay spotted.

POA2 is worth looking at. It can simulate anything having to do with contemporary war. It can even simulate near future weapon systems. It is also the ugliest the game in the world. But I love it.

[metalbrew]

Originally posted by -E:

It beats the hell out of the old LOS tool. Now I can tell an enemy is spotted and then click on the enemy and can tell WHO spotted him. Instead of trial and error through all my units as before.

I don't get accurate information on which of my units has spotted an enemy by clicking on the enemy's floating icon. I know that is how it's supposed to function but in practice it's not happening consistently and therefore I end up clicking each one of my units until I find the one that's spotted this unit.

An example: I'm fighting on some arbitrary map and an AT team icon pops up. I consider AT teams and infantry with AT assets to be my highest priority targets so I want to micromanage attacking this unit. I click on the enemy unit and let's pretend 5 of my Strykers remain in highlighted blue while the rest grey out. The theory is that these 5 units all 'see' this enemy. In practice though I find that by clicking on all 5 units perhaps only 1 or 2 of them see the enemy. What I believe is happening is when I'm clicking on the enemy unit I'm seeing how many of my units that enemy has spotted. It should be the other way around according to the manual, clicking on the enemy should display how many of my units can see this unit but in practice it shows me how many of my units the enemy can see.

That's tough to explain and I didn't do the greatest job. I hope the point was made regardless. Oh, and BTW I like the CMx1 contact lines. Yellow lines were potential targets and the red line was the target that unit was currently engaging. Since I think the CM:SF spotting is still bugged I won't comment on which is better, we'll see how it goes once it's behaving like the manual says it should.

[Bruce70]

I think it's a great system, but I agree with OM. I can't see any reason why a unit would decide of it's own accord to use area fire - so there should be a command delay.

[jomni]

Originally posted by Other Means:

What would be good is you order support fire, but there is a delay based on the shortest C&C time of all the units spotting any enemy unit marker in the area to HQ, to support unit.

If you want orders delay, then play POA2. The CM games never did implement orders delay (that's because WEGO system simulates some sort of orders delay) and if they did, then baby-sitting in RTS mode would be a pain.

[thewood]

Originally posted by Other Means:

In affect, it's just turning the game into a memory test. Click on the map, see all the unit markers, memorise where you need to fire, click on your unit, fire at the area.

So I think the ordering of area fire should go through C&C, if possible, to simulate the fact that a unit calls for it, but that call needs to go through the commander and back down to the support units.

It may look a little funky, but here's what I mean (bear in mind I've not had a real chance to play the game yet because my machine is stone age - I'm building my new one currently).

Unit A sees a unit marker in some cover. You as the player know there's a unit there. Currently you order your MG's to fire on this area and suppress whatever is in there. You are Queen Borg.

What would be good is you order support fire, but there is a delay based on the shortest C&C time of all the units spotting any enemy unit marker in the area to HQ, to support unit.

Unit A sees a unit marker. You as Queen Borg order area fire on the area. The game simulates the delay of getting an order to HQ and from HQ to the support units. A possible outcome being if Unit A has no CoC to HQ, it can't ask for area fire. I think this is a good result.

Prep fire wouldn't suffer from this - so in effect it's quicker to area fire before there's a marker there. But I think this is a reasonable trade off, prep fire would be planned, while covering fire is reactive.

I'd like to see CoC indicated a bit better too. So you can have movement, target and CoC indicators, showing where units are going, what they're shooting at, and who's telling them to do so.

Just my half a shekel.

I know I am harping, but POA2 has been doing this. Do a search on this forum and see that I have been talking about. I have so many friendly fire incidents becuase I haven't paid attention to flanks and SITREPS in POA2.

It completely models CoC and delays for recieving intel and giving orders.

[jomni]

Guys please don't clamor for CMSF to be more like POA2. They simulate two different things. Playing just the main commander and having orders delay is realistic but:

1) It will be very hard to baby-sit and play in real time.

2) CMSF does not simulate only one perspective. You are actually taking multiple roles: main commander, sub commander, squad leader, vehicle driver depending on which unit you select.

3) If you are playing the part of the main commander then you wouldn't see the battlefield that CMSF is rendering in 3d. You are holed up in one bunker or HQ looking at a map and a bunch of icons waiting for SITREPS from the frontline then making a decision (this is what POA2 does).

POA2 does command and control really well and it becomes a real chore (not enjoyable) and sometimes really frustrating.

[GriffinCheng+]

My major gripe would only be a selected unit clearly see friendly fire hitting some "invisible" units during playback...

I agree it would be nice to see some "initiatives" of your units and proper delays due to chain of command, but judging from the "TacAI movement" posts, I would rather accept it as is, for now. It is something about balancing between playability and realism.

May be I should spend more time RTFM, but I still unable to check the C&C delay during command phase...

[Percopius]

POA2 is also turn based a lot spends a lot of time rendering the turn and spends a lot or time computing for the AI. It can take so long, they have sliders for path finding, balistics, spotting, etc. that go from Fidelity (takes as long as it takes) to Speed (a finite slice of time to get results). I have seen the AI take up to 10 minutes in one game to just have my AI operational officer order new movment paths for my guys.

POA2 and CMSF are very very differnt. POA2 is higher fidelity, but is each turn takes forever, and the graphical presentaion is completely abstract (and ugly) and the text turn event reporting system is the meat. CSMF is dramatic, pretty, realtime, AND high fidelity (enough for most purposes).

[thewood]

POA2 is actually WEGO...plot your moves and then action. And yes it has more than almost any other wargame going on under the hood. Once again, its not for everyone. You have to be hardcore to actually enjoy it. I get excited every now and then and go back to it and admire it. After 30 minutes, I stop and have to get a beer and play CM.

[Vinnart]

I think it is an improvement. I personally prefer veteran mode so I can always see my units better.

The only thing I would change perhaps is the icon shapes. Instead of diamonds for enemy and circles for USA, I would have different shapes for types.

Red diamond= enemy team

Blue diamond= USA team

Red circle= enemy vehicle

Blue circle= USA vehicle

Red triangle= enemy armor

Blue triangle= USA armor

Red square= enemy infantry

Blue square= USA infantry

Grayed circle with yellow ?= Unknown unit

Just ideas to make the icons more interesting, and to further differentiate the units.

[ August 01, 2007, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Vinnart ]

[Percopius]

I consider the period of realtime resolution a turn in WEGO. Perhaps you assumed I meant IGO. Agree about POA2. It' very dry.

[thewood]

Just to clarify: do you consider CM WEGO?